diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/51489-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/51489-0.txt | 28744 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 28744 deletions
diff --git a/old/51489-0.txt b/old/51489-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 69d8cb6..0000000 --- a/old/51489-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,28744 +0,0 @@ -Project Gutenberg's Church History, Volume 1 (of 3), by J. H. Kurtz - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - -Title: Church History, Volume 1 (of 3) - -Author: J. H. Kurtz - -Release Date: March 17, 2016 [EBook #51489] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CHURCH HISTORY, VOLUME 1 (OF 3) *** - - - - -Produced by Jon Ingram, Richard Hulse and the Online -Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net - - - - - - - - - - The Foreign Biblical Library. - - EDITED BY THE REV. W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A., LL.D. - - _12 Volumes. Large crown 8vo. Price 7s. 6d. each._ - - I. =Still Hours.= - By RICHARD ROTHE. Translated by JANE T. STODDART. With an - Introductory Essay by the Rev. JOHN MACPHERSON, M.A. - - II. =Biblical Commentary on the Book of Psalms.= - By Professor FRANZ DELITZSCH, of Leipzig. From the latest - edition specially revised by the Author. Translated by the - Rev. DAVID EATON, M.A. In three Volumes. - - III. =A Manual of Introduction to the New Testament.= - By BERNHARD WEISS. Translated by Miss DAVIDSON. _In 2 Vols._ - - IV. =Church History.= - By Professor KURTZ. Authorized Translation, from the latest - Revised Edition, by the Rev. J. MACPHERSON, M.A. _In 3 Vols._ - - V. =Selected Sermons of Schleiermacher.= - Translated by MARY F. WILSON. - - VI. =A Commentary on the Book of Isaiah.= - By Professor FRANZ DELITZSCH. Translated by the Rev. JAMES - DENNEY, B.D. _In 2 Vols._ - - LONDON: HODDER AND STOUGHTON, 27, PATERNOSTER ROW. - - - - - ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ - │ │ - │ Transcriber’s Notes │ - │ │ - │ │ - │ Punctuation has been standardized. │ - │ │ - │ The Table of Contents has been updated to agree with the │ - │ headings and subheadings of the text. │ - │ │ - │ The † symbol next to a date was not defined in the text. It │ - │ appears to mean approximate year of death. │ - │ │ - │ Characters in small caps have been replaced by all caps. │ - │ │ - │ Non-printable characteristics have been given the following │ - │ transliteration: │ - │ Italic text: --> _text_ │ - │ bold text: --> =text=. │ - │ │ - │ Italics have been dropped on leading alpha characters (a. b. │ - │ c.) to improved readability. │ - │ │ - │ This book was written in a period when many words had │ - │ not become standardized in their spelling. Words may have │ - │ multiple spelling variations or inconsistent hyphenation in │ - │ the text. These have been left unchanged unless indicated │ - │ with a Transcriber’s Note. │ - │ │ - │ Many names appear with multiple spelling variations. The │ - │ most common form used has been added in brackets following │ - │ alternate forms to facilitate document searching. │ - │ │ - │ Latin words and quotations are regularly italicized in the │ - │ text. Italics have been added to words missed by the printer. │ - │ │ - │ Footnotes are numbered consecutively through the 3 volumes │ - │ and are identified in the text with a number in brackets [2] │ - │ and have been accumulated in a single section at the end of │ - │ the text. │ - │ │ - │ Transcriber’s Notes are used when making corrections to the │ - │ text or to provide additional information for the modern │ - │ reader. These notes are not identified in the text, but have │ - │ been accumulated in a single section at the end of the book. │ - │ │ - └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ - - - - - CHURCH HISTORY. - - BY - PROFESSOR KURTZ. - - - _AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION FROM LATEST REVISED EDITION BY THE_ - REV. JOHN MACPHERSON, M.A. - - - IN THREE VOLUMES. VOL. I. - - - _SECOND EDITION._ - - - London: - HODDER AND STOUGHTON, - 27, PATERNOSTER ROW. - - MDCCCXCI. - - - - - BUTLER & TANNER, - THE SELWOOD PRINTING WORKS, - FROME, AND LONDON. - - - - - PREFACE. - - - The English reader is here presented with a translation of the ninth -edition of a work which first appeared in 1849, and has obtained a most -distinguished place, it might be said almost a monopoly, as a text-book -of Church History in the German Universities. Since 1850, when the -second edition was issued, an English translation of which has been -widely used in Britain and America, Dr. Kurtz has given great attention -to the improvement of his book. The increase of size has not been caused -by wordy amplification, but by an urgent necessity felt by the author as -he used the vast materials that recent years have spread out before the -historical student. In 1870 Dr. Kurtz retired from his professorship, -and has conscientiously devoted himself to bring up each successive -edition of his text-book to the point reached by the very latest -scholarship of his own and other lands. In his Preface to the ninth -edition of 1885 he claims to have made very special improvements on -the presentation of the history of the first three centuries, where -ample use is made of the brilliant researches of Harnack and other -distinguished scholars of the day. - - In the exercise of that discretion which has been allowed him, the -translator has ventured upon an innovation, which he trusts will be -generally recognised as a very important improvement. The German edition -has frequently pages devoted to the literature of the larger divisions, -and a considerable space is thus occupied at the beginning of most of -the ordinary sections, as well as at the close of many of the sub- -sections. The books named in these lists are almost exclusively German -works and articles that have appeared in German periodicals. Experience -has shown that the reproduction of such lists in an English edition is -utterly useless to the ordinary student and extremely repulsive to the -reader, as it seriously interferes with the continuity of the text. The -translator has therefore ventured wholly to cancel these lists, -substituting carefully selected standard English works known to himself -from which detailed information on the subjects treated of in the -several paragraphs may be obtained. These he has named in footnotes at -the places where such references seemed to be necessary and most likely -to be useful. Those students who know German so thoroughly as to be able -to refer to books and articles by German specialists will find no -difficulty in using the German edition of Kurtz, in which copious lists -of such literature are given. - - The first English volume is a reproduction without retrenchment of the -original; but in the second volume an endeavour has been made to render -the text-book more convenient and serviceable to British and American -students by slightly abridging some of those paragraphs which give -minute details of the Reformation work in various German provinces. -But even there care has been taken not to omit any fact of interest or -importance. No pains have been spared to give the English edition a form -that may entitle it to occupy that front rank among students’ text-books -of Church History which the original undoubtedly holds in Germany. - - JOHN MACPHERSON. - - FINDHORN, _July, 1888_. - - - - - CONTENTS. - - - INTRODUCTION. - - § 1. IDEA AND TASK OF CHURCH HISTORY. - - § 2. DISTRIBUTION OF CHURCH HISTORY ACCORDING TO CONTENTS. - (1) The Various Branches Included in a Complete Course - of Church History. - (2) The Separate Branches of Church History. - - § 3. DISTRIBUTION OF CHURCH HISTORY ACCORDING TO PERIODS. - - § 4. SOURCES AND AUXILIARIES OF CHURCH HISTORY. - (1) Literature of the Sources. - (2) Literature of the Auxiliary Sciences. - - § 5. HISTORY OF GENERAL CHURCH HISTORY. - (1) Down to the Reformation. - (2) The 16th and 17th Centuries. - (3) The 18th Century. - (4) The 19th Century. - (5) The 19th Century--Continued. - (6) The 19th Century--Continued. - - - HISTORY OF THE PREPARATION FOR CHRISTIANITY. - - The pre-Christian World preparing the way - of the Christian Church. - - § 6. THE STANDPOINT OF UNIVERSAL HISTORY. - - § 7. HEATHENISM. - (1) The Religious Character of Heathenism. - (2) The Moral Character of Heathenism. - (3) The Intellectual Culture in Heathenism. - (4) The Hellenic Philosophy. - (5) The Heathen State. - - § 8. JUDAISM. - (1) Judaism under special Training of God through the - Law and Prophecy. - (2) Judaism after the Cessation of Prophecy. - (3) The Synagogues. - (4) Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes. - - § 9. SAMARITANISM. - - § 10. INTERCOURSE BETWEEN JUDAISM AND HEATHENISM. - (1) Influence of Heathenism upon Judaism. - (2) Influence of Judaism upon Heathenism. - - § 11. THE FULNESS OF TIME. - - - THE HISTORY OF THE BEGINNINGS. - - The Founding of the Church by Christ and His Apostles. - - § 12. CHARACTER OF THE HISTORY OF THE BEGINNINGS. - - - I. THE LIFE OF JESUS. - - § 13. JESUS CHRIST, THE SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD. - (1) Year of Birth and Year of Death of Jesus. - (2) Earliest Non-Biblical Witnesses to Christ. - - - II. THE APOSTOLIC AGE. - A.D. 30-70. - - § 14. THE MINISTRY OF THE APOSTLES BEFORE PAUL. - Beginning and Close of Apostolic Age. - - § 15. THE MINISTRY OF THE APOSTLE PAUL. - Details of Paul’s Life. - - § 16. THE OTHER APOSTLES AFTER THE APPEARANCE OF THE APOSTLE PAUL. - (1) The Roman Episcopate of Peter. - (2) The Apostle John. - (3) James, the brother of the Lord. - (4) The Later Legends of the Apostles. - - § 17. CONSTITUTION, WORSHIP, AND DISCIPLINE. - (1) The Charismata of the Apostolic Age. - (2) The Constitution of the Mother Church at Jerusalem. - (3) The Constitution of the Pauline Churches. - (4) The Church in the Pauline Epistles. - (5) Congregational and Spiritual Offices. - (6) The Question about the Original Position of the - Episcopate and Presbyterate. - (7) Christian Worship. - (8) Christian Life and Ecclesiastical Discipline. - - § 18. HERESIES IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE. - (1) Jewish Christianity and the Council of Apostles. - (2) The Apostolic Basis of Doctrine. - (3) False Teachers. - - - - - FIRST DIVISION. - - History of the Development of the Church during the - Græco-Roman and Græco-Byzantine Periods. - - § 19. CONTENT, DISTRIBUTION AND BOUNDARIES OF THOSE PERIODS. - - - FIRST SECTION. - - History of the Græco-Roman Church during the - Second and Third Centuries (A.D. 70-323). - - § 20. CONTENT, DISTRIBUTION AND BOUNDARIES OF THIS PERIOD. - (1) The Post-Apostolic Age. - (2) The Age of the Old Catholic Church. - (3) The Point of Transition from the One Age to the Other. - - - I. THE RELATIONSHIP OF EXTRA-CHRISTIAN PAGANISM AND - JUDAISM TO THE CHURCH. - - § 21. THE SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY. - - § 22. PERSECUTIONS OF THE CHRISTIANS IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE. - (1) Claudius, Nero and Domitian. - (2) Trajan and Hadrian. - (3) Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius. - (4) Septimius Severus and Maximinus Thrax. - (5) Decius, Gallus and Valerian. - (6) Diocletian and Galerius. - (7) Maximinus Daza, Maxentius and Licinius. - - § 23. CONTROVERSIAL WRITINGS OF PAGANISM. - (1) Lucian’s Satire _De Morte Peregrini_. - (2) Worshippers of an Ass. - (3) Polemic properly so-called. - - § 24. Attempted Reconstruction of Paganism. - (1) Apollonius of Tyana. - (2) Neo-platonism. - - § 25. Jewish and Samaritan Reaction. - (1) Disciples of John. - (2) The Samaritan Heresiarchs. - a. Dositheus. - b. Simon Magus. - c. Menander. - - - II. DANGER TO THE CHURCH FROM PAGAN AND JEWISH - ELEMENTS WITHIN ITS OWN PALE. - - § 26. GNOSTICISM IN GENERAL. - (1) Gnosticism. - (2) The Problems of Gnostic Speculation. - (3) Distribution. - (4) Sources of Information. - - § 27. THE GENTILE CHRISTIAN GNOSTICISM. - (1) Cerinthus. - (2) The Gnosticism of Basilides. - (3) Irenæus’ Sketch of Basilideanism. - (4) Valentinian Gnosticism. - (5) Two Divisions of the Valentinian School. - (6) The Ophites and related Sects. - (7) The Gnosis of the Ophites. - (8) Antinomian and Libertine Sects. - a. The Nicolaitans. - b. The Simonians. - c. The Carpocratians. - d. The Prodicians. - (9) Saturninus. - (10) Tatian and the Encratites. - (11) Marcion and the Marcionites. - (12) Marcion’s Disciples. - (13) Hermogenes. - - § 28. EBIONISM AND EBIONITIC GNOSTICISM. - (1) Nazareans and Ebionites. - (2) The Elkesaites. - (3) The Pseudo-Clementine Series of Writings. - a. Homiliæ XX Clementis. - b. Recognitiones Clementis. - c. Epitomæ. - (4) The Pseudo-Clementine Doctrinal System. - - § 29. MANICHÆISM. - (1) The Founder. - (2) The System. - (3) Constitution, Worship, and Missionarizing. - - - III. THE DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT AND APOLOGETICAL - ACTIVITY OF THE CHURCH. - - § 30. THE THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE OF THE POST-APOSTOLIC AGE, - A.D. 70-170. - (1) The Beginnings of Patristic Literature. - (2) The Theology of the Post-Apostolic Age. - (3) The so-called Apostolic Fathers. - a. Clement of Rome. - (4) b. Barnabas. - c. Pastor Hermas. - (5) d. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch. - (6) e. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. - f. Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis. - g. Epistle to Diognetus. - (7) The Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. - (8) The Writings of the Earliest Christian Apologists. - (9) Extant Writings of Apologists of the - Post-Apostolic Age. - a. Justin Martyr. - (10) b. Tatian. - c. Athenagoras. - d. Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch. - e. Hermias. - - § 31. THE THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE OF THE OLD CATHOLIC AGE, - A.D. 170-323. - (1) The Theological Schools and Tendencies. - - - 1. CHURCH FATHERS WRITING IN GREEK. - - (2) Church Teachers of the Asiatic Type. - a. Irenæus. - (3) b. Hippolytus. - (4) The Alexandrian Church Teachers. - a. Pantænus. - b. Titus Flavius Clement. - (5) c. Origen. - (6) d. Dionysius of Alexandria. - e. Gregory Thaumaturgus. - f. Pamphilus. - (7) Greek-speaking Church Teachers in other Quarters. - a. Hegesippus. - b. Caius of Rome. - (8) c. Sextus Julius Africanus. - (9) d. Methodius. - e. Lucian of Samosata. - - - 2. CHURCH FATHERS WRITING IN LATIN. - - (10) The Church Teachers of North Africa. - Tertullian. - (11) Cyprian. - (12) Various Ecclesiastical Writers using the Latin Tongue. - a. Minucius Felix. - b. Commodus. - c. Novatian. - d. Arnobius. - e. Victorinus of Pettau. - f. Lucius Lactantius. - - § 32. THE APOCRYPHAL AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHICAL LITERATURE. - (1) Professedly Old Heathen Prophecies. - (2) Old Testament Pseudepigraphs. - a. Book of Enoch. - b. Assumptio Mosis. - c. Fourth Book of Ezra. - d. Book of Jubilees. - (3) Pseudepigraphs of Christian Origin. - a. History of Assenath. - b. The Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs. - c. _Ascensio Isaiæ_ and _Visio Isaiæ_. - d. _Spelunca thesaurorum._ - (4) New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigraphs. - I. Apocryphal Gospels. - (5) II. Apocryphal Histories and Legends of the Apostles. - (6) ---- Apocryphal Monographs. - (7) III. Apostolic Epistles. - IV. Apocryphal Apocalypses. - V. Apostolical Constitutions. - (8) The Acts of the Martyrs. - - § 33. THE DOCTRINAL CONTROVERSIES OF THE OLD CATHOLIC AGE. - (1) The Trinitarian Questions. - (2) The Alogians. - (3) The Theodotians and Artemonites. - (4) Praxeas and Tertullian. - (5) The Noëtians and Hippolytus. - (6) Beryllus and Origen. - (7) Sabellius; Dionysius of Alexandria; Dionysius of Rome. - (8) Paul of Samosata. - (9) Chiliasm. - - - IV. CONSTITUTION, WORSHIP, LIFE AND DISCIPLINE. - - § 34. THE INNER ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH. - (1) The Continuation of Charismatic Endowments into - Post-Apostolic Times. - (2) The Development of the Episcopal Hierarchy. - (3) The Regular Ecclesiastical Offices of the Old - Catholic Age. - (4) Clergy and Laity. - (5) The Synods. - (6) Personal and Epistolary Intercourse. - (7) The Unity and Catholicity of the Church. - (8) The Roman Primacy. - - § 35. THE ADMINISTRATION OF BAPTISM. - (1) The Preparation for Receiving Baptism. - (2) The Baptismal Formula. - (3) The Administration of Baptism. - (4) The Doctrine of Baptism. - (5) The Controversy about Heretics’ Baptism. - - § 36. PUBLIC WORSHIP AND ITS VARIOUS PARTS. - (1) The Agape. - (2) The _Missa Catechumenorum_. - (3) The _Missa Fidelium_. - (4) The _Disciplina Arcani_. - (5) The Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. - (6) The Sacrificial Theory. - (7) The Use of Scripture. - (8) Formation of a New Testament Canon. - (9) The Doctrine of Inspiration. - (10) Hymnology. - - § 37. FEASTS AND FESTIVAL SEASONS. - (1) The Festivals of the Christian Year. - (2) The Paschal Controversies. - (3) The Ecclesiastical Institution of Fasting. - - § 38. THE CHURCH BUILDINGS AND THE CATACOMBS. - (1) The Catacombs. - (2) The Antiquities of the Catacombs. - (3) Pictorial Art and the Catacombs. - (4) Pictorial and Artistic Representations. - a. Significant Symbols. - b. Allegorical Figures. - c. Parabolic Figures. - d. Historical Pictures of O. T. Types. - e. Figures from the Gospel History. - f. Liturgical Figures. - - § 39. LIFE, MANNERS, AND DISCIPLINE. - (1) Christian Morals and Manners. - (2) The Penitential Discipline. - (3) Asceticism. - (4) Paul of Thebes. - (5) Beginning of Veneration of Martyrs. - (6) Superstition. - - § 40. THE MONTANIST REFORMATION. - (1) Montanism in Asia Minor. - (2) Montanism at Rome. - (3) Montanism in Proconsular Africa. - (4) The Fundamental Principle of Montanism. - (5) The Attitude of Montanism toward the Church. - - § 41. SCHISMATIC DIVISIONS IN THE CHURCH. - (1) The Schism of Hippolytus at Rome about A.D. 220. - (2) The Schism of Felicissimus at Carthage in A.D. 250. - (3) The Schism of the Presbyter Novatian at Rome in - A.D. 251. - (4) The Schism of Meletius in Egypt in A.D. 306. - - - SECOND SECTION. - - The History of the Græco-Roman Church from - the 4th-7th centuries. - A.D. 323-692. - - - I. CHURCH AND STATE. - - § 42. THE OVERTHROW OF PAGANISM IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE. - (1) The Romish Legend of the Baptism of Constantine. - (2) Constantine the Great and his Sons. - (3) Julian the Apostate (A.D. 361-363). - (4) The Later Emperors. - (5) Heathen Polemics and Apologetics. - (6) The Religion of the Hypsistarians. - - § 43. THE CHRISTIAN EMPIRE AND THE ECCLESIASTICAL LAW. - (1) The _Jus Circa Sacra_. - (2) The Institution of Œcumenical Synods. - (3) Canonical Ordinances. - (4) Pseudepigraphic Church Ordinances. - (5) The Apostolic Church Ordinances. - - - II. MONASTICISM, CLERICALISM AND HIERARCHISM. - - § 44. MONASTICISM. - (1) The Biography of St. Anthony. - (2) The Origin of Christian Monasticism. - (3) Oriental Monasticism. - (4) Western Monasticism. - (5) Institution of Nunneries. - (6) Monastic Asceticism. - (7) Anti-Ecclesiastical and Heretical Monasticism. - - § 45. THE CLERGY. - (1) Training of the Clergy. - (2) The Injunction of Celibacy. - (3) Later Ecclesiastical Offices. - (4) Church Property. - - § 46A. THE PATRIARCHAL CONSTITUTION AND THE PRIMACY. - (1) The Patriarchal Constitution. - (2) The Rivalry between Rome and Byzantium. - - § 46B. HISTORY OF THE ROMAN CHAIR AND ITS CLAIMS TO THE PRIMACY. - (3) From Melchiades to Julius I., A.D. 310 to A.D. 352. - (4) From Liberius to Anastasius, A.D. 352 to A.D. 402. - (5) From Innocent I. to Zosimus, A.D. 402 to A.D. 418. - (6) From Boniface I. to Sixtus III., A.D. 419 to A.D. 440. - (7) From Leo the Great to Simplicius, A.D. 440 to A.D. 483. - (8) From Felix III. to Boniface II., A.D. 483 to A.D. 532. - (9) From John II. to Pelagius II., A.D. 532 to A.D. 590. - (10) From Gregory I. to Boniface V., A.D. 590 to A.D. 625. - (11) From Honorius I. to Gregory III., A.D. 625 to A.D. 741. - - - III. THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE AND LITERATURE. - - § 47. THE THEOLOGICAL SCHOOLS AND THEIR MOST CELEBRATED - REPRESENTATIVES. - (1) The Theological Schools and Tendencies. - a. In the 4th and 5th centuries. - b. Of the 6th and 7th Centuries. - - - 1. THE MOST IMPORTANT TEACHERS OF THE EASTERN CHURCH. - - (2) The Most Celebrated Representative of the Old - Alexandrian School----Eusebius. - (3) Church Fathers of the New Alexandrian School. - a. Athanasius. - (4) ---- The Three Great Cappadocians. - b. Basil the Great. - c. Gregory Nazianzen. - d. Gregory of Nyssa. - (5) e. Apollinaris. - f. Didymus the Blind. - (6) g. Macarius Magnes. - h. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria. - i. Isidore of Pelusium. - (7) ---- Mystics and Philosophers. - k. Macarius the Great or the Elder. - l. Marcus Eremita. - m. Synesius of Cyrene. - n. Nemesius, Bishop of Emesa. - o. Æneas of Gaza. - (8) The Antiocheans. - a. Eusebius of Emesa. - b. Diodorus of Tarsus. - c. John of Antioch (Chrysostom). - (9) d. Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia. - e. Polychronius, Bishop of Apamea. - f. Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus. - (10) Other Teachers of the Greek Church during the 4th - and 5th Centuries. - a. Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem. - b. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis. - c. Palladius. - d. Nilus. - (11) Greek Church Fathers of the 6th and 7th Centuries. - a. Johannes Philoponus. - b. Dionysius the Areopagite. - (12) c. Leontius Byzantinus. - d. Maximus Confessor. - e. Johannes Climacus. - f. Johannes Moschus. - g. Anastasius Sinaita. - (13) Syrian Church Fathers. - a. Jacob of Nisibis. - b. Aphraates. - c. Ephraim the Syrian. - d. Ibas, Bishop of Edessa. - e. Jacob, Bishop of Edessa. - - - 2. THE MOST IMPORTANT TEACHERS OF THE WESTERN CHURCH. - - (14) f. During the Period of the Arian Controversy. - a. Jul. Firmicus Maternus. - b. Lucifer of Calaris. - c. Marius Victorinus. - d. Hilary of Poitiers. - e. Zeno, Bishop of Verona. - f. Philaster, Bishop of Brescia. - g. Martin of Tours. - (15) g. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan. - h. Ambrosiaster. - i. Pacianus, Bishop of Barcelona. - (16) During the Period of Origenistic Controversy. - a. Jerome. - (17) b. Tyrannius Rufinus. - c. Sulpicius Severus. - d. Peter Chrysologus, Bishop of Ravenna. - (18) The Hero of the Soteriological Controversy--Augustine. - (19) Augustine’s Works. - a. Philosophical Treatises. - b. Dogmatic Treatises. - c. Controversial Treatises. - d. Apologetical Treatises. - e. Exegetical Works. - (20) Augustine’s Disciples and Friends. - a. Paulinus, Deacon of Milan. - b. Paul Orosius. - c. Marius Mercator. - d. Prosper Aquitanicus. - e. Cæsarius, Bishop of Arelate. - f. Fulgentius, Bishop of Ruspe. - (21) Pelagians and semi-Pelagians. - I. Pelagius. - II. Semi-Pelagians or Massilians. - a. Johannes Cassianus. - b. Vincent Lerinensis. - c. Eucherius, Bishop of Lyons. - d. Salvianus, Presbyter at Marseilles. - e. Faustus of Rhegium. - f. Arnobius the Younger. - (22) The Most Important Church Teachers among the Roman Popes. - a. Leo the Great. - b. Gelasius I. - c. Gregory the Great. - (23) The Conservators and Continuators of Patristic Culture. - a. Boëthius. - b. Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus. - c. Dionysius Exiguus. - - § 48. BRANCHES OF THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE AND CHRISTIAN POETRY. - (1) Exegetical Theology. - (2) Historical Theology. - (3) Systematic Theology. - a. Apologetics. - b. Polemics. - c. Positive Dogmatics. - d. Morals. - (4) Practical Theology. - (5) Christian Poetry. - (6) Christian Latin Poetry. - (7) Poetry of National Syrian Church. - (8) The Legendary History of Cyprian. - - - IV. DOCTRINAL CONTROVERSIES AND HERESIES. - - § 49. THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE GENERALLY. - Heretical Developments. - - § 50. THE TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSY, A.D. 318-381. - (1) Preliminary Victory of the Homoousia, A.D. 318-325. - (2) Victory of Eusebianism, A.D. 328-356. - (3) Victory of Homoiousianism, A.D. 357-361. - (4) Final Victory of the Nicene Creed, A.D. 361-381. - (5) The Pneumatomachians, A.D. 362-381. - (6) The Literature of the Controversy. - (7) Post-Nicene Development of the Dogma. - (8) Schisms in consequence of the Arian Controversy. - I. The Meletian Schism at Antioch. - II. The Schism of the Luciferians. - III. The Schism of Damasus and Ursacius at Rome. - - § 51. THE ORIGENIST CONTROVERSIES, A.D. 394-438. - (1) The Monks of the Scetic and Nitrian Deserts. - (2) The Controversy in Palestine and Italy, A.D. 394-399. - (3) The Controversy in Alexandria and Constantinople, - A.D. 399-438. - - § 52. THE CHRISTOLOGICAL CONTROVERSY. - (1) The Apollinarian Controversy, A.D. 362-381. - (2) Christology of the Opposing Theological Schools. - (3) The Dyoprosopic or Nestorian Controversy, A.D. 428-444. - (4) The Monophysite Controversy. - I. Eutychianism, A.D. 444-451. - (5) II. Imperial Attempts at Union, A.D. 451-519. - (6) III. Justinian’s Decrees, A.D. 527-553. - (7) IV. The Monophysite Churches. - (8) The Monothelite Controversy, A.D. 633-680. - (9) The Case of Honorius. - - § 53. THE SOTERIOLOGICAL CONTROVERSIES, A.D. 412-529. - (1) Preliminary History. - (2) The Doctrine of Augustine. - (3) Pelagius and his Doctrine. - (4) The Pelagian Controversy, A.D. 411-431. - (5) The Semi-Pelagian Controversy, A.D. 427-529. - - § 54. REAPPEARANCE AND REMODELLING OF EARLIER HERETICAL SECTS. - (1) Manichæism. - (2) Priscillianism, A.D. 383-563. - - - V. WORSHIP, LIFE, DISCIPLINE AND MORALS. - - § 55. WORSHIP IN GENERAL. - The Age of Cyril of Alexandria. - - § 56. FESTIVALS AND SEASONS FOR PUBLIC WORSHIP. - (1) The Weekly Cycle. - (2) Hours and Quarterly Fasts. - (3) The Reckoning of Easter. - (4) The Easter Festivals. - (5) The Christmas Festivals. - (6) The Church Year. - (7) The Church Fasts. - - § 57. WORSHIP OF SAINTS, RELICS AND IMAGES. - (1) The Worship of Martyrs and Saints. - (2) The Worship of Mary and Anna. - (3) Worship of Angels. - (4) Worship of Images. - (5) Worship of Relics. - (6) The Making of Pilgrimages. - - § 58. THE DISPENSATION OF THE SACRAMENTS. - (1) Administration of Baptism. - (2) The Doctrine of the Supper. - (3) The Sacrifice of the Mass. - (4) The Administration of the Lord’s Supper. - - § 59. PUBLIC WORSHIP IN WORD AND SYMBOL. - (1) The Holy Scriptures. - (2) The Creeds of the Church. - I. The Nicæno-Constantinopolitan Creed. - II. The Apostles’ Creed. - III. The Athanasian Creed. - (3) Bible Reading in Church and Preaching. - (4) Hymnology. - (5) Psalmody and Hymn Music. - (6) The Liturgy. - (7) Liturgical Vestments. - (8) Symbolical Acts in Worship. - (9) Processions. - - § 60. PLACES OF PUBLIC WORSHIP, BUILDINGS AND WORKS OF ART. - (1) The Basilica. - (2) Secular Basilicas. - (3) The Cupola Style. - (4) Accessory and Special Buildings. - (5) Church furniture. - (6) The Graphic and Plastic Arts. - - § 61. LIFE, DISCIPLINE AND MORALS. - (1) Church Discipline. - (2) Christian Marriage. - (3) Sickness, Death and Burial. - (4) Purgatory and Masses for Souls. - - § 62. HERETICAL REFORMERS. - (1) Audians and Apostolics. - (2) Protests against Superstition and External Observances. - (3) Protests against the Over-Estimation of Doctrine. - - § 63. SCHISMS. - (1) The Donatist Schism, A.D. 311-415. - (2) The _Concilium Quinisextum_, A.D. 692. - - - VI. THE CHURCH OUTSIDE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE. - - § 64. MISSIONARY OPERATIONS IN THE EAST. - (1) The Ethiopic-Abyssinian Church. - (2) The Persian Church. - (3) The Armenian Church. - (4) The Iberians. - - § 65. THE COUNTER-MISSION OF THE MOHAMMEDANS. - (1) The Fundamental Principle of Islam. - (2) The Providential Place of Islam. - - - THIRD SECTION. - - HISTORY OF THE GRÆCO-BYZANTINE CHURCH - IN THE 8TH-15TH CENTURIES - (A.D. 692-1453). - - - I. Developments of the Greek Church in Combination - with the Western. - - § 66. ICONOCLASM OF THE BYZANTINE CHURCH (A.D. 726-842). - (1) Leo III., the Isaurian, A.D. 717-741. - (2) Constantine V. A.D. 741-775. - (3) Leo IV., Chazarus, A.D. 775-780. - (4) Leo V., the Armenian, A.D. 813-820. - - § 67. DIVISION BETWEEN GREEK AND ROMAN CHURCHES AND ATTEMPTS - AT UNION, A.D. 857-1453. - (1) Foundation of the Schism, A.D. 867. - (2) Leo VI., the Philosopher, A.D. 886-911. - (3) Completion of the Schism, A.D. 1054. - (4) Attempts at Reunion. - (5) Andronicus III. Palæologus and Barlaam. - (6) Council of Florence. - (7) Decay of Byzantine Empire. - - - II. Developments in the Eastern Church without the - Co-operation of the Western. - - § 68. THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE AND LITERATURE. - (1) Revival of Classical Studies. - (2) Aristotle and Plato. - (3) Scholasticism and Mysticism. - (4) The Branches of Theological Science. - (5) Distinguished Theologians. - (6) Barlaam and Josaphat. - - § 69. DOCTRINAL CONTROVERSIES IN THE 12TH-14TH CENTURIES. - (1) Dogmatic Questions. - (2) The Hesychast Controversy, A.D. 1341-1351. - - § 70. CONSTITUTION, WORSHIP AND LIFE. - (1) The Arsenian Schism, A.D. 1262-1312. - (2) Public Worship. - (3) Monasticism. - (4) Endeavours at Reformation. - - § 71. DUALISTIC HERETICS. - (1) The Paulicians. - (2) The Children of the Sun. - (3) The Euchites. - (4) The Bogomili. - - § 72. THE NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CHURCHES OF THE EAST. - (1) The Persian Nestorians. - (2) Monophysite Churches. - (3) The Maronites. - (4) The Legend of Prester John. - - § 73. THE SLAVONIC CHURCHES ADHERING TO THE ORTHODOX GREEK - CONFESSION. - (1) Slavs in the Greek Provinces. - (2) The Chazari. - (3) The Bulgarians. - (4) The Russian Church. - (5) Russian Sects. - (6) Romish Efforts at Union. - - - - - SECOND DIVISION. - - THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE GERMAN AND ROMAN CHURCH - DURING THE MIDDLE AGES. - - § 74. CHARACTER AND DIVISIONS OF THIS PERIOD OF THE DEVELOPMENT. - (1) The Character of Mediæval History. - (2) Periods in the Church History of the German-Roman - Middle Ages. - - - FIRST SECTION. - - HISTORY OF THE GERMAN-ROMAN CHURCH FROM THE 4TH TO - THE 9TH CENTURY (DOWN TO A.D. 911). - - - I. Founding, Spread, and Limitation of the German Church. - - § 75. CHRISTIANITY AND THE GERMANS. - (1) The Predisposition of the Germans for Christianity. - (2) Unopposed Adoption of Christianity. - (3) Mode of Conversion in the Church of these Times. - - § 76. THE VICTORY OF CATHOLICISM OVER ARIANISM. - (1) The Goths in the lands of the Danube. - (2) The Visigoths in Gaul and Spain. - (3) The Vandals in Africa. - (4) The Suevi. - (5) The Burgundians. - (6) The Rugians. - (7) The Ostrogoths. - (8) The Longobards in Italy. - (9) The Franks in Gaul. - - § 77. VICTORY OF THE ROMISH OVER THE OLD BRITISH CHURCH. - (1) The Conversion of the Irish. - (2) The Mission to Scotland. - (3) The Peculiarities of the Celtic Church. - (4) The Romish Mission to the Anglo-Saxons. - (5) Celtic Missions among the Anglo-Saxons. - (6) The Celtic Element Driven out of the Anglo-Saxon - Church. - (7) Spread and Overthrow of the British Church on the - Continent. - (8) Overthrow of the Old British System in the - Iro-Scottish Church. - - § 78. THE CONVERSION AND ROMANIZING OF GERMANY. - (1) South-Western Germany. - (2) South-Eastern Germany. - (3) North-Western Germany. - (4) The Missionary Work of Boniface. - (5) The Organization Effected by Boniface. - (6) Heresies Confronted by Boniface. - (7) The End of Boniface. - (8) An Estimate of Boniface. - (9) The Conversion of the Saxons. - - § 79. THE SLAVS IN GERMAN COUNTRIES. - (1) The Carantanians and Avars. - (2) The Moravian Church. - (3) The Beginnings of Christianity in Bohemia. - - § 80. THE SCANDINAVIAN NATIONS. - (1) Ansgar. - (2) Ansgar’s Successor--Rimbert. - - § 81. CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM. - (1) Islam in Spain. - (2) Islam in Sicily. - - - II. THE HIERARCHY, THE CLERGY AND THE MONKS. - - § 82. THE PAPACY AND THE CAROLINGIANS. - (1) The Period of the Founding of the States of the Church. - (2) Stephen III., A.D. 768-772. - Hadrian I., A.D. 772-795. - (3) Charlemagne and Leo III., A.D. 795-816. - (4) Louis the Pious and the Popes of his Time. - (5) The Sons of Louis the Pious and the Popes of their Days. - (6) The Legend of the Female Pope Joanna. - (7) Nicholas I. and Hadrian II. - (8) John VIII. and his Successors. - (9) The Papacy and the Nationalities. - - § 83. THE RANK OF METROPOLITAN. - (1) The Position of Metropolitans in General. - (2) Hincmar of Rheims. - (3) Metropolitans in other lands. - - § 84. THE CLERGY IN GENERAL. - (1) The Superior Clergy. - (2) The Inferior Clergy. - (3) Compulsory Celibacy. - (4) Canonical life. - - § 85. MONASTICISM. - (1) Benedict of Nursia. - (2) Benedict of Aniane. - (3) Nunneries. - (4) The Greater Monasteries. - (5) Monastic Practices among the Clergy. - (6) The Stylites. - - § 86: THE PROPERTY OF CHURCHES AND MONASTERIES. - (1) The Revenues of Churches and Monasteries. - (2) The Benefice System. - - § 87. ECCLESIASTICAL LEGISLATION. - (1) Older Collections of Ecclesiastical Law. - (2) The Collection of Decretals of the Pseudo-Isidore. - (3) Details of the History of the Forgery. - (4) The Edict and Donation of Constantine. - - - III. THE CHURCH AND THE PEOPLE. - - § 88. PUBLIC WORSHIP AND ART. - (1) Liturgy and Preaching. - (2) Church Music. - (3) The Sacrifice of the Mass. - (4) The Worship of Saints. - (5) Times and Places for Public Worship. - (6) Ecclesiastical Architecture and Painting. - - § 89. NATIONAL CUSTOMS, SOCIAL LIFE AND CHURCH DISCIPLINE. - (1) Superstition. - (2) Popular Education. - (3) Christian Popular Poetry. - (4) Social Condition. - (5) Practice of Pubic Law. - (6) Church Discipline and Penitential Exercises. - - - IV. THEOLOGY AND ITS BATTLES. - - § 90. SCHOLARSHIP AND THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE. - (1) Rulers of the Carolingian Line. - Charlemagne, A.D. 768-814. - Louis the Pious, A.D. 814-840. - Charles the Bald, A.D. 840-877. - (2) The most distinguished Theologians of the - Pre-Carolingian Age. - 1. Merovingian France. - 2. South of the Pyrenees. - 3. England. - (3) The most distinguished Theologians of the Age of - Charlemagne. - 1. Alcuin. - 2. Paulus Diaconus. - 3. Theodulf, Bishop of Orleans. - 4. Paulinus, Patriarch of Aquileia and - Bishop Leidrad of Lyons. - 5. Hatto, Abbot of Reichenau. - (4) The most distinguished Theologians of the Age of - Louis the Pious. - 1. Agobard of Lyons. - 2. Claudius, Bishop of Turin. - 3. Jonas of Orleans. - 4. Amalarius of Metz. - 5. Christian Druthmar. - 6. Rabanus Magnentius Maurus. - 7. Walafrid Strabo. - (5) The Most Distinguished Theologians of the Age of - Charles the Bald. - 1. Hincmar of Rheims. - 2. Paschasius Radbertus. - 3. Ratramnus. - 4. Florus Magister. - 5. Haymo, Bishop of Halberstadt. - 6. Servatus Lupus. - 7. Remigius of Auxerre. - 8. Regius of Prüm. - (6) 9. Anastasius Bibliothecarius. - 10. Eulogius of Cordova. - (7) 11. Joannes Scotus Erigena. - (8) The Monastic and Cathedral Schools. - (9) Various Branches of Theological Science. - 1. Exegesis. - 2. Systematic Theology. - 3. Practical Theology. - 4. Historical Theology. - (10) Anglo-Saxon Culture under Alfred the Great, - A.D. 871-901. - - § 91. DOCTRINAL CONTROVERSIES. - (1) The Adoptionist Controversy, A.D. 782-799. - (2) Controversy about the Procession of the Holy Spirit. - (3) The Eucharistic Controversy, A.D. 844. - (4) Controversy about the Conception of the Virgin. - (5) The Predestinarian Controversy A.D. 847-868. - (6) The Trinitarian Controversy, A.D. 857. - - § 92. ENDEAVOURS AFTER REFORMATION. - (1) The Carolingian Opposition to Image Worship, - A.D. 790-825. - (2) Agobard of Lyons and Claudius of Turin. - - - - - INTRODUCTION. - - - § 1. IDEA AND TASK OF CHURCH HISTORY. - - The Christian Church is to be defined as the one, many-branched -communion, consisting of all those who confess that Jesus of Nazareth -is the Christ who in the fulness of time appeared as the Saviour of -the world. It is the Church’s special task to render the saving work of -Christ increasingly fruitful for all nations and individuals, under all -the varying conditions of life and stages of culture. It is the task -of Church History to describe the course of development through which -the Church as a whole, as well as its special departments and various -institutions, has passed, from the time of its foundation down to our -own day; to show what have been the Church’s advances and retrogressions, -how it has been furthered and hindered; and to tell the story of its -deterioration and renewal. - - - § 2. DISTRIBUTION OF CHURCH HISTORY ACCORDING TO CONTENTS. - - The treatment of Church History, on account of its manifold -ramifications, demands a distribution of its material, on the one hand, -according to definite periods, during which the end hitherto aimed at in -the whole course of development has been practically attained, so that -either entirely new phenomena gain prominence, or else the old go forth -in an altogether different direction; on the other hand, according to -the various phases of endeavour and development, which in respect of -time are evolved alongside of one another. When this last-mentioned -method of division is adopted, we may still choose between two different -modes of treatment. First, we may deal with national churches, in so -far as these are independent and have pursued some special direction; -or with particular churches, which have originated from the splitting -up of the church universal over some important difference in doctrine, -worship, and constitution. Secondly, we may group our material according -to the various departments of historical activity, which are essential -to the intellectual and spiritual life of all national churches and -denominations, and are thus common to all, although in different -churches in characteristic ways and varying degrees. It follows however -from the very idea of history, especially from that of the universal -history of the church, that the distribution according to periods must -be the leading feature of the entire exposition. At the same time, -whatever may now and again, in accordance with the other principles of -arrangement, be brought into prominence will be influenced materially -by the course of the history and formally by the facility afforded for -review by the mode of treatment pursued. - - § 2.1. =The Various Branches Included in a Complete Course of - Church History.=--The Christian Church has undertaken the task - of absorbing all peoples and tongues. Hence it is possessed of - an eager desire to enlarge its borders by the conversion of all - non-Christian races. The description of what helps or hinders - this endeavour, the history of the spread and limitation of - Christianity, is therefore an essential constituent of church - history. Since, further, the church, in order to secure its - continued existence and well-being, must strive after a legally - determined position outwardly, as well as a firm, harmonious - articulation, combination and order inwardly, it evidently also - belongs to our science to give the history of the ecclesiastical - constitution, both of the place which the church has in the state, - and the relation it bears to the state; and also of its own - internal arrangements by superordination, subordination, and - co-ordination, and by church discipline and legislation. Not - less essential, nay, even more important for the successful - development of the church, is the construction and establishment - of saving truth. In Holy Scripture the church indeed has - possession of the fountain and standard, as well as the - all-sufficient power and fulness, of all saving knowledge. - But the words of Scripture are spirit and life, living seeds of - knowledge, which, under the care of the same Spirit who sows them, - may and shall be developed so as to yield a harvest which becomes - ever more and more abundant; and therefore the fulness of the - truth which dwells in them comes to be known more simply, clearly, - fully, and becomes always more fruitful for all stages and - forms of culture, for faith, for science, and for life. Hence - church history is required to describe the construction of the - doctrine and science of the church, to follow its course and the - deviations from it into heresy, whenever these appear. The church - is, further, in need of a form of public worship as a necessary - expression of the feelings and emotions of believers toward - their Lord and God, as a means of edification and instruction. - The history of the worship of the church is therefore also an - essential constituent of church history. It is also the duty of - the church to introduce into the practical life and customs of - the people that new spiritual energy of which she is possessor. - And thus the history of the Christian life among the people comes - to be included in church history as a further constituent of the - science. Further, there is also included here, in consequence of - the nature and aim of Christianity as a leaven (Matt. xiii. 33), - an account of the effects produced upon it by the development of - art (of which various branches, architecture, sculpture, painting, - music, have a direct connexion with Christian worship), and - likewise upon national literature, philosophy, and secular - science generally; and also, conversely, an estimate of the - influence of these forms of secular culture upon the condition - of the church and religion must not be omitted. The order of - succession in the historical treatment of these phases under - which the life of the church is manifested, is not to be rigidly - determined in the same way for all ages after an abstract logical - scheme. For each period that order of succession should be - adopted which will most suitably give prominence to those matters - which have come to the front, and so call for early and detailed - treatment in the history of that age. - - § 2.2. =The Separate Branches of Church History.=--The - constituent parts of church history that have been already - enumerated are of such importance that they might also be treated - as independent sciences, and indeed for the most part they have - often been so treated. In this way, not only is a more exact - treatment of details rendered possible, but also, what is more - important, the particular science so limited can be construed in - a natural manner according to principles furnished by itself. The - history of the spread and limitation of Christianity then assumes - a separate form as the History of Missions. The separate history - of the ecclesiastical constitution, worship, and customs is - known by the name of Christian Archæology, which is indeed, - in respect of title and contents, an undefined conglomeration - of heterogeneous elements restricted in a purely arbitrary way - to the early ages. The treatment of this department therefore - requires that we should undertake the scientific task of - distinguishing these heterogeneous elements, and arranging them - apart for separate consideration; thus following the course of - their development down to the present day, as the history of the - constitution, of the worship, and of the culture of the church. - The history of the development of doctrine falls into four - divisions: - - a. The History of Doctrines in the form of a regular historical - sketch of the doctrinal development of the church. - - b. Symbolics, which gives a systematic representation of the - relatively final and concluded doctrine of the church as - determined in the public ecclesiastical confessions or - symbols for the church universal and for particular sects: - these again being compared together in Comparative Symbolics. - - c. Patristics, which deals with the subjective development of - doctrine as carried out by the most distinguished teachers - of the church, who are usually designated church Fathers, - and confined to the first six or eight centuries. - - d. And, finally, the History of Theology in general, or the - History of the particular Theological Sciences, which treats - of the scientific conception and treatment of theology - and its separate branches according to its historical - development; while the History of Theological Literature, - which when restricted to the age of the Fathers is called - Patrology, has to describe and estimate the whole literary - activity of the church according to the persons, motives, - and tendencies that are present in it. - - As the conclusion and result of church history at particular - periods, we have the science of Ecclesiastical Statistics, which - describes the condition of the church in respect of all its - interests as it stands at some particular moment, “like a slice - cut cross-wise out of its history.” The most important works in - these departments are the following: - - a. =History of Missions.=-- - Brown, “Hist. of Propag. of Christ. among Heathen since - Reformation.” 3rd Ed., 3 vols., Edin., 1854. - Warneck, “Outlines of Hist. of Prot. Miss.” Edin., 1884. - Smith, “Short Hist. of Christ. Miss.” Edin., 1884. - - b. =History of the Papacy.=-- - Ranke, “History of Papacy in 16th and 17th Cent.” 2 vols., - Lond., 1855. - Platina (Lib. of Vatican), “Lives of Popes.” (1481). Trans. - by Rycaut, Lond., 1685. - Bower, “Hist. of Popes.” 7 vols., Lond., 1750. - Bryce, “Holy Rom. Empire.” Lond., 1866. - Creighton, “Hist. of Papacy during the Reformation.” - Vols. I.-IV., from A.D. 1378-1518, Lond., 1882-1886. - Janus, “Pope and the Council.” Lond., 1869. - Pennington, “Epochs of the Papacy.” Lond., 1882. - - c. =History of Monasticism.=-- - Hospinianus [Hospinian], “De Monachis.” Etc., Tigur., 1609. - Maitland, “The Dark Ages.” Lond., 1844. - - d. =History of Councils.=-- - Hefele, “Hist. of Councils.” Vols. I.-III., to A.D. 451, - Edin., 1871-1883. (Original German work brought down - to the Council of Trent exclusive.) - - e. =Church law.=-- - Haddan and Stubbs, “Councils and Eccl. Documents illust. - Eccl. Hist. of Gr. Brit. and Ireland.” 3 vols., - Lond., 1869 ff. - Phillimore, “Eccl. Law.” Lond., 1873. - - f. =Archæology.=-- - By Cath. Didron, “Christ. Iconography; or, Hist. of Christ. - Art in M. A.” Lond., 1886. - By Prot. Bingham, “Antiq. of Christ. Church.” 9 vols., - Lond., 1845. - “Dictionary of Christ. Antiquities.” Ed. by Smith & - Cheetham, 2 vols., Lond., 1875 ff. - - g. =History of Doctrines.=-- - Neander, “Hist. of Christ. Doct.” 2 vols., Lond. - Hagenbach, “Hist. of Christ. Doctrines.” 3 vols., - Edin., 1880 f. - Shedd, “Hist. of Christ. Doc.” 2 vols., Edin., 1869. - - h. =Symbolics and Polemics.=-- - Winer, “Confessions of Christendom.” Edin., 1873. - Schaff, “Creeds of Christendom.” 3 vols., Edin., 1877 ff. - Möhler, “Symbolism: an Expos. of the Doct. Differences - between Catholics and Protestants.” 2 vols., Lond., - 1843. - - i. =Patrology and History of Theolog. Literature.=-- - Dupin, “New History of Ecclesiastical Writers.” - Lond., 1696. - Cave, “Script. Eccl. Hist. Lit.” 2 vols., Lond., 1668. - Fabricii, “Biblioth. Græca.” 14 vols., Hamb., 1705; - “Biblioth. Mediæ et infinæ Latin.” 6 vols., - Hamb., 1734. - Teuffel, “Hist. of Rom. Lit.” 2 vols., Lond., 1873. - - k. =History of the Theological Sciences.=-- - Buddæus, “Isagoge Hist. Theol. ad Theol. Univ.” Lps., 1727. - Räbiger, “Encyclopædia of Theology.” 2 vols., Edin., 1884. - Dorner, “Hist. of Prot. Theol.” 2 vols., Edin., 1871. - - =History of Exegesis.=-- - Davidson, “Sacred Hermeneutics; including Hist. of Biblical - Interpretation from earliest Fathers to Reformation.” - Edin., 1843. - Farrar, “Hist. of Interpretation.” Lond., 1886. - - =History of Morals.=-- - Wuttke’s “Christian Ethics.” Vol. I., “Hist. of Ethics.” - Edin., 1873. - - l. =Biographies.=-- - “Acta Sanctorum.” 63 vols. fol., Ant., 1643 ff. - Mabillon, “Acta Ss. ord. S. Bened.” 9 vols. fol., - Par., 1666 ff. - Flaccius [Flacius], “Catalog. Testium Veritatis.” 1555. - Piper, “Lives of Leaders of Church Universal.” 2 vols., - Edin. - Smith and Wace, “Dict. of Chr. Biog.” etc., 4 vols., - Lond., 1877 ff. - - - § 3. DISTRIBUTION OF CHURCH HISTORY ACCORDING TO PERIODS. - - In the history of the world’s culture three historical stages -of universal development succeed each other: the Oriental, the -Franco-German, and the Teutono-Romanic. The kingdom of God had to enter -each of these and have in each a distinctive character, so that as -comprehensive a development as possible might be secured. The history -of the preparation for Christianity in the history of the Israelitish -theocracy moves along the lines of Oriental culture. The history of -the beginnings of Christianity embraces the history of the founding of -the church by Christ and His Apostles. These two together constitute -Biblical history, which, as an independent branch of study receiving -separate treatment, need be here treated merely in a brief, introductory -manner. This holds true also of the history of pagan culture alongside -of and subsequent to the founding of the church. Church history, -strictly so-called, the development of the already founded church, -begins therefore, according to our conception, with the Post-Apostolic -Age, and from that point pursues its course in three principal divisions. -The ancient church completes its task by thoroughly assimilating -the elements contributed by the Græco-Roman forms of civilization. -In the Teutono-Romanic Church of the middle ages the appropriation -and amalgamation of ancient classical modes of thought with modern -tendencies awakened by its immediate surroundings were carried out and -completed. On the other hand, the development of church history since -the Reformation has its impulse given it by that Teutono-Christian -culture which had maturity and an independent form secured to it by the -Reformation. This distribution in accordance with the various forms of -civilization seems to us so essential, that we propose to borrow from -it our principle for the arrangement of our church history. - - The chronological distribution of the material may be represented in -the following outline: - - I. =History of the Preparation for Christianity=: Preparation - for Redemption during the Hebraic-Oriental stage of - civilization, and the construction alongside of it in the - universalism of classical culture of forms that prepared the - way for the coming salvation. - - II. =History of the Beginnings of Christianity=: a sketch of the - redemption by Christ and the founding of the Church through - the preaching of it by the Apostles. - - III. =History of the Development of Christianity=, on the basis - of the sketch of the redemption given in the history of the - Beginnings: - - A. =In the Græco-Roman and Græco-Byzantine Period, under - Ancient Classical Forms of Civilization.= - _First Section_, A.D. 70 to A.D. 323,--down to - the final victory of Christianity over the Græco-Roman - paganism; the Post-Apostolic and Old Catholic Ages. - _Second Section_, from A.D. 323 to A.D. 692,--down - to the final close of œcumenical development of doctrine - in A.D. 680, and the appearance of what proved a lasting - estrangement between the Eastern and the Western Churches - in A.D. 692, which was soon followed by the alliance of - the Papacy with the Frankish instead of the Byzantine - empire; the Œcumenico-Catholic Church, or the Church of - the Roman-Byzantine Empire. - _Third Section_, from A.D. 692 to A.D. 1453,--down - to the overthrow of Constantinople. Languishing and decay - of the old church life in the Byzantine Empire; complete - breach and futile attempts at union between East and West. - The Church of the Byzantine Empire. - - B. =In the Mediæval Period, under Teutono-Romanic Forms of - Civilization.= - _First Section_, 4-9th cent.--from the first - beginnings of Teutonic church life down to the end of the - Carlovingian Age, A.D. 911. The Teutonic Age. - _Second Section_, 10-13th cent.--down to - Boniface VIII., A.D. 1294; rise of mediæval - institutions--the Papacy, Monasticism, Scholasticism; - Germany in the foreground of the ecclesiastico-political - movement. - _Third Section_, the 14-15th cent.--down to the - Reformation in A.D. 1517; deterioration and collapse of - mediæval institutions; France in the foreground of the - ecclesiastico-political movement. - - C. =In the Modern Period, under the European Forms of - Civilization.= - _First Section_, the 16th cent. Age of - Evangelical-Protestant Reformation and Roman Catholic - Counter-Reformation. - _Second Section_, the 17th cent. Age of Orthodoxy - on the Protestant side and continued endeavours after - restoration on the side of Catholicism. - _Third Section_, the 18th cent. Age of advancing - Illuminism in both churches,--Deism, Naturalism, - Rationalism. - _Fourth Section_, the 19th cent. Age of re-awakened - Christian and Ecclesiastical life. Unionism, - Confessionalism, and Liberalism in conflict with - one another on the Protestant side; the revival of - Ultramontanism in conflict with the civil power on the - Catholic side. In opposition to both churches, widespread - pantheistic, materialistic, and communistic tendencies. - - - § 4. SOURCES AND AUXILIARIES OF CHURCH HISTORY.[1] - - =The sources of Church history= are partly original, in the shape of -inscriptions and early documents; partly derivative, in the shape of -traditions and researches in regard to primitive documents that have -meanwhile been lost. Of greater importance to church history than the -so-called dumb sources, _e.g._ church buildings, furniture, pictures, -are the inscriptions coming down from the earliest times; but of the -very highest importance are the extant official documents, _e.g._ -acts and decisions of Church Councils, decrees and edicts of the -Popes,--decretals, bulls, briefs,--the pastoral letters of bishops, -civil enactments and decrees regarding ecclesiastical matters, the rules -of Spiritual Orders, monastic rules, liturgies, confessional writings, -the epistles of influential ecclesiastical and civil officers, reports -by eye witnesses, sermons and doctrinal treatises by Church teachers, -etc. In regard to matters not determined by any extant original -documents, earlier or later fixed traditions and historical researches -must take the place of those lost documents.--=Sciences Auxiliary -to Church History= are such as are indispensable for the critical -estimating and sifting, as well as for the comprehensive understanding -of the sources of church history. To this class the following branches -belong: _Diplomatics_, which teaches how to estimate the genuineness, -completeness, and credibility of the documents in question; _Philology_, -which enables us to understand the languages of the sources; _Geography -and Chronology_, which make us acquainted with the scenes and periods -where and when the incidents related in the original documents were -enacted. Among auxiliary sciences in the wider sense, the history of the -_State_, of _Law_, of _Culture_, of _Literature_, of _Philosophy_, and -of _Universal Religion_, may also be included as indispensable owing to -their intimate connection with ecclesiastical development. - - § 4.1. =Literature of the Sources.=-- - - a. =Inscriptions=: - de Rossi, “Inscriptt. chr. urbis Rom.” Vols. I. II., - Rome, 1857. - - b. =Collections of Councils=: - Harduin [Hardouin], “Conc. coll.” (to A.D. 1715), - 12 vols., Par., 1715. - Mansi, “Conc. nova et ampl. coll.” 31 vols., Flor., 1759. - - c. =Papal Acts=: - Jaffe, “Regesta pont. Rom.” (to A.D. 1198), 2 ed., - Brl., 1881. - Potthast, “Regesta pont. Rom.” (A.D. 1198-1304), 2 Vols., - Brl., 1873. - The Papal Decretals in “Corp. jur. Canonici.” ed., - Friedberg, Lips., 1879. - “Bullarum, diplom. et privil. SS. rom. pont.” Taurenensis - editio, 24 vols., 1857 ff. - Nussi, “Conventiones de reb. eccl. inter s. sedem et civ. - pot. initæ.” Mogunt., 1870. - - d. =Monastic Rules=: - Holstenii, “Cod. regul. mon. et. can.” 6 vols., 1759. - - e. =Liturgies=: - Daniel, “Cod. liturg. eccl. univ.” 4 vols., Leipz., - 1847 ff. - Hammond, “Ancient Liturgies.” Oxf., 1878. - - f. =Symbolics=: - Kimmel, “Ll. Symb. eccl. Orient.” Jena., 1843. - Danz, “Ll. Symb. eccl. Rom. Cath.” Weimar, 1835. - Hase, “Ll. Symb. eccl. evang.” Ed. iii., Leipz., 1840. - Niemeyer, “Coll. Conf. eccl. Ref.” Leipz., 1840. - Schaff, “Creeds of Christendom.” 3 vols., Lond., 1882. - - g. =Martyrologies=: - Ruinart, “Acta prim. Mart.” 3 vols., 1802. - Assemanni [Assemani], “Acta SS. Mart. orient. et occid.” - 2 vols., Rome, 1748. - - h. =Greek and Latin Church Fathers and Teachers=: - Migne, “Patrologiæ currus completus.” Ser. I., Eccl. Græc., - 162 vols., Par., 1857 ff.; Ser. II., Eccl. Lat., - 221 vols., Par., 1844 ff. - Horoy, “Media ævi biblioth. patrist.” (from A.D. 1216 to - 1564), Paris, 1879. - “Corpus Scriptorum eccl. lat.” Vindob., 1866 ff. - Grabe, “Spicilegium SS. Pp. et Hærett.” Sæc. I.-III., - 3 vols., Oxford, 1698. - Routh, “Reliquiæ sac.” 4 vols., Oxford, 1814 ff. - “Ante-Nicene Christian Library; a collection of all the - works of the Fathers of the Christian Church prior to - the Council of Nicæa.” 24 vols., Edin., 1867 ff. - - i. =Ancient Writers of the East=: - Assemanus [Assemani], “Biblioth. orient.” 4 vols., - Rome, 1719. - - k. =Byzantine Writers=: - Niebuhr, “Corp. scr. hist. Byz.” 48 vols., Bonn, 1828 ff. - Sathas, “Biblioth. Græc. Med. ævi.” Vols. I.-VI., Athens, - 1872 ff. - - § 4.2. =Literature of the Auxiliary Sciences.=-- - - a. =Diplomatics=: - Mabillon, “De re diplomatic.” Ed. ii., Par., 1709. - - b. =Philology=: - Du Fresne (du Cange), “Glossarium ad scriptt. med. et - infim. Latin.” 6 vols., Par., 1733; New ed., Henschel - and Favre, in course of publication. - Du Fresne, “Glossarium, ad scriptt. med. et infim. Græc.” - 2 vols., Leyden, 1688. - Suiceri, “Thesaurus ecclesiast. e patribus græcis.” - Ed. ii., 2 vols., Amst., 1728. - - c. =Geography and Statistics=: - Mich. le Quien, “Oriens christianus in quatuor - patriarchatus digestus.” 3 vols., Par., 1704. - - d. =Chronology=: - Nicolas, “The Chronology of History.” 2 ed., Lond., 1838. - “L’art de verifier les dates, by d’Antine.” Etc., ed. by - Courcelles, 19 vols., Par., 1821-1824. - - - § 5. HISTORY OF GENERAL CHURCH HISTORY. - - The earliest writer of church history properly so called is Eusebius, -Bishop of Cæsarea, † 340. During the fifth century certain members -of the Greek Church continued his work. The Western Church did not -so soon engage upon undertakings of that sort, and was contented with -translations and reproductions of the materials that had come down from -the Greeks instead of entering upon original investigations. During the -middle ages, in consequence of the close connection subsisting between -Church and State, the Greek _Scriptores historiæ Byzantinæ_, as well as -the Latin national histories, biographies, annals, and chronicles, are -of the very utmost importance as sources of information regarding the -church history of their times. It was the Reformation, however, that -first awakened and inspired the spirit of true critical research and -scientific treatment of church history, for the appeal of the Reformers -to the pure practices and institutions of the early days of the church -demanded an authoritative historical exposition of the founding of the -church, and this obliged the Catholic church to engage upon the studies -necessary for this end. The Lutheran as well as the Catholic Church, -however, down to the middle of the 17th century, were satisfied with -the voluminous productions of the two great pioneers in Church history, -Flacius and Baronius. Afterwards, however, emulation in the study of -church history was excited, which was undoubtedly, during the 17th -century, most successfully prosecuted in the Catholic Church. In -consequence of the greater freedom which prevailed in the Gallican -Church, these studies flourished conspicuously in France, and were -pursued with exceptional success by the Oratorians and the Order -of St. Maur. The Reformed theologians, especially in France and the -Netherlands, did not remain far behind them in the contest. Throughout -the 18th century, again, the performances of the Lutheran Church came to -the front, while a laudable rivalry leads the Reformed to emulate their -excellencies. In the case of the Catholics, on the other hand, that -zeal and capacity which, during the 17th century, had won new laurels in -the field of honour, were now sadly crippled. But as rationalism spread -in the domain of doctrine, pragmatism spread in the domain of church -history, which set for itself as the highest ideal of historical writing -the art of deducing everything in history, even what is highest and -most profound in it, from the co-operation of fortune and passion, -arbitrariness and calculation. It was only in the 19th century, when a -return was made to the careful investigation of original authorities, -and it came to be regarded as the task of the historian, to give a -conception and exposition of the science as objective as possible, that -this erroneous tendency was arrested. - - § 5.1. =Down to the Reformation.=--The church history of - =Eusebius=, which reaches down to A.D. 324, was to some extent - continued by his _Vita Constantini_, down to A.D. 337 (§ 47, 2). - The church history of =Philostorgius=, which reaches from - A.D. 318-423, coming down to us only in fragments quoted by - Photius, was an Arian party production of some importance. - During the 5th century, however, the church history of Eusebius - was continued down to A.D. 439 by the Catholic =Socrates=, an - advocate at Constantinople, written in a simple and impartial - style, yet not altogether uncritical, and with a certain measure - of liberality; and down to A.D. 423, by =Sozomen=, also an - advocate at Constantinople, who in large measure plagiarizes from - Socrates, and is, in what is his own, uncritical, credulous, and - fond of retailing anecdotes; and down to A.D. 428 by =Theodoret=, - Bishop of Cyrus in Syria, who produces much useful material in - the shape of original authorities, confining himself, however, - like both of his predecessors, almost exclusively to the affairs - of the Eastern Church. In the 6th century, =Theodorus=, reader at - Constantinople, made a collection of extracts from these works, - continuing the history down to his own time in A.D. 527. Of this - we have only fragments preserved by Nicephorus Callisti. The - continuation by =Evagrius= of Antioch, reaching from A.D. 431-594, - is characterized by carefulness, learning, and impartiality, - along with zealous orthodoxy, and an uncritical belief in the - marvellous. Collected editions of all these works have been - published by Valesius (Par., 1659), and Reading (Cantab., 1720), - in each case in 3 vols. folio.--In the Latin Church =Rufinus= of - Aquileia translated the work of Eusebius and enlarged it before - the continuations of the three Greek historians had appeared, - carrying it down to his own time in A.D. 395 in an utterly - uncritical fashion. =Sulpicius Severus=, a presbyter of Gaul, - wrote about the same time his _Historia Sacra_, in two books, - from the creation of the world down to A.D. 400. In the 6th - century, =Cassiodorus= fused together into one treatise in - 12 books, by means of extracts, the works of the three Greek - continuators of Eusebius, under the title _Hist. ecclesiastica - tripartita_, which, combined with the history of Rufinus, - remained down to the Reformation in common use as a text-book. - A church history written in the 6th century in Syriac, by the - monophysite bishop, =John of Ephesus=, morbidly fond of the - miraculous, first became known to us in an abridged form of - the third part embracing the history of his own time. (Ed. - Cureton, Oxf., 1853. Transl. into Engl. by Payne Smith, Oxford, - 1859.)--Belonging to the Latin church of the middle ages, =Haymo= - of Halberstadt deserves to be named as a writer of universal - history, about A.D. 850, leaning mainly upon Rufinus and - Cassiodorus. The same too may be said about the work entitled, - _Libri XIII. historiæ ecclesiasticæ_ written by the Abbot - =Odericus Vitalis= in Normandy, about A.D. 1150, which forms - upon the whole the most creditable production of the middle - ages. In the 24 books of the Church history of the Dominican and - Papal librarian, =Tolomeo of Lucca=, composed about A.D. 1315, - church history is conceived of as if it were simply a historical - commentary on the ecclesiastical laws and canons then in force, - as an attempt, that is, to incorporate in the history all the - fictions and falsifications, which Pseudo-Isidore in the 9th - century (§ 87, 2-4), Gratian in the 12th century, and Raimundus - [Raimund] de Penneforti [Pennaforte] in the 13th century - (§ 99, 5), had wrought into the Canon law. Toward the end of - the 15th century, under the influence of humanism there was an - awakening here and there to a sense of the need of a critical - procedure in the domain of church history, which had been - altogether wanting throughout the middle ages. In the Greek - Church again, during the 14th century, =Nicephorus Callisti= - of Constantinople, wrote a treatise on church history, reaching - down to A.D. 610, devoid of taste and without any indication of - critical power. - - § 5.2. =The 16th and 17th Centuries.=--About the middle of the - 16th century the Lutheran Church produced a voluminous work in - church history, the so-called =Magdeburg Centuries=, composed - by a committee of Lutheran theologians, at the head of which was - =Matthias Flacius=, of Illyria in Magdeburg. This work consisted - of 13 folio vols., each of which embraced a century. (_Eccles. - Hist., integram eccl. ideam complectens, congesta per aliquot - studiosos et pios viros in urbe Magdb._ Bas., 1559-1574.) They - rest throughout on careful studies of original authorities, - produce many documents that were previously unknown, and, with - an unsparingly bitter polemic against the Romish doctrinal - degeneration, address themselves with special diligence to the - historical development of dogma. In answer to them the Romish - Oratorian, =Cæsar Baronius=, produced his _Annales ecclesiastici_, - in 12 vols. folio, reaching down to A.D. 1198 (Rome, 1588-1607). - This work moves entirely along Roman Catholic lines and is quite - prejudiced and partial, and seeks in a thoroughly uncritical - way, by every species of ingenuity, to justify Romish positions; - yet, as communicating many hitherto unknown, and to others - inaccessible documents, it must be regarded as an important - production. It secured for its author the cardinal’s hat, - and had wellnigh raised him to the chair of St. Peter. In the - interests of a scholarly and truth-loving research, it was - keenly criticised by the Franciscan Anthony Pagi (_Critica - hist-chronol._ 4 vols., Antw., 1705), carried down in the 17th - century from A.D. 1198-1565, in 9 vols. by Oderic. Raynaldi, in - the 18th century from A.D. 1566-1571, in 3 vols. by de Laderchi, - and in the 19th century down to A.D. 1585 in 3 vols. by August - Theiner. A new edition was published by Mansi (43 vols., 1738 - ff.), with Raynaldi’s continuation and Pagi’s criticism.--During - the 17th century the French Catholic scholars bore the palm - as writers of Church history. The course was opened in general - church history by the Dominican =Natalis Alexander=, a learned - man, but writing a stiff scholastic style (_Selecta hist. eccl. - capita et diss. hist. chron. et dogm._ 24 vols., Par., 1676 ff.). - This first edition, on account of its Gallicanism was forbidden - at Rome; a later one by Roncaglia of Lucca, with corrective notes, - was allowed to pass. Sebast. le Nain de =Tillemont=, with the - conscientiousness of his Jansenist faith, gave an account of - early church history in a cleverly grouped series of carefully - selected authorities (_Memoires pour servir à l’hist. eccl. des - six premiers siècles, justifiés par les citations des auteurs - originaux._ 16 vols., Par., 1693 ff.). =Bossuet= wrote, for - the instruction of the Dauphin, what Hase has styled “an - ecclesiastical history of the world with eloquent dialectic - and with an insight into the ways of providence, as if the wise - Bishop of Meaux had been in the secrets not only of the king’s - but also of God’s councils” (_Discours sur l’hist. universelle - depuis le commencement du monde jusqu’à l’empire de Charles M._ - Par., 1681). =Claude Fleury=, aiming at edification, proceeds in - flowing and diffuse periods (_Histoire ecclst._ 20 vols., Par., - 1691 ff.).--The history of the French Church (A.D. 1580) ascribed, - probably erroneously, to Theodore Beza, the successor of Calvin, - marks the beginning of the writing of ecclesiastical history - in the Reformed Church. During the 17th century it secured an - eminence in the department of church history, especially on - account of learned special researches (§ 160, 7), but also to - some extent in the domain of general church history. =J. H. - Hottinger= overloaded his _Hist. ecclst. N. T._ (9 vols., Fig., - 1651 ff.) by dragging in the history of Judaism, and Paganism, - and even of Mohammedanism, with much irrelevant matter of that - sort. Superior to it were the works of =Friedr. Spanheim= (_Summa - hist. eccl._ Leyd., 1689) =Jas. Basnage= (_Hist. de l’égl._ - 2 vols., Rotd., 1699). Most important of all were the keen - criticism of the Annals of Baronius by =Isaac Casaubon= - (_Exercitt. Baronianæ._ Lond., 1614), and by =Sam. Basnage= - (_Exercitt. hist. crit._ Traj., 1692; and _Annales polit. ecclst._ - 3 vols., Rotd., 1706). - - § 5.3. =The 18th Century.=--After the publication of the - Magdeburg _Opus palmare_ the study of church history fell - into the background in the Lutheran Church. It was George - Calixtus († A.D. 1658) and the syncretist controversies which - he occasioned that again awakened an interest in such pursuits. - =Gottfr. Arnold’s= colossal party-spirited treatise entitled - “Unparteiische Kirchen- und Ketzerhistorie” (2 vols. fol., Frkf., - 1699), which scarcely recognised Christianity except in heresies - and fanatical sects, gave a powerful impulse to the spirit of - investigation and to the generous treatment of opponents. This - bore fruit in the irenical and conciliatory attempts of =Weismann= - of Tübingen (_Introd. in memorabilia ecclst._ 2 vols., Tüb., - 1718). The shining star, however, in the firmament of church - history during the 18th century was =J. Lor. v. Mosheim= in - Helmstedt [Helmstadt] and Göttingen, distinguished alike for - thorough investigation, with a divinatory power of insight, and - by a brilliant execution and an artistic facility in the use - of a noble Latin style (_Institutionum hist. ecclst. Libri IV._ - Helmst., 1755; transl. into English by Murdock, ed. by Reid, - 11th ed., Lond., 1880). =J. A. Cramer=, in Kiel, translated - Bossuet’s _Einl. in die Gesch. d. Welt u. d. Relig._, with a - continuation which gave a specially careful treatment of the - theology of the middle ages (7 vols., Leipz., 1757 ff.). =J. Sal. - Semler=, in Halle, shook, with a morbidly sceptical criticism, - many traditional views in Church history that had previously been - regarded as unassailable (_Hist. eccl. selecta capita._ 3 vols., - Halle, 1767 ff.; _Versuch e. fruchtb. Auszugs d. K. Gesch._ - 3 vols., Halle, 1773 ff.). On the other hand, =Jon. Matt. Schröckh - of Wittenberg= produced a gigantic work on church history, which - is characterized by patient research, and gives, in so far as - the means within his reach allowed, a far-sighted, temperate, and - correct statement of facts (_Christl. K. G._ 45 vols., Leipz., - 1772 ff., the last two vols. by Tzschirner). The Würtemburg - [Württemberg] minister of state, Baron =von Spittler=, sketched - a _Grundriss der K. Gesch._, in short and smartly expressed - utterances, which in many cases were no better than caricatures - (5th ed. by Planck, Gött., 1812). In his footsteps =Henke= - of Helmstedt [Helmstadt], followed, who, while making full - acknowledgment of the moral blessing which had been brought by - true Christianity to mankind, nevertheless described the “_Allg. - Gesch. der Kirche_” as if it were a bedlam gallery of religious - and moral aberrations and strange developments (6 vols., - Brsweig., 1788 ff.; 5th ed. revised and continued by =Vater= in - 9 vols.).--In the Reformed Church, =Herm. Venema=, of Franeker, - the Mosheim of this church, distinguished himself by the thorough - documentary basis which he gave to his exposition, written in - a conciliatory spirit (_Institutt. hist. eccl. V. et N. T._ - 7 vols., Leyd., 1777 ff.). In the Catholic Church, =Royko= of - Prague, favoured by the reforming tendencies of the Emperor - Joseph II., was able with impunity to give expression to his - anti-hierarchical views in an almost cynically outspoken statement - (_Einl. in d. chr. Rel. u. K. G._ Prague, 1788). - - § 5.4. =The 19th Century.= In his _Handb. d. chr. K. G._, publ. - in 1801 (in 2nd ed. contin. by Rettberg, 7 vols., Giessen, 1834), - =Chr. Schmidt= of Giessen expressly maintained that the supreme - and indeed the only conditions of a correct treatment of history - consisted in the direct study of the original documents, and a - truly objective exhibition of the results derived therefrom. By - objectivity, however, he understood indifference and coolness - of the subject in reference to the object, which must inevitably - render the representation hard, colourless, and lifeless. - =Gieseler= of Göttingen, † 1854, commended this mode of treatment - by his excellent execution, and in his _Lehrbuch_ (5 vols., Bonn, - 1824-1857; Engl. transl. “Compendium of Church History.” 5 vols., - Edinb., 1846-1856), a master-piece of the first rank, which - supports, explains and amplifies the author’s own admirably - compressed exposition by skilfully chosen extracts from the - documents, together with original and thoughtful criticism under - the text. A temperate, objective, and documentary treatment of - church history is also given in the _Handbuch_ of =Engelhardt= - of Erlangen (5 vols., Erlang., 1832 ff.). Among the so-called - _Compendia_ the most popular was the _Universalgeschichte d. K._ - by =Stäudlin=, of Göttingen (Hann., 1807; 5th ed. by Holzhausen, - 1833). It was superseded by the _Lehrbuch_ of =Hase=, of Jena - (Leipz., 1834; 10th ed., 1877; Engl. transl. from 7th Germ. ed., - New York, 1855), which is a generally pregnant and artistically - tasteful exposition with often excellent and striking features, - subtle perception, and with ample references to documentary - sources. The _Vorlesungen_ of =Schleiermacher=, † 1834, published - after his death by Bonell (Brl., 1840), assume acquaintance - with the usual materials, and present in a fragmentary manner - the general outlines of the church’s course of development. - =Niedner’s= _Lehrbuch_ (2nd ed., Brl., 1866), is distinguished by - a philosophical spirit, independent treatment, impartial judgment, - and wealth of contents with omission of customary matter, but - marred by the scholastic stiffness and awkwardness of its style. - =Gfrörer’s= († 1861) _Kirchengeschichte_ (7 vols. reaching down - to A.D. 1000, Stuttg., 1840) treats early Christianity as purely - a product of the culture of the age, and knows of no moving - principles in the historical development of the Christian church - but clerical self-seeking, political interests, machinations - and intrigues. Nevertheless the book, especially in the portion - treating of the middle ages, affords a fresh and lively account - of researches among original documents and of new results, - although even here the author does not altogether restrain his - undue fondness for over subtle combinations. After his entrance - into the Catholic Church his labours in the domain of church - history were limited to a voluminous history of Gregory VII., - which may be regarded as a continuation of his church history, - the earlier work having only reached down to that point. =Baur= - of Tübingen began the publication of monographical treatises on - particular periods, reaching down to the Reformation (3 vols., - 2nd ed., Tüb., 1860 ff.), a continuation to the end of the 18th - cent. (published by his son F. Baur, 1863), and also a further - volume treating of the 19th cent. (publ. by his son-in-law Zeller, - 2nd ed., 1877). These works of this unwearied investigator show - thorough mastery of the immense mass of material, with subtle - criticism and in many cases the first establishment of new views. - =Böhringer’s= massive production (_Die Kirche Christi und ihre - Zeugen, oder Kirchengeschichte in Biographien_. 24 vols., Zur., - 1842; 2nd ed., Zur., 1873), upon the basis of an independent - study of the several ages down to the Reformation, characterizes - by means of detailed portraiture the personalities prominent - during these periods. In the second edition, thoroughly recast - with the assistance of his two sons, there is evidence of a more - strictly critical research and a judicial frame of mind, so that - the predominantly panegyrical character of the first edition is - considerably modified. =Rothe’s= lectures, edited after his death, - with additions from his literary remains, by Weingarten (2 vols., - Hdlb., 1875) are quite fragmentary because the usual historical - matter was often supplied from Gieseler, Neander, or Hase. The - work is of great value in the departments of the Constitution - and the Life of the Church, but in other respects does not at - all satisfy the expectations which one might entertain respecting - productions bearing such an honoured name; thoroughly solid and - scholarly, however, are the unfortunately only sparse and short - notes of the learned editor. - - § 5.5. Almost contemporaneously with Gieseler, =Aug. Neander= - of Berlin, † 1850, began the publication of his _Allg. Gesch. d. - chr. Kirche_ in xi. divisions down to A.D. 1416 (Ham., 1824-1852. - Engl. Transl. 9 vols., Edin., 1847-1855), by which ground - was broken in another direction. Powerfully influenced by the - religious movement, which since the wars of independence had - inspired the noblest spirits of Germany, and sympathizing with - Schleiermacher’s theology of feeling, he vindicated the rights of - subjective piety in the scientific treatment of church history, - and sought to make it fruitful for edification as a commentary - of vast proportions on the parable of the leaven. With special - delight he traces the developments of the inner life, shows what - is Christian in even misconceived and ecclesiastically condemned - manifestations, and feels for the most part repelled from - objective ecclesiasticism, as from an ossification of the - Christian life and the crystallization of dogma. In the same way - he undervalues the significance of the political co-efficients, - and has little appreciation of esthetic and artistic influences. - The exposition goes out too often into wearisome details and - grows somewhat monotonous, but is on every side lighted up by - first hand acquaintance with the original sources. His scholar, - =Hagenbach= of Basel, † 1874, put together in a collected form - his lectures delivered before a cultured public upon several - periods of church history, so as to furnish a treatise dealing - with the whole field (7 vols., Leipz., 1868). These lectures are - distinguished by an exposition luminous, interesting, sometimes - rather broad, but always inspired by a warm Christian spirit and - by circumspect judgment, inclining towards a mild confessional - latitudinarianism. What, even on the confessional and - ecclesiastical side, had been to some extent passed over by - Neander, in consequence of his tendency to that inwardness that - characterizes subjective and pectoral piety, has been enlarged - upon by =Guericke= of Halle, † 1878, another of Neander’s - scholars, in his _Handbuch_ (2 vols., Leipz., 1833; 9th ed., - 3 vols., 1866; Eng. transl. “Manual of Ch. Hist.” Edinb., 1857), - by the contribution of his own enthusiastic estimate of the - Lutheran Church in a strong but clumsy statement; beyond this, - however, the one-sidedness of Neander’s standpoint is not - overcome, and although, alongside of Neander’s exposition, the - materials and estimates of other standpoints are diligently used, - and often the very words incorporated, the general result is not - modified in any essential respect. Written with equal vigour, - and bearing the impress of a freer ecclesiastical spirit, the - _Handbuch_ of =Bruno Lindner= (3 vols., Leipzig, 1848 ff.) - pursues with special diligence the course of the historical - development of doctrine, and also emphasizes the influence - of political factors. This same end is attempted in detailed - treatment with ample production of authoritative documents in - the _Handbuch_ of the author of the present treatise (vol. I. - in three divisions, in a 2nd ed.; vol. II. 1, down to the end - of the Carlovingian Era. Mitau, 1858 ff.). =Milman= (1791-1868) - an English church historian of the first rank (“Hist. of Chr. - to Abolit. of Pag. in Rom. Emp.” 3 vols., London, 1840; “History - of Latin Christianity to the Pontificate of Nicholas V.” 3 vols., - London, 1854), shows himself, especially in the latter work, - learned, liberal and eloquent, eminently successful in sketching - character and presenting vivid pictures of the general culture - and social conditions of the several periods with which he deals. - The _Vorlesungen_ of =R. Hasse [Hase]=, published after his death - by Köhler (2nd ed., Leipz., 1872), form an unassuming treatise, - which scarcely present any trace of the influence of Hegel’s - teaching upon their author. =Köllner= of Giessen writes an - _Ordnung und Uebersicht der Materien der chr. Kirchengeschichte_, - Giess., 1864, a diligent, well-arranged, and well packed, but - somewhat dry and formless work. =H. Schmid= of Erlangen has - enlarged his compendious _Lehrbuch_ (2nd ed., 1856), into a - _Handbuch_ of two bulky volumes (Erlang., 1880); and =O. Zöckler= - of Greifswald has contributed to the _Handbuch d. theolog. - Wissenschaften_ (Erlang., 1884; 2nd ed., 1885) edited by him an - excellent chronological summary of church history. =Ebrard’s= - _Handbuch_ (4 vols., Erlang., 1865 ff.) endeavours to give - adequate expression to this genuine spirit of the Reformed - conception of historical writing by bringing church history and - the history of doctrines into organic connection. The attempt is - there made, however, as Hase has expressed it, with a paradoxical - rather than an orthodox tendency. The spirit and mind of the - Reformed Church are presented to us in a more temperate, mild - and impartial form, inspired by the pectoralism of Neander, in - the _Handbuch_ of =J. J. Herzog= of Erlangen, † 1882 (3 vols., - Erlang., 1876), which assumes the name of _Abriss_ or Compendium. - This work set for itself the somewhat too ambitious aim - of supplying the place of the productions of Gieseler and - Neander,--which, as too diffuse, have unfortunately repelled many - readers--by a new treatise which should set forth the important - advances in the treatment of church history since their time, - and give a more concise sketch of universal church history. - The _Histoire du Christianisme_ of Prof. =Chastel= of Geneva, - (5 vols., Par., 1881 ff.) in its earlier volumes occupies the - standpoint of Neander, and we often miss the careful estimation of - the more important results of later research. In regard to modern - church history, notwithstanding every effort after objectivity - and impartiality, theological sympathies are quite apparent. On - the other hand, in the comprehensive _History of the Christian - Church_ by =Philip Schaff= (in 8 vols., Edinb., 1885, reaching - down to Gregory VIII., A.D. 1073), the rich results of research - subsequent to the time of Neander are fully and circumspectly - wrought up in harmony with the general principles of Neander’s - view of history. Herzog’s _ Realencyclopædie für protest. Theol. - u. Kirche_, especially in its 2nd ed. by Herzog and Plitt, and - after the death of both, by Hauck (18 vols., Leipz., 1877 ff.), - has won peculiar distinction in the department of church history - from the contributions of new and powerful writers. Lichtenberger, - formerly Prof. of Theol. in Strassburg, now in Paris, in his - _Encyclopédie des sciences relig. _ has produced a French work - worthy of a place alongside that of Herzog. _The Dictionary of - Christian Biography, Literature, Sects, and Doctrines during - the first eight centuries_, edited with admirable circumspection - and care by Dr. Wm. Smith and Prof. Wace, combines with a - completeness and richness of contents never reached before, - a thoroughgoing examination of the original sources. (4 vols., - Lond., 1877 ff.) =Weingarten’s= Chronological Tables for Church - History (_Zeittafeln z. K.G._ 2nd ed., Brl., 1874) are most - useful to students as the latest and best helps of that kind. - - § 5.6. In the Catholic Church of Germany too a great activity has - been displayed in the realm of church history. First of all in - general Church history we have the diffuse work of the convert - =von Stolberg= (_Gesch. d. Rel. Jesu_, 15 vols., down to A.D. 430, - Hamb., 1806 ff., continued by von Kerz, vols. 16-45, and by - Brischar, vols. 46-52, Mainz, 1825-1859), spreading out into - hortatory and uncritical details. The elegant work of =Katerkamp= - (_K.G._, 5 vols., down to 1153, Münst., 1819 ff.) followed it, - inspired by a like mild spirit, but conceived in a more strictly - scientific way. Liberal, so far as that could be without breaking - with the hierarchy, is the _Handbuch der K.G._ (3 vols., Bonn, - 1826 ff.; 6th ed. by Ennen, 2 vols., 1862), by =I. Ign. Ritter=. - The ample and detailed _Gesch. d. Chr. Rel. u. d. K._ (8 vols., - down to 1073, Ravensb., 1824 ff.) of =Locherer= reminds one of - Schröckh’s work in other respects than that of its voluminousness. - A decidedly ultramontane conception of church history, with - frequent flashes of sharp wit, first appears in =Hortig’s= - _Handbuch_ (2 vols., Landsh., 1826). =Döllinger= in 1828 publ. as - a 3rd vol. of this work a _Handbuch d. Neuern K.G._, which, with - a similar tendency, assumed a more earnest tone. This theologian - afterwards undertook a thoroughly new and independent work of a - wider range, which still remains incomplete (_Gesch. d. chr. K._, - I. 1, 2, partially down to A.D. 630, Landsh., 1833-1835). This - work with ostensible liberality exposed the notorious fables - of Romish historical literature; but, on the other hand, with - brilliant ingenuity, endeavoured carefully to preserve intact - everything which on ultramontane principles and views might seem - capable of even partial justification. His _Lehrbuch_ (I. II. 1., - Rgsb., 1836 ff.), reaching down only to the Reformation, treats - the matter in a similar way, and confines itself to a simple - statement of acknowledged facts. In the meantime =J. A. Möhler=, - by his earlier monographical works, and still more decidedly - by his far-reaching influence as a Professor at Tübingen, gave - rise to an expectation of the opening up of a new epoch in the - treatment of Catholic church history. He represented himself - as in spiritual sympathy with the forms and means of Protestant - science, although in decided opposition and conflict with its - contents, maintaining his faithful adhesion to all elements - essential to Roman Catholicism. This master, however, was - prevented by his early death, † 1838, from issuing his complete - history. This was done almost thirty years after his death by - Gams, who published the work from his posthumous papers (_K. G._, - 3 vols., Rgsb., 1867 ff.), with much ultramontane amendment. It - shows all the defects of such patchwork, with here and there, - but relatively, very few fruitful cases. Traces of his influence - still appear in the spirit which pervades the _Lehrbücher_ - proceeding from his school, by Alzog († 1878) and Kraus. The - _Universalgeschichte d. K._, by =J. Alzog= (Mainz, 1841; 9th ed., - 2 vols., 1872; transl. into Engl., 3 vols., Lond., 1877), was, - in its earlier editions, closely associated with the lectures of - his teacher, not ashamed even to draw from Hase’s fresh-sparkling - fountains something at times for his own yet rather parched - meadows, but in his later editions he became ever more - independent, more thorough in his investigation, more fresh and - lively in his exposition, making at the same time a praiseworthy - endeavour at moderation and impartiality of judgment, although - his adhesion to the Catholic standpoint grows more and more - strict till it reaches its culmination in the acceptance of the - dogma of Papal Infallibility. The 10th ed. of his work appeared - in 1882 under the supervision of Kraus, who contributed much to - its correction and completion. The _Lehrbuch_ of =F. Xav. Kraus= - of Freiburg (2nd ed., Trier, 1882) is without doubt among all - the Roman Catholic handbooks of the present the most solid from - a scientific point of view, and while diplomatically reserved - and carefully balanced in its expression of opinions, one of - the most liberal, and it is distinguished by a clever as well as - instructive mode of treatment. On the other hand, the Würzburgian - theologian, =J. Hergenröther= (since 1879 Cardinal and Keeper of - the Papal Archives at Rome), who represents the normal attitude - of implicit trust in the Vatican, has published a _Handbuch_ - (2 vols. in 4 parts, Freib., 1876 ff.; 2nd ed., 1879, with a - supplement: Sources, Literat., and Foundations). In this work - he draws upon the rich stores of his acknowledged scholarship, - which, however, often strangely forsakes him in treating of the - history of Protestant theology. It is a skilful and instructive - exposition, and may very fitly be represented as “a history of - the church, yea, of the whole world, viewed through correctly set - Romish spectacles.” Far beneath him in scientific importance, but - in obstinate ultramontanism far above him, stands the _Lehrbuch_ - of =H. Bruck [Brück]= (2nd ed., Mainz, 1877). A far more solid - production is presented in the _Dissertatt. selectæ in hist. - ecclst._ of Prof. =B. Jungmann= of Louvain, which treat in - chronological succession of parties and controversies prominent - in church history, especially of the historical development of - doctrine, in a thorough manner and with reference to original - documents, not without a prepossession in favour of Vaticanism - (vols. i.-iii., Ratisb., 1880-1883, reaching down to the end - of the 9th cent.). The _Kirchenlexikon_ of Wetzer and Wette - (12 vols., Freib., 1847 ff.) gained a prominent place on account - of the articles on church history contributed by the most eminent - Catholic scholars, conceived for the most part in the scientific - spirit of Möhler. The very copious and of its kind admirably - executed 2nd ed. by Kaulen (Freib., 1880 ff.), under the - auspices of Card. Hergenröther, is conceived in a far more - decidedly Papistic-Vatican spirit, which often does not - shrink from maintaining and vindicating even the most glaring - productions of mediæval superstition, illusion and credulity, - as grounded in indubitable historical facts. Much more - important is the historical research in the _Hist. Jahrbuch - der Görres-Gesellschaft_, edited from 1880 by G. Hüffer, and - from 1883 by B. Gramich, which presents itself as “a means of - reconciliation for those historians with whom Christ is the - middle point of history and the Catholic Church the God-ordained - institution for the education of the human race.”--In the French - Church the following are the most important productions: the - _Hist. de l’égl._ of =Berault-Bercastel= (24 vols., Par., 1778 - ff.), which have had many French continuators and also a German - translator (24 vols., Vienna, 1784 ff.); the _Hist. ecclst. - depuis la création_, etc., of =Baron Henrion=, ed. by Migne - (25 vols., Par., 1852 ff.); and the very diffuse compilation, - wholly devoted to the glorification of the Papacy and its - institutions, _Hist. universelle de l’égl. Cath._ of the Louvain - French Abbé Rohrbacher (29 vols., Par., 1842 ff.; of which an - English transl. is in course of publication). Finally, the - scientifically careful exposition of the Old Catholic =J. Rieks=, - _Gesch. d. chr. K. u. d. Papstthums_, Lahr., 1882, though in some - respects onesided, may be mentioned as deserving of notice for its - general impartiality and love of the truth. - - - - - HISTORY OF THE PREPARATION FOR CHRISTIANITY. - - The pre-Christian World preparing the way - of the Christian Church. - - - § 6. THE STANDPOINT OF UNIVERSAL HISTORY. - - The middle point of the epochs and developments of the human race is -the incarnation of God in Christ. With it begins, upon it rests, the -fulness of the time (Gal. iv. 4), and toward it the whole pre-Christian -history is directed as anticipatory or progressive. This preparation has -its beginning in the very cradle of humanity, and is soon parted in the -two directions of Heathenism and Judaism. In the former case we have the -development of merely human powers and capacities; in the latter case -this development is carried on by continuous divine revelation. Both -courses of development, distinguished not only by the means, but also by -the task undertaken and the end aimed at, run alongside of one another, -until in the fulness of the time they are united in Christianity and -contribute thereto the fruits and results of what was essential and -characteristic in their several separate developments. - - - § 7. HEATHENISM. - - The primitive race of man, surrounded by rich and luxuriant forms -of nature, put this abundance of primeval power in the place of the -personal and supramundane God. Surrounded by such an inexhaustible -fulness of life and pleasures, man came to look upon nature as more -worthy of sacrifice and reverence than a personal God removed far off -into supramundane heights. Thus arose heathenism as to its general -features: a self-absorption into the depths of the life of nature, -a deification of nature, a worshipping of nature (Rom. i. 21 ff.), -therefore, the religion of nature, in accordance with which, too, -its moral character is determined. Most conspicuously by means of its -intellectual culture has heathenism given preliminary aid to the church -for the performing of her intellectual task. And even the pagan empire, -with its striving after universal dominion, as well as the active -commercial intercourse in the old heathen world, contributed in -preparing the way of the church. - - § 7.1. =The Religious Character of Heathenism.=--The hidden - powers of the life of nature and the soul, not intellectually - apprehended in the form of abstract knowledge, but laid hold of - in immediate practice, and developed in speculation and mysticism, - in natural magic and soothsaying, and applied to all the - relations of human life, seemed revelations of the eternal spirit - of nature, and, mostly by means of the intervention of prominent - personalities and under the influence of various geographical - and ethnographical peculiarities, produced manifold systems of - the religion of nature. Common to all, and deeply rooted in the - nature of heathenism, is the distinction between the _esoteric_ - religion of the priests, and the _exoteric_ religion of the - people. The former is essentially a speculative ideal pantheism; - the latter is for the most part a mythical and ceremonial - polytheism. The religious development of heathenism has - nevertheless been by no means stripped of all elements of truth. - Apart from casual remnants of the primitive divine revelation, - which, variously contorted on their transmission through heathen - channels, may lie at the foundation or be inwrought into its - religious systems, the hothouse-like development of the religion - of nature has anticipated many a religious truth which, in the - way of divine revelation, could only slowly and at a late period - come to maturity, but has perverted and distorted it to such a - degree that it was little better than a caricature. To this class - belong, for example, the pantheistic theories of the Trinity and - the Incarnation, the dualistic acknowledgment of the reality of - evil, etc. To this also especially belongs the offering of human - victims which has been practised in all religions of nature - without exception,--a terrible and to some extent prophetic cry - of agony from God-forsaken men, which is first toned down on - Golgotha into hymns of joy and thanksgiving. Witness is given to - the power and energy, with which the religions of nature in the - time of their bloom took possession of and ruled over the minds - and emotions of men, by the otherwise unexampled sacrifices - and self-inflictions, such as hecatombs, offerings of children, - mutilation, prostitution, etc., to which its votaries submitted, - and not less the almost irresistible charm which it exercised - again and again upon the people of Israel during the whole course - of their earlier history. It also follows from this that the - religion of heathenism does not consist in naked lies and pure - illusions. There are elements of truth in the lies, which gave - this power to the religion of nature. There are anticipations - of redemption, though these were demoniacally perverted, which - imparted to it this charm. There are mysterious phenomena of - natural magic and soothsaying which seemed to establish their - divine character. But the worship of nature had the fate of all - unnatural, precocious development. The truth was soon swallowed - up by the lies, the power of development and life, of which more - than could possibly be given was demanded, was soon consumed and - used up. The blossoms fell before the fruit had set. Mysteries - and oracles, magic and soothsaying, became empty forms, or organs - of intentional fraud and common roguery. And so it came to pass - that one harauspex could not look upon another without laughing. - Unbelief mocked everything, superstition assumed its most absurd - and utterly senseless forms, and religions of an irrational - mongrel type sought in vain to quicken again a nerveless and - soulless heathenism. - - § 7.2. =The Moral Character of Heathenism.=--Religious character - and moral character go always hand in hand. Thus, too, the moral - life among heathen peoples was earnest, powerful, and true, - or lax, defective, and perverse, in the same proportion as was - the religious life of that same period. The moral faults of - heathenism flow from its religious faults. It was a religion of - the present, to whose gods therefore were also unhesitatingly - ascribed all the imperfections of the present. In this way - religion lost all its power for raising men out of the mire and - dust surrounding them. The partly immoral myths sanctioned or - excused by the example of the gods the grossest immoralities. As - the type and pattern of reproductive power in the deified life - of nature, the gratification of lust was often made the central - and main point in divine service. The idea of pure humanity was - wholly wanting in heathenism. It could only reach the conception - of nationality, and its virtues were only the virtues of citizens. - In the East despotism crushed, and in the West fierce national - antipathies stifled the acknowledgment of, universal human rights - and the common rank of men, so that the foreigner and the slave - were not admitted to have any claims. As the worth of man was - measured only by his political position, the significance of - woman was wholly overlooked and repudiated. Her position was at - most only that of the maid of the man, and was degraded to the - lowest depths in the East by reason of the prevalent polygamy. - Notwithstanding all these great and far-reaching moral faults, - heathenism, in the days of its bloom and power, at least in those - departments of the moral life, such as politics and municipal - matters, in which pantheism and polytheism did not exert - their relaxing influence, had still preserved much high moral - earnestness and an astonishing energy. But when the religion of - their fathers, reduced to emptiness and powerlessness, ceased to - be the soul and bearer of those departments of life, all moral - power was also withdrawn from them. The moral deterioration - reached its culminating point in the dissolute age of the Roman - Emperors. In this indescribable state of moral degeneration, the - church found heathenism, when it began its spiritual regeneration - of the world. - - § 7.3. =The Intellectual Culture in Heathenism.=--The - intellectual culture of heathenism has won in regard to the - church a twofold significance. On the one hand it affords a - pattern, and on the other it presents a warning beacon. Pagan - science and art, in so far as they possess a generally culturing - influence and present to the Christian church a special type - for imitation, are but the ultimate results of the intellectual - activity which manifested itself among the Greeks and Romans - in philosophy, poetry and historical writing, which have in two - directions, as to form and as to contents, become the model for - the Christian church, preparing and breaking up its way. On the - one side they produced forms for the exercise of the intellectual - life, which by their exactness and clearness, by their variety - and many-sidedness, afforded to the new intellectual contents of - Christianity a means for its formal exposition and expression. - But, on the other side, they also produced, from profound - consideration of and research into nature and spirit, history - and life, ideas and reflections which variously formed an - anticipation of the ideas of redemption and prepared the soil - for their reception. The influence, however, on the other hand, - which oriental forms of culture had upon the development and - construction of the history of redemption, had already exhausted - itself upon Judaism. What the symbolism of orientalism had - contributed to Judaism, namely the form in which the divine - contents communicated by Old Testament prophesy should be - presented and unfolded, the dialectic of classical heathenism was - to Christianity, in which the symbolic covering of Judaism was to - be torn off and the thought of divine redemption to be manifested - and to be laid hold of in its purely intellectual form. The - influence of heathenism upon the advancing church in the other - direction as affording a picture of what was to be avoided, was - represented not less by Eastern culture than by the classical - culture of the Greeks and Romans. Here it was exclusively the - contents, and indeed the ungodly anti-Christian contents, the - specifically heathen substance of the pagan philosophy, theosophy, - and mysteriosophy, which by means of tolerated forms of culture - sought to penetrate and completely paganize Christianity. To - heathenism, highly cultured but pluming itself in the arrogance - of its sublime wisdom, Christianity, by whose suggestive - profundity it had been at first attracted, appeared altogether - too simple, unphilosophical, unspeculative, to satisfy the - supposed requirements of the culture of the age. There was needed, - it was thought, fructification and enriching by the collective - wisdom of the East and the West before religion could in truth - present itself as absolute and perfect. - - § 7.4. =The Hellenic Philosophy.=--What is true of Greek-Roman - culture generally on its material and formal sides, that it - powerfully influenced Christianity now budding into flower, - is preeminently true of the Greek Philosophy. Regarded as - a prefiguration of Christianity, Greek philosophy presents - a negative side in so far as it led to the dissolution of - heathenism, and a positive side in so far as it, by furnishing - form and contents, contributed to the construction of - Christianity. From its very origin Hellenic philosophy - contributed to the negative process by undermining the people’s - faith in heathenism, preparing for the overthrow of idolatry, and - leading heathenism to take a despondent view of its own future. - It is with =Socrates=, who died in B.C. 399, that the positive - prefiguring of Christianity on the part of Greek philosophy comes - first decidedly into view. His humble confession of ignorance, - his founding of the claim to wisdom on the Γνῶθι σεαυτόν, - the tracing of his deepest thoughts and yearnings back to - divine suggestions (his Δαιμόνιον), his grave resignation to - circumstances, and his joyful hope in a more blessed future, - may certainly be regarded as faint anticipations and prophetic - adumbrations of the phenomena of Christian faith and life. - =Plato=, who died B.C. 348, with independent speculative and - poetic power, wrought the scattered hints of his teacher’s wisdom - into an organically articulated theory of the universe, which - in its anticipatory profundity approached more nearly to the - Christian theory of the universe than any other outside the range - of revelation. His philosophy leads men to an appreciation of his - God-related nature, takes him past the visible and sensible to - the eternal prototypes of all beauty, truth and goodness, from - which he has fallen away, and awakens in him a profound longing - after his lost possessions. In regard to matter =Aristotle=, who - died B.C. 322, does not stand so closely related to Christianity - as Plato, but in regard to form, he has much more decidedly - influenced the logical thinking and systematizing of later - Christian sciences. In these two, however, are reached the - highest elevation of the philosophical thinking of the Greeks, - viewed in itself as well as in its positive and constructive - influence upon the church. As philosophy down to that time, - consciously or unconsciously, had wrought for the dissolution - of the religion of the people, it now proceeded to work its own - overthrow, and brought into ever deeper, fuller and clearer - consciousness the despairing estimate of the world regarding - itself. This is shown most significantly in the three schools - of philosophy which were most widely spread at the entrance of - the church into the Græco-Roman world, Epicureanism, Stoicism, - and Scepticism. =Epicurus=, who died B.C. 271, in his philosophy - seeks the highest good in pleasure, recognises in the world only - a play of fortune, regards the soul as mortal, and supposes that - the gods in their blissful retirement no longer take any thought - about the world. =Stoicism=, founded by Zeno, who died in B.C. - 260, over against the Epicurean deism set up a hylozoistic - pantheism, made the development of the world dependent upon the - unalterable necessity of fate, which brings about a universal - conflagration, out of which again a new world springs to follow - a similar course. To look on pleasure with contempt, to scorn - pain, and in case of necessity to end a fruitless life by - suicide--these constitute the core of all wisdom. When he has - reached such a height in the mastery of self and of the world the - wise man is his own god, finding in himself all that he needs. - Finally, in conflict with Stoicism arose the =Scepticism= of the - _New Academy_, at the head of which were Arcesilaus who died B.C. - 240 and Carneades who died B.C. 128. This school renounced all - knowledge of truth as something really unattainable, and in the - moderation (ἐποχή) of every opinion placed the sum of theoretic - wisdom, while it regarded the sum of all practical wisdom to - consist in the evidence of every passionate or exciting effort. - - § 7.5. =The Heathen State.=--In the grand endeavour of heathenism - to redeem itself by its own resources and according to its own - pleasure, the attempt was finally made by the concentration of - all forces into one colossal might. To gather into one point all - the mental and bodily powers of the whole human race, and through - them also all powers of nature and the products of all zones - and lands, and to put them under one will, and then in this - will to recognise the personal and visible representation of the - godhead--to this was heathenism driven by an inner necessity. - Hence arose a struggle, and in consequence of the pertinacity - with which it was carried on, one kingdom after another was - overthrown, until the climax was reached in the Roman empire. - Yet even this empire was broken and dissolved when opposed by the - spiritual power of the kingdom of God. Like all the endeavours - of heathenism, this struggle for =absolute sovereignty= had a - twofold aspect; there are thereby made prominent men’s own ways - and God’s ways, the undivine aims of men, and the blessed results - which God’s government of the world could secure for them. We - have here to do first of all simply with the Roman universal - empire, but the powers that rose in succession after it are only - rejuvenations and powerful continuations of the endeavour of the - earlier power, and so that is true of every state which is true - of the Roman. Its significance as a preparer of the way for the - church is just this, that in consequence of the articulation of - the world into one great state organisation, the various stages - and elements of culture found among the several civilized races - hitherto isolated, contributed now to one universal civilization, - and a rapid circulation of the new life-blood driven by the - church through the veins of the nations was made possible and - easy. With special power and universal success had the exploits - of Alexander the Great in this direction made a beginning, which - reached perfection under the Roman empire. The ever advancing - prevalence of one language, the Greek, which at the time of the - beginning of the church was spoken and understood in all quarters - of the Roman empire, which seemed, like a temporary suspension - of the doom of the confusion of languages which accompanied the - rise of heathenism (Gen. xi.), to celebrate its return to the - divine favour, belongs also pre-eminently to those preparatory - influences. And as the heathen state sought after the - concentration of all might, =Industry= and =Trade=, moved by - the same principle, sought after the concentration of wealth and - profit. But as worldly enterprise for its own ends made paths for - universal commerce over wastes and seas, and visited for purposes - of trade the remotest countries and climes, it served unwittingly - and unintentionally the higher purposes of divine grace by - opening a way for the spread of the message of the gospel. - - - § 8. JUDAISM. - - In a land which, like the people themselves, combined the character -of insular exclusiveness with that of a central position in the ancient -world, Israel, on account of the part which it was called to play in -universal history, had to be the receiver and communicator of God’s -revelations of His salvation, had to live quiet and apart, taking -little to do with the world’s business; having, on the other hand, the -assurance from God’s promise that disasters threatened by heathenish -love of conquest and oppression would be averted. This position and -this task were, indeed, only too often forgotten. Only too often did -the Israelites mix themselves up in worldly affairs, with which they -had no concern. Only too often by their departure from their God did -they make themselves like the heathen nations in religion, worship, -and conversation, so that for correction and punishment they had -often to be put under a heavy yoke. Yet the remnant of the holy seed -(Isa. iv. 3; vi. 13) which was never wholly wanting even in times of -general apostasy, as well as the long-suffering and faithfulness of -their God, ensured the complete realisation of Israel’s vocation, even -though the unspiritual mass of the people finally rejected the offered -redemption. - - § 8.1. =Judaism under special Training of God through the Law and - Prophecy.=--Abraham was chosen as a single individual (Isa. li. 2), - and, as the creator of something new, God called forth from an - unfruitful womb the seed of promise. As saviour and redeemer - from existing misery He delivered the people of promise from the - oppression of Egyptian slavery. In the Holy Land the family must - work out its own development, but in order that the family might - be able unrestrainedly to expand into a great nation, it was - necessary that it should first go down into Egypt. Moses led the - people thus disciplined out of the foreign land, and gave them - a theocratic constitution, law, and worship as means for the - accomplishment of their calling, as a model and a schoolmaster - leading on to future perfection (Gal. iii. 24; Heb. x. 1). The - going out of Egypt was the birth of the nation, the giving of - the law at Sinai was its consecration as a holy nation. Joshua - set forth the last condition for an independent people, the - possession of a country commensurate with the task of the nation, - a land of their own that would awaken patriotic feelings. Now the - theocracy under the form of a purely popular institution under - the fostering care of the priesthood could and should have borne - fruit, but the period of the Judges proves that those two factors - of development were not sufficient, and so now two new agencies - make their appearance; the Prophetic order as a distinct and - regular office, constituted for the purpose of being a mouth - to God and a conscience to the state, and the Kingly order for - the protecting of the theocracy against hurt from without and - for the establishment of peace within her borders. By David’s - successes the theocracy attained unto a high degree of political - significance, and by Solomon’s building of the temple the typical - form of worship reached the highest point of its development. - In spite, however, of prophecy and royalty, the people, ever - withdrawing themselves more and more from their true vocation, - were not able outwardly and inwardly to maintain the high level. - The division of the kingdom, internal feuds and conflicts, - their untheocratic entanglement in the affairs of the world, the - growing tendency to fall away from the worship of Jehovah and - to engage in the worship of high places, and calves, and nature, - called down incessantly the divine judgments, in consequence of - which they fell a prey to the heathen. Yet this discipline was - not in vain. Cyrus decreed their return and their independent - organization, and even prophecy was granted for a time to the - restored community for its establishment and consolidation. Under - these political developments has prophecy, in addition to its - immediate concern with its own times in respect of teaching, - discipline, and exhortation, given to the promise of future - salvation its fullest expression, bringing a bright ray of - comfort and hope to light up the darkness of a gloomy present. - The fading memories of the happy times of the brilliant victories - of David and the glorious peaceful reign of Solomon formed the - bases of the delineations of the future Messianic kingdom, while - the disasters, the suffering and the humiliation of the people - during the period of their decay gave an impulse to Messianic - longings for a Messiah suffering for the sins of the people - and taking on Himself all their misery. And now, after it - had effected its main purpose, prophecy was silenced, to be - reawakened only in a complete and final form when the fulness - of time had come. - - § 8.2. =Judaism after the Cessation of Prophecy.=--The time had - now come when the chosen people, emancipated from the immediate - discipline of divine revelation, but furnished with the results - and experiences of a rich course of instruction, and accompanied - by the law as a schoolmaster and by the light of the prophetic - word, should themselves work out the purpose of their calling. - The war of extermination which Antiochus Epiphanes in his heathen - fanaticism waged against Judaism, was happily and victoriously - repelled, and once more the nation won its political independence - under the Maccabees. At last, however, owing to the increasing - corruption of the ruling Maccabean family, they were ensnared by - the craft of the Roman empire. The Syrian religious persecution - and the subsequent oppression of the Romans roused the national - spirit and the attachment to the religion of their fathers to the - most extreme exclusiveness, fanatical hatred, and proud scorn of - everything foreign, and converted the Messianic hope into a mere - political and frantically carnal expectation. True piety more - and more disappeared in a punctilious legalism and ceremonialism, - in a conceited self-righteousness and boastful confidence in - their own good works. Priests and scribes were eagerly bent - on fostering this tendency and increasing the unsusceptibility - of the masses for the spirituality of the redemption that was - drawing nigh, by multiplying and exaggerating external rules - and by perverse interpretation of scripture. But in spite of all - these perverting and far-reaching tendencies, there was yet in - quiet obscurity a sacred plantation of the true Israel (John i. 47; - Luke i. 6; ii. 25, 38, etc.), as a garden of God for the first - reception of salvation in Christ. - - § 8.3. =The Synagogues.=--The institution of the =Synagogues= - was of the greatest importance for the spread and development of - post-exilian Judaism. They had their origin in the consciousness - that, besides the continuance of the symbolical worship of the - temple, a ministry of the word for edification by means of the - revelation of God in the law and the prophets was, after the - withdrawal of prophecy, all the more a pressing need and duty. - But they also afforded a nursery for the endeavour to widen and - contract the law of Moses by Rabbinical rules, for the tendency - to external legalism and hypocrisy, for the national arrogance - and the carnal Messianic expectations, which from them passed - over into the life of the people. On the other hand, the - synagogues, especially outside of Palestine, among the dispersion, - won a far-reaching significance for the church by reason of - their missionary tendency. For here where every Sabbath the holy - scripture of the Old Testament was read in the Greek translation - of the Septuagint and expounded, a convenient opportunity was - given to heathens longing for salvation to gain acquaintance with - the revelations and promises of God in the Old Covenant, and here - there was already a place for the first ministers of the gospel, - from which they could deliver their message to an assembled - multitude of people from among the Jews and Gentiles. (Schürer, - “Hist. of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ.” Div. ii., - vol. 2., “The School and Synagogue.” pp. 44-89, Edin., 1885.) - - § 8.4. =Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes.=--The strict, - traditionally legalistic, carnally particularistic tendency - of Post-Exilian Judaism had its representatives and supporters - in the sect of the =Pharisees= (פְרוּשִׁים, ἀφωρισμένοι), so called - because their main endeavour was to maintain the strictest - separation from everything heathenish, foreign, and ceremonially - unclean. By their ostentatious display of zeal for the law, their - contempt for everything not Jewish, their democratic principles - and their arrogant patriotism, they won most completely the - favour of the people; they shared the evil fortunes of the - Maccabean princes, and became the bitterest enemies of the - Herodians, and entertained a burning fanatical hatred to the - Romans. They held sway in the synagogues to such an extent - that the names Scribes and Pharisees were regarded as almost - synonymous, and even in the Sanhedrim they secured many seats. - In the times of Jesus the schools of Hillel and Shammai contended - with one another, the former pleading for somewhat lax views, - especially in reference to divorce and the obligation of oaths, - while the latter insisted upon the most rigorous interpretation - of the law. Both, however, were agreed in the recognition of oral - tradition, the παραδόσεις τῶν πατέρων, as a binding authority and - an essential supplement to the law of Moses. In direct opposition - to them stand the =Sadducees=, out of sympathy with the - aspirations of the people, and abandoning wholly the sacred - traditions, and joining themselves in league with the Herodians - and Romans. The name originally designated them as descendants of - the old temple aristocracy represented by the family of the high - priest Zadok, and, in consequence of the similarity in sound - between צַדּוּקיִם and צַדּיִקיִם, gave expression to their claim to be - regarded as essentially and truly righteous because of their - outward adherence to the Mosaic law. Proceeding on the principle - that virtue as a free act of man has in it its own worth and - reward, just as vice has in it its own punishment, they rejected - the doctrine of a future judgment, denied the doctrine of a - resurrection, the existence of angels and spirits, and the - doctrine of the divine foreknowledge.[2] The =Essenes=, not - mentioned in the Bible, but named by Philo, Josephus, and the - elder Pliny, form a third sect. Their name was probably derived - from חֲסֵא, pious. The original germ of their society is found - in distinct colonies on the banks of the Dead Sea, which kept - apart from the other Jews, and recognised even among themselves - four different grades of initiation, each order being strictly - separated from the others. A member was received only after - a three years’ novitiate, and undertook to keep secret the - mysteries of the order. Community of goods in the several - communities and clans, meals in common accompanied by religious - ceremonies, frequent prayers in the early morning with the face - directed to the rising sun, oft repeated washings and cleansings, - diligent application to agriculture and other peaceful - occupations, abstaining from the use of flesh and wine, from - trade and every warlike pursuit, from slavery and taking of - oaths, perhaps also abstinence from marriage in the higher orders, - were the main conditions of membership in their association. - The Sabbath was observed with great strictness, but sacrifices - of blood were abolished, and all anointing with oil was regarded - as polluting. They still, however, maintained connection with - Judaism by sending gifts to the temple. So far the order may - fairly be regarded, as it is by Ritschl, as a spiritualizing - exaggeration of the Mosaic idea of the priestly character that - had independently grown up on Jewish soil, and indeed especially - as an attempt to realize the calling set forth in Exod. xix. 5, 6, - and repudiated in Exod. xx. 19, 20, unto all Israelites to be a - spiritual priesthood. But when, on the other hand, the Essenes, - according to Josephus, considered the body as a prison in which - the soul falling from its ethereal existence is to be confined - until freed from its fetters by death it returns again to heaven, - this can scarcely be explained as originating from any other than - a heathen source, especially from the widely spread influences - of Neo-Pythagoreanism (§ 24). Lucius (1881) derives the name - and seeks their origin from the Asidæans, Chasidim, or Pious, - in 1 Macc. ii. 42; vii. 13; and 2 Macc. xiv. 6. Very striking - too is Hilgenfeld’s carefully weighed and ably sustained theory - (_Ketzergesch._, pp. 87-149), that their descent is to be traced - from the Kenite Rechabites (Jer. xxxv.; Judg. i. 16), and their - name from the city Gerasa, west of the Dead Sea, called in - Josephus also Essa, where the Rechabites, abandoning their tent - life, formed a settlement. In the time of Josephus the Essenes - numbered about four thousand. In consequence of the Jewish war, - which brought distress upon them, as well as upon the Christians, - they were led into friendly relations with Christianity; but even - when adopting the Christian doctrines, they still carried with - them many of their earlier tenets (§ 28, 2, 3).[3] - - - § 9. SAMARITANISM. - - The Samaritans, who came into existence at the time of the overthrow -of the kingdom of Israel, from the blending of Israelitish and -heathenish elements, desired fellowship with the Jewish colony that -returned from the Babylonish captivity, but were repelled on account -of their manifold compromises with pagan practice. And although an -expelled Jew named Manasseh purified their religion as far as possible -of heathenish elements, and gave them a temple and order of worship on -Mount Gerizim, this only increased the hatred of the Jews against them. -Holding fast to the Judaism taught them by Manasseh, the Samaritans -never adopted the refinements and perversions of later Judaism. Their -Messianic expectations remained purer, their particularism less severe. -While thus rendered capable of forming a more impartial estimate of -Christianity, they were also inclined upon the whole, because of the -hatred and contempt which they had to endure from Pharisaic Judaism, -to look with favour upon Christianity despised and persecuted as they -themselves had been (John iv. 41; Acts viii. 5 ff.). On the other hand, -the syncretic-heathen element, which still flourished in Samaritanism, -showed its opposition to Christianity by positive reactionary attempts -(§ 25, 2).[4] - - - § 10. INTERCOURSE BETWEEN JUDAISM AND HEATHENISM. - - Alexander the Great’s conquest of the world brought into connection -with one another the most diverse elements of culture in antiquity. -Least of all could Judaism outside of Palestine, the _diaspora_, living -amid the influences of heathen or Hellenic culture and ways of viewing -things, withdraw itself from the syncretic current of the age. The Jews -of Eastern Asia maintained a closer connection and spiritual affinity -with the exclusive Palestinian Rabbinism, and the heathen element, -which here penetrated into their religious conceptions, became, chiefly -through the Talmud, the common property of post-Christian Judaism. But -heathenism also, contemptible as Judaism appeared to it, was susceptible -to Jewish influences, impressed by the deeper religious contents of -Judaism, and though only sporadic, instances of such influence were by -no means rare. - - § 10.1. =Influence of Heathenism upon Judaism.=--This reached - its greatest strength in Egypt, the special centre and source of - the syncretic tendencies of the age. Forming for itself by means - of the adoption of Greek culture and especially of the Platonic - philosophy a more universal basis of culture, Jewish Hellenism - flourished in Alexandria. After Aristobulus, who wrote Ἐξηγήσεις - τῆς Μωυσέως, about B.C. 170, now only found in a fragment - of doubtful authority, and the author of the Book of Wisdom, - the chief representative of this tendency was the Alexandrian - Jew Philo, a contemporary of Christ. His Platonism enriched - by elements drawn from Old Testament revelation and from - the doctrines of the Essenes has on many points carried its - speculation to the very borders of Christianity, and has formed - a scaffolding for the Christian philosophy of the Church Fathers. - He taught that all nations have received a share of divine truth, - but that the actual founder and father of all true philosophy - was Moses, whose legislation and teaching formed the source of - information for even the Greek Philosophy and Mysteriosophy. - But it is only by means of allegorical interpretation that such - depths can be discovered. God is τὸ ὄν, matter τὸ μὴ ὄν. An - intermediate world, corresponding to the Platonic world of ideas, - is the κόσμος νοητός, consisting of innumerable spirits and - powers, angels and souls of men, but bound together into a unity - in and issuing from the Word of God, who as the λόγος ἐνδιαθετός - was embraced in God from eternity, coming forth from God as the - λόγος προφορικός for the creation of the world (thought and word). - The visible world, on account of the physical impotence of matter, - is an imperfect representation of the κόσμος νοητός, etc. On the - ground of the writing _De vita contemplativa_ attributed to Philo, - the =Therapeutæ=, or worshippers of God, mentioned therein, had - been regarded as a contemplative ascetic sect related to the - Essenes, affected by an Alexandrian philosophical spirit, living - a sort of monastic life in the neighbourhood of Alexandria, until - Lucius (Strassb., 1879) withdrew them from the domain of history - to that of Utopian romance conceived in support of a special - theory. This scholar has proved that the writing referred to - cannot possibly be assigned to Philo, but must have been composed - about the end of the third century in the interest of Christian - monasticism, for which it presented an idealizing apology. This, - however, has been contested by Weingarten, in Herzog, x. 761, on - good grounds, and the origin of the book has been assigned to a - period soon after Philo, when Hellenistic Judaism was subjected - to a great variety of religious and philosophical influences.[5] - - § 10.2. =Influence of Judaism upon Heathenism.=--The heathen - state showed itself generally tolerant toward Judaism. Alexander - the Great and his successors, the Ptolemies, to some extent - also the Seleucidæ, allowed the Jews the free exercise of - their religion and various privileges, while the Romans allowed - Judaism to rank as a _religio licita_. Nevertheless the Jews were - universally despised and hated. Tacitus calls them _despectissima - pars servientium, teterrima gens_; and even the better class of - writers, such as Manetho, Justin, Tacitus, gave currency to the - most absurd stories and malicious calumnies against them. In - opposition to these the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus took - pains to overcome the prejudices of Greeks and Romans against - his nation, by presenting to them its history and institutions - in the most favourable light. But on the other side, the Greek - translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, as well - as the multitude of Jewish synagogues, which during the Roman - period were scattered over the whole world, afforded to every - heathen interested therein the opportunity of discovering by - personal examination and inquiry the characteristic principles - of Judaism. When, therefore, we consider the utterly corrupt - condition of heathenism, we cannot wonder that Judaism, in spite - of all the contempt that was thrown upon it, would attract, - by reason of its hoary antiquity and the sublime simplicity of - its creed, the significance of its worship, and its Messianic - promises, many of the better aspiring heathens, who were no - longer satisfied with their sorely degraded forms of religion. - And though indeed only a few enrolled themselves as “_Proselytes - of Righteousness_,” entering the Jewish community by submitting - to the rite of circumcision, the number of the “_Proselytes of - the Gate_” who without observing the whole of the ceremonial law - undertook to abandon their idols and to worship Jehovah, in all - ranks of society, mostly women, was very considerable, and it - was just among them that Christianity found the most hearty and - friendly acceptance. - - - § 11. THE FULNESS OF TIME. - - The fulness of the olden time had come when the dawn of a new era -burst forth over the mountains of Judea. All that Judaism and heathenism -had been able to do in preparing the way for this new era had now been -done. Heathenism was itself conscious of its impotence and unfitness -for satisfying the religious needs of the human spirit, and wherever it -had not fallen into dreary unbelief or wild superstition, it struggled -and agonized, aspiring after something better. In this way negatively -a path was prepared for the church. In science and art, as well as in -general intellectual culture, heathenism had produced something great -and imperishable; and ineffectual as these in themselves had proved to -restore again to man the peace which he had lost and now sought after, -they might become effectually helpful for such purposes when made -subservient to the true salvation. And so far heathenism was a positive -helper to the church. The impression that a crisis in the world’s -history was near at hand was universal among Jews and Gentiles. The -profound realization of the need was a presage of the time of fulfilment. -All true Israelites waited for the promised Messiah, and even in -heathenism the ancient hope of the return of the Golden Age was again -brought to the front, and had, from the sacred scriptures and synagogues -of the Jews, obtained a new holding ground and a definite direction. -The heathen state, too, made its own contribution toward preparing the -way of the church. One sceptre and one language united the whole world, -a universal peace prevailed, and the most widely extended commercial -intercourse gave opportunity for the easy and rapid spread of saving -truth. - - - - - THE HISTORY OF THE BEGINNINGS. - - The Founding of the Church by Christ and His Apostles. - - - § 12. CHARACTER OF THE HISTORY OF THE BEGINNINGS. - - The propriety in a treatise on general church history of separating -the Times of Jesus and the Times of the Apostles, closely connected -therewith, from the History of the Development of the Church, and -giving to them a distinct place under the title of the History of the -Beginnings, rests on the fact that in those times we have the germs and -principles of all that follows. The unique capacity of the Apostles, -resulting from special enlightenment and endowment, makes that which -they have done of vital importance for all subsequent development. In -our estimation of each later form of the church’s existence we must -go back to the doctrine and practice of Christ and His Apostles as the -standard, not as to a finally completed form that has exhausted all -possibilities of development, and made all further advance and growth -impossible or useless, but rather as to the authentic fresh germs and -beginnings of the church, so that not only what in later development is -found to have existed in the same form in the beginning is recognised as -genuinely Christian, but also that which is seen to be a development and -growth of that primitive form. - - - - - I. THE LIFE OF JESUS. - - - § 13. JESUS CHRIST, THE SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD. - - “But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, -made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the -law, that we might receive the adoption of sons” (Gal. iv. 4, 5). In -accordance with prophetic announcements, He was born in Bethlehem as the -Son of David, and, after John the Baptist, the last of the prophets of -the Old Covenant, had prepared His way by the preaching of repentance -and the baptism of repentance, He began in the thirtieth year of His age -His fulfilment by life and teaching of the law and the prophets. With -twelve chosen disciples He travelled up and down through the land of the -Jews, preaching the kingdom of God, helping and healing, and by miracles -and signs confirming His divine mission and doctrine. The Pharisees -contradicted and persecuted Him, the Sadducees disregarded Him, and -the people vacillated between acclamations and execrations. After -three years’ activity, amid the hosannas of the multitude, He made His -royal entry into the city of His kingly ancestors. But the same crowd, -disappointed in their political and carnal Messianic expectations, a -few days later raised the cry: Crucify Him, crucify Him! Thus then He -suffered according to the gracious good pleasure of the Father the death -of the cross for the sins of the world. The Prince of life, however, -could not be holden of death. He burst the gates of Hades, as well as -the barriers of the grave, and rose again the third day. For forty days -He lingered here below, promised His disciples the gift of His Holy -Spirit, and commissioned them to preach the gospel to all nations. Then -upon His ascension He assumed the divine form of which He had emptied -Himself during His incarnation, and sits now at the right hand of power -as the Head of His church and the Lord of all that is named in heaven -and on earth, until visibly and in glory, according to the promise, He -returns again at the restitution of all things. - - § 13.1. In regard to the =year of the birth= and the =year of the - death= of the Redeemer no absolutely certain result can now be - attained. The usual Christian chronology constructed by Dionysius - Exiguus in the sixth century, first employed by the Venerable - Bede, and brought into official use by Charlemagne, assumes the - year 754 A.U.C. as the date of Christ’s birth, which is evidently - wrong, since, in A.D. 750 or 751, Herod the Great was already - dead. Zumpt takes the seventh, others the third, fourth, or fifth - year before our era. The length of Christ’s public ministry was - fixed by many Church Fathers, in accordance with Isaiah lxi. 1, 2, - and Luke iv. 19, at one year, and it was consequently assumed - that Christ was crucified when thirty years of age (Luke iii. 21). - The synoptists indeed speak only of one passover, the last, - during Christ’s ministry; but John (ii. 13; vi. 4; xii. 1) speaks - of three, and also besides (v. 1) of a ἑορτὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων. - - § 13.2. Among the non-biblical =witnesses to Christ= the earliest - is probably a Syrian Epistle of =Mara= to his son Serapion, - written, according to Cureton (“_Spicileg. Syriacum_.” Lond., - 1855), about A.D. 73. The father, highly cultured in Greek wisdom - but dissatisfied with it, writes from exile words of comfort - and exhortation to his son, in which he places Christ alongside - of Socrates and Pythagoras, and honours him as the wise King, - by whose death the Jews had brought upon themselves the swift - overthrow of their kingdom, who would, however, although slain, - live for ever in the new land which He has given. To this period - also belongs the witness of the Jewish historian =Josephus=, - which in its probably genuine portions praises Jesus as a worker - of miracles and teacher of wisdom, and testifies to His death on - the cross under Pilate, as well as the founding of the church in - His name. Distinctly and wholly spurious is the =Correspondence - of Christ with Abgar=, Prince of Edessa, who entreats Christ - to come to Edessa to heal him and is comforted of the Lord by - the sending of one of His disciples after His ascension. This - document was first communicated by Eusebius (_Hist. Eccl._, i. 13) - from the Archives of Edessa in a literal translation from the - Syriac, and is also to be found in the Syrian book _Doctrina - Addæi_ (§ 32, 6). Of a similar kind are the apocryphal =Acta - Pilati=, as well the heathen form which has perished (§ 22, 7), - as the Christian form which is still extant (§ 32, 4). An - =Epistle of Lentulus,= pretending to be from a Roman resident - in Palestine on terms of intimacy with Pilate, containing a - description of the appearance of Christ, is quoted, and even then - as a forgery, by Laurentius Valla in his writing on the _Donation - of Constantine_. Since in many particulars it agrees with the - description of the person of Christ given in the Church History - by Nicephorus Callisti (§ 5, 1), in accordance with the type then - prevailing among Byzantine painters, it may fairly be regarded - as an apocryphal Latin retouching of that description originating - in the fifteenth century. At Edessa a picture of Christ was known - to exist in the fourth century (according to the _Doctr. Addæi_), - which must have been brought thither by the messengers of Abgar, - who had picked it up in Jerusalem. During the fourth century - mention is made of a statue of Christ, first of all by Eusebius, - who himself had seen it. This was said to have been set up in - Paneas by the woman cured of the issue of blood (Matt. ix. 20). - It represents a woman entreating help, kneeling before the lofty - figure of a man who stretches out his hand to her, while at his - feet a healing herb springs up. In all probability, however, - it was simply a votive figure dedicated to the god of healing, - Æsculapius. The legend that has been current since the fifth - century of the sweat-marked handkerchief of =Veronica=--this name - being derived either from _vera icon_, the true likeness, or from - Bernice or Beronice, the name given in apocryphal legends to the - woman with the issue of blood,--on which the face of the Redeemer - which had been wiped by it was imprinted, probably arose through - the transferring to other incidents the legendary story of Edessa. - On the occurrence of similar transferences see § 57, 5. - - - - - II. THE APOSTOLIC AGE. - A.D. 30-70. - - - § 14. THE MINISTRY OF THE APOSTLES BEFORE PAUL. - - After the Apostolate had been again by means of the lot raised to the -significant number of twelve, amid miraculous manifestations, the Holy -Spirit was poured out on the waiting disciples as they were assembled -together on the day of Pentecost, ten days after the Ascension of the -Lord. It was the birthday of the church, and its first members were -won by the preaching of Peter to the wondering multitude. By means of -the ministry of the Apostles, who at first restricted themselves to -Jerusalem, the church grew daily. A keen persecution, however, on the -part of the Jews, beginning with the execution of the deacon Stephen, -scattered them apart, so that the knowledge of the gospel was carried -throughout all Palestine, and down into Phœnicia and Syria. Philip -preached with peculiarly happy results in Samaria. Peter soon began a -course of visitation through the land of Jews, and at Cæsarea received -into the church by baptism the first Gentile family, that of Cornelius, -having been prepared for this beforehand by a vision. At the same time -there arose independently at Antioch in Syria a Christian congregation, -composed of Jews and Gentiles, through the great eagerness of the -Gentiles for salvation. The Levite Barnabas, a man of strong faith, was -sent down from Jerusalem, took upon himself the care of this church, and -strengthened his own ministry by securing Paul, the converted Pharisee, -as his colleague. This great man, some years before, by the appearing of -Christ to him on the way to Damascus, had been changed from a fanatical -persecutor into a zealous friend and promoter of the interests of the -church. Thus it came about that the Apostolic mission broke up into -two different sections, one of which was purely Jewish and had for its -centre and starting point the mother church at Jerusalem, while the -other, issuing from Antioch, addressed itself to a mixed audience, and -preeminently to the Gentiles. - - It is difficult to determine with chronological exactness - either the =beginning= (§ 13, 1) or the =close of the Apostolic - Age=. Still we cannot be far wrong in taking A.D. 30 as the - beginning and A.D. 70 as the close of that period. The last - perfectly certain and uncontested date of the Apostolic Age is - the martyrdom of the Apostle Paul in A.D. 64, or perhaps A.D. 67, - see § 15, 1. We have it on good evidence that James the elder - died about A.D. 44, and James the Just about A.D. 63 (§ 16, 3), - that Peter suffered martyrdom contemporaneously with Paul - (§ 16, 1), that about the same time or not long after the most of - the other Apostles had been in all probability already taken home, - at least in regard to their life and work after the days of Paul, - we have not the slightest information that can lay any claim - to be regarded as historical. The Apostle John forms the only - exception to this statement. According to important witnesses - from the middle and end of the second century (§ 16, 2), he - entered upon his special field of labour in Asia Minor after - the death of Paul, and continued to live and labour there, with - the temporary interruption of an exile in Patmos, down to the - time of Trajan, A.D. 98-117. But the insufficient data which - we possess regarding the nature, character, extent, success, - and consequences of his Apostolic activity there are partly, - if not in themselves altogether incredible, interesting only - as anecdotes, and partly wholly fabulous, and therefore little - fitted to justify us, simply on their account, in assigning the - end of the first or the beginning of the second century as the - close of the Apostolic Age. We are thus brought back again to - the year of Paul’s death as indicating approximately the close of - that period. But seeing that the precise year of this occurrence - is matter of discussion, the adoption of the round number 70 may - be recommended, all the more as with this year, in which the last - remnant of Jewish national independence was lost, the opposition - between Jewish and Gentile Christianity, which had prevailed - throughout the Apostolic Age, makes its appearance under a new - phase (§ 28). - - - § 15. THE MINISTRY OF THE APOSTLE PAUL. - - Set apart to the work by the church by prayer and laying on of hands, -Paul and Barnabas started from Antioch on their =first= missionary -journey to Asia Minor, A.D. 48-50. Notwithstanding much opposition -and actual persecution on the part of the enraged Jews, he founded -mixed churches, composed principally of Gentile Christians, comprising -congregations at Antioch in Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe. When -Paul undertook his =second= missionary journey, A.D. 52-55, Barnabas -separated himself from him because of his refusal to accept the company -of his nephew John Mark, who had deserted them during their first -journey, and along with Mark embarked upon an independent mission, -beginning with his native country Cyprus; of the success of this mission -nothing is known. Paul, on the other hand, accompanied by Silas and -Luke, with whom at a later period Timothy also was associated, passed -through Asia Minor, and would thereafter have returned to Antioch had -not a vision by night at Troas led him to take ship for Europe. There he -founded churches at Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, and Corinth, -and then returned through Asia Minor to Syria. Without any lengthened -interval he entered upon his =third= missionary journey, A.D. 55-58, -accompanied by Luke, Titus, and Timothy. The centre of his ministerial -activity during this period was Ephesus, where he founded a church with -a large membership. His success was extraordinary, so that the very -existence of heathenism in Asia Minor was seriously imperilled. Driven -away by the uprising of a heathen mob, he travelled through Macedonia, -pressed on to Illyricum, visited the churches of Greece, and then went -to Jerusalem, for the performance of a vow. Here his life, threatened -by the excited Jews, was saved by his being put in prison by the Roman -captain, and then sent down to Cæsarea, A.D. 58. An appeal to Cæsar, to -which as a Roman citizen he was entitled, resulted in his being sent to -Rome, where he, beginning with the spring of A.D. 61, lived and preached -for several years, enduring a mild form of imprisonment. The further -course of his life and ministry remains singularly uncertain. Of the -later labours and fortunes of Paul’s fellow-workers we know absolutely -nothing. - - It may be accepted as a well authenticated and incontestable - fact that =Paul= suffered =martyrdom= at Rome under Nero. This - is established by the testimony of Clement of Rome--μαρτυρήσας - ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων οὕτως ἀπηλλάγη τοῦ κοσμοῦ,--and is further - explained and confirmed by Dionysius of Corinth, quoted in - Eusebius, and by Irenæus, Tertullian, Caius of Rome (§ 16, 1). On - the other hand it is disputed whether it may have happened during - the imprisonment spoken about in the Acts of the Apostles, or - during a subsequent imprisonment. According to the tradition of - the church given currency to by Eusebius (_Hist. Eccl._, ii. 22), - which even in our own time has been maintained by many capable - scholars, Paul was released from his first Roman imprisonment - shortly before the outburst of Nero’s persecution of the - Christians in A.D. 64 (§ 22, 1), and made a fourth missionary - journey which was brought to a close by his being a second - time arrested and subsequently beheaded at Rome in A.D. 67. The - proofs, however, that are offered in support of this assertion - are of a very doubtful character. Paul certainly in A.D. 58 - had the intention (Rom. xv. 24, 28) after a short visit to Rome - to proceed to Spain; and when from his prison in Rome he wrote - to Philemon (v. 22) and to the Philippians (i. 25; ii. 24), he - believed that his cherished hope of yet regaining his liberty - would be realised; but there is no further mention of a journey - into Spain, for apparently other altogether different plans of - travel are in his mind. And indeed circumstances may easily be - conceived as arising to blast such hopes and produce in him that - spirit of hopeless resignation, which he gives expression to - in 2 Tim. iv. 6 ff. But the words of Clement of Rome, chap. 5: - δικαιοσύνην διδάξας ὅλον τὸν κόσμον καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως - ἐλθών, etc., are too indefinite and rhetorical to be taken as - a certain testimony on behalf of a Spanish missionary journey. - The incomplete reference in the Muratorian Fragment (§ 36, 8) - to a _profectio Pauli ab Urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentis_ may - be thought to afford more direct testimony, but probably it is - nothing more than a reminiscence of Rom. xv. 24, 28. Much more - important, nay almost conclusive, in the opposite direction, is - the entire absence, not only from all the patristic, but also - from all the apocryphal, literature of the second and third - centuries, of any allusion to a fourth missionary journey or a - second imprisonment of the Apostle. The assertion of Eusebius - introduced by a vague λόγος ἔχει can scarcely be regarded as - outweighing this objection. Consequently the majority of modern - investigators have decided in favour of the theory of one - imprisonment. But then the important question arises as to - whether the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, claiming to be Pauline, - with the journeys referred to or presupposed in them, and the - residences of the Apostle and his two assistants, can find - a place in the framework of the narrative in the Acts of the - Apostles, and if so, what that place may be. In answering this - question those investigators take diverse views. Of those who - cannot surrender their conviction that the Pastoral Epistles - are genuine, some assign them to the Apostle’s residence of - almost three years in Ephesus, others to the imprisonment in - Cæsarea which lasted two years and a half, and others to the - Roman imprisonment of almost three years. Others again, looking - upon such expedients as inadmissible, deny the authenticity of - the Pastoral Epistles, these having appeared to them worthy of - suspicion on other grounds. - - - § 16. THE OTHER APOSTLES AFTER THE APPEARANCE - OF THE APOSTLE PAUL. - - Only in reference to the most distinguished of the Apostles have any -trustworthy accounts reached us. James the brother of John, at an early -period, in A.D. 44, suffered a martyr’s death at Jerusalem. Peter was -obliged by this persecution to quit Jerusalem for a time. Inclination -and his special calling marked him out as the Apostle of the Jews -(Gal. ii. 7-9). His ministry outside of Palestine was exercised, -according to 1 Pet. i. 1, in the countries round about the Black Sea, -and, according to chap. v. 13, extended to Babylon. The legend that, -contemporaneously with the beheading of Paul, he suffered death by -crucifixion under Nero at Rome (John xxi. 18, 19), is doubtful; and -it is also questionable whether he ever went to Rome, while the story -of his having down to the time of his death been Bishop of Rome for -twenty-five years is wholly fabulous. John, according to the tradition -of the church, took up Asia Minor as his special field of labour after -it had been deprived of its first Apostle by the martyr death of Paul, -fixing his residence at Ephesus. At the head of the mother church of -Jerusalem stood James the Just, the brother of the Lord. He seems never -to have left Jerusalem, and was stoned by the Jews between A.D. 63-69. -Regarding the rest of the Apostles and their fellow-workers we have only -legendary traditions of an extremely untrustworthy description, and even -these have come down to us in very imperfect and corrupt forms. - - § 16.1. =The Roman Episcopate of Peter.=--The tradition that - Peter, after having for some years held the office of bishop - at Antioch, became first Bishop of Rome, holding the office for - twenty-five years (A.D. 42-67), and suffered martyrdom at the - same time with Paul, had its origin in the series of heretical - apocryphal writings, out of which sprang, both the romance of the - Clementine Homilies and Recognitions (§ 28, 3), and the Ebionite - Acts of Peter; but it attained its complete form only at the end - of the fourth century, after it had been transplanted into the - soil of the church tradition through the _Acta Petri et Pauli_ - (§ 32, 6). What chiefly secured currency and development to this - tradition was the endeavour, ever growing in strength in Rome, - to vindicate on behalf of the Roman Episcopate as the legitimate - successor and heir to all the prerogatives alleged to have been - conferred on Peter in Matt. xvi. 18, a title to primacy over all - the churches (§ 34, 8; 46, 3 ff.). But that Peter had not really - been in Rome as a preacher of the gospel previous to the year - A.D. 61, when Paul came to Rome as a prisoner, is evident from the - absence of any reference to the fact in the Epistle to the Romans, - written in A.D. 58, as well as in the concluding chapter of the - Acts of the Apostles. According to the Acts, Peter in A.D. 44 - lay in prison at Jerusalem, and according to Gal. ii., he was - still there in A.D. 51. Besides, according to the unanimous - verdict of tradition, as expressed by Irenæus, Eusebius, Rufinus, - and the Apostolic Constitutions, not Peter, but Linus, was the - first Bishop of Rome, and it is only in regard to the order of - his successors, Anacletus and Clement, that any real uncertainty - or discrepancy occurs. This, indeed, by no means prevents us - from admitting an appearance of Peter at Rome resulting in his - martyrdom. But the testimonies in favour thereof are not of such - a kind as to render its historical reality unquestionable. That - Babylon is mentioned in 1 Pet. v. 13 as the place where this - Epistle was composed, can scarcely be used as a serious argument, - since the supposition that Babylon is a symbolical designation - of Rome as the centre of anti-Christian heathenism, though quite - conceivable and widely current in the early church, is not by any - means demonstrable. Toward the end of the first century, Clement - of Rome relates the martyrdom of Peter as well as of Paul, but - he does not even say that it took place at Rome. On the other - hand, clear and unmistakable statements are found in Dionysius - of Corinth, about A.D. 170, then in Caius of Rome, in Irenæus - and Tertullian, to the effect that Peter and Paul exercised - their ministry together and suffered martyrdom together at Rome. - These statements, however, are interwoven with obviously false - and fabulous dates to such a degree that their credibility is - rendered extremely doubtful. Nevertheless they prove this much, - that already about the end of the second century, the story - of the two Apostles suffering martyrdom together at Rome was - believed, and that some, of whom Caius tells us, professed to - know their graves and to have their bones in their possession. - - § 16.2. =The Apostle John.=--Soon after the death of Paul, the - Apostle John settled in Ephesus, and there, with the temporary - break caused by his exile to Patmos (Rev. i. 9), he continued - to preside over the church of Asia Minor down to his death in - the time of Trajan (A.D. 98-117). This rests upon the church - tradition which, according to Polycrates of Ephesus (Eus., _Hist. - Eccl._, v. 24) and Irenæus, a scholar of Polycarp’s (Eus., iv. 14), - was first set forth during the Easter controversies (§ 37, 2) - in the middle of the second century by Polycarp of Smyrna, and - has been accepted as unquestionable through all ages down to our - own. According to Irenæus (Eus., iii. 18), his exile occurred - under Domitian; the Syrian translation of the Apocalypse, which - was made in the sixth century, assigned it to the time of Nero. - But seeing that, except in Rev. i. 11, neither in the New - Testament scriptures, nor in the extant writings and fragments - of the Church Fathers of the second century before Irenæus, is - a residence of the Apostle John at Ephesus asserted or assumed, - whereas Papias (§ 30, 6), according to Georgius Hamartolus, a - chronicler of the 9th cent., who had read the now lost work of - Papias, expressly declares that the Apostle John was slain “by - Jews” (comp. Matt. xx. 23), which points to Palestine rather - than to Asia Minor, modern critics have denied the credibility - of that ecclesiastical tradition, and have attributed its origin - to a confusion between the Apostle John and a certain John the - Presbyter, with whom we first meet in the Papias-Fragment quoted - in Eusebius as μαθητὴς τοῦ κυρίου. Others again, while regarding - the residence of the Apostle at Ephesus as well established, have - sought, on account of differences in style standpoint and general - mode of thought in the Johannine Apocalypse on the one hand, and - the Johannine Gospel and Epistles on the other hand, to assign - them to two distinct μαθηταὶ τοῦ κυρίου of the same name, and - by assigning the Apocalypse to the Presbyter and the Gospel and - Epistles to the Apostle, they would in this way account for the - residence at Ephesus. This is the course generally taken by the - Mediation theologians of Schleiermacher’s school. The advanced - liberal critics of the school of Baur assign the Apocalypse to - the Apostle and the Gospel and Epistles to the Presbyter, or else - instead of the Apostle assume a third John otherwise unknown. - Conservative orthodox theology again maintains the unity of - authorship of all the Johannean writings, explains the diversity - of character discernible in the different works by a change on - the part of the Apostle from the early Judæo-Christian standpoint - (Gal. ii. 9), which is still maintained in the Apocalypse, to - the ideal universalistic standpoint assumed in the Gospel and - the Epistles, and is inclined to identify the Presbyter of Papias - with the Apostle. Even in Tertullian we meet with the tradition - that under Nero the Apostle had been thrown into a vat of boiling - oil, and in Augustine we are told how he emptied a poisoned cup - without suffering harm. It is a charming story at least that - Clement of Alexandria tells of the faithful pastoral care which - the aged Apostle took in a youth who had fallen so far as to - become a bandit chief. Of such a kind, too, is the story told of - the Apostle by Jerome, how in the extreme weakness of old age he - had to be carried into the assemblies of the congregation, and - with feeble accents could only whisper, Little children, love one - another. According to Irenæus, when by accident he met with the - heretic Cerinthus (§ 27, 1) in the bath, he immediately rushed - out to avoid any contact with him. - - § 16.3. =James, the brother of the Lord.=--The name of James was - borne by two of the twelve disciples of Jesus: James, the son of - Zebedee and brother of John, who was put to death by the command - of Herod Agrippa I. (Acts xii. 2) about A.D. 44, and James, - son of Alphæus, about whom we have no further information. A - third James, designated in Gal. i. 19 the brother of the Lord, - who according to Hegesippus (Euseb., _Hist. Eccl._, ii. 23) on - account of his scrupulous fulfilment of the law received the - title of the Just, is met with in Acts xii. 17; xv. 13; xxi. 18, - and is recognised by Paul (Gal. i. 19; ii. 9-12) as the President - of the church in Jerusalem. According to Hegesippus (§ 31, 7), - he was from his childhood a Nazirite, and shortly before the - destruction of Jerusalem, the Jews at the Passover having desired - of him a testimony against Christ, and he having instead given - a powerful testimony on His behalf, he was hurled down from a - pinnacle of the temple, stoned, and at last, while praying for - his enemies, slain by the blows of a fuller’s club. According - to Josephus, however, Ananus, the high priest, after the recall - of the Proconsul Festus and before the arrival of his successor - Albinus, along with other men hostile to James, hastily condemned - him and had him stoned, about A.D. 63. In regard to the person of - this last-named James three different theories have been proposed. - - a. In the ancient church, the brothers of Jesus, of whom besides - James other three, Joses, Simon, and Judas, are named, were - regarded undoubtedly as step-brothers of Jesus, sons of - Joseph and Mary (Matt. i. 25), and even Tertullian argues - from the existence of brothers of the Redeemer according to - the flesh against the Docetism of the Gnostics. - - b. Soon, however, it came to be felt that the idea that Joseph - had conjugal intercourse with Mary after the birth of Jesus - was in conflict with the ascetic tendency now rising into - favour, and so to help themselves out of this embarrassment, - it was assumed that the brothers of Jesus were sons of - Joseph by a former wife. - - c. The want of biblical foundation for this view was the - occasion of its being abandoned in favour of a theory, - first hinted at by Jerome, according to which the expression - brothers of Jesus is to be taken in a wider sense as meaning - cousins, and in this way James the brother of the Lord was - identified with James the son of Alphæus, one of the twelve - disciples, and the four or five Jameses named in the New - Testament were reduced to two, James the son of Zebedee - and James son of Alphæus. It was specially urged from - John xix. 25 that James the son of Alphæus was the sister’s - son of Jesus’ mother. This was done by a purely arbitrary - identification of the name Clopas or Cleophas with the - Alphæus of the Synoptists, the rendering of the words Μαρία - τοῦ Κλωπᾶ by the wife of Clopas, and also the assumption, - which is scarcely conceivable, that the sister of the mother - of Jesus was also called Mary. We should therefore in this - passage regard the sister of the mother of Jesus and Mary - wife of Clopas as two distinct persons. In that case the - wife of Alphæus may have been called Mary and have had two - sons who, like two of the four brothers of Jesus, were named - James and Joses (Matt. xxvii. 56; Mark xv. 40; Luke xxiv. 10); - but even then, in the James here mentioned, we should meet - with another James otherwise unknown, different from the - James son of Alphæus in the list of the Apostles, whose name - occurs in Luke xv. 16 and Acts i. 13 in the phrase Judas of - James, where the genitive undoubtedly means brother of James - son of Alphæus. And though in Gal. i. 19, James the brother - of the Lord seems to be called an Apostle, when this is - compared with Acts xiv. 14, it affords no proof that he - belonged to the number of the twelve. - - But the fact that the brothers of Jesus are all and always - expressly distinguished from His twelve Apostles, and form a - group outwardly and inwardly apart from them (Matt. xii. 46; - Mark iii. 31; Luke viii. 19; John ii. 12), tells decidedly against - that idea. In John vii. 3, 5, they are, at a time when James - son of Alphæus and Judas brother of James were already in the - Apostolate, described as unbelieving, and only subsequently to - the departure of the Lord, who after His resurrection appeared - to James (1 Cor. xv. 7), do we meet them, though even then - distinguished from the twelve, standing in the closest fellowship - with the Christian believing community (Acts i. 14; 1 Cor. ix. 5). - Besides, in accordance with Matt. xxviii. 19, none of the twelve - could assume the permanent presidency of the mother church, and - Hegesippus not only knows of πολλοὶ Ἰάκωβοι, and so surely of - more than two, but makes James enter upon his office in Jerusalem - first μετὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων. - - § 16.4. =The Later Legends of the Apostles.=--The tradition that - after the Lord’s ascension His disciples, their number having - been again made up to twelve (Acts i. 13), in fulfilment of - their Lord’s command (Matt. xxviii. 18), had a special region - for missionary labour assigned by lot to each, and also the other - tradition, according to which, before their final departure from - Jerusalem, after a stay there for seven or twelve years, they - drew up by common agreement rules for worship, discipline and - constitution suited to the requirements of universal Christendom, - took shape about the middle of the second century, and gave - occasion to the origin of many apocryphal histories of the - Apostles (§ 32, 5, 6), as well as apocryphal books of church - order (§ 43, 4, 5). Whether any portion at all, and if so, how - much, of the various contradictory statements of the apocryphal - histories and legends of the Apostles about their mission - fields and several fortunes can be regarded as genuine tradition - descending from the Apostolic Age, must be left undecided. In any - case, the legendary drapery and embellishment of casual genuine - reminiscences are in the highest degree fantastic and fabulous. - Ancient at least, according to Eusebius, are the traditions - of Thomas having preached in Parthia, Andrew in Scythia, and - Bartholomew in India; while in later traditions Thomas figures - as the Apostle of India (§ 32, 5). The statement by Eusebius, - supported from many ancient authorities, that the Apostle Philip - exercised his ministry from Hierapolis in Phrygia to Asia Minor, - originated perhaps from the confounding of the Apostle with the - Evangelist of the same name (Acts xxi. 8, 9). A history of the - Apostle Barnabas, attributed to John Mark, but in reality dating - only from the fifth century, attaching itself to Acts xv. 39, - tells how he conducted his mission and suffered martyrdom in his - native country of Cyprus; while another set of legends, probably - belonging to the same period, makes him the founder of the church - of Milan. John Mark, sister’s son of Barnabas, who appears in - Col. iv. 10; 2 Tim. iv. 11; and Philem. 24, as the fellow-labourer - of the Apostle Paul, in 1 Pet. v. 13 as companion of Peter at - Babylon, and, according to Papias, wrote his gospel at Rome as - the amanuensis of Peter, is honoured, according to another very - widely received tradition, quoted by Eusebius from a Chronicle - belonging to the end of the second century, from which also - Julius Africanus drew information, as the founder and first - bishop of the church of Alexandria, etc., etc. - - - § 17. CONSTITUTION, WORSHIP, AND DISCIPLINE.[6] - - Bound under Christ its one head into an articulated whole, the church -ought by the co-operation of all its members conditioned and determined -by position, talent, and calling, to build itself up and grow (1 Cor. -xii. 12 ff.; Eph. i. 22 f.). Development will thus be secured to natural -talent and the spiritual calling through the bestowment of special gifts -of grace or charismata. The first form of Christian church fellowship, -in the Jewish as well as the Gentile Christian churches, was of a -thoroughly free character; modelled upon, and attached to, forms of -organization already existing and legitimized, or, at least, tolerated -by the state, but all the while inspired and leavened by a free -Christian spirit. Compelled by the necessity which is felt in all social -federations for the recognised ranking of superiority, inferiority, and -equality, in which his own proper sphere and task would be assigned to -each member, and encroachment and disorderliness prevented, a collegial -church council was soon formed by a free compact, the members of which, -all possessed of equal rights, were called πρεσβύτεροι in consideration -of their personal character, and ἐπίσκοποι in consideration of their -official duties. Upon them devolved especially attention and care in -regard to all outward things that might affect the common interests -of the church, management of the property which had to be realised -and spent on the religious services, and of the means required for the -support of the poor, as well as the administration of justice and of -discipline. But alongside of these were other more independent offices, -the holders of which did not go forth like the members of the eldership -as the choice of the churches, but rather had the spiritual edification -of the church assigned them as their life work by a special divine -call and a charismatic endowment of the gift of teaching. To this class -belong, besides Apostles and helpers of the Apostles, Prophets, Pastors, -and Teachers. - - § 17.1. =The Charismata= of the Apostolic Age are presented to us - in 1 Cor. xii. 4 ff. as signs (φανερώσεις, v. 7) of the presence - of the Spirit of God working in the church, which, attaching - themselves to natural endowment and implying a free personal - surrender to their influence, and manifesting themselves in - various degrees of intensity from the natural to the supernatural, - qualified certain members of the church with the powers necessary - and desirable for the upbuilding and extension of the Christian - community. In verses 8-11, the Charismata are arranged in three - classes by means of the twice-repeated ἑτέρω. - - 1. Gifts of Teaching, embracing the λόγος σοφίας and the λόγος - γνώσεως. - - 2. Completeness of Faith, or πίστις with the possession of - supernatural powers for healing the sick, working miracles, - and prophesying, and alongside of the latter, for sifting - and proving it, διάκρισις πνευμάτων. - - 3. Ecstatic speaking with tongues, γένη γλωσσῶν, γλώσσαις - λαλεῖν, alongside of which is placed the interpretation of - tongues necessary for the understanding thereof ἑρμενεία - γλωσσῶν. - - In addition to these three are mentioned, in verse 28, ἀντιλήψεις, - care of the poor, the sick and strangers, and κυβερνήσεις, church - government. The essential distinction between speaking with - tongues and prophesying consists, according to 1 Cor. xiv. 1-18, - in this, that whereas the latter is represented as an inspiration - by the Spirit of God, acting upon the consciousness, the νοῦς of - the prophet, and therefore requiring no further explanation to - render it applicable for the edification of the congregation, - the former is represented as an ecstatic utterance, wholly - uncontrolled by the νοῦς of the human instrument, yet employing - the human organs of speech, γλῶσσαι, which leaves the assembled - congregation out of view and addresses itself directly to God, - so that in ver. 13-15 it is called a προσεύχεσθαι, being made - intelligible to the audience only by means of the charismatic - interpretation of men immediately acted upon for the purpose by - the Spirit of God. In Rom. xii. 6-8, although there the charisms - are enumerated in even greater details, so as to include even - the showing of mercy with cheerfulness, the γλώσσαις λαλεῖν is - wanting. It would thus seem that this sort of spiritual display, - if not exclusively (Acts ii. 4; x. 46; xix. 6; Mark xvi. 17), yet - with peculiar fondness, which was by no means commended by the - Apostle, was fostered in the church of Corinth. The thoroughly - unique speaking with tongues which took place on the first - Pentecost (Acts ii. 6, 11) is certainly not to be understood - as implying that the Apostles had been either temporarily - or permanently qualified to speak in the several languages - and dialects of those present from all the countries of the - dispersion. It probably means simply that the power was conferred - upon the speakers of speaking with tongues and that at the same - time an analogous endowment of the interpretation of tongues - was conferred upon those who heard (Comp., Acts ii. 12, 15, with - 1 Cor. xiv. 22 f. ). - - § 17.2. =The Constitution of the Mother Church at - Jerusalem.=--The notion which gained currency through Vitringa’s - learned work “_De synagoga vetere_,” publ. 1696, that the - constitution of the Apostolic church was moulded upon the pattern - of the synagogues, is now no longer seriously entertained. Not - only in regard to the Pauline churches wholly or chiefly composed - of Gentile Christians, but also in regard to the Palestinian - churches of purely Jewish Christians, no evidence in support - of such a theory can be found. There is no sort of analogy - between any office bearers in the church and the ἀρχισυνάγωγοι - who were essentially characteristic of all the synagogues - both in Palestine and among the dispersion (Mark v. 22; - Luke viii. 41, 49; Acts xiii. 15; xviii. 8, 17), nor do we find - anything to correspond to the ὑπήρεται or inferior officers of - the synagogue (Luke iv. 20). On the other hand, the office bearers - of the Christian churches, who, consisting, according to Acts vi., - of deacons, and also afterwards, according to Acts xi. 30, of - πρεσβύτεροι, or elders of the church at Jerusalem, occupied a - place alongside of the Apostles in the government of the church, - are without any analogy in the synagogues. The Jewish πρεσβύτεροι - τοῦ λαοῦ mentioned in Matt. xxi. 23; xxvi. 3; Acts iv. 5; xxii. 5, - etc., did not exercise a ministry of teaching and edification in - the numerous synagogues of Jerusalem, but a legislatory, judicial - and civil authority over the whole Jewish commonwealth as members - of the Sanhedrim, of chief priest, scribes and elders. Between - even these, however, and the elders of the Christian church a - far-reaching difference exists. The Jewish elders are indeed - representatives of the people, and have as such a seat and vote - in the supreme council, but no voice is allowed to the people - themselves. In the council of the Christian church, on the other - hand, with reference to all important questions, the membership - of all believers is called together for consultation and - deliverance (Acts vi. 2-6; xv. 4, 22). A complaint on the part - of the Hellenistic members of the church that their poor were - being neglected led to the election of seven men who should care - for the poor, not by the Apostles, but by the church. This is - commonly but erroneously regarded as the first institution of - the deaconship. To those then chosen, for whom the Acts (xxi. 8) - has no other designation than that of “the seven,” the διακονεῖν - τραπέζαις is certainly assigned: but they were not and were not - called Deacons in the official sense any more than the Apostles, - who still continued, according to v. 4, to exercise the διακονία - τοῦ λόγου. When the bitter persecution that followed the stoning - of Stephen had scattered the church abroad over the neighbouring - countries, they also departed at the same time from Jerusalem - (Acts viii. 1), and Philip, who was now the most notable of their - number, officiated henceforth only as an evangelist, that is, as - an itinerant preacher of the gospel, in the region about his own - house in Cæsarea (Acts viii. 5; xxi. 8; comp. Eph. iv. 11; 2 Tim. - iv. 5). Upon the reorganization of the church at Jerusalem, the - Apostles beginning more clearly to appreciate their own special - calling (Matt. xxviii. 19), gave themselves more and more to the - preaching of the gospel even outside of Jerusalem, and thus the - need became urgent of an authoritative court for the conducting - of the affairs of the church even during their absence. In these - circumstances it would seem, according to Acts xi. 30, that those - who ministered to the poor, chosen probably from among the most - honourable of the first believers (Acts ii. 41), passed over into - a self-constituted college of presbyters. At the head of this - college or board stood James, the brother of the Lord (Gal. i. 19; - ii. 9; Acts xii. 17; xv. 13; xxi. 15), and after his death, - according to Hegesippus, a near relation of the Lord, Simeon, - son of Clopas, as a descendant of David, was unanimously chosen - as his successor. The episcopal title, however, just like that of - Deacon, is first met with in the New Testament in the region of - the Pauline missions, and in the terminology of the Palestinian - churches we only hear of presbyters as officers of the church - (Acts xv. 4, 6, 22; xxi. 18; James v. 14). In 1 Peter v. 2, - however, although ἐπίσκοπος does not yet appear as an official - title, the official duty of the ἐπισκοπεῖν is assigned to - presbyters (see § 17, 6). It is Hegesippus, about A.D. 180, who - first gives the title Bishop of Jerusalem to James, after the - Clementines (§ 28, 3) had already ten years previously designated - him ἐπισκόπων ἐπίσκοπος. - - § 17.3. =The Constitution of the Pauline Churches.= Founding upon - the works of Mommsen and Foucart, first of all Heinrici and soon - afterwards the English theologian Hatch[7] has wrought out the - theory that the constitution of the churches that were wholly - or mainly composed of Gentile Christians was modelled on those - convenient, open or elastic rules of associations under which - the various Hellenistic guilds prospered so well (θίασοι, - ἔρανοι),--associations for the naturalization and fostering of - foreign, often oriental, modes of worship. In the same way, too, - the Christian church at Rome, for social and sacred purposes, - made use of the forms of association employed in the Collegia or - Sodalicia, which were found there in large numbers, especially - of the funeral societies in which both of those purposes were - combined (_collegia funeraticia_). In both these cases, then, - the church, by attaching itself to modes of association already - existing, acknowledged by the state, or tolerated as harmless, - assumed a form of existence which protected it from the suspicion - of the government, and at the same time afforded it space and - time for independent construction in accordance with its own - special character and spirit. As in those Hellenic associations - all ranks, even those which in civil society were separated from - one another by impassable barriers, found admission, and then, - in the framing of statutes, the reception of fellow members, the - exercise of discipline, possessed equal rights; as, further, the - full knowledge of their mysteries and sharing in their exercise - were open only to the initiated (μεμυημένοι), yet in the exercise - of exoteric worship the doors were hospitably flung open even to - the ἀμυήτοι; as upon certain days those belonging to the narrow - circle joining together in partaking of a common feast; so too - all this is found in the Corinthian church, naturally inspired - by a Christian spirit and enriched with Christian contents. The - church also has its religious common feast in its Agape, its - mystery in the Eucharist, its initiation in baptism, by the - administration of which the divine service is divided into two - parts, one esoteric, to be engaged in only by the baptized, - the other exoteric, a service that is open to those who are - not Christians. All ranks (Gal. iii. 28) have the same claim - to admission to baptism, all the baptized have equal rights in - the congregation (see § 17, 7). It is evident, however, that - the connection between the Christian churches and those heathen - associations is not so to be conceived as if, because in the one - case distinctions of rank were abolished, so also they were in - the other; or that, because in the one case religious festivals - were observed, this gave the first hint as to the observance of - the Christian Agape; or that, because and in the manner in which - there a mysterious service was celebrated from which all outside - were strictly excluded, so also here was introduced an exclusive - eucharistic service. These observances are rather to be regarded - as having grown up independently out of the inmost being of - Christianity; but the church having found certain institutions - existing inspired by a wholly different spirit, yet outwardly - analogous and sanctioned by the state, it appropriated, as far - as practicable, their forms of social organization, in order to - secure for itself the advantages of civil protection. That even - on the part of the pagans, down into the last half of the second - century, the Christian congregational fellowship was regarded as - a special kind of the mystery-communities, is shown by Lucian’s - satire, _De morte Peregrini_ (§ 23, 1), where the description - of Christian communities, in which its hero for a time played - a part, is full of technical terms which were current in - those associations. “It is also,” says Weingarten, “expressly - acknowledged in Tertullian’s _Apologeticus_, c. 38, 39, written - about A.D. 198, that even down to the close of the second century, - the Christian church was organized in accordance with the rules - of the _Collegia funeraticia_, so that it might claim from the - state the privileges of the _Factiones licitæ_. The arrangements - for burial and the Christian institutions connected therewith are - shown to have been carefully subsumed under forms that were - admitted to be legal.” - - § 17.4. Confining ourselves meantime to the oldest and - indisputably authentic epistles of the Apostle, we find that - the autonomy of the church in respect of organization, government, - discipline, and internal administration is made prominent as - the very basis of the constitution. He never interferes in those - matters, enjoining and prescribing by his own authority, but - always, whether personally or in spirit, only as associated with - their assemblies (1 Cor. v. 3), deliberating and deciding in - common with them. Thus his Apostolic importance shows itself not - in his assuming the attitude of a lord (2 Cor. i. 24), but that - of a father (1 Cor. iv. 14 f.), who seeks to lead his children - on to form for themselves independent and manly judgments (1 Cor. - x. 15; xi. 13). Regular and fixed church officers do not seem to - have existed in Corinth down to the time when the first Epistle - was written, about A.D. 57. A diversity of functions (διαιρέσεις - διακονιῶν, 1 Cor. xii. 4) is here, indeed, already found, but - not yet definitely attached to distinct and regular offices - (1 Cor. vi. 1-6). It is always yet a voluntary undertaking of such - ministries on the one hand, and the recognition of peculiar piety - and faithfulness, leading to willing submission on the other hand, - out of which the idea of office took its rise, and from which - it obtained its special character. This is especially true of - a peculiar kind of ministry (Rom. xvi. 1, 2) which must soon - have been developed as something indispensable to the Christian - churches throughout the Hellenic and Roman regions. We mean - the part played by the patron, which was so deeply grounded in - the social life of classical antiquity. Freedmen, foreigners, - proletarii, could not in themselves hold property and had no - claim on the protection of the laws, but had to be associated - as _Clientes_ with a _Patronus_ or _Patrona_ (προστάτης and - προστάτις) who in difficult circumstances would afford them - counsel, protection, support, and defence. As in the Greek and - Roman associations for worship this relationship had long before - taken root, and was one of the things that contributed most - materially to their prosperity, so also in the Christian churches - the need for recognising and giving effect to it became all the - more urgent in proportion as the number of members increasing - for whom such support was necessary (1 Cor. i. 26-29). Phœbe - is warmly recommended in Rom. xvi. 1, 2, as such a Christian - προστάτις, at Cenchrea, the port of Corinth, among whose numerous - clients the Apostle himself is mentioned. Many inscriptions in - the Roman catacombs testify to the deep impress which this social - scheme made upon the organization, especially of the Roman church, - down to the end of the first century, and to the help which it - gave in rendering that church permanent. All the more are we - justified in connecting therewith the προϊστάμενος ἐν σπουδῇ - (Rom. xii. 8), and in giving this passage in connection with the - preceding and succeeding context the meaning: whoever represents - any one as patron let him do it with diligence.--The gradual - development of stated or independent =congregational offices=, - after privileges and duties were distinguished from one another, - was thus brought about partly by the natural course of events, - and partly by the endeavour to make the church organization - correspond with the Greek and Roman religious associations - countenanced by the state by the employment in it of the same - or similar forms and names. In the older communities, especially - those in capital cities, like Thessalonica, Corinth, Rome, etc., - the heads of the families of the first believers attained an - authoritative position altogether unique, as at Corinth those of - the household of Stephanas, who, according to 1 Cor. xvi. 15, as - the ἀπαρχὴ τῆς Ἀχαΐας εἰς διακονίαν τοῖς ἁγίοις ἔταξαν ἑαυτούς. - Such honour, too, was given to the most serviceable of the - chosen patrons and others, who evidently possessed the gifts of - κυβερνήσεις and ἀντιλήψεις, and those who first in an informal - way had discharged official duties had amends made them even - after death by a formal election. On the other hand, the - churches that sprang up at a later period were probably provided - immediately with such offices under the direction and with the - consent of the Apostle or his apostolic assistants (1 Tim. v. 9; - Tit. i. 5). - - § 17.5. =Congregational and Spiritual Offices.=--While then, down - to A.D. 57 no ecclesiastical offices properly so called as yet - existed at Corinth, and no injunctions are given by the Apostle - for their definite introduction, it is told us in Acts xiv. 23 - that, so early as A.D. 50, when Paul was returning from his first - missionary journey he ordained with prayer and fasting elders - or presbyters in those churches of Asia Minor previously founded - by him. Now it is indeed quite conceivable that in these cases - he adhered more closely to the already existing presbyterial - constitution of the mother church at Jerusalem (Acts xi. 30), - than he did subsequently in founding and giving a constitution - to the churches of the European cities where perhaps the - circumstances and requirements were entirely different. But - be this as it may, it is quite certain that the Apostle on his - departure from lately formed churches took care to leave them - in an organized condition, and the author of the Acts has given - expression to the fact proleptically in terms with which he was - himself conversant and which were current in his time.--Among the - Pauline epistles which are scarcely, if at all, objected to by - modern criticism the first to give certain information regarding - distinct and independent congregational offices, together - with the names that had been then assigned to these offices, - is the Epistle to the Philippians, written during the Roman - imprisonment of the Apostle. In chap. i. 1, he sends his apostolic - greeting and blessing πᾶσι τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Φιλίπποις - σὺν ἐπισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις.[8] The =Episcopate= and the - =Diaconate= make their appearance here as the two categories - of congregational offices, of both of which there are several - representatives in each congregation. It is in the so-called - Pastoral Epistles that for the first time we find applied in - the Gentile Christian communities the title of =Presbyter= which - had been the usual designation of the president in the mother - church at Jerusalem. This title, just as in Acts xx. 17, 28, is - undoubtedly regarded as identical with that of bishop (ἐπίσκοπος) - and is used as an alternative (Tit. i. 5, 7; 1 Tim. iii. 1; iv. 14; - v. 17, 19). From the practical identity of the qualifications - of bishops (1 Tim. iii. 1) or of deacons (_v._ 12 f.), it follows - that their callings were essentially the same; and from the - etymological signification of their names, it would seem - that there was assigned to the bishops the duty of governing, - administrating and superintending, to the deacons that of serving, - assisting and carrying out details as subordinate auxiliaries. It - is shown by Rom. xvi. 1, that even so early as A.D. 58, the need - of a female order of helpers had been felt and was supplied. When - this order had at a later period assumed the rank of a regular - office, it became the rule that only widows above sixty years - of age should be chosen (1 Tim. v. 9).--We are introduced to - an altogether different order of ecclesiastical authorities in - Eph. iv. 11, where we have named in the first rank =Apostles=, - in the second =Prophets=, in the third =Evangelists=, and in the - fourth =Pastors= and =Teachers=. What is here meant by Apostles - and Prophets is quite evident (§ 34, 1). From 2 Tim. iv. 5 and - Acts xxi. 8 (viii. 5), it follows that Evangelists are itinerant - preachers of the gospel and assistants of the Apostles. It is - more difficult to determine exactly the functions of Pastors and - Teachers and their relation to the regular congregational offices. - Their introduction in Eph. iv. 11, as together constituting a - fourth class, as well as the absence of the term Pastor in the - parallel passage, 1 Cor. xii. 28, 29, presupposes such a close - connection of the two orders, the one having the care of souls, - the other the duties of preaching and catechizing, that we - unhesitatingly assume that both were, if not always, at least - generally, united in the same person. They have been usually - identified with the bishops or presbyters. In Acts xx. 17, 28, - and in 1 Pet. v. 2-4, presbyters are expressly called pastors. - The order of the ἡγούμενοι in Heb. xiii. 7, οἵτινες ἐλάλησαν ὑμῖν - τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ, has also been regarded as identical with that - of bishops. In regard to the last named order a confusion already - appears in Acts xv., where men, who in _v._ 22 are expressly - distinguished from the elders (presbyters) and in _v._ 32 are - ranked as prophets, are yet called ἡγούμενοι. We should also - be led to conclude from 1 Cor. xii. 28, that those who had - the qualifications of ἀντιλήψεις and κυβερνήσεις, functions - certainly belonging to bishops or presbyters as administrative - and diocesan officers, are yet personally distinguished from - Apostles, Prophets, and Teachers. Now it is explicitly enjoined - in Tit. i. 9 that in the choice of bishops special care should be - taken to see that they have capacity for teaching. In 1 Tim. v. 17 - double honour is demanded for the καλῶς προεστῶτες πρεσβύτεροι, - if they also labour ἐν λόγῳ καὶ διδασκαλίᾳ. This passage, however, - shows teaching did not always and in all circumstances, or even - _ex professo_ belong to the special functions of the president - of the congregation; that it was rather in special circumstances, - where perhaps these gifts were not at all or not in sufficient - abundance elsewhere to be found, that these duties of teaching - were undertaken in addition to their own proper official work of - presidency (προϊστάναι). The dividing line between the two orders, - bishops and deacons on the one hand, and pastors and teachers - on the other, consists in the fundamentally different nature of - their calling. The former were congregational offices, the latter, - like those of Apostles and Prophets, were spiritual offices. The - former were chosen by the congregation, the latter had, like the - Apostles and Prophets, a divine call, though according to James - iii. 1 not without the consenting will of the individual, and - the charismatic capacity for teaching, although not in the - same absolute measure. The former were attached to a particular - congregation, the latter were, like the Apostles and Prophets, - first of all itinerant teachers and had, like them, the task of - building up the churches (Eph. iv. 12, εἰς οἰκοδομὴν τοῦ σώματος - τοῦ Χριστοῦ). But, while the Apostles and Prophets laid the - foundation of this building on Christ, the chief corner stone, - preachers and teachers had to continue building on the foundation - thus laid (Eph. ii. 20). A place and importance are undoubtedly - secured for these three spiritual offices, in so far as continued - itinerant offices, by the example of the Lord in His preliminary - sending forth of the twelve in Matt. x., and of the seventy - disciples in Luke x.--Continuation, § 34, 1. - - § 17.6. =The question about the original position of the - Episcopate and Presbyterate=, as well as their relation to one - another, has received three different answers. According to - the =Roman Catholic= theory, which is also that of the Anglican - Episcopal Church, the clerical, hierarchical arrangement of the - third century, which gave to each of the larger communities a - bishop as its president with a number of presbyters and deacons - subject to him, existed as a divine institution from the - beginning. It is unequivocally testified by the New Testament, - and, as appears from the First Epistle of Clement of Rome (ch. 42, - 44, 57), the fact had never been disputed down to the close of - the first century, that bishops and presbyters are identical. - The force of this objection, however, is sought to be obviated by - the subterfuge that while all bishops were indeed presbyters, all - presbyters were not bishops. The ineptitude of such an evasion - is apparent. In Phil. i. 1 the Apostle, referring to this one - particular church greeted not one but several bishops. According - to Acts xx. 17, 28, all the presbyters of the one Ephesian - community are made bishops by the Holy Ghost. Also, Tit. i. 5, 7 - unconditionally excludes such a distinction; and according to - 1 Pet. v. 2, all such presbyters should be ἐπισκοποῦντες.--In - opposition to this theory, which received the sanction of the - Council of Trent, the =Old Protestant= theologians maintained the - original identity of the two names and offices. In support of - this they could refer not only to the New Testament, but also to - Clement of Rome and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (§ 34, 1), - where, just as in Phil. i. 1, only bishops and deacons are named - as congregational officers, and as appointed by the free choice - of the congregation. They can also point to the consensus of the - most respected church fathers and church teachers of later times. - Chrysostom (Hom. ix. in _Ep. ad Tim._) says: οἱ πρεσβύτεροι - τὸ παλαιὸν ἐκαλοῦντο ἐπίσκοποι καὶ διάκονοι Χριστοῦ, καὶ οἱ - ἐπίσκοποι πρεσβύτεροι. Jerome (_ad Tit._ i. 5) says: _Idem - est presbyter qui et episcopus et antequam diaboli instinctu - studia in religione fierent ... communi presbyterorum concilio - gubernantur ecclesiæ._ Augustine, and other church fathers of the - fourth and fifth centuries, as well as Urban II. in A.D. 1091, - Petrus [Peter] Lombardus and the Decree of Gratian, may all - be referred to as supporting the same view. After such an - identification of the person and office, the existence of the two - names must be explained from their meaning as words, by assuming - that the title ἐπίσκοπος, which arose among the Gentile-Christian - churches, pointed more to the duty officially required, while - the title πρεσβύτερος, which arose among the Jewish-Christian - churches, pointed more to the honourable character of the person - (1 Tim. v. 17, 19). The subsequent development of a monarchical - episcopacy is quite conceivable as having taken place in the - natural course of events (§ 34, 2).--A third theory is that - proposed by =Hatch=, of Oxford, in A.D. 1881, warmly approved of - and vigorously carried out by =Harnack=. According to this theory - the two names in question answer to a twofold distinction that - appears in the church courts: on the college of presbyters was - devolved the government of the community, with administration - of law and discipline; on the bishops and their assistants the - superintendence and management of the community in the widest - sense of the word, including its worship, and first of all and - chiefly the brotherly care of the poor, the sick and strangers, - together with the collecting, keeping, and dispensing of - money needful for those ends. In the course of time the two - organizations were combined into one, since the bishops, on - account of their eminently important place and work, obtained - in the presbytery not only a simple seat and vote, but by-and-by - the presidency and the casting vote. In establishing this theory - it is pointed out that in the government and management of - federations of that time for social and religious purposes - in country districts or in cities, in imitation of which the - organization of the Christian communities was formed, this - twofold distribution is also found, and that especially the - administrators of the finances in these societies had not only - the title of ἐπίσκοποι, but had also the president’s seat in - their assemblies (γερουσία, βουλή), which, however, is not - altogether conclusive, since it is demonstrable that this title - was also borne by judicial and political officials. It is also - pointed out on the other hand that, in accordance with the - modified view presented in the Pastoral Epistles, the Acts, - and the Epistle of Clement of Rome, the consciousness of the - original diversity of calling of the two offices were maintained - throughout the whole of the second century, inasmuch as often a - theoretical distinction between bishops and presbyters in the way - specified was asserted. Now, in the first place, it can scarcely - be matter of dispute as to whether the administration of property, - with the care of the poor (ἀντιλήψεις) as the principal task, - could actually have won a place so superior in respectability, - influence and significance to that of congregational government - (κυβερνήσεις), or whether the authority which embraced the - functions of a judicial bench, a court of discipline, and a court - of equity did not rather come to preponderate over that which was - occupied in the administration of property and the care of the - poor. But above all we shall have to examine the New Testament - writings, as the relatively oldest witnesses to the matter of - fact as well as to the usage of the language, and see what they - have to say on the subject. This must be done even by those who - would have the composition of the Pastoral Epistles and the Acts - removed out of the Apostolic Age. In these writings, however, - there is nowhere a firm and sure foundation afforded to that - theory. It has, indeed, been supposed that in Phil. i. 1 mention - is made only of bishops and deacons because by them the present - from the Philippians had been brought to the Apostle. But seeing - that, in the case of there actually existing in Philippi at this - time besides the bishops a college of presbyters, the omission - of these from the greeting in this epistle, the chief purpose - of which was to impart apostolic comfort and encouragement, and - which only refers gratefully at the close, ch. iv. 10, to the - contribution sent, would have been damaging to them, we must - assume that the bishops with their assistants the deacons were - the only office-bearers then existing in that community. Thus - this passage tells as much against as in favour of the limiting - of the episcopal office to economical administration. Often - as mention is made in the New Testament of an ἐπισκοπεῖν and - a διακονεῖν in and over the community, this never stands in - specific and exclusive relation to administration of property and - care of the poor. It is indeed assumed in Acts xi. 30 that care - of the poor is a duty of the presbyter; so also the charismatic - caring for the sick is required of presbyters in James v. 14; - and in 1 Pet. v. 2 presbyters are described as ἐπισκοποῦντες; - in 1 Pet. ii. 25 Christ is spoken of as ἐπίσκοπος τῶν ψυχῶν; - in Acts i. 20 the apostolic office is called ἐπισκοπή, while in - Acts i. 25 and often, especially in the Pauline epistles, it is - designated a διακονία.[9]--Continuation, § 34, 2. - - § 17.7. =Christian Worship.=--Even in Jerusalem, where the - temple ordinances were still observed, the religious needs of - the Christian community demanded that separate services of a - distinctly Christian character should be organized. But just - as the Jewish services of that day consisted of two parts--the - ministry of the word for purposes of instruction and edification - in the synagogues, and the symbolic service of a typical and - sacramental character in the temple,--the Christian service was - in like manner from the first divided into a homiletical-didactic - part, and a eucharistic-sacramental part.--=The Homiletical and - Didactic part=, on account of the presence of those who were - not Christians, must have had, just like the synagogue service, - alongside of its principal aim to instruct and edify the - congregation, a definite and deliberately planned missionary - tendency. The church in Jerusalem at the first held these - _morning_ services in one of the halls of the temple, where the - people were wont to assemble for prayer (Acts ii. 46; iii. 1, 11); - but at a later period they were held in private houses. In the - Gentile churches they seem from the first to have been held in - private houses or in halls rented for the purpose. The service - consisted in reading of portions of the Old Testament, and at a - later period, portions of the Apostolic Epistles and Gospels, and - in connection therewith, doctrinal and hortatory discourses, with - prayer and singing of psalms. It is more than probable that the - liberty of teaching, which had prevailed in the synagogues (Luke - ii. 46; iv. 16; Acts xiii. 15), was also permitted in the similar - assemblies of Jewish Christians (Acts viii. 4; xi. 19; James - iii. 1); and it may be concluded from 1 Cor. xiv. 34 that this - also was the practice in Gentile-Christian congregations. The - apparent contradiction of women as such being forbidden to - speak, while in 1 Cor. xi. 5 it seems to be allowed, can only be - explained by supposing that in the passage referred to the woman - spoken of as praying or prophesying is praying in an ecstasy, - that is, speaking with tongues (1 Cor. xiv. 13-15), or uttering - prophetic announcements, like the daughters of Philip (Acts - xxi. 9), and that the permission applies only to such cases, the - exceptional nature of which, as well as their temporary character, - as charismatic and miraculous gifts, would prevent their being - used as precedents for women engaging in regular public discourse - (1 Thess. v. 19). In 1 Cor. xiv. 24 the ἰδιῶται (synonymous with - the ἀμύητοι in the statutes of Hellenic religious associations) - are mentioned as admitted along with the ἀπίστοι to the didactic - services, and, according to _v._ 16, they had a place assigned - to them separate from the congregation proper. We are thus led to - see in them the uninitiated or not yet baptized believers, that - is, the _catechumens_.--=The Sacramental part of the service=, - the separation of which from the didactic part was rendered - necessary on account alike of its nature and purpose, and is - therefore found existing in the Pauline churches as well as - in the church of Jerusalem, was scrupulously restricted in its - observance, in Jewish and Gentile churches alike, to those who - were in the full communion of the Christian church (Acts ii. 46; - 1 Cor. xi. 20-23). The celebration of the Lord’s Supper - (δεῖπνον κυριακόν, 1 Cor. xi. 21), after the pattern of the - meal of institution, consisting of a meal partaken of in common, - accompanied with prayer and the singing of a hymn, which at a - later period was named the Ἀγάπη, as the expression of brotherly - love (Jude _v._ 12), was the centre and end of these _evening_ - services. The elements in the Lord’s Supper were consecrated to - their sacramental purpose by a prayer of praise and thanksgiving - (εὐχαριστία, 1 Cor. xi. 24; or εὐλογία, 1 Cor. x. 16), together - with a recital of the words of institution which contained - a proclamation of the death of Christ (1 Cor. xi. 26). This - prayer was followed by the kiss of brotherhood.[10] In the - service of song they used to all appearance besides the - psalms some Christian hymns and doxologies (Eph. v. 19; - Col. iii. 16).[11]--The homiletical as well as the eucharistic - services were at first held daily; at a later period at least - every Sunday.[12] For very soon, alongside of the Sabbath, and - among Gentile Christians, instead of it, the first day of the - week as the day of Christ’s resurrection began to be observed as - a festival.[13] But there is as yet no trace of the observance of - other festivals. It cannot be exactly proved that infant baptism - was an Apostolic practice, but it is not improbable that it - was so.[14] Baptism was administered by complete immersion - (Acts viii. 38) in the name of Christ or of the Trinity - (Matt. xxviii. 19). The charism of healing the sick was exercised - by prayer and anointing with oil (Jas. v. 14). On the other - hand, confession of sin even apart from the public service was - recommended (Jas. v. 16). Charismatic communication of the Spirit - and admission to office in the church[15] was accomplished by - prayer and laying on of hands.[16] - - § 17.8. =Christian Life and Ecclesiastical Discipline.=--In - accordance with the commandment of the Lord (John xiii. 34), - brotherly love in opposition to the selfishness of the natural - life, was the principle of the Christian life. The power of - youthful love, fostered by the prevalent expectation of the - speedy return of the Lord, endeavoured at first to find for - itself a fitting expression in the mother church of Jerusalem by - the voluntary determination to have their goods in common,--an - endeavour which without prejudice of its spiritual importance - soon proved to be impracticable. On the other hand the well-to-do - Gentile churches proved their brotherly love by collections for - those originally poor, and especially for the church at Jerusalem - which had suffered the special misfortune of famine. The three - inveterate moral plagues of the ancient world, contempt of - foreign nationalities, degradation of woman, and slavery, were - overcome, according to Gal. iii. 28, by gradual elevation of - inward feeling without any violent struggle against existing laws - and customs, and the consciousness of common membership in the - one head in heaven hallowed all the relationships of the earthly - life. Even in apostolic times the bright mirror of Christian - purity was no doubt dimmed by spots of rust. Hypocrisy (Acts v.) - and variance (Acts vi.) in single cases appeared very early in - the mother church; but the former was punished by a fearfully - severe judgment, the latter was overcome by love and sweet - reasonableness. In the rich Gentile churches, such as those - of Corinth and Thessalonica, a worldly spirit in the form of - voluptuousness, selfishness, pride, etc., made its appearance, - but was here also rooted out by apostolic exhortation and - discipline. If any one caused public scandal by serious departure - from true doctrine or Christian conduct, and in spite of pastoral - counsel persisted in his error, he was by the judgment of the - church cast out, but the penitent was received again after his - sincerity had been proved (1 Cor. v. 1; 2 Cor. ii. 5). - - - § 18. HERESIES IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE.[17] - - When Christianity began its career of world conquest in the preaching -of the Apostle Paul, the representatives of the intellectual culture -of the ancient world assumed toward it an attitude, either of utter -indifference, or of keen hostility, or of readiness to accept Christian -elements, while retaining along with these many of their old notions. -From this mixing of heterogeneous elements a fermentation arose which -was the fruitful mother of numerous heresies. - - § 18.1. =Jewish Christianity and the Council of Apostles.=--The - Lord had commanded the disciples to preach the gospel to all - nations (Matt. xxviii. 19), and so they could not doubt that the - whole heathen world was called to receive the church’s heritage; - but feeling themselves bound by utterances of the Old Testament - regarding the eternal validity of the law of Moses, and having - not yet penetrated the full significance of the saying of Christ - (Mark v. 17), they thought that incorporation into Judaism by - circumcision was still an indispensable condition of reception - into the kingdom of Christ. The Hellenist Stephen represented a - more liberal tendency (Acts vi. 14); and Philip, also a Hellenist, - preached at least occasionally to the Samaritans, and the - Apostles recognised his work by sending down Peter and John - (Acts viii. 14). On the other hand, it needed an immediate - divine revelation to convince Peter that a Gentile thirsting for - salvation was just as such fit for the kingdom of God (Acts x.). - And even this revelation remained without any decisive influence - on actual missionary enterprise. They were Hellenistic Jews who - finally took the bold step of devoting themselves without reserve - to the conversion of the Gentiles at Antioch (Acts xi. 19). To - foster the movement there the Apostles sent Barnabas, who entered - into it with his whole soul, and in Paul associated with himself - a yet more capable worker. After the notable success of their - first missionary journey had vindicated their claim and calling - as Apostles of the Gentiles, the arrival of Jewish zealots in - the Antiochean church occasioned the sending of Paul and Barnabas - to Jerusalem, about A.D. 51, in order finally to settle this - important dispute. At a Council of the Apostles convened there - Peter and James the Just delivered the decision that Gentile - converts should only be required to observe certain legal - restrictions, and these, as it would seem from the conditions - laid down (Acts xv. 20), of a similar kind to those imposed - upon proselytes of the gate. An arrangement come to at this - time between the two Antiochean Apostles and Peter, James, and - John, led to the recognition of the former as Apostles of the - Gentiles and the latter as Apostles of the Jews (Gal. ii. 1-10). - Nevertheless during a visit to Antioch Peter laid himself open - to censure for practical inconsistency and weak connivance with - the fanaticism of certain Jewish Christians, and had to have - the truth respecting it very pointedly told him by Paul (Gal. - ii. 11-14). The destruction of the temple and the consequent - cessation of the entire Jewish worship led to the gradual - disappearance of non-sectarian Jewish Christianity and its - amalgamation with Gentile Christianity. The remnant of Jewish - Christianity which still in the altered condition of things - continued to cling to its principles and practice assumed ever - more and more the character of a sect, and drifted into open - heresy. (Comp. § 28). - - § 18.2. =The Apostolic Basis of Doctrine.=--The need of fixing - the apostolically accredited accounts of the life of the - Redeemer by written documents, led to the origin of the Gospels. - The continued connection of the missionary Apostles with the - churches founded by them, or even their authority of general - superintendence, called forth the apostolic doctrinal epistles. - A beginning of the collection and general circulation of the New - Testament writings was made at an early date by the communication - of these being made by one church to another (Col. iv. 16). There - was as yet no confession of faith as a standard of orthodoxy, but - the way was prepared by adopting Matt. xxviii. 19 as a confession - by candidates for baptism. Paul set up justification through - faith alone (Gal. i. 8, 9), and John, the incarnation of God in - Christ (1 John iv. 3), as indispensable elements in a Christian - confession. - - § 18.3. =False Teachers.=--The first enemy from within its own - borders which Christianity had to confront was the ordinary - Pharisaic Judaism with its stereotyped traditional doctrine, its - lifeless work-righteousness, its unreasonable national prejudices, - and its perversely carnal Messianic expectations. Its shibboleth - was the obligation of the Gentiles to observe the Mosaic - ceremonial law, the Sabbath, rules about meats, circumcision, - as an indispensable condition of salvation. This tendency had - its origin in the mother church of Jerusalem, but was there - at a very early date condemned by the Apostolic Council. This - party nevertheless pursued at all points the Apostle Paul with - bitter enmity and vile calumnies. Traces of a manifestation of a - Sadducean or sceptical spirit may perhaps already be found in the - denial of the resurrection which in 1 Cor. xv. Paul opposes. On - the other hand, at a very early period Greek philosophy got mixed - up with Christianity. Apollos, a philosophically cultured Jew - of Alexandria, had at first conceived of Christianity from the - speculative side, and had in this form preached it with eloquence - and success at Corinth. Paul did not contest the admissibility - of this mode of treatment. He left it to the verdict of history - (1 Cor. iii. 11-14), and warned against an over-estimation of - human wisdom (1 Cor. ii. 1-10). Among many of the seekers after - wisdom in Corinth, little as this was intended by Apollos, the - simple positive preaching of Paul lost on this account the favour - that it had enjoyed before. In this may be found perhaps the - first beginnings of that fourfold party faction which arose - in the Corinthian church (1 Cor. i.). The Judaists appealed to - the authority of the Apostle Peter (οἱ τοῦ Κηφᾶ); the Gentile - Christians were divided into the parties of Apollos and of Paul, - or by the assumption of the proud name οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, sought to - free themselves from the recognition of any Apostolic authority. - Paul successfully opposes these divisions in his Epistle to - the Corinthians. Apprehension of a threatened growth of gnostic - teachers is first expressed in the Apostle Paul’s farewell - addresses to the elders of Asia Minor (Acts xx. 29); and in the - Epistle to the Colossians, as well as in the Pastoral Epistles, - this ψευδώνυμος γνῶσις is expressly opposed as manifesting itself - in the adoption of oriental theosophy, magic, and theurgy, in an - arbitrary asceticism that forbade marriage and restricted the use - of food, in an imaginary secret knowledge of the nature and order - of the heavenly powers and spirits, and idealistic volatilizing - of concrete Christian doctrines, such as that of the resurrection - (2 Tim. ii. 18). In the First Epistle of John, again, that - special form of Gnosis is pointed out which denied the - incarnation of God in Christ by means of docetic conceptions; and - in the Second Epistle of Peter, as well as in the Epistle of Jude, - we have attention called to antinomian excrescences, unbridled - immorality and wanton lust in the development of magical and - theurgical views. It should not, however, be left unmentioned, - that modern criticism has on many grounds contested the - authenticity of the New Testament writings just named, and - has assigned the first appearance of heretical gnosis to - the beginning of the second century. The Nicolaitans of the - Apocalypse (iii. 5, 14, 15, 20) appear to have been an antinomian - sect of Gentile Christian origin, spread more or less through the - churches of Asia Minor, perhaps without any gnostic background, - which in direct and intentional opposition to the decision of the - Apostolic Council (Acts xv. 29) took part in heathen sacrificial - feasts (comp. 1 Cor. x.), and justified or at least apologized - for fleshly impurity. - - - - - FIRST DIVISION. - - History of the Development of the Church during the - Græco-Roman and Græco-Byzantine Periods. - - - § 19. CONTENT, DISTRIBUTION AND BOUNDARIES - OF THOSE PERIODS. - - At the very beginning of the Apostolic Age the universalistic -spirit of Christianity had already broken through the particularistic -limitations of Judaism. When once the substantial truth of divine -salvation had cast off the Judaistic husk in which the kernel had -ripened, those elements of culture which had come to maturity in the -Roman-Greek world were appropriated as means for giving to Christian -ideas a fuller and clearer expression. The task now to be undertaken was -the development of Christianity on the lines of Græco-Roman culture, or -the expansion of the church’s apostolicity into catholicity. The ancient -church of the Roman and Byzantine world fulfilled this task, but in -doing so the sound evangelical catholic development encountered at every -point elements of a false, because an unevangelical, Catholicism. The -centre, then, of all the movements of Church History is to be found -in the Teutono-Roman-Slavic empire. The Roman church preserved and -increased her importance by attaching herself to this new empire, and -undertaking its spiritual formation and education. The Byzantine church, -on the other hand, falling into a state of inward stagnation, and -pressed from without by the forces of Islam, passes into decay as -a national church. - - The history of this first stage of the development of the church falls -into =three periods=. The first period reaches down to Constantine the -Great, who, in A.D. 323, secured to Christianity and the church a final -victory over Paganism. The second period brings us down to the close of -the universal catholic or œcumenical elaboration of doctrine attained by -the church under its old classical form of culture, that is, down to the -close of the Monothelite controversy (§ 52, 8), by the Sixth Œcumenical -Council at Constantinople in A.D. 680. But inasmuch as the _Concilium -quini-sextum_ in A.D. 692 undertook simply the completion of the work of -the two previous œcumenical synods with reference to church constitution -and worship, and as here the first grounds were laid for the great -partition of the church into Eastern and Western (§ 63, 2), we prefer -to make A.D. 692 the closing limit of the second period. The conclusion -of the third period, is found in the overthrow of Constantinople -by the Turks in A.D. 1453. The first two periods are most evidently -distinguished from one another in respect of the outward condition of -the church. Before the times of Constantine, it lives and develops its -strength amid the oppression and persecution of the pagan state; under -Constantine the state itself becomes Christian and the church enjoys all -the advantages, all the care and furtherance, that earthly protection -can afford. Along with all this worldly splendour, however, a worldly -disposition makes its way into the church, and in exchange for its -protection of the church the state assumes an autocratic lordship over -it. Even in the inner, and pre-eminently doctrinal, development of the -church the two periods of this age are essentially distinguished from -one another. While it was the church’s endeavour to adopt only the forms -of culture of ancient paganism, while rejecting its godless substance, -it too often happened that pagan ideas got mixed up with Christianity, -and it was threatened with a similar danger from the side of Judaism. It -was therefore the special task of the church during the first period to -resist the encroachment of anti-Christian Jewish and Pagan elements. In -the first period the perfecting of its own genuinely Christian doctrinal -content was still a purely subjective matter, resting only on the -personal authority of the particular church teachers. In the second -period, on the other hand, the church universal, as represented by -œcumenical synods with full power, proceeds to the laying down and -establishing of an objective-ecclesiastical, œcumenical-catholic system -of doctrine, constituting an all-sided development of the truth in -opposition to the one-sided development of subjective heretical teaching. -In doing so, however, the culture of the old Græco-Roman world exhausted -its powers. The measure of development which these were capable of -affording the church was now completed, and its future must be looked -for among the new nationalities of Teutonic, Romanic, and Slavic origin. -While the Byzantine empire, and with it the glory of the ancient church -of the East was pressed and threatened by Islam, a new empire arose -in the West in youthful vigour and became the organ of a new phase of -development in the history of the church; and while the church in the -West struggled after a new and higher point in her development, the -Eastern church sank ever deeper down under outward oppression and inward -weakness. The partition of the church into an Eastern and a Western -division, which became imminent at the close of the second period, and -was actually carried out during the third period, cut off the church of -the East from the influence of those new vital forces, political as well -as ecclesiastical, and which it might otherwise, perhaps, have shared -with the West. By the overthrow of the East-Roman empire the last -support of its splendour and even of its vital activity was taken away. -Here too ends the history of the church on the lines of purely antique -classical forms of culture. The remnants of the church of the East were -no longer capable of any living historical development under the -oppression of the Turkish rule. - - - - - FIRST SECTION. - - History of the Græco-Roman Church during the - Second and Third Centuries (A.D. 70-323).[18] - - - § 20. CONTENT, DISTRIBUTION AND BOUNDARIES - OF THIS PERIOD.[19] - - As the history of the beginnings of the church has been treated by -us under two divisions, so also the first period of the history of -its development may be similarly divided into the =Post-Apostolic Age=, -which reaches down to the middle of the second century, and the =Age -of the Old Catholic Church=, which ends with the establishment of the -church under and by Constantine, and at that point passes over into the -Age of the œcumenical Catholic or Byzantine-Roman Imperial Church.--As -the Post-Apostolic Age was occupied with an endeavour to appropriate -and possess in a fuller and more vigorous manner the saving truths -transmitted by the Apostles, and presents as the result of its struggles, -errors, and victories, the Old Catholic Church as a unity, firmly bound -from within, strictly free of all compulsion from without, so on the -basis thus gained, the Old Catholic Church goes forward to new conflicts, -failures, and successes, by means of which the foundations are laid for -the future perfecting of it through its establishment by the state into -the Œcumenical Catholic Imperial Church.[20] - - § 20.1. =The Post-Apostolic Age.=--The peril to which the church - was exposed from the introduction of Judaistic and Pagan elements - with her new converts was much more serious not only than the - Jewish spirit of persecution, crushed as it was into impotence - through the overthrow of Jewish national independence, but also - than the persecution of anti-Christian paganism which at this - time was only engaged upon sporadically. All the more threatening - was this peril from the peculiar position of the church during - this age. Since the removal of the personal guidance of the - Apostles that control was wanting which only at a subsequent - period was won again by the establishment of a New Testament - canon and the laying down of a normative rule of faith, as well - as by the formation of a hierarchical-episcopal constitution. In - all the conflicts, then, that occupied this age, the first and - main point was to guard the integrity and purity of traditional - Apostolic Christianity against the anti-Christian Jewish and - Pagan ideas which new converts endeavoured to import into it from - their earlier religious life. Those Judaic ideas thus imported - gave rise to Ebionism; those Pagan ideas gave rise to Gnosticism - (§§ 26-28). And just as the Pauline Gentile Christianity, in so - far as it was embraced under this period (§ 30, 2), secured the - victory over the moderate and non-heretical Jewish Christianity, - this latter became more and more assimilated to the former, and - gradually passed over into it (§ 28, 1). Add to this the need, - ever more pressingly felt, of a sifting of the not yet uniformly - recognised early Christian literature that had passed into - ecclesiastical use (§ 36, 7, 8) by means of the establishment - of a New Testament =canon=; that is, the need of a collection of - writings admitted to be of Apostolic origin to occupy henceforth - the first rank as a standard and foundation for the purposes of - teaching and worship, and to form a bulwark against the flood - of heretical and non-heretical =Pseudepigraphs= that menaced the - purity of doctrine (§ 32). Further, the no less pressing need for - the construction of a universally valid =rule of faith= (§ 35, 2), - as an intellectual bond of union and mark of recognition for - all churches and believers scattered over the earth’s surface. - Then again, in the victory that was being secured by Episcopacy - over Presbyterianism, and in the introduction of a Synodal - constitution for counsel and resolution, the first stage - in the formation of a hierarchical organization was reached - (§ 34). Finally, the last dissolving action of this age was the - suppression of the fanatical prophetic and fanatical rigorist - spirit, which, reaching its climax in =Montanism=, directed - itself mainly against the tendency already appearing on many - sides to tone down the unflinching severity of ecclesiastical - discipline, to make modifications in constitution, life and - conversation in accordance with the social customs of the world, - and to settle down through disregard of the speedy return of - the Lord, so confidently expected by the early Christians, into - an easy satisfaction in the enjoyment of earthly possessions - (§ 40, 5). - - § 20.2. =The Age of the Old Catholic Church.=--The designation - of the universal Christian church as Catholic dates from the time - of Irenæus, that is, from the beginning of this second part of - our first period. This name characterizes the church as the one - universally (καθ’ ὅλου) spread and recognised from the time of - the Apostles, and so stigmatizes every opposition to the one - church that alone stands on the sure foundation of holy scripture - and pure apostolic tradition, as belonging to the manifold - particularistic heretical and schismatical sects. The church - of this particular age, however, has been designated the Old - Catholic Church as distinguished from the œcumenical Catholic - church of the following period, as well as from the Roman - Catholic and Greek Catholic churches, into which afterwards the - œcumenical Catholic church was divided. - - At the beginning of this age, the heretical as well as the - non-heretical Ebionism may be regarded as virtually suppressed, - although some scanty remnants of it might yet be found. The most - brilliant period of Gnosticism, too, when the most serious danger - from Paganism within the Christian pale in the form of Hellenic - and Syro-Chaldaic Theosophy and Mysteriosophy threatened the - church, was already past. But in Manichæism (§ 29) there appeared, - during the second half of the third century, a new peril of a - no less threatening kind, inspired by Parseeism and Buddhism, - which, however, the church on the ground of the solid foundations - already laid was able to resist with powerful weapons. On the - other hand the Pagan element within the church asserted itself - more and more decidedly (§ 39, 6) by means of the intrusion of - magico-theurgical superstition into the catholic doctrine of - the efficacy of the church sacraments and sacramental acts - (§ 58). But now also, with Marcus Aurelius, Paganism outside - of Christianity as embodied in the Roman state, begins the - war of extermination against the church that was ever more and - more extending her boundaries. Such manifestation of hostility, - however, was not able to subdue the church, but rather led, under - and through Constantine the Great, to the Christianizing of the - state and the establishment of the church. During the same time - the episcopal and synodal-hierarchical organization of the church - was more fully developed by the introduction of an order of - Metropolitans, and then in the following period it reached its - climax in the oligarchical Pentarchy of Patriarchs (§ 46, 1), - and in the institution of œcumenical Synods (§ 43, 2). By the - condemnation and expulsion of Montanism, in which the inner - development of the Post-Apostolic Age reached its special and - distinctive conclusion, the endeavour to naturalize Christianity - among the social customs of the worldly life was certainly - legitimized by the church, and could now be unrestrictedly - carried out in a wider and more comprehensive way. In the - Trinitarian controversies, too, in which several prominent - theologians engaged, the first step was taken in that - œcumenical-ecclesiastical elaboration of doctrine which occupied - and dominated the whole of the following period (§§ 49-52). - - § 20.3. =The Point of Transition from the One Age to the Other= - may unhesitatingly be set down at A.D. 170. The following are the - most important data in regard thereto. The death about A.D. 165 - of Justin Martyr, who marks the highest point reached in the - Post-Apostolic Age, and forms also the transition to the Old - Catholic Age; and Irenæus, flourishing somewhere about A.D. 170, - who was the real inaugurator of this latter age. Besides these - we come upon the beginnings of the Trinitarian controversies - about the year 170. Finally, the rejection of Montanism from the - universal Catholic church was effected about the year 170 by means - of the Synodal institution called into existence for that very - purpose. - - - - - I. THE RELATIONSHIP OF EXTRA-CHRISTIAN PAGANISM AND - JUDAISM TO THE CHURCH.[21] - - - § 21. THE SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY. - - Amid all the persecutions which the church during this period had to -suffer it spread with rapid strides throughout the whole Roman empire, -and even far beyond its limits. Edessa, the capital of the kingdom of -Osrhoëne in Mesopotamia, had, as early as A.D. 170, a Christian prince, -named =Abgar Bar Maanu=, whose coins were the first to bear the sign -of the cross. We find Christianity gaining a footing contemporaneously -in Persia, Media, Bactria, and Parthia. In the third century we find -traces of its presence in Armenia. Paul himself made his way into -Arabia (Gal. i. 17). In the third century Origen received an invitation -from a ἡγούμενος τῆς Ἀραβίας, who wished to receive information about -Christianity. At another time he accepted a call from that country in -order to settle an ecclesiastical dispute (§ 33, 6). From Alexandria, -where Mark had exercised his ministry, the Christian faith spread out -into other portions of Africa, into Cyrene and among the Coptic races, -neighbouring upon the Egyptians properly so-called. The church of -proconsular Africa, with Carthage for its capital, stood in close -connection with Rome. Mauretania and Numidia had, even in the third -century, so many churches, that Cyprian could bring together at Carthage -a Synod of eighty-seven bishops. In Gaul there were several flourishing -churches composed of colonies and teachers from Asia Minor, such as -the churches of Lyons, Vienne, etc. At a later period seven missionary -teachers of the Christian faith came out of Italy into Gaul, among whom -was Dionysius, known as St. Denis, the founder of the church at Paris. -The Roman colonies in the provinces of the Rhine and the Danube had -several flourishing congregations as early as the third century. - - The emptiness and corruption of paganism was the negative, the divine -power of the gospel was the positive, means of this wonderful extension. -This divine power was manifested in the zeal and self-denial of -Christian teachers and missionaries (§ 34, 1), in the life and -walk of Christians, in the brotherly love which they showed, in -the steadfastness and confidence of their faith, and above all in -the joyfulness with which they met the cruellest of deaths by martyrdom. -The blood of the martyrs was the seed of the church, and it was not -an unheard-of circumstance that the executioners of those Christian -witnesses became their successors in the noble army of confessors. - - - § 22. PERSECUTIONS OF THE CHRISTIANS IN THE - ROMAN EMPIRE.[22] - - The Law of the Twelve Tables had already forbidden the exercise -of foreign modes of worship within the Roman empire (_Religiones -peregrinæ_, _Collegia illicita_), for religion was exclusively an affair -of the state and entered most intimately into all civil and municipal -relations, and on this account whatever endangered the national religion -was regarded as necessarily imperilling the state itself. Political -considerations, however, led to the granting to conquered nations -the free use of their own forms of worship. This concession did not -materially help Christianity after it had ceased, in the time of Nero, -to be regularly confounded by the Roman authorities with Judaism, -as had been the case in the time of Claudius, and Judaism, after -the destruction of Jerusalem, had been sharply distinguished from -it. It publicly proclaimed its intention to completely dislodge all -other religions, and the rapidity with which it spread showed how -energetically its intentions were carried out. The close fellowship -and brotherliness that prevailed among Christians, as well as their -exclusive, and during times of persecution even secret assemblies, -aroused the suspicion that they had political tendencies. Their -withdrawal from civil and military services on account of the pagan -ceremonies connected with them, especially their refusal to burn incense -before the statues of the emperor, also the steadfastness of their -faith, which was proof against all violence and persuasion alike, their -retiredness from the world, etc., were regarded as evidence of their -indifference or hostility to the general well-being of the state, as -invincible stiff-neckedness, as contumacy, sedition, and high treason. -The heathen populace saw in the Christians the sacrilegious enemies and -despisers of their gods; and the Christian religion, which was without -temples, altars and sacrifices, seemed to them pure Atheism. The most -horrible calumnies, that in their assemblies (_Agapæ_) the vilest -immoralities were practised (_Concubitus Œdipodei_), children slain -and human flesh eaten (_Epulæ Thyesteæ_, comp. § 36, 5), were readily -believed. All public misfortunes were thus attributed to the wrath -of the gods against the Christians, who treated them with contempt. -_Non pluit Deus, duc ad Christianos!_ The heathen priests also, the -temple servants and the image makers were always ready in their own -common interests to stir up the suspicions of the people. Under such -circumstances it is not to be wondered at that the fire of persecution -on the part of the heathen people and the heathen state continued to -rage for centuries. - - § 22.1. =Claudius, Nero and Domitian.=--Regarding the Emperor - =Tiberius= (A.D. 14-37), we meet in Tertullian with the - undoubtedly baseless tradition, that, impressed by the story - told him by Pilate, he proposed to the Senate to introduce Christ - among the gods, and on the rejection of this proposal, threatened - the accusers of the Christians with punishment. The statement - in Acts xviii. 2, that the Emperor =Claudius= (A.D. 41-54) - expelled from Rome all Jews and with them many Christians also, - is illustrated in a very circumstantial manner by Suetonius: - _Claudius Judæos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma - expulit_. The tumults, therefore, between the Jews and the - Christians, occurring about the year 51 or 52, gave occasion to - this decree. The first persecution of the Christians proceeding - from a Roman ruler which was directed against the Christians as - such, was carried out by the Emperor =Nero= (A.D. 54-68) in the - year 64, in consequence of a nine days’ conflagration in Rome, - the origin of which was commonly ascribed by the people to the - Emperor himself. Nero, however, laid the blame upon the hated - Christians, and perpetrated upon them the most ingeniously - devised cruelties. Sewn up in skins of wild animals they were - cast out to be devoured of dogs; others were crucified, or wrapt - in tow and besmeared with pitch, they were fixed upon sharp - spikes in the imperial gardens where the people gathered to - behold gorgeous spectacles, and set on fire to lighten up - the night (Tac., _Ann._, xv. 44). After the death of Nero the - legend spread among the Christians, that he was not dead but had - withdrawn beyond the Euphrates, soon to return as Antichrist. - Nero’s persecution seems to have been limited to Rome, and to - have ended with his death.--It was under =Domitian= (A.D. 81-96) - that individual Christians were for the first time subjected - to confiscation of goods and banishment for godlessness or the - refusal to conform to the national religion. Probably also, the - execution of his own cousin, the Consul Flavius Clemens [Clement], - on account of his ἀθεότης and his ἐξοκέλλειν εἰς τὰ τῶν Ἰουδαίων - ἔθη (Dio Cass., lxvii. 14), as well as the banishment of Clemens’ - [Clement’s] wife, Flavia Domitilla (A.D. 93), was really on - account of their attachment to the Christian faith (§ 30, 3). The - latter at least is proved by two inscriptions in the catacombs to - have been undoubtedly a Christian. Domitian insisted upon having - information as to the political significance of the kingdom of - Christ, and brought from Palestine to Rome two relatives of Jesus, - grandsons of Jude, the brother of the Lord, but their hands horny - with labour satisfied him that his suspicions had been unfounded. - The philanthropic Emperor =Nerva= (A.D. 96-98) recalled the - exiles and did not listen to those who clamoured bitterly against - the Christians, but Christianity continued after as well as - before a _Religo illicita_, or rather was now reckoned such, - after it had been more distinctly separated from Judaism.[23] - - § 22.2. =Trajan and Hadrian.=--With =Trajan= (A.D. 98-117), - whom historians rightly describe as a just, earnest, and mild - ruler, the persecutions of the Christians enter upon a new - stage. He renewed the old strict prohibition of secret societies, - _hetæræ_, which could easily be made to apply to the Christians. - In consequence of this law the younger Pliny, as Governor - of Bithynia, punished with death those who were accused as - Christians, if they would not abjure Christianity. But his - doubts being awakened by the great number of every rank and age - and of both sexes against whom accusations were brought, and in - consequence of a careful examination, which showed the Christians - to be morally pure and politically undeserving of suspicion and - to be guilty only of stubborn attachment to their superstition, - he asked definite instructions from the Emperor. Trajan approved - of what he had done and what he proposed; the Christians were - not to be sought after and anonymous accusations were not to - be regarded, but those formally complained of and convicted, if - they stubbornly refused to sacrifice to the gods and burn incense - before the statues of the Emperor were to be punished with death - (A.D. 112). This imperial rescript continued for a long time - the legal standard for judicial procedure with reference to the - Christians. The persecution under Trajan extended even to Syria - and Palestine. In Jerusalem the aged bishop Simeon, the successor - of James, accused as a Christian and a descendant of David, after - being cruelly scourged, died a martyr’s death on the cross in - A.D. 107. The martyrdom, too, of the Antiochean bishop, Ignatius, - in all probability took place during the reign of Trajan (§ 30, 5). - An edict of toleration supposed to have been issued at a later - period by Trajan, a copy of which exists in Syriac and Armenian, - is now proved to be apocryphal.--During the reign of =Hadrian= - (A.D. 117-138), the people began to carry out in a tumultuous - way the execution of the Christians on the occasion of the - heathen festivals. On the representation of the proconsul of Asia, - Serenius Granianus, Hadrian issued a rescript addressed to his - successor, Minucius Fundanus, against such acts of violence, but - executions still continued carried out according to the forms of - law. The genuineness of the rescript, however, as given at the - close of the first Apology of Justin Martyr, has been recently - disputed by many. In Rome itself, between A.D. 135 and A.D. 137, - bishop Telesphorus, with many other Christians, fell as victims - of the persecution. The tradition of the fourth century, that - Hadrian wished to build a temple to Christ, is utterly without - historical foundation. His unfavourable disposition toward the - Christians clearly appears from this, that he caused a temple of - Venus to be built upon the spot where Christ was crucified, and a - statue of Jupiter to be erected on the rock of the sepulchre, in - order to pollute those places which Christians held most sacred. - - § 22.3. =Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius.=--Under =Antoninus - Pius= (A.D.138-161), the tumultuous charges of the people against - the Christians, on account of visitations of pestilence in many - places, were renewed, but the mildly disposed emperor sought to - protect them as much as possible from violence. The rescript, - however, _Ad Commune Asiæ_, which bears his name is very probably - of Christian authorship.--The persecutions again took a new turn - under =Marcus Aurelius= (A.D. 161-180) who was, both as a man and - a ruler, one of the noblest figures of antiquity. In the pride - of his stoical wisdom, however, despising utterly the enthusiasm - of the Christians, he not only allowed free scope to the popular - hatred, but also introduced the system of espionage, giving to - informers the confiscated property of the Christians, and even - permitting the use of torture, in order to compel them to recant, - and thus gave occasion to unexampled triumphs of Christian - heroism. At Rome, the noble Apologist Justin Martyr, denounced - by his opponent the philosopher Crescens, after cruel and bloody - scourging, died under the executioner’s axe about A.D. 165 - (§ 30, 9).--In regard to a very severe persecution endured by - the church of Smyrna, we possess an original report of it sent - from that church to one closely related to it, embellished - with legendary details or interpolated, which Eusebius has - incorporated in his Church History. The substance of it is a - description of the glorious martyr death of their aged bishop - Polycarp (§ 30, 6), who, because he refused to curse the Lord - whom he had served for eighty-six years, was made to mount the - funeral pile, and while rejoicing in the midst of the flames, - received the crown of martyrdom. According to the story the - flames gathered around him like a wind-filled sail, and when a - soldier pierced him with his sword, suddenly a white dove flew - up; moreover the glorified spirit also appeared to a member of - the church in a vision, clothed in a white garment. Eusebius - places the date of Polycarp’s death shortly before A.D. 166. - But since it has been shown by Waddington, on the basis of - an examination of recently discovered inscriptions, that the - proconsul of Asia, Statius Quadratus, mentioned in the report - of the church of Smyrna, did not hold that office in A.D. 166, - but in A.D. 155-156, the most important authorities have come to - regard either A.D. 155 or A.D. 156 as the date of his martyrdom. - Still some whose opinions are worthy of respect refuse to - accept this view, pointing out the absence of that chronological - statement from the report in Eusebius and to its irreconcilability - with the otherwise well-supported facts, that Polycarp was on - a visit to Rome in A.D. 155 (§ 37, 2), and that the reckoning - of the day of his death in the report as ὄντος σαββάτου μεγάλου - would suit indeed the Easter of A.D. 155, as well as that of - A.D. 166, but not that of A.D. 156. [24] The legend of the _Legio - fulminatrix_, that in the war against the Marcomanni in A.D. 174 - the prayers of the Christian soldiers of this legion called forth - rain and thunder, and thus saved the Emperor and his army from - the danger of perishing by thirst, whereupon this modified law - against the accusers of the Christians was issued, has, so far - as the first part is concerned, its foundation in history, only - that the heathen on the other hand ascribed the miracle to their - prayer to _Jupiter Pluvius_. [25]--Regarding the persecution - at Lyons and Vienne in A.D. 177, we also possess a contemporary - report from the Christian church of these places (§ 32, 8). - Bishop Pothinus, in his ninetieth year, sank under the effects - of tortures continued during many days in a loathsome prison. - The young and tender slave-girl Blandina was scourged, her - body scorched upon a red-hot iron chair, her limbs torn by wild - beasts and at last her life taken; but under all her tortures she - continued to repeat her joyful confession: “I am a Christian and - nothing wicked is tolerated among us.” Under similar agonies the - boy Ponticus, in his fifteenth year, showed similar heroism. The - dead bodies of the martyrs were laid in heaps upon the streets, - until at last they were burnt and their ashes strewn upon the - Rhone. =Commodus= (A.D. 180-192), the son of Marcus Aurelius, who - in every other respect was utterly disreputable, influenced by - his mistress Marcia, showed himself inclined, by the exercise - of his clemency, to remit the sentences of the Christians. The - persecution at Scillita in North Africa, during the first year - of the reign of Commodus, in which the martyr Speratus suffered, - together with eleven companions, was carried out in accordance - with the edict of Marcus Aurelius. - - § 22.4. =Septimius Severus and Maximinus Thrax.=--=Septimius - Severus= (A.D. 193-211), whom a Christian slave, Proculus, - had healed of a sickness by anointing with oil, was at first - decidedly favourable to the Christians. Even in A.D. 197, after - his triumphal entrance into Rome, he took them under his personal - protection when the popular clamour, which such a celebration - was fitted to excite, was raised against them. The judicial - persecution, too, which some years later, A.D. 200, his deputy - in North Africa carried on against the Christians on the basis - of existing laws because they refused to sacrifice to the genius - of the Emperor, he may not have been able to prevent. On the - other hand, he did himself, in A.D. 202, issue an edict which - forbade conversions to Judaism and Christianity. The storm of - persecution thereby excited was directed therefore first of all - and especially against the catechumens and the neophytes, but - frequently also, overstepping the letter of the edict, it was - turned against the older Christians. The persecution seems - to have been limited to Egypt and North Africa. At Alexandria - Leonidas, the father of Origen, was beheaded. The female slave, - Potamiæna, celebrated as much for her moral purity as for her - beauty, was accused by her master, whose evil passions she had - refused to gratify, as a Christian, and was given over to the - gladiators to be abused. She succeeded, however, in defending - herself from pollution, and was then, along with her mother - Marcella, slowly dipped into boiling pitch. The soldier, - Basilides by name, who should have executed the sentence himself - embraced Christianity, and was beheaded. The persecution raged - with equal violence and cruelty in Carthage. A young woman of - a noble family, Perpetua, in her twenty-second year, in spite - of imprisonment and torture, and though the infant in her arms - and her weeping pagan father appealed to her heart’s affections, - continued true to her faith, and was thrown to be tossed on the - horns of a wild cow, and to die from the dagger of a gladiator. - The slave girl Felicitas who, in the same prison, became a mother, - showed similar courage amid similar sufferings. Persecution - smouldered on throughout the reign of Septimius, showing itself - in separate sporadic outbursts, but was not renewed under his son - and successor =Caracalla= (A.D. 211-217), who in other respects - during his reign stained with manifold cruelties, did little to - the honour of those Christian influences by which in his earliest - youth he had been surrounded (“_lacte Christiano educatus_,” - Tert.).--That Christianity should have a place given it among the - senseless religions favoured by =Elagabalus= or =Heliogabalus= - (A.D. 218-222), was an absurdity which nevertheless secured for - it toleration and quiet. His second wife, Severina or Severa, to - whom Hippolytus dedicated his treatise Περὶ ἀναστάσεως, was the - first empress friendly to the Christians. =Alexander Severus= - (A.D. 222-235), embracing a noble eclecticism, placed among his - household gods the image of Christ, along with those of Abraham, - Orpheus, and Apollonius of Tyana, and showed himself well - disposed toward the Christians; while at the same time his mother, - Julia Mammæa, encouraged and furthered the scholarly studies of - Origen. The golden saying of Christ, Luke vi. 31, was inscribed - upon the gateway of his palace. His murderer, =Maximinus Thrax= - (A.D. 235-238), from very opposition to his predecessor, became - at once the enemy of the Christians. Clearly perceiving the - high importance of the clergy for the continued existence of the - church, his persecuting edict was directed solely against them. - The imperial position which he had usurped, however, was not - sufficiently secure to allow him to carry out his intentions - to extremities. Under =Gordianus= the Christians had rest, and - =Philip the Arabian= (A.D. 244-249) favoured them so openly and - decidedly, that it came to be thought that he himself had been a - Christian. - - § 22.5. =Decius, Gallus and Valerianus [Valerian].=--Soon after - the accession of =Decius= (A.D. 249-251), in the year 250, a new - persecution broke out that lasted without interruption for ten - years. This was the first general persecution and was directed at - first against the recognised heads of the churches, but by-and-by - was extended more widely to all ranks, and exceeded all previous - persecutions by its extent, the deliberateness of its plan, - the rigid determination with which it was conducted, and the - cruelties of its execution. Decius was a prudent ruler, an - earnest man of the old school, endued with an indomitable - will. But it was just this that drove him to the conclusion - that Christianity, as a godless system and one opposed to - the interests of the state, must be summarily suppressed. All - possible means, such as confiscation of goods, banishment, severe - tortures, or death, were tried in order to induce the Christians - to yield. Very many spoiled by the long peace that they had - enjoyed gave way, but on the other hand crowds of Christians, - impelled by a yearning after the crown of martyrdom, gave - themselves up joyfully to the prison and the stake. Those who - fell away, the _lapsi_, were classified as the _Thurificati_ - or _Sacrificati_, who to save their lives had burnt incense or - sacrificed to the gods, and _Libellatici_, who without doing - this had purchased a certificate from the magistrates that they - had done so, and _Acta facientes_, who had issued documents - giving false statements regarding their Christianity. Those were - called _Confessores_ who publicly professed Christ and remained - steadfast under persecution, but escaped with their lives; those - were called _Martyrs_ who witnessing with their blood, suffered - death for the faith they professed. The Roman church could - boast of a whole series of bishops who fell victims to the storm - of persecution: Fabianus [Fabian] in A.D. 250, and Cornelius - in A.D. 253, probably also Lucius in A.D. 254, and Stephanus in - A.D. 257. And as in Rome, so also in the provinces, whole troops - of confessors and martyrs met a joyful death, not only from - among the clergy, but also from among the general members of - the church.--Then again, under =Gallus= (A.D. 251-253), the - persecution continued, excited anew by plagues and famine, - but was in many ways restricted by political embarrassment. - =Valerianus= [Valerian] (A.D. 253-260), from being a favourer of - the Christians, began from A.D. 257, under the influence of his - favourite Macrianus, to show himself a determined persecutor. The - Christian pastors were at first banished, and since this had not - the desired effect, they were afterwards punished with death. At - this time, too, the bishop of Carthage, Cyprian, who under Decius - had for a short season withdrawn by flight into the wilderness, - won for himself the martyr’s crown. So, likewise, in A.D. 258, - suffered Sixtus II. of Rome. The Roman bishop was soon followed - by his deacon Laurentius, a hero among Christian martyrs, who - pointed the avaricious governor to the sick, the poor and the - orphans of the congregation as the treasures of the church, and - was then burnt alive on a fire of glowing coal. But Valerian’s - son, =Gallienus= (A.D. 260-268), by an edict addressed to the - bishops, abolished the special persecuting statutes issued by his - father, without, however, as he is often erroneously said to have - done, formally recognising Christianity as a _Religio licita_. - The Christians after this enjoyed a forty years’ rest; for - the commonly reported cruel persecution of Christians under - =Claudius II.=, (A.D. 268-270) has been proved to be a pure - fable of apocryphal Acts of the Martyrs; and also the persecution - planned by =Aurelian= (A.D. 270-275), toward the close of his - reign, was prevented by his assassination committed by a pagan - officer. - - § 22.6. =Diocletian and Galerius.=--When =Diocletian= - (A.D. 284-305) was proclaimed Emperor by the army in Chalcedon, he - chose Nicomedia in Bithynia as his residence, and transferred the - conduct of the war to the general Maximianus [Maximian] Herculius - with the title of Cæsar, who, after the campaign had been closed - successfully in A.D. 286, was raised to the rank of Augustus or - joint-Emperor. New harassments from within and from without led - the two Emperors in A.D. 286 to name two Cæsars, or sub-Emperors, - who by their being adopted were assured of succession to imperial - rank. Diocletian assumed the administration of the East, and - gave up Illyricum as far as Pontus to his Cæsar and son-in-law - Galerius. Maximian undertook the government of the West, and - surrendered Gaul, Spain and Britain to his Cæsar, Constantius - Chlorus. According to Martyrologies, there was a whole legion, - called =Legio Thebaica=, that consisted of Christian soldiers. - This legion was originally stationed in the East, but was sent - into the war against the Gauls, because its members refused to - take part in the persecution of their brethren. After suffering - decimation twice over without any result, it is said that - =Maximian= left this legion, consisting of 6,600 men, along - with its commander St. Maurice, to be hewn down in the pass of - Agaunum, now called St. Moritz, in the Canton Valais. According to - Rettberg,[26] the historical germ of this consists in a tradition - reported by Theodoret as originating during the fifth or sixth - century, in a letter of Eucherius bishop of Lyons, about the - martyrdom of St. Maurice, who as _Tribunus Militum_ was executed - at Apamea along with seventy soldiers, by the orders of Maximian. - =Diocletian=, as the elder and supreme Emperor, was an active, - benevolent, clear-sighted statesman and ruler, but also a zealous - adherent of the old religion as regenerated by Neo-platonic - influences (§ 24, 2), and as such was inclined to hold - Christianity responsible for many of the internal troubles - of his kingdom. He was restrained from interfering with the - Christians, however, by the policy of toleration which had - prevailed since the time of Gallienus, as well as by his - own benevolent disposition, and not least by the political - consideration of the vast numbers of the Christian population. - His own wife Prisca and his daughter Valeria had themselves - embraced Christianity, as well as very many, and these the truest - and most trustworthy, of the members of his household. Yet the - incessant importunities and whispered suspicions of Galerius were - not without success. In A.D. 298 he issued the decree, that all - soldiers should take part in the sacrificial rites, and thus - obliged all Christian soldiers to withdraw from the army. During - a long sojourn in Nicomedia he finally prevailed upon the Emperor - to order a second general persecution; yet even then Diocletian - persisted, that in it no blood should be shed. This persecution - opened in A.D. 303 with the imperial command to destroy the - stately church of Nicomedia. Soon after an edict was issued - forbidding all Christian assemblies, ordering the destruction of - the churches, the burning of the sacred scriptures, and depriving - Christians of their offices and of their civil rights. A - Christian tore up the edict and was executed. Fire broke out - in the imperial palace and Galerius blamed the Christians for - the fire, and also charged them with a conspiracy against the - life of the Emperor. A persecution then began to rage throughout - the whole Roman empire, Gaul, Spain and Britain alone entirely - escaping owing to the favour of Constantius Chlorus who governed - these regions. All conceivable tortures and modes of death were - practised, and new and more horrible devices were invented from - day to day. Diocletian, who survived to A.D. 313, and Maximian, - abdicated the imperial rank which they had jointly held in - A.D. 305. Their places were filled by those who had been - previously their Cæsars, and Galerius as now the chief Augustus - proclaimed as Cæsars, =Severus= and =Maximinus Daza=, the most - furious enemies of the Christians that could be found, so that the - storm of persecution which had already begun in some measure to - abate, was again revived in Italy by Severus and in the East by - Maximinus. Then in order to bring all Christians into inevitable - contact with idolatrous rites, Galerius in A.D. 308 had all - victuals in the markets sprinkled with wine or water that - had been offered to idols. Seized with a terrible illness, - mortification beginning in his living body, he finally admitted - the uselessness of all his efforts to root out Christianity, and - shortly before his death, in common with his colleague, he issued - in A.D. 311, a formal =edict of toleration=, which permitted to - all Christians the free exercise of their religion and claimed in - return their intercession for the emperor and the empire.--During - this persecution of unexampled cruelty, lasting without - intermission for eight years, many noble proofs were given of - Christian heroism and of the joyousness that martyrdom inspired. - The number of the _Lapsi_, though still considerable, was in - proportion very much less than under the Decian persecution. How - much truth, if any, there may have been in the later assertion of - the Donatists (§ 63, 1), that even the Roman bishop, Marcellinus - [Marcellus] (A.D. 296-304), and his presbyters, Melchiades, - Marcellus and Sylvester, who were also his successors in the - bishopric, had denied Christ and sacrificed to idols, cannot - now be ascertained. Augustine denies the charge, but even - the Felician Catalogue of the Popes reports that Marcellinus - [Marcellus] during the persecution became a _Thurificatus_, - adding, however, the extenuation, that he soon thereafter, seized - with deep penitence, suffered martyrdom. The command to deliver - up the sacred writings gave rise to a new order of apostates, - the so-called _Traditores_. Many had recourse to a subterfuge by - surrendering heretical writings instead of the sacred books and - as such, but the earnest spirit of the age treated these as no - better than _traditors_.[27] - - § 22.7. =Maximinus Daza, Maxentius and Licinius.=--After the - death of Galerius his place was taken by the Dacian Licinius, - who shared with Maximinus the government of the East, the former - taking the European, the latter the Asiatic part along with - Egypt. Constantius Chlorus had died in A.D. 306, and Galerius - had given to the Cæsar Severus the empire of the West. But the - army proclaimed Constantine, son of Constantius, as Emperor. - He also established himself in Gaul, Spain and Britain. Then - also Maxentius, son of the abdicated emperor Maximian, claimed - the Western Empire, was proclaimed Augustus by the Prætorians, - recognised by the Roman senate, and after the overthrow of - Severus, ruled in Italy and Africa.--The pagan fanaticism of - =Maximinus= prevailed against the toleration edict of Galerian. - He heartily supported the attempted expulsion of Christians on - the part of several prominent cities, and commended the measure - on brazen tablets. He forbade the building of churches, punished - many with fines and dishonour, inflicted in some cases bodily - pains and even death, and gave official sanction to perpetrating - upon them all sorts of scandalous enormities. The _Acta Pilati_, - a pagan pseudepigraph filled with the grossest slanders about the - passion of Christ, was widely circulated by him and introduced as - a reading-book for the young in the public schools. =Constantine=, - who had inherited from his father along with his Neo-platonic - eclecticism his toleration of the Christians, secured to the - professors of the Christian faith in his realm the most perfect - quiet. =Maxentius=, too, at first let them alone; but the rivalry - and enmity that was daily increasing between him and Constantine, - the favourer of the Christians, drew him into close connection - with the pagan party, and into sympathy with their persecuting - spirit. In A.D. 312 Constantine led his army over the Alps. - Maxentius opposed him with an army drawn up in three divisions; - but Constantine pressed on victoriously, and shattered his - opponent’s forces before the gates of Rome. Betaking himself to - flight, Maxentius was drowned in the Tiber, and Constantine was - then sole ruler over the entire Western Empire. At Milan he had a - conference with Licinius, to whom he gave in marriage his sister - Constantia. They jointly issued an edict in A.D. 313, which - gave toleration to all forms of worship throughout the empire, - expressly permitting conversion to Christianity, and ordering the - restoration to the Christians of all the churches that had been - taken from them. Soon thereafter a decisive battle was fought - between Maximinus and Licinius. The former was defeated and took - to flight. The friendly relations that had subsisted between - =Constantine= and =Licinius= gave way gradually to estrangement - and were at last succeeded by open hostility. Licinius by - manifesting zeal as a persecutor identified himself with the - pagan party, and Constantine threw in his lot with the Christians. - In A.D. 323 a war broke out between these two, like a struggle - for life and death between Paganism and Christianity. Licinius - was overthrown and Constantine was master of the whole empire - (§ 42, 2). Eusebius in his _Vita Constantini_ reports, on the - basis probably of a sworn statement of the emperor, that during - the expedition against Maxentius in A.D. 312, after praying for - the aid of the higher powers, when the sun was going down, he saw - in heaven a shining cross in the sun with a bright inscription: - τούτῳ νίκα. During the night Christ appeared to him in a dream, - and commanded him to take the cross as his standard in battle - and with it to go into battle confident of victory. In his Church - History, Eusebius makes no mention of this tradition of the - vision. On the other hand there is here the fact, contested - indeed by critics, that after the victory over Maxentius the - emperor had erected his statue in the Roman Forum, with the - cross in his hand, and bearing the inscription: “By this sign of - salvation have I delivered your city from the yoke of the tyrant. - ” This only is certain, that the imperial standard, which had the - unexplained name Labarum, bore the sign of the cross with the - monogram of the name of Christ. - - - § 23. CONTROVERSIAL WRITINGS OF PAGANISM. - - Pagan writers in their published works passed spiteful and -contemptuous judgments upon Christians and Christianity (Tacitus, Pliny, -Marcus Aurelius, and the physician Galen), or, like the rhetorician -Fronto, argued against them with violent invective; while popular wit -ran riot in representing Christianity by word and picture as the devout -worship of an ass. But even the talented satirist Lucian of Samosata was -satisfied with ridiculing the Christians as senseless fools. The first -and also the most important of all really pagan advocates was Celsus, -who in the second century, with brilliant subtlety and scathing sarcasm -sought to prove that the religion of the Christians was the very climax -of unreason. In respect of ability, keenness and bitterness of polemic -he is closely followed by the Neo-platonist Porphyry. Far beneath both -stands Hierocles, governor of Bithynia. Against such attacks the most -famous Christian teachers took the field as Apologists. They disproved -the calumnies and charges of the pagans, demanded fair play for the -Christians, vindicated Christianity by the demonstration of its inner -truth, the witness borne to it by the life and walk of Christians, -its establishment by miracles and prophecies, its agreement with the -utterances and longings of the most profound philosophers, whose wisdom -they traced mediately or immediately from the Old Testament, and on the -other hand, they sought to show the nothingness of the heathen gods, and -the religious as well as moral perversity of paganism. - - § 23.1. =Lucian’s Satire _De Morte Peregrini_= takes the form - of an account given by Lucian to his friend Cronius of the Cynic - Peregrinus Proteus’ burning of himself during the Olympic games - of A.D. 165, of which he himself was a witness. Peregrinus is - described as a low, contemptible man, a parricide and guilty - of adultery, unnatural vice and drunkenness, who having fled - from his home in Palestine joined the Christians, learnt their - θαυμαστὴ σοφία, became their prophet (§ 34, 1), Thiasarch (§ 17, 3) - and Synagogeus, and as such expounded their sacred writings, - even himself composed and addressed to the most celebrated Greek - cities many epistles containing new ordinances and laws. When - cast into prison he was the subject of the most extravagant - attentions on the part of the Christians. Their γραΐδια and χῆραι - (deaconesses) nursed him most carefully, δεῖπνα ποικίλα and λόγοι - ἱεροί (Agapæ) were celebrated in his prison, they loaded him with - presents, etc. Nevertheless on leaving prison, on account of his - having eaten a forbidden kind of meat (flesh offered to idols) - he was expelled by them. He now cast himself into the arms of - the Cynics, travelled as the apostle of their views through the - whole world, and ended his life in his mad thirst for fame by - voluntarily casting himself upon the funeral pile. Lucian tells - with scornful sneer how the superstitious people supposed that - there had been an earthquake and that an eagle flew up from - his ashes crying out: The earth I have lost, to Olympus I fly. - This fable was believed, and even yet it is said that sometimes - Peregrinus will be seen in a white garment as a spirit.--It is - undoubtedly recorded by Aulus Gellius that a Cynic Peregrinus - lived at this time whom he describes as _vir gravis et constans_. - This too is told by the Apologist Tatian, who in him mocks at the - pretension on the part of heathen philosophers to emancipation - from all wants. But neither of them knows anything about his - Christianity or his death by fire. It is nevertheless conceivable - that Peregrinus had for some time connection with Christianity; - but without this assumption it seems likely that Lucian in a - satire which, under the combined influence of personal and class - antipathies, aimed first and chiefly at stigmatizing Cynicism - in the person of Peregrinus, should place Christianity alongside - of it as what seemed to him with its contempt of the world and - self-denial to be a new, perhaps a nobler, but still nothing more - than a species of Cynicism. Many features in the caricature which - he gives of the life, doings and death of Peregrinus seem to have - been derived by him from the life of the Apostle Paul as well as - from the account of the martyrdom of Ignatius, and especially - from that of Polycarp (§ 22, 3).[28] - - § 23.2. =Worshippers of an Ass= (Asinarii) was a term of - reproach that was originally and from early times applied to the - Jews. They now sought to have it transferred to the Christians. - Tertullian tells of a picture publicly exhibited in Carthage - which represented a man clothed in a toga, with the ears and hoof - of an ass, holding a book in his hand, and had this inscription: - _Deus Christianorum Onochoetes_. This name is variously read. If - read as ὄνου χοητής it means _asini sacerdos_. Alongside of this - we may place the picture, belonging probably to the third century, - discovered in A.D. 1858 scratched on a wall among the ruins - of a school for the imperial slaves, that were then excavated. - It represents a man with an ass’s head hanging on a cross, and - beneath it the caricature of a worshipper with the words written - in a schoolboy’s hand; Alexamenos worships God (A. σεβετε θεον); - evidently the derision of a Christian youth by a pagan companion. - The scratching on another wall gives us probably the answer of - the Christian: _Alexamenos fidelis_. - - § 23.3. =Polemic properly so-called.=-- - - (a) The Λόγος ἀληθής of =Celsus= is in great part preserved in - the answer of Origen (§ 31, 5). He identifies the author - with that Celsus to whom Lucian dedicated the little work - _Alexander or Pseudomantis_ in which he so extols the - philosophy of Epicurus that it seems he must be regarded as - an Epicurean. Since, however, the philosophical standpoint - of our Celsus is that of a Platonist the assumption of the - identity of the two has been regarded as untenable. But - even our Celsus does not seem to have been a pure Platonist - but an Eclectic, and as such might also show a certain - measure of favour to the philosophy of Epicurus. Their - age is at least the same. Lucian wrote that treatise soon - after A.D. 180, and according to Keim, the Λόγος ἀληθής was - probably composed about A.D. 178. Almost everything that - modern opponents down to our own day have advanced against - the gospel history and doctrine is found here wrought out - with original force and subtlety, inspired with burning - hatred and bitter irony, and highly spiced with invective, - mockery, and wit. First of all the author introduces - a Jew who repeats the slanders current among the Jews, - representing Jesus as a vagabond impostor, His mother - as an adulteress, His miracles and resurrection as lying - fables; then enters a heathen philosopher who proves that - both Judaism and Christianity are absurd; and finally, the - conditions are set forth under which alone the Christians - might claim indulgence: the abandonment of their exclusive - attitude toward the national religion and the recognition - of it by their taking part in the sacrifices appointed by - the state.[29] - - (b) The Neo-platonist Porphyry, about A.D. 270, as reported by - Jerome, in the XV. Book of his Κατὰ Χριστιανῶν points to a - number of supposed contradictions in holy scripture, calls - attention to the conflict between Paul and Peter (Gal. ii.), - explains Daniel’s prophecies as _Vaticinia post eventum_, - and censures the allegorical interpretation of the - Christians. Although even among the Christians themselves - Porphyry as a philosopher was highly esteemed, and - notwithstanding contact at certain points between his - ethical and religious view of the world and that of the - Christians, perhaps just because of this, he is the worst - and most dangerous of all their pagan assailants. Against - his controversial writings, therefore, the edict of - Theodosius II. ordering them to be burnt was directed - in A.D. 448 (§ 42, 4), and owing to the zeal with which - his works were destroyed the greater part of the treatises - which quoted from it for purposes of controversy also - perished with it--the writings of Methodius of Tyre - (§ 31, 9), Eusebius of Cæsarea (§ 47, 2), Philostorgius - (§ 5, 1) and Apollinaris the younger (§ 47, 5). Of these - according to Jerome those of the last named were the - most important. In the recently discovered controversial - treatise of Macarius Magnes (§ 47, 6) an unnamed pagan - philosopher is combated whose attacks, chiefly directed - against the Gospels, to all appearance verbally agree with - the treatise of Porphyry, or rather, perhaps, with that of - his plagiarist Hierocles. - - (c) =Hierocles= who as governor of Bithynia took an active - part in the persecution of Galerius, wrote two books - Λόγοι φιλαλήθεις against the Christians, about A.D. 305, - which have also perished. Eusebius’ reply refers only - to his repudiation of the equality assigned to Christ - and Apollonius of Tyana (§ 24, 1). While the title of - his treatise is borrowed from that of Celsus, he has also - according to the testimony of Eusebius in great part copied - the very words of both of his predecessors. - - - § 24. Attempted Reconstruction of Paganism. - - All its own more thoughtful adherents had long acknowledged that -paganism must undergo a thorough reform and reconstruction if it were to -continue any longer in existence. In the Augustan Age an effort was made -to bolster up Neopythagoreanism by means of theurgy and magic. The chief -representative of this movement was Apollonius of Tyana. In the second -century an attempt was made to revivify the secret rites of the ancient -mysteries, of Dea Syra, and Mithras. Yet all this was not enough. What -was needed was the setting up of a pagan system which would meet the -religious cravings of men in the same measure as Christianity with its -supernaturalism, monotheism and universalism had done, and would have -the absurdities and impurities that had disfigured the popular religion -stripped off. Such a regeneration of paganism was undertaken in the -beginning of the third century by Neoplatonism. But even this was no -more able than pagan polemics had been to check the victorious career -of Christianity. - - § 24.1. =Apollonius of Tyana= in Cappadocia, a contemporary of - Christ and the Apostles, was a philosopher, ascetic and magician - esteemed among the people as a worker of miracles. As an earnest - adherent of the doctrine of Pythagoras, whom he also imitated - in his dress and manner of life, claiming the possession of the - gifts of prophecy and miracle working, he assumed the role of a - moral and religious reformer of the pagan religion of his fathers. - Accompanied by numerous scholars, teaching and working miracles, - he travelled through the whole of the then known world until - he reached the wonderland of India. He settled down at last in - Ephesus where he died at an advanced age, having at least passed - his ninety-sixth year. At the wish of the Empress Julia, wife - of Septimius Severus, in the third century, Philostratus the - elder composed in the form of a romance in eight books based upon - written and oral sources, a biography of Apollonius, in which - he is represented as a heathen counterpart of Christ, who is - otherwise completely ignored, excelling Him in completeness of - life, doctrine and miraculous powers.[30] - - § 24.2. In =Neo-platonism=, by the combination of all that was - noblest and best in the exoteric and esoteric religion, in the - philosophy, theosophy and theurgy of earlier and later times - in East and West, we are presented with a universal religion - in which faith and knowledge, philosophy and theology, theory - and practice, were so perfectly united and reconciled, and all - religious needs so fully met, that in comparison with its wealth - and fulness, the gnosis as well as the faith, the worship and - the mysteries of the Christians must have seemed one-sided, - commonplace and incomplete. The first to introduce and commend - this tendency, which was carried out in three successive schools - of philosophy, the Alexandrian-Roman, the Syrian and the Athenian, - was the Alexandrian =Ammonius Saccas=,--this surname being - derived from his occupation as a porter. He lived and taught in - Alexandria till about A.D. 250. He sought to combine in a higher - unity the Platonic and the Aristotelian philosophies, giving - to the former a normative authority, and he did not hesitate to - enrich his system by the incorporation of Christian ideas. His - knowledge of Christianity came from Clement of Alexandria and - from Origen, whose teacher in philosophy he had been. Porphyry - indeed affirms that he had previously been himself a Christian, - but had at a later period of life returned to paganism.--The most - distinguished of his scholars, and also the most talented and - profound of all the Neo-platonists, was =Plotinus=, who was in - A.D. 254 a teacher of philosophy at Rome, and died in A.D. 270. - His philosophico-theological system in its characteristic features - is a combination of the Platonic antithesis of the finite world - of sense and the eternal world of ideas with the stoical doctrine - of the world soul. The eternal ground of all being is the one - supramundane, unintelligible and indescribable good (τὸ ἕν, τὸ - ἀγαθόν), from which all stages of being are radiated forth; first; - spirit or the world of ideas (νοῦς, κόσμος νοητός), the eternal - type of all being; and then, from this the world soul (ψυχή); - and from this, finally, the world of phenomena. The outermost - fringe of this evolution, the forms of which the further they are - removed from the original ground become more and more imperfect, - is matter, just as the shadow is the outermost fringe of the - light. It is conceived of as the finite, the fleeting, even as - evil in itself. But imperfect as the world of sense is, it is - nevertheless the vehicle of the ideal world and in many ways - penetrated by the ideas, and the lighting up imparted by the - ideas affords it its beauty. In consequence of those rays shining - in from the realm of ideas, a whole vast hierarchy of divine - forms has arisen, with countless dæmons good and bad, which give - room for the incorporation of all the divine beings of the Greek - and oriental mythologies. In this way myths that were partly - immoral and partly fantastic can be rehabilitated as symbolical - coverings of speculative ideas. The souls of men, too, originate - from the eternal world soul. By their transition, however, into - the world of sense they are hampered and fettered by corporeity. - They themselves complete their redemption through emancipation - from the bonds of sense by means of asceticism and the practice - of virtue. In this way they secure a return into the ideal world - and the vision of the highest good, sometimes as moments of - ecstatic mystical union with that world, even during this earthly - life, but an eternally unbroken continuance thereof is only - attained unto after complete emancipation from all the bonds of - matter.[31]--Plotinus’ most celebrated scholar, who also wrote - his life, and collected and arranged his literary remains, was - =Porphyry=. He also taught in Rome and died there in A.D. 304. - His ἐκ τῶν λογίων φιλοσοφία, a collection of oracular utterances, - was a positive supplement to his polemic against Christianity - (§ 23, 3), and afforded to paganism a book of revelation, a - heathen bible, as Philostratus had before sought to portray a - heathen saviour. Of greater importance for the development of - mediæval scholasticism was his Commentary on the logical works - of Aristotle, published in several editions of the Aristotelian - Organon.--His scholar =Iamblichus= of Chalcis in Cœle-Syria, - who died A.D. 333, was the founder of the Syrian school. The - development which he gave to the Neo-platonic doctrine consisted - chiefly in the incorporation of a fantastic oriental mythology - and theurgy. This also brought him the reputation of being a - magician.--Finally, the Athenian school had in =Proclus=, who - died in A.D. 485, its most distinguished representative. While - on the one hand, he proceeded along the path opened by Iamblichus - to develop vagaries about dæmons and theurgical fancies, on the - other hand, he gave to his school an impulse in the direction of - scholarly and encyclopædic culture.--The Neo-platonic speculation - exercised no small influence on the development of Christian - philosophy. The philosophizing church fathers, whose darling - was Plato, got acquaintance with his philosophical views from - its relatively pure reproduction met with in the works of the - older Neo-platonists. The influence of their mystico-theosophic - doctrine, especially as conveyed in the writings of the - Pseudo-Dionysius (§ 47, 11), is particularly discernible in - the Christian mysticism of the middle ages, and has been thence - transmitted to modern times.[32] - - - § 25. Jewish and Samaritan Reaction. - - The Judaism of the Apostolic Age in its most characteristic form was -thoroughly hostile to Christianity. The Pharisees and the mass of the -people with their expectation of a political Messiah, took offence at a -Messiah crucified by the Gentiles (1 Cor. i. 13); their national pride -was wounded by the granting of equality to Samaritans and heathens, -while their legal righteousness and sham piety were exposed and censured -by the teachings of Christianity. On the other side, the Sadducees felt -no less called upon to fight to the death against Christianity with its -doctrine of the resurrection (Acts iv. 2; xxiii. 6). The same hostile -feeling generally prevailed among the dispersion. The Jewish community -at Berea (Acts xvii. 2) is praised as a pleasing exception to the -general rule. Finally, in A.D. 70 destruction fell upon the covenant -people and the holy city. The Christian church of Jerusalem, acting upon -a warning uttered by the Lord (Matt. xxiv. 16), found a place of refuge -in the mountain city of Pella, on the other side of Jordan. But when -the Pseudo-Messiah, Bar-Cochba (Son of a Star, Num. xxiv. 17), roused -all Palestine against the Roman rule, in A.D. 132, the Palestinian -Christians who refused to assist or recognise the false Messiah, -had again to endure a bloody persecution. Bar-Cochba was defeated in -A.D. 135. Hadrian now commanded that upon pain of death no Jew should -enter Ælia Capitolina, the Roman colony founded by him on the ruins -of Jerusalem. From that time they were deprived of all power and -opportunity for direct persecution of the Christians. All the greater -was their pleasure at the persecutions by the heathens and their zeal -in urging the pagans to extreme measures. In their seminaries they gave -currency to the most horrible lies and calumnies about Christ and the -Christians, which also issued thence among the heathens. On the other -hand, however, they intensified their own anti-Christian attitude -and sought protection against the advancing tide of Christianity -by strangling all spiritual movement under a mass of traditional -interpretations and judgments of men. The Schools of Tiberias and -Babylon were the nurseries of this movement, and the _Talmud_, the first -part of which, the _Mishna_, had its origin during this period, marks -the completion of this anti-Christian self-petrifaction of Judaism. The -disciples of John, too, assumed a hostile attitude toward Christianity, -and formed a distinct set under the name of Hemerobaptists. -Contemporaneously with the first successes of the Apostolic mission, a -current set in among the Samaritans calculated to checkmate Christianity -by the setting up of new religions. Dositheus, Simon Magus and Menander -here made their appearance with claims to the Messiahship, and were at a -later period designated heresiarchs by the church fathers, who believed -that in them they found the germs of the Gnostic heresy (§§ 26 ff.). - - § 25.1. =Disciples of John.=--Even after their master had been - beheaded the disciples of John the Baptist maintained a separate - society of their own, and reproached the disciples of Jesus - because of their want of strict ascetic discipline (Matt. ix. 14, - etc.). The disciples of John in the Acts (xviii. 25; xix. 1-7) - were probably Hellenist Jews, who on their visits to the feasts - had been pointed by John to Christ, announced by him as Messiah, - without having any information as to the further developments of - the Christian community. About the middle of the second century, - however, the Clementine Homilies (§ 28, 3), in which John the - Baptist is designated a ἡμεροβαπτίστης, speaks of gnosticizing - disciples of John, who may be identical with the =Hemerobaptists=, - that is, those who practise baptism daily, of Eusebius (_Hist. - Eccl._, iv. 22). They originated probably from a coalition of - Essenes (§ 8, 4) and disciples of the Baptist who when orphaned - by the death of John persistently refused to join the disciples - of Christ.--We hear no more of them till the Carmelite missionary - John a Jesu in Persia came upon a sect erroneously called - Christians of St. John or Nazoreans.[33] Authentic information - about the doctrine, worship and constitution of this sect that - still numbers some hundred families, was first obtained in the - 19th century by an examination of their very comprehensive sacred - literature, written in an Aramaic dialect very similar to that of - the Babylonian Talmud. The most important of those writings the - so-called Great Book (_Sidra rabba_), also called _Ginza_, that - is, thesaurus, has been faithfully reproduced by Petermann under - the title _Thesaurus s. Liber magnus_, etc., 2 vols., Berl., - 1867.--Among themselves the adherents of this sect were styled - =Mandæans=, after one of their numerous divine beings or æons, - _Manda de chaje_, meaning γνῶσις τῆς ζωῆς. In their extremely - complicated religious system, resembling in many respects the - Ophite Gnosis (§ 27, 6) and Manicheism (§ 29), this Æon takes the - place of the heavenly mediator in the salvation of the earthly - world. Among those without, however, they called themselves - Subba, =Sabeans= from צבא or צבע to baptize. Although they - cannot be identified right off with the Disciples of John and - Hemerobaptists, a historical connection between them, carrying - with it gnostic and oriental-heathen influences, is highly - probable. The name Sabean itself suggests this, but still more - the position they assign to John the Baptist as the only true - prophet over against Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed. As - adherents of John the Baptist rejected by the Jews the old - Disciples of John had an anti-Jewish character, and by their - own rejection of Christ an anti-Christian character. By shifting - their residence to Babylon, however, they became so dependent - on the Syro-Chaldean mythology, theosophy and theurgy, that they - sank completely into paganism, and so their opposition to Judaism - and Christianity increased into fanatical hatred and horrid - calumniation.[34] - - § 25.2. =The Samaritan Heresiarchs.= - - (a) =Dositheus= was according to Origen a contemporary of - Jesus and the Apostles, and gave himself out as the - prophet promised in Deut. xviii. 18. He insisted upon a - curiously strict observance of the Sabbath, and according - to Epiphanius he perished miserably in a cave in consequence - of an ostentatiously prolonged fast. Purely fabulous are - the stories of the Pseudo-Clementine writings (§ 28, 3) - which bring him into contact with John the Baptist as his - scholar and successor, and with Simon Magus as his defeated - rival. More credible is the account of an Arabic-Samaritan - Chronicle,[35] according to which the sect of the - Dostanians at the time of Simon Maccabæus traced their - descent from a Samaritan tribe, while also the Catholic - heresiologies (§ 26, 4) reckon the Dositheans among the - pre-Christian sects. According to a statement of Eulogius - of Alexandria recorded by Photius, the Dositheans and - Samaritans in Egypt in A.D. 588 disputed as to the meaning - of Deut. xviii. 18. - - (b) =Simon Magus=, born, according to Justin Martyr, at Gitta - in Samaria, appeared in his native country as a soothsayer - with such success that the infatuated people hailed him as - the δύναμις τοῦ θεοῦ ἡ καλουμένη μεγάλη. When Philip the - Deacon preached the gospel in Samaria, Simon also received - baptism from him, but was sternly denounced by Peter from - whom he wished to buy the gift of communicating the Spirit - (Acts viii). As to the identity of this man with Simon - the Magician, according to Josephus hailing from Cyprus, - who induced the Herodian Drusilla to quit her husband and - become the wife of the Governor Felix (Acts xxiv. 24), it - can scarcely claim to be more than a probability. A vast - collection of fabulous legends soon grew up around the - name of Simon Magus, not only from the Gentile-Christian - and Catholic side, but also from the Jewish-Christian and - heretical side; the latter to be still met with in the - _Pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions_, while in the - _Acta Petri et Pauli_, we have the Catholic revision and - reproduction of the no longer extant Ebionistic _Acts of - Peter_ (§ 32, 6). These Judaizing heretics particularly - amused themselves by making a very slightly veiled - vile caricature of the great Apostle of the Gentiles by - transferring to the name of the magician many distorted - representations of occurrences in the life and works of the - Apostle Paul. This representation, however, was recognised - in the Acts above referred to and by the church fathers - as originally descriptive of Simon Magus. On the basis of - this legendary conglomerate Irenæus, after the example of - Justin, describes him as _Magister ac progenitor omnium - hæreticorum_. From a house of ill fame in Tyre he bought - a slave girl Helena, to whom he assigned the role of the - world creating Ἔννοια of God. The angels born of her for - the purpose of creating the world had rebelled against her; - she was enslaved, and was imprisoned, sometimes in this, - sometimes in that, human body; at one time in the body of - Helen of Troy, and at last in that of the Tyrian prostitute. - In order to redeem her and with her the world enslaved by - the rebel angels, the supreme God (ὁ ἐστώς) Himself came - down and assumed the form of man, was born unbegotten of - man, suffered in appearance in Judea, and reveals Himself - to the Samaritans as Father, to the Jews as Son, and to the - Gentiles as the Holy Spirit. The salvation of man consists - simply in acknowledging Simon and his Helena as the supreme - gods. By faith only, not by works, is man justified. The - law originated with the evil angels and was devised by them - merely to keep men in bondage under them. This last point - is evidently transferred to the magician partly from the - Apostle Paul, partly from Marcion (§ 27, 11), and is copied - from Ebionite sources. The Simon myth is specially rich in - legends about the magician’s residence in Rome, to which - place he had betaken himself after being often defeated - in disputation by the Apostle Peter, and where he was so - successful that the Romans erected a column in his honour - on an island in the Tiber, which Justin Martyr himself is - said to have seen, bearing the inscription: _Simoni sancto - Deo_. The discovery in A.D. 1574 of the column dedicated - to the Sabine god of oaths, inscribed “_Semoni Sanco Deo - Fidio_,” explains how such a legend may have arisen out - of a misunderstanding. Although by a successful piece of - jugglery--decapitation and rising again the third day, - having substituted for himself a goat whom he had bewitched - to assume his appearance, whose head was cut off--he won - the special favour of Nero, he was thereafter in public - disputation before the emperor unmasked by Peter. In order - to rehabilitate himself he offered to prove his divine - power by ascending up into heaven. For this purpose he - mounted a high tower. Peter adjured the angel of Satan, - which carried him through the air, and the magician - fell with a crash to the ground. Probably there is here - transferred to one magician what is told by Suetonius - (_Nero_, xii.) and Juvenal (_Sat._ iii. 79 ff.) as - happening to a soothsayer in Nero’s time who made an - attempt to fly. The school of Baur (§ 182, 7), after Baur - himself had discovered in the Simon Magus of the Clementine - Homilies a caricature of the Apostle Paul, has come to - question the existence of the magician altogether, and - has attempted to account for the myth as originating from - the hatred of the Jewish Christians to the Apostle of the - Gentiles. Support for this view is sought from Acts viii., - the offering of money by the magician being regarded as a - maliciously distorted account of the contribution conveyed - by Paul to the church at Jerusalem.[36] Recently, however, - Hilgenfeld, who previously maintained this view, has again - recognised as well grounded the tradition of the Church - Fathers, that Simon was the real author of the ψευδώνυμος - γνῶσις, and has carried out this idea in his - “Ketzergeschichte.” - - (c) =Menander= was, according to Justin Martyr, a disciple of - Simon. Subsequently he undertook to play the part of the - Saviour of the world. In doing so, however, he was always, - as Irenæus remarks, modest enough not to give himself out - as the supreme god, but only as the Messiah sent by Him. - He taught, however, that any one who should receive his - baptism would never become old or die.[37] - - - - - II. DANGER TO THE CHURCH FROM PAGAN AND JEWISH - ELEMENTS WITHIN ITS OWN PALE. - - - § 26. GNOSTICISM IN GENERAL.[38] - - The Judaism and paganism imported into the church proved more -dangerous to it than the storm of persecution raging against it from -without. Ebionism (§ 28) was the result of the attempt to incorporate -into Christianity the narrow particularism of Judaism; Heretical Gnosis -or Gnosticism was the result of the attempt to blend with Christianity -the religious notions of pagan mythology, mysteriology, theosophy and -philosophy. These two tendencies, moreover, were combined in a Gnostic -Ebionism, in the direction of which Essenism may be regarded as a -transitional stage (§ 8, 4). In many respects Manichæism (§ 29), which -sprang up at a later period, is related to the Gnosticism of Gentile -Christianity, but also in character and tendency widely different from -it. The church had to employ all her powers to preserve herself from -this medley of religious fancies and to purify her fields from the -weeds that were being sown on every side. In regard to Ebionism and -its gnosticizing developments this was a comparatively easy task. The -Gnosticism of Gentile Christianity was much more difficult to deal with, -and although the church succeeded in overcoming the weed in her fields, -yet many of its seeds continued hidden for centuries, from which sprouts -grew up now and again quite unexpectedly (§§ 54, 71, 108). This struggle -has nevertheless led to the furtherance of the church in many ways, -awakening in it a sense of scientific requirements, stirring it up -to more vigorous battling for the truth, and endowing it with a more -generous and liberal spirit. It had learnt to put a Christian gnosis in -the place of the heretical, a right and wholesome use of speculation and -philosophy, of poetry and art, in place of their misuse, and thus -enabled Christianity to realise its universal destination. - - § 26.1. =Gnosticism= was deeply rooted in a powerful and - characteristic intellectual tendency of the first century. A - persistent conviction that the ancient world had exhausted itself - and was no longer able to resist its threatened overthrow, now - prevailed and drove the deepest thinkers to adopt the boldest and - grandest Syncretism the world has ever beheld, in the blending of - all the previously isolated and heterogeneous elements of culture - as a final attempt at the rejuvenating of that which had become - old (§ 25). Even within the borders of the church this Syncretism - favoured by the prevailing spirit of the age influenced those of - superior culture, to whom the church doctrine of that age did not - seem to make enough of theosophical principles and speculative - thought, while the worship of the church seemed dry and barren. - Out of the fusing of cosmological myths and philosophemes of - oriental and Greek paganism with Christian historical elements in - the crucible of its own speculation, there arose numerous systems - of a higher fantastic sort of religious philosophy, which were - included under the common name of Gnosticism. The pagan element - is upon the whole the prevailing one, inasmuch as in most Gnostic - systems Christianity is not represented as the conclusion and - completion of the development of salvation given in the Old - Testament, but often merely as the continuation and climax of - the pagan religion of nature and the pagan mystery worship. - The attitude of this heretical gnosis toward holy scripture was - various. By means of allegorical interpretation some endeavoured - to prove their system from it; others preferred to depreciate the - Apostles as falsifiers of the original purely gnostic doctrine - of Christ, or to remodel the apostolic writings in accordance - with their own views, or even to produce a bible of their own - after the principles of their own schools in the form of gnostic - pseudepigraphs. With them, however, for the most part the - tradition of ancient wisdom as the communicated secret doctrine - stood higher than holy scripture. Over against the heretical - gnosis, an ecclesiastical gnosis was developed, especially in the - Alexandrian school of theology (Clement and Origen, § 31, 4, 5), - which, according to 1 Cor. xii. 8, 9; xiii. 2, was esteemed - and striven after as, in contradistinction to faith, a higher - stage in the development of the religious consciousness. The - essential distinction between the two consisted in this, that - the latter was determined, inspired and governed by the believing - consciousness of the universal church, as gradually formulated in - the church confession, whereas the former, completely emancipated - therefrom, disported itself in the unrestricted arbitrariness of - fantastic speculation. - - § 26.2. =The Problems of Gnostic Speculation= are: the origin - of the world and of evil, as well as the task, means and end of - the world’s development. In solving these problems the Gnostics - borrowed mostly from paganism the theory of the world’s origin, - and from Christianity the idea of redemption. At the basis - of almost all Gnostic systems there lies the dualism of God - and matter (ὕλη); only that matter is regarded sometimes in a - Platonic sense as non-essential and non-substantial (=μὴ ὄν) - and hence without hostile opposition to the godhead, sometimes - more in the Parsee sense as inspired and dominated by an evil - principle, and hence in violent opposition to the good God. - In working out the theosophical and cosmological process it is - mainly the idea of emanation (προβολή) that is called into play, - whereby from the hidden God is derived a long series of divine - essences (αἰῶνες), whose inherent divine power diminishes in - proportion as they are removed to a distance from the original - source of being. These æons then make their appearance as - intermediaries in the creation, development and redemption of the - world. The substratum out of which the world is created consists - in a mixture of the elements of the world of light (πλήρωμα) - with the elements of matter (κένωμα) by means of nature, chance - or conflict. One of the least and weakest of the æons, who is - usually designated Δημιουργός, after the example of Plato in - the _Timæus_, is brought forward as the creator of the world. - Creation is the first step toward redemption. But the Demiurge - cannot or will not carry it out, and so finally there appears in - the fulness of the times one of the highest æons as redeemer, in - order to secure perfect emancipation to the imprisoned elements - of light by the communication of the γνῶσις. Seeing that matter - is derived from the evil, he appears in a seeming body or at - baptism identifies himself with the psychical Messiah sent by - the Demiurge. The death on the cross is either only an optical - illusion, or the heavenly Christ, returning to the pleroma, - quits the man Jesus, or gives His form to some other man - (Simon of Cyrene, Matt. xxvii. 32) so that he is crucified - instead of Him (Docetism). The souls of men, according as the - pleromatic or hylic predominates in them, are in their nature, - either _Pneumatic_, which alone are capable of the γνῶσις, or - _Psychical_, which can only aspire to πίστις, or finally, _Hylic_ - (χοϊκοί, σαρκικοί), to which class the great majority belongs, - which, subject to Satanic influences, serve only their lower - desires. Redemption consists in the conquest and exclusion - of matter, and is accomplished through knowledge (γνῶσις) and - asceticism. It is therefore a chemical, rather than an ethical - process. Seeing that the original seat of evil is in matter, - sanctification is driven from the ethical domain into the - physical, and consists in battling with matter and withholding - from material enjoyments. The Gnostics were thus originally very - strict in their moral discipline, but often they rushed to the - other extreme, to libertinism and antinomianism, in consequence - partly of the depreciation of the law of the Demiurge, partly - of the tendency to rebound from one extreme to the other, and - justified their conduct on the ground of παραχρῆσθαι τῇ σαρκί. - - § 26.3. =Distribution.=--_Gieseler_ groups the Gentile Christian - Gnostics according to their native countries into Egyptian or - Alexandrian, whose emanationist and dualistic theories were - coloured by Platonism, and the Syrian, whose views were affected - by Parseeism.--_Neander_ divides Gnostic systems into Judaistic - and Anti-Jewish, subdividing the latter into such as incline to - Paganism, and such as strive to apprehend Christianity in its - purity and simplicity.--_Hase_ arranges them as Oriental, Greek - and Christian.--_Baur_ classifies the Gnostic systems as those - which endeavour to combine Judaism and paganism with Christianity, - and those which oppose Christianity to these.--_Lipsius_ marks - three stages in the development of Gnosticism: the blending - of Asiatic myths with a Jewish and Christian basis which took - place in Syria; the further addition to this of Greek philosophy - either Stoicism or Platonism which was carried out in Egypt; - and recurrence to the ethical principles of Christianity, the - elevation of πίστις above γνῶσις.--_Hilgenfeld_ arranges his - discussion of these systems in accordance with their place in - the early heresiologies.--But none of these arrangements can - be regarded as in every respect satisfactory, and indeed it - may be impossible to lay down any principle of distribution of - such a kind. There are so many fundamental elements and these - of so diverse a character, that no one scheme of division - may suffice for an adequate classification of all Gnostic - systems. The difficulty was further enhanced by the contradiction, - approximation, and confusion of systems, and by their - construction and reconstruction, of which Rome as the capital - of the world was the great centre. - - § 26.4. =Sources of Information.=--Abundant as the literary - productions were which assumed the name or else without the name - developed the principles of Gnosticism, comparatively little of - this literature has been preserved. We are thus mainly dependent - upon the representations of its catholic opponents, and to them - also we owe the preservation of many authentic fragments. The - first church teacher who _ex professo_ deals with Gnosticism is - Justin Martyr (§ 30, 9), whose controversial treatise, however, - as well as that of Hegesippus (§ 31, 7), has been lost. The most - important of extant treatises of this kind are those of Irenæus - in five books _Adv. hæreses_, and of Hippolytus Ἔλεγχος κατὰ - πασῶν αἱρέσεων, the so-called _Philosophoumena_ (§ 31, 3). The - Σύνταγμα κ. π. αἱρ. of Hippolytus is no longer extant in the - original; a Latin translation of it apparently exists in the - _Libellus adv. omnes hæreses_, which has been attributed to - Tertullian. Together with the work of Irenæus, it formed a - query for the later heresiologists, Epiphanius and Philaster - (§ 47, 10, 14), who were apparently unacquainted with the later - written but more important and complete _Elenchus_. Besides these - should be mentioned the writings of Tertullian (§ 31, 10) and - Theodoret (§ 47, 9) referring to this controversy, the _Stromata_ - of Clement of Alexandria, and the published discussions of Origen - (§ 31, 4, 5), especially in his Commentary on John, also the five - Dialogues of the Pseudo-Origen (Adamantius) against the Gnostics - from the beginning of the fourth century;[39] and finally many - notices in the Church History of Eusebius. The still extant - fragments of the Gnostic Apocryphal historian of the Apostles - afford information about the teaching and forms of worship of - the later syncretic vulgar Gnosticism, and also from the very - defective representations of them in the works of their Catholic - opponents. - - - § 27. THE GENTILE CHRISTIAN GNOSTICISM. - - In the older heretical Gnosticism (§ 18, 3), Jewish, pagan, -and Christian elements are found, which are kept distinct, or are -amalgamated or after examination are rejected, what remains being -developed, consolidated and distributed, but in a confused blending. -This is the case with Cerinthus. In Basilides again, who attaches -himself to the doctrines of Stoicism, we have Gnosticism developed under -the influence of Alexandrian culture; and soon thereafter in Valentinus, -who builds on Plato’s philosophy, it attains its richest, most profound -and noblest expression. From the blending of Syro-Chaldæan mythology -with Greek and Hellenistic-Gnostic theories issue the divers Ophite -systems. Antinomian Gnosticism with loose practical morality was an -outgrowth from the contempt shown to the Jewish God that created the -world and gave the law. The genuinely Syrian Gnosticism with its -Parseeist-dualistic ruggedness was most purely represented by Saturninus, -while in Marcion and his scholars the exaggeration of the Pauline -opposition of law and grace led to a dualistic contrast of the God of -the Old Testament and of the New. From the middle of the second century -onwards there appears in the historical development of Gnosticism an -ever-increasing tendency to come to terms with the doctrine of the -church. This is shown by the founders of new sects, Marcion, Tatian, -Hermogenes; and also by many elaborators of early systems, by Heracleon, -Ptolomæus and Bardesanes who developed the Valentinian system, in the -so-called Pistis Sophia, as the exposition of the Ophite system. This -tendency to seek reconciliation with the church is also shown in a -kind of syncretic popular or vulgar Gnosticism which sought to attach -itself more closely to the church by the composition of apocryphal -and pseudepigraphic Gospels and Acts of Apostles under biblical names -and dates (§ 32, 4-6).--The most brilliant period in the history of -Gnosticism was the second century, commencing with the age of Hadrian. -At the beginning of the third century there was scarcely one of the -more cultured congregations throughout the whole of the Roman empire and -beyond this as far as Edessa, that was not affected by it. Yet we never -find the numbers of regular Gnostic congregations exceeding that of the -Catholic. Soon thereafter the season of decay set in. Its productive -power was exhausted, and while, on the one side, it was driven back by -the Catholic ecclesiastical reaction, on the other hand, in respect of -congregational organization it was outrun and outbidden by Manichæism, -and also by Marcionism. - - § 27.1. =Cerinthus=, as Irenæus says, resting on the testimony - of Polycarp, was a younger contemporary of the Apostle John in - Asia Minor; the Apostle meeting the heretic in a bath hastened - out lest the building should fall upon the enemy of the truth. - In his Gnosticism, resting according to Hippolytus on a basis - of Alexandrian-Greek culture, we have the transition from the - Jewish-Christian to a more Gentile than Jewish-Christian Gnostic - standpoint. The continued hold of the former is seen according - to Epiphanius in the maintaining of the necessity of circumcision - and of the observances by Christians of the law given by - disposition of angels, as also, according to Caius of Rome, who - regards him as the author of the New Testament Apocalypse, in - chiliastic expectations. Both of these, however, were probably - intended only in the allegorical and spiritual sense. At the - same time, according to Irenæus and Theodoret, the essentially - Gnostic figure of the Demiurge already appears in his writings, - who without knowing the supreme God is yet useful to Him as - the creator of the world. Even Jesus, the son of Joseph and - Mary, knew him not, until the ἄνω Χριστός descended upon him at - his baptism. Before the crucifixion, which was a merely human - mischance without any redemptive significance, the Christ had - again withdrawn from him. - - § 27.2. =The Gnosticism of Basilides.=--=Basilides= (Βασιλείδης) - was a teacher in Alexandria about A.D. 120-130. He pretends to - derive the gnostic system from the notes of the esoteric teaching - of Christ taken down by the Apostle Matthew and an amanuensis - of Peter called Glaucias. He also made use of John’s Gospel and - Paul’s Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians and Ephesians. He - himself left behind 24 books Ἐξηγητικά and his equally talented - son Isidorus has left a treatise under the title Ἠθικά. Fragments - of both are found in Clement of Alexandria, two passages from - the first are given also in the “Acts of Disputation,” by - Archelaus of Cascar (§ 29, 1). Irenæus, i. 24, who refers to him - as a disciple of Menander (§ 25, 2), and the Pseudo-Tertullian, - c. 41, Epiphanius, 21, and Theodoret, i. 4, describe his system - as grossly dualistic and decidedly emanationist. Hippolytus, - vii. 14 ff., on the other hand, with whom Clement seems - to agree, describes it as a thoroughly monistic system, in - which the theogony is developed not by emanation from above - downwards but by evolution from below upwards. This latter view - which undoubtedly presents this system in a more favourable - light,--according to Baur, Uhlhorn, Jacobi, Möller, Funk, etc., - its original form: according to Hilgenfeld, Lipsius, Volkmar, - etc., a later form influenced by later interpolations of Greek - pantheistic ideas,--makes the development of God and the world - begin with pure nothing: ἦν ὅτε ἦν οὐδέν. The principle of all - development is ὁ οὐκ ὢν θεός, who out of Himself (ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων) - calls chaos into being. This chaos was still itself an οὐκ ὄν, - but yet also the πανσπερμία τοῦ κόσμου upon which now the οὐκ ὢν - θεός as ἀκίνητος κινητής operated attractively by his beauty. The - pneumatic element in the newly created chaos is represented in a - threefold sonship (υἱότης τριμερής) of which the first and most - perfect immediately after creation with the swiftness of thought - takes its flight to the happy realm of non-existence, the Pleroma. - The second less perfect sonship struggles after the first (hence - called, μιμητική), but must, on reaching the borders of the - happy realm, cast aside the less perfect part of its being, which - now as the Holy Spirit (μεθόριον πνεῦμα) forms the vestibule - (στερέωμα) or boundary line between the Pleroma (τὰ ὑπερκόσμια) - and the cosmos, and although severed from the sonship, still, - like a vessel out of which sweet ointment has been taken, it - bears to this lower world some of the perfume adhering to it. - The third sonship being in need of purifying must still remain in - the Panspermia, and is as such the subject of future redemption. - On the other hand, the greatest archon as the most complete - concentration of all wisdom, might and glory which was found - in the psychical elements of chaos, flew up to the firmament as - ἀῤῥητῶν ἀῤῥητότερος. He now fancied himself to be the Supreme God - and ruler of all things, and begot a son, who according to the - predetermination of the non-existing excelled him in insight and - wisdom. For himself and Son, having with them besides six other - unnamed principalities, he founded the higher heavens, the so- - called Ogdoas. After him there arose of chaos a second inferior - Archon with the predicate ἄῤῥητος, who likewise begat a son - mightier than himself, and founded a lower heavenly realm, - the so-called Hebdomas, the planetary heavens. The rest of the - Panspermia was the developed κατὰ φύσιν, that is, in accordance - with the natural principle implanted in it by the non-existent - “at our stage” (τὸ διάστημα τὸ καθ’ ἡμᾶς). As the time drew near - for the manifestation of the children of God, that is, of men - whose pneumatical endowment was derived from the third sonship, - the son of the great Archon through the mediation of the μεθόριον - πνεῦμα first devised the saving plan of the Pleroma. With fear - and trembling now the great Archon too acknowledged his error, - repented of this self-exaltation and with the whole Ogdoas - rejoiced in the scheme of salvation. Through him also the son of - the second Archon is enlightened, and he instructs his father, - who now as the God of the Old Testament prepares the way for the - development of salvation by the law and prophecy. The beginning - is made by Jesus, son of the virgin Mary, who first himself - absorbed the ray of the higher light, and as “the firstborn - of the children of God” became also the Saviour (σωτήρ) of - his brethren. His sufferings were necessary for removing the - psychical and somatical elements of the Panspermia adhering to - him. They were therefore actual, not mere seeming sufferings. His - bodily part returned to the formlessness out of which it sprang; - his psychical part arose from the grave, but in his ascension - returned into the Hebdomas, while his pneumatic being belonging - to the third sonship went up to the happy seat of the οὐκ ὢν θεός. - And as he, the firstborn, so also all the children of God, have - afterwards to perform their task of securing the highest possible - development and perfection of the groaning creation (Rom. viii. - 19), that is, of all souls which by their nature are eternally - bound “to our stage.” Then finally, God will pour over all - ranks of being beginning from the lowest the great ignorance - (τὴν μεγάλην ἄγνοιαν) so that no one may be disturbed in their - blessedness by the knowledge of a higher. Thus the restitution of - all things is accomplished.--The mild spirit which pervades this - dogmatic system preserved from extravagances of a rigoristic or - libertine sort the ethical system resulting from it. Marriage was - honoured and regarded as holy, though celibacy was admitted to be - helpful in freeing the soul from the thraldom of fleshly lusts. - - § 27.3. The system set forth by Irenæus and others, as that of - Basilides, represents the Supreme God as _Pater innatus_ or θεὸς - ἄῤῥητος. From him emanates the Νοῦς, from this again the Λόγος, - from this the Φρόνησις, who brings forth Σοφία and Δύναμις. From - the two last named spring the Ἀρχαί, Ἐξουσίαι and Ἄγγελοι, who - with number seven of the higher gods, the primal father, at their - head, constitute the highest heaven. From this as its ἀντίτυπος - radiates forth a second spiritual world, and the emanation - continues in this way, until it is completed and exhausts itself - in the number of 365 spiritual worlds or heavens under the mystic - name Ἀβραξάς or Ἀβρασάξ which has in its letters the numerical - value referred to. This last and most imperfect of these - spiritual worlds with its seven planet spirits forms the heaven - visible to us. Through this three hundred and sixty-five times - repeated emanation the Pleroma approaches the borders of the hyle, - a seething mass of forces wildly tossing against one another. - These rush wildly against it, snatch from it fragments of light - and imprison them in matter. From this mixture the Archon of the - lowest heaven in fellowship with his companions creates the earth, - and to each of them apportions by lot a nation, reserving to - himself the Jewish nation which he seeks to raise above all other - nations, and so introduces envy and ambition into heaven, and - war and bloodshed upon earth. Finally, the Supreme God sends his - First-born, the Νοῦς, in order to deliver men from the power of - the angel that created the world. He assumes the appearance of a - body, and does many miracles. The Jews determined upon his death; - nevertheless they crucified instead of him Simon the Cyrenian, - who assumed his shape. He himself returned to his Father. By - means of the Gnosis which he taught men’s souls are redeemed, - while their bodies perish.--The development of one of these - systems into the other might be most simply explained by assuming - that the one described in the _Elenchus_ of Hippolytus is the - original and that its reconstruction was brought about by the - overpowering intrusion of current dualistic, emanationistic, - and docetic ideas. All that had there been said about the great - Archon must now be attributed to the Supreme God, the _Pater - innatus_, while the inferior archon might keep his place as ruler - of the lowest planetary heaven. The 365 spiritual worlds had - perhaps in the other system a place between the two Archons, for - even Hippolytus, vii. 26, mentions in addition the 365 heavens - to which also he gives the name of the great Archon Abrasax.--It - is a fact of special importance that even Irenæus and Epiphanius - distinguish from the genuine disciples of Basilides the so-called - =Pseudo-Basilideans= as representing a later development, easily - deducible from the second but hardly traceable from the first - account of the system. That with their Gnosis they blended magic, - witchcraft and fantastic superstition appears from the importance - which they attached to mystic numbers and letters. Their - libertine practice can be derived from their antinomian contempt - of Judaism as well as from the theory that their bodies are - doomed to perish. So, too, their axiom that to suffer martyrdom - for the crucified, who was not indeed the real Christ, is foolish, - may be deduced from the Docetism of their system. Abrasax gems - which are still to be met with in great numbers and in great - variety are to be attributed to these Basilideans; but these - found favour and were used as talismans not only among other - Gnostic sects but also among the Alchymists of the Middle Ages. - - § 27.4. =Valentinian Gnosticism.=--=Valentinus=, the most - profound, talented and imaginative of all the Gnostics, was - educated in Alexandria, and went to Rome about A.D. 140, where, - during a residence of more than twenty years, he presided over an - influential school, and exercised also a powerful influence upon - other systems. He drew the materials for his system partly from - holy scripture, especially from the Gospel of John, partly from - the esoteric doctrine of a pretended disciple of Paul, Theodades. - Of his own voluminous writings, in the form of discourses, - epistles and poems, only a few fragments are extant. The - reporters of his teaching, Irenæus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, - Epiphanius, differ greatly from one another in details, and leave - us in doubt as to what really belongs to his own doctrine and - what to its development by his disciples--The fundamental idea of - his system rests on the notion that according to a law founded in - the depths of the divine nature the æons by emanation come into - being as pairs, male and female. The pairing of these æons in - a holy marriage is called a Syzygy. With this is joined another - characteristic notion, that in the historical development of - the Pleroma the original types of the three great crises of the - earthly history, Creation, the Fall, and Redemption, are met with. - On the basis of this he develops the most magnificently poetic - epic of a Christian mythological Theogony and Cosmogony. From the - Βυθός or Αὐτοπάτωρ and its Ἔννοια or Σιγή, evolving his thought - hitherto only in silent contemplation of his own perfection, - emanates the first and highest pair of æons, the Νοῦς or - Μονογενής who alone of all æons can bear to look into the depths - of the perfection of the Father of all, and beside him his bride - Ἀλήθεια. From them spring the Λόγος and Ζωή as the second pair, - and from this pair again Ἄνθρωπος and Ἐκκλησία as the third pair. - The Αὐτοπάτωρ and his Ennoia, with the first and highest pair - of æons emanating for them, and these together with the second - Tetras, form the Ogdoas. The Logos then begets a further removed - circle of five pairs, the Decas, and finally the Anthropos begets - the last series of six pairs, the Dodecas. Therewith the =Pleroma= - attains a preliminary completion. A final boundary is fixed for - it by the Ὅρος emanating from the Father of all, who, being alone - raised above the operation of the law of the Syzygy, is endowed - with a twofold ἐνεργεία, an ἐνεργεία διοριστική, by means of - which he wards off all from without that would hurt, and an - ἐνεργεία ἑδραστική, the symbol of which is the cross, with which - he maintains inward harmony and order. How necessary this was is - soon made apparent. For the Σοφία, the last and least member of - the fourteen æon pairs, impelled by burning desire, tears herself - away from her partner, and seeks to plunge into the Bythos - in order to embrace the Father of All himself. She is indeed - prevented from this by the Horos; but the breach in the Pleroma - has been made. In order to restore the harmony that has thus been - broken, the Monogenes begets with Aletheia a new æon pair, the - Ἄνω Χριστός and the Πνεῦμα ἅγιον which emancipates the Sophia - from her disorderly, passionate nature (Ἐνθύμησις), cuts out this - latter from the Pleroma, but unites again the purified Sophia - with her husband, and teaches all the æons about the Father’s - unapproachable and incomprehensible essence, and about the reason - and end of the Syzygies. Then they all, amid hymns of praise - and thanksgiving, present an offering to the Father, each one of - the best that he has, and form thereof an indescribably glorious - æon-being, the Ἄνω Σωτήρ, and for his service myriads of august - angels, who bow in worship before him.--The basis for the - origination of the =sensible world=, the Ὑστέρημα, consist of - the Enthymesis ejected from the Pleroma into the desert, void - and substanceless Kenoma, which is by it for the first time - filled and vitalized. It is an ἔκτρωμα, an abortion, which however - retains still the æon nature of its divine present, and as such - bears the name of Ἔξω (κάτω) Σοφία or Ἀχαμώθ (הַחָכְמוֹת). Hence even - the blessed spirits of the Pleroma can never forsake her. They - all suffer with the unfortunate, until she who had sprung from - the Pleroma is restored to it purified and matured. Hence they - espouse her, the Ektroma of the last and least of the æons, to - the Ano-Soter, the noblest, most glorious and most perfect being - in the æon-heaven, as her redeemer and future husband. He begins - by comforting the despondent and casting out from her the baser - affections. Among the worst, fear, sorrow, doubt, etc., is found - the basis of the hylic stage of existence; among the better, - repentance, desire, hope, etc., that of the psychic stage of - existence (φύσεις). Over the beings issuing forth from the former - presides Satan; over the psychical forms of being, as their - highest development, presides the Demiurge, who prepares as - his dwelling-place the seven lower heavens, the Hebdomas. - But Achamoth had retired with the pneumatic substratum still - remaining in her into the Τόπος τῆς μεσότητος, between the - Pleroma and the lower world, whence she, inspired by the - Ano-Soter, operates upon the Demiurge, who, knowing nothing of - her existence, has no anticipation thereof. From the dust of the - earth and pneumatic seed, which unobserved she conveys into it, - he formed man, breathed into him his own psychical breath of - life, and set him in paradise, that is, in the third of his seven - heavens, but banished him to earth, when he disobeyed his command, - and instead of his first ethereal garment clothed him in a - material body. When men had spread upon the earth, they developed - these different natures: _Pneumatical_, which free from the - bondage of every outward law and not subject to the impulses of - the senses, a law unto themselves, travel toward the Pleroma; - next, the _Hylic_, which, hostile to all spirit and law, and - the sport of all lusts and passions, are doomed to irremediable - destruction; and finally, the _Psychical_, which under the - discipline of outward law attain not indeed to a perfect divine - life, but yet to outward righteousness, while on the other hand - they may sink down to the rank and condition of the Hylic natures. - The _Psychical_ natures were particularly numerous among the - Jews. Therefore the Demiurge chose them as his own, and gave - them a strict law and through his prophets promised them a - future Messiah. The _Hylic_ natures which were found mostly among - the heathens, were utterly hateful to him. The _Pneumatical_ - natures with their innate longing after the Pleroma, he did not - understand and therefore disregarded; but yet, without knowing - or designing it, he chose many of them for kings, priests, and - prophets of his people, and to his amazement heard from their - lips prophecies of a higher soul, which originated from Achamoth, - and which he did not understand. When the time was fulfilled, - he sent his Messiah in the person of Jesus. When he was baptized - by John, the heaven opened over him and the Ano-Soter descended - upon him. The Demiurge saw it and was astonished, but submitted - himself awe-stricken to the will of the superior deities. The - Soter remained then a year upon the earth. The Jews, refusing to - receive him, nailed his organ, the psychical Messiah, to a cross; - but his sufferings were only apparent sufferings, since the - Demiurge had supplied him in his origin with an ethereal and - only seemingly material body. In consequence of the work of the - Ano-Soter the Pneumatical natures by means of the Gnosis taught - by him, but the Psychical natures by means of Pistis, attain unto - perfection after their kind. When once everything pneumatical and - psychical which was bound up in matter, has been freed from it, - the course of the world has reached its end and the longed-for - time of Achamoth’s marriage will have come. Accompanied by - myriads of his angels, the Soter leads the noble sufferer into - the Pleroma. The pneumatical natures follow her, and as the - Soter is married to Achamoth, the angels are married to them. The - Demiurge goes with his tried and redeemed saints into the Τόπος - τῆς μεσότητος. But from the depths of the Hyle breaks forth a - hidden fire which utterly consumes the Hylic natures and the Hyle - itself.[40] - - § 27.5. According to Hippolytus the Valentinian school split - up into two parties--an Italian party, the leaders of which, - Heracleon and Ptolemæus [Ptolemy], were at Rome, and an Eastern - party to which Axionicus and Bardesanes belonged. =Heracleon= of - Alexandria was a man of a profoundly religious temperament, who - in his speculation inclined considerably toward the doctrine of - the church, and even wrote the first commentary on the Gospel - of John, of which many fragments are preserved in Origen’s - commentary on that gospel. =Ptolemæus= [Ptolemy] drew even - closer than his master to the church doctrine. Epiphanius quotes - a letter of his to his pupil Flora in which, after Marcion’s - example (see § 27, 11), the distinction of the divine and the - demiurgical in the Old Testament, and the relation of the Old - Testament to the New, are discussed. A position midway between - that of the West and of the East is apparently represented - by Marcus and his school. He combined with the doctrine of - Valentinus the Pythagorean and cabbalistic mysticism of numbers - and letters, and joined thereto magical and soothsaying arts. - His followers, the Marcosians, had a form of worship full of - ceremonial observances, with a twofold baptism, a psychical - one in the Kato-Christus for the forgiveness of sins, and a - pneumatical one for affiance with the future heavenly syzygy. - Of the Antiochean Axionicus we know nothing but the name. Of far - greater importance was =Bardesanes=, who flourished according - to Eusebius in the time of Marcus Aurelius, but is assigned by - authentic Syrian documents to the beginning of the third century. - The chief sources of information about his doctrine are the - 56 rhyming discourses of Ephraem [Ephraim] against the heretics. - Living at the court and enjoying the favour of the king of Edessa, - he never attacked in his sermons the doctrinal system of the - church, but spread his Gnostic views built upon a Valentinian - basis in lofty hymns of which, besides numerous fragments in - Ephraem [Ephraim], some are preserved in the apocryphal _Acta - Thomae_ (§ 32, 6). Among his voluminous writings there was a - controversial treatise against the Marcionites (see § 27, 11). - In a Dialogue, Περὶ εἱμαρμένης, attributed to him, but probably - belonging to one of his disciples named Philippus, from which - Eusebius (_Præp. Ev._ vi. 10) quotes a passage, the Syrian - original of which, “The Book of the Laws of the Land,” was only - recently discovered,[41] astrology and fatalism are combated - from a Christian standpoint, although the author is still himself - dominated by many Zoroastrian ideas. Harmonius, the highly gifted - son of Bardesanes, distinguished himself by the composition of - hymns in a similar spirit. - - § 27.6. =The Ophites and related Sects.=--The multiform Ophite - Gnosis is in general characterized by fantastic combinations of - Syro-Chaldaic myths and Biblical history with Greek mythology, - philosophy and mysteriosophy. In all its forms the serpent (ὄφις, - נָחָשׁ) plays an important part, sometimes as Kakodemon, sometimes - as Agathodemon. This arose from the place that the serpent - had in the Egyptian and Asiatic cosmology as well as in the - early biblical history. One of the oldest forms of Ophitism is - described by Hippolytus, who gives to its representatives the - name of =Naassenes=, from נָחָשׁ. The formless original essence, ὁ - προών, revealed himself in the first men, Ἀδάμας, Adam, Cadmon, - in whom the pneumatic, psychical and hylic principles were still - present together. As the instrument in creation he is called - Logos or Hermes. The serpent is revered as Agathodemon; it - proceeds from the Logos, transmitting the stream of life to all - creatures. Christ, the redeemer, is the earthly representative of - the first man, and brings peace to all the three stages of life, - because he, by his teaching, directs every one to a mode of life - in accordance with his nature.--The =Sethites=, according to - Hippolytus, taught that there were two principles: an upper one, - τὸ φῶς, an under one, τὸ σκότος, and between these τὸ πνεῦμα, the - atmosphere that moves and causes motion. From a blending of light - with darkness arose chaos, in which the pneuma awakened life. - Then from chaos sprang the soul of the world as a serpent, which - became the Demiurge. Man had a threefold development: hylic or - material in Cain, psychical in Abel, and pneumatical in Seth, who - was the first Gnostic.--The founders of the =Perates=, who were - already known to Clement of Alexandria, are called by Hippolytus - Euphrates and Celbes. Their name implies that they withdrew from - the world of sense in order to secure eternal life here below, - περᾶν τὴν φθοράν. The original divine unity, they taught, had - developed into a Trinity: τὸ ἀγέννητον, ἀυτογενές and γεννητόν, - the Father, the Son, and the Hyle. The Son is the world serpent - that moves and quickens all things (καθολικός ὄφις). It is his - task to restore everything that has sunk down from the two higher - worlds into the lower, and is held fast by its Archon. Sometimes - he turns himself serpent-like to his Father and assumes his - divine attributes, sometimes to the lower world to communicate - them to it. In the shape of a serpent he delivers Eve from the - law of the Archon. All who are outlawed by this Archon, Cain, - Nimrod, etc., belong to him. Moses, too, is an adherent of his, - who erected in the wilderness the healing brazen serpent to - represent him, while the fiery biting serpent of the desert - represent the demons of the Archon. The =Cainites=, spoken of by - Irenæus and Epiphanius, were closely connected with the Perates. - All the men characterized in the Old Testament as godless are - esteemed by them genuine pneumatical beings and martyrs for the - truth. The first who distinguished himself in conflict with the - God of the Jews was Cain; the last who led the struggle on to - victory, by bringing the psychical Messiah through his profound - sagacity to the cross, was Judas Iscariot. The Gnostic =Justin= - is known to us only through Hippolytus, who draws his information - from a _Book of Baruch_. He taught that from the original essence, - ὁ Ἀγαθός or Κύριος, יְהוָֹה, emanated a male principle, Ἐλωείμ, אֱלֹהִים, - which had a pneumatical nature, and a female principle, Ἐδέμ, עֵדֶן, - which was above man (psychical) and below the serpent (hylic). - From the union of this pair sprang twelve ἄγγελοι πατρικοί, who - had in them the father’s nature, and twelve ἄγγελοι μητρικοί, - on whom the mother’s nature was impressed. Together they formed - Paradise, in which Baruch, an angel of Elohim, represented the - tree of life, and Naas, an Edem-angel, represented the tree - of knowledge. The Elohim-angel formed man out of the dust - of Paradise; Edem gave him a soul, Elohim gave him a spirit. - Pressing upward by means of his pneumatical nature Elohim raised - himself to the borders of the realms of light. The Agathos took - him and set him at his right hand. The forsaken Edem avenged - himself by giving power to Naas to grieve the spirit of Elohim - in man. He tempted Eve to commit adultery with him, and got Adam - to commit unnatural vice with him. In order to show the grieved - spirit of man the way to heaven, Elohim sent Baruch first to - Moses and afterwards to other Prophets of the Old Testament; - but Naas frustrated all his efforts. Even from among the heathen - Elohim raised up prophets, such as Hercules whom he sent to fight - against the twelve Edem-angels (his twelve labours), but one of - them named Babel or Aphrodite robbed even this divine hero of his - power (a reminiscence of the story of Omphale). Finally, Elohim - sent Baruch to the peasant boy Jesus, son of Joseph and Mary. - He resisted all the temptations of Naas, who therefore got him - nailed upon the cross. Jesus commended his spirit into the hands - of the Father, into whose heaven he ascended, leaving his body - and soul with Edem. So, after his example, do all the pious. - - § 27.7. The Gnosis of the =Ophites=, described by Irenæus, etc., - is distinguished from that of the earlier Naasenes [Naassenes] - by its incorporation of Valentinian and dualistic or Saturninian - (see § 27, 9) ideas. From the Bythos who, as the primary being, - is also called the first man, Adam Cadmon, emanates the thought, - ἔννοια, of himself as the second man or son of man, and from - him the Holy Spirit or the Ano-Sophia, who in turn bears the - Ano-Christus and Achamoth. The latter, an imperfect being of - light, who is also called Προύνικος, which according to Epiphanius - means πόρνη, drives about through the dark ocean of chaos, over - which the productive mother, the Holy Spirit, broods, in order - to found for himself in it an independent world of his own. There - dense matter unites with the element of light and darkens it to - such a degree that even the consciousness of its own divine origin - begins to fade away from it. In this condition of estrangement - from God she produces the Demiurge, Jaldabaoth, יַלְדָּא בָּהוּת, son - of chaos; and he, a wicked as well as limited being, full of - arrogance and pride, determines that he himself alone will be - lord and master in the world which he creates. This brings - Achamoth to penitent deliberation. By the vigorous exercise of - all the powers of light dwelling in her, and strengthened by a - gleam of light from above, she succeeds in raising herself from - the realm of chaos into the Τόπος τῆς μεσότητος. Nevertheless - Jaldabaoth brought forth six star spirits or planets after his - own image, and placed himself as the seventh at their head. But - they too think of rebelling. Enraged at this Jaldabaoth glances - wildly upon the deep-lying slime of the Hyle; his frightfully - distorted countenance is mirrored in this refuse of chaos; the - image there comes to life and forms Ophiomorphus or Satan. By - order of Jaldabaoth the star spirits make man; but they produce - only an awkward spiritless being that creeps along the ground. In - order to quicken it and make it stand erect the Demiurge breathes - into it his own breath, but thereby deprives himself of a great - part of that pneumatical element which he had from his mother. - The so-called fall, in which Ophiomorphus or the serpent was only - the unconscious instrument of Achamoth, is in truth the beginning - of the redemption of man, the advance to self-consciousness - and moral freedom. But as a punishment for his disobedience - Jaldabaoth drove him out of the higher material world, Paradise, - into the lower, where he was exposed to the annoyances of - Ophiomorphus, who also brought the majority of mankind, the - heathens, under his authority, while the Jews served Jaldabaoth, - and only a small number of pneumatical natures by the help - of Achamoth kept themselves free from both. The prophets whom - Jaldabaoth sent to his people, were at the same time unconscious - organs of Achamoth, who also sent down the Ano-Christus from the - Pleroma upon the Messiah, whose kingdom is yet to spread among - all nations. Jaldabaoth now let his own Messiah be crucified, - but the Ano-Christus was already withdrawn from him and had - set himself unseen at the right hand of the Demiurge, where he - deprives him and his angels of all the light element which they - still had in them, and gathers round himself the pneumatical - from among mankind, in order to lead them into the Pleroma.--The - latest and at the same time the noblest product of Ophite - Gnosticism is the =Pistis Sophia=,[42] appearing in the middle - of the third century, with a strong tincture of Valentinianism. - It treats mainly of the fall, repentance, and complaint of - Sophia, and of the mysteries that purify for redemption, often - approaching very closely the doctrine of the church. - - § 27.8. =Antinomian and Libertine Sects.=--The later - representatives of Alexandrian Gnosticism on account of the - antinomian tendency of their system fell for the most part into - gross immorality, which excused itself on the ground that the - pneumatical men must throw contempt upon the law of the Demiurge, - ἀντιτάσσεσθαι, (whence they were also called Antitactes), and - that by the practice of fleshly lusts one must weaken and slay - the flesh, παραχρῆσθαι τῇ σαρκί, so as to overcome the powers - of the Hyle. The four following sects may be mentioned as those - which maintained such views.-- - - a. =The Nicolaitans=, who in order to give themselves the - sanction of primitive Christianity sought to trace their - descent from Nicolaus [Nicolas] the Deacon (Acts vi. 5). But - while they have really no connection with him, they are just - as little to be identified with the Nicolaitans of the - Apocalypse (§ 18, 3). - - b. In a similar way the =Simonians= sought to attach themselves - to Simon Magus (§ 25, 2). They gave to the fables associated - with the name of Simon a speculative basis borrowed from - the central idea of the philosophy of Heraclitus, that - the principle of all things (ἡ ἀπέραντος δύναμις) is fire. - From it in three syzygies, νοῦς and ἐπίνοια, φωνή and - ὄνομα, λογισμός and ἐνθύμησις, proceed the six roots of - the supersensible world, and subsequently the corresponding - six roots of the sensible world, Heaven and earth, Sun and - moon, Air and water, in which unlimited force is present - as ὁ ἐστώς, στάς, and στησόμενος. Justin Martyr was already - acquainted with this sect, and also Hippolytus, who quotes - many passages from their chief treatise, entitled, Ἀπόφασις - μεγάλη and reports scandalous things about their foul - worship. - - c. =The Carpocratians.= In the system of their founder - Carpocrates, who lived at Alexandria in the first half of - the second century, God is the eternal Mould, the unity - without distinctions, from whom all being flows and to whom - all returns again. From Him the ἄγγελοι κοσμοποιοί revolted. - By the creation of the world they established a distinct - order of existence apart from God and consolidated it by the - law issuing from them and the national religions of Jews and - Gentiles founded by them. Thus true religion or the way of - return for the human spirit into the One and All consists - theoretically in Gnosis, practically in emancipation from - the commands of the Demiurge and in a life κατὰ φύσιν. The - distinction of good and bad actions rests merely on human - opinions. Man is redeemed by faith and love. In order to be - able to overcome the powers that created the world, he is - in need of magic which is intimately connected with Gnosis. - Every human spirit who has not fully attained to this end of - all religious endeavour, is subjected, until he reaches it, - to the assumption of one bodily form after another. Among - the heroes of humanity who with special energy and success - have assailed the kingdom of the Demiurge by contempt - of his law and spread of the true Gnosis, a particularly - conspicuous place is assigned to Jesus, the son of Joseph. - What he was for the Jews, Orpheus, Pythagoras, Plato, etc., - were for the Gentiles. To the talented son of Carpocrates, - named Epiphanes, who died in his seventeenth year, after - impressing upon his father’s Gnostic system a boundless - communistic and libertine tendency with community of goods - and wives, his followers erected a temple at Cephalonia, in - which they set up for divine honours the statues of Christ - and the Greek philosophers. At the close of their Agapæ, - they indulged in _Concubitus promiscuus_. - - d. =The Prodicians= flourished about the time of Clement of - Alexandria, and were connected, perhaps, through their - founder Prodicus, with the Carpocratians. In order to prove - their dominion over the sensible world they were wont to - appear in their assemblies naked, and hence are also called - =Adamites=. So soon as they succeeded in thus reaching - the state of innocence that had preceded the fall, they - maintained that as pneumatical king’s sons they were raised - above all law and entitled to indulge in unbridled lust. - - § 27.9. =Saturninus=, or Satornilus of Antioch, according to - Irenæus, a disciple of Menander, was one of the oldest Syrian - Gnostics, during the age of Hadrian, and the one in whose system - of Dualism the most decided traces of Parsee colouring is found. - From the θεὸς ἄγνωστος the spirit world of the kingdom of light - emanates in successive stages. On the lowest stage stand the - seven planet spirits, ἄγγελοι κοσμοκράτορες, at their head the - creator of the world and the god of the Jews. But from eternity - over against the realm of light stands the Hyle in violent - opposition under the rule of Satanas. The seven star spirits - think to found therein a kingdom free and independent of the - Pleroma, and for this purpose make an inroad upon the kingdom - of the Hyle, and seize upon a part of it. Therefore they form - the sensible world and create man as keeper thereof after a fair - model sent by the good God of which they had a dim vision. But - they could not give him the upright form. The supreme God then - takes pity upon the wretched creature. He sends down a spark - of light σπινθήρ into it which fills it with pneumatical life - and makes it stand up. But Satanas set a hylic race of men - over against this pneumatical race, and persecuted the latter - incessantly by demons. The Jewish god then plans to redeem the - persecuted by a Messiah, and inspires prophets to announce his - coming. But Satan, too, has his prophets, and the Jewish god is - not powerful enough to make his views prevail over his enemy’s. - Finally the good God sends to the earth the Aeon [Æon] Νοῦς, in - what has the appearance of a body, in order that he as σωτήρ may - teach the pneumatical how to escape, by Gnosis and asceticism, - abstaining from marriage and the eating of flesh, not only the - attacks of Satan, but also the dominion of the Jewish god and his - star spirits, how to emancipate themselves from all connection - with matter, and to raise themselves into the realm of light. - - § 27.10. =Tatian and the Encratites.=--The Assyrian Tatian, - converted to Christianity at Rome by Justin Martyr, makes his - appearance as a zealous apologist of the faith (§ 30, 10). In - his later years, however, just as in the case of Marcion, in - consequence of his exaggeration of the Pauline antithesis of - flesh and spirit, law and grace, he was led to propound a theory - of the dualistic opposition between the god of the law, the - Demiurge, and the god of the gospel, which found expression - in a Gnostic-ascetic system, completely breaking away from the - Catholic church, and reaching its conclusion in the hyperascetic - sect of the Encratites that arose in Rome about A.D. 172. He now - became head and leader of this sect, which, with its fanatical - demand of complete abstinence from marriage, from all eating of - flesh and all spirituous liquors, won his approval, and perhaps - from him received its first dogmatic Gnostic impress. Of Tatian’s - Gnostic writings, Προβλήματα and Περὶ τοῦ κατὰ τὸν σωτῆρα - καταρτισμοῦ, only some fragments, with scanty notices of his - Gnostic system, are preserved. His dualistic opposition of the - god of the Old Testament and the god of the New Testament cannot - have meant a thorough hostility, for he makes the Demiurge - sitting in darkness address himself to the supreme God in - the language of prayer, “Let there be light.” He declares, - however, that Adam, as the author of the fall, is incapable - of redemption.--His followers were also called Ὑδροπαραστάται, - Aquarii, because at the Supper they used water instead of wine. - See Lit. at § 30, 10. - - § 27.11. =Marcion and the Marcionites.=--Marcion of Sinope in - Pontus, who died about A.D. 170, was, according to Tertullian, - a rich shipmaster who, on his arrival in Rome, in his early - enthusiasm for the faith, bestowed upon the Church there a rich - present, but was afterwards excommunicated by it as a heretic. - According to the Pseudo-Tertullian and others he was the son of a - bishop who excommunicated him for incontinence with one under the - vow of virginity. The story may possibly be based upon a later - misunderstanding of the charge of corrupting the church as the - pure bride of Christ. He was a man of a fiery and energetic - character, but also rough and eccentric, of a thoroughly - practical tendency and with little speculative talent. He was - probably driven by the hard inward struggles of his spiritual - life, somewhat similar to those through which Paul had passed, to - a full and hearty conception of the free grace of God in Christ; - but conceived of the opposition between law and gospel, which the - Apostle brought into harmony by his theory of the pædogogical - office of the law, as purely hostile and irreconcileable. - At Rome in A.D. 140, the Syrian Gnostic =Cerdo=, who already - distinguished between the “good” God of Christianity and - the “just” God of Judaism, gained an influence over him. - He consequently developed for himself a Gnostic system, the - dominating idea of which was the irreconcilable opposition of - righteousness and grace, law and gospel, Judaism and Christianity. - He repudiated the whole of the Old Testament, and set forth - the opposition between the two Testaments in a special treatise - entitled _Antitheses_. He acknowledged only Paul as an Apostle, - since all the rest had fallen back into Judaism, and of the whole - New Testament he admitted only ten Pauline epistles, excluding - the Pastoral Epistles and the Epistles to the Hebrews, and - admitting the Gospel of Luke only in a mutilated form.[43] - Marcion would know nothing of a secret doctrine and tradition - and rejected the allegorical interpretation so much favoured - by the Gnostics, as well as the theory of emanation and the - subordination of Pistis under Gnosis. While other Gnostics - formed not churches but only schools of select bands of - thinkers, or at most only small gatherings, Marcion, after - vainly trying to reform the Catholic church in accordance with - his exaggerated Paulinism, set himself to establish a well - organised ecclesiastical system, the members of which were - arranged as _Perfecti_ or _Electi_ and _Catechumeni_. Of the - former he required a strict asceticism, abstinence from marriage, - and restriction in food to the simplest and least possible. He - allowed the Catechumens, however, in opposition to the Catholic - practice (§ 35, 1), to take part in all the services, which were - conducted in the simplest possible forms. The moral earnestness - and the practical tendency of his movement secured him many - adherents, of whom many congregations maintained their existence - for a much longer time than the members of other Gnostic sects, - even down to the seventh century. None of the founders of the old - Gnostic sects were more closely connected in life and doctrine - to the Catholic Church than Marcion, and yet, or perhaps just for - that reason, none of them were opposed by it so often, so eagerly - and so bitterly. Even Polycarp, on his arrival in Rome (§ 37, 2), - in reply to Marcion’s question whether he knew him, said: - Ἐπιγνώσκω τὸν πρωτότοκον τοῦ Σατανᾶ.--The general scope and - character of =the System of Marcion= have been variously - estimated. All older ecclesiastical controversialists, Justin, - Rhodon in Eusebius, Tertullian and Irenæus, in their description - and refutation of it seem to recognise only two principles - (ἀρχαί), which stand in opposition to one another, as θεὸς ἀγαθός - and θεὸς δίκαιος. The latter appears as creator of the world, - or Demiurge, the god of the Jews, the giver of the law, unable, - however, by his law to save the Jews and deter them from breaking - it, or to lead back the Gentiles to the observance of it. Then - of his free grace the “good” God, previously quite unknown, - determined to redeem men from the power of the Demiurge. For this - purpose he sends his Logos into the world with the semblance of a - body. By way of accommodation he gives himself out as the Messiah - of the Jewish god, proclaims the forgiveness of sins through free - grace, communicates to all who believe the powers of the divine - life, is at the instigation of the angry Demiurge nailed to the - cross to suffer death in appearance only, preaches to Gentiles - imprisoned in Hades, banishes the Demiurge to Hades, and - ordains the Apostle Paul as teacher of believers.--The later - heresiologists, however, Hippolytus, in his Elenchus, Epiphanius, - Theodoret, and especially the Armenian Esnig (§ 64, 3), are - equally agreed in saying that Marcion recognised three principles - (ἀρχαί); that besides the good God and the righteous God he - admitted an evil principle, the Hyle concentrated in Satan, so - that even the pre-Christian development of the world was viewed - from the standpoint of a dualistic conflict between divine powers. - The righteous God and the Hyle, as a _quasi_ female principle, - united with one another in creating the world, and when the - former saw how fair the earth was, he resolved to people it with - men created of his own likeness. For this purpose the Hyle at his - request afforded him dust, from which he created man, inspiring - him with his own spirit. Both divine powers rejoiced over man as - parents over a child, and shared in his worship. But the Demiurge - sought to gain undivided authority over man, and so commanded - Adam, under pain of death, to worship him alone, and the Hyle - avenged himself by producing a multitude of idols to whom the - majority of Adam’s descendants, falling away from the God of - the law, gave reverence.--The harmonizing of these two accounts - may be accomplished by assuming that the older Church Fathers, - in their conflict with Marcion had willingly restricted - themselves to the most important point in the Marcionite system, - its characteristic opposition of the Gods of the Old and New - Testaments, passing over the points in which it agreed more - or less with other Gnostic systems; or by assuming that later - Marcionites, such as Prepon (§ 27, 12), in consequence of the - palpable defectiveness and inadequacy of the original system of - two principles, were led to give it the further development that - has been described.[44] - - § 27.12. The speculative weakness and imperfection of his system - led =Marcion’s Disciples= to expand and remodel it in many ways. - Two of these, Lucanus and Marcus, are pre-eminent as remodellers - of the system, into which they imported various elements from - that of Saturninus. The Assyrian =Prepon= placed the “righteous” - Logos as third principle between the “good” God and the “evil” - Demiurge. Of all the more nameful Marcionites, =Apelles=, who - died about A.D. 180, inclined most nearly to the church doctrine. - Eusebius tells about a Disputation which took place in Rome - between him and Rhodon, a disciple of Tatian. At the head of his - essentially monistic system Apelles places the ἀγέννητος θεός - as the μία ἀρχή. This God, besides a higher heavenly world, had - created an order of angels, of whom the first and most eminent, - the so-called _Angelus inclytus_ or _gloriosus_ as Demiurge made - the earthly world after the image and to the glory of the supreme - God. But another angel, the ἄγγελος πυρετός, corrupted his - creation, which was already in itself imperfect, by bringing - forth the σὰρξ ἁμαρτίας, with which he clothed the souls enticed - down from the upper world. It was he, too, who spoke to Moses out - of the burning bush, and as the god of the Jews gave the law from - Sinai. The Demiurge soon repented of his ill-fated performance, - and prayed the supreme God to send his Son as redeemer. Christ - appeared, lived, wrought and suffered in a real body. It was not, - however, the σὰρξ ἁμαρτίας that he assumed, but a sinless body - composed out of the four elements which he gave back to the - elements on his ascension to heaven. Towards the close of his - life Apelles seems, under the influence of the mystic revelations - of a prophetess, Philoumena, whose φανερώσεις he published, to - have more and more renounced his Gnostic views. He had already - admitted in his Disputation with Rhodon, that even on the - Catholic platform one may be saved, for the main thing is faith - in the crucified Christ and the doing of his works. He would even - have been prepared to subscribe to the Monotheism of the church, - had he not been hindered by the opposition between the Old - Testament and the New. - - § 27.13. The painter =Hermogenes= in North Africa, about A.D. 200, - whom Tertullian opposed, took offence at the Catholic doctrine of - creation as well as at the Gnostic theory of emanation, because - it made God the author of evil. He therefore assumed an eternal - chaos, from whose striving against the creative and formative - influence of God he explained the origin of everything evil and - vile. - - - § 28. EBIONISM AND EBIONITIC GNOSTICISM.[45] - - The Jewish-Christianity that maintained separation from -Gentile-Christianity even after the overthrow of the Holy City and its -temple, assumed partly a merely separatist, partly a decidedly heretical -character. Both tendencies had in common the assertion of the continued -obligation to observe the whole of the Mosaic law. But while the former -limited this obligation to the Christians of Jewish descent as the -peculiar stem and kernel of the new Messianic community, and allowed the -Gentile Christians as Proselytes of the Gate to omit those observances, -the latter would tolerate no such concession and outran the Old -Testament monotheism by a barren monarchianism that denied the -divinity of Christ (§ 33, 1). At a later period the two parties were -distinguished as Nazareans and Ebionites. On the other hand, in the -Ebionites described to us by Epiphanius we have a form of Jewish -Christianity permeated by Gnostic elements. These Ebionites, settling -along with the Essenes (§ 8, 4) on the eastern shores of the Dead Sea, -came to be known under the name of Elkesaites. In the Pseudo-Clementine -scheme of doctrine, this Ebionitic Gnosis was carried out in detail and -wrought up into a comprehensive and richly developed system. - - § 28.1. =Nazareans and Ebionites.=--Tertullian and with him most - of the later Church Fathers derive the name Ebionite from Ebion, - a founder of the sect. Since the time of Gieseler, however, the - name has generally been referred to the Hebrew word אֶבְיוֹן meaning - poor, in allusion partly to the actual poverty of the church of - Jerusalem (Gal. ii. 10), partly to the association of the terms - poor and pious in the Psalms and Prophets (comp. Matt. v. 3). - Minucius Felix, c. xxxvi. testifies that the Gentile Christians - were also so designated by those without: _Ceterum quod plerique - “Pauperes” dicimur, non est infamia nostra, sed gloria_. Recently, - however, Hilgenfeld has recurred to the patristic derivation of - the name.--In Irenæus the name Ebionæi makes its first appearance - in literature, and that as a designation of Jewish Christians - as heretics who admitted only a Gospel according to Matthew, - probably the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews (§ 32, 4), - branded the Apostle Paul as an apostate, insisted upon the - strict observance of the Jewish law, and taught on Christological - questions “_consimiliter ut Cerinthus et Carpocrates_” - (§ 27, 1, 8), while they denied that Christ was born of a virgin, - and regarded Him as a mere man. Origen († A.D. 243) embraced all - Jewish Christians under the name Ἐβιωναῖοι but did not deny the - existence of two very different parties among them (διττοὶ and - ἀμφότεροι Ἐβιωναῖοι). Eusebius does the same. Jerome again is - the first to distinguish the more moderate party by the name - Nazareans (Acts xxiv. 5) from the more extreme who are designated - Ebionites. This too is the practice of Augustine and Theodoret. - The former party acknowledged the virgin birth of Christ and - so His divine origin, assigned to Paul his place as Apostle - to the Gentiles, and made no demand of Gentile Christians that - they should observe the ceremonial law of Moses, although they - believed that they themselves were bound thereby. The latter - again regarded it as absolutely necessary to salvation, and also - held that Christ was the Messiah, but only a man, son of Joseph - by Mary, endowed with divine powers in His baptism. His Messianic - work, according to them, consisted in His fulfilling by His - teaching the Mosaic law. His death was an offence to them, but - they took comfort from the promise of His coming again, when they - looked for the setting up of an earthly Messianic kingdom. Paul - was depreciated by them and made of little account. Ebionites - of both parties continued to exist in small numbers down to the - fifth century, especially in Palestine and Syria. Both however - had sunk by the middle of the second century into almost utter - insignificance. The scanty remains of writings issuing from the - party prove that especially the non-heretical Jewish Christianity - before the close of this century had in great part abandoned its - national Jewish character, and therewith its separate position - as a religious sect, and by adopting the views of the Pauline - Gentile Christianity (§ 30, 2) became gradually amalgamated - with it.[46] - - § 28.2. =The Elkesaites.=--Independent accounts of this sect in - substantial agreement with one another are given by Hippolytus - in his _Elenchus_, by Origen as quoted in Eusebius, and by - Epiphanius. Their designation has also led the Church Fathers - to assume a sect founder of the name of Elxai or Elchasai, - who is said to have lived in the time of Hadrian. The members - of the sect themselves derived their name from חֵיל כְּסָי, δύναμις - κεκαλυμμένη, the hidden power of God operating in them, that is, - the Holy Spirit, the δύναμις ἄσαρκος of the Clementine Homilies. - Probably it was the title of a book setting forth their esoteric - doctrine, which circulated only among those bound under oath to - secrecy. Origen says that the book was supposed to have fallen - down from heaven; Hippolytus says that it was held to have been - revealed by an angel who was the Son of God himself. Elxai - obtained it from the Serians in Parthia and communicated it to - the Sobiai, probably from שֹׁבְעַ; then the Syrian Alcibiades brought - it from Apamea to Rome in the third century. The doctrinal - system of the Elkesaites was very variable, and is represented - by the Church Fathers referred to as a confused mixture of - Christian elements with the legalism of Judaism, the asceticism - of Essenism, and the naturalism of paganism, and exhibiting a - special predilection for astrological and magical fancies. The - law was regarded as binding, especially the precepts concerning - the Sabbath and circumcision, but the sacrificial worship was - abandoned, and the portions of the Old Testament referring to - it as well as other parts. Their doctrine of baptism varied from - that of baptism once administered to that of a baptism by oft - repeated washings on days especially indicated by astrological - signs. Baptism was for the forgiveness of sins and also for the - magical cure of the sick. It was administered in the name of the - Father and the Son, and in addition there were seven witnesses - called, the five elements, together with oil and salt, the latter - as representative of the Lord’s Supper, which was celebrated - with salt and bread without wine. Eating of flesh was forbidden, - but marriage was allowed and highly esteemed. Their Christology - presented the appearance of unsettled fermentation. On the one - hand Christ was regarded as an angel, and indeed as the μέγας - βασιλεύς, of gigantic size, 96 miles high, and 24 miles broad; - but on the other hand, they taught also a repeated incarnation of - Christ as the Son of God, the final One being the Christ born of - the virgin. He represents the male principle, and by his side, as - the female principle, stands the Holy Spirit. Denial of Christ in - times of persecution seemed to them quite allowable. At the time - of Epiphanius,--who identifies them with the _Sampseans_, whose - name was derived from שֶׁמֶשׁ the sun, because in prayer they turned - to the sun, called also Ἡλιακοί,--they had for the most part - their residence round about the Dead Sea, where they got mixed - up with the Essenes of that region.--More recently the Elkesaites - have been brought into connection with the still extant sect - of the Sabeans or Mandeans (§ 25, 1). These Sabeans, from צבע - meaning טבע, βαπτίζειν, are designated by the mediæval Arabic - writers _Mogtasilah_, those who wash themselves, and _Elchasaich_ - is named as their founder, and as teaching the existence of two - principles a male and a female. [47] - - § 28.3. =The Pseudo-Clementine Series of Writings= forms a - literature of a romantic historico-didactic description which - originated between A.D. 160 and 170. - - a. The so-called =Homiliæ XX Clementis=[48] were prefaced by - two letters to the Apostle James at Jerusalem. The first - of these is from Peter enjoining secrecy in regard to the - “Kerugma” sent therewith. The second is from Clement of Rome - after the death of Peter, telling how he as the founder and - first bishop of the church of Rome had ordained Clement as - his successor, and had charged him to draw up those accounts - of his own career and of the addresses and disputations - of Peter which he had heard while the Apostle pursued and - contended with Simon Magus, and to send them to James as - head of the church, “bishop of bishops, who ruled the church - of Jerusalem and all the churches,” that they might be - certified by him. The historical framework of the book - represents a distinguished Roman of philosophical culture - and of noble birth, named Clement, as receiving his first - acquaintance with Christianity at Rome, and then as going - forth on his travels to Judea as an eager seeker after the - truth. At Alexandria (§ 16, 4) Barnabas convinces him of the - truth of Christianity, and Clement follows him to Cæsarea - where he listens to a great debate between Peter and Simon - Magus (§ 25, 2). Simon defeated betakes himself to flight, - but Peter follows him, accompanied by Clement and two who - had been disciples of the magician, Niceta and Aquila. - Though he goes after him from place to place, Peter does not - get hold of Simon, but founds churches all along his route. - On the way Clement tells him how long before his mother, - Mattidia, and his two brothers had gone on a journey to - Athens, and how his father, Faustus, had gone in search of - them, and no trace of any of them had ever been found. Soon - thereafter the mother is met with, and then it is discovered - that Niceta and Aquila are the lost brothers Faustinus and - Faustinianus. At the baptism of the mother the father also - is restored. Finally at Laodicea Peter and Simon engage a - second time in a four-days’ disputation which ends as the - first. The story concludes with Peter’s arrival at Antioch. - - b. The ten books of the so-called =Recognitiones Clementis=,[49] - present us again with the Clement of the historical romance, - the historical here overshadowing the didactic, and a closer - connection with church doctrine being here maintained. - Critical examinations of the relations between the two sets - of writings have more and more established the view that - an older Jewish-Christian Gnostic work lay at the basis - of both. This original document seems to have been used - contemporaneously, but in a perfectly independent manner in - the composition of both; the Homilies using the materials - in an anti-Marcionite interest (§ 27, 11), the Recognitions - using them in such a way as to give as little offence as - possible to their Catholic readers. Still it is questionable - whether this original document, which probably bore the - title of Κηρύγματα Πέτρου, embraced in its earliest form - the domestic romance of Clement, or only treated of the - disputation of Peter with Simon at Cæsarea, and was first - enlarged by addition of the Ἀναγνωρισμοί Κλήμεντος giving - the story of Peter’s travels (Περίοδοι). - - c. Finally, extracts from the Homilies, worthless and of - no independent significance, are extant in the form of - two Greek =Epitomæ= (ed. Dressel, Lps., 1859). Equally - unimportant is the Syrian Epitome, edited by Lagarde, Lps., - 1861, a compilation from the Recognitions and the Homilies. - All the three writers of the Epitomes had an interest only - in the romantic narrative. - - § 28.4. =The Pseudo-Clementine Doctrinal System= is represented - in the most complete and most original manner in the Homilies. - In the conversations, addresses, and debates there reported the - author develops his own religious views, and by putting them - in the mouth of the Apostle Peter seeks to get them recognised - as genuine unadulterated primitive Christianity, while all the - doctrines of Catholic Paulinism which he objects to, as well - as those of heretical Gnosticism and especially of Marcionism, - are put into the mouth of Simon Magus, the primitive heretic; - and then an attempt is made at a certain reconciliation and - combination of all these views, the evil being indeed contended - against, but an element of truth being recognised in them all. He - directs his Polemics against the polytheism of vulgar paganism, - the allegorical interpretation by philosophers of pagan myths, - the doctrine of the creation of the world out of nothing and - the sacrificial worship of Judaism, against the hypostatic - Trinity of Catholicism, the chiliasm of the Ebionites, the pagan - naturalistic element in Elkesaism, the dualism, the doctrine - of the Demiurge, the Docetism and Antinomianism of the Gentile - Christian Gnostics. He attempts in his Ironies to point out the - Ebionitic identity of genuine Christianity with genuine Judaism, - emphasizes the Essenic-Elkesaitic demand to abstain from eating - flesh, to observe frequent fasts, divers washings and voluntary - poverty (through a recommendation of early marriages), as well - as the Catholic doctrine of the necessity of baptism for the - forgiveness of sins, and justifies the Gnostic tendency of his - times by setting up a system of doctrine of which the central - idea is the connection of Stoical Pantheism with Jewish Theism, - and is itself thoroughly dualistic: God the eternal pure Being - was originally a unity of πνεῦμα and σῶμα, and his life consisted - in extension and contraction, ἔκτασις and συστολή, the symbol - of which the human heart was a later copy. The result of such - an ἔκτασις was the separation of πνεῦμα and σῶμα, wherewith a - beginning of the development of the world was made. The πνεῦμα is - thus represented as Υἱός, also called Σοφία or Ἄρχων τοῦ αἰῶνος - τοῦ μέλλοντος; the Σῶμα is represented as Οὐσία or Ὕλη which four - times parts asunder in twofold opposition of the elements. Satan - springs from the mixing of these elements, and is the universal - soul of the Ἄρχων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου. The Σῶμα has thereby become - ἔμψυχον and ζῶον. Thus the Monas has unfolded itself into a Dyas, - as the first link of a long chain of contrasted pairs or Syzygies, - in the first series of which the large and male stands opposite - the small and female, heaven and earth, day and night, etc. The - last Syzygy of this series is Adam as the true male, and Eve as - the false female prophet. In the second series that relation had - come to be just reversed, Cain and Abel, Ishmael and Isaac, etc. - In the protoplasts this opposition of truth and falsehood, of - good and evil, was still a physical and necessary one; but in - their descendants, because both elements of their parents are - mixed up in them, it becomes an ethical one, conditioning and - requiring freedom of self-determination. Meanwhile Satan tempted - men to error and sin; but the true prophet (ὁ ἀληθὴς προφήτης) in - whom the divine Πνεῦμα dwelt as ἔμφυτον and ἀένναον, always leads - them back again into the true way of Gnosis and the fulfilment of - the law. In Adam, the original prophet, who had taught whole and - full truth, he had at first appeared, returning again after every - new obscuration and disfigurement of his doctrine under varying - names and forms, but always anew proclaiming the same truth. His - special manifestations were in Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, - Moses, and finally, in Christ. Alongside of them all, however, - stand false prophets inspired by the spirit of lies, to whom even - John the Baptist belongs, and in the Old Testament many of their - doctrines and prophecies have slipped in along with the true - prophecy. The transition from the original pantheistic to the - subsequent theistic standpoint, in which God is represented as - personal creator of the world, lawgiver, and governor, seems - to have been introduced by means of the primitive partition of - the divine being into Πνεῦμα and Σῶμα. In vain, however, do we - seek an explanation of the contradiction that, on the one hand, - the end of the development of the world is represented as the - separation of the evil from the good for the eternal punishment - of the former, but on the other hand, as a return, through the - purification of the one and the destruction of the other, of all - into the divine being, the ἀνάπαυσις. Equally irreconcilable is - the assertion of the unconditional necessity of Christian baptism - with the assertion of the equality of all stages of revelation. - - - § 29. MANICHÆISM. - - Manichæism makes its appearance in Persia about the middle of the -third century, independently of the Gentile-Christian Gnosticism of the -Roman empire, which was more or less under the influence of the Greek -philosophy of the second century, but bearing undoubted connection with -Mandæism (§ 25, 1), and Elkesaism (§ 28, 2). In principle and tendency, -it was at various points, as _e.g._ in its theory of emanation, its -doceticism, etc., connected with Gnosticism, but was distinguished -therefrom pre-eminently by using Christian soteriological ideas -and modes of thought as a mere varnish for oriental pagan or -Babylonian-Chaldaic theosophy, putting this in place of Platonic or -Stoical notions which are quite foreign to it, basing the system on -Persian dualism and impregnating it with elements from Buddhist ethics. -Another point in which it is distinguished from Gnosticism is that it -does not present itself as an esoteric form of religion meant only for -the few specially gifted spirits, but distinctly endeavours to build up -a community of its own with a regularly articulated constitution and a -well organized ritual. - - § 29.1. =The Founder.=--What the Greek and Latin Fathers (Titus - of Bostra, Epiphanius, Augustine, etc.) say about the person and - history of the founder of this sect is derived mainly from an - account of a disputation which a bishop Archelaus of Cascar in - Mesopotamia is said to have held with Manes or Manichæus. This - document is written in Syriac and dates about A.D. 320, but it - is simply a polemical work under the guise of a debate between - men with historical names. These “Acts” have come down to us in - a very corrupt Latin version, and contain, especially in their - historical allusions, much that is incredible and legendary, - while in their representation of the doctrine of Manes they are - much more deserving of confidence. According to them the origin - of Manichæism is to be attributed to a far travelled Saracen - craftsman, named Scythianus, who lived in the age of the Apostles. - His disciple, Terebinthus, who subsequently in Babylon took - the name Buddas, and affirmed that he had been born of a - virgin, wrote at the master’s dictation four books, _Mysteria_, - _Capitula_, _Evangelium_, _Thesaurus_, which after his death - came into the possession of a freed slave, Cubricus or Corbicus. - This man made the wisdom taught therein his own, developed it - more fully, appeared in Persia as the founder of a new religion, - and called himself Manes. He was even received at court, but - his failure to heal a prince was used by the jealous magicians - to secure his overthrow. He escaped, however, from prison, - and found a safe hiding place in Arabion, an old castle in - Mesopotamia. Meanwhile he had got access to the sacred writings - of the Christians and borrowed much from them for the further - development of his system. He now gave himself out as the - Paraclete promised by Christ, and by means of letters and - messengers developed a great activity in the dissemination of his - views, especially among Christians. This led to the disputation - of Archelaus above referred to, in which Manes suffered utter - defeat. He was soon thereafter seized by order of the Persian - king, flayed alive, and his stuffed skin publicly exhibited as - a warning. - - The reports in Persian documents of the ninth and tenth centuries - though later seem much more credible, and the dates derivable - from Manes’ own writings and those of his disciples quoted in - Arabic documents of the tenth and eleventh centuries, are quite - worthy of acceptance.[50] According to them Fatak the father - of Manes, called Πατέκιος in a Greek oath formula still extant, - was descended from a noble Persian family in Hamadan or Ecbatana, - married a princess of the Parthian Asarcidae, not long before - this, in A.D. 226, driven out by the Persian Sassanidæ, and - settled down with her at Ctesiphon, the Parthian capital. Here - he met with the Mogtasilah, Mandeans or Elkesaites (§ 28, 2), - then removed to Southern Chaldea, and trained his son, born in - A.D. 216, with great care in this faith. But even in his twelfth - year Manes received a divine revelation, which ordained him to - be the founder of a new religion, and in his twenty-fourth year - he was commissioned to preach this religion publicly. On his first - appearance in Persia, on the coronation day of king Sapor I., - in A.D. 242, he met with so little support that he found it - necessary to keep away from the Persian empire for several - decades, which he spent in foreign lands developing his system - and successfully prosecuting missionary work. It was only about - the end of Sapor’s reign († A.D. 272) that he ventured again to - return. He won over to his views the king’s brother Peroz and - through him found favour temporarily with Sapor, which, however, - soon again turned into dislike. Sapor’s successor, Hormuz or - Hormisdas I., seemed inclined to be tolerant toward him. For - this very reason Bahram or Baranes I. showed himself all the more - hostile, and had him crucified in A.D. 276, his body flayed, and - the skin stuffed with straw thrown out at the gate of the city. - - The two accounts may, according to Kessler, be brought into - harmony thus. The name Scythianus was given to Fatak as coming - from Parthia or Scythia. Terebinthus, a corruption of the Aramaic - _tarbitha_, sapling, was given originally as _Nomen appell._ to - the son of Fatak, and was afterwards misunderstood and regarded - as _Nomen propr._ of an additional member of the family, - intermediate between Fatak and Manes. In the Latin Cubricus, - however, we meet with a scornful rendering of his original name, - which he, on his entering independently on his work, exchanged - for the name Manes.[51] The name Buddas seems to indicate some - sort of connection with Buddhism. We also meet with the four - Terebinthus books among the seven chief works of Manes catalogued - in the Fihrist. According to a Persian document the _Evangelium_ - bore the title _Ertenki Mani_, was composed by Manes in a cave - in Turkestan, in which he stayed for a long time during his - banishment, and was adorned with beautiful illustrations, and - passed for a book sent down to him direct from heaven. - - § 29.2. =The System.=--The different sets of documents give very - different accounts of the religious system of Manichæism. This is - not occasioned so much by erroneous tradition or misconception as - by the varying stages through which the doctrine of Manes passed. - In Western and Christian lands it took on a richer Christian - colouring than in Eastern and pagan countries. In all its forms, - however, we meet with a groundwork of magical dualism. As in - Parseeism, Ahriman and his Devas stand opposed to Ormuzd and - his Ameshaspentas and Izeds, so also here from all eternity a - luminous ether surrounding the realm of light, the _Terra lucida_, - of the good God, with his twelve æons and countless beings - of light, stands opposed to the realm of darkness, the _Terra - pestifera_, with Satan and his demons. Each of the two kingdoms - consists of five elements: the former of bright light, quickening - fire, clear water, hot air, soft wind; the latter of lurid flame, - scorching fire, grimy slime, dark clouds, raging tempest. In - the one, perfect concord, goodness, happiness, and splendour - prevail; in the other, wild, chaotic and destructive waves dash - confusedly about. Clothing himself in a borrowed ray of light, - Satan prepared himself for a robber campaign in the realm of - light. In order to keep him off the Father of Lights caused to - emanate from him the “Mother of Life,” and placed her as a watcher - on the borders of his realm. She brought forth the first man - (ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος), who armed with the five pure elements engaged - in battle with the demons. When he sank before their furious - onslaught, God sent a newly emanated æon for his deliverance, the - “living spirit” (ζῶον πνεῦμα), who freed him and vanquished the - demons. But a portion of the ethereal substance of the first man, - his armour of light, had been already devoured by the demoniac - Hyle, and as the _Jesus patibilis_, υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐμπαθής, - remains imprisoned in it. Out of the elements of light which he - saved the living Spirit now forms the Sun and Moon, and settles - there the first man as _Jesus impatibilis_, υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἀπαθής, - while out of the Hyle impregnated with elements of light he - constructs the present earthly world, in order gradually to - deliver the fragments of light bound up in it, the _Jesus - patibilis_ or the soul of the world, and to fit them for - restoration to their eternal home. The first man dwelling in - the sun and the Holy Spirit enthroned in the luminous ether have - to further and direct this process of purification. The sun and - moon are the two light-ships, _lucidæ naves_, which the light - particles wrenched out of the world further increase. The zodiac - with its twelve signs operates in this direction like a revolving - wheel with twelve buckets, while the smaller ship, as new moon, - receives them, and as full moon empties them again into the sun, - which introduces them into the realm of light. In order to check - this process of purification Satan, out of the Hyle and the - imprisoned particles of light, of which he still had possession, - made Adam and Eve after his own image and that of the first man, - and incited them to fleshly lusts and carnal intercourse, so - that the light of their soul became dim and weak, and more and - more the body became its gloomy prison. His demons, moreover, - were continually busying themselves in fastening the chains of - darkness more tightly about their descendants by means of the - false religions of Judaism and paganism. Therefore at last the - _Jesus impatibilis_, clothed with the appearance of a body, - descended from the sun to the earth, to instruct men about their - souls and the means and end of their redemption. The sufferings - and death inflicted upon him by the Prince of Darkness were only - in appearance. The death of the cross and the resurrection were - only sensible representations of the overthrow and final victory - of the _Jesus patibilis_. As in the macrocosm of the earthly - world there is set forth the emancipation of this suffering - Christ from the bonds of hylic matter, so also in the microcosm - represented in each individual man, we have the dominion of the - spirit over the flesh, the redemption of the soul of light from - the prison of the body, and its return to the realm of light, - conceived of as the end and aim of all endeavour. The method - for attaining this consists in the greatest possible abstinence - from all connection and intercourse with the world of sense; the - _Signaculum oris_ in particular demands absolute abstinence from - all animal food and restriction in the use even of vegetable food, - for in the slaughtering of the animal all elements of light are - with the life withdrawn from its flesh, and only hylic elements - remain, whereas in vegetable fare the substances of light there - present contribute to the strengthening of the light in the man’s - own soul. Wine and all intoxicating drinks as “Satan’s gall” - are strictly forbidden, as well as animal food. The _Signaculum - manuum_ prohibits all injuring of animal or plant life, all - avoidable contact with or work upon matter, because the material - is thereby strengthened. The _Signaculum sinus_ forbids all - sensual pleasure and carnal intercourse. The souls of those men - who have perfectly satisfied the threefold injunction, return at - death immediately into the blessed home of light. Those who only - partially observe them must, by transmigration of the soul into - other bodies, of animals, plants or men, in proportion to the - degree of purification attained unto, that is, by metempsychosis, - have the purifying process carried to perfection. But all who - have not entered upon the way of sanctification, are finally - delivered over unreservedly to Satan and hell. The Apostles - greatly misunderstood and falsified this doctrine of Christ; - but in the person of Manes the promised Paraclete appeared, who - taught it again in its original purity. For the most part Manes - accepted the Pauline epistles in which the doctrines of the - groaning creation and the opposition of flesh and spirit must - have been peculiarly acceptable to him; all the more decidedly - did he reject the Acts of the Apostles, and vigorously did - he oppose the account which it gave of the outpouring of the - Holy Spirit as in conflict with his doctrine of the Paraclete. - According to the Fihrist, Manes distinguished from the _Jesus - impatibilis_ who as true redeemer descended to earth in the - appearance of a body, the historical Jesus as prophet of the - Devil, and the false Messiah who for the punishment of his - wickedness suffered actual death on the cross instead of the - true Jesus. The Old Testament he wholly rejected. The god of the - Jews was with him the Prince of Darkness; the prophets with Moses - at their head were the messengers of the Devil. As his own true - precursors--the precursors of the Paraclete--he named Adam, Seth, - Noah, Abraham, Buddha, and Zoroaster. - - § 29.3. =Constitution, Worship, and Missionarizing.=--Manes was - still regarded after his death as the invisibly present head - (_Princeps_) of the church. At the head of the hierarchical order - as his visible representative stood an Imam or Pope, who resided - at Babylon. The first of these, appointed by Manes himself before - his death, was named Sis or Sisinius. The Manichæan ministry - was distributed under him into twelve _Magistri_ and seventy-two - _Bishops_, with presbyters and deacons in numbers as required. - The congregations consisted of Catechumens (_Auditores_) and - Elect (_Electi_, _Perfecti_). The latter were strictly bound - to observe the threefold _Signaculum_. The _Auditores_ brought - them the food necessary for the support of their life and out - of the abundance of their holiness they procured pardon to - these imperfect ones for their unavoidable violation of mineral - and vegetable life in making this provision. The _Auditores_ - were also allowed to marry and even to eat animal food; but - by voluntary renunciation of this permission they could secure - entrance into the ranks of the _Electi_. The worship of the - Manichæans was simple, but orderly. They addressed their prayers - to the sun and moon. The Sunday was hallowed by absolute fasting, - and the day of common worship was dedicated to the honour of - the spirit of the sun; but on Monday the _Electi_ by themselves - celebrated a secret service. At their annual chief festival, - that of the Pulpit (βῆμα), on the day of their founder’s death, - they threw themselves down upon the ground in oriental fashion - before a beautifully adorned chair of state, the symbol of their - departed master. The five steps leading up to it represented - the five hierarchical decrees of the _Electi_, _Diaconi_, - _Presbyteri_, _Episcopi_ and _Magistri_. Baptism and the Lord’s - Supper, the former with oil, the latter with bread without wine, - belonged to the secret worship of the Perfect. Oil and bread were - regarded as the most luminous bearers of the universal soul in - the vegetable world.--Notwithstanding the violent persecution - which after the execution of Manes was raised against the - adherents of his doctrine throughout the whole Persian empire, - their number increased rapidly in all quarters, especially in - the East, but also in the West, in Syria, Palestine, Egypt, etc. - Proconsular Africa became the centre of its Western propaganda; - and thence it spread into Italy and Spain. In A.D. 290 Diocletian - issued an edict by which the Proconsul of Africa was required to - burn the leaders of this sect, doubly dangerous as springing from - the hostile Persian empire, along with their books, to execute - with the sword its persistent adherents, or send them to work in - the quarries, and confiscate their goods.--Continuation at § 54, 1. - - - - - III. THE DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT AND APOLOGETICAL - ACTIVITY OF THE CHURCH.[52] - - - § 30. THE THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE OF THE POST-APOSTOLIC - AGE, A.D. 70-170.[53] - - The literary remains of the so-called Apostolic Fathers constitute the -first fruits of Patristic-Christian literature. These are in respect of -number and scope insignificant, and, inasmuch as they had their origin, -from the special individual circumstances of their writers, they were -composed for the most part in the form of epistles. The old traditional -view that the authors of these treatises had enjoyed the immediate -fellowship and instruction of the Apostles is at once too narrow -and too wide. Among these writings must be included first of all the -recently discovered “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.” About A.D. 130, -when Christianity was making its way among the ranks of the cultured, -Christian writers began to feel themselves called upon to engage with -paganism in a literary warfare defensive and offensive, in order to -repel the charges and calumnies raised against their religion and to -demonstrate its inner worth in opposition to the moral and religious -degradation of heathenism. These writings had a more theological and -scientific character than those of the Apostolic Fathers, which had more -of a practical and hortatory tendency. The works of these Apologists -still extant afford interesting and significant glimpses of the life, -doctrine, and thinking of the Christians of that age, which but for -these writings would have been almost unknown. - - § 30.1. =The Beginnings of Patristic Literature.=--According to - the established rule of the church we have to distinguish between - New Testament and Patristic literature in this way: to the former - belongs those writings to which, as composed by Apostles or at - least under Apostolic authority, the ancient church assigned - an objectively fundamental and regulative significance for - further ecclesiastical development; while in the latter we have - represented the subjective conception and estimation which the - Church Fathers made of the Christian message of salvation and - the structure they reared upon this foundation. The so-called - Apostolic Fathers may be regarded as occupying a position - midway between the two and forming a transition from the one - to the other, or as themselves constituting the first fruits - of Patristic literature. Indeed as regards the New Testament - writings themselves the ancient church was long uncertain and - undecided as to the selection of them from the multitude of - contemporary writings;[54] and Eusebius still designated several - of the books that were subsequently definitely recognised - ἀντιλεγόμενα; while modern criticism has not only repeated such - doubts as to the genuineness of these writings but has extended - these doubts to other books of the New Testament. But even this - criticism cannot deny the historical significance assigned above - to those New Testament books contested by it, even though it may - feel obliged to reject the account of them given by the ancient - church, and to assign their composition to the Post-Apostolic - Age.--When we turn to the so-called Apostolic Fathers, on closer - examination the usual designation as well as the customary - enumeration of seven names as belonging to the group will be - found too narrow because excluding the New Testament writings - composed by disciples of the Apostles, and too wide because - including names which have no claim to be regarded as disciples - or contemporaries of the Apostles, and embracing writings of - which the authenticity is in some cases clearly disproved, in - other cases doubtful or at least only problematical. We come upon - firm ground when we proceed to deal with the Apologists of the - age of Hadrian. It was not, however, till the period of the Old - Catholic Church, about A.D. 170, that the literary compositions - of the Christians became broadened, deepened and universalized - by a fuller appropriation and appreciation of the elements - of Græco-Latin culture, so as to form an all-sided universal - Christian literature representative of Christianity as a universal - religion. - - § 30.2. =The Theology of the Post-Apostolic Age.=--By far the - greater number of the ecclesiastical writers of this period - belong to the Gentile Christian party. Hence we might suppose - that it would reflect the Pauline type of doctrine, if not in its - full depth and completeness, yet at least in its more significant - and characteristic features. This expectation, however, is not - altogether realised. Among the Church Fathers of this age we - rather find an unconscious deterioration of the original doctrine - of Paul revealing itself as a smoothing down and belittling or - as an ignoring of the genuine Paulinism, which, therefore, as - the result of the struggle against the Gnostic tendency, only in - part overcome, was for the first time fully recognised and proved - finally victorious in the Reformation of the 16th century. On the - one hand, we see that these writers, if they do not completely - ignore the position and task assigned to Israel as the chosen - people of God, minimise their importance and often fail to - appreciate the pædagogical significance of the Mosaic law - (Gal. iii. 24), so that its ceremonial parts are referred to - misunderstanding, want of sense, and folly, or are attributed - even to demoniacal suggestion. But on the other hand, even - the gospel itself is regarded again as a new and higher law, - purified from that ceremonial taint, and hence the task of the - ante-mundane Son of God, begotten for the purpose of creating the - world, but now also manifest in the flesh, from whose influence - upon Old Testament prophets as well as upon the sages of paganism - all revelations of pre-Christian Judaism as well as all σπέρματα - of true knowledge in paganism have sprung, is pre-eminently - conceived of as that of a divine teacher and lawgiver. In this - way there was impressed upon the Old Catholic Church as it - grew up out of Pauline Gentile Christianity a legalistic moral - tendency that was quite foreign to the original Paulinism, and - the righteousness of faith taught by the Apostle when represented - as obedience to the “new law” passed over again unobserved into a - righteousness of works. Redemption and reconciliation are indeed - still always admitted to be conditioned by the death of Christ - and their appropriation to be by the faith of the individual; - but this faith is at bottom nothing more than the conviction - of the divinity of the person and doctrine of the new lawgiver - evidencing itself in repentance and rendering of practical - obedience, and in confident expectation of the second coming - of Christ, and in a sure confidence of a share in the life - everlasting.--The introduction of this legalistic tendency into - the Gentile Christian Church was not occasioned by the influence - of Jewish Christian legalism, nor can it be explained as - the result of a compromise effected between Jewish Christian - Petrinism and Gentile Christian Paulinism, which were supposed - by Baur, Schwegler, etc., to have been, during the Apostolic - Age, irreconcilably hostile to one another. This has been already - proved by Ritschl, who charges its intrusion rather upon the - inability of Gentile Christianity fully to understand the Old - Testament bases of the Pauline doctrine. By means of a careful - analysis of the undisputed writings of Justin Martyr and - by a comparison of these with the writings of the Apostolic - Fathers, Engelhardt has proved that anything extra-, un-, or - anti-Pauline in the Christianity of these Fathers has not so much - an Ebionitic-Jewish Christian, but rather a pagan-philosophic, - source. He shows that the prevalent religio-moral mode of thought - of the cultured paganism of that age reappears in that form - of Christianity not only as an inability to reach a profound - understanding of the Old Testament, but also just as much - as a minimising and depreciating, or disdaining of so many - characteristic features of the Pauline doctrinal resting on Old - Testament foundations. - - § 30.3. =The so-called Apostolic Fathers.=[55]-- - - a. =Clement of Rome= was one of the first Roman bishops, - probably the third (§ 16, 1). The opinion that he is to - be identified with the Clement named in Phil. iv. 3 is - absolutely unsupported. The sameness of age and residence - in some small measure favours the identifying him with - Tit. Flav. Clemens [Clement], the consul, and cousin of the - Emperor, who on account of his Christianity (?) was executed - in A.D. 95 (§ 22, 1). Besides a multitude of other writings - which subsequently assumed his well-known name (§ 28, 3; - 43, 4), there are ascribed to him two so-called Epistles - to the Corinthians, of which however, the second certainly - is not his. The First Epistle which in the ancient church - was considered worthy to be used in public worship, was - afterwards lost, but fragments of it were recovered in - A.D. 1628 in the so-called _Codex Alexandrinus_ (§ 152, 2), - together with a portion of the so-called “Second Epistle.” - Recently however both writings were found in a complete - form by Bryennius, Metropolitan of Serrä in Macedonia, in - a Jerusalem Codex of A.D. 1056 discovered at Constantinople - and published by him.[56] In the following year a Codex - of the Syrian New Testament at Cambridge was more closely - examined,[57] and in it there was found a complete Syriac - translation of both writings inserted between the Catholic - and the Pauline Epistles, while in _Codex Alexandrinus_ they - are placed after the Apocalypse. =The “First” Epistle=, the - date of which is generally given as A.D. 93-95, does not - give the author’s name, but is assigned to Clement of Rome - by Dionysius of Corinth in A.D. 170, as quoted in Eusebius, - and by Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, and - described as written from Rome in name of the church of that - place to the church of Corinth, counselling peace and unity. - In the passage c. 58-63, formerly wanting but now restored, - the exhortation passes into a long prayer with intercessions - for those in authority and for the church according to what - was perhaps already the customary form of public prayer in - Rome. Both churches, those of Rome and Corinth, are admitted - without dispute to have been Gentile Christian churches, - which had accepted the Pauline type of doctrine, without - however fully fathoming or understanding it. But Peter also - occupies a position of equal honour alongside of Paul, and - nowhere does any trace appear of a consciousness of any - opposition between the two apostles. The divine sonship - of the Redeemer and His consequent universal sovereignty - are the basis of the Christian confession, but no sort - of developed doctrine of the divinity of Christ is here - found, and even His pre-existence is affirmed only as the - presupposition of the view that He was already operative in - the prophets by His spirit. The Old Testament, allegorically - and typically interpreted, is therefore the source and - proof of Christian doctrine. Of a particular election of - Israel the author knows nothing. Christians as such, whether - descended from Gentiles or from Jews, are the chosen people - of God; Abraham by reason of his faith is their father; and - it is only by faith in the Almighty God that men of all ages - have been justified before God.--In the so-called =Second - “Epistle”= the completed form of the second half proves - what the less complete form rendered probable, that it is - no Epistle but a sermon, and indeed the oldest specimen of - a sermon, that we here possess. The author, who delivered it - somewhere about A.D. 144-150, wrote it out first for his own - use, and then for the church. As it has in its theological - views many points of contact with the _Shepherd of Hermas_ - (§ 30, 4), Harnack thinks it probable that a younger - Clement of Rome mentioned by Hermas may be the author; - while Hilgenfeld is inclined to regard it as a youthful - work of Clement of Alexandria (§ 31, 4). It contains a - forcible exhortation to thorough repentance and conversion - in accordance with the command of Christ, with a reference - to the judgment and the future glory. This shows in a - remarkable way what rapid progress had been made from the - religio-moral mode of thought of cultured paganism toward - moralizing legalism, and the smoothing down of Christianity - thereby introduced into the Gentile-Christian Catholic - Church, during the half century between the composition of - the Epistle of Clement and this Clementine discourse. For in - the latter already the gospel is represented as a new law, a - higher divine doctrine of virtue and reward, in which alms, - fasts, and prayer appear as specially meritorious works. The - righteousness that avails with God is still indeed derived - from faith, but this faith is reduced to a belief in the - future recompense of eternal life. Christ as Son of God is - conceived of by the author as a pneumatical heavenly being, - created before the world, who, sent by God into the world - for man’s redemption, took upon Him human σάρξ. But besides - Him, he also knows a second pneumatical hypostasis created - before the world, “before sun and moon,” the ἐκκλησία ζῶσα, - which, as the heavenly body of Christ, is at the same time - the presupposition for the making of the world restored by - His work of salvation. For the creation of this divine pair - of æons, that is, of Christ as the ἄνθρωπος ἐπουράνιος and - of the church as His heavenly σύζυγος, the author refers - to the account of the creation in Gen. i. 27. Of passages - quoted as sayings of Christ several are not to be found in - our Gospels. - - § 30.4. - - b. The Epistle known by the name of Paul’s travelling companion - =Barnabas= (Acts iv. 36) was first recovered in the 17th - century. The first 4½ chapters were added from an old Latin - translation, till in the 19th century the _Codex Sinaiticus_ - of the New Testament, and recently also the Jerusalem - Codex of Bryennius above referred to, supplied the complete - Greek text.[58] The date of the epistle has been variously - assigned to the age of Domitian, to that of Nerva, to that - of Hadrian; and is placed by Harnack between A.D. 96 and - A.D. 125. Its extravagant allegorical interpretation of - the Old Testament betrays its Alexandrian origin, and in - Gentile-Christian depreciation of the ceremonial law of the - Old Testament it goes so far as to attribute the conception - and actual composition of its books to diabolical inspiration. - It admits indeed a covenant engagement between God and - Israel, but maintains that this was immediately terminated - by Moses’ breaking of the tables of the law. All things - considered the composition of this Epistle by Barnabas is - scarcely conceivable. This was acknowledged by Eusebius - who counted it among the νόθοι, and by Jerome, who placed - it among the Apocrypha. For the rest, however, its type - of doctrine is in essential agreement with that of Paul, - though it fails to penetrate the depths of apostolic - truth. It is at least decidedly free from any taint of - that legalistic-moral conception of Christianity which is - so strongly masked in the discourse of Clement. The divine - sonship, pre-existence, and world-creating activity of Christ - is expressly acknowledged and taught, though there is yet no - reference to the doctrine of the Logos. - - c. The prophetical writing known to us as =Pastor Hermæ - [Hermas]=,[59] which was first erroneously attributed by - Origen to Hermas the scholar of Paul at Rome (Rom. xvi. 14), - was so highly esteemed in the ancient church that it was - used in public like the canonical books of the New Testament. - Irenæus quotes it as holy scripture; Clement and Origen - regarded it as inspired, and the African church of the 3rd - century included it in the New Testament canon. On the other - hand, the Muratorian canon (§ 36, 8) had already ranked it - among the Apocrypha that might be used in private but not in - public worship. The book owes its title to the circumstance - that in it an angel appears in the form of a shepherd - instructing Hermas. It contains four visions, in which the - church, which πάντων πρώτη ἐκτίσθη, appears to the author - as an old woman giving instruction (πρεσβυτέρα); it contains - also twelve _Mandata_ of the angel, and finally, ten - _Similitudines_ or parables. The Gentile-Christian origin of - the author is shown by the position which he assigns to the - church as coeval with the creation of the world and as at - first embracing all mankind. The sending of the Son of God - into the world has for its end not the founding but only the - renewing and perfecting of the church, and the twelve tribes - to which the Apostles were to preach the gospel are “the - twelve peoples who dwell on the whole earth” (comp. Deut. - xxxii. 8). In all the three parts the book takes the form of - a continuous earnest call to repentance in view of the early - coming again of Christ, dominated throughout by that same - legalistic conception of the Gospel that we meet with in the - discourse of Clement. Indeed this is more fully carried - out, for it teaches that the true penitent is able not - only to live a perfectly righteous life, but also in good - works, such as fasts, alms, etc., to do more than fulfil the - commands of God, and in this way to win for himself a higher - measure of the divine favour and eternal blessedness. In - Hermas we find no trace of any application of the doctrine - of the Logos to the person of Christ, and the ideas of the - Son of God and the Holy Spirit are confused with one another. - The Son of God as the Holy Spirit is προγενέστερος πάσης - τῆς κτίσεως; at His suggestion and by His means God created - the world; through Him He bears, sustains, and upholds it; - and by Him He redeems it by means of His incarnation, for - the Son of God as the Holy Spirit descends upon the man - Jesus in His baptism. From its prophetical utterances, - its eager expectation of the early return of the Lord, - and its promises of a new outpouring of the Spirit for the - quickening of the church already become too worldly, the - book may be characterized as a precursor of the Montanist - movement (§ 40), although on questions of practical morality, - such as second marriages, martyrdom, fasting, etc., it - exhibits a milder tendency than that of Montanistic rigorism, - and in reference to penitential discipline (§ 39, 2), while - acknowledging the inadmissibility of absolution for a mortal - sin committed after baptism, it nevertheless, owing to - the nearness of the second coming, allows to be proclaimed - by the angel a repeated, though only short, space for - repentance. The date of the composition of this book is - still matter of controversy. Since Hermas is commanded in - the second vision to send a copy of his book to “Clement” in - order to secure its further circulation, most of the earlier - scholars, and among the moderns specially Zahn, identifying - this Clement with the celebrated Roman Presbyter-Bishop - of that name, fix its date at somewhere about A.D. 100. - Recently, however, Harnack, v. Gebhardt, and others have - rightly assigned much greater importance to the testimony - of the Muratorian canon, according to which it was written - somewhere between A.D. 130-160, “_nuperrime temporibus - nostris in urbe Roma_,” by Hermas, the brother of the Roman - bishop Pius (A.D. 139-154). - - § 30.5. - - d. =Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch=, is said to have been a - pupil of the Apostle John, though no evidence of this can - be produced from the Epistles ascribed to him. The _Acta - martyrii sancti Ignatii_, extant in five parts, are purely - legendary and full of contradictory statements. According - to a later document, that of the Byzantine chronographer - Joh. Malalas, at the time of the Parthian war during the - visit of Trajan to Antioch in A.D. 115, soon after an - earthquake had been experienced there, he was torn asunder - by lions in the circus as a despiser of the gods. According - to the martyrologies he was transported to Rome and suffered - this fate there, as usually supposed in A.D. 115, in the - opinion of Wieseler and others in A.D. 107 (Lightfoot says - between A.D. 100-118), according to Harnack soon after - A.D. 130.[60] The epistles to various churches and one - to Polycarp ascribed to him have come down to us in three - recensions differing from one another in extent, number and - character. There is a shorter Greek recension containing - seven, a larger Greek form, with expansions introduced for a - purpose, containing thirteen epistles, twelve by and one to - Ignatius, and the shortest of all in a Syriac translation - containing three epistles, those to the Romans, to the - Ephesians, and to Polycarp.[61] According to the first-named - recension, Ignatius is represented as writing all his - epistles during his martyr journey to Rome, but no reference - to this is made in the Syrian recension. Vigorous polemic - against Judaistic and Docetic heresy, undaunted confession - of the divinity of Christ, and unwearied exhortation to - recognise the bishop as the representative of Christ, - while the presbyters are described as the successors of the - Apostles, distinguish these epistles from all other writings - of this age, especially in the two Greek recensions, and - have led many critics to question their genuineness. Bunsen, - Lipsius, Ritschl, etc., regarded the Syrian recension, in - which the hierarchical tendency was more in the background, - as the original and authentic form. Uhlhorn, Düsterdieck, - Zahn, Funk, Lightfoot, Harnack, etc., prefer the shorter - Greek recension, and view the Syrian form as abbreviated - perhaps for liturgical purposes, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, - etc., deny the genuineness of all three. But even on this - assumption, in determining the date of the composition of - the two shorter recensions, to whichever of them we may - ascribe priority and originality, we cannot on internal - grounds put them later than the middle of the second century, - whereas the larger Greek recension paraphrased and expanded - into thirteen epistles belongs certainly to a much later - date (§ 43, 4).[62] - - § 30.6. - - e. =Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna=, had also been according to - Irenæus ordained to this office by the Apostle John. He - died at the stake under Marcus Aurelius (Antoninus Pius?) - in A.D. 166 (or A.D. 155) at an extreme old age (§ 22, 3). - We possess an epistle of his to the Philippians of - practical contents important on account of its New Testament - quotations. Its genuineness, however, has been contested - by modern criticism. It stands and falls with the seven - Ignatian epistles, as it occupies common ground with them. - We have a legendary biography of Polycarp by Pionius dating - from the 4th century, which is reproduced in Lightfoot’s - work. - - f. =Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis= in Galatia, was also, - according to Irenæus, a pupil of the Apostle John. This - statement, however, in the opinion of Eusebius and many - moderns, rests upon a confusion between the Apostle and - another John, whom Papias himself distinguishes by the title - πρεσβύτερος (§ 16, 2). He is said to have suffered death - as a martyr under Marcus Aurelius, about A.D. 163. With - great diligence he collected mediately and immediately - from the mouths of the πρεσβύτεροι, that is, from such as - had intercourse with the Apostles, or had been, like the - above-mentioned John the Presbyter, μαθηταὶ τοῦ κυρίου, oral - traditions about the discourses of the Lord, and set down - the results of his inquiries in a writing entitled Λογίων - κυριακῶν ἐξήγησις. A passage quoted by Eusebius in his - _Ch. Hist._, iii. 29, from the preface of this treatise has - given rise to a lively controversy as to whether Papias was a - pupil of the Apostle John and was acquainted with the fourth - Gospel. Another fragment on the history of the origin of - the Gospels of Matthew and Mark has occasioned a dispute - as to whether only these two Gospels were known to him. - Finally, there is preserved in Irenæus a passage giving a - reputed saying of Christ regarding the fantastically rich - fruitfulness of the earth during the thousand years’ reign - (§ 33, 9). He so revels in fantastic and sensuous chiliastic - dreams that Eusebius, who had previously spoken of him as - a learned and well-read man, is driven to pass upon him the - harsh judgment: σφόδρα γάρ τοι σμικρὸς ὢν τὸν νοῦν.[63] - - g. Finally, we must here include an epistle to a certain - =Diognetus= by an unknown writer, who has described himself - as μαθητὴς τῶν ἀποστόλων. Justin Martyr, among whose - writings this epistle got inserted, cannot possibly have - been the author, as both his style and his point of view - are different. The epistle controverts in a spirited manner - the objections of Diognetus to Christianity, views the - pagan deities not, like the other Church Fathers, as demons, - but as unsubstantial phantoms, explains the Old Testament - institutions as human, and so in part foolish enactments, - and maintains keenly and determinedly the opinion that - God for the first time revealed Himself to man in Christ. - He thus, as Dräseke thinks, to some extent favours the - Marcionite view of the Old Testament, so that he regards - it as not improbable that our epistle was composed by a - disciple of Marcion, one perhaps like Apelles, who in the - course of the later development of the school had rejected - many of his master’s crudities (§ 27, 12). He addresses - his discourse to Diognetus, the stoical philosopher who - boasts of Marcus Aurelius as his master. On the other hand, - Overbeck assigns its composition to the Post-Constantine - Age, and the French scholar Doulcet, setting it down to the - age of Hadrian, thinks he has discovered the author to be - the Athenian philosopher Aristides. This idea has been more - fully carried out by Kihn, who endeavours to make out not - only the identity of the author, but that of him to whom the - epistle is addressed: Κράτιστε Διόγνητε, “Almighty son of - Zeus,” that is, Hadrian. - - § 30.7. =The Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.=--The - celebrated little treatise bearing the title Διδαχὴ κυρίου διὰ - τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων τοῖς ἔθνεσιν was discovered by Bryennius - (then metropolitan of Serrä, now of Nicomedia) in the Jerusalem - Codex, to which we also owe the perfect text of the two so-called - Epistles of Clement, and it was edited by this scholar with - prolegomena and notes in Greek, at Constantinople in 1883. It at - once set in motion many learned pens in Germany, France, Holland, - England, and North America.--Eusebius, who first expressly names - it in his list of New Testament writings as τῶν ἀποστόλων αἱ - λεγόμεναι διδαχαί, which Rufinus renders by _Doctrina quæ dicitur - App._, places it in the closest connection with the Epistle of - Barnabas among the ἀντιλεγόμενα νόθα (§ 36, 8). Four years later - Athanasius ranks it as διδαχὴ καλουμένη τῶν ἀπ. along with the - Shepherd of Hermas, giving it the first place, as a New Testament - supplement corresponding to the Old Testament ἀναγινωσκόμενα - (§ 59, 1). Clement of Alexandria quoting a passage from it uses - the formula, ὑπὸ τῆς γραφῆς εἴρηται, and thus treats it as holy - scripture. In Origen again no sort of reference to it has as - yet been found. From the 39th Festival Epistle of Athanasius, - A.D. 367, which ranks it, as we have just seen, as a New Testament - supplement like the Old Testament Anaginoskomena, we know that - it like these were used at Alexandria παρὰ τῶν πατέρων in the - instruction of catechumens. In the East, according to Rufinus, - when enumerating in his _Expos. Symb. Ap._ the Athanasian - Anaginoskomena, we find alongside of Hermas, instead of - the Didache, the “Two Ways,” _Duæ viæ vel Judicium secundum - Petrum_. Jerome, too, in his _De vir. ill._, mentions among the - pseudo-Petrine writings a _Judicium Petri_. We have here no doubt - a Latin translation or recension of the first six chapters of - the Didache beginning with the words: Ὅδοι δύο εἰσι, these two - ways being the way of life and the way of death. The second title - instead of the twelve Apostles names their spokesman Peter as the - reputed author of the treatise. Soon after the time of Athanasius - our tract passed out of the view of the Church Fathers, but it - reappears in the Ecclesiastical Constitutions of the 4th century - (§ 43, 4, 5), of which it formed the root and stem. The Didache - itself, however, should not be ranked among the pseudepigraphs, - for it never claims to have been written by the twelve Apostles - or by their spokesman Peter.--Bryennius and others, from the - intentional prominence given to the twelve Apostles in the - title and from the legalistic moralizing spirit that pervades - the book, felt themselves justified in seeking its origin in - Jewish-Christian circles. But this moralizing character it shares - with the other Gentile-Christian writings of the Post-Apostolic - Age (§ 30, 2), and the restriction of the term “Apostles” by the - word “twelve” was occasioned by this, that the itinerant preachers - of the gospel of that time, who in the New Testament are called - Evangelists (§ 17, 5) were now called Apostles as continuators of - the Apostles’ missionary labours, and also the exclusion of the - Apostle Paul is to be explained by the consideration that the - book is founded upon the sayings of the Lord, the tradition - of which has come to us only through the twelve. It has been - rightly maintained on the other hand by Harnack, that the author - must rather have belonged to Gentile-Christian circles which - repudiated all communion with the Jews even in matters of mere - form; for in chap. viii. 1, 2, resting upon Matt. vi. 5, 16, - he forbids fasting with the hypocrites, “the Jews,” or perhaps - in the sense of Gal. ii. 13, the Jewish-Christians, on Monday - and Thursday, instead of Wednesday and Friday according to the - Christian custom (§ 37, 3), and using Jewish prayers instead - of the Lord’s Prayer. The address of the title: τοῖς ἔθνεσιν - is to be understood according to the analogy of Rom. xi. 13; - Gal. ii. 12-14; and Eph. iii. 1. The author wishes in as brief, - lucid, easily comprehended, and easily remembered form as - possible, to gather together for Christians converted from - heathenism the most important rules for their moral, religious - and congregational life in accordance with the precepts of - the Lord as communicated by the twelve Apostles, and in doing - so furnishes us with a valuable “commentary on the earliest - witnesses for the life, type of doctrine, interests and - ordinances of the Gentile-Christian churches in the pre-Catholic - age.” As to the date of its composition, its connection with - the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas indicates the - period within which it must fall, for the connection is so close - that it must have employed them or they must have employed it. - However, not only is the age of the Epistle of Barnabas, as well - as that of the Shepherd of Hermas, still undetermined, but it is - also disputed whether one or other of these two or the Didache - has priority and originality. On the other hand, the Didache - itself in almost all its data and presuppositions bears so - distinct an impress of an archaic character that one feels - obliged to assign its date as near the Apostolic Age as possible. - Harnack who feels compelled to ascribe priority not only to the - Pseudo-Barnabas, but also to the Shepherd of Hermas, fixes its - date between A.D. 140-165, after Hermas and before Marcion. On - the other hand, Zahn and Funk, Lechler, Taylor, etc., give the - Didache priority even over the Epistle of Barnabas. The place - as well as the time of the composition of this work is matter - of dispute. Those who maintain its Jewish-Christian origin think - of the southern lands to the east or west of the Jordan; others - think of Syria. On account of its connection with the Epistle - of Barnabas, and with reference to Clement and Athanasius (see - above), Harnack has decided for Egypt, and, on account of its - agreement with the Sahidic translation of the New Testament in - omitting the doxology from Matt. v. 13, he fixes more exactly upon - Upper Egypt. The objection that the designation of the grain of - which the bread for the Lord’s Supper is made in the eucharistic - prayer given in chap. ix. 4 as ἐπάνω τῶν ὀρέων, does not - correspond with that grown there, is sought to be set aside - with the scarcely satisfactory remark that “the origin of the - eucharistic prayer does not decide the origin of the whole - treatise.” That the book, however, does not bear in itself - any specifically Alexandrian impress, such as, _e.g._, is - undeniably met with in the Epistle of Barnabas, has been admitted - by Harnack.[64] - - § 30.8. =The Writings of the Earliest Christian Apologists=[65] - are lost. At the head of this band stood =Quadratus= of Athens, - who addressed a treatise in defence of the faith to Hadrian, in - which among other things he shows that he himself was acquainted - with some whom Jesus had cured or raised from the dead. No trace - of this work can be found after the 7th century. His contemporary, - =Aristides= the philosopher, in Athens after his conversion - addressed to the same emperor an Apology that has been praised by - Jerome. A fragment of an Armenian translation of this treatise, - which according to its superscription belongs to the 5th century, - was found in a codex of the 10th century by the Mechitarists at - S. Lazzaro, and was edited by them along with a Latin translation. - This fragment treats of the nature of God as the eternal creator - and ruler of all things, of the four classes of men,--barbarians - who are sprung from Belos, Chronos, etc., Greeks from Zeus, - Danaus, Hellenos, etc., Jews from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, - and Christians from Christ,--and of Jesus Christ as the Son of - God born of a Jewish virgin, who sent His twelve Apostles into - all the world to teach the nations wisdom. This probably formed - the beginning of the Apology. The antique character of its point - of view and the complete absence of any reference to the Logos - doctrine or to any heretical teaching, lends great probability - to the authenticity of this fragment, although the designation - of the mother of Jesus as the “bearer of God” must be a - later interpolation (comp. § 52, 3). The genuineness of the - second piece, however, taken from another Armenian Codex,--an - anti-docetic homily, _De Latronis clamore et Crucifixi - responsione_ (Luke xxiii. 42), which from the words of Christ - and those crucified with Him proves His divinity--is both on - external and on internal grounds extremely doubtful. According - to the Armenian editor this Codex has the title: By the Athenian - philosopher Aristeas. This is explained as a corruption of the - name Aristides, but recently another Catholic scholar, Dr. Vetter, - on close examination found that the name was really that of - Aristides.--To a period not much later must be assigned the - apologetic dialogue between the Jewish Christian Jason and the - Alexandrian Jew Papiscus, in which the proof from prophecy was - specially emphasized, and the _in principio_ of Gen. i. 1 was - interpreted as meaning _in filio_. The pagan controversialist - Celsus is the first to mention this treatise. He considers it, on - account of its allegorical fancies, not so much fitted to cause - laughter as pity and contempt, and so regards it as unworthy of - any serious reply. Origen, too, esteemed it of little consequence. - Subsequently, however, in the 5th century, it obtained high - repute and was deemed worthy of a Latin translation by the - African bishop Celsus. The controversialist Celsus, and also - Origen, Jerome, and the Latin translator, do not name the writer. - His name is first given by Maximus Confessor as =Ariston of - Pella=. Harnack has rendered it extremely probable that in the - “_Altercatio Simonis Judæi et Theophili Christiani_” discovered - in the 18th century, reported on by Gennadius (§ 47, 16), and - ascribed by him to a certain Evagrius, we have a substantially - correct Latin reproduction of the old Greek dialogue, in which - everything that is told us about the earlier document is met - with, and which, though written in the 5th century, in its ways - of looking at things and its methods of proof moves within the - circle of the Apologists of the 2nd century. In it, just as in - those early treatises the method of proof is wholly in accordance - with the Old Testament; by it every answer of the Christian - to the Jew is supported; at last the Jew is converted and asks - for baptism, while he regards the Christians as _lator salutis_ - and _ægrotorum bone medice_ with a play probably upon the word - Ἰάσων=ἰατρός and from this it is conceivable how Clement of - Alexandria supposed Luke, the physician, to be the author of - the treatise. Harnack’s conclusion is significant inasmuch as - it lends a new confirmation to the fact that the non-heretical - Jewish Christianity of the middle of the second century had - already completely adopted the dogmatic views of Gentile - Christianity. =Claudius Apollinaris=, bishop of Hierapolis, - and the rhetorician =Miltiades of Athens= addressed very famous - apologies to the emperor Marcus Aurelius. =Melito of Sardis= was - also a highly esteemed apologist, and a voluminous writer in many - other departments of theological literature.[66] The elaborate - introduction to the mystical interpretation of scripture by - investigating the mystical meaning of biblical names and words - published in Pitra’s “Spicileg. Solesm.” II. III., as “_Clavis - Melitonis_,” belongs to the later period of the middle ages. - Melito’s six books of Eclogues deal with the Old Testament as a - witness for Christ and Christianity, where he takes as his basis - not the LXX. but the Hebrew canon (§ 36, 1).[67] - - § 30.9. =Extant Writings of Apologists of the Post-Apostolic Age.= - - a. The earliest and most celebrated of these is =Justin - Martyr=.[68] Born at Shechem (Flavia Neapolis) of Greek - parents, he was drawn to the Platonic doctrine of God and to - the Stoical theory of ethics, more than to any of the other - philosophical systems to which, as a pagan, he turned in - the search after truth. But full satisfaction he first found - in the prophets and apostles, to whom he was directed by an - unknown venerable old man, whom he once met by the sea-side. - He now in his thirtieth year cast off his philosopher’s - cloak and adopted Christianity, of which he became a - zealous defender, but thereby called down upon himself - the passionate hatred of the pagan sages. His bitterest - enemy was the Cynic Crescens in Rome, who after a public - disputation with him, did all he could to compass his - destruction. In A.D. 165, under Marcus Aurelius, Justin - was condemned at Rome to be scourged and beheaded.--His two - Apologies, addressed to Antoninus Pius and his son Marcus - Aurelius are certainly genuine. Of these, however, the - shorter one, the so-called second Apology is probably only - a sort of appendix to the first. His _Dialogus cum Tryphone - Judæo_ is probably a free rendering of a disputation which - actually occurred. Except a few fragments, his Σύνταγμα κατὰ - Μαρκίωνος have been lost. It is disputed whether that was an - integral part of the Σύνταγμα κατὰ πασῶν αἱρέσεων of which - he himself makes mention, or a later independent work. The - following are of more than doubtful authenticity: the Λόγος - παραινετικὸς πρὸς Ἕλληνας (_Cohortatio ad Græcos_), which - seeks to prove that not by the poets nor by the philosophers, - but only by Moses and the prophets can the true knowledge - of God be found, and that whatever truth is spoken by - the former, they had borrowed from the latter; also, the - shorter Λόγος πρὸς Ἕλληνας (_Oratio ad Græcos_), on the - irrationality and immorality of the pagan mythology; further, - the short treatise Περὶ μοναρχίας, which proves the vanity - of polytheism from the admissions of heathen poets and - philosophers; and a fragment Περὶ ἀναστάσεως.--Justin’s - theology is of the Gentile Christian type, quite free from - any Ebionitic taint, inclining rather to the speculation and - ethics of Greek philosophy and to an Alexandrian-Hellenistic - conception and exposition of scripture. To these sources - everything may be traced in which he unconsciously departs - from biblical Paulinism and Catholic orthodoxy. Then in - his idea of God and creation, he has not quite overcome the - partly pantheistic, partly dualistic, principles derived - from the Platonic philosophy. He shows traces of Alexandrian - influences in his conception of the person and work of - Christ, to whom he assigns merely the role of a divine - teacher, who has made known the true idea of God the Creator, - of righteousness, and of eternal life, and has won power by - death, resurrection and ascension, and will give evidence - of it by His coming again to reward the righteousness - of the saints with immortal blessedness. He was also led - into doctrinal aberrations in the anthropological domain, - because his idea of freedom and virtue borrowed from Greek - philosophy prevented him from fully grasping the Pauline - doctrine of sin. His theory of morals, with its legalistic - tendency and its righteousness of works, was grounded - not in Judaism but in Stoicism. His chiliasm, too, is not - Ebionitic but is immediately derived from scripture, and - has less significance for his speculation than the other - eschatological principles of Resurrection, Judgment, and - Recompence. His Christianity consists essentially of only - three elements: Worship of the true God, a virtuous life - according to the commandments of Christ, and belief in - rewards and punishments hereafter. Over against the pagan - philosophy it represents itself as the true philosophy, - and over against the Mosaic law as the new law freed from - the fetters of ceremonialism. Even in the natural man, in - consequence of the divine reason that is innate in him, - there dwells the power of living as a Christian: Abraham - and Elias, Socrates and Heraclitus, etc., have to such a - degree lived according to reason that they must be called - Christians. But even they possessed only σπέρματα Λόγου, - only a μέρος Λόγου; for the divine reason dwells in men - only as Λόγος σπερματικός; in Christ alone as the incarnate - Logos it dwells as ὁ πᾶς Λόγος or τὸ Λογικὸν τὸ ὅλον. He is - the only true Son of God, pre-mundane but not eternal, the - πρῶτον γέννημα τοῦ θεοῦ, or the πρωτότοκος τοῦ θεοῦ, by whom - God in the beginning created all things. The Father alone is - ὄντως θεός, and the Logos only a divine being of the second - rank, a ἕτερος θεὸς παρὰ τὸν ποιητὴν τῶν ὅλων, to whom, - however, as such, worship should be rendered. In Justin’s - theological speculation the Holy Spirit stands quite in - the background, though the baptismal and congregational - Trinitarian confession obliged him to assign to the Spirit - the rank of an independent divine being, whom the Logos had - used for the enlightening of His prophets. Justin too knows - nothing of a particular election of Israel as the people of - God; with him the Christians as such are the true Israel, - the people of God, the children of the faith of Abraham. - From the Old Testament he proves the divinity of the person - and doctrine of Christ, and from the Ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν - ἀποστόλων (§ 36, 7) he derives his information about the - historical life, teaching, and works of Jesus. The Gospel - of John, although never mentioned, was not unknown to him, - but it appeared to him more as a doctrinal and hortatory - treatise than as a historical document, and undoubtedly - his Logos doctrine is connected with that of John. He shows - himself familiar with the Epistles of Paul, although he - never expressly quotes from them. - - § 30.10. - - b. =Tatian=, a Greek born in Assyria (according to Zahn, a - Semite) while engaged as a rhetorician at Rome, was won to - Christianity by Justin Martyr, according to Harnack about - A.D. 150. As the fruit of youthful zeal, he published an - Apologetical Λόγος πρὸς Ἕλληνας, in which he treats the - Greek paganism and its culture with withering scorn for - even its noblest manifestations, and shared with his teacher - the hatred and persecution of the philosopher Crescens. - His later written Εὐαγγέλιον διὰ τεσσάρων (§ 36, 7) was a - Gospel harmony, in which the removal of all reference to - the descent of Jesus from the seed of David, according - to the flesh, objected to by Theodoret, was occasioned - perhaps more by antipathy to Ebionism than by any sympathy - with Gnosticism. Zahn affirms, while Harnack decidedly - denies, that this work was originally composed in Syriac. The - exclusive use by the Syrians of the Greek name _Diatessaron_ - seems to afford a strong argument for a Greek original. - Its general agreement with the readings of the so-called - Itala (§ 36, 8) witnesses to the West as the place of its - composition. The introduction of a Syriac translation of it - into church use in the East is to be explained by a longer - residence of the author in his eastern home; and its neglect - on the part of many of the Greek and Latin Church Fathers, - and even their complete ignorance of it, may be accounted - for by the fact that, while in the far East it was - unsuspected, elsewhere it came to be branded as heretical - (§ 27, 10).[69] - - c. =Athenagoras=, about whose life we have no authentic - information, in A.D. 177 addressed his Πρεσβεία - (_Intercessio_) περὶ Χριστιανῶν to Marcus Aurelius, in - which he clearly and convincingly disproves the hideous - calumnies of Atheism, Ædipodean atrocities, Thyestean feasts - (§ 22), and extols the excellence of Christianity in life and - doctrine. In the treatise Περὶ ἀναστάσεως νέκρων he proves, - from the general philosophical rather than distinctively - Christian standpoint, the necessity of resurrection from the - vocation of man in connection with the wisdom, omnipotence - and righteousness of God. - - d. =Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch= († after A.D. 180), was - by birth a pagan. His writing Πρὸς Αὐτόλυκον περὶ τῆς τῶν - Χριστιανῶν πίστεως is one of the most excellent apologetical - treatises of this period. Autolycus was one of his heathen - acquaintances. His commentaries and controversial works have - been lost. Zahn, indeed, has sought to prove that an extant - Latin Commentary on selected passages from the four Gospels - in the allegorical style belonging to the first half of the - 3rd century, and bearing the name of Theophilus of Antioch, - is a substantially faithful translation of the authentic - Greek original of A.D. 170. He has also called attention - to the great importance of this commentary, not only for - the oldest history of the Canon, Text and Exposition, - but also for that of the church life, the development of - doctrine and the ecclesiastical constitution, especially of - the monasticism already appearing in those early times. But - while Zahn reached those wonderful results from a conviction - that the verbal coincidences of the Latin Church Fathers of - the 3rd to the 5th centuries with the supposed Theophilus - commentary were examples of their borrowing from it, Harnack - has convincingly proved that this so-called commentary is - rather to be regarded as a compilation from these same Latin - Church Fathers made at the earliest during the second half - of the 5th century. - - e. Finally, an otherwise unknown author =Hermias= wrote under - the title Διασυρμὸς τῶν ἔξω φιλοσόφων (_Irrisio gentilium - philos._) a short abusive treatise, in a witty but - superficial style, of which the fundamental principle is - to be found in 1 Cor. iii. 19. - - - § 31. THE THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE OF THE OLD CATHOLIC AGE, - A.D. 170-323. - - From about A.D. 170, during the Old Catholic Age, scientific theology -in conflict with Judaizing, paganizing and monarchianistic heretics -progressed in a more vigorous and comprehensive manner than in the -apologetical and polemical attempt at self-defence of Post-Apostolic -Times. Throughout this period, however, the zeal for apologetics -continued unabated, but also in other directions, especially in -the department of dogmatics, important contributions were made to -theological science. While these developments were in progress, there -arose within the Catholic church three different theological schools, -each with some special characteristic of its own, the Asiatic, the -Alexandrian, and the North African. - - § 31.1. =The Theological Schools and Tendencies.=--=The School - of Asia Minor= was the outcome of John’s ministry there, and - was distinguished by firm grasp of scripture, solid faith, - conciliatory treatment of those within and energetic polemic - against heretics. Its numerous teachers, highly esteemed in the - ancient church, are known to us only by name, and in many cases - even the name has perished. Only two of their disciples resident - in the West--Irenæus and Hippolytus--are more fully known. A - yet greater influence, more widely felt and more enduring, was - that of the =Alexandrian School=.[70] Most of its teachers were - distinguished by classical culture, a philosophical spirit, - daring speculativeness and creative power. Their special task - was the construction of a true ecclesiastical gnosis over against - the false heretical gnosis, and so the most celebrated teachers - of this school have not escaped the charge of unevangelical - speculative tendencies. The nursery of this theological tendency - was especially this Catechetical School of Alexandria which from - an institution for the training of educated Catechumens had grown - up into a theological seminary. =The North African School= by - its realism, a thoroughly practical tendency, formed the direct - antithesis of the idealism and speculative endeavours of the - Alexandrian. It repudiated classical science and philosophy - as fitted to lead into error, but laid special stress upon the - purity of Apostolic tradition, and insisted with all emphasis - upon holiness of life and strict asceticism.--Finally, our period - also embraces the first beginnings of the =Antiochean School=, - whose founders were the two presbyters Dorotheus and Lucian. - The latter especially gave to the school in its earlier days - the tendency to critical and grammatico-historical examination - of scripture. At =Edessa=, too, as early as the end of the 2nd - century, we find a Christian school existing. - - - 1. CHURCH FATHERS WRITING IN GREEK. - - § 31.2. =Church Teachers of the Asiatic Type.= - - a. =Irenæus=, a pupil of Polycarp, was a native of Asia Minor. - According to the _Vita Polycarpi_ of Pionius he lived in - Rome at the time of Polycarp’s death as a teacher, and it - is not improbable that he had gone there in company with - his master (§ 37, 2). Subsequently he settled in Gaul, and - held the office of presbyter at Lyons. During his absence at - Rome as the bearer of a tract by the imprisoned confessors - of Lyons on the Montanist controversy to the Roman bishop - Eleutherus, Pothinus, the aged bishop of Lyons, fell a - victim to the dreadful persecution of Marcus Aurelius which - raged in Gaul. Irenæus succeeded him as bishop in A.D. 178. - About the time and manner of his death nothing certain is - known. Jerome, indeed, once quite casually designates him - a martyr, but since none of the earlier Church Fathers, who - speak of him, know anything of this, it cannot be maintained - with any confidence. Gentleness and moderation, combined - with earnestness and decision, as well as the most lively - interest in the catholicity of the church and the purity of - its doctrine according to scripture and tradition, were the - qualities that make him the most important and trustworthy - witness to his own age, and led to his being recognised in - all times as one of the ablest and most influential teachers - of the church and a most successful opponent of heretical - Gnosticism. His chief work against the Gnostics: Ἔλεγχος καὶ - ἀνατροπὴ τῆς ψευδονύμου γνώσεως (_Adv. hæreses_) in 5 books, - is mainly an _ex professo_ directed against the Valentinians - and the schools of Ptolemy and Marcus There is appended to - it, beyond what had been proposed at the beginning, a short - discussion of the views of other Gnostics, the basis of - which may be found in an older treatise, perhaps in the - Syntagma of Justin. The last four books give the express - scripture proofs to sustain the general confutation, without - doing this, however, in a complete manner; at the same time - there is rapid movement amid many digressions and excursuses. - This work has come down to us in a complete form only - in an old translation literally rendered in barbarous - Latin, even to the reproduction of misunderstood words, - which was used as early as by Tertullian in his treatise - against the Valentinians. We are indebted to the writings - of the heresiologists Hippolytus and Epiphanius for the - preservation of many remarkable fragments of the original, - with or without the author’s name. Of his other writings - we have only a few faint reminiscences. Two epistles - addressed to the Roman presbyter Florinus combat the - Valentinian heresy to which Florinus was inclined. During the - controversy about Easter (§ 37, 2) he wrote several epistles - of a conciliatory character, especially one to Blastus in - Rome, an adherent of the Asiatic practice, and in the name - of the whole Gallic church, he addressed a letter to the - Roman bishop, Victor, and afterwards a second letter in his - own name.[71] - - § 31.3. - - b. =Hippolytus=, a presbyter and afterwards schismatical bishop - at Rome, though scarcely to be designated of Asia Minor, but - rather a Lyonese, if not a Roman pupil of Irenæus, belonged - to the same theological school. He was celebrated for his - comprehensive learning and literary attainments, and yet - his career until quite recently was involved in the greatest - obscurity. Eusebius, who is the first to refer to him, - places him in the age of Alex. Severus (A.D. 222-235), - calls him a bishop, without, however, naming his supposed - oriental diocese, which even Jerome was unable to determine. - The Liberian list of Popes of A.D. 354, describes him - as _Yppolytus presbyter_ who was burnt in Sardinia about - A.D. 235 along with the Roman bishop, Pontianus (§ 41, 1). - In the fifth century, the Roman church gave him honour as a - martyr. The poet Prudentius († A.D. 413) who himself saw the - crypt in which his bones were laid and which in the book of - his martyrdom was pictorially represented, celebrated his - career in song. According to him Hippolytus was an adherent - of the Novatian schism (§ 41, 3), but returned to the - Catholic church and suffered martyrdom at Portus near Rome. - According to his own statement quoted by Photius he was - a hearer of the doctrinal discourses of Irenæus. A statue - representing him in a sitting posture which was exhumed at - Rome in A.D. 1551, has on the back of the seat a list of - his writings along with an Easter cycle of sixteen years - drawn up by him (§ 56, 3). Finally, there was found among - the works of Origen a treatise on the various philosophical - systems entitled _Philosophoumena_, which professes to be - the first book of a writing in ten books found in Greece in - A.D. 1842, Κατὰ πασῶν αἱρέσεων ἔλεγχος. Starting from the - position, and seeking to establish it, that the heretics - have got their doctrines not from holy scripture, but from - astrology, pagan mysteries and the Greek philosophers, this - treatise is generally of great importance not only for the - history of the heresies of the Gnostics and Monarchians, - but also for the history of philosophy. The English editor, - E. Miller (Oxon., 1851), attributed the authorship of the - whole to Origen, which, however, from the complete difference - of style, point of view and position was soon proved to be - untenable. Since the writer admits that he was himself the - author of a book Περὶ τῆς τοῦ πάντος οὐσίας, and Photius - ascribes a book with the same title to the Roman Caius - (§ 31, 7), Baur attributes to the latter the composition of - the Elenchus. Photius, however, founds his opinion simply - upon an apocryphal note on the margin of his copy of the - book. Incomparably more important are the evidences for - the Hippolytus authorship, which is now almost universally - admitted. The Elenchus is not, indeed, enumerated in - the list of works on the statue. The book Περὶ τῆς τοῦ - πάντος οὐσίας, however, appears there, and it contains - the statement that its author also wrote the Elenchus. The - author of the Elenchus also states that he had previously - written a similar work in a shorter form, and Photius - describes such a shorter writing of Hippolytus, dating - from the time of his intercourse with Irenæus, under the - title Σύνταγμα κατὰ πασῶν αἱρέσεων. Lipsius has made it - appear extremely probable that in the _Libellus adv. omnes - hæreticos_ appended to Tertullian’s _De præscriptione - hæreticorum_, and so usually styled a treatise of the - Pseudo-Tertullian, we have an abbreviated Latin reproduction - of that work; for this one as well as the other begins - with Dositheus and ends with Noëtus, and both deal with - thirty-two heresies. Epiphanius and Philastrius [Philaster] - have used it largely in their heresiological works. The - discussion in the Elenchus agrees therewith in many passages - but also in many is essentially different, which, however, - when we consider the much later date of the first named - treatise affords no convincing evidence against the theory - that both are by one author. The Elenchus thereby wins a - high importance as giving information about the condition of - the Roman church during the first decades of the 3rd century, - about the position of the author who describes himself in - his treatise as a pupil of Irenæus, about his own and his - opponents’ way of viewing things, and about his conflict - with them leading to schism, though all is told from - the standpoint of an interested party (§§ 33, 5; 41, 1). - A considerable fragment directed against the errors of - Noëtus (§ 33, 5) was perhaps originally a part of his - Syntagma,--though not perhaps of the anonymous, so-called - Little Labyrinth against the Artemonites (§ 33, 3) or - probably against the Monarchians generally, from which - Eusebius makes extensive quotations, especially about the - Theodotians. This work is ascribed by Photius to the Roman - Caius, but without doubt wrongly. Great probability has been - given to the recently advanced idea that this book too may - have been written by Hippolytus.[72] - - § 31.4. =The Alexandrian Church Teachers.= - - a. The first of the teachers of the catechetical school at - Alexandria known by name was =Pantænus=, who had formerly - been a Stoic philosopher. About A.D. 190 he undertook - a missionary journey into Southern Arabia or India, and - died in A.D. 202 after a most successful and useful life. - Jerome says of him: _Hujus multi quidem in s. Scri. exstant - Commentarii, sed Magis viva voce ecclesiis profuit_. Of his - writings none are preserved. - - b. =Titus Flavius Clemens [Clement]= was the pupil of Pantænus - and his successor at the catechetical school in Alexandria. - On his travels undertaken in the search for knowledge he - came to Alexandria as a learned pagan philosopher, where - probably Pantænus gained an influence over him and was - the means of his conversion. During the persecution under - Septimius Severus in A.D. 202 he sought in flight to escape - the rage of the heathens, in accordance with Matt. x. 23. - But he continued unweariedly by writing and discourse - to promote the interests of the church till his death in - A.D. 220. The most important and most comprehensive of his - writings is the work in three parts of which the first part - entitled Λόγος προτρεπτικὸς πρὸς Ἕλληνας (_Cohortatio ad - Græcos_) with great expenditure of learning seeks to prepare - the minds of the heathen for Christianity by proving the - vanity of heathenism; the second part, Ὁ παιδαγωγός in - three books, with a _Hymnus in Salvatorem_ attached, gives - an introduction to the Christian life; and the third part, - Στρωματείς (_Stromata_), that is, patchwork, so-called from - the aphoristic style and the variety of its contents, in - eight books, setting forth the deep things of Christian - gnosis, but in the form rather of a collection of materials - than a carefully elaborated treatise. The little tractate - Τίς ὁ σωζόμενος πλούσιος (_Quis dives salvetur_) shows how - even wealth may be made contributory to salvation. Among - his lost treatises the most important was the Ὑποτυπώσεις - in eight books, an expository review of the contents of holy - scripture.[73] - - § 31.5. - - c. Great as was the reputation of Clement, he was far - outstripped by his pupil and successor =Origen=, - acknowledged by pagan and Christian contemporaries to be - a miracle of scholarship. On account of his indomitable - diligence, he was named Ἀδαμάντιος. Celebrated as a - philosopher, philologist, critic, exegete, dogmatist, - apologist, polemist, etc., posterity has with equal right - honoured him as the actual founder of an ecclesiastical and - scientific theology, and reproached him as the originator - of many heretical opinions (§§ 51; 52, 6). He was born of - Christian parents at Alexandria about A.D. 185, was educated - under his father Leonidas, Pantænus and Clement, while still - a boy encouraged his father when he suffered as a martyr - under Septimius Severus in A.D. 202, became the support - of his helpless mother and his six orphaned sisters, and - was called in A.D. 203 by bishop Demetrius to be teacher - of the catechetical school. In order to qualify himself - for the duties of his new calling, he engaged eagerly in - the study of philosophy under the Neo-Platonist Ammonius - Saccas. His mode of life was extremely simple and from - his youth he was a strict ascetic. In his eager striving - after Christian perfection he had himself emasculated, - from a misunderstanding of Matt. xix. 12, but afterwards - he admitted that that was a wrong step. His fame advanced - from day to day. About A.D. 211 he visited Rome. Accepting - an honourable invitation in A.D. 215 he wrought for a long - time as a missionary in Arabia, he was then appointed by the - celebrated Julia Mammæa (§ 22, 4) to Antioch in A.D. 218; - and in A.D. 230 undertook in the interest of the church - a journey to Greece through Palestine, where the bishops - of Cæsarea and Jerusalem admitted him to the rank of a - presbyter. His own bishop, Demetrius, jealous of the daily - increasing fame of Origen and feeling that his episcopal - rights had been infringed upon, recalled him, and had him - at two Alexandrian Synods, in A.D. 231 and 232, arraigned - and excommunicated for heresy, self-mutilation and contempt - of the ecclesiastical laws of his office. Origen now - went to Cæsarea, and there, honoured and protected by the - Emperor, Philip the Arabian, opened a theological school. - His literary activity here reached its climax. But under - Decius he was cast into prison at Tyre, in A.D. 254, - and died in consequence of terrible tortures which he - endured heroically.--Of his numerous writings[74] only a - comparatively small number, but those of great value, are - preserved; some in the original, others only in a Latin - translation. - - 1. To the department of =Biblical Criticism= belongs the - fruit of twenty-seven years’ labour, the so-called - Hexapla, that is, a placing side by side the Hebrew text - of the O.T. (first in Hebr. and then in the Gr. letters) - and the existing Greek translations of the LXX., Aquila, - Symmachus and Theodotion; by the addition in some - books of other anonymous translations, it came to be - an Octopla or Enneapla. By critical marks on the margin - all variations were carefully indicated. The enormous - bulk of fifty volumes hindered its circulation by means - of transcripts; but the original lay in the library - at Cæsarea open to the inspection of all, until lost, - probably in the sack of the city by the Arabians in - A.D. 653.[75] - - 2. His =Exegetical works= consist of Σημειώσεις or - short scholia on separate difficult passages, Τόμοι - or complete commentaries on whole books of the bible, - and Ὁμιλίαι or practical expository lectures. Origen, - after the example of the Rabbinists and Hellenists, - gave a decided preference to the allegorical method - of interpretation. In every scripture passage he - distinguished a threefold sense, as σῶμα, ψυχή, πνεῦμα, - first a literal, and then a twofold higher sense, the - tropical or moral, and the pneumatical or mystical. - He was not just a despiser of the literal sense, but - the unfolding of the mystical sense seemed to him - of infinitely greater importance. All history in the - bible is a picture of things in the higher world. Most - incidents occurred as they are told; but some, the - literal conception of which would be unworthy or - irrational, are merely typical, without any outward - historical reality. The Old Testament language is - typical in a twofold sense: for the New Testament - history and for the heavenly realities. The New - Testament language is typical only of the latter. - He regarded the whole bible as inspired, with the - exception of the books added by the LXX., but the New - Testament in a higher degree than the Old. But even the - New Testament had defects which will only be overcome - by the revelation of eternity. - - 3. To the department of =Dogmatics= belongs his four books - Περὶ ἀρχῶν (_De Principiis_), which have come down to - us in a Latin translation of Rufinus with arbitrary - interpolations. His Στρωματεῖς in ten books which - sought to harmonize the Christian doctrine with Greek - philosophy is lost, and also his numerous writings - against the heretics. His comprehensive apologetical - work in eight books, _Contra Celsum_ (§ 23, 3), has - come down to us complete.[76] Gregory of Nazianzus - [Nazianzen] and Basil the Great made a book entirely - from his writings under the title Φιλοκαλία, which - contains many passages from lost treatises, and a - valuable original fragment from his Περὶ ἀρχῶν. His - principal doctrinal characteristics are the following: - There is a twofold revelation, the primitive revelation - in conscience to which the heathen owe their σπέρματα - ἀληθείας, and the historical revelation in holy - scripture; there are three degrees of religious - knowledge, that of the ψιλὴ πίστις, an unreasoned - acceptance of the truth, wrought by God immediately in - the heart of men, that of γνῶσις or ἐπιστήμη to which - the reasoning mind of man can reach by the speculative - development of scripture revelation in his life, and - finally, that of σοφία or θεωρία, the vision of God, - the full enjoyment of which is attained unto only - hereafter. For his doctrine of the Trinity, see § 33, 6. - His cosmological, angelological and anthropological - views represent a mixture of Platonic, Gnostic - and spiritualistic ideas, and run out into various - heterodoxies; thus, he believes in timeless or eternal - creation, an ante-temporal fall of human souls, - their imprisonment in earthly bodies, he denies the - resurrection of the body, he believed in the animation - and the need and capacity of redemption of the stars - and star-spirits, in the restoration of all spirits to - their original, ante-temporal blessedness and holiness, - ἀποκατάστασις τῶν πάντων. - - 4. Of his =Ascetical Works=, the treatise Περὶ εὐχῆς with - an admirable exposition of the Lord’s prayer, and a - Λόγος προτρεπικὸς εἰς μαρτύριον have been preserved. - Of his numerous epistles, the _Epistola ad Julium - Africanum_ defends against his correspondent the - genuineness of the history of Susannah. - - § 31.6. - - d. Among the successors of Origen in the school of Alexandria - the most celebrated, from about A.D. 232, was =Dionysius - Alexandrinus= [of Alexandria]. He was raised to the rank - of bishop in A.D. 247, and died in A.D. 265. In speculative - power he was inferior to his teacher Origen. His special - gift was that of κυβέρνησις. He was honoured by his own - contemporaries with the title of The Great. During the - Decian persecution he manifested wisdom and good sense - as well as courage and steadfastness. The ecclesiastical - conflicts of his age afforded abundant opportunities for - testing his noble and gentle character, as well as his - faithful attachment to the church and zeal for the purity of - its doctrine, and on all hands his self-denying amiability - wrought in the interests of peace. Of his much-praised - writings, exegetical, ascetical, polemical (Περὶ ἐπαγγελιῶν - § 33, 9), apologetical (Περὶ φύσεως against the Atomism - of Democritus and Epicurus), and dogmatical (§ 33, 7), - only fragments are preserved, mostly from his Epistles - in quotations by Eusebius. We have, however, one short - tract complete addressed to Novatian at Rome (§ 31, 12), - containing an earnest entreaty that he should abandon his - schismatic rigorism. - - e. =Gregory Thaumaturgus= was one of Origen’s pupils at Cæsarea. - Origen was the means of converting the truth-seeking heathen - youth to Christianity, and Gregory clung to his teacher with - the warmest affection. He subsequently became bishop of his - native city of Neo-Cæsarea, and was able on his death-bed - in A.D. 270 to comfort himself with the reflection that he - left to his successor no more unbelievers in the city than - his predecessor had left him of believers (their number was - seventeen). He was called the second Moses and the power of - working miracles was ascribed to him. We have from his pen - a panegyric on Origen, an Epistle on Church Discipline, a - Μετάφρασις εἰς Ἐκκλησιάστην, a Confession of Faith important - for the history of the Ante-Nicene period (§ 50, 1): Ἔκθεσις - πίστεως. Two other tracts in a Syrian translation are - ascribed to him: To Philagrius on Consubstantiality, and - To Theopompus on the Passibility of God. Dräseke, however, - identifies the first-named with Oratio 45 of Gregory - Nazianzus [Nazianzen] and assigns to him the authorship.[77] - - f. The learned presbyter =Pamphilus= of Cæsarea, the friend - of Eusebius (§ 47, 2) and founder of a theological seminary - and the celebrated library of Cæsarea, who died as a martyr - under Maximinus, belongs to this group. His Old Testament - Commentaries have been lost. In prison he finished his work - in five books which he undertook jointly with Eusebius, the - Apology for Origen, to which Eusebius independently added a - sixth book. Only the first book is preserved in Rufinus’ - Latin translation. - - § 31.7. =Greek-speaking Church Teachers in other Quarters.= - - a. =Hegesippus= wrote his five books Ὑπομνήματα, about A.D. 180, - during the age of the Roman bishop Eleutherus. From his - knowledge of the Hebrew language, literature and traditions - Eusebius concludes that he was a Jew by birth. He himself - says distinctly that in A.D. 155 during the time of bishop - Anicetus he was staying in Rome, and that on his way thither - he visited Corinth. The opinion formerly current that - his Hypomnemata consisted of a collection of historical - traditions from the time of the Apostles down to the age of - the writer, and so might be called a sort of Church History, - arose from the historical character of the contents of eight - quotations made from this treatise by Eusebius in his own - Church History. It is, however, not borne out by the fact - that what Hegesippus tells in his detailed narrative of the - end of James the Just (§ 16, 3) occurs, not in the first - or second but in the fifth and last book of his treatise. - Moreover, among writers against the heretics or Gnostics, - Eusebius enumerates in the first place one Hegesippus, - having it would seem his Hypomnemata in view. From this - circumstance, in conjunction with everything else quoted - from and told about him by Eusebius, we may with great - probability conclude that the purpose of his writing was - to confute the heresies of his age. In doing so he traces - them partly to Gentile sources, but partly and mainly to - pre-Christian Jewish heresies, seven of which are enumerated. - He treats in the first three books of the so-called Gnostics - and their relations to heathenism and false Judaism. Then in - the fourth book he discusses the heretical Apocrypha and, as - contrasted with them, the orthodox ecclesiastical writings, - mentioning among them expressly the Epistle of Clemens - [Clement] Romanus [of Rome] to the Corinthians. Finally, - in the fifth book, he proves from the Apostolic succession - of the leaders of the church, the unity and truth of - ecclesiastically transmitted doctrine. The historical value - of his writing, owing to the confusion and want of critical - power shown in the instances referred to, cannot be placed - very high. The school of Baur, more particularly Schwegler - (see § 20), attached greater importance to him as a supposed - representative of the anti-Pauline Judaism of his time. - The value of his testimony in this direction, however, is - reduced by his acknowledgment of the Epistle of Clement that - accords so high a place to the Apostle Paul. His relations - to Rome and Corinth, with his judgment on the general unity - of faith in the church of his age, prove that he would be by - no means disposed to repudiate the Apostle Paul in favour of - any Ebionitic tendency. - - b. =Caius of Rome=, a contemporary of bishop Zephyrinus - about A.D. 210, was one of the most conspicuous opponents - of Montanism. Eusebius who characterizes him as ἀνὴρ - ἐκκλησιαστικός and λογιώτατος, quotes four times from - his now lost controversial tract in dialogue form against - Proclus the Roman Montanist leader. - - § 31.8. - - c. =Sextus Julius Africanus=, according to Suidas a native of - Libya, took part, as he says himself in his Κεστοῖς, in the - campaign of Septimius Severus against Osrhoëne in A.D. 195, - became intimate with the Christian king Maanu VIII. of - Edessa, whom in his Chronographies he calls ἱερὸς ἀνὴρ, - and was often companion in hunting to his son and successor - Maanu IX. About A.D. 220 we find him, according to Eusebius - and others, in Rome at the head of an embassy from Nicopolis - or Emmaus in Palestine petitioning for the restoration of - that city. In consequence of Origen addressing him about - A.D. 227 as ἀγαπητὸς ἀδελφός it has been rashly concluded - that he was then a presbyter or at least of clerical rank. - The five books, Χρονογραφίαι, were his first and most - important work. This work which was known partly in the - original, partly in the citations from it in the Eusebian - Chronicle (§ 47, 2), together with its Latin continuation - by Jerome proved a main source of information in general - history during the Byzantine period and the Latin Middle - Age. Beginning with the creation of the world and fixing - the whole course of the world’s development at 6,000 years, - he set the middle point of this period to the age of Peleg - (Gen. x. 25), and in accordance with the chronology of the - LXX. and reckoning by Olympiads, proceeded to synchronize - biblical and profane history. He assigned the birth of - Christ to the middle of the sixth of the thousand year - periods, at the close of which he probably expected the - beginning of the millennium. From the fragments preserved - by later Byzantine chroniclers, Gelzer has attempted to - reproduce as far as possible the original work, carefully - indicating its sources and authorities. Of the other works - of Africanus we have in a complete form only an Epistle - to Origen, “a real gem of brilliant criticism spiced with - a gentle touch of fine irony” (Gelzer), which combats the - authenticity and credibility of the Pseudo-Daniel’s history - of Susannah. We have also a fragment quoted in Eusebius - from an Epistle to a certain Aristides, which attempts - a reconciliation of the genealogies in Matt. and Luke by - distinguishing παῖδες νόμῳ and παῖδες φύσει with reference - to Deut. xxv. 5. According to Eusebius “the chronologist - Julius Africanus,” according to Suidas “Origen’s friend - Africanus with the prænomen Sextus,” is also the author of - the so called Κεστοί (_embroidery_), a great comprehensive - work of which only fragments have been preserved, in which - all manner of wonderful things from the life of nature and - men, about agriculture, cattle breeding, warfare, etc., - were recorded, so that it had the secondary title Παράδοξα. - The excessive details of pagan superstition here reported, - much of which, such as that relating to the secret worship - of Venus, was distinctly immoral, and its dependence on - the secret writings of the Egyptians seem now as hard to - reconcile with the standpoint of a believing Christian, as - with the sharpness of intellect shown in his criticism of - the letter of Susannah. It has therefore been assumed that - alongside of the Christian chronologist Julius Africanus - there was a pagan Julius Africanus who wrote the Κεστοί,--or, - seeing the identity of the two is strongly evidenced both - on internal and external grounds, the composition of the - Κεστοί is assigned to a period when the author was still a - heathen. The facts, however, that the Chronicles close with - A.D. 221 and that the Κεστοί is dedicated to Alex. Severus - (A.D. 222-235), seem to guarantee the earlier composition - of the Chronicles. The author of the Κεστοί, too, by his - quotation of Ps. xxxiv. 9 with the formula θεία ῥήματα, - shows himself a Christian, and on the other hand, the author - of the Chronicles says that at great cost he had made himself - acquainted in Egypt with a celebrated secret book. - - § 31.9. - - d. =Methodius= bishop of Olympus in Lycia, subsequently at - Tyre, a man highly esteemed in his day, died as a martyr - in A.D. 311. He was a decided opponent of the spiritualism - prevailing in the school of Origen. His Συμπόσιον τῶν δέκα - παρθένων is a dialogue between several virgins regarding - the excellence of virginity written in eloquent and glowing - language (transl. in Ante-Nicene Lib., Edin., 1870). Of his - other works only outlines and fragments are preserved by - Epiphanius and Photius. To these belong Περὶ αὐτεξουσίου καὶ - ποθὲν κακά, a polemic against the Platonic-Gnostic doctrine - of the eternity of matter as the ultimate ground and cause - of sin, which are to be sought rather in the misuse of - human freedom; the dialogues Περὶ ἀναστάσεως and Περὶ τῶν - γεννητῶν, the former of which combats Origen’s doctrine of - the resurrection, and the latter his doctrine of creation. - His controversial treatise against Porphyry (§ 23, 3) has - been completely lost. - - e. The martyr =Lucian of Samosata=, born and brought up in - Edessa, was presbyter of Antioch and co-founder of the - theological school there that became so famous (§ 47, 1), - where he, deposed by a Syrian Synod of A.D. 269, and - persecuted by the Emperor Aurelian in A.D. 272, as supporter - of bishop Paul of Samosata (§ 33, 8), maintained his - position under the three following bishops (till A.D. 303) - apart from the official church, and died a painful martyr’s - death under the Emperor Maximinus in A.D. 312. That - secession, however, was occasioned less perhaps through - doctrinal and ecclesiastical, than through national and - political, anti-Roman and Syrian sympathies with his - heretical countrymen of Samosata. For though in the Arian - controversy (§ 50, 1) Lucian undoubtedly appears as the - father of that Trinitarian-Christological view first - recognised and combated as heretical in his pupil Arius in - A.D. 318, this was certainly essentially different from the - doctrine of the Samosatian. About Lucian’s literary activity - only the scantiest information has come down to us. His most - famous work was his critical revision of the Text of the Old - and New Testaments, which according to Jerome was officially - sanctioned in the dioceses of the Patriarchs of Antioch - and Constantinople, and thus probably lies at the basis of - Theodoret’s and Chrysostom’s exegetical writings. Rufinus’ - Latin translation of Eusebius’ Church History gives an - extract from the “Apologetical Discourse” in which he seems - to have openly confessed and vindicated his Christian faith - before his heathen judge. - - - 2. CHURCH FATHERS WRITING IN LATIN. - - § 31.10. =The Church Teachers of North Africa.=--=Quintus - Septimius Florens Tertullianus [Tertullian]= was the son of a - heathen centurion of Carthage, distinguished as an advocate and - rhetorician, converted somewhat late in life, about A.D. 190, - and, after a long residence in Rome, made presbyter at Carthage - in A.D. 220. He was of a fiery and energetic character, in his - writings as well as in his life pre-eminently a man of force, - with burning enthusiasm for the truth of the gospel, unsparingly - rigorous toward himself and others. His “Punic style” is terse, - pictorial and rhetorical, his thoughts are original, brilliant - and profound, his eloquence transporting, his dialectic clear - and convincing, his polemic crushing, enlivened with sharp wit - and biting sarcasm. He shows himself the thoroughly accomplished - jurist in his use of legal terminology and also in the acuteness - of his deductions and demonstrations. Fanatically opposed to - heathen philosophy, though himself trained in the knowledge of it, - a zealous opponent of Gnosticism, in favour of strict asceticism - and hostile to every form of worldliness, he finally attached - himself, about A.D. 220, to the party of the Montanists (§ 40, 3). - Here he found the form of religion in which his whole manner of - thought and feeling, the energy of his will, the warmth of his - emotions, his strong and forceful imagination, his inclination to - rigorous asceticism, his love of bald realism, could be developed - in all power and fulness, without let or hindrance. If amid - all his enthusiasm for Montanism he kept clear of many of its - absurdities, he had for this to thank his own strong common sense, - and also, much as he affected to despise it, his early scientific - training. He at first wrote his compositions in Greek, but - afterwards exclusively in Latin, into which he also translated - the most important of his earlier writings. He is perhaps not - the first who treated of the Christian truth in this language - (§ 31, 12a), but he has been rightly recognised as the actual - creator of ecclesiastical Latin. His writings may be divided into - three groups. - - a. =Apologetical and Controversial Treatises against Jews and - Pagans=, which belong to his pre-Montanist period. The most - important and instructive of these is the _Apologeticus adv. - Gentes_, addressed to the Roman governor. A reproduction of - this work intended for the general public, less learned, but - more vigorous, scathing and uncompromising, is the treatise - in two books entitled _Ad Nationes_. In the work _Ad - Scapulam_, who as Proconsul of Africa under Septimius - Severus had persecuted the Christians with unsparing cruelty, - he calls him to account for this with all earnestness and - plainness of speech. In the book, _De testimonio animæ_ - he carries out more fully the thought already expressed in - the _Apologeticus c. 17_ of the _Anima humana naturaliter - christiana_, and proves in an ingenious manner that - Christianity alone meets the religious needs of humanity. - The book _Adv. Judæos_ had its origin ostensibly in a public - disputation with the Jews, in which the interruptions of his - audience interferes with the flow of his discourse. - - b. =Controversial Treatises against the Heretics.= In the tract - _De præscriptione hæreticorum_ he proves that the Catholic - church, because in prescriptive possession of the field - since the time of the Apostles, is entitled on the legal - ground of _præscriptio_ to be relieved of the task of - advancing proof of her claims, while the heretics on the - other hand are bound to establish their pretensions. A - heresiological appendix to this book has been erroneously - attributed to Tertullian (see § 31, 3). He combats the - Gnostics in the writings: _De baptismo_ (against the Gnostic - rejection of water baptism); _Adv. Hermogenem_; _Adv. - Valentinianos_; _De anima_ (an Anti-Gnostic treatise, - which maintains the creatureliness, yea, the materiality of - the soul, traces its origin to sexual intercourse, and its - mortality to Adam’s sin); _De carne Christi_ (Anti-Docetic): - _De resurrectione carnis Scorpiace_ (an antidote to the - scorpion-poison of the Gnostic heresy); finally, the five - books, _Adv. Marcionem_. The book _Adv. Praxeam_ is directed - against the Patripassians (§ 33, 4). In this work his - realism reaches its climax at c. 7 in the statement: “_Quis - enim negabit, Deum corpus esse, etsi Deus spiritus est? - Spiritus enim corpus sui generis in sua effigie_,”--where, - however, he is careful to state that with him _corpus_ and - _substantia_ are identical ideas, so that he can also say in - c. 10 _de carne Christi_: “_Omne quod est, corpus est sui - generis. Nihil est incorporate nisi quod non est._” - - c. =Practical and Ascetical Treatises.= His pre-Montanist - writings are characterized by moderation as compared with - the fanatical rigorism and scornful bitterness against the - Psychical, _i.e._ the Catholics, displayed in those of the - Montanist period. To the former class belong: _De oratione_ - (exposition of the Lord’s Prayer); _De baptismo_ (necessity - of water baptism, disapproval of infant baptism); _De - pœnitentia_; _De idolatria_; _Ad Martyres_; _De spectaculis_; - _De cultu feminarum_ (against feminine love of dress); _De - patientia_; _Ad uxorem_ (a sort of testament for his wife, - with the exhortation after his death not to marry again, - but at least in no case to marry an unbeliever). To the - Montanist period belong: _De virginibus velandis_; _De - corona militis_ (defending a Christian soldier who suffered - imprisonment for refusing to wear the soldier’s crown); - _De fuga in persecutione_ (which with fanatical decision - is declared to be a renunciation of Christianity); _De - exhortatione castitatis_ and _De monogamia_ (both against - second marriages which are treated as fornication and - adultery); _De pudicitia_ (recalling his milder opinion - given in his earlier treatise _De pœnitentia_, that - every mortal sin is left to the judgment of God, with the - possibility of reconciliation); _De jejuniis adv. Psychicos_ - (vindication of the fasting discipline of the Montanists, - § 40, 4); _De pallio_ (an essay full of wit and humour - in answer to the taunts of his fellow-citizens about his - throwing off the toga and donning the philosopher’s mantle, - _i.e._ the Pallium, which even the Ascetics might wear).[78] - - § 31.11. =Thascius Cæcilius Cyprianus= [Cyprian], descended from - a celebrated pagan family in Carthage, was at first a teacher - of rhetoric, then, after his conversion in A.D. 245, a presbyter - and from A.D. 248 bishop in his native city. During the Decian - persecution the hatred of the heathen mob expressed itself in - the cry _Cyprianum ad leonem_; but he withdrew himself for a - time in flight into the desert in A.D. 250, from whence he guided - the affairs of the church by his Epistles, and returned in the - following year when respite had been given. The disturbances that - had meanwhile arisen afforded him abundant opportunity for the - exercise of that wisdom and gentleness which characterized him, - and the earnestness, energy and moderation of his nature, as well - as his Christian tact and prudence all stood him in good stead in - dealing, on the one hand, with the fallen who sought restoration, - and on the other, the rigorous schismatics who opposed them - (§ 41, 2). When persecution again broke out under Valerian in - A.D. 257 he was banished to the desert Curubis, and when he - returned to his oppressed people in A.D. 258, he was beheaded. - His epoch-making significance lies not so much in his theological - productions as in his energetic and successful struggle for the - unity of the church as represented by the monarchical position - of the episcopate, and in his making salvation absolutely - dependent upon submission to episcopal authority, as well - as in the powerful impetus given by him to the tendency to - view ecclesiastical piety as an _opus operatum_ (§ 39). As a - theologian and writer he mainly attaches himself to the giant - Tertullian, whose thoughts he reproduces in his works, with - the excision, however, of their Montanist extravagances. Jerome - relates that no day passed in which he did not call to his - amanuensis: _Da magistrum_! In originality, profundity, force - and fulness of thought, as well as in speculative and dialectic - gifts, he stands indeed far below Tertullian, but in lucidity and - easy flow of language and pleasant exposition he far surpasses - him. His eighty-one Epistles are of supreme importance for the - Ch. Hist. of his times, and next to them in value is the treatise - “De unitate ecclesiæ” (§ 34, 7). His _Liber ad Donatum s. de - gratia Dei_, the first writing produced after his conversion, - contains treatises on the leadings of God’s grace and the - blessedness of the Christian life as contrasted with the - blackness of the life of the pagan world. The Apologetical - writings _De idolorum vanitate_ and _Testimonia adv. Judæos_, - II. iii., have no claims to independence and originality. This - applies also more or less to his ascetical tracts: _De habitu - virginum_, _De mortalitate_, _De exhortatione martyrii_, - _De lapsis_, _De oratione dominica_, _De bono patientiæ_, - _De zelo et livore_, etc. His work _De opere et eleemosynis_ - specially contributed to the spread of the doctrine of the merit - of works.[79] - - § 31.12. =Various Ecclesiastical Writers using the Latin Tongue.= - - a. The Roman attorney =Minucius Felix=, probably of Cirta in - Africa, wrote under the title of _Octavius_ a brilliant - Apology, expressed in a fine Latin diction, in the form of a - conversation between his two friends the Christian Octavius - and the heathen Cæcilius, which resulted in the conversion - of the latter. It is matter of dispute whether it was - composed before or after Tertullian’s Apologeticus, and - to which of the two the origin of thoughts and expressions - common to both is to be assigned. Recently Ebert has - maintained the opinion that Minucius is the older, and - this view has obtained many adherents; whereas the contrary - theory of Schultze has reached its climax in assigning the - composition of the _Octavius_ to A.D. 300-303, so that he is - obliged to ascribe the Octavius as well as the Apologeticus - to a compiler of the fourth or fifth century, plagiarizing - from Cyprian’s treatise _De idolorum vanitate_! - - b. =Commodianus= [Commodus], born at Gaza, was won to - Christianity by reading holy scripture, and wrote about - A.D. 250 his _Instructiones adv. Gentium Deos_, consisting - of eighty acrostic poems in rhyming hexameters and scarcely - intelligible, barbarous Latin. His _Carmen apologeticum adv. - Jud. et Gent._ was first published in 1852. - - c. The writings of his contemporary the schismatical =Novatian= - of Rome (§ 41, 3) show him to have been a man of no ordinary - dogmatical and exegetical ability. His _Liber de Trinitate - s. de Regula fidei_ is directed in a subordinationist - sense against the Monarchians (§ 33). The _Epistola de - cibis Judaici_ repudiates any obligation on the part of - Christians to observe the Old Testament laws about food; - and the _Epistola Cleri Romani_ advocates milder measures - in the penitential discipline. - - d. =Arnobius= was born at Sicca in Africa, where he was engaged - as a teacher of eloquence about A.D. 300. For a long time he - was hostilely inclined toward Christianity, but underwent a - change of mind by means of a vision in a dream. The bishop - distrusted him and had misgivings about admitting him - to baptism, but he convinced him of the honesty of his - intentions by composing the seven books of _Disputationes - adv. Gentes_. This treatise betrays everywhere defective - understanding of the Christian truth; but he is more - successful in combating the old religion than in defending - the new. - - e. The bishop =Victorinus of Pettau= (Petavium in Styria), who - died a martyr during the Diocletian persecution in A.D. 303, - wrote commentaries on the Old and New Testament books that - are no longer extant. Only a fragment _De fabrica mundi_ on - Gen. i. and Scholia on the Apocalypse have been preserved. - - f. =Lucius Cœlius Firmianus Lactantius= († about A.D. 330), - probably of Italian descent, but a pupil of Arnobius - in Africa, was appointed by Diocletian teacher of Latin - eloquence at Nicomedia. At that place about A.D. 301 he - was converted to Christianity and resigned his office - on the outbreak of the persecution. Constantine the Great - subsequently committed to him the education of his son - Crispus, who, at his father’s command, was executed in - A.D. 326. From his writings he seems to have been amiable - and unassuming, a man of wide reading, liberal culture - and a warm heart. The purity of his Latin style and the - eloquence of his composition, in which he excels all the - Church Fathers, has won for him the honourable name of the - Christian Cicero. We often miss in his writings grip, depth - and acuteness of thinking; especially in their theological - sections we meet with many imperfections and mistakes. - He was not only carried away by a fanatical chiliasm, - but adopted also many opinions of a Manichæan sort. The - _Institutiones divinæ_ in seven bks., a complete exposition - and defence of the Christian faith, is his principal work. - The _Epitome div. inst._ is an abstract of the larger works - prepared by himself with the addition of many new thoughts. - His book _De mortibus persecutorum_ (Engl. trans. by - Dr. Burnett, “Relation of the Death of the Primitive - Persecutors.” Amsterdam, 1687), contains a rhetorically - coloured description of the earlier persecutions as well - as of those witnessed by himself during his residence in - Nicomedia. It is of great importance for the history of the - period but must be carefully sifted owing to its strongly - partisan character. Not only the joy of the martyrs but - also the proof of a divine Nemesis in the lives of the - persecutors are regarded as demonstrating the truth of - Christianity. The tract _De ira Dei_ seeks to prove the - failure of Greek philosophy to combine the ideas of justice - and goodness in its conception of God. The book _De opificio - Dei_ proves from the wonderful structure of the human body - the wisdom of divine providence. Jerome praises him as a - poet; but of the poems ascribed to him only one on the bird - phœnix, which, as it rises into life out of its own ashes - is regarded as a symbol of immortality and the resurrection, - can lay any claim to authenticity. - - - § 32. THE APOCRYPHAL AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHICAL LITERATURE.[80] - - The practice, so widely spread in pre-Christian times among pagans -and Jews, of publishing treatises as original and primitive divine -revelations which had no claim to such a title found favour among -Christians of the first centuries, and was continued far down into the -Greek and Latin Middle Ages. The majority of the apocryphal or anonymous -and pseudepigraphic writings were issued in support of heresies Ebionite -or Gnostic. Many, however, were free from heretical taint and were -simply undertaken for the purpose of glorifying Christianity by what -was then regarded as a harmless _pia fraus_ through a _vaticinia post -eventum_, or of filling up blanks in the early history with myths and -fables already existing or else devised for the occasion. They took the -subjects of their romances partly from the field of the Old Testament, -and partly from the field of the New Testament in the form of Gospels, -Acts, Apostolic Epistles and Apocalypses. A number of them are -professedly drawn from the prophecies of old heathen seers. Of greater -importance, especially for the history of the constitution, worship and -discipline of the church are the Eccles. Constitutions put forth under -the names of Apostles. Numerous apocryphal Acts of Martyrs are for the -most part utterly useless as historical sources. - - § 32.1. =Professedly Old Heathen Prophecies.=--Of these the - =Sibylline Writings= occupy the most conspicuous place. The - Græco-Roman legend of the Sibyls, σιοῦ βούλη (Æol. for θεοῦ - βούλη), _i.e._ prophetesses of pagan antiquity, was wrought up - at a very early period in the interests of Judaism and afterwards - of Christianity, especially of Ebionite heresy. The extant - collection of such oracles in fourteen books were compiled in the - 5th or 6th century. It contains in Greek verses prophecies partly - purely Jewish, partly Jewish wrought up by a Christian hand, - partly originally Christian, about the history of the world, the - life and sufferings of Christ, the persecutions of His disciples - and the stages in the final development of His kingdom. The - Christian participation in the composition of the Sibylline - oracles began in the first century, soon after the irruption of - Vesuvius in A.D. 79, and continued down to the 5th century. The - Apologists, especially Lactantius, made such abundant use of - these prophecies that the heathens nicknamed them Sibyllists.--Of - the prophecies about the coming of Christ ascribed to an ancient - Persian seer, =Hystaspes=, none have been preserved. - - § 32.2. =Old Testament Pseudepigraphs.=[81]--These are mostly of - =Jewish Origin=, of which, however, many were held by the early - Christians in high esteem. - - a. To this class belongs pre-eminently the =Book of Enoch=, - written originally in Hebrew in the last century before - Christ, quoted in the Epistle of Jude, and recovered only in - an Ethiopic translation in A.D. 1821. In its present form in - which a great number of older writings about Enoch and Noah - have been wrought up, the book embraces accounts of the fall - of a certain part of the angels (Gen. vi. 1-4; Jude 6; and - 2 Pet. ii. 4), also statements of the holy angels about the - mysteries of heaven and hell, the earth and paradise, about - the coming of the Messiah, etc. - - b. The =Assumptio Mosis= (ἀνάληψις), from which, according to - Origen, the reference to the dispute between Michael and - Satan about the body of Moses in the Epistle of Jude is - taken, was discovered by the librarian Ceriani at Milan. - He found the first part of this book in an old Latin - translation and published it in A.D. 1860. In the exercise - of his official gift Moses prophesies to Joshua about the - future fortunes of his nation down to the appearing of the - Messiah. The second part, which is wanting, dealt with the - translation of Moses. The exact date of its composition is - not determined, but it may be perhaps assigned to the first - Christian century. - - c. The so-called =Fourth Book of Ezra= is first referred to by - Clement of Alexandria. It is an Apocalypse after the manner - of the Book of Daniel. It was probably written originally in - Greek but we possess only translations: a Latin one and four - oriental ones--Ethiopic, Arabic, Syriac and Armenian. From - these oriental translations the blanks in the Latin version - have been supplied, and its later Christian interpolations - have been detected. The angel Uriel in seven visions makes - known to the weeping Ezra the signs of the approaching - destruction of Jerusalem, the decay of the Roman empire, - the founding of the Messianic kingdom, etc. The fifth vision - of the eagle with twelve wings and three heads seems to fix - the date of its composition to the time of Domitian. - - d. In the year 1843 the missionary Krapff sent to Tübingen - the title of an Ethiopic Codex, in which Ewald recognised - the writing referred to frequently by the Church Fathers as - the =Book of Jubilees= (Ἰωβελαῖα) or the =Little Genesis= - (Λεπτογένεσις). This book, written probably about A.D. 50 - or 60, is a complete summary of the Jewish legendary matter - about the early biblical history from the creation down to - the entrance into Canaan, divided into fifty jubilee periods. - The name _Little Genesis_ was given it, notwithstanding - its large dimensions, as indicating a Genesis of the second - rank.[82] - - § 32.3. The following Pseudepigraphs are of =Christian Origin=. - - a. The short romantic =History of Assenath=, daughter of - Potiphar and wife of Joseph (Gen. xli. 45). Its main point - is the conversion of Assenath by an angel. - - b. =The Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs=, after the style of - Gen. xlix., written in Greek in the 2nd cent., and quoted - by Origen. As in the chapter of Gen. referred to parting - counsels are put in the mouth of Jacob, they are here - ascribed to his twelve sons. These discourses embrace - prophecies of the coming of Christ and His atoning - sufferings and death, statements about baptism and the - Lord’s supper, about the great Apostle of the Gentiles, - the rejection of the O.T. covenant people and the election - of the Gentiles, the destruction of Jerusalem and the - final completion of the kingdom of God. The book is thus a - cleverly compiled and comprehensive handbook of Christian - faith, life and hope. - - c. Of the =Ascensio Isaiæ= (Ἀναβατικόν) and the =Visio Isaiæ= - (Ὅρασις) traces are to be found as early as in Justin - Martyr and Tertullian. The Greek original is lost. Dillmann - published an old Ethiopic version (Lps., 1877), and Gieseler - an old Lat. text (Gött., 1832). Its Cabbalistic colouring - commended it to the Gnostics. In its first part, borrowed - from an old Jewish document, it tells about the martyrdom of - Isaiah who was sawn asunder by King Manasseh; in its second - part, entitled _Visio Isaiæ_ it is told how the prophet in - an ecstasy was led by an angel through the seven heavens and - had revealed to him the secrets of the divine counsels - regarding the incarnation of Christ. - - d. A collection in Syriac belonging perhaps to the 5th or 6th - century in which other legends about early ages are kept - together, is called =Spelunca thesaurorum=. We are here - told about the sepulchre of the patriarch Lamech and the - treasures preserved there from which the wise men obtained - the gifts which they presented to the infant Saviour. The - Ethiopic _Vita Adami_ is an expansion of the book just - referred to. This book is manifestly a legendary account of - the changes wrought upon all relations of life in our first - parents by means of the fall (hence the title: “Conflict - of Adam and Eve”), and Golgotha is named as Adam’s burying - place. A second and shorter part treats of the Sethite - patriarchs down to Noah. The still shorter third part - relates the post-diluvian history down to the time of - Christ.[83] - - § 32.4. =New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigraphs.=--The - Gnostics especially produced these in great abundance. Epiphanius - speaks of them as numbering thousands. But the Catholics, too, - were unable to resist the temptation to build up the truth by - these doubtful means. - - I. =Apocryphal Gospels.= - - 1. =Complete Gospels= existed in considerable numbers, - _i.e._ embracing the period of Christ’s earthly - labours, more or less corrupted in the interests of - Gnostic or Ebionitic heresy, or independently composed - Gospels; but only of a few of these do we possess any - knowledge.[84] The most important of these are the - following: _The Gosp. of the Egyptians_, esteemed by - the Encratites, according to Origen one of the writings - referred to in Luke i. 1; also _the Gosp. of the XII. - Apostles_, generally called by the Fathers Εὐαγγ. καθ’ - Ἑβραίους originally written in Aramaic; and finally, - _the Gosp. of Marcion_ (§ 27, 11). The most important - of these is the Gospel of the Hebrews, on account of - its relation to our canonical Gospel of Matthew, which - is generally supposed to have been written originally - in Aramaic.[85] Jerome who translated the Hebrew Gospel - says of it: _Vocatur a plerisque Matthæi authenticum_; - but this is not his own opinion, nor was it that of - Origen and Eusebius. The extant fragments show many - divergences as well as many similarities, partly in - the form of apocryphal amplifications, partly of changes - made for dogmatic reasons. - - 2. Gospels dealing with particular Periods--referring to - the days preceding the birth of Jesus and the period of - the infancy or to the closing days of His life, where - the heretical elements are wanting or are subordinated - to the general interests of Christianity. Of these - there was a large number and much of their legendary or - fabulous material, especially about the family history - of the mother of Jesus (§ 57, 2), has passed over into - the tradition of the Catholic Church. Among them may be - mentioned; - - a. _The Protevangel. Jacobi minoris_, perhaps the - oldest, certainly the most esteemed and most widely - spread, written in Greek, beginning with the story - of Mary’s birth and reaching down to the death of - the children of Bethlehem; - - b. The _Ev. Pseudo Matthæi_, similar in its contents, - but continued down to the period of Jesus’ youth, - and now existing only in a Lat. translation; - - c. The _Ev. de nativitate Mariæ_, only in Lat., - containing the history of Mary down to the birth of - Jesus; - - d. The _Hist. Josephi fabri lignarii_ down to his death, - dating probably from the 4th cent., only now in an - Arabic version; - - e. The _Ev. Infantiæ Salvatoris_, only in Arabic, a - compilation with no particular dogmatic tendency; - - f. Also the so-called _Ascension of Mary_ (§ 57, 2) - soon became the subject of apocryphal treatment, - for which John was claimed as the authority (John - xix. 26), and is preserved in several Greek, Syriac, - Arabic and Latin manuscripts; - - g. The _Ev. Nicodemi_ (John xix. 39) in Greek and Lat. - contains two Jewish writings of the 2nd century. - The first part consists of the _Gesta_ or _Acta - Pilati_. There can be no doubt of its identity with - the _Acta Pilati_ quoted by Justin, Tert., Euseb., - Epiph. It contains the stories of the canonical - Gospels variously amplified and an account of - the judicial proceedings evidently intended to - demonstrate Jesus’ innocence of the charges brought - against Him by His enemies. The second part, - bearing the title _Descensus Christi ad inferos_, - is of much later origin, telling of the descent - of Christ into Hades along with two of the saints - who rose with him (Matt. xxvii. 52), Leucius and - Carinus, sons of Simeon (Luke ii. 25).[86] - - § 32.5. - - II. The numerous =Apocryphal Histories and Legends of the - Apostles= were partly of heretical, and partly of Catholic, - origin. While the former have in view the establishing of - their heretical doctrines and peculiar forms of worship, - constitution and life by representing them as Apostolic - institutions, the latter arose mostly out of a local - patriotic intention to secure to particular churches the - glory of being founded by an Apostle. Those inspired by - Gnostic influences far exceed in importance and number - not only the Ebionitic but also the genuinely Catholic. - The Manichæans especially produced many and succeeded in - circulating them widely. The more their historico-romantic - contents pandered to the taste of that age for fantastic - tales of miracles and visions the surer were they to find - access among Catholic circles.--A collection of such - histories under the title of Περίοδοι τῶν ἀποστόλων was - received as canonical by Gnostics and Manichæans, and even - by many of the Church Fathers. Augustine first named as - its supposed author one Leucius. We find this name some - decades later in Epiphanius as that of a pupil of John and - opponent of the Ebionite Christology, and also in Pacianus - of Barcelona as that of one falsely claimed as an authority - by the Montanists. According to Photius this collection - embraced the Acts of Peter, John, Andrew, Thomas and Paul, - and the author’s full name was Leucius Carinus, who also - appears in the second part of the _Acta Pilati_, but in - quite other circumstances and surroundings. That all the - five books were composed by one author is not probable; - perhaps originally only the Acts of John bore the name of - Leucius, which was subsequently transferred to the whole. - Zahn’s view, on the other hand, is, that the Περίοδοι τῶν - ἀποστόλων, especially the _Acts of John_, was written under - the falsely assumed name of John’s pupil Leucius, about - A.D. 130, at a time when the Gnostics had not yet been - separated from the Church as a heretical sect, was even at - a later period accepted as genuine by the Catholic church - teachers notwithstanding the objectionable character of much - of its contents, its modal docetic Christology and encratite - Ethics with contempt of marriage, rejection of animal food - and the use of wine and the demand of voluntary poverty, and - held in high esteem as a source of the second rank for the - Apostolic history. Lipsius considers that it was composed in - the interests of the vulgar Gnosticism (§ 27) in the second - half of the 2nd, or first half of the 3rd cent., and proves - that from Eusebius down to Photius, who brands it as πασῆς - αἱρέσεως πηγὴν καὶ μητέρα, the Catholic church teachers - without exception speak of it as heretical and godless, - and that the frequent patristic references to the _Historiæ - ecclesiasticiæ_ do not apply to it but to Catholic - modifications of it, which were regarded as the genuine - and generally credible original writing of Leucius which - were wickedly falsified by the Manichæans.--Catholic - modifications of particular Gnostic Περίοδοι, as well as - independent Catholic writings of this sort in Greek are - still preserved in MS. in great numbers and have for the - most part been printed. The _Hist. certaminis apostolici_ in - ten books, which the supposed pupil of the Apostles Abdias, - first bishop of Babylon, wrote in Hebrew, was translated by - his pupil Eutropius into Greek and by Julius Africanus into - Latin.[87]--They are all useless for determining the history - of the Apostolic Age, although abundantly so used in the - Catholic church tradition. For the history of doctrines and - sects, the history of the canon, worship, ecclesiastical - customs and modes of thought during the 2nd-4th cents., they - are of the utmost importance. - - § 32.6. - - From the many apocryphal monographs still preserved on the - life, works and martyrdom of the biblical Apostles and their - coadjutors, in addition to the Pseudo-Clementines already - discussed in § 28, 3, the following are the most important. - - a. The Greek =Acta Petri et Pauli=. These describe the - journeys of Paul to Rome, the disputation of the - two Apostles at Rome with Simon Magus, and the Roman - martyrdom of both, and constitute the source of the - traditions regarding Peter and Paul which are at the - present day regarded in the Roman Catholic Church as - historical. These Acts, however, as Lipsius has shown, - are not an original work, but date from about A.D. 160, - and consist of a Catholic reproduction of Ebionite - or Anti-Pauline, _Acts of Peter_, with additions from - Gentile-Christian traditions of Paul. The _Acts of Peter_ - take up the story where the Pseudo-Clementines end, as - may be seen even from their Catholic reproduction, for - they make Simon Magus, followed everywhere and overcome - by the Apostle Peter, at last seek refuge in Rome, - where, again unmasked by Peter, he met a miserable end - (§ 25, 2). As the Κηρύγματα Πέτρου which formed the - basis of the Pseudo-Clementine writings combats the - specifically Pauline doctrines as derived from Simon - Magus (§ 28, 4), so the Acts of Peter identify him - even personally with Paul, for they maliciously and - spitefully assign well-known facts from the Apostle’s - life to Simon Magus, which are _bona fide_ in the - Catholic reproduction assumed to be genuine works - of Simon.--The Gnostic _Acts of Peter_ and _Acts - of Paul_ had wrought up the current Ebionite and - Catholic traditions about the doings and martyr deaths - of the two Apostles with fanciful adornments and - embellishments after the style and in the interests of - Gnosticism. A considerable fragment of these, purified - indeed by Catholic hands, is preserved to us in - the _Passio Petri et Pauli_, to which is attached - the name of Linus, the pretended successor of - Peter. The fortunes of the two Apostles are related - quite independently of one another: Paul makes his - appearance at Rome only after the death of Peter. Of the - _non-heretical Acts of Paul_ which according to Eusebius - were in earlier times received in many churches as holy - scripture (§ 36, 8), no trace has as yet been discovered. - - b. Among the Greek =Acts of John=, the remnants of the - Leucian Περίοδοι Ἰωάννου preserved in their original - form deserve to be first mentioned. According to - Zahn, they are one of the earliest witnesses for - the genuineness of the Gospel of John, and give the - deathblow to the theory that with and after the Apostle - John, there was in Ephesus another John the Presbyter - distinct from him (§ 16, 2). Lipsius, on the other - hand, places their composition in the second half of - the 2nd cent., and deprives them of that significance - for the life of the Apostle, but admits their great value - for a knowledge of doctrines, principles and forms of - worship of the vulgar Gnosticism then widely spread. The - Πράξεις Ἰωάννου, greatly esteemed in the Greek church, - and often translated into other languages, written - in the 5th cent. by a Catholic hand and ascribed to - Prochoros [Prochorus] the deacon of Jerusalem (Acts - vi. 5), is a poetic romance with numerous raisings from - the dead, exorcisms, etc., almost wholly the creation - of the writer’s own imagination, without a trace of any - encratite tendency like the Leucian Περίοδοι and without - any particular doctrinal significance. - - c. To the same age and the same Gnostic party as the Leucian - Acts of John, belong the =Acts of Andrew= preserved - in many fragments and circulated in various Catholic - reproductions. Of these latter the most esteemed were - the _Acts of Andrew and Matthew_ in the city of the - cannibals. - - d. The Catholic reproductions in Greek and Syriac that - have come down to us of the Leucian =Acts of Thomas= are - of special value because of the many Gnostic elements - which, particularly in the Greek, have been allowed to - remain unchanged in the very imperfectly purified text. - The scene of the Apostle’s activity is said to be India. - The central point in his preaching to sinners is the - doctrine that only by complete abstinence from marriage - and concubinage can we become at last the partner of - the heavenly bridegroom (§ 27, 4). A highly poetical - hymn on the marriage of Sophia (Achamoth) is left - in the Greek text unaltered, while the Syriac text - puts the church in place of Sophia. Then we have two - poetical consecration prayers for baptism and the - eucharist, in which the Syriac substituted Christ - for Achamoth. But besides, even in the Syriac text, - a grandly swelling hymn, which is wanting in the Greek - text, romances about the fortunes of the soul, which, - sent from heaven to earth to fetch a pearl watched by - the serpent forgets its heavenly origin and calling, - and only remembers this after repeated reminders from - heaven, etc. Gutschmied has shown it to be probable - that the history groundwork of the Acts of Thomas is - borrowed from older Buddhist legends (§ 68, 6). - - e. =The Acta Pauli et Thecla=, according to Tertullian and - Jerome, were composed by a presbyter of Asia Minor who, - carried away by the mania for literary forging, excused - himself by saying that he had written _Pauli amore_, - but was for this nevertheless deprived of his office. - According to these Acts Thecla, the betrothed bride - of a young man of importance at Iconium, was won to - Christianity by a sermon of Paul on continence as a - condition of a future glorious resurrection, forsook - her bridegroom, devoted herself to perpetual virginity, - and attached herself forthwith to the Apostle whose - bodily presence is described as contemptible,--little, - bald-headed, large nose, and bandy legs,--but lighted - up with heavenly grace. Led twice to martyrdom she was - saved by miraculous divine interposition, first from - the flames of the pile, then, after having baptized - herself in the name of Christ by plunging into a pit - full of water, from the rage of devouring animals; - whereupon Paul, recognising that sort of baptism in an - emergency as valid, sent her forth with the commission: - Go hence and teach the word of God! After converting - and instructing many, she died in peace in Seleucia. - Although Jerome treats our book as apocryphal, the - legends of Thecla as given in it were regarded in the - West as genuine, and St. Thecla was honoured throughout - the whole of the Latin middle ages next to the mother - of Jesus as the most perfect pattern of virginity. - In the Greek church where we meet with the name first - in the Symposium of Methodius, the book remained - unsuspected and its heroine, as ἡ ἀπόστολος and ἡ - πρωτομάρτυς, was honoured still more enthusiastically - than in the West. - - f. The Syriac =Doctrina Addæi Apost.= was according to - its own statement deposited in the library of Edessa, - but allusions to later persons and circumstances show - that it could not have been written before A.D. 280 - (according to Zahn about A.D. 270-290; acc. to Lipsius - not before A.D. 360). It assigns the founding of the - church of Edessa, which is proved to have been not - earlier than A.D. 170, according to local tradition - to the Apostle Addai [Addæi] (in Euseb. and elsewhere, - Thaddeus: comp. Matt. x. 3; Mark iii. 18), whom it - represents as one of the seventy disciples and as - having been sent by Thomas to Abgar Uchomo in accordance - with Christ’s promise (§ 13, 2).[88] - - § 32.7. - - III. =Apostolic Epistles.= The apocryphal _Epistle of Paul to - the Laodiceans_ (Col. iv. 16), and that to the _Corinthians_ - suggested by the statement in 1 Cor. v. 9, are spiritless - compilations from the canonical Epistles. From the - _Correspondence of Paul with Seneca_, quotations are made by - Jerome and Augustine. It embraces fourteen short epistles. - The idea of friendly relations between these two men - suggested by Acts xviii. 12, Gallio being Seneca’s brother, - forms the motive for the fiction. - - IV. =The apocryphal Apocalypses= that have been preserved are of - little value. An _Apocalypsis Petri_ was known to Clement of - Alexandria. The _Apoc. Pauli_ is based on 2 Cor. xii. 2. - - V. =Apostolical Constitutions=, comp. § 43, 4, 5.[89] - - § 32.8. =The Acts of the Martyrs.=--Of the numerous professedly - contemporary accounts of celebrated martyrs of the 2nd and 3rd - cents., those adopted by Eusebius in his Church History may be - accepted as genuine; especially the _Epistle of the Church of - Smyrna to the Church at Philomelium_ about the persecution which - it suffered (§ 22, 3); also the _Report of the Church at Lyons - and Vienne_ to the Christians in Asia and Phrygia about the - persecution under Marcus Aurelius in A.D. 177 (§ 22, 3); and an - _Epistle of Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria_ to Fabian of Antioch - about the Alexandrian martyrs and confessors during the Decian - persecution. The Acts of the Martyrs of Scillita are also genuine - (§ 22, 3); so too the Montanistic History of the sufferings of - Perpetua, Felicitas, and their companions (§§ 22, 4; 40, 3); as - well as the _Acta s. Cypriani_. The main part of the _Martyrdom - of Justin Martyr_ by Simeon Metaphr. (§ 68, 4) belongs - probably to the 2nd cent. The _Martyrdom of Ignatius_ (§ 30, 5) - professedly by his companions in his last journey to Rome, and - the _Martyrdom of Sympherosa_ in the Tiber, who was put to death - with her seven sons under Hadrian, as well as all other Acts of - the Martyrs professedly belonging to the first four centuries, - are of more than doubtful authenticity. - - - § 33. THE DOCTRINAL CONTROVERSIES OF THE - OLD CATHOLIC AGE.[90] - - The development of the system of Christian doctrine must become a -necessity when Christianity meeting with pagan culture in the form of -science is called upon to defend her claim to be the universal religion. -In the first three centuries, however, there was as yet no official -construction and establishment of ecclesiastical doctrine. There -must first be a certain measure of free subjective development and -wrestling with antagonistic views. A universally acknowledged organ is -wanting, such as that subsequently found in the Œcumenical Councils. -The persecutions allowed no time and peace for this; and the church had -enough to do in maintaining what is specifically Christian in opposition -to the intrusion of such anti-Christian, Jewish and Pagan elements -as sought to gain a footing in Ebionism and Gnosticism. On the other -hand, friction and controversy within the church had already begun -as a preparation for the construction of the ecclesiastical system of -doctrine. The _Trinitarian_ controversy was by far the most important, -while the _Chiliastic_ discussions were of significance for Eschatology. - - § 33.1. =The Trinitarian Questions.=--The discussion was mainly - about the relation of the divine μοναρχία (the unity of God) to - the οἰκονομία (the Trinitarian being and movement of God). Then - the relation of the Son or Logos to the Father came decidedly - to the front. From the time when the more exact determination of - this relationship came to be discussed, toward the end of the 2nd - cent., the most eminent teachers of the Catholic church maintained - stoutly the personal independence of the Logos--=Hypostasianism=. - But the necessity for keeping this view in harmony with the - monotheistic doctrine of Christianity led to many errors and - vacillations. Adopting Philo’s distinction of λόγος ἐνδιάθετος - and λόγος προφορικός (§ 10, 1), they for the most part regarded - the hypostasizing as conditioned first by the creating of the - world and as coming forth not as a necessary and eternal element - in the very life of God but as a free and temporal act of the - divine will. The proper essence of the Godhead was identified - rather with the Father, and all attributes of the Godhead were - ascribed to the Son not in a wholly equal measure as to the - Father, for the word of Christ: “the Father is greater than I” - (John xiv. 28), was applied even to the pre-existent state of - Christ. Still greater was the uncertainty regarding the Holy - Spirit. The idea of His personality and independence was far less - securely established; He was much more decidedly subordinated, - and the functions of inspiration and sanctification proper to - Him were ascribed to Christ, or He was simply identified with - the Son of God. The result, however, of such _subordinationist - hypostasianism_ was that, on the one hand, many church teachers - laid undue stress on the fundamental anti-pagan doctrine of the - unity of God, just as on the other hand, many had indulged in - exaggerated statements about the divinity of Christ. It seemed - therefore desirable to set aside altogether the question of the - personal distinction of the Son and Spirit from the Father. This - happened either in the way clearly favoured by the Ebionites who - regarded Christ as a mere man, who, like the prophets, though - in a much higher measure, had been endued with divine wisdom and - power (_dynamic_ =Monarchianism=), or in a way more accordant - with the Christian mode of thought, admitting that the fulness - of the Godhead dwelt in Christ, and either identifying the - Logos with the Father (_Patripassianism_), or seeing in Him - only a mode of the activity of the Father (_modal Monarchianism_). - Monarchianism in all these forms was pronounced heretical by all - the most illustrious fathers of the 3rd cent., and hypostasianism - was declared orthodox. But even under hypostasianism an - element of error crept in at a later period in the form of - subordinationism, and modal Monarchianism approached nearer - to the church doctrine by adopting the doctrine of sameness - of essence (ὁμοουσία) in Son and Father. The orthodox combination - of the two opposites was reached in the 3rd cent, in _homoousian - hypostasianism_, but only in the 4th cent. attained universal - acceptance (§ 50). - - § 33.2. =The Alogians.=--Soon after A.D. 170 in Asia Minor we - meet with the Alogians as the first decided opponents from within - the church of Logos doctrine laid down in the Gospel by John - and the writings of the Apologists. They started in diametrical - opposition to the chiliasm of the Montanists and their claims - to prophetic gifts, and were thus led not only to repudiate the - Apocalypse but also the Gospel of John; the former on account of - its chiliast-prophetic contents which embraced so much that was - unintelligible, yea absurd and untrue; the latter, first of all - on account of the use the Montanists made of its doctrine of the - Paraclete in support of their prophetic claims (§ 40, 1), but - also on account of its seeming contradictions of and departures - from the narratives of the Synoptists, and finally, on account - of its Logos doctrine in which the immediate transition from the - incarnation of the Logos to the active life of Christ probably - seemed to them too closely resembling docetic Gnosticism. They - therefore attributed to the Gnosticizing Judaist, Cerinthus, the - authorship both of the Fourth Gospel and of the Apocalypse. Of - their own Christological theories we have no exact information. - Irenæus and Hippolytus deal mildly with them and recognise - them as members of the Catholic church. It is Epiphanius who - first gives them the equivocal designation of Alogians (which - may either be “deniers of the Logos” or “the irrational”), - denouncing them as heretical rejecters of the Logos doctrine - and the Logos-Gospel. This is the first instance which we have of - historical criticism being exercised in the Church with reference - to the biblical books. - - § 33.3. =The Theodotians and Artemonites.=--Epiphanius describes - the sect of the Theodotians at Rome as an ἀπόσπασμα τῆς ἀλόγου - αἱρέσεως. The main source of information about them is the Little - Labyrinth (§ 31, 3), and next to it Hippolytus in his Syntagma, - quoted by the Pseudo-Tertullian and Epiphanius, and in his - Elenchus. The founder of this sect, =Theodotus= ὁ σκυτεύς, _the - Tanner_, a man well trained in Greek culture, came A.D. 190 to - Byzantium where, during the persecution, he denied Christ, and - on this account changed his residence to Rome and devoted himself - here to the spread of his dynamic Monarchianism. He maintained - ψιλὸν ἄνθρωπον εἶναι τὸν Χριστόν,--_Spiritu quidem sancto - natum ex virgine, sed hominem nudum nulla alia præ cæteris nisi - sola justitæ auctoritate_. He sought to justify his views by - a one-sided interpretation of scripture passages referring to - the human nature of Christ.[91] But since he acknowledged the - supernatural birth of Christ as well as the genuineness of the - Gospel of John, and in other respects agreed with his opponents, - he could still represent himself as standing on the basis of - the Old Catholic _Regula fidei_ (§ 35, 2). Nevertheless the - Roman bishop Victor (A.D. 189-199) excommunicated him and his - followers. The most distinguished among his disciples was a - _second_ =Theodotus= ὁ τραπεζίτης, the _Money-changer_. By an - exegesis of Heb. v. 6, 10; vi. 20; vii. 3, 17, he sought to prove - that Melchisedec was δύναμις τίς μεγίστη and more glorious than - Christ; the former was the original type, the latter only the - copy; the former was intercessor before God for the angels, - the latter only for men; the origin of the former is secret, - because truly heavenly, that of Christ open, because born of - Mary. The later heresiologists therefore designate his followers - Melchisedecians. Laying hold upon the theory φύσει τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ - θεοῦ ἐν ἰδέᾳ ἀνθρώπου τότε τῷ Ἀβραὰμ πεφηνέναι which, according - to Epiphanius, was held even by Catholics, and also, like the - Shepherd of Hermas, identifying the Son of God with the Holy - Spirit that descended in baptism on the man Jesus, Theodotus - seems from those two points of view to have proceeded to - teach, that the historical Christ, because operated upon only - dynamically by the Holy Spirit or the Son of God, was inferior to - the purely heavenly Melchisedec who was himself the very eternal - Son of God. The reproaches directed against the Theodotians by - their opponents were mainly these: that instead of the usual - allegorical exegesis they used only a literal and grammatical, - that they practised an arbitrary system of Textual criticism, and - that instead of holding to the philosophy of the divine Plato, - they took their wisdom from the empiricists (Aristotle, Euclid, - Galen, etc.), and sought by such objectionable means to support - their heretical views. We have thus probably to see in them a - group of Roman theologians, who, towards the close of the 2nd - cent. and the beginning of the 3rd cent. maintained exegetical - and critical principles essentially the same as those which the - Antiochean school with greater clearness and definiteness set - forth toward the end of the 3rd cent. (§§ 31, 1; 47, 1). The - attempt, however, which they made to found an independent sect - in Rome about A.D. 210 was an utter failure. According to the - report of the Little Labyrinth, they succeeded in getting for - their bishop a weak-minded confessor called Natalius. Haunted - by visions of judgment and beaten sore one night by good angels - till in a miserable plight, he hasted on the following morning - to cast himself at the feet of bishop Zephyrinus (A.D. 199-217), - successor of Victor, and showing his stripes he begged for - mercy and restoration.--The last of the representatives of the - Theodotians in Rome, and that too under this same Zephyrinus, was - a certain =Artemon= or Artemas. He and his followers maintained - that their own doctrine (which cannot be very exactly determined - but was also of the dynamic order) had been recognised in Rome - as orthodox from the time of the Apostles down to that of bishop - Victor, and was first condemned by his successor Zephyrinus. This - assertion cannot be said to be altogether without foundation in - view, on the one hand, of the agreement above referred to between - Theodotus the younger and the Roman Hermas, and on the other hand, - of the fact that the Roman bishops Zephyrinus and Callistus had - passed over to Noëtian _Modalism_. Artemon must have lived at - least until A.D. 260, when Paul of Samosata (§ 33, 8), who also - maintained fellowship with the excommunicated Artemonites in - Rome, conducted a correspondence with him. - - § 33.4. =Praxeas and Tertullian.=--Patripassianism, which - represented the Father Himself as becoming man and suffering in - Christ, may be characterized as the precursor and first crude - form of Modalism. It also had its origin during the 2nd cent., - in that same intellectually active church of Asia Minor, and - from thence the movement spread to Rome, where after a long and - bitter struggle it secured a footing in the 3rd cent.--=Praxeas=, - a confessor of Asia Minor and opponent of Montanism, was its first - representative at Rome, where unopposed he expounded his views - about A.D. 190. As he supported the Roman bishop Victor in his - condemnation of Montanism (§ 40, 2), so he seems to have won - the bishop’s approval for his Christological theory.[92] Perhaps - also the excommunication which was at this time uttered against - the dynamic Monarchian, Theodotus the Elder, was the result of - the bishop’s change of views. From Rome Praxeas betook himself, - mainly in the interest of his Anti-Montanist crusade, to Carthage, - and there also won adherents to his Christology. Meanwhile, - however, Tertullian returned to Carthage, and as a convert - to Montanism, hurled against Praxeas and his followers a - controversial treatise, in which he laid bare with acute - dialectic the weaknesses and inconsistencies, as well as the - dangerous consequences of their theory. Just like the Alogians, - Praxeas and his adherents refused to admit the doctrine of the - Logos into their Christology, and feared that it in connection - with the doctrine of the hypostasis would give an advantage to - Gnosticism. In the interests of monotheism, as well as of the - worship of Christ, they maintained the perfect identity of Father - and Son. God became the Son by the assumption of the flesh; - under the concept of the Father therefore falls the divinity, - the spirit; under that of the Son, the humanity, the flesh of - the Redeemer.--=Tertullian= himself in his Hypostasianism had not - wholly got beyond the idea of subordinationism, but he made an - important advance in this direction by assuming three stages in - the hypostasizing of the Son (_Filiatio_). The first stage is - the eternal immanent state of being of the Son in the Father; the - second is the forthcoming of the Son alongside of the Father for - the purpose of creating the world; and the third is the going - forth of the Son into the world by means of the incarnation. - - § 33.5. =The Noëtians and Hippolytus.=--The Patripassian - standpoint was maintained also by =Noëtus= of Smyrna, who summed - up his Christological views in the sentence: the Son of God is - His own, and not another’s Son. One of his pupils, _Epigonus_, - in the time of bishop Zephyrinus brought this doctrine to Rome, - where a Noëtian sect was formed with Cleomenes at its head. - Sabellius too, who in A.D. 215 came to Rome from Ptolemais in - Egypt, attached himself to it, but afterwards constructed an - independent system of doctrine in the form of a more speculative - Modalism. The most vigorous opponent of the Noëtians was the - celebrated presbyter =Hippolytus= (§ 31, 3). He strongly insisted - upon the hypostasis of the Son and of the Spirit, and claimed - for them divine worship. But inasmuch as he maintained in all - its strictness the unity of God, he too was unable to avoid - subordinating the Son under the Father. The Son, he taught, owed - His hypostasizing to the will of the Father; the Father commands - and the Son obeys; the perfect Logos was the Son from eternity, - but οὐ λόγος ὡς φωνὴ, ἀλλ’ ἐνδιάθετος τοῦ πάντος λογισμός, - therefore in a hypostasis, which He became only at the creation - of the world, so that He became perfect Son first in the - incarnation. Bishop Zephyrinus, on the other hand, was not - inclined to bear hard upon the Noëtians, but sought in the - interests of peace some meeting-point for the two parties. The - conflagration fairly broke out under his successor, Callistus - (A.D. 217-222; comp. § 41, 1). Believing that truth and error - were to be found on both sides he defined his own position thus: - God is a spirit without parts, filling all things, giving life - to all, who as such is called Logos, and only in respect of name - is distinguished as Father and Son. The Pneuma become incarnate - in the Virgin is personally and essentially identical with the - Father. That which has thereby become manifest, the man Jesus, - is the Son. It therefore cannot be said that the Father as such - has suffered, but rather that the Father has suffered in and - with the Son. Decidedly Monarchian as this formula of compromise - undoubtedly is, it seems to have afforded the bridge upon which - the official Roman theology crossed over to the homoousian - Hypostasianism which forty years later won the day (§ 33, 7). - Among the opposing parties it found no acceptance. Hippolytus - denounced the bishop as a Noëtian, while the Noëtians nicknamed - him a Dytheist. The result was that the two party leaders, - Sabellius and Hippolytus, were excommunicated. The latter formed - the company of his adherents in Rome into a schismatic sect. - - § 33.6. =Beryllus and Origen.=--=Beryllus of Bostra=[93] in - Arabia also belonged to the Patripassians; but he marks the - transition to a nobler Modalism, for though he refuses to the - deity of Christ the ἰδία θεότης, he designates it πατρικὴ θεότης, - and sees in it a new form of the manifestation (πρόσωπον) of - God. In regard to him an Arabian Synod was held in A.D. 244, - to which =Origen= was invited. Convinced by him of his error, - Beryll [Beryllus] retracted.--All previous representatives of - the hypostasis of the Logos had understood his hypostatizing - as happening in time for the purpose of the creation and the - incarnation. =Origen= removed this restriction when he enunciated - the proposition: The Son is from eternity begotten of the Father - and so from eternity an hypostasis. The generation of the Son - took not place simply as the condition of creation, but as of - itself necessary, for where there is light there must be the - shedding forth of rays. But because the life of God is bound - to no time, the objectivizing of His life in the Son must also - lie outside of all time. It is not therefore an act of God - accomplished once and for ever, but an eternally continued - exercise of living power (ἀεὶ γεννᾲ τὸν υἱόν). Origen did not - indeed get beyond subordinationism, but he restricted it within - the narrowest possible limits. He condemns the expression that - the Son is ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός, but only in opposition - to the Gnostic theories of emanation. He maintained a ἑτερότης - τῆς οὐσίας, but only in opposition to the ὁμοούσιος in the - Patripassian sense. He teaches a generation of the Son ἐκ τοῦ - θελήματος θεοῦ, but only because he sees in Him the objectified - divine will. He calls Him a κτίσμα, but only in so far as He is - θεοποιούμενος, not αὐτόθεος, though indeed the Son is αὐτοσοφία, - αὐτοαλήθεια, δεύτερος θεός. Thus what he teaches is not a - subordination of essence or nature, but only of existence or - origin. - - § 33.7. =Sabellius and Dionysius of Alex. and Dionysius of - Rome.=--We have already seen that =Sabellius= had founded in - Rome a speculative Manichæan system, which found much favour - among the bishops of his native region. His assigning an essential - and necessary place in his system to the Holy Spirit indicates - an important advance. God is a unity (μονάς) admitting of no - distinctions, resting in Himself as θεὸς σιωπών coming forth - out of Himself (for the purpose of creation) as θεὸς λαλῶν. In - the course of the world’s development the Monas for the sake of - redemption assumes necessarily three different forms of being - (ὀνόματα πρόσωπα), each of which embraces in it the complete - fulness of the Monas. They are not ὑποστάσεις, but πρόσωπα, masks, - we might say roles, which the God who manifests Himself in the - world assumes in succession. After the _prosopon_ of the Father - accomplished its work in the giving of the law, it fell back into - its original condition; advancing again through the incarnation - as Son, it returns by the ascension into the absolute being of - the Monas; it reveals itself finally as the Holy Spirit to return - again, after securing the perfect sanctification of the church, - into the Monas that knows no distinctions, there to abide through - all eternity. This process is characterized by Sabellius as - an expansion (ἔκτασις) and contraction (συστολή). By way of - illustration he uses the figure of the sun ὄντος μὲν ἐν μίᾳ - ὑποστάσει, τρεῖς δὲ ἔχοντος τὰς ἐνεργείας, namely τὸ τῆς - περιφερείας σχῆμα, τὸ φωτιστικὸν καὶ τὸ θάλπον.--At a Synod of - Alexandria in A.D. 261 =Dionysius the Great= (§ 31, 6) entered - the lists against the Sabellianism of the Egyptian bishops, and - with well-intentioned zeal employed subordinationist expressions - in a highly offensive way (ξένον κατ’ οὐσίαν αὐτὸν εἶναι τοῦ - Πατρὸς ὥσπερ ἐστὶν ὁ γεωργὸς πρὸς τὴν ἄμπελον καὶ ὁ ναυπηγὸς πρὸς - τὸ σκάφος,--ὡς ποίημα ὢν οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γέννηται). When bishop - =Dionysius of Rome= (A.D. 259-268) was informed of these - proceedings he condemned his Alexandrian colleague’s modes of - expression at a Synod at Rome in A.D. 262, and issued a tract - (Ἀνατροπή), in which against Sabellius he affirmed hypostasianism - and against the Alexandrians, notwithstanding the suspicion of - Manichæanism that hung about it, the doctrine of the ὁμοουσία - and the eternal generation of the Son. With a beautiful modesty - Dionysius of Alexandria retracted his unhappily chosen phrases - and declared himself in thorough agreement with the Roman - exposition of doctrine. - - § 33.8. =Paul of Samosata.=--In Rome and throughout the West - general dynamical Monarchianism expired with Artemon and his - party. In the East, however, it was revived by Paul of Samosata, - in A.D. 260 bishop of the Græco-Syrian capital Antioch, which, - however, was then under the rule of Queen Zenobia of Palmyra. - Attaching himself to the other dynamists, especially the - Theodotians and Artemonites, he went in many respects beyond them. - Maintaining as they did the unipersonality of God (ἓν πρόσωπον), - he yet admitted a distinction of Father, Son (λόγος) and Spirit - (σοφία) the two last, however, being essentially identical - attributes of the first, and also the distinction of the - λόγος προφορικός from the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος, the one being the - ἐπιστήμη ἀνυπόστατος operative in the prophets, the other the - ἐπ. ἀνυπ. latent in God. Further, while placing like the dynamists - the personality of Christ in His humanity and acknowledging - His supernatural birth from the Holy Spirit by the Virgin, he - conceived of Him, like the modern Socinians, as working the - way upward, ἐκ προκοπῆς τεθεοποιῆσθαι, _i.e._ by reason of His - unique excellence to divine rank and the obtaining of the divine - name.--Between A.D. 264-269 the Syrian bishops held three large - Synods in regard to him at Antioch, to which also many other - famous bishops of the East were invited. The first two were - without result, for he knew how to conceal the heterodox character - of his views. It was only at the third that the presbyter Malchion, - a practised dialectician and formerly a rhetorician, succeeded - in unmasking him at a public disputation. The Synod now declared - him excommunicated and deprived him of his office, and also - transmitted to all the catholic churches, first of all to Rome - and Alexandria, the records of the disputation together with - a complete report in which he was described as a proud, vain, - pompous, covetous and even immoral man (§ 39, 3). Nevertheless - by the favour of the Queen he kept possession of his bishopric, - and holding a high office at the court he exercised not only - spiritual functions but also great civil authority. But when - Zenobia was overcome by Aurelian in A.D. 272, the rest of the - bishops accused him before the pagan emperor, who decided that - the ecclesiastical buildings should be made over to that one - of the contending bishops whom the Christian bishops of Rome - and Italy should recognise. In these conflicts undoubtedly a - national and political antagonism lay behind the dogmatic and - ecclesiastical dispute (§ 31, 9 e).--At the Synod of A.D. 269 - the expression ὁμοούσιος, which since it had been first used by - Sabellius was always regarded with suspicion in church circles, - was dragged into the debate and expressly condemned; and so it is - doubtful whether Paul himself had employed it, or whether, on the - contrary, he wished to charge his opponents with heresy as being - wont to use this term. - - § 33.9. =Chiliasm= or the doctrine of an earthly reign of the - Messiah in the last times full of splendour and glory for His - people arose out of the literal and realistic conception of the - Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament. The adoption of the - period of a thousand years for its duration rested on the idea - that as the world had been created in six days, so, according - to Ps. xc. 4 and 2 Pet. iii. 8, its history would be completed - in six thousand years. Under the oppression of the Roman rule - this notion came to be regarded as a fundamental doctrine of - Jewish faith and hope (Matt. xx. 21; Acts i. 6). The Apocalypse - of St. John was chiefly influential in elaborating the Christian - chiliastic theory. In chap. xx. under the guise of vision the - doctrine is set forth that after the finally victorious conflict - of the present age there will be a first and partial resurrection, - the risen saints shall reign with Christ a thousand years, and - then after another revolt of Satan that is soon suppressed the - present age will be closed in the second universal resurrection, - the judgment of the world and the creation of new heavens and a - new earth. What fantastic notions of the glory of the thousand - years’ reign might be developed from such passages, is seen in - the traditional saying of the Lord given by Papias (_Iren._, - v. 33) about the wonderful fruitfulness of the earth during the - millennium: one vine-stock will bear 10,000 stems (palmites), - each stem will have 10,000 branches (bracchia), each branch - 10,000 twigs (flagella), each twig 10,000 clusters (botrus), each - cluster 10,000 grapes, and every grape will yield 25 measures - of wine; “_et quum eorum apprehenderit aliquis Sanctorum, - alius clamabit: Botrus ego melior sum, me sume, per me Dominum - benedic_!” After the time of Papias Chiliasm became the favourite - doctrine of the Christians who under the severe pressure of - pagan persecution longed for the early return of the Lord. The - Apologists of the 2nd century do indeed pass it over in silence, - but only perhaps because it seemed to them impolitic to give - it a marked prominence in works directly addressed to the pagan - rulers; at least Justin Martyr does not scruple in the _Dialog. - c. Tryph._ addressed to another class of readers to characterize - it as a genuinely orthodox doctrine. Asia Minor was the chief - seat of these views, where, as we have seen (§ 40), Montanism - also in its most fanatical and exaggerated form was elevated - into a fundamental article of the Christian faith. Irenæus - enthusiastically adopted chiliastic views and gave a full though - fairly moderate exposition of them in his great work against the - Gnostics (v. 24-36). Tertullian also championed these notions, - at the same time rejecting many outgrowths of a grossly carnal - nature (_Adv. Marc._, iii. 24, and in a work no longer extant, - _De spe fidelium_). The most vigorous opposition is shown to - Chiliasm by the Alogians, Praxeas the Patripassian and Caius - of Rome, who were also the determined opponents of Montanism. - The last named indeed went so far in his controversial writing - against Proclus the Montanist, as to ascribe the authorship of - the Johannine Apocalypse to the heretic Cerinthus (§ 27, 1). - The Alexandrian spiritualists too, especially Origen (_De Prin._, - ii. 11), were decided opponents of every form of Chiliasm and - explained away the Scripture passages on which it was built by - means of allegorical interpretation. Nevertheless even in Egypt - it had numerous adherents. At their head about the middle of - the 3rd cent. stood the learned bishop Nepos of Arsinoe, whose - Ἔλεγχος τῶν ἀλληγοριστῶν directed against the Alexandrians is no - longer extant. After his death his party under the leadership of - the presbyter Coracion separated from the church of Alexandria, - the bishop Dionysius the Great going down himself expressly - to Arsinoe in order to heal the breach. In a conference of the - leaders of the parties continued for three days he secured the - sincere respect of the dissentients by his counsels, and even - Coracion was induced to make a formal recantation. Dionysius - then wrote for the confirmation of the converts his book: Περὶ - ἐπαγγελιῶν. But not long after, opposition to the spiritualism of - the school of Origen made Methodius, the bishop of Olympus, play - the part of a new herald of Chiliasm, and in the West, Commodian, - Victor of Poitiers, and especially Lactantius, became its zealous - advocates in a particularly materialistic form. Its day, however, - was already past. What tended most to work its complete overthrow - was the course of events under Constantine. Amid the rejoicings - of the national church as a present reality, interest in the - expectation of a future thousand years’ reign was lost. Among - post-Constantine church teachers only Apollinaris the Younger - favoured Chiliasm (§ 47, 5). Jerome indeed, in deference to the - cloud of witnesses from the ancient church, does not venture to - pronounce it heretical, but treats it with scornful ridicule; - and Augustine (_De civ. Dei_), though at an earlier period not - unfavourable to it, sets it aside by showing that the scriptural - representations of the thousand years’ reign are to be understood - as referring to the church obtaining dominion through the - overthrow of the pagan Roman empire, the thousand years being a - period of indefinite duration, and the first resurrection being - interpreted of the reception of saints and martyrs into heaven - as sharers in the glory of Christ.--See Candlish, “The Kingdom of - God.” Edin., 1884. Especially pp. 409-415, “Augustine on the City - of God.” - - - - - IV. CONSTITUTION, WORSHIP, LIFE AND DISCIPLINE.[94] - - - § 34. THE INNER ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH.[95] - - From the beginning of the 2nd cent. the episcopal constitution -was gradually built up, and the superiority of one bishop over the -whole body of the other presbyters (§ 17, 6) won by degrees universal -acceptance. The hierarchical tendency inherent in it gained fresh -impetus from two causes: (1) from the gradual disappearance of the -charismatic endowments which had been continued from the Apostolic -Age far down into post-Apostolic times, and the disposition of -ecclesiastical leaders more and more to monopolise the function -of teaching; and (2) from the reassertion of the idea of a special -priesthood as a divine institution and the adoption of Old Testament -conceptions of church officers. The antithesis of _Ordo_ or κλῆρος -(sc. τοῦ θεοῦ) and _Plebs_ or λαός (λαϊκοί) when once expression had -been given to it, tended to become even more marked and exclusive. In -consequence of the successful extension of the churches the functions, -rights and duties of the existing spiritual offices came to be more -precisely determined and for the discharge of lower ecclesiastical -service new offices were created. Thus arose the partition of the -clergy into _Ordines majores_ and _Ordines minores_. As it was in the -provincial capital that common councils were held, which were convened, -at first in consequence of the requirements of the hour, afterwards as -regular institutions (Provincial Synods), the bishop of the particular -capital assumed the president’s chair. Among the metropolitans -pre-eminence was claimed by churches founded by Apostles (_sedes -apostolicæ_), especially those of Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, -Ephesus and Corinth. To the idea of the =unity and catholicity of -the church=, which was maintained and set forth with ever increasing -decision, was added the idea of the Apostle Peter being the single -individual representative of the church. This latter notion was founded -on the misunderstood word of the Lord, Matt. xvi. 18, 19. Rome, as the -capital of the world, where Peter and Paul suffered death as martyrs -(§ 16, 1), arrogated to itself the name of _Chair_ (Cathedra) _of Peter_ -and transferred the idea of the individual representation of the church -to its bishops as the supposed successors of Peter. - - § 34.1. =The Continuation of Charismatic Endowments into - Post-Apostolic Times= has, by means of the Apostolic Didache - recently rendered accessible to us (§ 30, 7), not only received - new confirmation, but their place in the church and their relation - to it has been put in a far clearer light. In essential agreement - with 1 Cor. xii. 28, and Eph. iv. 11 (§ 17, 5), it presents to - us the three offices of Apostle, Prophet and Teacher. The Pastors - and Teachers of the Epistle to the Ephesians, as well as of - the passage from Corinthians, are grouped together in one; and - the Evangelists, that is, helpers of the Apostles, appear now - after the decease of the original Apostles, as their successors - and heirs of their missionary calling under the same title of - Apostles. Hermas indeed speaks only of Apostles and Teachers; - but he himself appears as a Prophet and so witnesses to the - continuance of that office. The place and task of the three - offices are still the same as described in § 17, 5 from Eph. - iv. 11, 12 and ii. 20. These three were not chosen like the - bishops and deacons by the congregations, but appointment and - qualifications for office were dependent on a divine call, - somewhat like that of Acts xiii. 2-4, or on a charism that had - evidently and admittedly been bestowed on them. They are further - not permanent officials in particular congregations but travel - about in the exercise of their teaching function from church to - church. Prophets and Teachers, however, but not Apostles, might - settle down permanently in a particular church.--In reference - exclusively to the =Apostles= the Didache teaches as follows: - In the case of their visiting an already constituted church - they should stay there at furthest only two days and should - accept provision only for one day’s journey but upon no account - any money (Matt. x. 9, 10). Eusebius too, in his Ch. Hist., - iii. 37, tells that after the death of the twelve the gospel was - successfully spread abroad in all lands by means of itinerating - Apostolic men, whom he designates, however, by the old name of - evangelists, and praises them for having according to the command - of the Lord (Matt. x. and Luke x.) parted their possessions among - the poor, and having adhered strictly to the rule of everywhere - laying only the foundations of the faith and leaving the further - care of what they had planted to the settled pastors.--The - Didache assigns the second place to the =Prophets=: they too, - inasmuch as like the Apostles they are itinerants, are without - a fixed residence; but they are distinguished from the latter by - having their teaching functions directed not to the founding of - a church but only to its edification, and in this respect they - are related to the Teachers. Their distinguishing characteristic, - however, is the possession of the charism of prophesying in the - wider sense, whereas the Teachers’ charism consisted in the λόγος - σοφίας and the λόγος γνώσεως (§ 17, 1). When they enter into a - church as ἐν πνεύματι λαλοῦντες, that church may not, according - to the Didache, in direct opposition to 1 Thess. v. 21; 1 Cor. - xii. 10; xiv. 29; 1 John iv. 1, exercise the right of trying - their doctrine, for that would be to commit the sin against the - Holy Ghost who speaks through them, but the church may inquire - of their life, and thus distinguish true prophets from the - false. If they wish to settle down in a particular church, that - church should make provision for their adequate maintenance by - surrendering to them, after the pattern of the Mosaic law, all - firstlings of cattle, and first fruits of grain and oil and wine, - and also the first portion of their other possessions, “for they - are your high priests.” This phrase means either, that for them - they are with their prophetic gift what the high priests of the - old covenant with their Urim and Thummim were to ancient Israel, - or, as Harnack understands it on the basis of chap. x. 7: τοῖς - προφήταις ἐπιτρέπετε εὐχαριστεῖν ὅσα θέλουσιν, while ordinary - ministers had to confine themselves to the usual formularies, - that they were pre-eminently entrusted with the administration of - the Lord’s Supper which was the crowning part of the worship. If, - however, there were no Prophets present, these first fruits were - to be distributed among the poor.--The rank also of =Teachers= - (διδάσκαλοι, Doctores) is still essentially the same as described - in § 17, 5. As their constant association with the Apostles - and Prophets would lead us to expect, they also were properly - itinerant teachers, who like the Prophets had to minister to - the establishment of existing churches in the Christian life, - in faith and in hope. But when they settled down in a particular - church, whether in consequence of that church’s special needs, or - with its approval in accordance with their own wish, that church - had to provide for their maintenance according to the principle - that the labourer is worthy of his reward. The author of the - Didache, as appears from the whole tenor of his book, was himself - such a teacher. Hermas, who at the same time makes no mention of - the Prophets, speaks only twice and that quite incidentally of - the Teachers, without indicating particularly their duties and - privileges.--The continuance of those three extraordinary offices - down to the end of the 2nd cent. was of the utmost importance. - The numerous churches scattered throughout all lands had not - as yet a firmly established New Testament Canon nor any one - general symbol in the form of a confession of faith, and so - were without any outward bond of union: but these Teachers, by - means of their itinerant mode of life and their authoritative - position, which was for the first time clearly demonstrated by - Harnack, contributed powerfully to the development of the idea - of ecclesiastical unity. According to Harnack, the composition - of the so-called Catholic Epistles and similar early Christian - literature is to be assigned to them, and in this way he would - account for the Apostolic features which are discoverable - in these writings. He would not, however, attribute to them - the fiction of claiming for their works an Apostolic origin, - but supposes that the subsequently added superscriptions - and the author’s name in the address rest upon an erroneous - tradition.--The gradual disappearance of charismatic offices was - mainly the result of the endeavour, that became more and more - marked during the 2nd cent., after the adoption of current social - usages and institutions, which necessarily led to a repression - of the enthusiastic spirit out of which those offices had sprung - and which could scarcely reconcile itself with what seemed - to it worldly compromises and concessions. The fanatical and - eccentric pretension to prophetic gifts in Montanism, with its - uncompromising rigour (§ 40) and its withdrawal from church - fellowship, gave to these charismatic offices their deadly blow. - A further cause of their gradual decay may certainly be found in - their relation to the growing episcopal hierarchy. At the time of - the Didache, which knows nothing of a subordination of presbyters - under the bishop (indeed like Phil. i. 1, it makes no mention - of presbyters), this relation was one of thoroughly harmonious - co-ordination and co-operation. In the 13th chap. the exhortation - is given to choose only faithful and approved men as bishops - and deacons, “for they too discharge for you τὴν λειτουργίαν τῶν - προφητῶν καὶ διδασκάλων and so they represent along with those - the τετιμημένοι among you.” The service of prophets, according - to the Didache, was pre-eminently that of the ἀρχιερεῖς and so - there was entrusted to them the consecration of the elements - in the Lord’s Supper. This service the bishops and deacons - discharged, inasmuch as, in addition to their own special duties - as presidents of the congregation charged with its administration - and discipline, they were required in the absence of prophets - to conduct the worship. Then also they had to officiate as - Teachers (1 Tim. v. 17) when occasion required and the necessary - qualifications were possessed. But this peaceful co-operating - of the two orders undoubtedly soon and often gave place to - unseemly rivalry, and the hierarchical spirit obtruding itself - in the _Protepiscopate_ (§ 17, 6), which first of all reduced - its colleagues from their original equality to a position of - subordination soon asserted itself over against the extraordinary - offices which had held a place co-ordinate with and in the - department of doctrine and worship even more authoritative and - important than that of the bishops themselves. They were only too - readily successful in having their usurpation of their offices - recognised as bearing the authority of a divine appointment. - These soon completed the theory of the hierarchical and - monarchical rank of the clergy and the absurd pretension to - having obtained from God the absolute fulness of His Spirit and - absolute sovereign power. - - § 34.2. =The Development of the Episcopal Hierarchy= was the - result of an evolution which in existing circumstances was not - only natural but almost necessary. In the deliberations and - consultations of the college of presbyters constituting the - ecclesiastical court, just as in every other such assembly, it - must have been the invariable custom to confer upon one of their - number, generally the eldest, or at least the one among them most - highly esteemed, the presidency, committing to him the duty of - the orderly conduct of the debates, as well as the formulating, - publishing and enforcing of their decrees. This president must - soon have won the pre-eminent authority of a _primus inter pares_, - and have come to be regarded as an ἐπίσκοπος of higher rank. - From such a primacy to supremacy, and from that to a monarchical - position, the progress was natural and easy. In proportion as the - official authority, the ἐπισκοπή, concentrated itself more and - more in the president, the official title, ἐπίσκοπος, at first by - way of eminence, then absolutely, was appropriated to him. This - would be all the more easily effected since, owing to the twofold - function of the office (§ 17, 5, 6), he who presided in the - administrative council still bore the title of πρεσβύτερος. It - was not accomplished, however, without a long continued struggle - on the part of the presbyters who were relegated to a subordinate - rank, which occasioned keen party contentions and divisions - lasting down even into the 3rd century (§ 41). But the need of - the churches to have in each one man to direct and control was - mightier than this opposition. That need was most keenly felt - when the church was threatened with division and dissolution - by the spread of heretical and separatist tendencies. The need - of a single president in the local churches was specially felt - in times of violent persecution, and still more just after the - persecution had ceased when multitudes who had fallen away during - the days of trial sought to be again restored to the membership - of the church (§ 39, 2), in order to secure the reorganization - of the institution which, by violence from without and weakness - within, had been so sorely rent. Both in the Old and in the New - Testament there seemed ground for regarding the order of things - that had grown up in the course of time as _jure divino_ and - as existing from the beginning. After the idea of a distinct - sacerdotal class had again found favour, the distribution of - the clergy in the Old Testament into High priest, priests and - Levites was supposed to afford an exact analogy to that of - the episcopate, presbyterate and diaconate. To effect this the - charismatic offices of teaching had to be ignored and their - divinely ordained functions had to be set aside. It was even - supposed that the relative ranks in the offices of the Christian - church must be determined by the corresponding orders in the Old - Testament. Then in the gospels, it seemed as if the relations of - Christ to His disciples corresponded to that of the bishop to the - presbyters; and from the Acts of the Apostles the preponderating - authority of James at the head of the Jerusalem presbytery or - eldership (§ 17, 2) might be used as a witness for the supremacy - of the bishop. The oldest and most important contender for the - monarchical rank of the bishop is the author of the _Ignatian - Epistles_ (§ 30, 5). In every bishop he sees the representative - of Christ, and in the college of presbyters the representatives - of the Apostles. In the _Clementines_ too the bishop appears - as ἐπὶ τῆς Χριστοῦ καθέδρας καθεσθείς. This view also finds - expression in the _Apostolic Constitutions_ (2, 26), and even in - the writings of _Dionysius the Areopagite_ (§ 47, 11). Another - theory, according to which the bishops are successors of the - Apostles and as such heirs of the absolute dominion conferred in - Matt. xiv. 18, 19 upon Peter and through him on all the Apostles, - sprang up in the West and gained currency by means of Cyprian’s - eloquent enunciation of it (§ 34, 7). - - § 34.3. =The Regular Ecclesiastical Offices of the Old Catholic - Age.= The =Ordines Majores= embraced the Bishops, Presbyters - and Deacons. Upon the =Bishop=, elected by the people and the - clergy in common, there devolved in his monarchical position the - supreme conduct of all the affairs of the church. The exclusively - episcopal privileges were these: the ordination of presbyters - and deacons, the absolving of the penitent, according to strict - rule also the consecration of the eucharistic elements, in later - times also the right of speaking at Synods, and in the West also - the confirmation of the baptised. In large cities where a single - church was no longer sufficient daughter churches were instituted. - Country churches founded outside of the cities were supplied - with presbyters and deacons from the city. If they increased - in importance, they chose for themselves their own bishop, who - remained, however, as Χωρεπίσκοπος dependent upon the city bishop. - Thus distinctly official episcopal dioceses came to be formed. - And just as the city bishops had a pre-eminence over the country - bishops, so also the bishops of the chief cities of provinces - soon came as metropolitans to have a pre-eminence over those - of other cities. To them was granted the right of calling and - presiding at the Synods, and of appointing and ordaining the - bishops of their province. The name Metropolitan, however, was - first used in the Acts of the Council of Nicæa in A.D. 325.--The - =Presbyters= were now only the advisers and assistants of the - bishop, whose counsel and help he accepted just in such ways and - at such times as seemed to him good. They were employed in the - directing of the affairs of the church, in the administration of - the sacrament, in preaching and in pastoral work, but only at the - bidding or with the express permission of the bishop. During the - following period for the first time, when demands had multiplied, - and the episcopal authority was no longer in need of being - jealously guarded, were their functions enlarged to embrace - an independent pastoral care, preaching and dispensation of the - sacraments for which they were personally responsible.--In regard - to official position the =Deacons= had a career just the converse - of this; for their importance increased just as the range - of their official functions was enlarged. Seeing that in the - earliest times they had occupied a position subordinate to the - presbyter-bishops, they could not be regarded in this way as - their rivals; and the development of the proto-presbyterate into - a monarchical episcopate was too evidently in their own interests - to awaken any opposition on their part. They therefore stood in a - far closer relation to the bishops than did the presbyters. They - were his confidants, his companions in travel, often also his - deputies and representatives at the Synods. To them he committed - the distribution of the church’s alms, for which their original - charge of the poor qualified them. To these duties were added - also many of the parts of divine service; they baptised under the - commission of the bishop, obtained and prepared the sacramental - elements, handed round the cup, at the close of the service - carried to the sick and imprisoned the body and blood of the Lord, - intimated the beginning and the close of the various parts of - divine service, recited the public prayers, read the gospels, and - kept order during worship. Often, too, they preached the sermon. - In consequence of the preponderating position given to the Old - Testament idea of the priesthood the bishop was compared to the - high priest, the presbyters to the priests, and the deacons to - the Levites, and so too did they already assume the name, from - which the German word “Priester,” English “Priest,” French - “Prêtre,” Italian “Prête,” is derived. - - Among the =Ordines Minores= the oldest was the office of =Reader=, - Ἀναγνώστης. In the time of Cyprian this place was heartily - accorded to the Confessors. In later times it was usual to begin - the clerical career with service in the readership. The duties - of this office were the public reading of the longer scripture - portions and the custody of the sacred books. Somewhat later than - the readership the office of the =Subdiaconi=, ὑποδιάκονοι was - instituted. They were assistants to the Deacons, and as such - took first rank among the _Ordines Minores_, and of these were - alone regarded as worthy of ordination. Toward the end of the 3rd - century the office of the =Cantores=, ψαλταί, was instituted for - the conducting of the public service of praise. The =Acolytes=, - who are met with in Rome first about the middle of the 3rd - century, were those who accompanied the bishop as his servants. - The =Exorcists= discharged the spiritual function of dealing with - those possessed of evil spirits, ἐνεργούμενοι, δαιμονιζόμενοι, - over whom they had to repeat the public prayers and the formula - of exorcism. As there was also an exorcism associated with - baptism, the official functions of the exorcists extended to - the catechumens. The =Ostiarii= or =Janitores=, θυρωροί, πυλωροί, - occupied the lowest position.--In the larger churches for the - instruction of the catechumens there were special =Catechists= - appointed, _Doctores audientium_, and where the need was - felt, especially in the churches of North Africa speaking - the Punic tongue, there were also =Interpreters= whose duty - it was to translate and interpret the scripture lessons. To - the =Deaconesses=, for the most part widows or virgins, was - committed the care of the poor and sick, the counselling of - inexperienced women and maidens, the general oversight of - the female catechumens. They had no clerical character.--The - =Ordination= of the clergy was performed by the laying on - of hands. Those were disqualified who had just recently been - baptised or had received baptism only during severe illness - (_Neophyti_, _Clinici_), also all who had been excommunicated - and those who had mutilated themselves.--Continuation, § 45, 3. - - § 34.4. =Clergy and Laity.=--The idea that a priestly mediation - between sinful men and a gracious deity was necessary had been so - deeply implanted in the religious consciousness of pre-Christian - antiquity, pagan as well as Jewish, that a form of public worship - without a priesthood seemed almost as inconceivable as a religion - without a god. And even though the inspired writings of the New - Testament decidedly and expressly taught that the pre-Christian - or Old Testament institution of a special human priesthood - had been abolished and merged in the one eternal mediation - of the exalted Son of God and Son of man, and that there was - now a universal spiritual priesthood of all Christians with - the right and privilege of drawing near even to the heavenly - throne of grace (Heb. iv. 16; 1 Pet. ii. 5, 9; Rev. i. 6), yet, - in consequence of the idea of the permanence of Old Testament - institutions which prevailed, even in the Post-Apostolic Age, - the sacerdotal theory came more and more into favour. This - relapse to the Old Testament standpoint was moreover rendered - almost inevitable by the contemporary metamorphosis of the - ecclesiastical office which existed as the necessary basis of - human organisation (§ 17, 4) into a hierarchical organisation - resting upon an assumed divine institution. For clericalism, - with its claims to be the sole divinely authorised channel for - the communication of God’s grace, was the correlate and the - indispensable support of hierarchism, with its exclusive claims - to legislative, judicial, disciplinary and administrative - precedence in the affairs of the church. The reaction which - Montanism (§ 40) initiated in the interests of the Christian - people against the hierarchical and clerical tendencies spreading - throughout the church, was without result owing to its extreme - extravagance. Tertullian emphasised indeed very strongly the - Apostolic idea of the universal priesthood of all Christians, but - in Cyprian this is allowed to fall quite behind the priesthood - of the clergy and ultimately came to be quite forgotten.--The Old - Catholic Age, however, shows many reminiscences of the original - relation of the congregation to the ecclesiastical officers, - or as it would now be called, of the laity to the clergy. That - the official teaching of religion and preaching in the public - assemblies of the church, although as a rule undertaken by the - _Ordines majores_, might even then in special circumstances and - with due authorisation be discharged by laymen, was shown by - the Catechetical institution at Alexandria and by the case - of Origen who when only a Catechist often preached in the - church. The Apostolic Constitutions, too, 8, 31, supported the - view that laymen, if only they were skilful in the word and of - irreproachable lives, should preach by a reference to the promise: - “They shall be all taught of God.” The repeated expressions of - disapproval of the administration of the eucharist by laymen - in the Ignatian Epistles presupposes the frequent occurrence - of the practice; Tertullian would allow it in case of necessity, - for “_Ubi tres, ecclesia est, licet laici_.” Likewise in - reference to the administration of baptism he teaches that under - ordinary circumstances _propter ecclesiæ honorem_ it should be - administered only by the bishop and the clergy appointed by him - to the work, _alioquin_ (_e.g._ in times of persecution) _etiam - laicis jus est_. This, too, is the decision of the Council - of Elvira in A.D. 306. The report which Cyprian gives of his - procedure in regard to the vast number of the _Lapsi_ of his time - (§ 39, 2; 41, 2) affords evidence that at least in extraordinary - and specially difficult cases of discipline the whole church was - consulted. The people’s right to take part in the choice of their - minister had not yet been questioned, and their assistance at - least in the Synods was never refused. - - § 34.5. =The Synods.=--The Council of Apostles at Jerusalem - (Acts xv.) furnished an example of Synodal deliberation and - issuing of decrees. But even in the pagan world such institutions - had existed. The old religio-political confederacies in Greece - and Asia Minor had indeed since the time of the Roman conquest - lost their political significance; but their long accustomed - assemblies (κοιναὶ σύνοδοι, _Concilia_) continued to meet in - the capitals of the provinces under the presidency of the Roman - governor. The fact that the same nomenclature was adopted seems - to show that they were not without formal influence on the - origin of the institution of the church synod. The first occasion - for such meetings was given by the Montanist movements in Asia - Minor (§ 40, 1); and soon thereafter by the controversies about - the observance of Easter (§ 37, 2). In the beginning of the 3rd - century the Provincial Synods had already assumed the position - of fixed and regularly recurring institutions. In the time of - Cyprian, the presbyters and deacons took an active part in the - Synods alongside of the bishops, and the people generally were - not prevented from attending. No decision could be arrived at - without the knowledge and the acquiescence of the members of the - church. From the time of the Nicene Council, in A.D. 325, the - bishops alone had a vote and the presence of the laity was more - and more restricted. The decrees of Synods were communicated - to distant churches by means of Synodal rescripts, and even - in the 3rd century the claim was made in these, in accordance - with Acts xv., to the immediate enlightenment of the Holy - Spirit.--Continuation, § 43, 2. - - § 34.6. =Personal and Epistolary Intercourse.=--From the very - earliest times the Christian churches of all lands maintained - a regular communication with one another through messengers - or itinerating brethren. The _Teaching of the XII. Apostles_ - furnishes the earliest account of this: Any one who comes from - another place in the name of the Lord shall be received as a - brother; one who is on his journey, however, shall not accept the - hospitality of the church for more than two, or at furthest than - three days; but if he chooses to remain in the place, he must - engage in work for his own support, in which matter the church - will help him; if he will not so conduct himself he is to be sent - back as a χριστέμπορος, who has been seeking to make profit out - of his profession of Christ. The Didache knows nothing as yet of - the letters of authentication among the earlier messengers of the - church which soon became necessary and customary. As a guarantee - against the abuse of this custom such συστατικαὶ ἐπιστολαί (2 Cor. - iii. 1) had come into use even in Tertullian’s time, who speaks - of a _Contesseratio hospitalitatis_, in such a form that they - were understood only by the initiated as recognisable tokens of - genuineness, and were hence called _Litteræ formatæ_, or γράμματα - τετυπωμένα. The same care was also taken in respect of important - epistolary communications from one church to another or to other - churches. Among these were included, _e.g._ the Synodal rescripts, - the so-called γράμματα ἐνθρονιστικά by which the newly-chosen - bishops intimated their entrance upon office to the other bishops - of their district, the _Epistolæ festales_ (paschales) regarding - the celebration of a festival, especially the Easter festival - (§ 56, 3), communications about important church occurrences, - especially about martyrdoms (§ 32, 8), etc. According to Optatus - of Mileve (§ 63, 1): “_Totus orbis_” could boast of “_comnmercio - formatarum in una communionis societate concordat_.” - - § 34.7. =The Unity and Catholicity of the Church.=--The fact - that Christianity was destined to be a religion for the world, - which should embrace all peoples and tongues, and should permeate - them all with one spirit and unite them under one heavenly - head, rested upon the presupposition that the church was one and - universal or catholic. The inward unity of the spirit demanded - also a corresponding unity in manifestation. It is specially - evident from the _Teaching of the XII. Apostles_ that the - consciousness of the unity of the church had deeply rooted itself - even in the Post-Apostolic Age (§ 20, 1). “The points which - according to it prove the unity of Christendom are the following: - firstly, the _disciplina_ in accordance with the ethical - requirements of the Lord, secondly, baptism in the name of the - Father, Son and Holy Spirit, thirdly, the order of fasting and - prayer, especially the regular use of the Lord’s Prayer, and - fourthly and lastly, the eucharist, _i.e._ the sacred meal in - partaking of which the church gives thanks to God, the creator of - all things, for the revelation imparted to it through Jesus, for - faith and knowledge and immortality, and implores the fulfilment - of its hope, the overthrow of this world, the coming again of - Christ, and reception into the kingdom of God. He who has this - doctrine and acts in accordance with it is a ‘Christian,’ belongs - to ‘the saints,’ is a ‘brother,’ and ought to be received even - as the Lord” (Harnack). The struggle against the Gnostics had - the effect of transforming this primitive Christian idea of - unity into a consciousness of the necessity of adopting a common - doctrinal formula, which again this controversy rendered much - more definite and precise, to which a concise popular expression - was given in one common _Regula fidei_ (§ 35, 2), and by - means of which the specific idea of catholicity was developed - (§ 20, 2).--The misleading and dangerous thing about this - construction and consolidation of one great Catholic church was - that every deviation from external forms in the constitution and - worship as well as erroneous doctrine, immorality and apostasy, - was regarded as a departing from the one Catholic church, the - body of Christ, and consequently, since not only the body was - put upon the same level with the head, but even the garment of - the body was identified with the body itself, as a separating - from the communion of Christ, involving the loss of salvation - and eternal blessedness. This notion received a powerful - impulse during the 2nd century when the unity of the church - was threatened by heresies, sects and divisions. It reached - its consummation and won the _Magna Charta_ of its perfect - enunciation in Cyprian’s book _De Unitate Ecclesiæ_. In - the monarchical rank of the bishop of each church, as the - representative of Christ, over the college of presbyters, as - representatives of the Apostles, Ignatius of Antioch sees the - guarantee of the church’s unity. According to Cyprian, this unity - has its expression in the Apostolate; in the Episcopate it has - its support. The promise of Christ, Matt. xvi. 18, is given to - Peter, not as the head but as the single representative of the - Apostles (John xx. 21). The Apostolic office, with the promise - attached to it, passed from the Apostles by means of ordination - to the bishops. These, through their monarchical rank, represent - continuously for the several churches (_Ecclesia est in episcopo_), - and through their combined action, for the whole of Christendom, - the unity of the church; _Episcopatus unus est, cujus a singulus - in solidum, pars tenetur_. All the bishops, just as all the - Apostles, have perfect parity with one another; _pares consortio, - jure et honore_. Each of them is a successor of Peter and heir - of the promise given first to Peter but for all.--He who cuts - himself off from the bishops, cuts himself off from the church. - _Habere non potest Deum patrem, qui ecclesiam non habet matrem.... - Extra ecclesiam nulla spes salutis._ Alongside of the Apostolic - writings, the tradition which prevailed among the Apostolic - churches (_Sedes apostolicæ_) was regarded as a standard of - catholicity in constitution, worship and doctrine; indeed, it - must even have ranked above the Apostolic writings themselves - in settling the question of the New Testament Canon (§ 36, 8), - until these had secured general circulation and acceptance. - - § 34.8. =The Roman Primacy.=--The claims of the Roman bishopric - to the primacy over the whole church, which reached its fuller - development in the 4th and 5th centuries (§ 46, 7), were founded - originally and chiefly on the assertion that the promise of - Matt. xvi. 18, 19, was given only and exclusively to the Apostle - Peter as the Primate of the Apostles and the head of the church. - This assumption overlooked the fact that in Matt. xviii. 18 and - John xx. 21 ff., this promise was given with reference to all - the Apostles. These claims were further supposed to be supported - by the words addressed to Peter, “strengthen thy brethren” - (Luke xxii. 31), which seemed to accord to Peter a primacy - over his fellow Apostles; and also by the interpretation given - of John xxi. 15 ff., where “lambs” were understood of laymen - and “sheep” of the Apostles. It was likewise assumed that - the bishop of Rome was the successor of Peter, and so the - legitimate and only heir of all his prerogatives. The fable of - the Roman bishopric of Peter (§ 16, 1) was at an early period - unhesitatingly adopted, all the more because no one expected the - results which in later times were deduced from a quite different - understanding of Matt. xvi. 18. During this whole period such - consequences were never dreamt of either by a Roman bishop or by - anybody else. Only this was readily admitted at least by the West - that Rome was the foremost of all the Apostolic churches, that - there the Apostolic tradition had been preserved in its purest - form, and that, therefore, its bishops should have a particularly - influential voice in all questions that were to be judged of - by the whole episcopate, and the Roman bishops were previously - content with taking advantage of this concession in the largest - measure possible.[96] - - - § 35. THE ADMINISTRATION OF BAPTISM.[97] - - As an indispensable means to participation in salvation and as -a condition of reception into the communion of the church, baptism -was practised from the earliest times. Infant baptism, though not -universally adopted, was yet in theory almost universally admitted to -be proper. Tertullian alone is found opposing it. All adults who desired -baptism had, as Catechumens, to pass through a course of training under -a Christian teacher. Many, however, voluntarily and purposely postponed -their baptism, frequently even to a deathbed, in order that all the -sins of their lives might be certainly removed by baptismal grace. After -a full course of instruction had been passed through, the Catechumens -prepared themselves for baptism by prayer and fasting, and before the -administration of the sacred ordinance they were required to renounce -the devil and all his works (_Abrenuntiare diabolo et pompæ et angelis -ejus_) and to recite a confession of their faith. The controversy as to -whether baptism administered by heretics should be regarded as valid was -conducted with great bitterness during the 3rd century. - - § 35.1. =The Preparation for Receiving Baptism.=--After a - complete exposition of the evangelical moral code in chap. 1-6, - the _Teaching of the XII. Apostles_ proceeds thus: Ταῦτα πάντα - προειπόντες βαπτίσατε εἰς τὸ ὄνομα, etc. At this time, therefore, - besides the necessarily presupposed acquaintance with the chief - points in the gospel history, the initiation into the moral - doctrine of the gospel of the person receiving baptism was - regarded as most essential in the baptismal instruction. In this - passage there is no mention of a doctrinal course of teaching - based upon a symbol. But what here is still wanting is given in - a summary way in chaps. 7 ff. in the instructions about baptism - and the Lord’s supper attached to the baptismal formula and the - eucharistic prayers. This therefore was reserved for that worship - from which the candidates for baptism and the newly baptized had - to gather their faith and hope as to the future completion of the - kingdom of God. First the struggle against Gnosticism obliged the - church to put more to the front the doctrines of faith which were - thereby more fully developed, and to concern itself with these - questions even in the instruction of the Catechumens. The custom, - which the Didache and Justin Martyr show to have been prevalent - in post-Apostolic times, of the baptiser together with others - voluntarily offering themselves taking part with the candidate - for baptism in completing the preparation for the holy ordinance - by observing a two days’ fast, seems soon, so far as the baptiser - and the others were concerned, to have fallen into desuetude, - and is never again mentioned.--Since the development of the - Old Catholic church the preparation of candidates for baptism - has been divided into two portions of very unequal duration, - namely, that of instruction, for which on an average a period - of two years was required, and that of immediate preparation by - prayer and fasting after the instructions had been completed. - During the former period the aspirants were called κατηχοῦμενοι, - _Catechumeni_; during the latter, φωτιζόμενοι, _Competentes_. - As to their participation in the public divine service, the - Catechumens were first of all as ἀκροώμενοι admitted only to the - hearing of the sermon, and had thus no essential privileges over - the unbelievers. They first came into closer connection with - the church only when it was permitted them to take part in - the devotional exercises, yet only in those portions which had - reference to themselves, kneeling as γονυκλίνοντες, while also - the congregation prayed kneeling. Only in cases of dangerous - illness could baptism be given before the Catechumen had - completed his full course (_Baptismus Clinicorum_). The Council - of Neo-Cæsarea soon after A.D. 314 ordained that a Catechumen - who as a γονυκλίνων had been guilty of an open sin, should be - put back to the first stage of the Catechumenate, namely, to that - of the ἀκροᾶσθαι, and if he then again sinned he should be cast - off altogether; and the Œcumenical Council of Nicæa in A.D. 325 - demanded that offending (παραπέσοντες) Catechumens should remain - ἀκροώμενοι for three years and only then should be allowed to - take part in the devotional service of the church.[98] - - § 35.2. =The Baptismal Formula.=--In close connection with the - words of institution of baptism (Matt. xxviii. 19) and hence in - a trinitarian framework, an outline of the doctrine common to all - the churches, introduced first of all as a confession of faith - professed by candidates for baptism, obtained currency at a very - early date. Only a few unimportant modifications were afterwards - made upon it, and amid all the varieties of provincial and local - conditions, the formula remained essentially the same. Hence it - could always be properly characterized with Irenæus as ἀκλινής, - and with Tertullian as _immobilis et irreformabilis_. As a token - of membership in the Catholic church it is called the Baptismal - Formula or =Symbolum=. After the introduction of the _Disciplina - arcani_ (§ 36, 4) it was included in that, and hence was kept - secret from heathens and even from catechumens, and first - communicated to the _competentes_. As the “unalterable and - inflexible” test and standard of the faith and doctrine, as - well as an intellectual bond of union between churches scattered - over all the earth, it was called =Regula fidei= and Κανὼν τῆς - ἀληθείας. That we never find it quoted in the Old Catholic Age, - is to be explained from its inclusion in the _disciplina arcani_ - and by this also, that the ancient church in common with Jeremiah - (xxxi. 33), laid great stress upon its being engraven not with - pen and ink on paper, but with the pen of the Holy Spirit on the - hearts of believers. Instead then of literal quotation we find - among the fathers of the Old Catholic Age (Irenæus, Tertullian, - Origen, Novatian, etc.) only paraphrastic and explanatory - references to it which, seeing that no sort of official sanction - was accorded them in the church, are erroneously spoken of - as _Regulæ fidei_. These paraphrases, however, are valuable - as affording information about the creed of the early church, - because what is found the same in them all must be regarded as an - integral part of the original document. In harmony with this is - the testimony of Rufinus, about A.D. 390, who in his _Expositio - Symb. apost._ produces three different recensions, namely, the - Roman, the Aquileian and the Oriental. The oldest and simplest - was that used in Rome, traces of which may be found as early - as the middle of the 2nd century. In the time of Rufinus there - was a tradition that this Roman creed had been composed by the - XII. Apostles in Jerusalem at the time of their scattering, as - a universal rule of faith, and had been brought to Rome by Peter. - It is not quite the same as that known among us as the =Apostles’ - Creed=. It wants the phrases “Creator of heaven and earth,” - “suffered, dead, descended into hell,” “catholic, communion of - saints, eternal life.” The creed of Aquileia adopted the clause - “_Descendit ad infera_,” and intensified the clause _Carnis - resurrectio_ by the addition of “_hujus_” and the phrase _Deus - pater omnipotens_ by the addition of the anti-Patripassian - predicate (§ 33, 4) _invisibilis et impassibilis_. - - § 35.3. =The Administration of Baptism.=--According to the - showing of the _Teaching of the XII. Apostles_ baptism was - ordinarily administered by a thrice-repeated immersion in flowing - water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. - If there be no flowing water at hand, any other kind, even warm - water, may be used, and in case of necessity sprinkling may be - substituted for the thrice-repeated immersion. At a later time - sprinkling was limited to the baptism of the sick, _Baptismus - clinicorum_. We hear nothing of a consecration of the water to - its holy use, nor is there any mention of the renunciation and - exorcism which became customary first in the 3rd century through - the use of a form of adjuration previously employed only in cases - of possession. Upon immersion followed an anointing, χρίσμα - (still unknown to the Didache), as a symbol of consecration to a - spiritual priesthood (1 Pet. ii. 9), and then, in accordance with - Acts viii. 16 f., the laying on of hands as the vehicle for the - communication of the Holy Spirit. Soon the immersion came to be - regarded as the negative part of the ordinance, the putting away - of sin, and the anointing with the laying on of hands as the - positive part, the communication of the Spirit. In the Eastern - church presbyters and deacons were permitted to dispense baptism - including also the anointing. Both, therefore, continued there - unseparated. In the West, however, the bishops claimed the laying - on of hands as their exclusive right, referring in support of - their claim to Acts viii. Where then the bishop did not himself - dispense the baptism, the laying on of hands as well as the - chrismatic anointing was given separately and in addition by him - as =Confirmation=, _Confirmatio_, _Consignatio_, which separation, - even when the baptism was administered by a bishop, soon became - the usual and legal practice. Nevertheless even in the Roman - church there was at the baptism an anointing with oil which had - canonical sanction and was designated _chrism_, without prejudice - to confirmation as an independent act at a later time. The usual - seasons for administering baptism were Easter, especially the - Sabbath of Passion week, baptism into the death of Christ, - Rom. vi. 3, and Pentecost, and in the East also the Epiphany. - The place for the administration of baptism was regarded as - immaterial. With infant baptism was introduced the custom of - having sponsors, ἀνάδοχοι, _sponsores_, who as sureties repeated - the confession of faith in the name of the unconscious infant - receiving the baptism.--Continuation, § 58, 1. - - § 35.4. =The Doctrine of Baptism.=--The Epistle of Barnabas says: - Ἀναβαίνομεν καρποφοροῦντες ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ. Hermas says: _Ascendunt - vitæ assignati_. With Justin the water of baptism is a ὕδωρ τῆς - ζωῆς, ἐξ οὗ ἀναγεννήθημεν, According to Irenæus it effects a - ἕνωσις πρὸς ἀφθαρσίαν. Tertullian says: _Supervenit spiritus de - cœlis,--caro spiritualiter mundatur_. Cyprian speaks of an _unda - genitalis_, of a _nativitas secunda in novum hominem_. Firmilian - says: _Nativitas, quæ est in baptismo, filios Dei generat_. - Origen calls baptism χαρισμάτων θείων ἀρχὴν καὶ πηγήν.--Of the - bloody baptism of martyrdom Tertullian exclaims: _Lavacrum non - acceptum repræsentat et perditum reddit_. Hermes and Clement of - Alexandria maintain that there will be in Hades a preaching and - a baptism for the sake of pious Gentiles and Jews. - - § 35.5. =The Controversy about Heretics’ Baptism.=--The church of - Asia Minor and Africa denied the validity of baptism administered - by heretics; but the Roman church received heretics returning to - the fold of the Catholic church, if only they had been baptized - in the name of Christ or of the Holy Trinity, without a second - baptism, simply laying on the hands as in the case of penitents. - Stephen of Rome would tolerate no other than the Roman custom and - hastened to break off church fellowship with those of Asia Minor - (A.D. 253). Cyprian of Carthage whose ideal of the unity of that - church in which alone salvation was to be obtained seemed to be - overthrown by the Roman practice, and Firmilian of Cæsarea in - Cappadocia, were the most vigorous supporters of the view - condemned by Rome. Three Carthaginian Synods, the last and most - important in A.D. 256, decided unequivocally in their favour. - Dionysius of Alexandria sought to effect a reconciliation by - writing a tenderly affectionate address to Stephen. To this end - even more effectively wrought the Valerian persecution, which - soon afterwards broke out, during which Stephen himself suffered - martyrdom (A.D. 257). Thus the controversy reached no conclusion. - The Roman practice, however, continued to receive more and more - acceptance, and was confirmed by the first Œcumenical Council at - Nicæa in A.D. 325, with the exclusion only of the Samosatians (§ - 33, 8); likewise also at the Council at Constantinople in A.D. - 381, with the exclusion of the Montanists (§ 40, 1), the - Eunomians (§ 50, 3) and the Sabellians (§ 33, 7). These - exceptions, therefore, referred mostly to the Unitarian heretics, - the Montanists being excluded on account of their doctrine of the - Paraclete. Augustine’s successful polemic against the Donatists - (§ 63, 1), in his treatise in seven books _De baptismo_ first - overcame all objections hitherto waged against the validity of - baptism administered by heretics derived from the objectivity of - the sacrament, and henceforth all that was required was that it - should be given in the name of the three-one God. - - - § 36. PUBLIC WORSHIP AND ITS VARIOUS PARTS.[99] - - There was a tendency from the 2nd century onwards more and more to -dissolve the connection of the Lord’s Supper with the evening _Agape_ -(§ 17, 7). Trajan’s strict prohibition of secret societies, _hetæræ_ -(§ 22, 2) seems to have given the first occasion for the separation -of these two and for the temporary suppression of the love-feasts. -The Lord’s Supper was now observed during the Sunday forenoon service -and the mode of its observance is described even by Justin Martyr. In -consideration of the requirements of the Catechumens the service was -divided into two parts, a _homiletical_ and a _sacramental_, and from -the latter all unbaptized persons, as well as all under discipline -and those possessed of evil spirits, were excluded. Each part of the -service was regularly closed by a concluding benediction, and in the -West bore the designations respectively of _Missa catechumenorum_ -and _Missa fidelium_, while in the East they were distinguished as -λειτουργία τῶν κατηχουμένων and λειτουργία τῶν πιστῶν. In connection -with this there grew up a notion that the sacramental action had -a mysterious character, _Disciplina arcani_. Owing to the original -connection of the Supper with the Agape it became customary to -provide the elements used in the ordinance from the voluntary gifts -brought by the members of the church, which were called _Oblationes_, -προσφοραί,--a designation which helped to associate the idea of -sacrifice with the observance of the Lord’s Supper. - - § 36.1. =The Agape.=--That in consequence of the imperial - edict against secret societies, at least in Asia Minor, the - much suspected and greatly maligned love-feasts (§ 22) were - temporarily abandoned, appears from the report of Pliny to - the Emperor, according to which the Christians of whom he made - inquiries assured him that they had given up the _mos coeundi - ad capiendum cibum promiscuum_. But in Africa they were still - in use or had been revived in the time of Tertullian, who in his - _Apology_ makes mention very approvingly of them, although at - a later period, after he had joined the Montanists, he lashes - them in his book _De Jejuniis_ with the most stinging sarcasm. - Clement of Alexandria too is aware of flagrant abuses committed - in connection with those feasts. They continued longest to be - observed in connection with the services in commemoration of - the dead and on the festivals of martyrs. The Council of Laodicæa, - about the middle of the 4th century, forbade the holding of these - in the churches and the Second Trullan Council in A.D. 692 renewed - this prohibition. After this we find no further mention of them. - - § 36.2. =The Missa Catechumenorum.=--The reading of scripture - (ἀνάγνωσις, _Lectio_,--comp. § 36, 7) formed the chief exercise - during this part of the service. There was unrestricted liberty - as to the choice of the portions to be read. It was the duty of - the Readers, Ἀναγνώσται, to perform this part of the worship, - but frequently Evangelists on the invitation of the Deacons - would read, and the whole congregation showed their reverence - by standing up. At the close of the reading an expository and - practical address (ὁμιλία, λόγος, _Sermo_, _Tractatus_) was given - by the bishop or in his absence by a presbyter or deacon, or even - by a Catechist, as in the case of Origen, and soon, especially in - the Greek church, this assumed the form of an artistic, rhetorical - discourse. The reading and exposition of God’s word were followed - by the prayers, to which the people gave responses. These were - uttered partly by the bishop, partly by the deacons, and were - extemporary utterances of the heart, though very soon they - assumed a stereotyped form. The congregation responded to each - short sentence of the prayer with Κύριε ἐλέησον. In the fully - developed order of public worship of the 3rd century the prayers - were arranged to correspond to the different parts of the service, - for Catechumens, energumens (possessed), and penitents. After - all these came the common prayer of the church for all sorts of - callings, conditions, and needs in the life of the brethren. - - § 36.3. =The _Missa Fidelium_.=--The centre of this part of the - service was the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. In the time of - Justin Martyr the liturgy connected therewith was very simple. The - brotherly kiss followed the common prayer, then the sacramental - elements were brought in to the ministrant who consecrated - them by the prayer of praise and thanksgiving (εὐχαριστία). The - people answered Amen, and thereupon the consecrated elements - were distributed to all those present. From that prayer the whole - ordinance received the name εὐχαριστία, because its consecrating - influence made common bread into the bread of the Supper. Much - more elaborate is the liturgy in the 8th Book of the _Apostolic - Constitutions_ (§ 43, 4), which may be regarded as a fair sample - of the worship of the church toward the end of the 3rd century. - At the close of the sermon during the prayers connected with - that part of the service began the withdrawal successively of - the Catechumens, the energumens and the penitents. Then the _Missa - fidelium_ was commenced with the common intercessory prayer of - the church. After various collects and responses there followed - the brotherly kiss, exhortation against participation in unworthy - pleasures, preparation of the sacramental elements, the sign of - the cross, the consecration prayer, the words of institution, the - elevation of the consecrated elements, all accompanied by suitable - prayers, hymns, doxologies and responses. The bishop or presbyter - distributed the bread with the words, Σῶμα Χριστοῦ; the deacon - passed round the cup with the words, Αἷμα Χριστοῦ, ποτήριον ζωῆς. - Finally the congregation kneeling received the blessing of the - bishop, and the deacon dismissed them with the words, Ἀπολύεσθε - ἐν εἰρήνῃ.--The bread was that commonly used, _i.e._, leavened - bread (κοινὸς ἄρτος); the wine also was, according to the custom - of time, mixed with water (κρᾶμα), in which Cyprian already - fancied a symbol of the union of Christ and the church. In the - African and Eastern churches, founding on John vi. 53, children, - of course, those who had already been baptised, were allowed to - partake of the communion. At the close of the service the deacons - carried the consecrated sacramental elements to the sick and - imprisoned. In many places a portion of the consecrated bread - was taken home, that the family might use it at morning prayer - for the consecration of the new day. No formal act of confession - preceded the communion. The need of such an act in consequence - of the existing disciplinary and liturgical ordinance had not yet - made itself felt. - - § 36.4. =The Disciplina Arcani.=--The notion that the - sacramental part of the divine service, including in this - the prayers and hymns connected therewith, the Lord’s prayer, - administration of baptism and the baptismal formula, as well as - the anointing and the consecration of the priest, was a _mystery_ - (μυστικὴ λατρεία, τελετή) which was to be kept secret from all - unbaptised persons (ἀμύητοι) and only to be practised in presence - of the baptised (συμμύσται), is quite unknown to Justin Martyr - and also to Irenæus. Justin accordingly describes in his Apology, - expressly intended for the heathen, in full detail and without - hesitation, all the parts of the eucharistic service. It was in - Tertullian’s time that this notion originated, and it had its - roots in the catechumenate and the consequent partition of the - service into two parts, from the second of which the unbaptised - were excluded. The official Roman Catholic theology, on the other - hand, regards the _disciplina arcani_ as an institution existing - from the times of the Apostles, and from it accounts for the want - of patristic support to certain specifically Roman Catholic dogmas - and forms of worship, in order that they may, in spite of the - want of such support, maintain that these had a place in primitive - Christianity. - - § 36.5. =The Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.=--Though the idea - was not sharply and clearly defined, there was yet a widespread - and profound conviction that the Lord’s Supper was a supremely - holy mystery, spiritual food indispensable to eternal life, - that the body and blood of the Lord entered into some mystical - connection with the bread and wine, and placed the believing - partaker of them in true and essential fellowship with Christ. - It was in consequence of the adoption of such modes of expression - that the pagan calumnies about _Thyestian feasts_ (§ 22) first - gained currency. Ignatius calls the Lord’s Supper a φάρμακον - ἀθανασίας, the cup a ποτήριον εἰς ἕνωσιν τοῦ αἵματος Χριστοῦ, - and professes εὐχαριστίαν σάρκα εἶναι τοῦ σωτῆρος. Justin Martyr - says: σάρκα καὶ αἷμα ἐδιδάχθημεν εἶναι. According to Irenæus, - it is not _communis panis, sed eucharistia ex duabus rebus - constans, terrena et cœlesti_, and our bodies by means of its - use become _jam non corruptibilia, spem resurrectionis habentia_. - Tertullian and Cyprian, too, stoutly maintain this doctrine, but - incline sometimes to a more symbolical interpretation of it. The - spiritualistic Alexandrians, Clement and Origen, consider that - the feeding of the soul with the divine word is the purpose of - the Lord’s Supper.[100]--Continuation § 58, 2. - - § 36.6. =The Sacrificial Theory.=--When once the sacerdotal - theory had gained the ascendancy (§ 34, 4) the correlated notion - of a sacrifice could not much longer be kept in the background. - And it was just in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper that the - most specious grounds for such a theory were to be found. First - of all the prayer, which formed so important a part of this - celebration that the whole service came to be called from it the - Eucharist, might be regarded as a spiritual sacrifice. Then again - the gifts brought by the congregation for the dispensation of the - sacrament were called προσφοραί, _Oblationes_, names which were - already in familiar use in connection with sacrificial worship. - And just as the congregation offered their contributions to the - Supper, so also the priests offered them anew in the sacramental - action, and also to this priestly act was given the name - προσφέρειν, ἀναφέρειν. Then again, not only the prayer but the - Supper itself was designated a θυσία, _Sacrificium_, though at - first indeed in a non-literal, figurative sense.--Continuation - § 58, 3. - - § 36.7. =The Use of Scripture.=--In consequence of their - possessing but few portions of Scripture, the references of the - Apostolic Fathers to the New Testament books must necessarily be - only occasional. The synoptic gospels are most frequently quoted, - though these are referred to only as a whole under the name τὸ - εὐαγγέλιον. In Justin Martyr the references become more frequent, - yet even here there are no express citation of passages; only - once, in the Dialogue, is the Revelation of John named. He - mentions as his special source for the life and works of Jesus - the Ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων. What he borrows from this - source is for the most part to be found in our Synoptic Gospels; - but we have not in this sufficient ground for identifying the one - with the other. On the contrary, we find that the citations of our - Lord’s words do not correspond to the text of our gospels, but are - sometimes rather in verbal agreement with the Apocryphal writings, - and still further, that he adopts Apocryphal accounts of the life - of Jesus, _e.g._, the birth of Christ in a cave, the coming of - the Magi from Arabia, the legend that Jesus as a carpenter made - ploughs and yokes, etc., borrowing them from the Ἀπομνημονεύματα - τῶν ἀποστόλων. If one further considers Justin’s account of the - Sunday service as consisting of the reading of the Ἀπομνημονεύματα - or the writings of the Prophets, and thereafter closed by the - expository and hortatory address of the president (προεστώς), he - will be led to the conclusion that his “Apostolic Memoirs” must - have been a Gospel Harmony for church use, probably on the basis - of Matthew’s Gospel drawn from our Synoptic Gospels, with the - addition of some apocryphal and traditional elements. The author - of the Didache too does not construct his “commands of the Lord - communicated by the Apostles” directly from our Synoptic Gospels, - but from a εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ κυρίου which presented a text of - Matthew enriched by additions from Luke. The Diatessaron of - Tatian (§ 30, 10) shows that soon after this the gospel of John, - which was not regarded by Justin or the author of the Didache - as a source for the evangelical history, although there are not - wanting in both manifold references to it, came to be regarded - as a work to be read in combination with these. It was only after - a New Testament Canon had been in the Old Catholic Age gradually - established, and from the vast multitude of books on gospel - history, which even Luke had found existing (i. 1) and which - had been multiplied to an almost incalculable extent both in the - interests of heresy and of church doctrine, our four gospels were - universally recognised as alone affording authentic information - of the life and doctrines of the Lord, that the eclectic gospels - hitherto in use had more and more withdrawn from them the favour - of the church. =Tatian’s Diatessaron= maintained its place longest - in the Syrian Church. Theodoret, † A.D. 457, testifies that in his - diocese he had found and caused to be put away about two hundred - copies. Aphraates (about A.D. 340, § 47, 13) still used it as the - text of his homilies. At the time of publication of the _Doctrina - Addæi_ (§ 32, 6) it was still used in the church of Edessa, and - Ephraim Syrus in A.D. 360 refers to a commentary in the form of - scholia on it in an Armenian translation, in which the passages - commented on are literally reproduced, Theodoret’s charge against - it of cutting out passages referring to the descent of Christ - after the flesh from David, especially the genealogies of Matthew - and Luke, is confirmed by these portions thus preserved. Otherwise - however, it is free from heretical alterations, though not wholly - without apocryphal additions. All the four gospels are in brief - summary so skilfully wrought into one another that no joining - is ever visible. What cannot be incorporated is simply left out, - and the whole historical and doctrinal material is distributed - over the one working year of the synoptists. - - § 36.8. =Formation of a New Testament Canon.=--The oldest - collection of a New Testament Canon known to us was made by the - Gnostic _Marcion_ (§ 27, 11) about A.D. 150. Some twenty years - later in the so-called _Muratorian Canon_, a fragment found by - Muratori in the 18th century with a catalogue in corrupt Latin - justifying the reception of the New Testament writings received - in the Roman church. For later times the chief witnesses are - Irenæus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Eusebius. - The Muratorian Canon and Eusebius are witnesses for the fact that - in the 2nd century, besides the Gospels, the Apostolic Epistles - and the Revelation of John, other so-called Apostolic Epistles - were read at worship in the churches, for instance, the _1st - Ep. of Clement of Rome_, _the Ep. of Barnabas_, _the Shepherd - of Hermas_, in some churches also the apocryphal _Apocalypse - of Peter_ and _Acts of Paul_, in Corinth, an Ep. of the Roman - bishop Soter (A.D. 166-174) to that church, and also _Acts of the - Martyrs_. Montanist as well as Gnostic excesses gave occasion for - the definite fixing of the New Testament Canon by the Catholic - church (§ 40). Since the time of Irenæus, the four Gospels, the - Acts, the 13 Epp. of Paul, the Ep. to the Hebrews (which some - in the West did not regard as Pauline), 1st Peter, and 1st John, - along with the Revelation of John, were universally acknowledged. - Eusebius therefore calls these ὁμολογούμενα. There was still some - uncertainty as to the Ep. of James, 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John - and Jude (ἀντιλεγόμενα). The antilegomena of a second class, - which have no claim to canonicity, although in earlier times they - were much used in churches just like the canonical scriptures, - were called by him νόθα, viz. the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of - Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Ep. of Barnabas, and the - Didache. He would also very willingly have included among these - the Revelation of John (§ 33, 9), although he acknowledged - that elsewhere that is included in the Homologoumena.--=The Old - Testament Canon= was naturally regarded as already completed. But - since the Old Testament had come to the Greek and Latin Church - Teachers in the expanded form of the LXX., they had unhesitatingly - assumed that its added books were quite as sacred and as fully - inspired as those of the Hebrew Canon. Melito of Sardis, however, - about A.D. 170, found it desirable to make a journey of research - through Palestine in order to determine the limits of the Jewish - Canon, and then to draw up a list of the Holy Scriptures of the - Old Testament essentially corresponding therewith. Origen too - informs us that the Jews, according to the number of letters in - their alphabet acknowledged only 22 books, which, however, does - not lead him to condemn this reception of the additional books of - the church. From the end of the 2nd century, the Western church - had =Latin Translations= of the biblical books, the origin of - which is to be sought in North Africa, where in consequence - of prevailing ignorance of the Greek language the need of - such translations was most deeply felt. Even so early as the - beginning of the 5th century we find Jerome († 420) complaining - of _varietas_ and _vitiositas_ of the _Codices latini_, and - declaring: _Tot sunt exemplaria_ (=forms of the text) _paene - quot codices_. Augustine[101] gives preference to the _Itala_ - over all others. The name =Itala= is now loosely given to all - fragments of Latin translations previous to that of Jerome.--The - Syriac translation, =the Peshito=, plain or simple (so-called - because it exactly and without paraphrasing renders the words - of the Hebrew and Greek originals) belongs to the 3rd century, - although first expressly referred to by Ephraim. In it 2 Peter, - 2 and 3 John and Jude are not found. - - § 36.9. =The Doctrine of Inspiration.=--In earlier times it - was usual, after the example of Philo, to regard the prophetic - inspiration of the sacred writers as purely passive, as ἔκστασις. - Athenagoras compares the soul of the prophet while prophesying - to a flute; Justin Martyr in his _Cohort. ad Græc._ to a lyre, - struck by the Holy Spirit as the _plectrum_, etc. The Montanist - prophets first brought this theory into disrepute. The Apologist - Miltiades of Asia Minor was the first Church Teacher who - vindicated over against the Montanists the proposition: προφήτην - μὴ δεῖν ἐν ἐκστάσει λαλεῖν. The Alexandrians who even admitted - an operation of the Holy Spirit upon the nobler intellects of - paganism, greatly modified the previously accepted doctrine - of inspiration. Origen, for example, teaches a gradual rising - or falling in the measure of inspiration even in the bible, - and determines this according to the more or less prominence - secured by the human individuality of the writers of scripture. - - § 36.10. =Hymnology.=--The _Carmen Christo quasi Deo dicere - secum invicem_ in the report of Pliny (§ 22, 2), may be classed - with the antiphonal responsive hymns of the church. Tertullian - bears witness to a rich use of song in family as well as - congregational worship. So too does Origen. In the composition - of church hymns the heretics seem for a long while to have kept - abreast of the Catholics (Bardesanes and Harmonius, § 27, 5), - but the latter were thereby stirred up to greater exertions. - The Martyr Athenogenes and the Egyptian bishop Nepos are named - as authors of church hymns. We have still a hymn εἰς Σωτῆρα by - Clement of Alexandria. Socrates ascribes to Ignatius, bishop - of Antioch, the introduction of the alternate-song (between - different congregational choirs). More credible is Theodoret’s - statement that the Antiochean monks Flavian and Diodorus had - imported it, about A.D. 260, from the National Syrian into the - Greek-Syrian church.--Continuation § 59, 4, 5. - - - § 37. FEASTS AND FESTIVAL SEASONS.[102] - - Sunday as a day of joy was distinguished by standing at prayer, -instead of kneeling as at other times, and also by the prohibition -of fasting. Of the other days of the week, Wednesday, the day on -which the Jewish Council decided to put Jesus to death and Judas had -betrayed him, and Friday, as the day of his death, were consecrated -to the memory of Christ’s suffering; hence the _Feria quarta et sexta_ -were celebrated as watch days, _dies stationum_, after the symbolism -of the _Militia christiana_ (Eph. vi. 10-17), by public meetings -of the congregation. As days of the Passion, penitence and fasting -they formed a striking contrast to the Sunday. The chief days of the -Christian festival calendar, which afterwards found richer and more -complete expression in the cycle of the Christian year, were thus -at first associated with the weekly cycle. A long continued and wide -spread controversy as to the proper time for celebrating Easter arose -during the 2nd century. - - § 37.1. =The Festivals of the Christian Year.=--The thought - of Christ’s suffering and death was so powerful and engrossing - that even in the weekly cycle one day had not been sufficient. - Still less could one festal day in the yearly cycle satisfy - the hearts of believers. Hence a long preparation for the - festival was arranged, which was finally fixed at forty days, - and was designated the season _Quadragesima_ (τεσσαρακοστή). Its - conclusion and acme was the so-called Great Week, beginning with - the Sunday of the entrance into Jerusalem, culminating in the day - of the crucifixion, Good Friday, and closing with the day of rest - in the tomb. This Great Week or Passion Week was regarded as the - antitype of the Old Testament Passover feast. The Old Catholic - church did not, however, transfer this name to the festival - of the resurrection (§ 56, 4). The day of the resurrection - was rather regarded as the beginning of a new festival cycle - consecrated to the glorification of the redeemer, viz. the season - of _Quinquagesima_ (πεντηκοστή), concluding with the festival - of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the anniversary of the - founding of the Christian church, which has now come to be known - _par excellence_ as _Pentecost_. The fifty intervening days were - simply days of joy. There was daily communion, no fasting, only - standing and not kneeling at prayer. The fortieth day, the day - of the _Ascension_, had a special pre-eminence as a day of festal - celebrations. The festival of Epiphany on 6th January originated - in the East to celebrate the baptism of Christ in Jordan, as the - manifestation of his Messianic rank. As yet there is nowhere any - trace of the Christmas festival.--Continuation, § 56. - - § 37.2. =The Paschal Controversies.=--During the 2nd century, - there were three different practices prevalent in regard to the - observance of the Paschal festival. The Ebionite Jewish Christians - (§ 28, 1) held the Paschal feast on the 14th Nisan according to - the strict literal interpretation of the Old Testament precepts, - maintaining also that Christ, who according to the synoptists - died on the 15th, observed the Passover with his disciples on - the 14th. Then again the church of Asia Minor followed another - practice which was traced back to the Apostle John. Those of Asia - Minor attached themselves indeed in respect of date to the Jewish - festival, but gave it a Christian meaning. They let the passover - alone, and pronounced the memorial of Christ’s death to be the - principal thing in the festival. According to their view, based - upon the fourth Gospel, Christ died upon the 14th Nisan, so that - He had not during the last year of His life observed a regular - Passover. On the 14th Nisan, therefore, they celebrated their - Paschal festival, ending their fast at the moment of Christ’s - death, three o’clock in the afternoon, and then, instead of the - Jewish Passover, having an Agape with the Lord’s Supper. Those who - adopted either of those two forms were at a later period called - _Quartodecimans_ or _Tessareskaidekatites_. Different from both - of these was a third practice followed in all the West, as also - in Egypt, Palestine, Pontus and Greece, which detached itself - still further from the Jewish Passover. This Western usage - disregarded the day of the month in order to secure the observance - of the great resurrection festival on the first day of the week. - The πάσχα σταυρώσιμον, then, if the 14th did not happen to be a - Friday, was always celebrated on the first Friday after the 14th, - and the Easter festival with the observance of the Lord’s Supper - on the immediately following Sunday. The Westerns regarded the - day of Christ’s death as properly a day of mourning, and only - at the end of the pre-Easter fast on the day of the Resurrection - introduced the celebration of the Agape and the Lord’s Supper. - These divergent practices first awakened attention on the - appearing of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna at Rome in A.D. 155. - The Roman bishop Anicetus referred to the tradition of the Roman - Church; Polycarp laid stress upon the fact that he himself had - celebrated the Paschal festival after the manner followed in - Asia Minor along with the Apostle John. No common agreement was - reached at this time; but, in token of their undisturbed church - fellowship, Anicetus allowed Polycarp to dispense the communion - in his church. Some fifteen years later a party, not distinctly - particularised, obtained at Laodicea in Phrygia sanction for - the Ebionite practice with strict observance of the time of - the Passover, and awakened thereby a lively controversy in the - church of Asia Minor, in which opposite sides were taken by the - Apologists, Apollinaris and Melito (§ 30, 7). The dispute assumed - more serious dimensions about A.D. 196 through the passionate - proceedings of the Roman bishop Victor. Roused probably by the - agitation of a Quartodeciman named Blastus then in Rome, he urged - upon the most distinguished bishops of the East and West the - need of holding a Synod to secure the unequivocal vindication - of the Roman practice. On this account many Synods were held, - which almost invariably gave a favourable verdict. Only those - of Asia Minor with Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus at their head, - entered a vigorous protest against the pretensions of Rome, and - notwithstanding all the Roman threatenings determined to stand - by their own well established custom. Victor now went the length - of breaking off church fellowship with them, but this extreme - procedure met with little favour. Even Irenæus expressed himself - to the Gallican bishops as opposed to it.--Continuation § 56, 3. - - § 37.3. =The Ecclesiastical Institution of Fasting.=--The - Didache gives evidence that even at so early a date, the regular - fasts were religiously observed on the _Dies stationum_ by - expressly forbidding fasting “with hypocrites” (Jews and Jewish - Christians, Luke xviii. 12) on Monday and Thursday, instead of - the Christian practice of so observing Wednesday and Friday. The - usual fast continued as a rule only till three o’clock in the - afternoon (Semijejunia, Acts x. 9, 30; iii. 1). In Passion week - the Saturday night, which, at other times, just like the Sunday, - was excluded from the fasting period, as part of the day during - which Christ lay buried, was included in the forty-hours’ fast, - representing the period during which Christ lay in the grave. - This was afterwards gradually lengthened out into the forty-days’ - fast of Lent (Exod. xxxiv. 28; 1 Kings xix. 8; Matt. iv. 2), in - which, however, the _jejunium_ proper was limited to the _Dies - Stationum_, and for the rest of the days only the ξηροφαγίαι, - first forbidden by the Montanists (§ 40, 4), _i.e._ all fattening - foods, such as flesh, eggs, butter, cheese, milk, etc., were - abstained from.--On fasting preparatory to baptism, see § 35, 1. - The Didache, c. i. 3, adds to the gospel injunction that we should - pray for our persecutors (Matt. v. 44) the further counsel that - we should fast for them. The meaning of the writer seems to be - that we should strengthen our prayers for persecutors by fasting. - Hermas, on the other hand, recommends fasting in order that we may - thereby spare something for the poor; and Origen says that he read - _in quodam libello_ as _ab apostolis dictum: Beatus est, qui etiam - jejunat pro eo ut alat pauperem_. - - - § 38. THE CHURCH BUILDINGS AND THE CATACOMBS. - - The earliest certain traces of special buildings for divine worship -which had been held previously in private houses of Christians are met -with in Tertullian about the end of the 2nd century. In Diocletian’s -time Nicomedia became a royal residence and hard by the emperor’s -palace a beautiful church proudly reared its head (§ 22, 6), and even -in the beginning of the 3rd century Rome had forty churches. We know -little about the form and arrangement of these churches. Tertullian -and Cyprian speak of an altar or table for the preparation of the -Lord’s supper and a desk for the reading, and in the _Apostolic -Constitutions_ it is required that the building should be oblong in -shape. The wide-spread tradition that in times of sore persecution -the worshippers betook themselves to the Catacombs is evidently -inconsistent with the limited space which these afforded. On the -other hand, the painter whose works, by a decree of a Spanish Council -in A.D. 306, were banished from the churches, found here a suitable -place for the practice of sacred art. - - § 38.1. =The Catacombs.=--The Christian burying places were - generally called κοιμητήρια, _Dormitoria_. They were laid out - sometimes in the open fields (_Areæ_), sometimes, where the - district was suitable for that, hewn out in the rock (κρύπται, - crypts). This latter term was, by the middle of the 4th century, - quite interchangeable with the name _Catacumbæ_, (κατὰ κύμβας=in - the caves). The custom of laying the dead in natural or rock-hewn - caves was familiar to pagan antiquity, especially in the East. - But the recesses used for this purpose were only private or family - vaults. Their growth into catacombs or subterranean necropolises - for larger companies bound together by their one religion without - distinctions of rank (Gal. iii. 28), first arose on Christian - soil from a consciousness that their fellowship transcended death - and the grave. For the accomplishment of this difficult and costly - undertaking, Christian burial societies were formed after the - pattern of similar institutions of paganism (§ 17, 3). Specially - numerous and extensive necropolises have been found laid out in - the immediate neighbourhood of Rome. But also in Malta, in Naples, - Syracuse, Palermo, and other cities, this mode of sepulchre - found favour. The Roman catacombs, of which in the hilly district - round about the eternal city fifty-eight have been counted in - fourteen different highways, are almost all laid out in the white - porous tufa stone which is there so abundant, and useful neither - for building nor for mortar. It is thus apparent that these are - neither wrought-out quarries nor gravel pits (_Arenariæ_), but - were set in order from the first as cemeteries. A few _Arenariæ_ - may indeed have been used as catacombs, but then the sides with - the burial niches consist of regularly built walls. The Roman - Catacombs in the tufa stone form labyrinthine, twisting, steep - galleries only 3 or 4 feet broad, with rectangular corners caused - by countless intersections. Their perpendicular sides varied - greatly in height and in them the burial niches, _Loculi_, were - hewn out one above the other, and on the reception of the body - were built up or hermetically sealed with a stone slab bearing - an inscription and a Christian symbol. The wealthy laid their - dead in costly marble sarcophagi or stone coffins ornamented with - bas-reliefs. The walls too and the low-arched roofs were adorned - with symbols and pictures of scripture scenes. From the principal - passages many side paths branched off to so-called burial - chambers, _Cubicula_, which were furnished with shafts opening - up to the surface and affording air and light, _Luminaria_. In - many of these chambers, sometimes even in the passages, instead - of simple _Loculi_ we meet with the so-called _Arcosolium_ as the - more usual form; one or more coffin-shaped grooves hewn out in the - rocky wall are covered with an altar-shaped marble plate, and over - this plate, _Mensa_, is a semicircular niche hewn out spreading - over it in its whole extent. These chambers are often held - in reverence as “catacomb churches,” but they are so small in - size that they could only accommodate a very limited number, - such as might gather perhaps at the commemoration of a martyr or - the members of a single family. And even where two or three such - chambers adjoin one another, connected together by doors and - having a common lighting shaft, accommodating at furthest about - twenty people, they could not be regarded as meeting-places for - public congregations properly so called.--Where the deposit of - tufa stone was sufficiently large, there were several stories - (_Piani_), as many as four or five connected by stairs, laid - out one above the other in galleries and chambers. According to - _de Rossi’s_[103] moderate calculation there have been opened - altogether up to this time so many passages in the catacombs - that if they were put in a line they would form a street of - 120 geographical miles. Their oldest inscriptions or epitaphs date - from the first years of the second century. After the destruction - of Rome by the hordes of Alaric in A.D. 410, the custom of burying - in them almost entirely ceased. Thereafter they were used only - as places of pilgrimage and spots where martyr’s relics were - worshipped. From this time the most of the so-called _Graffiti_, - _i.e._ scribblings of visitors on the walls, consisting of pious - wishes and prayers, had their origin. The marauding expedition of - the Longobard Aistulf into Roman territory in A.D. 756, in which - even the catacombs were stripped of their treasures, led Pope - Paul I. to transfer the relics of all notable martyrs to their - Roman churches and cloisters. Then pilgrimages to the catacombs - ceased, their entrances got blocked up, and the few which in later - times were still accessible, were only sought out by a few novelty - hunting strangers. Thus the whole affair was nigh forgotten until - in A.D. 1578 a new and lively interest was awakened by the chance - opening up again of one of those closed passages. Ant. Bosio from - A.D. 1593 till his death in A.D. 1629, often at the risk of his - life, devoted all his time and energies to their exploration. But - great as his discoveries were, they have been completely outdone - by the researches of the Roman nobleman, Giov. Battista de Rossi, - who, working unweariedly at his task since A.D. 1849 till the - present time, is recognised as the great master of the subject, - although even his investigations are often too much dominated - by Roman Catholic prejudices and by undue regard for traditional - views.[104] - - § 38.2. =The Antiquities of the Catacombs.=--The custom widely - spread in ancient times and originating in piety or superstition - of placing in the tombs the utensils that had been used by - the deceased during life was continued, as the contents of - many burial niches show among the early Christians. Children’s - toys were placed beside them in the grave, and the clothes, - jewels, ornaments, amulets, etc., of grown up people. Quite a - special interest attaches to the so-called Blood Vases, _Phiolæ - rubricatæ_, which have been found in or near many of these niches, - _i.e._ crystal, rarely earthenware, vessels with Christian symbols - figured on a red ground. The _Congregation of rites and relics_ - in A.D. 1668, asserted that they were blood-vessels, in which the - blood of the martyrs had been preserved and stood alongside of - their bones; and the existence of such jars, as well as every - pictorial representation of the palm branch (Rev. vii. 9), - was supposed to afford an indubitable proof that the niches - in question contained the bones of martyrs. But the Reformed - theologian Basnage shows that this assumption is quite untenable, - and he has explained the red ground from the dregs of the red - sacramental wine which may have been placed in the burial niches - as a protection against demoniacal intrusion. Even many good - Roman Catholic archæologists, Mabillon, Papebroch, Tillemont, - Muratori, etc., contest or express doubts as to the decree of the - _Congregation_. At the instigation probably of the Belgian Jesuit - Vict. de Buck, Pius IX. in A.D. 1863 confirmed and renewed the - old decree, and among others, Xav. Kraus has appeared as its - defender. But a great multitude of unquestionable facts contradict - the official decree of the church; _e.g._ the total absence - of any support to this view in tradition, the silence of such - inscriptions as relate to the martyrs, above all the immense - number of these jars, their being found frequently alongside the - bones of children of seven years old, the remarkable frequency - of them in the times of Constantine and his successors which were - free from persecution, the absence of the red dregs in many jars, - etc. Since dregs of wine, owing to their having the vegetable - property of combinableness could scarcely be discernible down - to the present day, it has recently been suggested that the red - colour may have been produced by a mineral-chemical process as - oxide of iron. - - § 38.3. =Pictorial Art and the Catacombs.=--Many of the earliest - Christians may have inherited a certain dislike of the pictorial - arts from Judaism, and may have been confirmed therein by their - abhorrence of the frivolous and godless abuse of art in heathenism. - But this aversion which in a Tertullian grew from a Montanistic - rigorism into a fanatical hatred of art, is never met with as a - constituent characteristic of Christianity. Much rather the great - abundance of paintings on the walls of the Roman and Neapolitan - catacombs, of which many, and these not the meanest, belong - to the 2nd century, some indeed perhaps to the last decades of - the 1st century, serves to show how general and lively was the - artistic sense among the earliest Christians at least in the - larger and wealthier communities. Yet from its circumstances the - Christian church in its appreciation of art was almost necessarily - limited on two sides; for, on the one hand, no paintings were - tolerated in the churches, and on the other hand, even in private - houses and catacombs they were restricted almost exclusively to - symbolico-allegorical or typical representations. The 36th Canon - of the Council of Elvira in A.D. 306 is a witness for the first - statement when it says: _Placuit picturas in ecclesia non esse - debere, ne quod colitur et adoratur in parietibus depingatur_. - The plain words of the Canon forbid any other interpretation - than this: From the churches, as places where public worship is - regularly held, all pictorial representations must be banished, - in order to make certain that in and under them there might not - creep in those images, forbidden in the decalogue, of Him who - is the object of worship and adoration. The Council thus assumed - practically the same standpoint as the Reformed church in the - 16th century did in opposition to the practice of the Roman - Catholic and Lutheran churches. It cannot, however, be maintained - that the Canon of this rigorous Council (§ 45, 2) found general - acceptance and enforcement outside of Spain--Proof of the - second limitation is as convincingly afforded by what we find - in the catacombs. On the positive side, it has its roots in the - fondness which prevailed during these times for the mystical and - allegorical interpretation of scripture; and on the negative side, - in the endeavour, partly in respect for the prohibition of images - contained in the decalogue, partly, and perhaps mainly, in the - interests of the so-called _Disciplina arcani_, fostered under - pressure of persecution, to represent everything that pertained - to the mysteries of the Christian faith as a matter which only - Christians have a right fully to understand. From the prominence - given to the point last referred to it may be explained how - amid the revolution that took place under Constantine the age of - Symbolism and Allegory in the history of Christian art also passed - away, and henceforth painters applied themselves pre-eminently to - realistic historical representations. - - § 38.4. The pictorial and artistic representations of - the pre-Constantine age may be divided into the six following - groups:-- - - a. =Significant Symbols.=--To these belong especially _the - cross_,[105] though, for fear of the reproaches of Jews - and heathens (§ 23, 2), not yet in its own proper form but - only in a form that indicated what was meant, namely in - the form of the Greek Τ, very frequently in later times in - the monogram of the name of Christ, _i.e._ in a variously - constructed combination of its first two letters Χ and Ρ, - while the Χ, as _crux dissimulatæ_, has very often on - either side the letters α and ω. - - b. =Allegorical Figures.=--In the 4th century a particularly - favourite figure was that of the _Fish_, the name of - which, ἰχθύς, formed a highly significant monogrammatic - representation of the sentence, Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς Θεοῦ Υἱὸς - Σωτήρ, and which pointed strikingly to the new birth from - the water of baptism. Then there is the _lamb_ or _sheep_, - as symbol of the soul, which still in this life seeks - after spiritual pastures; and the _dove_ as symbol of - the pious believing soul passing into eternal rest, often - with an _olive branch_ in its mouth (Gen. viii. 11), as - symbol of the eternal peace won. Also we have the _hart_ - (Ps. xlii. 1), the _eagle_ (Ps. ciii. 5), the _chicken_, - symbol of Christian growth, the _peacock_, symbol of - the resurrection on account of the annual renewal of its - beautiful plumage, the _dolphin_, symbol of hastiness - or eagerness in the appropriation of salvation, _the - horse_, symbol of the race unto the goal of eternal life, - _the hare_, as symbol of the Christian working out his - salvation with fear and trembling, _the ship_, with - reference to Noah’s ark as a figure of the church, _the - anchor_ (Heb. vi. 19), _the lyre_ (Eph. v. 19), _the palm - branch_ (Rev. vii. 9), _the garland_ (or crown of life, - Rev. ii. 9), _the lily_ (Matt. vi. 28), _the balances_, - symbol of divine righteousness, _fishes and bread_, - symbol of spiritual nourishment with reference to Christ’s - miracle of feeding in the wilderness, etc. - - c. =Parabolic Figures.=--These are illustrations borrowed from - the parables of the Gospels. To these belong conspicuously - the figure of the _Good Shepherd_, who bears on His - shoulder the lost sheep that He had found (Luke xv. 5), - the _Vine Stock_ (John xv.), the _Sower_ (Matt. xiii. 3), - the _Marriage Feast_ (Matt. xxii.), the _Ten Virgins_ - (Matt. xxv.), etc. - - d. =Historical Pictures of O. T. Types.=--Among these we - have Adam and Eve, the Rivers of Paradise (as types of - the four evangelists), Abel and Cain, Noah in the Ark, the - Sacrifice of Isaac, Scenes from Joseph’s History, Moses at - the Burning Bush, the Passage of the Red Sea, the Falling - of the Manna, the Water out of the Rock, History of Job, - Samson with the Gates of Gaza (the gates of Hell), David’s - Victory over Goliath, Elijah’s Ascension, Scenes from the - History of Jonah and Tobit, Daniel in the Lion’s Den, the - Three Children in the Fiery Furnace, etc. Also typical - material from heathen mythology had a place assigned them, - such as the legends of Hercules, Theseus, and especially - of Orpheus who by his music bewitched the raging elements - and tamed the wild beasts, descended into the lower world - and met his death through the infuriated women of his own - race. - - e. =Figures from the Gospel History.=--These, _e.g._ the - Visit of the Wise Men from the East, and the Resurrection - of Lazarus, are throughout this period still exceedingly - rare. We do not find a single representation of the - Passion of our Lord, nor any of the sufferings of Christian - martyrs. Pictorial representations of the person of Christ, - as a beardless youth with a friendly mild expression, - are met with in the catacombs from the first half of the - 2nd century, but without any claim to supply the likeness - of a portrait, such as might be claimed for the figures of - Christ in the temple of the Carpocratians (§ 27, 8) and in - the Lararium of the Emperor Alexander Severus (§ 22, 4). - Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, in accordance with - the literal interpretation of Isa. liii. 2, 3, thought - that Christ had an unattractive face; the post-Constantine - fathers, on the contrary, resting upon Ps. xlv. 3 and - John i. 14, thought of Him as beautiful and gracious. - - f. =Liturgical Figures.=--These were connected only with the - ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. - - - § 39. LIFE, MANNERS, AND DISCIPLINE.[106] - - When the chaff had been so relentlessly severed from the wheat -by the persecutions of that age, a moral earnestness and a power of -denying the world and self must have been developed, sustained by -the divine power of the gospel and furthered by a strict and rigorous -application of church discipline to the Christian life, such as the -world had never seen before. What most excited and deserved wonder -in the sphere of heathendom, hitherto accustomed only to the reign -of selfishness, was the brotherly love of the Christians, their -systematic care of the poor and sick, the widespread hospitality, -the sanctity of marriage, the delight in martyrdom, etc. Marriages -with Jews, heathens and heretics were disapproved, frequently even the -celebration of a second marriage after the death of the first wife was -disallowed. Public amusements, dances, and theatres were avoided by -Christians as _Pompa diaboli_. They thought of the Christian life, -in accordance with Eph. vi. 10 ff., as _Militia Christi_. But even -in the Post-Apostolic Age we come upon indications of a tendency to -turn from the evangelical spirituality, freedom and simplicity of the -Apostolic Age toward a pseudo-catholic externalism and legalism in the -fundamental views taken of ethical problems, and at the same time and -in the same way in the departments of the church constitution (§ 34), -worship (§ 36) and exposition of doctrine (§ 30, 2). The teachers of -the church do still indeed maintain the necessity of a disposition -corresponding to the outward works, but by an over-estimation of -these they already prepare the way for the doctrine of merit and the -_opus operatum_, _i.e._ the meritoriousness of works in themselves. -Even the _Epistle of Barnabas_ and the _Didache_ reckon almsgiving -as an atonement for sins. Still more conspicuously is this tendency -exhibited by _Cyprian_ (_De Opere et eleemosynis_) and even in -the _Shepherd of Hermas_ (§ 30, 4) we find the beginnings of the -later distinction, based upon 1 Cor. vii. 25, 26; Matt. xxv. 21, and -Luke xviii. 10, between the divine commands, _Mandata_ or _Præcepta_, -which are binding upon all Christians, and the evangelical counsels, -_Consilia evangelica_, the non-performance of which is no sin, but the -doing of which secures a claim to merit and more full divine approval. -Among the Alexandrian theologians, too, under the influence of the -Greek philosophy a very similar idea was developed in the distinction -between higher and lower morality, after the former of which the -Christian sage (ὁ γνωστικός) is required to shine, while the ordinary -Christian may rest satisfied with the latter. On such a basis a -special order of Ascetics very early made its appearance in the -churches. Those who went the length of renouncing the world and -going out into the wilderness were called Anchorets. This order -first assumed considerable dimensions in the 4th century (§ 44). - - § 39.1. =Christian Morals and Manners.=--The Christian spirit - pervaded the domestic and civil life and here formed for itself - a code of Christian morals. It expressed itself in the family - devotions and family communions (§ 36, 3), in putting the sign - of the cross upon all callings in life, in the Christian symbols - (§ 38, 3) with which dwellings, garments, walls, lamps, cups, - glasses, rings, etc. were adorned. As to private worship the - Didache requires without fixing the hours that the head of the - household shall have prayers three times a day (Dan. vi. 30), - meaning probably, as with Origen, morning, noon, and night. - Tertullian specifies the 3rd, 6th, and 9th hours as the hours - of prayer, and distinctly demands a separate morning and evening - prayer.--The concluding of marriage according to the then existing - Roman law had to be formally carried through by the expressed - agreement of the parties in the presence of witnesses, and this - on the part of the church was regarded as valid. The Christian - custom required that there should be a previous making of it - known, _Professio_, to the bishop, and a subsequent going to the - church of the newly married pair in order that, amid the church’s - intercessions and the priestly benediction, a religious sanction - might be given to their marriage covenant, by the oblation - and common participation of the Lord’s Supper at the close of - the public services. Tertullian’s Montanistic rigorism shows - itself in regarding marriages where these are omitted, _occultæ - conjunctiones_, as no better than _mœchia_ and _fornicatio_. The - crowning of the two betrothed ones and the veiling of the bride - were still disallowed as heathenish practices; but the use of the - wedding ring was sanctioned at an early date and had a Christian - significance attached to it. The burning of dead bodies prevalent - among the heathens reminded them of hell fire; the Christians - therefore preferred the Jewish custom of burial and referred in - support to 1 Cor. xv. 36. The day of the deaths of their deceased - members were celebrated in the Christian families by prayer and - oblations in testimony of their fellowship remaining unbroken by - death and the grave.--Continuation § 61, 2, 3. - - § 39.2. =The Penitential Discipline.=--According to the - Apostolic ordinance (§ 17, 8) notorious sinners were excluded - from the fellowship of the church, _Excommunicatio_, and only - after prolonged trial of their penitence, _Exomologesis_, - were they received back again, _Reconciliatio_. In the time - of Cyprian, about A.D. 250, there was already a well defined - order of procedure in this matter of restoring the lapsed which - continued in force until the 5th century. Penance, _Pœnitentia_, - must extend through four stages, each of which according to - circumstances might require one or more years. During the first - stage, the πρόσκλαυσις, _Fletio_, the penitents, standing at - the church doors in mourning dress, made supplication to the - clergy and the congregation for restoration; in the second, - the ἀκρόασις, _Auditio_, they were admitted again to the reading - of the scriptures and the sermon, but still kept in a separate - place; in the third, ὑπόπτωσις, _Substratio_, they were allowed - to kneel at prayer; and finally, in the fourth, σύστασις, - _Consistentia_, they took part again in the whole of the public - services, with the exception of the communion which they were - only allowed to look at standing. Then they received Absolution - and Reconciliation (=_pacem dare_) in presence of the assembled - and acquiescing congregation by the imposition of the hands - of the bishop and the whole of the clergy, together with - the brotherly kiss and the partaking of the communion. This - procedure was directed against open and demonstrable sins - of a serious nature against the two tables of the decalogue, - against so called _deadly sins_, _Peccata_ or _crimina mortalia_, - 1 John v. 16. Excommunication was called forth, on the one - side, against idolatry, blasphemy, apostasy from the faith and - abjuration thereof; on the other, against murder, adultery and - fornication, theft and lying, perfidy and false swearing. Whether - reconciliation was permissible in the case of any mortal sin at - all, and if so, what particular sins might thus be treated, were - questions upon which teachers of the church were much divided - during the 3rd century. But only the Montanists and Novatians - (§§ 40, 41) denied the permissibility utterly and that in - opposition to the prevailing practice of the church, which - refused reconciliation absolutely only in cases of idolatry - and murder, and sometimes also in the case of adultery. - Even Cyprian at first held firmly by the principle that all - mortal sins committed “against God” must be wholly excluded - from the range of penitential discipline, but amid the horrors - of the Decian persecution, which left behind it whole crowds - of fallen ones, _Lapsi_ (§ 22, 5), he was induced by the - passionate entreaties of the church to make the concession that - reconciliation should be granted to the _Libellatici_ after a - full penitential course, but to the _Sacrificati_ only when in - danger of death. All the teachers of the church, however, agree - in holding that it can be granted only once in this life, and - those who again fall away are cut off absolutely. But excessive - strictness in the treatment of the penitents called forth the - contrary extreme of undue laxity (§ 41, 2). The _Confessors_ - frequently used their right of demanding the restoration of the - fallen by means of letters of recommendation, _Libelli pacis_, - to such an extent as to seriously interfere with a wholesome - discipline.[107]--Continuation § 61, 1. - - § 39.3. =Asceticism.=--The Ascetism (_Continentia_, ἐγκρατεία) - of heathenism and Judaism, of Pythagoreanism and Essenism, - resting on dualistic and pseudo-spiritualistic views, is - confronted in Christianity with the proposition: Πάντα ὑμῶν - ἐστιν (1 Cor. iii. 21; vi. 12). Christianity, however, also - recognised the ethical value and relative wholesomeness of a - moderate asceticism in proportion to individual temperament, - needs and circumstances (Matt. ix. 12; 1 Cor. vii. 5-7), without - demanding it or regarding it as something meritorious. This - evangelical moderation we also find still in the 2nd century, - _e.g._ in Ignatius. But very soon a gradual exaggeration becomes - apparent and an ever-advancing over estimation of asceticism as a - higher degree of morality with claims to be considered peculiarly - meritorious. The negative requirements of asceticism are directed - first of all to frequent and rigid fasts and to celibacy or - abstinence from marital intercourse; its positive requirements, - to the exercise of the spiritual life in prayer and meditation. - The most of the =Ascetics=, too, in accordance with Luke xviii. 24, - voluntarily divested themselves of their possessions. The number - of them, men and women, increased, and even in the first half - of the 2nd century, they formed a distinct order in the church, - though they were not yet bound to observe this mode of life by any - irrevocable vows. The idea that the clergy were in a special sense - called to an ascetic life resulted in their being designated the - κλῆρος Θεοῦ. Owing to the interpretation given to 1 Tim. iii. 2, - second marriages were in the 2nd century prohibited among the - clergy, and in the 3rd century it was regarded as improper for - them after ordination to continue marital intercourse. But it was - first at the Council of Elvira, in A.D. 306, that this opinion was - elevated into a law, though it could not even then be rigorously - enforced (§ 45, 2).--The immoral practice of ascetics or clerics - having with them virgins devoted to God’s service as _Sorores_, - ἀδελφαί on the ground of 1 Cor. ix. 5, with whom they were united - in spiritual love, in order to show their superiority to the - temptations of the flesh, seems to have been introduced as early - as the 2nd century. In the middle of the 3rd century it was - already widespread. Cyprian repeatedly inveighs against it. - We learn from him that the so-called _Sorores_ slept with the - Ascetics in one bed and surrendered themselves to the tenderest - caresses. For proof of the purity of their relations they referred - to the examinations of midwives. Among bishops, Paul of Samosata - in Antioch (§ 33, 8) seems to have been the first who favoured - this evil custom by his own example. The popular wit of the - Antiochenes [Antiocheans] invented for the more than doubtful - relationship the name of the γυναίκες συνεισάκτοι, _Subintroductæ_, - _Agapetæ_, _Extreneæ_. Bishops and Councils sent forth strict - decrees against the practice.--The most remarkable among the - celebrated ascetics of the age was =Hieracas=, who lived at - Leontopolis in Egypt toward the end of the 3rd and beginning of - the 4th century and died there when ninety years old. A pupil - of Origen, he was distinguished for great learning, favoured - the allegorical interpretation of Scripture, a spiritualistic - dogmatics and strict asceticism. Besides this he was a physician, - astronomer and writer of hymns, could repeat by heart almost all - the Old and New Testaments, wrote commentaries in Greek and Coptic, - and gathered round him a numerous society of men and women, who - accepted his ascetical principles and heterodox views. Founding - upon Matt. xix. 12; 1 Cor. vii. and Heb. xii. 14, he maintained - that celibacy was the only perfectly sure way to blessedness - and commended this doctrine as the essential advance from the - Old Testament to the New Testament morality. He even denied - salvation to Christian children dying in infancy because they had - not yet fought against sensuality, referring to 2 Tim. ii. 5. Of - a sensible paradise he would hear nothing, and just as little of - a bodily resurrection; for the one he interprets allegorically - and the other spiritually. Epiphanius, to whom we owe any precise - information that we have about him, is the first to assign him - and his followers a place in the list of heretics. - - § 39.4. =Paul of Thebes.=--The withdrawal of particular - ascetics from ascetical motives into the wilderness, which was - a favourite craze for a while, may have been suggested by Old - and New Testament examples, _e.g._ 1 Kings xvii. 3; xix. 4; - Luke i. 80; iv. 1; but it was more frequently the result of sore - persecution. Of a regular professional institution of anchorets - with life-long vows there does not yet appear any authentic trace. - According to Jerome’s _Vita Pauli monachi_ a certain =Paul of - Thebes= in Egypt, about A.D. 250, during the Decian persecution, - betook himself, when sixteen years old, to the wilderness, and - there forgotten by all the world but daily fed by a raven with - half a loaf (1 Kings xvii. 4), he lived for ninety-seven years - in a cave in a rock, until St. Anthony (§ 44, 1), directed - to him by divine revelation and led to him first by a centaur, - half man, half horse, then by a fawn, and finally by a she-wolf, - came upon him happily just when the raven had brought him as - it never did before a whole loaf. He was just in time to be - an eye-witness, not indeed of his death, but rather of his - subsequent ascension into heaven, accompanied by angels, prophets - and apostles, and to arrange for the burial of his mortal remains, - for the reception of which two lions, uttering heart-breaking - groans, dug a grave with their claws. These lions after earnestly - seeking and obtaining a blessing from St. Anthony, returned back - to their lair.--Contemporaries of the author, as indeed he himself - tells, declared that the whole story was a tissue of lies. Church - history, however, until quite recently, has invariably maintained - that there must have been some historical foundation, though it - might be very slight, for such a superstructure. But seeing that - no single writer before Jerome seems to know even the name of Paul - of Thebes and also that the _Vita Antonii_ ascribed to Athanasius - knows nothing at all of such a wonderful expedition of the saint, - Weingarten (§ 44) has denied that there ever existed such a man - as this Paul, and has pronounced the story of Jerome to be a - monkish Robinson Crusoe, such as the popular taste then favoured, - which the author put forth as true history _ad majorem monachatus - gloriam_. We may simply apply to this book itself what Jerome - at a later period confessed about his epistles of that same - date _ad Heliodorum:--sed in illo opere pio ætate tunc lusimus - et celentibus adhuc Rhetorum studiis atque doctrinis quædam - scholastico flore depinximus_. - - § 39.5. =Beginning of Veneration of Martyrs.=--In very early - times a martyr death was prized as a sin-atoning _Lavacrum - sanguinis_, which might even abundantly compensate for the want - of water baptism. The day of the martyr’s death which was - regarded as the day of his birth into a higher life, γενέθλια, - _Natalitia martyrum_, was celebrated at his grave by prayers, - oblations and administration of the Lord’s Supper as a testimony - to the continuance of that fellowship with them in the Lord that - had been begun here below. Their bones were therefore gathered - with the greatest care and solemnly buried; so _e.g._ Polycarp’s - bones at Smyrna (§ 22, 2), as τιμιώτερα λίθων πολυτελῶν καὶ - δωκιμώτερα ὑπὲρ χρυσίον, so that at the spot where they were - laid the brethren might be able to celebrate his γενέθλιον ἐν - ἀγαλλιάσει καὶ χαρᾷ, εἴς τε τῶν προηθληκότων μνήμην καὶ τῶν - μελλόντων τε καὶ ἑτοιμασίαν. Of miracles wrought by means of - the relics, however, we as yet find no mention. The _Graffiti_ - on the walls of the catacombs seem to represent the beginning - of the invocation of martyrs. In these the pious visitors seek - for themselves and those belonging to them an interest in the - martyr’s intercessions. Some of those scribblings may belong - to the end of our period; at least the expression “_Otia petite - pro_,” etc. in one of them seem to point to a time when they - were still undergoing persecution. The greatest reverence, too, - was shown to the _Confessors_ all through their lives, and great - influence was assigned them in regard to all church affairs, - _e.g._ in the election of bishops, the restoration of the fallen, - etc.--Continuation, § 57. - - § 39.6. =Superstition.=--Just as in later times every great - Christian missionary enterprise has seen religious ideas - transferred from the old heathenism into the young Christianity, - and, consciously or unconsciously, secretly or openly, acquiesced - in or contended against, securing for themselves a footing, so - also the Church of the first centuries did not succeed in keeping - itself free from such intrusions. A superstition forcing its - entrance in this way can either be taken over _nude crude_ in its - genuinely pagan form and, in spite of its palpable inconsistency - with the Christian faith, may nevertheless assert itself side - by side with it, or it may divest itself of that old pagan form, - and so unobserved and uncontested gain an entrance with its not - altogether extinguished heathenish spirit into new Christian - views and institutions and thus all the more dangerously make its - way among them. It is especially the magico-theurgical element - present in all heathen religions, which even at this early period - stole into the Christian life and the services of the church - and especially into the sacraments and things pertaining thereto - (§ 58), while it assumed new forms in the veneration of martyrs - and the worship of relics. One can scarcely indeed accept as a - convincing proof of this the statement of the Emperor Hadrian - in his correspondence regarding the religious condition of - Alexandria as given by the historian Vopiscus: _Illic qui - Serāpem colunt Christiani sunt, et devoti sunt Serapi qui se - Christi episcopos dicunt; nemo illic archisynagogus Judæorum, - nemo Samarites, nemo Christianorum presbyter non mathematicus, - non haruspex, non aliptes_. This statement bears on its face - too evidently the character of superficial observation, of vague - hearsay and confused massing together of sundry reports. What - he says of the worship of Serapis, may have had some support - from the conduct of many Christians in the ascetic order, the - designating of their presbyters _aliptæ_ may have been suggested - by the chrism in baptism and the anointing at the consecration - of the clergy, perhaps also in the anointing of the sick - (Matt. vi. 13; Jas. v. 14); so too the characterizing of them - as _mathematici_ may have arisen from their determining the date - of Easter by means of astronomical observations (§ 37, 2; 56, 3), - though it could not be specially wonderful if there actually - were Christian scholars among the Alexandrian clergy skilled - in astronomy, notwithstanding the frequent alliance of this - science with astrology. But much more significant is the gross - superstition which in many ways shows itself in so highly - cultured a Christian as Julius Africanus in his _Cestæ_ (§ 31, 8). - In criticising it, however, we should bear in mind that this book - was written in the age of Alexander Severus, in which, on the one - hand, a wonderful mixture of religion and theurgical superstition - had a wonderful fascination for men, while on the Christian side - the whirlwind of persecution had not for a long time blown its - purifying breeze. The catacombs, too, afford some evidences of a - mode of respect for the departed that was borrowed from heathen - practices, but these on the whole are wonderfully free from - traces of superstition. - - - § 40. THE MONTANIST REFORMATION.[108] - - Earnest and strict as the moral, religious and ascetical requirements -of the church of the 2nd and 3rd centuries generally were in regard -to the life and morals of its members, and rigidly as these principles -were carried out in its penitential discipline, there yet appeared -even at this early date, in consequence of various instances of the -relaxation of such strictness, certain eager spirits who clamoured -for a restoration or even an intensification of the earlier rules of -discipline. Such a movement secured for itself a footing about the -middle of the 2nd century in Montanism, a growth of Phrygian soil, which -without traversing in any way the doctrine of the church, undertook -a thorough reformation of the ecclesiastical constitution on the -practical side. Montanism, in opposition to the eclecticism of heretical -Gnosticism, showed the attitude of Christianity to heathenism to be -exclusive; against the spiritualizing and allegorizing tendencies of the -church Gnosticism it opposed the realism and literalism of the doctrines -and facts of the scripture revelation; against what seemed the excessive -secularization of the church it presented a model of church discipline -such as the nearness of the Lord’s coming demanded; against hierarchical -tendencies that were always being more and more emphasized it maintained -the rights of the laity and the membership of the church; while in order -to secure the establishment of all these reforms it proclaimed that a -prophetically inspired spiritual church had succeeded to Apostolic -Christianity. - - § 40.1. =Montanism in Asia Minor.=--According to Epiphanius as - early as A.D. 156, according to Eusebius in A.D. 172, according - to Jerome in A.D. 171, a certain Montanus appeared as a prophet - and church reformer at Pepuza in Phrygia. He was formerly a - heathen priest and was only shortly before known as a Christian. - He had visions, preached while unconscious in ecstasy of the - immediate coming again of Christ (_Parousia_), fulminated against - the advancing secularisation of the church, and, as the supposed - organ of the _Paraclete_ promised by Christ (John xiv. 16) - presented in their most vigorous form the church’s demands in - respect of morals and discipline. A couple of excited women - _Prisca_ and _Maximilla_ were affected by the same extravagant - spirit by which he was animated, fell into a somnambulistic - condition and prophesied as he had done. On the death of - Maximilla about A.D. 180, Montanus and Prisca having died - before this, the supposed prophetic gift among them seems to - have been quenched. At least an anonymous writer quoted in - Eusebius (according to Jerome it was Rhodon, § 27, 12), in - his controversial treatise published thirteen years afterwards, - states that the voices of the prophets were then silent. So - indeed she herself had declared: Μεθ’ ἐμὲ προφῆτης οὐκέτι ἔσται, - ἀλλὰ συντέλεια. The Montanist prophecies occasioned a mighty - commotion in the whole church of Asia Minor. Many earnest - Christians threw themselves eagerly into the movement. Even - among the bishops they found here and there favour or else mild - criticism, while others combated them passionately, some going - so far as to regard the prophesying women as possessed ones and - calling exorcism to their aid. By the end of the year 170 several - synods, the first synods regularly convened, had been held - against them, the final result of which was their exclusion from - the catholic church. Montanus now organized his followers into an - independent community. After his death, his most zealous follower, - Alcibiades, undertook its direction. It was also not without - literary defenders. Themison, Alcibiades’ successor, issued “in - imitation of the Apostle” (John?) a Καθολικὴ ἐπιστολή, and the - utterances of the prophets were collected and circulated as - holy scripture. On the other hand during this same year 170 they - were attacked by the eminent apologists Claudius Apollinaris - and Miltiades (§ 36, 9) probably also by Melito. Their radical - opponents were the so-called _Alogi_ (§ 33, 2). Among their later - antagonists, who assumed more and more a passionately embittered - tone, the most important according to Eusebius were one - Apollinaris, whom Tertullian combats in the VII. Bk. of his - work, _De ecstasi_, and Serapion. At a Synod at Iconium about - the middle of the 3rd century at which also Firmilian of Cæsarea - (§ 35, 5) was present and voted, the baptism of the Montanists, - although their trinitarian orthodoxy could not be questioned, - was pronounced to be like heretical baptism null, because - administered _extra ecclesiam_, and a second baptism declared - necessary on admission to the Catholic church. And although at the - Council of Nicæa in A.D. 325 and of Constantinople in A.D. 381, - the validity of heretics’ baptism was admitted if given orderly - in the name of the Holy Trinity, the baptism of the Montanists was - excluded because it was thought that the Paraclete of Montanism - could not be recognised as the Holy Spirit of the church.--Already - in the time of Constantine the Great the Montanists were spreading - out from Phrygia over all the neighbouring provinces, and were - called from the place where they originated Κατάφρυγες and - Pepuziani. The Emperor now forbade them holding any public - assemblies for worship and ordered that all places for public - service should be taken from them and given over to the Catholic - church. Far stricter laws than even these were enforced against - them by later emperors down to the 5th century, _e.g._ prohibition - of all Montanist writings, deprivation of almost all civil rights, - banishment of their clergy to the mines, etc. Thus they could only - prolong a miserable existence in secret, and by the beginning of - the sixth century every trace of them had disappeared. - - § 40.2. =Montanism at Rome.=--The movement called forth by - Montanism in the East spread by and by also into the West. When - the first news reached Gaul of the synodal proceedings in Asia - Minor that had rent the church, the Confessors imprisoned at - Lyons and Vienne during the persecution of Marcus Aurelius, of - whom more than one belonged to a colony that had emigrated from - Phrygia to Gaul, were displeased, and, along with their report - of the persecution they had endured (§ 32, 8), addressed a letter - to those of Asia Minor, not given by Eusebius, but reckoned pious - and orthodox, exhorting to peace and the preservation of unity. - At the same time (A.D. 177) they sent the Presbyter Irenæus to - Rome in order to win from Bishop Eleutherus (A.D. 174-189), who - was opposed to Montanism, a mild and pacific sentence. Owing, - however, to the arrival of Praxeas, a Confessor of Asia Minor and - a bitter opponent of Montanism, a formal condemnation was at last - obtained (§ 33, 4). Tertullian relates that the Roman bishop, at - the instigation of Praxeas, revoked the letters of peace which - had been already prepared in opposition to his predecessors. - It is matter of controversy whether by this unnamed bishop - Eleutherus is meant, who then was first inclined to a peaceable - decision by Irenæus and thereafter by the picture of Montanist - extravagances given by Praxeas was led again to form another - opinion; or that it was, what seems from the chronological - references most probable, his successor Victor (A.D. 189-199), in - which case Eleutherus is represented as having hardened himself - against Montanism in spite of the entreaties of Irenæus, while - Victor was the first who for a season had been brought to think - otherwise.--Yet even after their condemnation a small body of - Montanists continued to exist in Rome, whose mouthpiece during - the time of bishop Zephyrinus (A.D. 199-217) was Proclus, whom - the Roman Caius (§ 31, 7) opposed by word and writing. - - § 40.3. =Montanism in Proconsular Africa.=--When and how - Montanism gained a footing in North Africa is unknown, but - very probably it spread thither from Rome. The movement issuing - therefrom first attracted attention when Tertullian, about - A.D. 201 or 202, returned from Rome to Carthage, and with the - whole energy of his character decided in its favour, and devoted - his rich intellectual gifts to its advocacy. That the Montanist - party in Africa at that time still continued in connection with - the Catholic church is witnessed to by the Acts of the Martyrs - Perpetua and Felicitas (§ 32, 8), composed some time after this, - which bear upon them almost all the characteristic marks of - Montanism, while a vision communicated there shows that division - was already threatened. The bishop and clergy together with the - majority of the membership were decided opponents of the new - ecstatic-visionary prophecy already under ecclesiastical ban in - Asia Minor. They had not yet, however, come to an open breach - with it, which was probably brought about in A.D. 206 when quiet - had been again restored after the cessation of the persecution - begun about A.D. 202 by Septimius Severus. Tertullian had stood - at the head of the sundered party as leader of their sectarian - services, and defended their prophesyings and rigorism in - numerous apologetico-polemical writings with excessive bitterness - and passion, applying them with consistent stringency to all the - relations of life, especially on the ethical side. From the high - esteem in which, notwithstanding his Montanist eccentricities, - Tertullian’s writings continued to be held in Africa, _e.g._ - by Cyprian (§ 31, 11), and generally throughout the West, the - tendency defended by him was not regarded in the church there as - in the East as thoroughly heretical, but only as a separatistic - overstraining of views allowed by the church. This mild estimate - could all the easier win favour, since to all appearance the - extravagant visionary prophesying, which caused most offence, had - been in these parts very soon extinguished.--Augustine reports - that a small body of “Tertullianists” continued in Carthage - down to his time († 430), and had by him been induced to return - to the Catholic church; and besides this, he also tells us - that Tertullian had subsequently separated himself from the - “Cataphrygians,” _i.e._ from the communion of the Montanists of - Asia Minor, whose excesses were only then perhaps made known to - him. - - § 40.4. =The Fundamental Principle of Montanism.=--Montanism - arose out of a theory of a divinely educative revelation - proceeding by advancing stages, not finding its conclusion in - Christ and the Apostles, but in the age of the Paraclete which - began with Montanus and in him reached its highest development. - The times of the law and the prophets in the Old Covenant is - the childhood of the kingdom of God; in the gospel it appears in - its youth; and by the Montanist shedding forth of the Spirit it - reaches the maturity of manhood. Its absolute perfection will be - attained in the millennium introduced by the approaching Parousia - and the descent of the heavenly Jerusalem at Pepuza (Rev. xx. 21). - The Montanist prophecy did not enrich or expand but only - maintained and established against the heretics, the system of - Christian doctrine already exclusively revealed in the times of - Christ. Montanism regarded as its special task a reformation of - Christian life and Church discipline highly necessary in view of - the approaching Parousia. The defects that had been borne with - during the earlier stages of revelation were to be repaired or - removed by the _Mandata_ of the Paraclete. The following are some - of the chief of these prescriptions: Second marriage is adultery; - Fasting must be practised with greater strictness; On _dies - stationum_ (§ 37, 3) nothing should be eaten until evening, and - twice a year for a whole week only water and bread (ξηροφαγίαι); - The excommunicated must remain their whole lifetime in _status - pœnitentiæ_; Martyrdom should be courted, to withdraw in any way - from persecution is apostasy and denial of the faith; Virgins - should take part in the worship of God only when veiled; Women - generally must put away all finery and ornaments; secular science - and art, all worldly enjoyments, even those that seem innocent, - are only snares of the devil, etc. An anti-hierarchical tendency - early showed itself in Montanism from the circumstance that - it arrogated to itself a new and high authority to which - the hierarchical organs of the church refused to submit - themselves. Yet even Montanism, after repudiating it, for its - own self-preservation was obliged to give itself an official - congregational organization, which, according to Jerome, had - as its head a patriarch resident at Pepuza, and, according to - Epiphanius, founding on Gal. iii. 28, gave even women admission - into ecclesiastical offices. Its worship was distinguished - only by the space given to the prophesyings of its prophets and - prophetesses. Epiphanius notes this as a special characteristic - of the sect, that often in their assemblies seven white-robed - virgins with torches made their appearance prophesying; evidently, - as the number seven itself shows, as representatives of the seven - spirits of God (Rev. iv. 5, etc.), and not of the ten virgins - who wait for the coming of the Lord. According to Philaster they - allowed even unbaptized persons to attend all their services and - were in the habit of baptizing even the dead, as is elsewhere - told also of certain Gnostic sects. Epiphanius too speaks of a - Montanist party which celebrated the Lord’s Supper with bread and - cheese, _Artotyrites_, according to Augustine, because the first - men had presented offerings of the fruits of the earth and sheep. - - § 40.5. =The Attitude of Montanism toward the Church.=--The - derivation of Montanism from Ebionism, contended for by Schwegler, - has nothing in its favour and much against it. To disprove this - notion it is enough to refer to the Montanist fundamental idea - of a higher stage of revelation above Moses and the prophets as - well as above the Messiah and His Apostles. Neither can we agree - with Neander in regarding the peculiar character of the Phrygian - people, as exhibited in their extravagant and fanatical worship - of Cybele, as affording a starting point for the Montanist - movement, but at most as a predisposition which rendered the - inhabitants of this province peculiarly susceptible in presence - of such a movement. The origin of Montanism is rather to be - sought purely among the specifically Catholic conditions and - conflicts within the church of Asia which at that time was - pre-eminently gifted and active. In regard to dogma Montanism - occupied precisely the same ground as the Catholic church; - even upon the trinitarian controversies of the age it took up - no sectarian position but went with the stream of the general - development. Not on the dogmatical but purely on the practical - side, namely, on that of the Christian life and ecclesiastical - constitution, discipline and morals, lay the problems which by - the action of the Montanists were brought into conflict. But - even upon this side Montanism, with all its eccentricities, did - not assume the attitude of an isolated separatistic sect, but - rather as a quickening and intensifying of views and principles - which from of old had obtained the recognition and sanction of - the church,--views which on the wider spread of Christianity - had already begun to be in every respect toned down or even - obliterated, and just in this way called forth that reaction of - enthusiasm which we meet with in Montanism. From the Apostles’ - time the expectation of the early return of the Lord had stood - in the foreground of Christian faith, hope and yearning, and - this expectation continued still to be heartily entertained. - Nevertheless the fulfilment had now been so long delayed that men - were beginning to put this coming into an indefinitely distant - future (2 Pet. iii. 4). Hence it happened that even the leaders - of the church, in building up its hierarchical constitution and - adjusting it to the social circumstances and conditions of life - by which they were surrounded, made their arrangements more and - more deliberately in view of a longer continuance of the present - state of things, and thus the primitive Christian hope of an - early Parousia, though not expressly denied, seemed practically - to have been set aside. Hence the Montanist revivalists - proclaimed this hope as most certain, giving a guarantee for it - by means of a new divine revelation. Similarly too the moral, - ascetic and disciplinary rigorism of the Montanist prophecy is - to be estimated as a vigorous reaction against the mild practice - prevailing in the church with its tendency to make concessions - to human weakness, in favour of the strict exercise of church - discipline in view of the nearness of the Parousia. Montanism - could also justify the reappearance of prophetic gifts among - its founders by referring to the historical tradition which from - the Apostolic Age (Acts xi. 27 f.; xxi. 9) presented to view a - series of famous prophets and prophetesses, endowed with ecstatic - visionary powers. The exclusion of Montanism from the Catholic - Church could not, therefore, have been occasioned either by its - proclaiming an early Parousia or by its rigorism, or finally, - even by its prophetic claims, but purely by its doctrine of the - Paraclete. Under the pretence of instituting a new and higher - stage of revelation, it had really undertaken to correct the - moral and religious doctrines of Christ and the Apostles as - defective and incomplete, and had thereby proved itself to the - representatives of the church to be undoubtedly a pseudo-prophecy. - The spiritual pride with which the Montanists proclaimed - themselves to be the privileged people of the Holy Spirit, - Πνευματικοὶ, _Spirituales_ and characterized the Catholics as, - on the contrary, Ψυχικοὶ, _Carnales_, as also the assumption - that chose their own obscure Pepuza for the site of the heavenly - Jerusalem, and the manifold extravagances committed by their - prophets and prophetesses in their ecstatic trances, must - have greatly tended to create an aversion to every form of - spiritualistic manifestation. The origin of Montanism, the - contesting of it and its final expulsion, constitute indeed a - highly significant crisis in the historical development of the - church, conditioned not so much by a separatistic sectarian - tendency, but rather by the struggle of two tendencies existing - within the church, in which the tendency represented by Montanism - and honestly endeavouring the salvation of the church, went - under, while that which was victorious would have put an end - to all enthusiasm. The expulsion of Montanism from the church - contributed greatly to freeing the church from the reproach - so often advanced against it of being a narrow sect, made its - consenting to the terms, demands and conditions of everyday - life in the world easier, gave a freer course and more powerful - impulse to its development in constitution and worship dependent - upon these, as well as in the further building up of its - practical and scientific endeavours, and generally advanced - greatly its expansion and transformation from a sectarian close - association into a universal church opening itself up more and - more to embrace all the interests of the culture of the age;--a - transformation which indeed in many respects involved a - secularizing of the church and imparted to its spiritual - functions too much of an official and superficial character. - - - § 41. SCHISMATIC DIVISIONS IN THE CHURCH. - - Even after the ecclesiastical sentence had gone forth against -Montanism, the rigoristic penitential discipline in a form more or less -severe still found its representatives within the Catholic church. As -compared with the advocates of a milder procedure these were indeed -generally in the minority, but this made them all the more zealously -contend for their opinions and endeavour to secure for them universal -recognition. Out of the contentions occasioned thereby, augmented by -the rivalry of presbyter and episcopus, or episcopus and metropolitan, -several ecclesiastical divisions originated which, in spite of the -pressing need of the time for ecclesiastical unity, were long continued -by ambitious churchmen in order to serve their own selfish ends. - - § 41.1. =The Schism of Hippolytus at Rome about A.D. 220.=--On - what seems to have been the oldest attempt to form a sect at Rome - over a purely doctrinal question, namely that of the Theodotians, - about A.D. 210, see § 33, 3.--Much more serious was the schism of - Hippolytus, which broke out ten years later. In A.D. 217, after - an eventful and adventurous life, a freedman Callistus was raised - to the bishopric of Rome, but not without strong opposition on - the part of the rigorists, at whose head stood the celebrated - presbyter Hippolytus. They charged the bishop with scoffing at - all Christian earnestness, conniving at the loosening of all - church discipline toward the fallen and sinners of all kinds, and - denounced him especially as a supporter of the Noetian [Noëtian] - heresy (§ 33, 5). They took great offence also at his previous - life which his opponent Hippolytus (_Elench._, ix. 11 ff.) thus - describes: When the slave of a Christian member of the imperial - household, Callistus with the help of his lord established - a bank; he failed, took to flight, was brought back, sprang into - the sea, was taken out again and sent to the treadmill. At the - intercession of Christian friends he was set free, but failing to - satisfy his urgent creditors, he despairingly sought a martyr’s - death, for this end wantonly disturbed the Jewish worship, and - was on that account scourged and banished to the Sardinian mines. - At the request of bishop Victor the imperial concubine Marcia - (§ 22, 3) obtained the freedom of the exiled Christian confessors - among whom Callistus, although his name had been intentionally - omitted from the list presented by Victor, was included. After - Victor’s death he wormed himself into the favour of his weak - successor Zephyrinus, who placed him at the head of his clergy, - in consequence of which he was able by intrigues and craft - to secure for himself the succession to the bishopric.--An - opportunity of reconciliation was first given, it would seem, - under Pontianus, the second successor of Callistus, by banishing - the two rival chiefs to Sardinia. Both parties then united in - making a unanimous choice in A.D. 235.[109] - - § 41.2. =The Schism of Felicissimus at Carthage in - A.D. 250.=--Several presbyters in Carthage were dissatisfied with - the choice of Cyprian as bishop in A.D. 248 and sought to assert - their independence. At their head stood Novatus. Taking the - law into their own hands they chose Felicissimus, the next - head of the party, as a deacon. When Cyprian during the Decian - persecution withdrew for a time from Carthage, they charged him - with dereliction of duty and faint-heartedness. Cyprian, however, - soon returned, A.D. 251, and now they used his strictness toward - the _Lapsi_ as a means of creating a feeling against him. He - expressed himself very decidedly as to the recklessness with - which many confessors gave without examination _Libelli pacis_ - to the fallen, and called upon these to commit their case to a - Synod that should be convened after the persecution. A church - visitation completed the schism; the discontented presbyters - without more ado received all the fallen and, notwithstanding - that Cyprian himself on the return of persecution introduced - a milder practice, they severed themselves from him under an - opposition bishop Fortunatus. Only by the unwearied exercise of - wisdom and firmness did Cyprian succeed in putting down the - schism.[110] - - § 41.3. =The Schism of the Presbyter Novatian at Rome in - A.D. 251.=--In this case the rigorist and presbyterial interests - coincide. After the martyrdom of bishop Fabian under Decian in - A.D. 250, the Roman bishopric remained vacant for more than a - year. His successor Cornelius (A.D. 251-253) was an advocate - of the milder practice. At the head of his rigorist opponents - stood his unsuccessful rival, Novatian, a learned but ambitious - presbyter (§ 31, 12). Meanwhile Novatus, excommunicated by Cyprian - at Carthage, had also made his way to Rome. Notwithstanding his - having previously maintained contrary principles in the matter - of church discipline, he attached himself to the party of the - purists and urged them into schism. They now chose Novatian as - bishop. Both parties sought to obtain the recognition of the most - celebrated churches. In doing so Cornelius described his opponent - in the most violent and bitter manner as a mere intriguer, - against whose reception into the number of presbyters as one - who had received clinical baptism (§ 35, 3) and especially - as an energoumenon under the care of the exorcists, he had - already protested; further as having extorted a sham episcopal - consecration from three simple Italian bishops, after he had - attached them to himself by pretending to be a peacemaker, then - locking them up and making them drunk, etc. Cyprian, as well as - Dionysius of Alexandria, expressed himself against Novatian, and - attacked the principles of his party, namely, that the church has - no right to give assurance of forgiveness to the fallen or such - as have broken their baptismal vows by grievous sin (although - the possibility of finding forgiveness through the mercy of - God was indeed admitted), and that the church as a communion of - thoroughly pure members should never endure any impure ones in - its bosom, nor receive back any excommunicated ones, even after - a full ecclesiastical course of penitence. The Novatianists had - therefore called themselves the Καθαροί. The moral earnestness of - their fundamental principles secured for them even from bishops - of contrary views an indulgent verdict, and Novatianist churches - sprang up over almost all the Roman empire. The Œcumenical - Council at Nicæa in A.D. 325 maintained an attitude toward them - upon the whole friendly, and in the Arian controversy (§ 50) they - stood faithfully side by side with their ecclesiastical opponents - in the defence of Nicene orthodoxy, and with them suffered - persecution from the Arians. Later on, however, the Catholic - church without more ado treated them as heretics. Theodosius - the Great sympathizing with them because of such unfair treatment, - took them under his protection; but Honorius soon again withdrew - these privileges from them. Remnants of the party continued - nevertheless to exist down to the 6th century.[111] - - § 41.4. =The Schism of Meletius in Egypt in A.D. 306.=--Meletius, - bishop of Lycopolis in the Thebaid, a representative of the - rigorist party, during the Diocletian persecution claimed to - confer ordinations and otherwise infringed upon the metropolitan - rights of Peter, bishop of Alexandria, a supporter of the - milder practice who for the time being lived in retirement. All - warnings and admonitions were in vain. An Egyptian Synod under - the presidency of Peter issued a decree of excommunication and - deposition against him. Then arose the schism, A.D. 306, which - won the whole of Egypt. The General Synod at Nicæa in A.D. 325 - confirmed the Alexandrian bishop in his rights of supremacy - (§ 46, 3) and offered to all the Meletian bishops an amnesty - and confirmation in the succession on the death of the catholic - anti-bishop of their respective dioceses. Many availed themselves - of this concession, but others persisted in their schismatical - course and finally attached themselves to the Arian party - (§ 50, 2). - - - - - SECOND SECTION. - - The History of the Græco-Roman Church from - the 4th-7th centuries. - A.D. 323-692. - - - I. CHURCH AND STATE. - - - § 42. THE OVERTHROW OF PAGANISM IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE.[112] - - After the overthrow of Licinius (§ 22, 7) Constantine identified -himself unreservedly with Christianity, but accepted baptism only -shortly before his death in A.D. 337. He was tolerant toward paganism, -though encouraging its abandonment in all possible ways. His sons, -however, began to put it down by violence. Julian’s short reign was -a historical anomaly which only proved that paganism did not die a -violent death, but rather gradually succumbed to a _Marasmus senilis_. -Succeeding emperors reverted to the policy of persecution and -extermination.--Neoplatonism, notwithstanding the patronage of -Julian and the brilliant reputation of its leading representatives, -could not reach the goal arrived at, but from the ethereal heights of -philosophical speculation sank ever further and further into the misty -region of fantastic superstition (§ 24, 2). The attempts at regeneration -made by the _Hypsistarians_, _Euphemites_, _Cœlicolæ_, in which paganism -strove after a revival by means of a barren Jewish monotheism or an -effete Sabaism, proved miserable failures. The literary conflict between -Christianity and paganism had almost completely altered its tone. - - § 42.1. =The Romish Legend of the Baptism of Constantine.=--That - Constantine the Great only accepted baptism shortly before his - death in Nicomedia, from Eusebius, bishop of that place, and a - well-known leader of the Arian party (§ 50, 1, 2), is put beyond - question by the evidence of his contemporary Eusebius of Cæsarea - in his _Vita Const._, of Ambrose, of Jerome in his Chronicle, - etc. About the end of the 5th century, however, a tradition, - connecting itself with the fact that a Roman baptistery bore - the name of Constantine, gained currency in Rome, to the effect - that Constantine had been baptised at this baptistery more than - twenty years before his death by Pope Sylvester (A.D. 314-335). - According to this purely fabulous legend Constantine, who - had up to that time been a bitter enemy and persecutor of the - Christians, became affected with leprosy, for the cure of which - he was recommended to bathe in a tub filled with the blood - of an innocent child. Moved by the tears of the mother the - emperor rejected this means of cure, and under the direction of - a heavenly vision applied to the Pope, who by Christian baptism - delivered him from his malady, whereupon all the members of the - Roman senate still heathens, and all the people were straightway - converted to Christ, etc. This legend is told in the so-called - _Decretum Gelasii_ (§ 47, 22), but is first vindicated as - historically true in the _Liber pontificalis_ (§ 90, 6), and - next in A.D. 729, in Bede’s Chronicle (§ 90, 2). In the notorious - _Donatio Constantini_ (§ 87, 4) it is unhesitatingly accepted. - Since then, at first with some exceptions but soon without - exceptions, all chroniclers of the Middle Ages and likewise since - the 9th century the _Scriptores hist. Byzant._, have adopted - it. And although in the 15th century Æneas Sylvius and Nicolaus - [Nicolas] of Cusa admitted that the legend was without foundation, - yet in the 16th century in Baronius and Bellarmine, and in - the 17th in Schelstraate, it found earnest defenders. The - learned French Benedictines of the 17th century were the first - to render it utterly incredible even in the Roman Catholic - church.[113] - - § 42.2. =Constantine the Great and his Sons.=--Constantine’s - profession of Christianity was not wholly the result of political - craft, though his use of the name _Pontifex Maximus_ and in - this capacity the continued exercise of certain pagan practices, - gave some colour to such an opinion. Outbursts of passion, - impulsiveness exhibited in deeds of violence and cruelty, as in - the order for the execution of his eldest son Crispus in A.D. 326 - and his second wife Fausta, are met with even in his later years. - Soon after receiving baptism he died without having ever attended - a complete divine service. His toleration of paganism must be - regarded purely as a piece of statecraft. He only prohibited - impure rites and assigned to the Christians but a few of the - temples that had actually been in use. Aversion to the paganism - still prevalent among the principal families in Rome may partly - have led him to transfer his residence to Byzantium, since called - Constantinople, in A.D. 330. His three sons divided the Empire - among them. Constantius (A.D. 337-361) retained the East, and - became, after the death of Constantine II. in A.D. 340 and of - Constans in A.D. 350, sole ruler. All the three sought to put - down paganism by force. Constantius closed the heathen temples - and forbade all sacrifices on pain of death. Multitudes of - heathens went over to Christianity, few probably from conviction. - Among the nobler pagans there was thus awakened a strong - aversion to Christianity. Patriotism and manly spirit came to - be identified with the maintenance of the old religion.[114] - - § 42.3. =Julian the Apostate (A.D. 361-363).=--The sons of - Constantine the Great began their reign in A.D. 337 with the - murder of their male relatives. The brothers Julian and Gallus, - nephews of Constantine, alone were spared; but in A.D. 345 they - were banished to a Cappadocian castle where Julian officiated for - a while as reader in the village church. Having at last obtained - leave to study in Nicomedia, then in Ephesus, and finally in - Athens, the chief representatives of paganism fostered in him the - conviction that he was specially raised up by the gods to restore - again the old religion of his fathers. As early as A.D. 351 - in Nicomedia he formally though still secretly returned to - paganism, and at Athens in A.D. 355 he took part in the Eleusinian - mysteries. Soon thereafter Constantius, harassed by foreign wars, - assigned to him the command of the army against the Germans. By - affability, personal courage and high military talent, he soon - won to himself the enthusiastic attachment of the soldiers. - Constantius thought to weaken the evident power of his cousin - which seemed to threaten his authority, by recalling the best - of the legions, but the legions refused obedience and proclaimed - Julian emperor. Then the emperor refused to ratify the election - and treated Julian himself as a rebel. The latter advanced at - the head of his army by forced marches upon the capital, but - ere he reached the city, he received the tidings of the opposing - emperor’s death. Acknowledged now as emperor throughout the - whole empire without any opposition, Julian proceeded with zeal, - enthusiasm and vigour to accomplish his long-cherished wish, the - restoring of the glory of the old national religion. He used no - violent measures for the subversion and overthrow of Christianity, - nor did he punish Christian obstinacy with death, except where it - seemed to him the maintenance of his supremacy required it. But - he demanded that temples which had been converted into churches - should be restored to the heathen worship, those destroyed should - be restored at the cost of the church exchequer and the money for - the state that had been applied to ecclesiastical purposes had to - be repaid. He scornfully referred the clergy thus robbed of their - revenues to the blessedness of evangelical poverty. He also - fomented as much as possible dissension in the church, favoured - all sectaries and heretics, excluded Christians from all the - higher, and afterwards from all the lower, civil and military - offices, and loaded them on every occasion with reproach and - shame, and by these means he actually induced many to apostatise. - In order to discredit Christ’s prophecy in Matt. xxiv. 2, he - resolved on the restoration of the Jewish temple at Jerusalem, - but after having been begun it was destroyed by an earthquake. He - excluded all Christian teachers from the public schools, and also - forbade them in their own schools from explaining the classical - writers who were objected to and contested by them only as - godless; so that Christian boys and youths could obtain a higher - classical education only in the pagan schools. By petty artifices - he endeavoured to get Christian soldiers to take part, if - only even seemingly, in the heathen sacrifices. Indeed at a - later period in Antioch he was not ashamed to stoop to the mean - artifice of Galerian (§ 22, 6) of sprinkling with sacrificial - water the necessaries of life exposed in the public market, etc. - On the other hand, he strove in every way to elevate and ennoble - paganism. From Christianity he borrowed Benevolent Institutions, - Church Discipline, Preaching, Public Service of Song, etc.; he - gave many distinctions to the heathen priesthood, but required - of them a strict discipline. He himself sacrificed and preached - as _Pontifex Maximus_, and led a strictly ascetic, almost a - cynically simple life. The ineffectiveness of his attempts and - the daring, often even contemptuous, resistance of many Christian - zealots embittered him more and more, so that there was now - danger of bloody persecution when, after a reign of twenty - months, he was killed from a javelin blow in a battle against the - Persians in A.D. 363. Shortly before in answer to the scornful - question of a heathen, “What is your Carpenter’s Son doing now?” - it had been answered, “He is making a coffin for your emperor.” - At a later period the story became current that Julian himself, - when he received the deadly stroke, exclaimed, _Tandem vicisti - Galilæe_! His military talents and military virtues had shed a - glory around the throne of the Cæsars such as it had not known - since the days of Marcus Aurelius, and yet his whole life’s - struggle was and remained utterly fruitless and vain.[115] - - § 42.4. =The Later Emperors.=--After Julian’s death, Jovian, - and then on his death in A.D. 364, Valentinian I. († 375), - were chosen emperors by the army. The latter resigned to his - brother Valens the empire of the East (A.D. 364-378). His son and - successor Gratian (A.D. 375-383) at the wish of the army adopted - his eldest half-brother of four years old, Valentinian II., as - colleague in the empire of the West, and upon the death of Valens - resigned the government of the West to the Spaniard Theodosius I., - or the Great (A.D. 379-395), who, after the assassination of - Valentinian II. in A.D. 392, became sole ruler. After his death - his sons again divided the empire among them: Honorius († 423) - took the West, Arcadius († 408) the East, and now the partitioned - empire continued in this condition until the incursions of the - barbarians had broken up the whole West Roman division (A.D. 476). - Belisarius and Narses, the victorious generals of Justinian I., - were the first to succeed, between A.D. 533-553, in conquering - again North Africa and all Italy along with its islands. But in - Italy the Byzantine empire from A.D. 569 was reduced in size from - time to time by the Longobards, and in Africa from A.D. 665 by - the Saracens, while even earlier, about A.D. 633, the Saracens - had secured to themselves Syria, Palestine, and Egypt.--Julian’s - immediate successors tolerated paganism for a time. It was, - however, a very temporary respite. No sooner had =Theodosius I.= - quieted in some measure political disorders, than he proceeded - in A.D. 382 to accomplish the utter overthrow of paganism. - The populace and the monks combined in destroying the temples. - The rhetorician Libanius († 395) then addressed his celebrated - discourse Περὶ τῶν ἱερῶν to the emperor; but the remaining - temples were closed and the people were prohibited from visiting - them. In Alexandria, under the powerful bishop Theophilus, there - were bloody conflicts, in consequence of which the Christians - destroyed the beautiful Serapeion in A.D. 391. In vain did - the pagans look for the falling down of the heavens and the - destruction of the earth; even the Nile would not once by causing - blight and barrenness take vengeance on the impious. In the West, - =Gratian= was the first of the emperors who declined the rank of - _pontifex maximus_; he also deprived the heathen priests of their - privileges, removed the foundations of the temple of Fiscus, - and commanded that the altar of Victory should be taken away - from the hall of the Senate in Rome. In vain did Symmachus, - _præfectus urbi_, entreat for its restoration, if not “_numinis_” - yet “_nominis causa_.” =Valentinian II.=, urged on by Ambrose, - sent back four times unheard the deputation that came about this - matter. So soon as =Theodosius I.= became sole ruler the edicts - were made more severe. On his entrance into Rome in A.D. 394 he - addressed to the Roman Senate a severe lecture and called them - to repentance. His sons, Honorius in the West and Arcadius in the - East, followed the example of their father. Under the successor - of the latter, =Theodosius II.= (A.D. 408-450), monks with - imperial authority for the suppression of heathenism traversed - the provinces, and in A.D. 448, in common with =Valentinian III.= - (A.D. 425-455), the western emperor, he issued an edict - which strictly enjoined the burning of all pagan polemical - writings against Christianity, especially those of Porphyry “the - crack-brained,” wherever they might be found. This period is - also marked by deeds of bloody violence. The most horrible of - these was the murder of the noble pagan philosopher Hypatia, - the learned daughter of Theon the mathematician, at Alexandria - in A.D. 415. Officially paganism may be regarded as no longer - existent. Branded long even before this as the religion of the - peasants (such is the derivation of the word paganism), it was - now almost wholly confined to remote rural districts. Its latest - and solitary stronghold was the University of Athens raised to - the summit of its fame under Proclus (§ 24, 2). =Justinian I.= - (A.D. 527-565) decreed the suppression of this school in - A.D. 529. Its teachers fled into Persia, and there laid the - first foundations of the later literary period of Islam under the - ruling family of the Abassidæ at Bagdad (§ 65, 2). This was the - death hour of heathenism in the Roman empire. The Mainottæ in the - mountains of the Peloponnesus still maintained their political - independence and the heathen religion of their fathers down - to the 9th century. In the Italian islands, too, of Sardinia, - Corsica, and Sicily, there were still many heathens even in the - time of Gregory the Great († 604).[116] - - § 42.5. =Heathen Polemics and Apologetics.=--=Julian’s= - controversial treatise Κατὰ Γαλιλαίων λόγοι, in 3 bks. according - to Cyril, in 7 bks. according to Jerome, is known only from the - reply of Cyril of Alexandria (§ 47, 6) which follows it section - by section, the rest of the answers to it having been entirely - lost. Of Cyril’s book only the first ten λόγοι have come down to - us in a complete state, and from these we are able almost wholly - to restore the first book of Julian’s treatise. Only fragments - of the second decade of Cyril’s work are extant, and not even - so much of the third, so that of Julian’s third book we may be - said to know nothing.[117] Julian represented Christianity as a - deteriorated Judaism, but Christolatry and the worship of martyrs - as later falsifications of the doctrine of Christ.--The later - advocates of heathenism, Libanius and Symmachus, were content - with claiming toleration and religious freedom. But when from - the 5th century, under the influence of the barbarians, signs of - the speedy overthrow of the Roman empire multiplied, the heathen - polemics assumed a bolder attitude, declaring that this was - the punishment of heaven for the contempt of the old national - religion, under which the empire had flourished. Such is the - standpoint especially of the historians Eunapius and Zosimus. But - history itself refuted them more successfully than the Christian - apologists; for even these barbarous peoples passed over in - due course to Christianity, and vied with the Roman emperors in - their endeavours to extirpate heathenism. In the 5th century, - the celebrated Neo-Platonist Proclus wrote “eighteen arguments - (ἐπιχειρήματα) against the Christians” in vindication of the - Platonic doctrine of the eternity of the world and in refutation - of the Christian doctrine of creation. The Christian grammarian - John Philoponus (§ 47, 11) answered them in an exhaustive and - elaborate treatise, which again was replied to by the philosopher - =Simplicius=, one of the best teachers in the pagan University - of Athens.--The dialogue =Philopatris=, “the Patriot,” included - among the works of Lucian of Samosata, but certainly not composed - by him, is a feeble imitation of the famous scoffer, in which the - writer declares that he can no longer fitly swear at the Olympic - gods with their many unsavoury loves and objectionable doings, - and with a satirical reference to Acts xvii. 23 recommends - for this purpose “the unknown God at Athens,” whom he further - scurrilously characterizes as ὑψιμέδων θεὸς, υἵος πατρὸς, πνεῦμα - ἐκ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον ἓν ἐκ τριῶν καὶ ἐξ ἑνὸς τρία (§ 50, 1, 7). - Finally he tells of some closely shaven men (§ 45, 1) who were - treated as liars, because, having in consequence of a ten days’ - fast and singing had a vision foreboding ill to their fatherland, - their prophecy was utterly discredited by the arrival of an - account of the emperor’s successes in the war against the - Persians. The impudence with which the orthodox Christianity - and the Nicene orthodox formula are sneered at, as well as the - allusions to the spread of monasticism and a victorious war - against the Persians, fix the date of the dialogue in the reign - of Julian, or rather, since the writer would scarcely have had - Julian’s approval in his scoffing at the gods of Olympus, in - the time of the Arian Valens (§ 50, 4). But since the overthrow - of Egypt and Crete is spoken of in this treatise, Niebuhr has - put its date down to the time of the Emperor Nicephoras Phocas - (A.D. 963-969), understanding by Persians the Saracens and by - Scythians the Bulgarians. - - § 42.6. The religion of the =Hypsistarians= in Cappadocia was, - according to Gregory Nazianzen, whose father had belonged to the - sect, a blending of Greek paganism with bald Jewish monotheism, - together with the oriental worship of fire and the heavenly - bodies, with express opposition to the Christian doctrine - of the trinity. Of a similar nature were the vagaries of the - =Euphemites=, “Praise singers,” in Asia, who were also called - _Messalians_, “Petitioners,” or _Euchites_, and in Africa bore - the name of =Cœlicolæ=. - - - § 43. THE CHRISTIAN EMPIRE AND THE ECCLESIASTICAL LAW. - - As in earlier times the supreme direction of all religious matters -belonged to the Roman Emperor as Pontifex Maximus, so now that -Christianity had become the state religion he claimed for himself -the same position in relation to the church. Even Constantine the -Great regarded himself as ἐπίσκοπος τῶν ἔξω τῆς ἐκκλησίας, and all his -successors exercised the _Jus circa sacra_ as their unquestioned right. -Only the Donatists (§ 63, 1) denied to the state all and any right -over the church. There was no clear consciousness of the limits of this -jurisdiction, but this at least in theory was firmly maintained, that -in all ecclesiastical matters, in worship, discipline and doctrine, the -emperors were not of themselves entitled to issue conclusive decisions. -For this purpose they called Œcumenical Synods, the decrees of which -had legal validity throughout the empire when ratified by the emperor. -But the more the Byzantine empire degenerated and became a centre of -intrigues, the more hurtful did contact with the court become, and -more than once the most glaring heresy for a time prevailed by means -of personal passion, unworthy tricks and open violence, until at last -orthodoxy again secured the ascendency.--From the ordinances issued by -the recognised ecclesiastical and civil authorities upon ecclesiastical -rights, duties and conditions, as well as from the pseudo-epigraphic -apostolic writings already being secretly introduced in this department, -there sprang up during this period a rich and varied literature on canon -law. - - § 43.1. The =Jus circa sacra= gave to the =Emperors= the right of - legally determining all the relations between church and state, - but assigned to them also the duty of caring for the preservation - or restoration of peace and of unity in the church, guarding - orthodoxy with a strong arm, looking after the interests of - the church and the clergy, and maintaining the authority of - ecclesiastical law. Even Constantine the Great excluded all - heretics from the privileges which he accorded to the church, - and regarded it as a duty forcibly to prevent their spread. - The destruction or closing of their churches, prohibition of - public meetings, banishment of their leaders, afterwards seizure - of their possessions, were the punishments which the state - invariably used for their destruction. The first death sentence - on a heretic was issued and executed so early as A.D. 385 by - the usurper Maximus (§ 54, 2), but this example was not imitated - during this period. Constans II. in A.D. 654 gave the first - example of scourging to the effusion of blood and barbarous - mutilation upon a persistent opponent of his union system of - doctrine (§ 52, 8). The fathers of the 4th century were decidedly - opposed to all compulsion in matters of faith (comp. however - § 63, 1). The right of determining by imperial edict what was - to be believed and taught in the empire was first asserted by - the usurper Basilicus in A.D. 476 (§ 52, 5). The later emperors - followed this example; most decidedly Justinian I. (§ 52, 6) - and the court theologians justified such assumptions from - the emperor’s sacerdotal rank, which was the antitype of that - of Melchizedec [Melchisedec]. The emperor exercised a direct - influence upon the choice of bishops especially in the capital - cities; at a later period the emperor quite arbitrarily appointed - these and set them aside. The church’s power to afford protection - secured for it generally a multitude of outward privileges and - advantages. The state undertook the support of the church partly - by rich gifts and endowments from state funds, partly by the - making over of temples and their revenues to the church, and - Constantine conferred upon the church the right of receiving - bequests of all kinds. The churches and their officers were - expressly exempted from all public burdens. The distinct - judicial authority of the bishops recognised of old was - formally legitimized by Constantine under the name of _Audentia - episcopalis_. The clergy themselves were exempted from the - jurisdiction of civil tribunals and were made subject to an - ecclesiastical court. The right of asylum was taken from the - heathen temples and conferred upon the Christian churches. With - this was connected also the right of episcopal intercession or - of interference with regard to decisions already come to by the - civil courts which were thus in some measure subject to clerical - control. - - § 43.2. =The Institution of Œcumenical Synods.=--The σύνοδοι - οἰκουμενικαί, _Concilia universalia s. generalia_, owe their - origin to Constantine the Great (§ 50, 1). The calling of - councils was an unquestioned right of the crown. A prelate - chosen by the emperor or the council presided; the presence - of the imperial commissioner, who opened the Synod by reading - the imperial edict, was a guarantee for the preservation of - the rights of the state. The treasury bore the expense of - board and travelling. The decisions generally were called ὅροι, - _Definitiones_; if they were resolutions regarding matters of - faith, δόγματα; if in the form of a confession, σύμβολα; if they - bore upon the constitution, worship and discipline, κανόνες. On - doctrinal questions there had to be unanimity; on constitutional - questions a majority sufficed. Only the bishops had the right - of voting, but they allowed themselves to be influenced by the - views of the subordinate clergy. As a sort of substitute for - the œcumenical councils which could not be suddenly or easily - convened we have the σύνοδοι ἐνδημοῦσα at Constantinople, which - were composed of all the bishops who might at the time be present - in the district. At Alexandria, too, these _endemic_ Synods - were held. The _Provincial Synods_ were convened twice a year - under the presidency of the metropolitan; as courts of higher - instances we have the _Patriarchal_ or _Diocesan Synods_ (comp. - § 46, 1).[118] - - § 43.3. =Canonical Ordinances.=--As canonical decrees - acknowledged throughout the whole of the Catholic national - church or at least throughout the more important ecclesiastical - districts the following may be named. - - 1. The Canons of the Œcumenical Councils. - - 2. The Decrees of several important Particular Synods. - - 3. The _Epistolæ canonicæ_ of distinguished bishops, especially - those of the _Sedes apostolicæ_, § 34, preeminently of Rome - and Alexandria, pertaining to questions which have had a - determining influence on church practice, which were at a - later time called at Rome _Epistt. decretales_. - - 4. The canonical laws of the emperors, νόμοι (Codex - Theodosianus in A.D. 440, Codex Justinianæus in A.D. 534, - Novellæ Justiniani). - - The first systematically arranged collection of the Greek church - known to us was made by Johannes Scholasticus, then presbyter - at Antioch, afterwards Patriarch at Constantinople († 578). A - second collection, also ascribed to him, to which were added - the canonical νόμοι of Justinian, received the name of the - _Nomocanon_. In the West all earlier collections were put out - of sight by the _Codex canonum_ of the Roman abbot Dionysius the - Little (§ 47, 23), to which were also added the extant _Decretal - Epistles_ about A.D. 520. - - § 43.4. =Pseudepigraphic Church Ordinances.=--Even so early - as the 2nd and 3rd centuries there sprang up no inconsiderable - number of writings upon church law, with directions about ethical, - liturgical and constitutional matters for the instruction of the - church members as well as the clergy, the moral precepts of which - are of importance in church procedure as affording a standard - for discipline. The oldest probably of these has lately been - made again accessible to us in the Teaching of the XII. Apostles, - the Didache (§ 30, 7). It designates its contents, even where - these are taken not from the Old Testament or the “Gospel,” but - from the so-called church practice, as apostolic, with the honest - conviction that by means of oral apostolic tradition it may be - traced back to the immediate appointment of the Lord, without, - however, pseudepigraphically claiming to have been written by - the Apostles. Many treatises of the immediately following period, - no longer known to us or known only by fragments, occupied the - same standpoint. But even so early as the end of the 3rd century - pseudepigraphic apostolic fiction makes its appearance in - the so-called _Apostolic Didascalia_, and some sixty years - later, it reached its climax in the eight bks. of the so-called - =Constitutiones Apostolicæ=, Διαταγαὶ τῶν ἀπ. διὰ Κλήμεντος. The - first six bks. correspond to the previously named _Didascalia_ - expanded and variously altered.[119] It assumes the form of a - prolix epistolary discourse of the Apostle, communicated through - Clement of Rome, about everything pertaining to the Christian - life, the Catholic system of doctrine, liturgical practice and - hierarchical constitution which may be necessary and useful for - the laity as well as the clergy to know, with the exclusion, - however, of everything which belonged to the department of what - was then regarded as the _Disciplina arcani_ (§ 36, 4). Of older - writings, so far as known, those principally used are the seven - Ignatian Epistles (§ 30, 5). It is post-Novatianist (§ 41, 3) - and belongs to a time pre-Constantine but free from persecution - (§ 22, 6), and may therefore be placed somewhere between A.D. 260 - and A.D. 302. It was written probably in Syria.--While the first - six bks. of the Apostolic Constitutions may be compared to the - Syrian recension as a contemporary rendition of the Didascalia, - the =seventh book= from an examination of the Didache seems - a rendition of that little work, in which the assumption of - apostolic authorship is made, and from which everything offensive - to the forger and his age is cut out, the old text being - otherwise literally reproduced, while into it is cleverly - smuggled from his own resources whatever would contribute to - the support of his own peculiar views as well as the prevailing - practice of the church. The Eusebian symbol, which is given in - the 41st chap., is an anti-Nicene, anti-Marcellianist, Arianizing - formula, fixing the date of the forgery at the period of the - Arian controversy, somewhere between A.D. 340 and A.D. 350 - (§ 50, 2).--The =eighth book= is in great part an unmistakeable - forgery compiled from older sources belonging to the 3rd century, - some of which are still to be found, and forms a handbook for - the discharge of clerical, especially episcopal, duties in - the conducting of worship and other clerical functions, _e.g._ - ordination, baptism, etc., together with the relative liturgical - formularies, drawn up in a thoroughly legal-like style, in - which the Apostles one by one give their contribution with the - formula Διατάσσομαι. The composition is probably ante-Nicene, - but the date of its incorporation with the other seven books - is uncertain.--In most, though not in all, MSS. the =Canones - Apostolorum=, sometimes 50, sometimes 85, in number, are appended - to the eighth book as its last chapter. Their standpoint is that - common to the canons of the early councils from which they are - chiefly borrowed. In respect of contents they treat mainly of - the moral behaviour and official functions of the clergy. The - 85th contains a Scripture canon of the Old and New Testaments, - including the two Epp. of the Roman Clement (§ 30, 3), as well - as the Apost. Constitutions, but omitting the Apocalypse of John - (comp. § 33, 9). The collection of the apostolic canon cannot - have been made before the beginning of the 5th century, and most - likely in Syria. Dionysius the Little admitted only the first 50 - as _Canones qui dicuntur Apostolorum_, but Johannes Scholasticus - quite unhesitatingly ascribes all the 85 to Clement of Rome. The - Second Trullan Council in A.D. 692 (§ 63, 2) acknowledged the - genuineness of the 85, but rejected the Apostolic Constitutions - as a heretical forgery which had found no general acceptance in - the West.--While hitherto it has been surmised that the 7th bk. - of the Apost. Constit., as an independent and original work, - should be assigned to another and a much later author than the - first six bks., Harnack, founding upon his study of the Didache, - has come to a clear understanding of their mutual relations. He - shows that the original documents lying at the basis respectively - of the Didache and the Didascalia are fundamentally distinct in - respect of composition and character, but the two in the form in - which they lie before us in the Apost. Constit. are undoubtedly - the work of one and the same interpolator. We further obtain - the equally convincing and surprising result that the author of - this forgery is also identical with the author of the =thirteen - Pseudo-Ignatian Epistles= (§ 30, 5), and had in the one case and - in the other the same object in view. Finally, he characterizes - him as a Syrian cleric well versed in Scripture, especially - the Old Testament, but also a shrewd worldly politician, - opposed to all strict asceticism, who sought by his forgeries - to win apostolic sanction and justification not only for the - constitutional and liturgical institutions of the church, as well - as the milder practice of his age, but also for his own semi-Arian - doctrinal views. - - § 43.5. =The Apostolic Church Ordinances=[120] are, according - to Harnack’s careful analysis, a compilation executed in a most - scholarly fashion of extracts from four old writings: the Didache, - the Ep. of Barnabas, from which the moral precepts are taken, - a κατάστασις τοῦ κλήρου from the beginning of the 3rd century, - and a κατάστασις τῆς ἐκκλησίας from the end of the 2nd century, - with many clumsy alterations and excursuses after the style of - the church tradition of its own period, the beginning of the - 4th century. Its introduction consists of a formula of greeting - modelled upon the Ep. of Barnabas from the twelve Apostles who - are designated by name. The list, which begins with the name of - John, wants one of the two Jameses and the late chosen Matthias, - and the number of twelve is made up by the addition of the name - of Nathanael and that of Cephas in addition to that of Peter. - Then the Apostles tell that Christ had commanded them to divide - among them by lot the Eparchies, Episcopates, Presbyterates, - Diaconates, etc., of all lands, and to send forth οἱ λόγοι into - the whole οἰκουμένη; then follow these λόγοι, first the moral - rules, then the constitutional enactments, both being divided - among the several Apostles (Ἰωάννης εἶπεν, Ματθαίος εἶπεν, - etc.). The compilation had its origin in Egypt, not, however, - at Alexandria, where Athanasius was still unacquainted with it, - or at least did not think it worthy of being mentioned among the - church manuals (§ 59, 1), while at a later period it was held in - the highest esteem by the Copts, Ethiopians, Arabians, etc., and - took the first rank among their books on ecclesiastical procedure. - - - - - II. MONASTICISM, CLERICALISM AND HIERARCHISM. - - - § 44. MONASTICISM.[121] - - Disgusted with worldly pursuits and following an impulse of the -oriental character in favour of the contemplative life, many ascetics -withdrew into deserts and solitudes, there as Anchorets (ἐρεμίται, -μοναχοί, μονάζοντες), amid prayer and labour, privation and self-denial, -wringing out of the wilderness their scanty support, they strove after -holiness of life which they thought they could reach only by forsaking -the accursed world. The place where this extravagant extreme of the -old ascetism arose was the Thebaid in Upper Egypt (§ 39, 3). The first, -and for a long time isolated, examples of such professional abandonment -of the world may be traced back to the 3rd century; but they had wider -spread first in the post-Constantine Age. The example of St. Anthony was -specially influential in leading a number of like-minded men to betake -themselves to isolated dwellings, λαῦραι, in his neighbourhood and to -place themselves under his spiritual direction. In this we have already -the transition from a solitary anchoret life to a communal cœnobite -life (κοινὸς βίος), and this reached maturity when Anthony’s disciple -Pachomius gathered the scattered residents in his district into one -common dwelling, _Claustrum_, _Cœnobium_, _Monasterium_, _Mandra_=fold, -and bound them under a common system of ascetic practice in prayer and -labour, especially basket making and carpet weaving. This arrangement, -without, however, any tendency to displace the anchoret life properly -so-called, won great favour, and this went on for some decades until -first of all in the East, then also in the West about A.D. 370, the land -was covered over with monasteries. The monastic life under its twofold -aspect was now esteemed as βὶος ἀγγελικός (Matt. xxii. 30), φιλοσοφία -ὑψηλή, _melior vita_. Yet even here corruption soon spread. Not merely -the feeling of spiritual need, but ambition, vanity, slothfulness -and especially the desire to avoid military service and villainage, -taxes and imposts, induced men to enter the monasteries. The Emperor -Valens therefore issued an order in A.D. 365 that such men should be -dragged out by force from their retreats. Spiritual vices too were not -wanting--extravagance and fanaticism, spiritual pride, etc. All the -more did the most distinguished bishops, _e.g._ Basil the Great, feel -it their duty to take the monasteries under their special supervision -and care. Under such direction, besides serving their own special -purpose, they became extremely important and beneficial as places of -refuge for the oppressed and persecuted, and as benevolent institutions -for the sick and the poor. Sometimes also by the introduction of -theological studies as seminaries to prepare candidates for the higher -ecclesiastical offices. Other prelates, however, preferred to use their -monks as a trusty horde for the accomplishment of their own ambitious -party ends. The monks were always reckoned among laymen, but were -distinguished from the _Seculares_ as _Religiosi_ or _Conversi_. - - § 44.1. =The Biography of St. Anthony.=--According to the _Vita - s. Antonii_ ascribed to Athanasius, Anthony was sprung from a - wealthy Coptic family of the country town of Coma in Upper Egypt, - and was born in A.D. 251. At the age of eighteen he lost his - parents, and, being powerfully affected by hearing the story of - the rich young ruler in the gospel read in church, he gave away - all his goods to the poor and withdrew into the desert (A.D. 285). - Amid terrible inward struggles, which took the form of daily - conflicts with demons, who sprang upon him from the sides of his - cave in the shape of all sort of beasts and strange creatures, - he spent a long time in a horrible tomb, then twenty years in the - crumbling ruins of a castle, and finally he chose as his constant - abode a barren mountain, afterwards called Anthony’s Mount, - where a well and some date palms afforded him the absolutely - indispensable support. His clothing, a sheep’s skin and a hairy - cloak, was on his body day and night, nor did he ever wash - himself. The fame of his holiness attracted a multitude of - like-minded ascetics who settled in his neighbourhood and - put themselves under his spiritual direction. But also men of - the world of all ranks made pilgrimages to him, seeking and - finding comfort. Even Constantine and his sons testified in - correspondence with him their veneration, and he answered “like - a Christian Diogenes to the Christian Alexander.” Pointing to - Christ as the only miracle worker, he healed by his prayers - bodily maladies and by his conversations afflictions of the soul. - Amid the distress of the persecution of Maximian in A.D. 311 he - went to Alexandria, but found not the martyrdom which he courted. - Again, in A.D. 351, during the bitter Arian controversy (§ 50), - he appeared suddenly in the great capital, this time gazed at - by Christians and pagans as a divine wonder, and converting - crowds of the heathen. In his last days he resigned the further - direction of the society of hermits gathered about him to his - disciple Pachomius, himself withdrawing along with two companions - into an unknown solitude, where he, bequeathing to the author his - sheepskin, died in A.D. 356, in his 105th year, after exacting a - promise that no one should know the place of his burial.--Until - the appearance of this book, which was very soon translated into - Latin by a certain Evagrius, no single writer, neither Lactantius, - nor Eusebius, nor even Athanasius in any of his other undoubtedly - genuine writings, mentions the name of this patriarchal monk - afterwards so highly esteemed, and all later writers draw only - from this one source. Weingarten has now not only proved that - this _Vita s. Ant._ is not a biography in the proper sense, but - a romance with a purpose which was intended “to represent the - ideal of a monkish life dovetailed into the ecclesiastical system - and raised notwithstanding all popular and vital elements into - a spiritual atmosphere,” but has also disproved the Athanasian - authorship of the book, without, however, seeking to deny the - historical existence of St. Anthony and his importance in the - establishment of monasticism, as this is already vouched for - by the fact that even in the 4th century in the days of Rufinus - pilgrimages were made to _Mons Antonii_.--The most important - witness for the Athanasian authorship is Gregory Nazianzen, who - begins his panegyric on Athanasius delivered in Constantinople - only a few years after that father’s death, which occurred in - A.D. 373, with the wish that he could describe brilliantly the - life of the highly revered man, as he himself had portrayed the - ideal of monasticism in the person of St. Anthony. But, on the - other hand, Jerome in his _Vita Pauli_ and Rufinus in his _Hist. - eremit._ seem not yet to have known the author of the book, - and the former, first in his _De scriptoribus ecclst._, written - twenty years later, knows that Athanasius was the author. Internal - reasons, too, seem with no small weight to tell against the - authenticity of the book, the biographical contents of which are - largely intermixed with fabulous and legendary elements. - - § 44.2. =The Origin of Christian Monasticism.=--From the fact - that not only Lactantius, but also Eusebius, whose history - reaches down to A.D. 324, have nothing to say of a monasticism - already developed or then first in process of development, it - may perhaps be concluded that although in a general way such - an institution was already in existence, it had not yet become - known beyond the bounds of the Thebaid where it originated. - But from the fact that Eusebius, who died in A.D. 340, in his - _Vita Constantini_ reaching down to A.D. 337, never makes any - mention of monasticism, we cannot with like probability infer - a continuance of such ignorance down to the above-mentioned - year, but must attribute it to the limited range of the book - in question. In his commentary on Ps. lxviii. 7 and lxxxiv. 4 - he distinctly speaks of a Christian monasticism. The fugitive - Athanasius, too, so early as A.D. 356 betakes himself to the - monks of the Thebaid, and stays for a year with them (§ 50, 2, 4), - which presupposes a certain measure of organization and celebrity - on the part of the community of that region. In his _Hist. - Arianorum ad monachos_, written about A.D. 360, he declares that - already monasticism had spread through all the τόποι or districts - of Egypt. Of a monasticism outside of Egypt, however, even this - writing still knows nothing. We shall not, therefore, greatly - err if we assume that the latter years of Constantine’s reign - are to be taken as the period of the essential origin of Egyptian - monasticism; though from this it is not to be concluded that - the first isolated beginnings of it, which had not yet won - any special recognition, are not to be assigned to a very much - earlier period. Even the Old and New Testaments, in the persons - of Elijah, John the Baptist, and our Lord Himself, tell of - temporary withdrawals, from religious and ascetical motives, into - the wilderness. But even the life-long professional anchoretism - and cœnobitism had their precursors in the Indian _gymnosophists_, - in the East-Asiatic Buddhism and the Egyptian Serapis worship, - and to a certain extent also in the Essenism of Palestine - (§ 8, 4). From the place of its origin and the character of - its development, however, Christian monasticism can have been - influenced only by the Egyptian Serapis worship, and that in - a very general sort of way. That this actually was the case, - Weingarten especially has sought to prove from various analogies - based upon the learned researches of French Academicians. - - § 44.3. =Oriental Monasticism.=--For centuries Egypt continued - the central seat and training school of Christian monasticism - both for the East and for the West. The most celebrated of all - the Egyptian hermit colonies was that founded by Pachomius, - formerly perhaps a monk of Serapis, († 348), at Tabennæ, an - island of the Nile. To the mother monastery were soon attached - numerous daughter monasteries. Each of these institutions was - under the direction of a president called the abbot, _Abbas_, - _i.e._ “father,” or Archimandrite; while all of them together - were under the superior of the parent monastery. Similar unions - were established by Ammonius among the Nitrian mountains, and by - Macarius the Elder (§ 47, 7) in the Scetic desert. Hilarion, a - disciple of St. Anthony († 371), is celebrated by Jerome as the - founder of Palestinian monasticism. The _Vita Hilarionis_ of - the latter, richly adorned with records of adventurous travels - and wonderful events, most extravagant wonders and demoniacal - apparitions, like the life of Paul of Thebes (§ 39, 4), has - been recently shown to be a romance built upon certain genuine - reminiscences. Basil the Great and Gregory Nazianzen with - youthful enthusiasm sought to introduce monasticism into their - native Asia Minor, while Eustathius, Bishop of Sebaste († 380), - carried it still further east. But though among the Syrian - discourses of Aphraates (§ 47, 13) there is found one on - monasticism, which thus would seem to have been introduced into - Mesopotamia by A.D. 340, this is in contradiction to all other - witnesses and awakens a suspicion of the ungenuineness of the - discourse, which is further confirmed by its being wanting - in the Armenian translation, as well as in the enumeration - of Gennadius.--The zeal especially of Basil was successful in - ennobling monasticism and making it fruitful. The monastic rules - drawn up by him superseded all others in the East, and are to - this day alone recognised in the orthodox Greek Church. According - to these every monastery had one or more clerics for conducting - worship and administering the sacrament. Basil also advanced - the development and influence of monasticism by setting down - the monasteries in the neighbourhood of the cities. In the - 5th century two of the noblest, most sensible and talented - representatives of ancient monasticism did much for its elevation - and ennobling; namely, Isidore, who died about A.D. 450, - abbot and priest of a cloister at Pelusium in Egypt, and his - contemporary Nilus, who lived among the monks of Sinai. The not - inconsiderable remnants of their numerous letters still extant - testify to their far-reaching influence, as well as to the noble - and liberal spirit which they manifested (§ 47, 6, 10).[122] A - peculiar kind of cœnobite life is found amongst the =Acoimetæ=, - for whom the Roman Studius founded about A.D. 46O the afterwards - very celebrated monastery _Studion_ at Constantinople, in which - as many as a thousand monks are said to have lived together - at one time. They took their name from the divine service - uninterruptedly continued in their cloister night and day. From - the 5th century the legislative Synods undertook the care of the - monasteries. The Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451 put them under - the jurisdiction of the bishop. Returning to the world was at - first freely permitted, but was always regarded as discreditable - and demanding submission to penance. From the 6th century, - however, monastic vows were regarded as of life-long obligation, - and therefore a regular canonical age was fixed and a long - novitiate prescribed as a time of testing and consideration. - About this time, too, besides the _propria professio_, the - _paterna devotio_ was also regarded as binding in accordance - with the example of 1 Sam. i. 11. - - § 44.4. =Western Monasticism.=--The West did not at first take - kindly to the monastic idea, and only the combined exhortations - of the most respected bishops and teachers of the Church, with - Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine at their head, secured for it - acceptance there. The idea that already the universally revered - Athanasius who from A.D. 341 resided a long time in Rome (§ 50, 2), - had brought hither the knowledge of Egyptian monasticism and - first awakened on behalf of it the sympathies of the Westerns, - is devoid of any sure foundation. Owing, however, to the free - intercourse which even on the side of the Church existed between - East and West, it is on the other hand scarcely conceivable that - the first knowledge of Eastern monasticism should have reached - Italy through Jerome on his return in A.D. 373 from his Eastern - travels. But it is certain that Jerome from that time most - zealously endeavoured to obtain recruits for it in the West, - applying himself specially to conspicuous pious ladies of Rome - and earning for this scant thanks from their families. The - people’s aversion, too, against monasticism was so great that - even in A.D. 384, when a young female ascetic called Blasilla, - the daughter of St. Paula, died in Rome as some supposed from - excessive fasting, an uproar was raised in which the indignant - populace, as Jerome himself relates, cried out, _Quousque genus - detestabile monachorum non urbe pellitur? Non lapidibus obruitur? - non præcipitatur in fluctus?_ But twenty years later Jerome could - say with exultation, _Crebra virginum monasteria, monachorum, - innumerabilis multitudo, ut ... quod prius ignominiæ fuerat, - esset postea gloriæ_. Popular opposition to the monks was longest - and most virulently shown in North Africa. Even so late as - about A.D. 450, Salvianus reports the expressions of such hate: - _Ridebant, ... maledicebant ... insectabantur ... detestabantur - ... omnia in monacho pœne fecerunt quæ in Salvatorem nostrum - Judæorum impietas_, etc. Nevertheless monasticism continued - to spread and therewith also the institution grew in popular - esteem in the West. Martin of Tours (§ 47, 14) established it - in Northern Gaul in A.D. 370; and in Southern Gaul, Honoratus - [Honorius] about A.D. 400 founded the celebrated monastery of - Serinum, on the uninhabited island of Lerina, and John Cassianus - (§ 47, 21), the still more celebrated one at Massilia, now - Marseilles. The inroads of the invaders well nigh extinguished - Western monachism. It was Benedict of Nursia who first, in - A.D. 529, gave to it unity, order, and a settled constitution, - and made it for many centuries the pioneer of agricultural - improvement and literary culture throughout the Western empire - that had been hurled into confusion by the wars of the barbarians - (§ 85). - - § 44.5. =Institution of Nunneries.=--Virgins devoted to God, who - repudiated marriage, are spoken of as early as the 2nd century. - The limitations of their sex forbade them entering on the life - of anchorets, but all the more heartily did they adopt the idea - of the cloister life. St. Anthony himself is said to have laid - its first foundations when he was hastening away into solitude, - by establishing at Coma for the sake of his sister whom he - was leaving behind, an association of virgins consecrated unto - God. Pachomius founded the first female cloister with definite - rules, the superior of which was his own sister. From that time - there sprang up a host of women’s cœnobite unions. The lady - superior was called _Ammas_, “mother;” the members, μοναχαί, - _sanctimoniales_, _nonnæ_, which was a Coptic word meaning chaste. - The patroness of female monachism in the West was St. Paula - of Rome, who was the scholar and friend of Jerome. Accompanied - by her daughter Eustochium, she followed him to Palestine, and - founded three nunneries at Bethlehem. - - § 44.6. =Monastic Asceticism.=--Although the founders of the - Eastern monastic rules subjected themselves to the strictest - asceticism and performed them to a remarkable extent, especially - in fasting and enduring privations, yet the degree of asceticism - which they enjoined upon their monks in fasting, watching, prayer - and labour, was in general moderate and sensible. Valorous acts - of self mortification, so very congenial to the oriental spirit, - are thus met with in the proper monastic life seldomer than among - ascetics living after their own fancy in deserts and solitudes. - This accounts for the rare appearance of the =Stylites= or pillar - saints, by whom expression was given in an outward way to the - idea of elevation above the earthly and of struggle toward heaven. - The most celebrated of these was _Simeon Stylites_, who lived in - the neighbourhood of Antioch for thirty years on a pillar seventy - feet high, and preached repentance to the people who flocked to - him from every side. Thousands of Saracens who roamed through - those regions sought baptism, overcome, according to the legend, - by the power of his discourse. He died A.D. 459. After him the - most celebrated pillar saints were one _Daniel_ who died at - Constantinople in A.D. 489, and a younger _Simeon_ who died at - Antioch in A.D. 596. - - § 44.7. =Anti-Ecclesiastical and Heretical Monasticism.=--Even - after the regulating of monachism by Pachomius and Basil, there - were still isolated hermit societies which would be bound by no - rules. Such were the =Sarabaites= in Egypt and the =Remoboth= - in Syria. Crowds of monks, too, under no rule swarmed about, - called Βοσκοί, _Pabulatores_ or Grazers, because they supported - themselves only on herbs and roots. In Italy and Africa from - the 5th century we hear of so-called =Gyrovagi=, who under the - pretence of monachism led a useless vagabond life. Monasticism - assumed a decidedly heretical and schismatical character among - the Euchites and Eustathianists in the second half of the 4th - century. The =Euchites=, called also from their mystic dances - _Messalians or Chorentes_, not to be confounded with the pagan - Euchites (§ 42, 6), thought that they had reached the ideal of - perfection, and were therefore raised above observance of the law. - Under pretext of engaging in constant prayer and being favoured - with divine visions, they went about begging, because work was - not seemly for perfect saints. Every man they taught, by reason - of his descent from Adam, brings with him into the world an - evil demon who can be overcome only by prayer, and thus evil - can be torn out by the roots. Then man is in need neither of the - law, nor of holy scripture, nor of the sacraments, and may be - unconditionally left to himself, and may even do that which to - a legal man would be sinful. The mystic union of God and man they - represented by lascivious acts of sensual love. They understood - the gospel history only as an allegory and considered fire the - creative light of the universe. By craft and espionage Bishop - Flavian of Antioch, in A.D. 381, came to know their secret - principles and proceedings. But notwithstanding the persecution - now directed against them, they continued in existence till the - 6th century. The =Eustathianists= took their name from Eustathius, - Bishop of Sebaste, the founder of monasticism in the eastern - provinces of the empire. Their fanatical contempt of marriage - went so far that they regarded fellowship with the married impure - and held divine service by themselves alone. They repudiated the - Church fasts and instead ordained fasts on Sundays and festival - days, and wholly abstained from eating flesh. The women dressed - in men’s clothes. From the rich they demanded the surrender of - all their goods. Servants forsook their masters, wives their - husbands, in order to attach themselves to the associations - of these saints. But the resolute interference of the Synod of - Gangra in Paphlagonia, between A.D. 360 and A.D. 370, checked - their further spread.--More closely related to the old ascetic - order than to the newly organized monasticism was a sect which, - according to Augustine, had gained special acceptance among the - country people round about Hippo. In accordance with the example - of Abel, who in the Old Testament history is without children, - its members, the so-called =Abelites=, indeed married, but - restrained themselves from marital intercourse, in order that - they might not by begetting children contribute to the spread of - original sin, and maintained their existence by the adoption of - strange children, one boy and one girl being received into each - family. - - - § 45. THE CLERGY. - - The distinction between clergy and laity was ever becoming more -and more clearly marked and in the higher church offices there grew -up a spiritual aristocracy alongside of the secular aristocracy. The -priesthood arrogated a position high above the laity just as the soul -is higher than the body. There was consequently such a thronging into -the clerical ranks that a restriction had to be put upon it by the -civil laws. The choice of the clergy was made by the bishops with the -formal consent of the members of the church. In the East the election -of bishops lay ordinarily with the episcopal board of the province -concerned though under the presidency of the metropolitan, whose duty -it was to ordain the individual so elected. The episcopal chair of the -imperial capital, however, was generally under the patronage of the -court. In the West on the other hand the old practice was continued, -according to which bishops, clergy and members of the church together -made the election. At Rome, however, the emperor maintained the right -of confirming the appointment of the new bishop. The exchange of one -bishopric for another was forbidden by the Nicene Council as spiritual -adultery (Eph. v. 33 ff.), but was nevertheless frequently practised. -The monarchical rank of the bishop among the clergy was undisputed. The -_Chorepiscopi_ (§ 34, 3) had their episcopal privileges and authority -always more and more restricted, were made subordinate to the city -bishops, and finally, about A.D. 360, were quite set aside. To the -Presbyters, on the other hand, in consequence of the success of the -anti-episcopal reaction, especially among the daughter and country -churches, complete independence was granted in regard to the ministry -of the word and dispensation of sacraments, with the exception of the -ordination of the clergy, and in the West also the confirmation of the -baptism, which the bishop alone was allowed to perform. - - § 45.1. =Training of the Clergy.=--The few theological seminaries - of Alexandria, Cæsarea, Antioch, Edessa and Nisibis could not - satisfy the need of clerical training, and even these for the - most part disappeared amid the political and ecclesiastical - upheavals of the 5th and 6th centuries. The West was entirely - without such institutions. So long as pagan schools of learning - flourished at Athens, Alexandria, Nicomedia, etc., many Christian - youths sought their scientific preparation for the service of - the church in them, and added to this on the Christian side by - asceticism and theological study among the anchorets or monks. - Others despised classical culture and were satisfied with what - the monasteries could give. Others again began their clerical - career even in boyhood as readers or episcopal secretaries, - and grew up under the oversight and direction of the bishop or - experienced clergymen. Augustine organized his clergy into a - monastic association, _Monasterium Clericorum_, and gave it the - character of a clerical seminary. This useful institution found - much favour and was introduced into Sicily and Sardinia by the - bishops driven out by the Vandals. The _Regula Augustini_, so - often referred to the Latin Middle Ages, is of later and - uncertain origin, but is based upon two discourses of Augustine, - “_De Moribus Clericorum_” and an Epistle to the Nuns at - Hippo.--The age of thirty was fixed upon as the canonical age - for entering the order of presbyter or priest; twenty-five for - that of deacon. Neophytes, those who had been baptized on a - sickbed (_Clinici_), penitents and energoumeni, _Bigenie_, the - mutilated, eunuchs, slaves, actors, comedians, dancers, soldiers, - etc., were excluded from the clerical office. The African church - even in the 4th century prescribed a strict examination of - candidates as to their attainments and orthodoxy. Justinian - at least insisted upon a guarantee of orthodoxy by means of - episcopal examination.--=Ordination=[123] made its appearance - as an appendage to the baptismal anointing as a sacramental - ordinance. The one was consecration to the priesthood in the - special sense: the other in the general sense; both bore a - _character indelibilis_. Their efficacy was generally regarded - as of a magical kind. The imparting of ordination was exclusively - an episcopal privilege; but presbyters could assist at the - consecration of those of their own order. The proposition: - _Ne quis vage ordinatur_, was of universal application; the - missionary office was the only exception. The anniversaries of - episcopal ordinations, _Natales episcoporum_, were frequently - observed as festivals. Legally no one could be ordained to a - higher ecclesiastical office, who had not passed through all the - lower offices from that of subdeacon. In earlier times ordination - consisted only in imposition of hands; but subsequently, after - the pattern of baptism there was added an anointing with _Chrism_, - _i.e._ oil with balsam. The Lord’s Supper was partaken of - before ordination, the candidate having previously observed a - fast.--From the 5th century it was made imperative that the party - ordained should adopt the =Tonsure=.[124] It had been introduced - first in connection with the penitents, then as a symbol of - humility it found favour among the monks, and from these it - passed over to the clergy. Originally the whole head was shaved - bare. At a later period the Greek tonsure, _Tonsura Pauli_, which - merely shaved the forehead, was distinguished from the Romish, - _Tonsura Petri_, which left a circle of hair round about the - crown of the head, as a memorial of Christ’s crown of thorns or - as the symbol of the royal priesthood, _Corona sacerdotalis_. - The shaving of the beard, as an effeminate foppish custom, seemed - to the ancient church to detract from the sternness and dignity - of the clerical rank. In all Eastern churches the full beard was - retained, and the wearing of it by-and-by made obligatory, as it - is to this day. In the West, however, perhaps to mark a contrast - to the bearded clergy of the Arian Germans, shaving became - general among the Catholic clergy, and by papal and synodal - ordinances became almost universally prevalent. The adoption - of the custom was also perhaps furthered by a desire to - give symbolic expression by the removal of the beard to the - renunciation of the claims of the male sex on the part of a - celibate clergy.--A solemn =Investiture= with the insignia of - office (§ 59, 7) was gradually introduced, and was that which - marked distinctions between the consecrations to the various - ranks of clerical offices. - - § 45.2. =The Injunction of Celibacy.=--In accordance with a hint - given by the Spanish Provincial Synod of Elvira in A.D. 306 in - its 32nd canon, the Œcumenical Council of Nicæa in A.D. 325 was - inclined to make the obligation of celibacy at least for the - _Ordines Majores_ a binding law over the whole church. But on the - other hand the Egyptian bishop Paphnutius, a confessor and from - his youth an ascetic, stoutly maintained that the fellowship of - married persons too is chastity. His powerful voice decided the - matter. The usual practice, however, was that bishops, presbyters - and deacons should not contract a second marriage (1 Tim. iii. 2), - after ordination should contract no marriage at all, and if - previously married, should continue to live with their wives - or not as they themselves should find most fit. The Easterns - maintained this free standpoint and at the Synod of Gangra in - A.D. 360 contended against the Eustathianists (§ 44, 7) for - the holiness of marriage and the legitimacy of married priests; - and in the 5th Apost. Canon there was an express injunction: - _Episcopus vel presbyter, vel diaconus uxorem suam non rejiciat - religionis prætexti; sin autem rejecerit segregetur, et si - perseveret deponatur_. Examples of married bishops are not - rare in the 4th and 5th centuries; _e.g._ the father of Gregory - Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, Synesius of Ptolemais, etc. - Justinian I. forbade the election of a married man as bishop. - The second Trullan Council in A.D. 692 (§ 63, 2) confirmed this - decree, interdicted second marriages to all the clergy, but, with - an express protest against the unnatural hardness of the Roman - church, allowed to presbyters a single marriage with all its - privileges which, however, must have been entered upon before - consecration, and during the period of service at the altar all - marital intercourse had to be discontinued. In Rome, however, the - Spanish principles were strictly maintained. A decretal of the - Roman bishop, Siricius, in A.D. 385, with semi-Manichæan abuse - of marriage, insisted on the celibacy of all bishops, presbyters - and deacons, and Leo the Great included even subdeacons under - this obligation. All the more distinguished Latin church - teachers contended zealously for the universal application of - the injunction of clerical celibacy. Yet there were numerous - instances of the contravention of the order in Italy, in Gaul, - and in Spain itself, and conformity could not be secured even by - the most emphatic re-issue of the injunction by successive Synods. - In the British and Iro-Scottish church the right of the clergy - and even of bishops to marry was insisted upon (§ 77, 3).[125] - - § 45.3. =Later Ecclesiastical Offices.=--In addition to the - older church offices we now meet with attendants on the sick or - =Parabolani=, from παραβάλλεσθαι τὴν ζωήν, and grave-diggers, - κοπιαταί, _Fossarii_, whose number in the capital cities rose to - an almost incredible extent. They formed a bodyguard ever ready - to gratify episcopal love of pomp. Theodosius II. in A.D. 418 - restricted the number of the Parabolani of Alexandria to six - hundred and the number of the Copiati of Constantinople to nine - hundred and fifty. For the administration of Church property - there were οἰκόνομοι; for the administration of the laws of the - church there were advocates, ἔνδικοι, σύνδικοι, _Defensores_; for - drawing up legal documents in regard to church affairs there were - _Notarii_, ταχύγραφοι, besides, Keepers of Archives, χαρτοφύλακες, - Librarians, _Thesaurarii_, σκευοφύλακες, etc. None of these as - such had clerical consecration. But also within the ranks of the - _Ordines Majores_ new offices sprang up. In the 4th century we - meet with an =Archdeacon= at the head of the deacons. He was the - right hand of the bishop, his representative and plenipotentiary - in the administration and government of the diocese, frequently - also his successor in office. The college of presbyters, too, had - as its head the =Arch-Presbyter= who represented and supported - the bishop in all acts of public worship. A city presbyter - was entrusted with the supervision of the country churches - as =Visitor=. The African _Seniores plebis_ were mere lay - elders without clerical ordination. The office of =Deaconess= - more or less lost its significance and gradually fell into - disuse.--Justinian I. restricted the number of ecclesiastical - officers in the four great churches of Constantinople to 525; - namely, in addition to the bishop, 60 presbyters, 100 deacons, - 40 deaconesses, 90 subdeacons, 110 readers, 24 singers, and - 100 doorkeepers. - - § 45.4. =Church Property.=--The possessions of the church - regularly increased by presents and bequests was regarded - down to the 5th century generally as the property of the poor, - _Patrimonium pauperum_, while the cost of maintaining public - worship and supplying the clergy with the means of livelihood - were defrayed by the voluntary contributions, _Oblationes_, - of the church members. But the growing demands of the clergy, - especially of the bishops, for an income corresponding to their - official rank and the increasing magnificence of the service, led, - first of all in Rome, to the apportioning of the whole sum into - four parts; for the bishops, for the subordinate clergy, for the - expenses of public worship (buildings, vestments, etc.), and for - the needs of the poor. With the introduction of the Old Testament - idea of priesthood the thought gradually gained ground that the - laity were under obligation, at first regarded simply as a moral - obligation, to surrender a tenth of all their possessions to the - church, and at a very early date this, in the form of freewill - offerings, was often realised. But the Council at Macon in - A.D. 585, demanded these tithes as a right of the church resting - on divine institution, without, however, being thereby able to - effect what first was secured by the Carolingian legislation - (§ 86, 1). The demand that all property which a cleric earned in - the service of the church, should revert to the church after his - death, was given effect to in a Council at Carthage in A.D. 397. - - - § 46A. THE PATRIARCHAL CONSTITUTION AND THE PRIMACY.[126] - - A hierarchical distinction of ranks among the bishops had already -made its appearance even in the previous period by the elevation of -the metropolitan see and the yet more marked precedency given to the -so-called _Sedes apostolicæ_ (§ 34). This tendency got powerful support -from the political divisions of the empire made by Constantine the -Great; for now the bishops of capital cities demanded an extension -of their spiritual superiority corresponding to that given in secular -authority to the imperial governors. The guarding of earlier privileges -along with respectful consideration of more recent claims prevented -the securing of a perfect correspondence between the political and -hierarchical distribution of ranks. The result of giving consideration -to both was the development of the Patriarchal Constitution, in which -the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople and Jerusalem -were recognised as heads of the church universal of equal rank with -jurisdiction over the patriarchates assigned them. The first place in -this clerical Pentarchy was claimed by the Roman see, which ever more -and more decidedly strove for the primacy of the whole church. - - § 46.1. =The Patriarchal Constitution.=--Constantine the Great - divided the whole empire into four prefectures which were - subdivided into dioceses, and these again into provinces. Many - bishops then of the capitals of these dioceses, especially in the - East, under the title of =Exarchs=, assumed a rank superior to - that of the metropolitans, just as these had before arrogated a - rank superior to that of provincial bishops. The first œcumenical - Council at Nicæa in A.D. 325 (§ 50, 1) affirmed on behalf of the - bishops of the three most prominent _Sedes apostolicæ_, =Rome=, - =Alexandria= and =Antioch=, that their supremacy had been already - established by old custom. The so-called second œcumenical - Council at Constantinople in A.D. 381 (§ 50, 4) exempted the - bishop of =Constantinople=, διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὴν νέαν Ῥώμην (since - A.D. 330), from the jurisdiction of the metropolitan of Heraclea, - and gave him the first rank after the bishop of Rome. To these - distinguished prelates there was given the title of honour, - =Patriarch=, which formerly had been given to all bishops; but - the Roman bishops, declining to take common rank with the others, - refused the title, and assumed instead the exclusive use of the - title =Papa=, Πάπας, which had also been previously applied to - all of episcopal rank. The fourth œcumenical Council of Chalcedon - in A.D. 451, in the 28th canon, ranked the patriarch of the - Eastern capital along with the bishop of Rome, granted him - the right of hearing complaints against the metropolitans of - all dioceses that they might be decided at an _endemic_ Synod - (§ 43, 2), and as an equivalent to the vast dominions of - his Roman colleague, gave him as an endowment in addition to - his own patriarchal district, the three complete dioceses of - Thrace, Pontus and Asia. The Exarchs of Heraclea in Thrace, of - Neo-Cæsarea in Pontus, and of Ephesus in Asia, thus placed under - him, bearing the title of _Archbishops_, ἀρχιεπίσκοποι, formed - a hierarchical middle rank between him and the metropolitans of - these dioceses, without, however, any strict definition of their - status being given, so that their preferential rank remained - uncertain and gradually fell back again into that of ordinary - metropolitans. But even at Nicæa in A.D. 325 the bishopric of - =Jerusalem= had been declared worthy of very special honour, - without, however, its subordination under the Metropolitan of - Cæsarea being disputed. Founding on this, Juvenal of Jerusalem - in the 3rd œcumenical Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431 claimed - the rank and privileges of a patriarch, but on the motion of - Cyril of Alexandria was refused. He then applied to the Emperor - Theodosius II. who by an edict named him patriarch, and assigned - to him all Palestine and Arabia. Maximus, however, patriarch - of Antioch, who was thereby deprived of part of his diocese, - persisted in protesting until at Chalcedon in A.D. 451 at - least Phœnicia and Arabia were restored to him.--Within his own - official district each of these five prelates exercised supreme - spiritual authority, and at the head of his patriarchal Synod - decided all the affairs of the churches within the bounds. Still - many metropolitans, especially those of Salamis in Cyprus, of - Milan, Aquileia and Ravenna maintained a position, as Αὐτοκέφαλοι, - independent of any superiority of patriarchate or exarchate. - Alongside of the patriarchs in the East there were σύγκελλοι as - councillors and assistants, and at the imperial court they were - represented by permanent legates who were called _Apocrisiarians_. - From the 6th century the Popes of Rome began by sending them the - _pallium_ to confer confirmation of rank upon the newly-elected - metropolitans of the West, who were called in these parts - _Archiepiscopi_, Archbishops. The patriarchs meeting as a - court represented the unity of the church universal. Without - their consent no œcumenical Council could be held, nor could any - decision be binding on the whole church.--But first Jerusalem - in A.D. 637, then Antioch in A.D. 638, and next Alexandria in - A.D. 640, fell under the dominion of the Saracens. - - § 46.2. =The Rivalry between Rome and Byzantium.=--From the - time of the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451 the patriarch of - Constantinople continued to claim equality in rank and authority - with the bishop of Rome. But the principle upon which in either - case the claims to the primacy were based were already being - interpreted strongly in favour of Rome. In the East the spiritual - rank of the bishoprics was determined in accordance with the - political rank of the cities concerned. Constantinople was the - residence of the ruler of the οἰκουμένη, consequently its bishop - was œcumenical bishop. But in the eyes of the world Old Rome - still ranked higher than the New Rome. All the proud memories of - history clustered round the capital of the West. From Byzantium, - on the other hand, dated the visible decline, the threatened - overthrow of the empire. Moreover the West refused even to - admit the principle itself. Not the will of the emperor, not the - fortunes of the empire, ever becoming more and more deplorable, - should determine the spiritual rank of the bishops, but the - history of the church and the will of its Divine Founder and - Head. Measured by this standard the see of Constantinople stood - not only lower than those of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, - but even below many other sees which though they scarcely had - metropolitan rank, could yet boast of apostolic origin. Then, - Rome unquestionably stood at the head of the church, for here - had lived, confessed and suffered the two chief apostles, here - too were their tombs and their bones; yea, still further, on the - Roman chair had Peter sat as its first bishop (§ 16, 1), whom the - Lord Himself had called to the primacy of the Apostles (§ 34, 8), - and the Roman bishops were his successors and heirs of his - privileges. The patriarch of Constantinople had nothing to - depend upon but his nearness to the court. He was backed up - and supported by the court, was only too often a tool in the - hands of political parties and a defender of heresies which - had the imperial favour. The case for the Roman bishop was - incomparably superior. His being a member of the West-Roman - empire, A.D. 395-476, with emperors for the most part weak and - oppressed on all sides by the convulsions caused by the invasions - of the barbarians, secured to him an incomparably greater - freedom and independence of action, which was little, if at - all, restricted by the Rugian and Ostrogoth invaders of Italy, - A D. 476-536. And even in A.D. 536, when the Byzantine empire - again obtained a footing in Italy, and held out with difficulty - against the onslaught of the Longobards from A.D. 569 to A.D. 752 - within ever narrowing limits, the court could only seldom exercise - an influence upon his proceedings or punish him for his refusal - to yield by removal, imprisonment or exile. And while the East - was rent by a variety of ecclesiastical controversies, in which - sometimes the one, sometimes the other party prevailed, the - West under the direction of Rome almost constantly presented the - picture of undisturbed unity. The controversialists sought the - mediating judgment of Rome, the oppressed sought its intercession - and protection, and because the Roman bishops almost invariably - lent the weight of their intellectual and moral influence to the - cause of truth and right, the party in whose favour decision was - given, almost certainly at last prevailed. Thus Rome advanced - from day to day in the eyes of the Christian world, and soon - demanded as a constant right what personal confidence or pressure - of circumstances had won for it in particular cases. And in - the course of time Rome has never let a favourable opportunity - slip, never failed to hold what once was gained or even claimed - with any possibility of success. A strong feeling in favour of - strict hierarchical pretensions united all parties and found - its rallying point in the chair of St. Peter; even incapable and - characterless popes were upborne and carried through by means of - this idea. Thus Rome advanced with firm step and steady aim, and - in spite of all opposition and resistance continually approached - nearer and nearer to the end in view. The East could at last hold - on and save its ecclesiastical independence only by a complete - and incurable division (§ 67). - - - § 46B. HISTORY OF THE ROMAN CHAIR AND ITS CLAIMS - TO THE PRIMACY.[127] - - The history of the Roman bishopric during the first three centuries is -almost wholly enveloped in a cloud of legend which is only occasionally -broken by a gleam of historical light (see § 33, 3, 4, 5, 7; § 35, 5; -§ 37, 2; § 40, 2; § 41, 1, 3). Only after the martyr church became in -the 4th century the powerful state church does it really enter into -the field of regular and continuous history. And now also first begins -that striving after primacy, present from the earliest times among its -bishops and inherited from the political supremacy of “eternal Rome,” -to be prosecuted with success in political and ecclesiastical quarters. -Its history, for which biographies of the popes down to the end of the -9th century in the so-called _Liber pontificalis_ (§ 90, 6) are most -instructive sources, certainly always in need of critical sifting in -a high degree, permits therefore and demands for our purposes at this -point earnest and close consideration. - - § 46.3. =From Melchiades to Julius I., A.D. 310 to A.D. 352.=--At - the time when Constantine’s conversion so completely changed the - aspect of things =Melchiades= occupied the bishopric of Rome, - A.D. 310 to A.D. 314. Even in A.D. 313 Constantine conferred on - him as the chief bishop of the West the presidency of a clerical - commission for inquiry into the Donatist schism (§ 63, 1). Under - =Sylvester I.=, A.D. 314 to A.D. 335, the Arian controversy - broke out (§ 50), in which, however, he laid no claim to be - an authority on either side. That by his legates, Vitus and - Vincentius [Vincent], he presided at the first œcumenical - Synod at Nicæa in A.D. 325 is a purely Romish fabrication; no - contemporary and none of the older historians know anything of it. - On account of the rise in Egypt of the Meletian schism (§ 41, 4) - the 6th canon of the Council prescribes that the bishop of - Alexandria “in accordance with the old customs shall have - jurisdiction over Egypt, in Libya and in Pentapolis, since it - is also according to old custom for the bishop of Rome to have - such jurisdiction, as also the churches in Antioch and in the - other provinces.” The Council, therefore, as Rufinus also and - the oldest Latin collection of canons, the so-called _Prisca_, - understand this canon, maintains that the ecclesiastical - supremacy of the Roman chair extended not over all the West but - only over the ten _suburbicarian_ provinces belonging to the - diocese of Rome according to Constantine’s division, _i.e._ over - Middle and Southern Italy, with the islands of Sardinia, Corsica - and Sicily. The bishop of Rome, however, was and continued by - the wider development of the patriarchal constitution the sole - patriarch in all the West. What more natural than that he should - regard himself as the one patriarch _over_ all the West? But, - even as the only _sedes apostolica_ of the West, Rome had already - for a long time obtained a rank far beyond the limits of the - Nicene canon. In doubtful cases application was made from all - quarters of the West to Rome for instruction as to the genuine - apostolic tradition, and the epistolary replies to such questions - assumed even in the 4th century the tone of authoritative - statements of the truth, _epistolæ decretales_. But down to - A.D. 344 it was never attempted to claim the authority of Rome - over the East in giving validity to any matter. In this year, - however, the pressure of circumstances obliged the Council - of Sardica (§ 50, 2), after most of the Eastern bishops had - already withdrawn, to agree to hand over to the bishop of - Rome, =Julius I.=, A.D. 337-352, as a steadfast and consistent - confessor of the orthodox faith in this age of ecclesiastical - wavering, the right of receiving appeals from condemned bishops - throughout the empire, and if he found them well supported, of - appointing a new investigation by the bishops of the neighbouring - province. But this decree affected only the person of Julius and - was only the momentary makeshift of a hard-pressed minority. It - therefore attracted no attention and was soon forgotten,--only - Rome forgot it not. - - § 46.4. =From Liberius to Anastasius, A.D. 352 to - A.D. 402.=--Julius’ successor =Liberius=,[128] A.D. 352 to - A.D. 366, maintained with equal steadfastness as his predecessor - the confession of the orthodox Nicene faith, and was therefore - banished by the Emperor Constantius in A.D. 355, who appointed - as his successor the accommodating deacon Felix. But the members - of the church would have nothing to do with the contemptible - intruder, who moreover on the very day of the deportation of - Liberius had solemnly sworn with the whole clergy of Rome to - remain faithful to the exiled bishop. He succeeded indeed in - drawing over to himself a considerable number of the clergy. The - people, however, continued unfalteringly true to their banished - bishop, and even after he had in A.D. 358 by signing a heretical - creed (§ 50, 3) obtained permission to return, they received him - again with unfeigned joy. It was the emperor’s wish that Liberius - and Felix should jointly preside over the Roman church. But - Felix was driven away by the people and could not again secure - a footing among them. Liberius, who henceforth held his position - in Rome as a Nicæan, amnestied those of the clergy who had - fallen away. But the schism occasioned thereby in the church of - Rome broke out with great violence after his death. A rigorist - minority repudiated =Damasus I.=, A.D. 366 to A.D. 384, who had - been chosen as his successor by the majority, because he too at - an earlier date had belonged to the oath-breaking party of Felix. - This minority elected Ursinus as anti-bishop. Over this there - were contentions that led to bloodshed. The party of Damasus - attacked the church of Ursinus and one hundred and thirty-seven - corpses were carried out. Valentinian III. now exiled Ursinus, - and Gratian in A.D. 378 by an edict conferred upon Damasus the - right of giving decision without appeal as party and judge in - one person against all bishops and clergy involved in the schism. - In consequence of this victory of Damasus as partisan of Felix - there was now formed in Rome a tradition which has passed over - into the lists of the popes and the martyrologies, in which - Liberius figures as the adherent of a heretical emperor and a - bloody persecutor of the true Nicene faith and Felix II. as the - legitimate pope. He is also confounded with the martyr Felix who - suffered under Maximian and was celebrated in song by Paulinus - Nolanus, and is thus represented as a holy martyr.[129] To the - pontificate of =Siricius=, A.D. 384 to A.D. 398, the western - church is indebted for the oldest extant papal decretals dating - from A.D. 385 which contain a reply to various questions of - the Spanish bishop couched quite in the hierarchical form and - insisting in strong terms upon the binding obligation of clerical - celibacy. Subsequently the same pope, burdened with “the care of - all the churches,” feels himself obliged to issue an _encyclical_ - to all the churches of the West, denouncing the frequent - neglect of existing ecclesiastical laws. In the Origenist - controversy between Jerome and Rufinus (§ 51, 2) he favoured - the latter;--whereas his successor, =Anastasius=, A.D. 398 to - A.D. 402, took the side of Jerome. - - § 46.5. =From Innocent I. to Zosimus, A.D. 402 to A.D. 418.=--In - consequence of the partition of the empire into an eastern and - a western division in A.D. 364 (comp. § 42, 4), the claims of - the Roman chair to ecclesiastical supremacy over the whole of the - West were not only confirmed but also very considerably extended. - For by this partition the western half of the empire included not - only those countries which had previously been reckoned western, - namely, Africa, Spain, Britain, Gaul and Italy, but also the - prefecture of Illyricum (Greece, Thessaly, Macedonia, Dalmatia, - Pannonia, Mœsia, Dacia) with its capital Thessalonica, and thus - events played into the hands of those who pressed the patriarchal - claims of Rome. Even when in A.D. 379 Eastern Illyria (Macedonia, - Mœsia and Dacia) was attached to the Eastern empire, the Roman - bishops continued still to regard it as belonging to their - patriarchal domain. These claims were advanced with special - emphasis and with corresponding success by =Innocent I.=, - A.D. 402 to A.D. 417. When in A.D. 402 he intimated to the - archbishop of Thessalonica his elevation to the chair, he at the - same time transferred to him as his representative the oversight - of all the Illyrian provinces, and to his successor, in A.D. 412, - he sent a formal document of installation as Roman vicar. Not - only did he apply to the Roman chair that canon of the Council - of Sardica which had referred only to the person of Julius, but - in a decretal to a Gallic bishop he extended also the clearly - circumscribed right of appeal on the part of condemned bishops - into an obligation to submit all “_causæ majores_” to the - decision of the apostolic see. From Africa a Carthaginian Synod - in A.D. 404 sent messengers to Rome in order to secure its - intercession with the emperor to put down the Donatists. From the - East Theophilus of Alexandria and Chrysostom of Constantinople - solicited the weighty influence of Rome in the Origenist - controversy (§ 51, 3); and Alexander of Antioch (§ 50, 8) - expresses the proud satisfaction he had, as only Western bishops - had done before, in asking the Roman bishop’s advice on various - constitutional and disciplinary matters. During the Pelagian - controversy (§ 53, 4) the Palestinian Synod at Diospolis in - A.D. 415 interceded with the Pope in favour of Pelagius accused of - heresy in Africa; on the other hand the African Synods of Mileve - and Carthage in A.D. 416 besieged him with the demand to give the - sanction of his authority to their condemnation of the heretic. - He took the side of the Anti-Pelagians, and Augustine could - shower upon the heretics the pregnant words: _Roma locuta ... - causa finita_.--The higher the authority of the Roman chair rose - under Innocent, all the more painful to Rome must the humiliation - have been, which his successor =Zosimus=, A.D. 417-418, called - down upon it, when he, in opposition to his predecessor, took - the part of Pelagius and his companion Cœlestius, and addressed - bitter reproaches to the Africans for their treatment of him, but - afterwards in consequence of their vigorous remonstrances and the - interference of the emperor Honorius was obliged to withdraw his - previous judgment and formally to condemn his quondam protegé. - And when a deposed presbyter of Africa, Apiarius, sought refuge - in Rome, the Council of Carthage in A.D. 418, in which Augustine - also took part, made this an excuse for forbidding under threat - of excommunication any appeal _ad transmarina judicia_. Zosimus - indeed appealed to the canon of the Sardican Synod, which he - quoted as Nicene; but the Africans, to whom that canon was quite - unknown, only said that on this matter they must make inquiries - among the Eastern churches.[130] - - § 46.6. =From Boniface I. to Sixtus III., A.D. 419 to - A.D. 440.=--After the death of Zosimus, 26th Dec., 418, a minority - of the clergy and the people, by the hasty election and ordination - of the deacon Eulalius, anticipated the action of the majority - who chose the presbyter Boniface. The recommendation of the city - prefect Symmachus secured for the former the recognition of the - Emperor Honorius; but the determined remonstrance of the majority - moved him to convene a Synod at Ravenna in A.D. 419 for a final - settlement of the dispute. When the bishops there assembled - could not agree, he called a new Synod to meet at Spoleto at the - approaching Easter festival, and ordered, so as to make an end - of disturbances and tumults in the city, that both rivals should - quit Rome until a decision had been reached. Eulalius, however, - did not regard the injunction but pushed his way by force of arms - into the city. The Emperor now banished him from Rome on pain of - death, and at Spoleto the bishops decided in consequence of the - moderation he had shown, to recognise =Boniface I.=, A.D. 419 to - A.D. 422, as bishop of Rome. His successor was =Cœlestine I.=, - A.D. 422 to A.D. 432. Apiarius, who meanwhile, because he - professed repentance and besought forgiveness, had been restored, - began anew to offend, was again deposed, and again obtained - protection and encouragement at Rome. But an African Synod at - Carthage energetically protested against Cœlestine’s interference, - charging him with having often referred to a Nicene canon - warranting the right of appeal to Rome which the most diligent - inquiries among the churches of Constantinople, Alexandria and - Antioch, had failed to discover. On the outbreak of the Nestorian - controversy (§ 52, 3) two opponents again sued for the favour - of the Roman league; first of all, Nestorius of Constantinople, - because he professed to have given particular information - about the Pelagian-minded bishops driven from Italy who sought - refuge in Constantinople (§ 53, 4) and had immediately made a - communication about the error of confounding the two natures of - Christ which had recently sprung up in the East. The brotherly - tone of this writing, free from any idea of subordination, - found no response at Rome. The letters of Cyril of Alexandria - proved more acceptable, filled as they were with cringing - flatteries of the Roman chair and venomous invectives against the - Constantinopolitan see and its occupier. Cœlestine unreservedly - took the side of Cyril, commanded Nestorius under threat of - deposition and excommunication within ten days to present to - a Roman Synod, A.D. 420, a written retractation, and remitted - to Cyril the carrying out of this judgment. To his legates at - the Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431, he gave the instructions: - _Auctoritatem sedis apostolicæ custodire debere mandamus.... Ad - disceptationem si fuerit ventum, vos de eorum sententiis judicare - debetis, non subire certamen._ The Council decided precisely - according to Cœlestine’s wish. The proud Alexandrian patriarch - had recognised Rome as the highest court of appeal; a Western - educated at Rome, named Maximian, thoroughly submissive to - Cœlestine, was, with the pope’s hearty approval, raised to the - patriarchal see of Constantinople as successor of the deposed - Nestorius; only John of Antioch opposed the decision. Cœlestine’s - successor =Sixtus III.=, A.D. 432 to A.D. 440, could already - boast in A.D. 433 that he had put himself superior to the decrees - of the Council, and in commemoration of the victory dedicated - a beautiful church newly built to the mother of God, now called - _S. Maria Maggiore_.[131] - - § 46.7. =From Leo the Great to Simplicius, A.D. 440 to - A.D. 483.=--=Leo I.=, A.D. 440 to A.D. 461 (comp. § 47, 22), - unquestionably up to that date the greatest of all the occupants - of the Roman chair, was also the most powerful, the worthiest and - most successful vindicator of its authority in the East as well - as in the West; indeed he may be regarded as properly the founder - of the Roman papacy as a universal episcopate with the full - sanction of the civil power. Even the Western Fathers of the 4th - and 5th centuries, such as Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine, - as also Innocent I., had still interpreted the πέτρα of Matt. - xvi. 18 partly of the confession of Peter, partly of the Person - of Christ. First in the time of Cœlestine an attempt was made to - refer it to the person of Peter. The legates of Cœlestine at the - Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431 had said: ὅστις, ἕως τοῦ νῦν καὶ - ἀεὶ ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῦ διαδόχοις καὶ ζῇ καὶ δικάζει. Thus they claimed - universal primacy as of immediately Divine authority. Leo I. - adopted this view with all his soul. In the most determined - and persistent way he carried it out in the West; then next - in proconsular Africa which had so energetically protested in - the times of Innocent and Cœlestine against Romish pretensions. - When news came to him of various improprieties spreading there, - he sent a legate to investigate, and in consequence of his - report addressed severe censures which were submitted to without - opposition. The right of African clerics to appeal to Rome was - also henceforth unchallenged. In Gaul, however, Leo had still to - maintain a hard struggle with Hilary, archbishop of Arles, who, - arrogating to himself the right of a primacy of Gaul, had deposed - Celedonius, bishop of Besontio, _Besançon_. But Leo took up his - case and had him vindicated and restored by a Roman Synod. Hilary, - who came himself to Rome, defied the Pope, escaped threatened - imprisonment by secret flight, and was then deprived of his - metropolitan rights. At the same time, in A.D. 445, Leo obtained - from the young Emperor of the West, Valentinian III., a civil - enactment which made every sort of resistance to the divinely - established universal primacy of the Roman see an act of high - treason.--In the East, too, Leo gained a higher position than had - ever before been accorded to Rome on account of his moderation - in the Eutychian controversy (§ 52, 4). Once again was Rome - called in to mediate between the two conflicting parties. At the - Robber-Synod of Ephesus in A.D. 449, under the presidency of the - tyrannical Dioscurus of Alexandria, the legates of Leo were not, - indeed, allowed to speak. But at the next œcumenical Council at - Chalcedon in A.D. 451 his doctrine won a brilliant victory; even - here, however, much objection was raised to his hierarchical - pretensions. He demanded from the first the presidency for his - legates, which, however, was assigned not to them, but to the - imperial commissioners. The demand, too, for the expulsion of - Dioscurus from the Synod, because he dared _Synodum facere sine - auctoritate sedis apostolicæ, quod mumquam licuit, numquem factum - est_, did not, at first at least, receive the answer required. - When, notwithstanding the opposition of the legates the question - of the relative ranks of the patriarchs was dealt with, they - withdrew from the session and subsequently protested against the - 28th canon agreed upon at that session with a reference to the - 6th Nicene canon which in the Roman _translation_, _i.e._ forgery, - began with the words: _Ecclesia Romana semper habuit primatum_. - But the Council sent the Acts with a dutiful report to Rome for - confirmation, whereupon Leo strictly repudiated the 28th canon, - threatening the church of Constantinople with excommunication, - and so finally gained his point. The emperor annulled it in - A.D. 454, and Anatolius, patriarch of Constantinople, was obliged - to write a humble letter to Leo acquiescing in its erasure; but - this did not prevent his successor from always maintaining its - validity (§ 63, 2).--When the wild hordes of Attila, king of the - Huns, spread terror and consternation by their approach, Leo’s - priestly form appeared before him as a messenger of God, and - saved Rome and Italy from destruction. Less successful was his - priestly intercession with the Arian Vandal chief Genseric, - whose army in A.D. 455 plundered, burnt and murdered throughout - Rome for fourteen days; but all the more strikingly after his - withdrawal did the pope’s ability display itself in restoring - comfort and order amid scenes of unutterable destitution and - confusion. - - § 46.8. =From Felix III. to Boniface II., A.D. 483 to - A.D. 532.=--Under Leo’s second successor, the Rugian or Scyrrian - Odoacer put an end to the West-Roman empire in A.D. 476 (§ 76, 6). - As to the enactments of the Roman state, although himself an - Arian, after seventeen years of a wise rule he left untouched the - orthodox Roman church, and the Roman bishops could under him, as - under his successor, the Ostrogoth Theodoric, also an Arian, from - A.D. 493 to A.D. 526, more freely exercise their ecclesiastical - functions than under the previous government, all the more - as neither of these rulers resided in Rome but in Ravenna. - =Pope Felix III.=, A.D. 483 to A.D. 492, in opposition to the - Byzantine ecclesiastical policy, which by means of the imperial - authority had for quite a hundred years retarded the development - of the orthodox doctrine (§ 52, 5), began a schism lasting - for thirty-five years between East and West, from A.D. 484 to - A.D. 519, which no suspicion of disloyal combination with the - Western rulers can account for. On the appointment of Felix III. - Odoacer assumed the right of confirming all elections of Popes, - just as previously the West Roman emperors had claimed, and Rome - submitted without resistance. The Gothic kings, too, maintained - this right.--=Gelasius I.=, A.D. 492 to A.D. 496 (comp. § 47, 22), - ventured before the Emperor Anastasius I., in A.D. 493, to - indicate the relation of _Sacerdotium_ and _Imperium_ according - to the Roman conception, which already exhibits in its infant - stage of development the mediæval theory of the two swords - (§ 110, 1) and the favourite analogy of the sun and the moon - (§ 96, 9). His peaceable successor =Anastasius II.=, A.D. 496 to - A.D. 498, entered into negotiations for peace with the Byzantine - court; but a number of Roman fanatics wished on this account to - have him cast out of the communion of the church, and saw in his - early death a judgment of heaven upon his conduct. He has ever - since been regarded as a heretic, and as such even Dante consigns - him to a place in hell. After his death there was a disputed - election between =Symmachus=, A.D. 498 to A.D. 514, and Laurentius. - The schism soon degenerated into the wildest civil war, in which - blood was shed in the churches and in the streets. Theodoric - decided for Symmachus as the choice of the majority and the first - ordained, but his opponents then charged him before the king as - guilty of the gravest crimes. To investigate the charges brought - against the bishop the king now convened at Rome a Synod of all - the Italian bishops, _Synodus palmaris_ of A.D. 502, so called - from the porch of St. Peter’s Church adorned with palms, where it - first met. As Symmachus on his way to it was met by a wild mob of - his opponents and only narrowly escaped with his life, Theodoric - insisted no longer on a regular proof of the charges against - him. The bishops without any investigation freely proclaimed him - their pope, and the deacon Eunodius of Pavia, known also as a - hymn writer, commissioned by them to make an apology for their - procedure, laid down the proposition that the pope who himself is - judge over all, cannot be judged of any man. Bloody street fights - between the two parties, however, still continued by day and - night. Symmachus’ successor =Hormisdas=, A.D. 514 to A.D. 523, - had the satisfaction of seeing the Byzantine court, in order - to prepare the way for the winning back of Italy, seeking - for reconciliation with the Western church, and in A.D. 519 - submitting to the humbling conditions of restoration to church - fellowship offered by the pope. A sharp edict of the West Roman - emperor Justin II. against the Arians of his empire caused - Theodoric to send an embassy in their favour to Constantinople, - at the head of which stood =John I.=, A.D. 523 to A.D. 526, with - a threat of reprisals. The pope, however, seems rather to have - utilized his journey for intrigues against the Italian government - of the Goths, for after his return Theodoric caused him to - be cast into prison, in which he died. He was succeeded by - =Felix IV.= A.D. 526 to A.D. 530, after whose death the election - was again disputed by two rivals. This schism, however, was only - of short duration, since Dioscurus, the choice of the majority, - died during the next month. His rival =Boniface II.=, A.D. 530 - to A.D. 532, a Goth by birth and favoured by the Ostrogoth - government, applied himself with extreme severity to put down - the opposing party. - - § 46.9. =From John II. to Pelagius II., A.D. 532 to - A.D. 590.=--Meanwhile Justinian I. had been raised to the - Byzantine throne, and his long reign from A.D. 527 to A.D. 565, - was in many ways a momentous one for the fortunes of the Roman - bishopric. The reconquest of Italy, from A.D. 536 to A.D. 553, by - his generals Belisarius and Narses, and the subsequent founding - of the Exarchate at Ravenna in A.D. 567, at the head of which a - representative of the emperor, a so-called Roman patrician stood, - freed the pope indeed from the control of the Arian Ostrogoths - which since the restoration of ecclesiastical fellowship with the - East had become oppressive, but it brought them into a new and - much more serious dependence. For Justinian and his successors - demanded from the Roman bishops as well as from the patriarchs of - Constantinople unconditional obedience.--=Agapetus I.=, A.D. 535 - to A.D. 536, sent as peacemaker by the Goths to Constantinople, - escaped the fate of John I. perhaps just because he suddenly died - there. Under his successor =Silverius=, A.D. 536 to A.D. 537, - Belisarius, in December, A.D. 536, made his entry into Rome, - and in the March following he deposed the pope and sentenced - him to banishment. This he did at the instigation of the Empress - Theodora whose machinations in favour of Monophysitism had been - already felt by Agapetus. Theodora had already designated the - wretched =Vigilius=, A.D. 537 to A.D. 555, as his successor. He - had purchased her favour by the promise of two hundred pounds - of gold and acquiescence in the condemnation of the so-called - _three chapters_ (§ 52, 6) so eagerly desired by her. Owing - to his cowardliness and want of character Africa, North Italy - and Illyria shook off their allegiance to the Roman see and - maintained their independence for more than half a century. - Terrified by this disaster he partly retracted his earlier - agreement with the empress, and Justinian sent him into exile. - He submitted unconditionally and was forgiven, but died before - reaching Rome. =Pelagius I.=, A.D. 555 to A.D. 560, also a - creature of Theodora, subscribed the agreement and so confirmed - the Western schism which Gregory the Great first succeeded in - overcoming.--The fantastic attempt of Justinian to raise his - obscure birthplace Tauresium, the modern Bulgarian Achrida, to - the rank of a metropolis as Justinianopolis or _Prima Justiniana_, - and its bishop to the rank of patriarch with Eastern Illyria as - his patriarchate, proved, notwithstanding the consent of Vigilius, - a still-born child. - - § 46.10. =From Gregory I. to Boniface V., A.D. 590 to - A.D. 625.=--After the papal chair had been held by three - insignificant popes in succession =Gregory the Great=, A.D. 590 - to A.D. 604 (comp. § 47, 22), was raised to the Apostolic - see, the greatest, most capable, noblest, most pious and most - superstitious in the whole long series of popes. He took the - helm of the church at a time when Italy was reduced to the most - terrible destitution by the savage and ruthless devastations of - the Arian Longobards lasting over twenty years (§ 76, 8), and - neither the emperor nor his exarch at Ravenna had the means of - affording help. Gregory could not allow Italy and the church to - perish utterly under these desperate circumstances, and so was - compelled to assume the functions of civil authority. When the - Longobards in A.D. 593 oppressed Rome to the uttermost there - remained nothing for him but to purchase their withdrawal with - the treasures of the church, and the peace finally concluded - with them in A.D. 599 was his and not the exarch’s work. The - exceedingly rich possessions of lands and goods, the so-called - _Patrimonium Petri_, extending throughout all Italy and the - islands, brought him the authority of a powerful secular prince - far beyond the bounds of the Roman duchy, in comparison with - which the rank of the exarch himself was insignificant. The - Longobards too treated with him as an independent political power. - Gregory, therefore, may rightly be regarded as the first founder - of the temporal power of the Papacy on Italian soil. But all - this as we can easily understand provoked no small dislike of - the pope at Constantinople. The pope, on the other hand, was - angry with the Emperor Maurice because he gave no consideration - to his demand that the patriarch, Johannes Jejunator, should - be prohibited from assuming the title Ἐπίσκοπος οἰκουμενικός. - Gregory’s own position in regard to the primacy appears from - his Epistles. He writes to the bishop of Syracuse: _Si qua culpa - in episcopis invenitur, nescio, quis Sedi apostolicæ subjectus - non sit; cum vero culpa non existit, omnes secundum rationem - humilitatis æquales sunt_. And with this reservation it was - certainly meant when he, in a letter to the patriarch of - Alexandria, who had addressed him as “_Universalis Papa_,” - most distinctly refused this title and readily conceded to - the Alexandrian as well as to the Antiochean see, as of Petrine - origin (the Antiochean directly, § 16, 1; the Alexandrian - indirectly through Mark, § 16, 4), equal rank and dignity with - that of Rome; and when he denounced as an anti-Christ every - bishop who would raise himself above his fellow bishops. Thus - he compared Johannes Jejunator to Lucifer who wished to exalt - himself above all the angels. Gregory, on the other hand, in - proud humility styled himself, as all subsequent popes have done, - _Servus servorum Dei_. When he extolled the Frankish Jezebel - Brunhilda [Brunehilda] (§ 77, 7), who had besought him to send - her relics and at another time a pallium for a bishop, as an - exemplary pious Christian woman and a wise ruler, he may, owing - to the defective communication between Rome and Gaul, have had - no authentic information about her doings and disposition. The - memory of the otherwise noble-minded pope is more seriously - affected by his conduct in reference to the emperor Phocas, - A.D. 602 to A.D. 610, the murderer of the noble and just emperor - Maurice, whom he congratulates upon his elevation to the throne, - and makes all the angelic choirs of heaven and all tongues on - earth break forth in jubilees and hymns of thanksgiving; but even - here again, when he thus wrote, the news of his iniquities,--not - only the slaughter of the emperor, but also of his queen, his - five sons and three daughters, etc., by which this demon in - human form cut his way to the throne,--may not have been known to - him in their full extent.--Phocas, however, showed himself duly - thankful, for at the request of pope =Boniface III.=, A.D. 606 - to A.D. 607, he refused to allow the patriarch of Constantinople - to assume the title of Universal bishop, while at the same time - he formally acknowledged the chair of Peter at Rome as _Caput - omnium ecclesiarum_. To the next pope =Boniface IV.=, A.D. 608 to - A.D. 615, he presented the beautiful Pantheon at Rome, which from - being a temple dedicated to Cybele, the mother of the gods, and - to all the gods, he turned into a church of the mother of God and - of all the martyrs.[132] - - § 46.11. =From Honorius I. to Gregory III., A.D. 625 to - A.D. 741.=--For almost fifty years, from A.D. 633 under - =Honorius I.=, A.D. 625 to A.D. 638, the third successor of - Boniface IV., the _Monothelite controversy_ (§ 52, 8) continued - its disastrous course. Honorius, a pious and peace-loving man, - had seen nothing objectionable in this attempt of the Emperor - Heraclius (A.D. 611 to A.D. 641) to win the numerous Monophysites - back to the unity of the church by the concession of _one_ will - in the two natures of Christ, and was prepared to co-operate in - the work. But the conviction grew more and more strong that the - doctrine proposed in the interests of peace was itself heretical. - All subsequent bishops of Rome therefore unanimously condemned as - an accursed heresy (§ 52, 9), what their predecessor Honorius had - agreed to and confessed. This explains how the exarch of Ravenna - delayed for more than a year the confirmation of the election - of the next pope, =Severinus=, A.D. 638 to A.D. 640, and granted - it only in A.D. 640 as amends for his wholesale plundering of - the treasury of the Roman church to supply his own financial - deficiencies. In the time of =Martin I.=, A.D. 649 to A.D. 653, - the Emperor Constans II., A.D. 642 to A.D. 668, sought to make - an end of the bitter controversy by the strict prohibition of any - statement as to one will or two wills. The determined pope had to - suffer for his opposition by severe imprisonment and still more - trying banishment, in which he suffered from hunger and other - miseries (A.D. 655). The new emperor Constantinus Pogonnatus, - A.D. 668 to A.D. 685, finally recognised the indispensable - necessity of securing reconciliation with the West. In A.D. 680, - he convened an œcumenical Council at Constantinople at which the - legates of the pope =Agatho=, A.D. 678 to A.D. 682, the fifth - successor of Martin I., once more prescribed to the Greeks what - should henceforth be regarded throughout the whole empire as - the orthodox faith. The Council sent its Acts to Rome with the - request that they might be confirmed, which Agatho’s successor, - =Leo II.=, A.D. 682 to A.D. 683, did, notwithstanding the - condemnation therein very pointedly expressed of the heretical - pope Honorius, which indeed he explicitly approved.--Once again - in A.D. 686, the Roman church was threatened with a schism by a - double election to the papal chair. This, however, was averted - by the opposing electors, lay and clerical, agreeing to set - aside both candidates and uniting together in the election of - the =Thracian Conon=, A.D. 686 to A.D. 687. Precisely the same - thing happened with a similar result on the death of Conon. - The new candidate whom both parties agreed upon this time was - =Sergius I.=, A.D. 687 to A.D. 701, but he was obliged to purchase - the exarch’s confirmation by a present of a hundred pounds of gold. - His rejection of the conclusions of the second Trullan Council - at Constantinople in A.D. 692 (§ 63, 2), which in various points - disregarded the pretensions of Rome, brought him into conflict - with the emperor Justinian II., A.D. 685 to A.D. 711. The result - of this contest was to show that the power and authority of the - pope in Italy were at this time greater than those of the emperor. - When the emperor sent a high official to Rome with the order - to bring the pope prisoner to Constantinople, almost the whole - population of the exarchate gathered out in the pope’s defence. - The Byzantine ambassador sought and obtained protection from the - pope, under whose bed he crept, and was then allowed to quit Rome - in safety, followed by the scorn and abuse of the people. Soon - thereafter, in A.D. 695, Justinian was overthrown, and with slit - ears and nose sent into exile. In A.D. 705, having been restored - by the Bulgarian king, he immediately took fearful revenge upon - the rebel inhabitants of Ravenna. Pope Constantine I., A.D. 708 - to A.D. 715, intimidated by what he had seen, did not dare to - refuse the imperial mandate which summoned him to Byzantium - for the arrangement of ecclesiastical differences. With fear - and trembling he embarked. But he succeeded in coming to an - understanding with the emperor, who received and dismissed him - with every token of respect. Under his successor, =Gregory II.=, - A.D. 715 to A.D. 731, the Byzantine iconoclast controversy - (§ 66, 1) gave occasion to an almost complete rupture between - the papacy and the Byzantine empire; and under =Gregory III.=, - A.D. 731 to A.D. 741, the papacy definitely withdrew from the - Byzantine and put itself under the Frankish government. Down to - the latest age of the exarchate of Ravenna the confirmation of - papal elections by the emperor or his representative, the exarch, - was always maintained, and only after it had been given was - consecration allowed. This is proved both from the biographies - of the papal books and from the relative formulæ of petition in - the _Liber diurnus Rom. Pontificum_, a collection of formulæ for - the performance of the most important acts in the service of the - Romish Church made between A.D. 685 and A.D. 751. The election - itself was in the hands of the three orders of the city (_clerus_, - _exercitus_ and _populus_).--Continuation § 82. - - - - - III. THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE AND LITERATURE. - - - § 47. THE THEOLOGICAL SCHOOLS AND THEIR MOST CELEBRATED - REPRESENTATIVES. - - The Ancient Church reached its highest glory during the 4th and -5th centuries. The number of theological schools properly so-called -(§ 45, 1) was indeed small, and so the most celebrated theologians -were self-taught in theology. But all the greater must the intellectual -resources of this age have been and all the more powerful the general -striving after culture, when the outward means, helps and opportunities -for obtaining scientific training were so few. The middle of the 5th -century, marked by the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451, may be regarded -as the turning point where the greatest height in theological science -and in other ecclesiastical developments was reached, and from this -point we may date the beginnings of decline. After this the spirit -of independent research gradually disappeared from the Eastern as -well as from the Western Church. Political oppression, hierarchical -exclusiveness, narrowing monasticism and encroaching barbarism choked -all free scientific effort, and the industry of compilers took the place -of fresh youthful intellectual production. The authority of the older -church teachers stood so high and was regarded as binding in so eminent -a degree that at the Councils argument was carried on almost solely -by means of quotations from the writings of those fathers who had been -recognised as orthodox. - - § 47.1. =The Theological Schools and Tendencies:= - - a. =In the 4th and 5th centuries.=--Since the time of the - two Dionysiuses (§ 33, 7) the Alexandrian theology had - been divided into two different directions which we may - distinguish as the old and the new Alexandrian. =The Old - Alexandrian School= held by the subordinationist view - of Origen and strove to keep open to scientific research - as wide a field as possible. Its representatives showed - deep reverence for Origen but avoided his more eccentric - speculations. Its latest offshoot was the _Semiarianism_ - with which it came to an end in the middle of the 4th - century. This same free scientific tendency in theology - was yet more decidedly shown in =the Antiochean School=. - Although at first animated by the spirit which Origen had - introduced into theology, its further development was a - thoroughly independent one, departing from its original - in many particulars. To the allegorical method of - interpretation of the Origenist school it opposed - the natural grammatico-historical interpretation, to its - mystical speculation, clear positive thinking. Inquiry into - the simple literal sense of holy scripture and the founding - of a purely biblical theology were its tasks. Averse to all - mysteries, it strove after a positive, rational conception - of Christianity and after a construction of dogma by - means of clear logical thought. Hence its dogmatic aim was - pre-eminently the careful distinguishing of the divine and - human in Christ and in Christianity, forming a conception - of each by itself and securing especially in both due - recognition of the human. The theology of the national - =East-Syrian Church=, far more than that of the Antiochean - or Græco-Syrian, was essentially bound down by tradition. - It had its seminaries in the theological schools of Nisibis - and Edessa. The oriental spirit was here displayed in an - unrestricted manner; also a tendency to theosophy, mysticism - and asceticism, a special productiveness in developing forms - of worship and constitution, and withal doctrinal stability. - In their exegesis the members of this school co-operated - with the Antiocheans, though not so decidedly, in opposing - the arbitrary allegorizing of the Origenist school, but - their exegetical activity was not, as with the Antiocheans, - scientific and critical but rather practical and homiletical. - =The New Alexandrian School= was the prevailing one for the - 4th century so far as Alexandrian culture was concerned. - Its older representatives, at least, continued devotedly - attached to Origen and favourable to the speculative - treatment of Christian doctrine introduced by him. But - they avoided his unscriptural extravagances and carried out - consistently the ecclesiastical elements of his doctrine. By - a firm acceptance of the doctrine of the eternal generation - of the Son they overcame the subordinationism of their - master, and in this broke away from the old Alexandrian - school and came into closer relations to the theology of the - Western church. To the Antiochean school, however, they were - directly opposed in respect of the delight they took in the - mysteries of Christianity, and their disinclination to allow - the reason to rule in theology. The union of the divine and - human in Christ and in Christianity seemed to them a sublime, - incomprehensible mystery, any attempt to resolve it being - regarded as alike useless and profane. But in this way - the human element became more and more lost to view and - became absorbed in the divine. They energetically affirmed - the inseparable union of the two, but thereby lost the - consciousness of their distinctness and fell into the - contrary error of Antiochean onesidedness. With Cyril of - Alexandria the New Alexandrian school properly began to - assume the form of a sect and to show symptoms of decay, - although he himself retained the reputation of an orthodox - teacher. =The Western Theology= of this period, as well as - its North-African precursor (§ 31, 10, 11), energetically - insisted upon the application of Christianity to the life, - the development of the doctrines affecting this matter - and the maintenance of the church system of doctrine as a - strong protection against all wilfulness in doctrine. In - it therefore the traditional theology finds its chief home. - Still the points of contact with the East were so many and - so vital that however much inclined to stability the West - might be, it could not altogether remain unmoved and without - enrichment from the theological movements of the age. Thus - we distinguish in the West four different but variously - inter-connected tendencies. First of all there is the - genuinely _Western_, which is separated on the one hand in - Tertullian and Cyprian, but on the other hand is variously - influenced by the talented teachers of the New Alexandrian - School, which continued to mould and dominate the cultured - theology of the West. Its chief representatives are - Hilary of Poitiers, Ambrose, and above all, Augustine, - who completely freed the Latin theology from its hitherto - prevailing dependence on the Greek, placing it now upon its - own feet. The representatives of this tendency were at first - in complete accord with the members of the New Alexandrian - school in their opposition to the semi-Arian Origenists - and the Nestorianizing Antiocheans, but then as that school - itself drifted into the position of a heretical sect, they - also decidedly contended for the other side of the truth - which the Antiochean school maintained. A second group of - Western theologians were inspired by the writings of Origen, - without, however, abandoning the characteristics of the - Western spirit. To this class belongs Jerome, who afterwards - repudiated his master and joined the previously named school, - and Rufinus. The third group of Pelagians represent the - practical but cool rationalistic tendency of the West. The - fourth is that of the semi-Pelagians who in the Western - theology intermingle synergistic elements of an Antiochean - complexion. - - b. =Of the 6th and 7th Centuries.=--The brilliant period - of theological literature had now closed. There still - were scholars who wrought laboriously upon the original - contributions of the fathers, and reproduced the thoughts - of their predecessors in a new shape suited to the needs - of the time, but spirit and life, creative power and - original productivity had well nigh disappeared. After the - monophysite Johannes Philoponus of Alexandria had commented - on the works of Aristotle and applied their categories - to theology, the Platonic philosophy, hitherto on account - of its ideal contents the favourite of all philosophizing - church fathers, was more and more set aside by the - philosophy of the Stagirite so richly developed on the - formal side. The theology of the Greeks even at so early a - date assumed to some extent the character of Scholasticism. - Alongside of it, however, we have a theosophic mysticism - which reverting from the tendency that had lately come into - vogue to Neoplatonic ideas, drew its chief inspiration from - the Pseudo-Dionysian writings. In the West, in addition to - the general causes of decay, we have also the sufferings of - the times amid the tumult of the migration of the nations. - In Italy Boëthius and Cassiodorus won for themselves - imperishable renown as the fosterers of classical and - patristic studies in an age when these were in danger of - being utterly forgotten. The series of Latin church fathers - in the strict sense ends with Gregory the Great; that of - Greek church fathers with Johannes Damascenus. - - - - - 1. THE MOST IMPORTANT TEACHERS OF THE EASTERN CHURCH. - - § 47.2. =The Most Celebrated Representative of the Old - Alexandrian School= is the father of Church History =Eusebius - Pamphili=, _i.e._, the friend of Pamphilus (§ 31, 6), bishop - of Cæsarea from A.D. 314 to A.D. 340. The favour of the emperor - Constantine laid the imperial archives open to him for his - historical studies. By his unwearied diligence as an investigator - and collector he far excels all the church teachers of his age - in comprehensive learning, to which we owe a great multitude of - precious extracts from long lost writings of pagan and Christian - antiquity. His style is jejune, dry and clumsy, sometimes - bombastic. His =Historical Writings= supported on all sides by - diligent research, want system and regularity, and suffer from - disproportionate treatment and distribution of the material. To - his Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ ἱστορία in 10 bks., reaching down to A.D. 324, - he adds a highly-coloured biography of Constantine in 4 bks., - which is in some respects a continuation of his history; and - to it, again, he adds a fawning panegyric on the emperor.--At - a later date he wrote an account of the Martyrs of Palestine - during the Diocletian persecution which was afterwards added - as an appendix to the 8th bk. of the History. A collection of - old martyrologies, three bks. on the life of Pamphilus, and a - treatise on the origin, celebration and history of the Easter - festival, have all been lost. Of great value, especially for the - synchronizing of biblical and profane history, was his diligently - compiled Chronicle, Παντοδαπὴ ἱστορία, similar to that of Julius - Africanus (§ 31, 3), an abstract of universal history reaching - down to A.D. 352, to which chronological and synchronistic tables - were added as a second part. The Greek original has been lost, - but Jerome translated it into Latin, with arbitrary alterations, - and carried it down to A.D. 378.--The =Apologetical Writings= - take the second place in importance. Still extant are the two - closely-connected works: _Præparatio Evangelica_, Εὐαγγελικὴ - προπαρασκευή, in 15 bks., and the _Demonstratio Evangelica_, - Εὐαγγελικὴ ἀπόδειξις, in 8 out of an original of 20 bks. The - former proves the absurdity of heathenism; the latter, the truth - and excellence of Christianity. A condensed reproduction of - the contents and text of the Θεοφανεία in 5 bks. is found only - in a Syriac translation. The Ἐκλογαὶ προφητικαί in 4 bks., of - which only a portion is extant, expounds the Old Testament in an - allegorizing fashion for apologetic purposes; and the treatise - against Hierocles (§ 23, 3) contests his comparison of Christ - with Apollonius of Tyana. A treatise in 30 bks. against Porphyry, - and some other apologetical works are lost.--His =Dogmatic - Writings= are of far less value. These treatises--Κατὰ Μαρκέλλου, - in 2 bks., the one already named against Hierocles, and Περὶ τῆς - ἐκκλησιαστικῆς θεολογίας, also against Marcellus (§ 50, 2)--are - given as an Appendix in the editions of the _Demonstratio - Evangelica_. On his share in Pamphilus’ Apology for Origen, see - § 31, 6; and on his Ep. to the Princess Constantia, see § 57, 4. - The weakness of his dogmatic productions was caused by his - vacillating and mediating position in the Arian controversy, - where he was the mouthpiece of the moderate semi-Arians - (§ 50, 1, 3), and this again was due to his want of speculative - capacity and dogmatic culture.--Of his =Exegetical Writings= - the Commentaries on Isaiah and the Psalms are the most complete, - but of the others we have only fragments. We have, however, his - Τοπικά in the Latin translation of Jerome: _De Situ et Nominibus - Locorum Hebraeorum_.[133] - - § 47.3. =Church Fathers of the New Alexandrian School.= - - a. The most conspicuous figure in the church history of the - 4th century is =Athanasius=, styled by an admiring posterity - _Pater orthodoxiæ_. He was indeed every inch of him a church - father, and the history of his life is the history of the - church of his times. His life was full of heroic conflict. - Unswervingly faithful, he was powerful and wise in building - up the church; great in defeat, great in victory. His was a - life in which insight, will and action, earnestness, force - and gentleness, science and faith, blended in most perfect - harmony. In A.D. 319 he was a deacon in Alexandria. His - bishop Alexander soon discovered the eminent gifts of the - young man and took him with him to the Council of Nicæa - in A.D. 325, where he began the battle of his life. Soon - thereafter, in A.D. 328, Alexander died and Athanasius - became his successor. He was bishop for forty-five years, - but was five times driven into exile. He spent about - twenty years in banishment, mostly in the West, and died - in A.D. 373. His writings are for the most part devoted - to controversy against the Arians (§ 50, 6); but he - also contested Apollinarianism (§ 52, 1), and vindicated - Christianity against the attacks of the heathens in the - pre-Arian treatise in two bks. _Contra Gentes_, Κατὰ Ἑλλήνων, - the first bk. of which argues against heathenism, while the - second expounds the necessity of the incarnation of God in - Christ. For a knowledge of his life and pastoral activity - the _Librî paschales_, Festal letters (§ 56, 3), are of - great value.[134] Of less importance are his exegetical, - allegorical writings on the Psalms. His dogmatic, - apologetical and polemical works are all characterized - by sharp dialectic and profound speculation, and afford - a great abundance of brilliant thoughts, skilful arguments - and discussions on fundamental points in a style as clear - as it is eloquent; but we often miss systematic arrangement - of the material, and they suffer from frequent repetition - of the same fundamental thoughts, defects which, from the - circumstances of their composition, amid the hot combats of - his much agitated life, may very easily be understood and - excused.[135] - - § 47.4. =(The Three Great Cappadocians.)=-- - - b. =Basil the Great=, bishop of his native city of Cæsarea - in Cappadocia, is in very deed a “kingly” figure in church - history. His mother Emmelia and his grandmother Macrina - early instilled pious feelings into his youthful breast. - Studying at Athens, a friendship founded on love to the - church and science soon sprang up between him and his - likeminded countryman Gregory Nazianzen, and somewhat - later his own brother Gregory of Nyssa became an equally - attached member of the fraternity. After he had visited - the most celebrated ascetics in Syria, Palestine and - Egypt, he continued long to live in solitude as an ascetic, - distributed his property among the poor, and became - presbyter in A.D. 364, bishop in A.D. 370. He died in - A.D. 379. The whole rich life of the man breathed of the - faith that overcometh the world, of self-denying love and - noble purpose. He gave the whole powers of his mind to - the holding together of the Catholic church in the East - during the violent persecution of the Arian Valens. The - most beautiful testimony to his noble character was the - magnificent Basil institute, a hospital in Cæsarea, to which - he, while himself living in the humblest manner, devoted - all his rich revenues. His writings, too, entitle Basil - to a place among the most distinguished church fathers. - They afford evidence of rich classical culture as well as of - profound knowledge of Scripture and of human nature, and are - vigorous in expression, beautiful and pictorial in style. - In exegesis he follows the allegorical method. Among his - dogmatic writings the following are the most important: - Ll. 5 _Adv. Eunomium_ (§ 50, 3) and _De Spiritu s. ad - Amphilochium_ against the Pneumatomachians (§ 50, 5). The - other writings bearing his name comprise 365 Epistles, - moral and ascetic tractates, Homilies on the Hexæmeron and - 13 Psalms, and Discourses (among them, Πρὸς τοὺς νέους, - ὁπως ἂν ἐξ ἑλληνικῶν ὠφελοῖντο λόγων), a larger and a - short Monastic rule, and a Liturgy.[136] - - c. =Gregory Nazianzen= was born in the Cappadocian village - Arianz. His father Gregory, in his earlier days a - Hypsistarian (§ 42, 6), but converted by his pious wife - Nonna, became bishop of Nazianzum [Nazianzen]. The son, after - completing his studies in Cæsarea, Alexandria and Athens, - spent some years with Basil in his cloister in Pontus, but, - when his father allowed himself to be prevailed upon to sign - an Arianizing confession, he hasted to Nazianzum [Nazianzen], - induced him to retract, and was there and then suddenly and - against his will ordained by him a presbyter in A.D. 361. - From that time, always vacillating between the desire for - a quiet contemplative ascetic life and the impulse toward - ecclesiastical official activity, easily attracted and - repelled, not without ambition, and so sometimes irritable - and out of humour, he led a very changeful life, which - prevented him succeeding in one definite calling. Basil - transferred to him the little bishopric of Sasima; but - Gregory fled thence into the wilderness to escape the - ill-feelings stirred up against him. He was also for a long - time assistant to his father in the bishopric of Nazianzum - [Nazianzen]. He withdrew, however, in A.D. 375, when the - congregation in spite of his refusal appointed him successor - to his father. Then the small, forsaken company of Nicene - believers in Constantinople called him to be their pastor. - He accepted the call in A.D. 379, and delivered here in a - private chapel, which he designated by the significant name - of Anastasia, his celebrated five discourses on the divinity - of the Logos, which won for him the honourable title of - ὁ θεόλογος. He was called thence by Theodosius the Great in - A.D. 380 to be patriarch of the capital, and had assigned - to him the presidency of the Synod of Constantinople in - A.D. 381. But the malice of his enemies forced him to resign. - He returned now to Nazianzum [Nazianzen], administered for - several years the bishopric there, and died in A.D. 390 in - rural retirement, without having fully realised the motto - of his life: Πράξις ἐπίβασις θεωρίας. His writings consist - of 45 Discourses, 242 Epistles, and several poems (§ 48, 5). - After the 5 λόγοι θεολογικοί and the Λόγος περὶ φυγῆς (a - justification of his flight from Nazianzum [Nazianzen] by - a representation of the eminence and responsibility of the - priesthood), the most celebrated are two philippics, Λόγοι - στηλιτευτικοί (στηλίτευσις=the mark branded on one at - the public pillory), _Invectivæ in Julianum Imperatorem_, - occasioned by Julian’s attempt to deprive the Christians - of the means of classical culture.[137] - - d. =Gregory of Nyssa= was the younger brother of Basil. In - philosophical gifts and scientific culture he excelled his - two elder friends. His theological views too were rooted - more deeply than theirs in those of Origen. But in zeal - in controverting Arianism he was not a whit behind them, - and his reputation among contemporaries and posterity is - scarcely less than theirs. Basil ordained him bishop of - Nyssa in A.D. 371, and thus, not without resistance, took - him away from the office of a teacher of eloquence. The - Arians, however, drove him from his bishopric, to which he - was restored only after the death of the Emperor Valens. - He died in A.D. 394. He took his share in the theological - controversies of his times and wrote against Eunomius and - Apollinaris. His dogmatic treatises are full of profound - and brilliant thoughts, and especially the Λόγος κατηχητικὸς - ὁ μέγας, an instruction how to win over Jews and Gentiles - to the truth of Christianity; Περὶ ψυχῆς καὶ ἀναστάσεως, - conversations between him and his sister Macrina after the - death of their brother Basil, one of his most brilliant - works; Κατὰ εἱμαρμένης, against the fatalistic theory of - the world of paganism; Πρὸς Ἕλληνας ἐκ τῶν κοινῶν ἐννοίων, - for the establishment of the doctrine of the Trinity on - principles of reason. In his numerous exegetical writings - he follows the allegorical method in the brilliant style of - Origen. We also have from him some ascetical tracts, several - sermons and 26 Epistles. - - § 47.5. - - e. =Apollinaris=, called the Younger, to distinguish him - from his father of the same name, was a contemporary of - Athanasius, and bishop of Laodicea. He died in A.D. 390. - A fine classical scholar and endowed with rich poetic gifts, - he distinguished himself as a defender of Christianity - against the attacks of the heathen philosopher Porphyry - (§ 23, 3) and also as a brilliant controversialist against - the Arians; but he too went astray when alongside of the - trinitarian question he introduced those Christological - speculations that are now known by his name (§ 52, 1). - That we have others of his writings besides the quotations - found in the treatises of his opponents, is owing to the - circumstance that several of them were put into circulation - by his adherents under good orthodox names in order to get - impressed upon the views developed therein the stamp of - orthodoxy. The chief of these is Ἡ κατὰ μέρος (_i.e._ - developed bit by bit) πίστις, which has come down to us - under the name of Gregory Thaumaturgus (§ 31, 6). Theodoret - quotes passages from it and assigns them to Apollinaris, - and its contents too are in harmony with this view. So - too with the tract Περὶ τῆς σαρκώσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου, _De - Incarnatione Verbi_, ascribed to Athanasius, which a scholar - of Apollinaris, named Polemon, with undoubted accuracy - ascribed to his teacher. That Cyril of Alexandria ascribes - this last-named tract to Athanasius may be taken as proof of - the readiness of the Monophysites and their precursor Cyril - to pass off the false as genuine (§ 52, 2). To Apollinaris - belong also an Epistle to Dionysius attributed to Julius, - bishop of Rome (§ 50, 2) and a tract, attributed to the - same, Περὶ τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ ἑνότητος τοῦ σώματος πρὸς τὴν - θεότητα, which were also assigned to Apollinaris by his own - scholars. Finally, the Pseudo-Justin Ἔκθεσις τῆς πίστεως - ἤτοι περὶ τριάδος seems to be a reproduction of a treatise - of Apollinaris’ Περὶ τριάδος, supposed to be lost, enlarged - with clumsy additions and palmed off in this form under the - venerated name of Justin Martyr. - - f. =Didymus the Blind= lost his sight when four years of age, - but succeeded in making wonderful attainments in learning. - He was for fifty years Catechist in Alexandria, and as such - the last brilliant star in the catechetical school. He died - in A.D. 395. An enthusiastic admirer of Origen, he also - shared many of his eccentric views, _e.g._ Apocatastasis, - pre-existence of the soul, etc. But also in consequence of - the theological controversies of the times he gave to his - theology a decidedly ecclesiastical turn. His writings were - numerous; but only a few have been preserved. His book _De - Spiritu S._ is still extant in a Latin translation of Jerome; - his controversial tract against the Manichæans is known - only from fragments. His chief work _De S. Trinitate_, Περὶ - τριάδος, in 3 bks., in which he showed himself a vigorous - defender of the Nicene Creed, was brought to light in the - 18th century. A commentary on the Περὶ ἀρχῶν of Origen - now lost, was condemned at the second Council of Nicæa in - A.D. 787. - - § 47.6. - - g. =Macarius Magnes=, bishop of Magnesia in Asia Minor about - A.D. 403, under the title Μονογενὴς ἢ Ἀποκριτικός, etc., - wrote an apology for Christianity in 5 bks., only recovered - in A.D. 1867, which takes the form of an account of a - disputation with a heathen philosopher. Doctrinally it has - a strong resemblance to the works of Gregory of Nyssa. The - material assigned to the opponent is probably taken from - the controversial tract of Porphyry (§ 23, 3). - - h. =Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria=, was the nephew, protegé - and, from A.D. 412, also the successor of Theophilus - (§ 51, 3). The zealous and violent temper of the uncle was - not without an injurious influence upon the character of the - nephew. At the _Synodus ad Quercum_ in A.D. 403, he voted - for the condemnation of Chrysostom, but subsequently, on - further consideration, he again of his own accord entered - upon the _diptyche_ (§ 59, 6) of the Alexandrian church - the name of the disgracefully persecuted man. In order to - revenge himself upon the Jews by whom in a popular tumult - Christian blood had been shed, he came down upon them at - the head of a mob, drove them out of the city and destroyed - their houses. He also bears no small share of the odium of - the horrible murder of the noble Hypatia (§ 42, 4). He shows - himself equally passionate and malevolent in the contest - with the Nestorians and the Antiocheans (§ 52, 3), and - to this controversy many of his treatises, as well as - 87 epistles, are almost entirely devoted. The most important - of his writings is Πρὸς τὰ τοῦ ἐν ἀθέοις Ἰουλιανοῦ (§ 42, 5). - He systematically developed in almost scholastic fashion the - dogma of the Trinity in his _Thesaurus de S. Consubstantiali - Trinitate_; and in a briefer and more popular form, in two - short tracts. As a preacher he was held in so high esteem, - that, as Gennadius relates, Greek bishops learnt his homilies - by heart and gave them to their congregations instead of - compositions of their own. His 30 Λόγοι ἑορταστικοί, _Homiliæ - paschales_, delivered at the Easter festivals observed in - Alexandria (§ 56, 3), in unctuous language expatiate upon - the burning questions of the day, mostly polemical against - Jews, heathens, Arians and Nestorians. His commentaries - on the books of the Old and New Testaments illustrate the - extreme arbitrariness of the typical-allegorical method.[138] - The treatise Περὶ τῆς ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ προσκυνήσεως - gives a typical exposition of the ceremonial law of Moses, - and his Γλαφυρά contain “ornate and elegant,” _i.e._ - typical-allegorical, expositions of selected passages from - the Pentateuch. - - i. =Isidore of Pelusium=, priest and abbot of a monastery - at Pelusium in Egypt, who died about A.D. 450, was one of - the noblest, most gifted and liberal representatives of - monasticism of his own and of all times. A warm supporter of - the new Alexandrian system of doctrine but also conciliatory - and moderate in his treatment of the persons of opponents, - while firm and decided in regard to the subject in debate, - he most urgently entreats Cyril to moderation. His writings - _Contra Gentiles_ and _Contra Fatum_ are lost; but his still - extant 2,012 Epistles in 5 bks. afford a striking evidence - of the richness of his intellect and of his culture, as - well as of the great esteem in which he was held and of - his far-reaching influence. His exegesis, too, which always - inclines to a simple literal sense, is of far greater - importance than that of the other Alexandrians. - - § 47.7. (=Mystics and Philosophers.=) - - k. =Macarius the Great or the Elder=, monk and priest in - the Scetic desert, was exiled by the Arian Emperor Valens - on account of his zeal for Nicene orthodoxy. He died in - A.D. 391. From his writings, consisting of 50 Homilies, a - number of Apophthegms, some epistles and prayers, there is - breathed forth a deep warm mysticism with various approaches - to Augustine’s soteriological views, while other passages - seem to convey quite a Pelagian type of doctrine. - - l. =Marcus Eremita=, a like-minded younger contemporary of - the preceding, lived about A.D. 400 as an inhabitant of - the Scetic desert. We possess of his writings only nine - tracts of an ascetic mystical kind, the second of which, - bearing the title Περὶ τῶν οἰομένων ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦσθαι, - has secured for them a place in the Roman Index with the - note “_Caute legenda_.” However even in his mysticism - contradictory views, Augustinian and Pelagian, in regard - to human freedom and divine grace, on predestination and - sanctification, etc., find a place alongside one another, - and have prominence given them according to the writer’s - humour and the requirement of his meditation or exhortation. - - m. =Synesius of Cyrene=,[139] subsequently bishop of Ptolemais - in Egypt, was a disciple of the celebrated Hypatia (§ 42, 4) - and an enthusiastic admirer of Plato. He died about A.D. 420. - A happy husband and father, in comfortable circumstances - and devoted to the study of philosophy, he could not for a - long time be prevailed upon to accept a bishopric. He openly - confessed his Origenistic heterodoxy in reference to the - resurrection doctrine, the eternity of the world, as well - as the pre-existence of the soul. He also publicly declared - that as bishop he would continue the marriage relation with - his wife, and no one took offence thereat. In the episcopal - office he distinguished himself by noble zeal and courage - which knew no fear of man. His 10 Hymns contain echoes of - Valentinian views (§ 27, 4), and his philosophical tracts - are only to a small extent dominated by Christian ideas. His - 155 Epistles are more valuable as illustrating on every hand - his noble character. - - n. =Nemesius, Bishop of Emesa= in Phœnicia, lived in the - first half of the 5th century. He left behind a brilliant - treatise on religious philosophy, Περὶ φύσεως ἀνθρώπου. The - traditional doctrine of the Eastern church is unswervingly - set forth by him; still he too finds therein a place for - the eternity of the world, the pre-existence of the soul, a - migration of souls (excluding, however, the brute creation), - the unconditional freedom of the will, etc. - - o. =Æneas of Gaza=, a disciple of the Neo-Platonist Hierocles - and a rhetorician in Alexandria, about A.D. 437 wrote a - dialogue directed against the Origenistic doctrines of the - eternity of the world and the pre-existence of the soul; as - also against the Neo-Platonic denial of the resurrection of - the body. It bore the title: Θεόφραστος. - - § 47.8. =The Antiocheans.= - - a. =Eusebius of Emesa= was born at Edessa and studied in - Cæsarea and Antioch. A quiet, peaceful scholar, and one who - detested all theological wrangling, he declined the call to - the Alexandrian bishopric in place of the deposed Athanasius - in A.D. 341, but accepted the obscure bishopric of Emesa. He - was not, however, to be left here. When, on account of his - mathematical and astronomical attainments, the people there - suspected him of sorcery, he quitted Emesa and from that date - till his death in A.D. 360 taught in Antioch. Of his numerous - exegetical, dogmatical and polemical writings only a few - fragments are extant. - - b. =Diodorus of Tarsus=, a scholar of the preceding, monk and - presbyter at Antioch, was afterwards bishop of Tarsus in - Cilicia, and died in A.D. 394. Only a few fragments of his - numerous writings survive. As an exegete he concerned himself - with the plain grammatico-historical sense and contested - the Alexandrian mode of interpretation in the treatise: Τίς - διαφορὰ θεωρίας καὶ ἀλληγορίας. By θεωρία he understands - insight into the relations transcending the bare literal - sense but yet essentially present in it as the ideal. By his - polemic against Apollinaris (§ 52, 1), he imprinted upon the - Antiochean school its specific dogmatic character (§ 52, 2), - in consequence of which he was at a later period regarded as - the original founder of the Nestorian party. - - c. His scholar again was =John of Antioch=, whose proper name - afterwards almost disappeared before the honourable title of - =Chrysostom=. Educated by his early widowed mother Arethusa - with the greatest care, he attended the rhetoric school - of Libanius and started with great success as an advocate - in Antioch. But after receiving baptism he abandoned his - practice and became a monk. He was made deacon in A.D. 380 - and presbyter in A.D. 386 in his native city. His brilliant - eloquence raised him at last in A.D. 398 to the patriarchal - chair at Constantinople (§ 51, 3). He died in exile in - A.D. 407. Next to Athanasius and the three Cappadocians - he is one of the most talented of the Eastern fathers, the - only one of the Antiochean school whose orthodoxy has never - been questioned. In his exegesis he follows the fundamental - principles of the Antiochean school. He wrote commentaries - on Isaiah (down to chap. viii. 10) and on Galatians. Besides - these his 650 Expository Homilies on all the Biblical books - and particular sections cover almost the whole of the Old - and New Testaments. Among his other dogmatical, polemical - and hortatory church addresses the most celebrated are the - 21 _De Statuis ad populum Antiochen_, delivered in A.D. 387. - (The people of Antioch, roused on account of the exorbitant - tax demanded of them, had broken down the statues of - Theodosius I.) The _Demonstratio c. Julianum et Gentiles - quod Christus sit Deus_ and the _Liber in S. Babylam - c. Judæos et Gentiles_ are apologetical treatises. Of - his ethico-ascetic writings, in which he eagerly commends - virginity and asceticism, by far the most celebrated is - Περὶ ἱερωσύνης, _De Sacerdotis_, in 4 bks., in the form of - a dialogue with his Cappadocian friend Basil (the Great) - who in A.D. 370 had felt compelled to accept the bishopric - of Cæsarea after Chrysostom had escaped this honour by - flight.[140] - - § 47.9. - - d. =Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia= in Cilicia, was the - son of respectable parents in Antioch, the friend and - fellow-student of Chrysostom, first under Libanius, then - under Diodorus. He died in A.D. 429. It was he who gave - full development and consistent expression to the essential - dogmatic and hermeneutical principles of the Antiochean - theology. For this reason he was far more suspected of - heresy by his Alexandrian opponents than even his teacher - Diodorus, and they finally obtained their desire by the - formal condemnation of his person and writings at the fifth - œcumenical Synod in A.D. 553 (§ 52, 6). Leontius Byzantinus - formulated his exegetical offence by saying that in his - exposition he treated the Holy Scriptures precisely as - ordinary human writings, especially that he interpreted the - Song of Songs as a love poem, _libidinose pro sua et mente - et lingua meretricia_, explained the Psalms after the - manner of the Jews till he emptied them dry of all Messianic - contents, _Judaice ad Zorobabelem et Ezechiam retulit_, - denied the genuineness of the titles of the Psalms, rejected - the canonical authority of Job, the Chronicles and Ezra - as well as James and other Catholic Epistles, etc. In - every respect Theodore was one of the ablest exegetes of the - ancient church and the Syrian church has rightly celebrated - him as the _“Interpres” par excellence_. He set forth his - hermeneutical principles in the treatise: _De Allegoria - et Historia_. Of his exegetical writings we have still his - Comm. on the Minor Prophets, on Romans, fragments of those - on other parts of the New Testament. Latin translations of - his Comm. on the Minor Epp. of Paul, with the corresponding - Greek fragments, are edited by Swete, 2 vols., Cambr., - 1880, 1882. An introduction to Biblical Theology collected - from Theodore’s writings and reproduced in a Latin form by - Junilius Africanus (§ 48, 1) is still extant. His dogmatic, - polemical and apologetical works on the Incarnation - and Original Sin (§ 53, 4), against Eunomius (§ 50, 3), - Apollinaris (§ 52, 1) and the Emperor Julian (§ 42, 5), - are now known only from a few fragmentary quotations. - - e. =Polychronius, bishop of Apamea=, was Theodore’s brother and - quite his equal in exegetical acuteness and productivity, - while he excelled him in his knowledge of the Hebrew and - Syriac. Tolerably complete scholia by him on Ezekiel, Daniel - and Job have been preserved in the Greek Catenæ (§ 48, 1). - In regard to Daniel he maintains firmly its historical - character and understands chap. vii. of Antiochus Epiphanes. - - f. =Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus= in Syria, was Theodore’s ablest - disciple, the most versatile scholar and most productive - writer of his age, an original investigator and a diligent - pastor, an upright and noble character and a man who kept - the just mean amid the extreme tendencies of his times,--yet - even he could not escape the suspicion of heresy (§ 52, 3, - 4, 6). He died in A.D. 457. As an exegete he followed the - course of grammatico-historical exposition marked out by - his Antiochean predecessors, but avoided the rationalistic - tendencies of his teacher. He commented on most of the - historical books of the Old Testament, on the Prophets, the - Song, which he understood allegorically of the church as - the bride of Christ, and on the Pauline Epistles. Among his - historical works the first place belongs to his continuation - of the history of Eusebius (§ 5, 1). His Φιλόθεος ἱστορία, - _Hist. religiosa_, gives a glowing description of the - lives of 33 celebrated ascetics of both sexes. Of higher - value is the Αἱρετικῆς κακομυθίας ἐπιτομή, _Hæreticarum - fabularum compendium_. His Ἑλληνικῶν θεραπευτικὴ παθημάτων, - _De Curandis Græcorum Affectionibus_, is an apologetical - treatise. His seven Dialogues _De s. Trinitate_ are polemics - against the Macedonians and Apollinarians. The _Reprehensio_ - xii. _Anathematismorum_ is directed against Cyril of - Alexandria; and the Ἐρανιστὴς ἤτοι Πολύμορφος against - monophysitism as a heresy compounded of many heresies - (§ 52, 4). Besides these we have from him 179 Epistles.[141] - - § 47.10. =Other Teachers of the Greek Church during the 4th and - 5th Centuries.= - - a. =Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem=, from A.D. 351 to A.D. 386, - in the Arian controversy took the side of the conciliatory - semi-Arians and thus came into collision with his imperious - and decidedly Arian metropolitan Acacius of Cæsarea. During - a famine he sold the church furniture for distribution - among the needy, and was for this deposed by Acacius. Under - Julian he ventured to return, but under Valens he was again - driven out and found himself exposed to the persecution - of the Arians, which was all the more violent because in - the meantime he had assumed a more decided attitude toward - Nicene orthodoxy. At the death of Valens in A.D. 378 he - returned and became reconciled to the victorious maintainers - of the Homoousion by fully accepting the doctrine at the - Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381 (§ 50, 4). We still - have his 23 Catechetical Lectures delivered in A.D. 348 by - him as presbyter to the baptized at Jerusalem. The first - 18 are entitled: Πρὸς τοὺς φωτιζομένους, _Ad Competentes_ - (§ 35, 1); the last five: Πρὸς τοὺς νεοφωτίστους, _Catecheses - Mystagogicæ_, on Baptism, Anointing and the Lord’s Supper. - In their present form they afford but faint evidence of their - author having surmounted the semi-Arian standpoint.[142] - - b. =Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis= or Constantia in Cyprus, was - born of Jewish parents in the Palestinian village Besanduce - and was baptized in his sixteenth year. His pious and - noble, but narrow and one-sided character was formed by his - education under the monks. He completed his ascetic training - by several years residence among the monks of the Scetic - desert, then founded a monastery in his native place over - which he presided for thirty years until in A.D. 367 he was - raised to the metropolitan’s chair at Salamis, where he died - in A.D. 403. In the discharge of his episcopal duties he - was a miracle of faithfulness and zeal, specially active and - self-denying in his care of the poor. But in the forefront - of all his thinking and acting there ever stood his glowing - zeal for ecclesiastical orthodoxy. The very soul of honour, - truth-loving and courageous, but credulous, positive, with - little knowledge of the world and human nature, and hence - not capable of penetrating to the bottom of complicated - affairs, he was all his days misused as a tool of the - intriguing Alexandrian Theophilus in the Origenistic - controversies (§ 51, 3). He was all the more easily won - to this from the fact that he had brought with him from - the Scetic desert the conviction that Origen was the prime - mover in the Arian and all other heresies. In spite of all - defects in form and contents his writings have proved most - serviceable for the history of the churches and heresies - of the first four centuries. The diligence and honourable - intention of his research in some measure compensate for - the bad taste and illogical character of his exposition and - for his narrow, one-sided and uncritical views. His Πανάριον - ἤτοι κιβώτιον κατὰ αἱρέσεων lxxx. is a full and learned - though confused and uncritical work, in which the idea - of heresy is so loosely defined that even the Samaritans, - Pharisees, Essenes, etc., find a place in it. He himself - composed an abridgment of it under the title: Ἀνακεφαλαίωσις. - His Ἀγκυρωτός is an exposition of the Catholic faith, which - during the tumults of the Arian controversy should serve - as an anchor of salvation to the Christians. The book Περὶ - μέτρων καὶ στάθμων, _De mensuris et ponderibus_, answers to - this title only in the last chapter, the 24th; the preceding - chapters treat of the Canon and translations of the Old - Testament. There are two old codices in the British Museum - which have in addition, in a Syriac translation, 37 chapters - on biblical weights and measures and 19 on the biblical - science of the heaven and the earth. The tract Περὶ τῶν - δώδεκα λίθων (on the high-priest’s breastplate) is of little - consequence. - - c. =Palladius=, born in Galatia, retired at an early age into - the Nitrian desert, but lived afterwards in Palestine, where - he was accused of favouring the heresy of Origen (§ 51, 2). - Chrysostom consecrated him bishop of Hellenopolis in - Bithynia. Latterly he administered a small bishopric in - Galatia, where he died before A.D. 431. His chief writing - is the Πρὸς Λαῦσον ἱστορία, _Hist. Lausiaca_, a historical - romance on the hermit and monkish life of his times which is - dedicated to an eminent statesman called Lausus. - - d. =Nilus=, sprung from a prominent family in Constantinople, - retired with his son Theodulus to the recluses of Mount - Sinai. By a murderous onslaught of the Saracens his beloved - son was snatched away from him, but an Arabian bishop bought - him and ordained both father and son as priests. He died - about A.D. 450. In his ascetical writings and specially - in the 4 books of his Epistles, about 1,000 in number, - he shows himself to be of like mind and character to his - companion Isidore, but with a deeper knowledge and more - sober conception of Holy Scripture. He himself describes - the capture of his son in _Narrationes de cæde monachorum - et captivitate Theoduli_. - - § 47.11. =Greek Church Fathers of the 6th and 7th Centuries.= - - a. =Johannes Philoponus= was in the first half of the 6th - century teacher of grammar at Alexandria, and belonged to - the sect of tritheistic monophysites in that place (§ 52, 7). - Although trained in the Neo-Platonic school, he subsequently - applied himself enthusiastically to the Aristotelian - philosophy, composed many commentaries on Aristotle’s - writings, and was the first to apply the Aristotelian - categories to Christian theology. Notwithstanding many - heretical tendencies in his theology, among which is his - statement in a lost work, Περὶ ἀναστάσεως, that for the - saved at the last day entirely new bodies and an entirely - new world will be created, his philosophical writings - powerfully impelled the mediæval Greek Church to the study - of philosophy. His chief doctrinal treatise Διαιτητὴς ἢ περὶ - ἑνώσεως is known only from quotations in Leontius Byzantinus - and Johannes Damascenus. Of his other writings the most - important was the controversial treatise _Contra Procli - pro æternitate mundi argumenta_ in 18 bks. The 7 bks. Περὶ - κοσμοποίας treat of the six days’ work of creation with - great display of philosophical acuteness and acquaintance - with natural history. - - b. =Dionysius the Areopagite.= Under this name (Acts xvii. 34) - an unknown writer, only a little earlier than the previously - named, published writings of a decidedly mystico-theosophical - kind. The first mention of them is at a conference of - the monophysite Severians (§ 52, 7) with the Catholics - at Constantinople in A.D. 533, where the former referred - to them, while the other side denied their authenticity. - Subsequently, however, they were universally received as - genuine, not only in the East but also in the West. They - comprise four tracts: 1. Περὶ τῆς ἱεραρχίας οὐρανίου; - 2. Περὶ τῆς ἱεραρχίας ἐκκλησιαστικῆς; 3. Περὶ τῶν θείων - ὀνομάτων; 4. Περὶ τῆς μυστικῆς θεολογίας; and also 12 Epp. - to Apostolic men. Their author was a Monophysite-Christian - Neo-Platonist, who transferred the secret arts of the - Dionysian mysteries to Christian worship, monasticism, - hierarchy and church doctrines. He distinguished a θεολογία - καταφατική, which consisted in symbolic representations, - from a θεολογία ἀποφατική, which surmounted the symbolical - shell and rose to the perception of the pure idea by means - of ecstasy. Side by side with the revealed doctrine of Holy - Scripture he sets a secret doctrine, the knowledge of which - is reached only by initiation. The primal mystagogue, who - like the sun enlightens all spirits, is the divine hierarch - Christ, and the primitive type of all earthly order in the - heavenly hierarchy as represented in the courses of angels - and glorified spirits. There is constant intercourse between - the earthly and heavenly hierarchies by means of Christ the - highest hierarch incarnate. The purpose of this intercourse - is the drawing out of the θείωσις of man by means of - priestly consecration and the mysteries (_i.e._ the - Sacraments of which he reckons six, § 58). The θείωσις - has its foundation in baptism as consecration to the - divine birth, τελετὴ θεογενεσίας, and its completion in - consecration of the dead, the anointing of the body. The - historical Christ with His redeeming life, sufferings and - death is at no time the subject of the Areopagite mysticism. - It is always concerned with the heavenly Christ, not about - the reconciliation but only about the mystical living - fellowship of God and man, about the immediate vision and - enjoyment of God’s glory. The monophysite standpoint of the - author betrays itself in his tendency to think of the human - nature of Christ as absorbed by the divine. His Christian - Neo-Platonism appears in his fantastic speculations about - the nature of God, the orders of angels and spirits, etc.; - while his antagonism to the pagan Neo-Platonism is seen - in his regarding the θείωσις not as a natural power proper - to and dwelling in man, but as a supernatural power made - possible by the ἐνσάρκωσις of Christ, but still more - expressly by his emphatic assertion over against the - Neo-Platonic depreciation of the body, of the resurrection - of the flesh as the completion of the θείωσις. Hence also - the importance which he attaches to the sacrament of the - consecration of the dead.[143] - - § 47.12. - - c. =Leontius Byzantinus=, at first an advocate at - Constantinople, subsequently a monk at Jerusalem, wrote - about the end of the 6th century controversial tracts against - Nestorians, Monophysites and Apollinarians, and in his - _Scholia s. Liber de sectis_ presented a historico-polemical - summary of all heresies up to that time. - - d. =Maximus Confessor=, the scion of a well-known family of - Constantinople, was for a long time private secretary to - the Emperor Heraclius, but retired about A.D. 630 from love - of a contemplative life into a monastery at Chrysopolis - near Constantinople, where he was soon raised to the rank of - abbot. The further details of his story are given in § 52, 8. - He died in A.D. 662. In decision of character, fidelity - to his convictions and courage as a confessor during - the Monothelete controversy, he stands out among his - characterless countrymen and contemporaries as a rock in the - ocean. In scientific endowments and comprehensive learning, - in depth and wealth of thought there is none like him, - although even in him the weakness of the age, especially - slavish submission to authority, is quite apparent. His - scientific theology is built up mainly upon the three great - Cappadocians, among whom the speculative Nyssa has most - influence over him. His dialectic acuteness and subtlety he - derived from the study of Aristotle, while his imaginative - nature and the intensity of his emotional life which - predestined him to be a mystic, found abundant nourishment - and satisfaction in the writings of Dionysius. He was saved, - however, by the manysidedness of his mind and the soundness - of his whole life’s tendencies, from many eccentricities of - the Areopagite mysticism, so that in his humility he thought - that his soul was not pure enough to be able fully to - penetrate and comprehend these mysteries. His numerous - writings, of which more than fifty are extant, were in - great part occasioned by the struggle against Monophysitism - and Monotheletism. His mystico-ascetic writings are - also important, such as his Μυσταγωγία, treatises on the - symbolico-mystic meaning of the acts of church worship, his - epistles and several beautiful hymns. He also wrote scholia - and commentaries on the works of the Areopagite. He is - weakest in exegesis, where the most wilful allegorizing - prevails. - - e. =Johannes Climacus=, abbot of the monastery at Sinai, died - at an extremely old age in A.D. 606. Under the title Κλίμαξ - τοῦ παραδείσου, _Heavenly Guide_, he composed a directory - toward perfection in the Christian life in thirty steps, - which became a favourite reading book of pious monks. - - f. =Johannes Moschus= was a monk in a cloister at Jerusalem. - Accompanying his friend Sophronius, afterwards patriarch of - Jerusalem (§ 52, 8), he travelled through Egypt and the East, - visiting all the pious monks and clerics. At last he reached - Rome, where he wrote an account in his Λειμονάριον ἤτοι νέος - παραδείσος, _Pratum Spirituale_, of the edifying discourses - which he had had with famous monks during his travels, and - soon thereafter, in A.D. 619, he died. - - g. =Anastasius Sinaita=, called the new Moses, because like - Moses he is said to have seen God, was priest and dweller - on Mount Sinai at the end of the 7th century. His chief work - Ὁδηγός, _Viæ duæ_, is directed against the _Acephalians_ - (§ 52, 5) and his _Contemplationes_ preserved only in a - Latin translation give an allegorico-mystical exposition of - the Hexæmeron. - - § 47.13. =Syrian Church Fathers.=[144] - - a. =Jacob of Nisibis=, as bishop of his native city and founder - of the theological school there, performed most important - services to the national Syrian Church. At the Council of - Nicæa in A.D. 325 he distinguished himself by vindicating - the homoüsion and also subsequently we find him sometimes in - the front rank of the champions of Nicene orthodoxy. Of his - writings none are known to us. He died in A.D. 338. - - b. =Aphraates= was celebrated in his time as a Persian sage. - As bishop of St. Matthew near Mosul he adopted the Christian - name of =Mar Jacob=, and dedicated his 23 Homilies, which - are rather instructions or treatises, to a certain Gregory. - He wrote them between A.D. 336 and A.D. 345. The _Sermones_ - ascribed even by Gennadius at the end of the 5th century - to Nisibis were composed by Aphraates. Although he lived - when the Arian controversy was at its height, there is no - reference to it in his treatises, which may be explained by - his geographical isolation. The polemic against the Jews to - which seven tracts are devoted _ex professo_, was one which - specially interested him. - - c. =Ephraim the Syrian=,[145] called, on account of his - importance in the Syrian Church, _Propheta Syrorum_, was - born at Nisibis and was called by the bishop Jacob to - be teacher of the school founded there by him. When the - Persians under Sapor in A.D. 350 plundered the city and - destroyed the school, Ephraim retired to Edessa, founded a - school there, administered the office of deacon, and died - at a great age in A.D. 378. As an exegete he indulged to his - heart’s content in typology, but in other respects mostly - followed the grammatico-historical method with a constant - endeavour after what was edifying. Many of his writings have - been lost. Those remaining partly in the Syriac original, - partly in Greek and Latin translations, have been collected - by the brothers Assemani. They comprise Commentaries on - almost the whole Bible, Homilies and Discourses in metrical - form on a variety of themes, of these 56 are against - heretics (Gnostics, Manichæans, Eunomians, Audians, etc.), - and Hymns properly so called, especially funeral Odes. - - d. =Ibas, bishop of Edessa=, at first teacher in the high - school there, translated the writings of Diodorus and - Theodore into Syriac, and thus brought down upon himself - the charge of being a Nestorian. Having been repeatedly - drawn into discussion, and being naturally outspoken, he was - excommunicated and deposed at the Robber Synod of Ephesus in - A.D. 449, but his orthodoxy was acknowledged by the Council - of Chalcedon in A.D. 451, after he had pronounced anathema - upon Nestorius. He died in A.D. 457. An epistle, in which - he gives an account of these proceedings to Bishop Meris of - Hardashir in Persia, led to a renewal of his condemnation - before the fifth œcumenical Council at Constantinople in - A.D. 553 (§ 52, 4, 6). - - e. =Jacob, bishop of Edessa=, a monophysite, is the - most important and manysided among the later Syrians, - distinguished as theologian, historian, grammarian and - translator of the Greek fathers. He died in A.D. 708. Of his - works still extant in MS.--scholia on the Bible, liturgical - works and treatises on church law, revision of the Syrian - Old Testament according to the LXX., continuation of the - Eusebian Chronicle, etc.--only a few have been printed. - - - - - 2. THE MOST IMPORTANT TEACHERS OF THE WESTERN CHURCH. - - § 47.14. - - f. =During the Period of the Arian Controversy.= - - a. =Jul. Firmicus Maternus.= Under this name we have a - treatise _De errore profanarum religionum_, addressed to - the sons of Constantine the Great, in which the writer - combats heathenism upon the Euhemerist theory (which - traces the worship of the heathen gods from the deifying - of famous ancestors), but besides reclaims many myths as - corruptions of the biblical history, and shows that the - violent overthrow of all idolatry is the sacred duty of - a Christian ruler from God’s command to Joshua to destroy - utterly the Canaanites. - - b. =Lucifer of Calăris [Calaris]= in Sardinia, was a - violent, determined, and stubborn zealot for the Nicene - doctrine, whose excessive severity against the penitent - Arians and semi-Arians drove him into schism (§ 50, 8). - He died in A.D. 371. In his tract, _Ad Constantium - Augustum pro S. Athansio_, lb. ii., written in A.D. 360, - he upbraids the emperor with his faults so bitterly as - to describe him as a reckless apostate, antichrist, and - Satan. He boldly acknowledged the authorship and, in - prospect of a death sentence, wrote in A.D. 361 his - consolatory treatise, _Moriendum esse pro filio Dei_. - The early death of the emperor, however, permitted his - return from exile (§ 50, 2, 4), where he had written - _De regibus apostaticis_ and _De non conveniendo cum - hæreticis_. - - c. =Marius Victorinus= from Africa, often confounded with - the martyr of the same name (§ 31, 12), was converted - to Christianity when advanced in life, about A.D. 360, - while occupying a distinguished position as a heathen - rhetorician in Rome. He gave proof of his zeal as a - neophyte by the composition of controversial treatises - against the Manichæans, _Ad Justinum Manichæum_, and - against the Arians, _Lb. iv. adv. Arium, De generatione - divina ad Candidum, De_ ὁμοουσίῳ _recipiendo_. In his - treatise, _De verbis scripturæ_, Gen. i. 5, he shows - that the creative days began not with the evening, but - with the morning. He composed three hymns _de Trinitate_, - and an epic poem on the seven brothers, the Maccabees. - - d. =Hilary of Poitiers=--_Hilarius Pictavienses_--styled - the Athanasius of the West, and made _doctor ecclesiæ_ - by Pius IX. in A.D. 1851, was sprung from a noble pagan - family of Poitiers (Pictavium). With wife and daughter - he embraced Christianity, and was soon thereafter, - about A.D. 350, made bishop of his native city. In - A.D. 356, however, as a zealous opponent of Arianism, - he was banished to Phrygia, from which he returned in - A.D. 360. Two years later he travelled to Milan, in - order if possible to win from his error the bishop of - that place, Auxentius, a zealous Arian. That bishop, - however, obtained an imperial edict which obliged him - instantly to withdraw. He died in A.D. 366. The study - of Origen seems to have had a decided influence upon - his theological development. His strength lay in the - speculative treatment of the groundworks of doctrine. At - the same time he is the first exegete proper among the - Western fathers writing the Latin language. He follows - exactly the allegorical method of the Alexandrians. His - works embrace commentaries on the Psalms and the Gospel - of Matthew, several polemical lectures (§ 50, 6), and - his speculative dogmatic masterpiece _de Trinitate_ - in xii. books. - - e. =Zeno, bishop of Verona=, who died about A.D. 380, - left behind ninety-three _Sermones_ which, in beautiful - language and spirited style, treat of various subjects - connected with faith and morals, combat paganism and - Arianism, and eagerly recommend virginity and monasticism. - - f. =Philaster=, bishop of Brescia, contemporary of Zeno, in - his book _De hæresibus_, described in harsh and obscure - language, in an uncritical fashion and with an extremely - loose application of the word heresy, 28 pre-Christian - and 128 post-Christian systems of error. - - g. =Martin of Tours=,[146] son of a soldier, had before - baptism, but after his heart had been filled with the - love of Christ, entered the Roman cavalry. Once, legend - relates, he parted his military cloak into two pieces in - order to shield a naked beggar from the cold, and on the - following night the Lord Jesus appeared to him clothed in - this very cloak. In his eighteenth year he was baptized, - and for some years thereafter attached himself to Hilary - of Poitiers, and then went to his parents in Pannonia. - He did not succeed in converting his father, but he - was successful with his mother and many of the people. - Scourged and driven away by the Arian party which there - prevailed, he turned to Milan where, however, he got - just as little welcome from the Arian bishop Auxentius. - He then lived some years on the island of Gallinaria, - near Genoa. When Hilary returned from banishment to - Pictavium, he followed him there, and founded in the - neighbourhood a monastery, the earliest in Gaul. He was - guilefully decoyed to Tours, and forced to mount the - episcopal chair there in A.D. 375. He converted whole - crowds of heathen peasants, and, according to the - legend given by Sulpicius Severus and Gregory of Tours - (§ 90, 2), wrought miracle after miracle. But he was - himself with his holy zeal, his activity in doing good, - his undoubted power over men’s hearts, and a countenance - before which even the emperor quailed (§ 54, 2), the - greatest and the most credible miracle. He died about - A.D. 400 in the monastery of Marmontiers [Marmoutiers], - which he had founded out from Tours. His tomb was - one of the most frequented places of pilgrimage. He - was wholly without scholarly culture, but the force - of intellect with which he was endowed lent him a - commanding eloquence. The _Confessio de s. Trinitate_ - attributed to him is not genuine. - - § 47.15. - - g. =Ambrose, bishop of Milan=, sprung from a prominent Roman - family, was governor of the province of Milan. After the - death of the Arian Auxentius in A.D. 374 violent quarrels - broke out over the choice of a successor. Then a child is - said to have cried from the midst of the crowd “Ambrose is - bishop,” and all the people, Arians as well as Catholics, - agreed. All objection was vain. Up to this time only a - catechumen, he received baptism, distributed his property - among the poor, and eight days after mounted the episcopal - chair. His new office he administered with truly apostolic - zeal, a father of the poor, a protector of all oppressed, - an unweariedly active pastor, a powerful opponent of heresy - and heathenism. His eloquence, which had won him a high - reputation in the forum, was yet more conspicuous in the - service of the church. To ransom the prisoners he spared not - even the furniture of the church. To a peculiarly winning - friendliness and gentleness he added great strength of - character, which prevented him being checked in his course - by any respect of persons, or by any threatening and danger. - He so decidedly opposed the intrigues of the Arian Empress - Justina, during the minority of her son Valentinian II., - that she, powerless to execute her wrath, was obliged to - desist from her endeavours (§ 50, 4). With Theodosius the - Great he stood in the highest esteem. When the passionate - emperor had ordered a fearful massacre without distinction of - rank, age and sex, without enquiry as to guilt or innocence, - of the inhabitants of Thessalonica on account of a tumult - in which a general and several officers had been murdered, - Ambrose wrote him a letter with an earnest call to repentance, - and threatened him with exclusion from the communion of the - church and its services. The emperor, already repenting of - his hastiness, took patiently the rebuke administered, but - did nothing to atone for his crime. Some time after he went - as usual to church, but Ambrose met him at the entrance of - the house of God and refused him admission. For eight months - the emperor refrained from communion; then he applied for - absolution, which was granted him, after he had publicly done - penance before the congregation and promised never in future - to carry out a death sentence within thirty days of its being - pronounced. Theodosius afterwards declared that Ambrose was - the only one truly deserving the name of a bishop. Ambrose - was also a zealous promoter of monasticism in the West. - In his sermons he so powerfully recommended virginity - that many families forbade their daughters attending them. - He deserves special credit for his contributions to the - liturgical services (_Officium Ambrosianum_, _Cantus Ambr._, - Hymn Composition, § 59, 4-6). On all dogmatic questions he - strongly favoured the realism of the North African school, - while in exegesis he did not surmount the allegorical - method of the Alexandrians. To the department of morals - and ascetics belong the 3 bks. _De Officiis Ministrorum_, - a Christian construction of Cicero’s celebrated work and - the most important of all Ambrose’s writings; also several - treatises in recommendation of virginity. The book _De - Mysteriis_ explains baptism and the Lord’s Supper to the - neophytes. The 5 bks. _De fide_, the 3 bks. _De Spiritu S._ - and the tract _De incarnatîonis sacramento_, treat of the - fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith in opposition - to Arians, Sabellians, Apollinarians, etc. These are - somewhat dependent upon the Greeks, especially Athanasius, - Didymus and Basil. His expositions of Old Testament histories - (_Hexaëmeron_, _De Paradiso_, _De Cain et Abel_, _De Noë - et arca_, _De Abraham_, _De Jacob et anima_, etc.) are - allegorical and typical in the highest degree. More important - are his _Sermones_ and 92 Epistles. But all his writings are - distinguished by their noble, powerful and popular eloquence. - - h. =Ambrosiaster= is the name given to an unknown writer - whose allegorizing Commentary on Paul’s Epistles was long - attributed to Ambrose. This work, highly popular on account - of its pregnant brevity, was perhaps the joint work of - several writers. In its earliest portions it belongs to - the age of Damasus, bishop of Rome, who died in A.D. 384, - who is named as a contemporary. Augustine names a Hilary, - not otherwise known, as author of a passage quoted from it. - - i. =Pacianus=,[147] bishop of Barcelona, who died about - A.D. 390, wrote in a clear style and correct Latinity three - Epistles against the Novatians, from the first of which, - _De Catholico nomine_, is borrowed the beautiful saying: - _Christianus mihi nomen est, Catholicus cognomen_. He also - wrote a _Liber exhortatorius ad pœnitentiam_ and a _Sermo - de baptismo_. - - § 47.16. =During the Period of Origenistic Controversy.= - - a. =Jerome=[148]--_Sophronius Eusebius Hieronymus_--of Stridon - in Dalmatia, received his classical training under the - grammarian Donatus at Rome. In A.D. 360 he was baptized by - bishop Liberius, but afterwards fell into sensual excesses - which he atoned for by penitential pilgrimages to the - catacombs. During a journey through Gaul and the provinces - of the Rhine and Moselle he seems to have formed the fixed - resolve to devote himself to theology and an ascetic life. - Then for more than a year he stayed at Aquileia, A.D. 372, - where he formed an intimate friendship with Rufinus. He next - undertakes a journey to the East. At Antioch in a vision, - during a violent fever, placed before the throne of the - judge of all, having answered the question Who art thou? by - the confession that he was a Christian, he heard the words - distinctly uttered: Thou liest! thou art a Ciceronian and no - Christian! He then sentenced himself to severe castigation - and promised with an oath to give up the reading of the - heathen classics which he had so much enjoyed. He afterwards - indeed excused himself from the fulfilment of this twofold - obligation; but this had sealed his devotion to an ascetic - life, and the desert of Chalcis, the Syrian Thebaid, became - for him during many years the school of ascetic discipline. - Worn out with privations, penances and sensual temptations - he returned in A.D. 379 to Antioch, where he was ordained - presbyter but without any official district being assigned. - Urged by Gregory of Nazianzum [Nazianzen], he next spent - several years in Constantinople. From A.D. 382 to A.D. 385 - he again lived in Rome, where bishop Damasus honoured him - with his implicit confidence. This aroused against him the - envy and enmity of many among the Roman clergy, while at - the same time his zeal for the spread of monasticism and - virginity, as well as his ascetic influence with women, drew - upon him the hatred of many prominent families (§ 44, 4). On - the death of his episcopal patron in A.D. 384 his position - in Rome thus became untenable. He now returned to the East, - visited all the holy places in Palestine, and also made - an excursion to Alexandria where he stayed for four weeks - in the school of the blind Didymus. He then settled down at - Bethlehem, founded there with the means of his Roman lady - friends an establishment for monks, over which he presided - till his death in A.D. 420; and an establishment for - nuns over which St. Paula presided, who with her daughter - Eustochium had accompanied him from Rome. As to his share - in the Origenistic controversies into which he allowed - himself to be drawn, see § 51, 2. His character was not - without defects: vanity, ambition, jealousy, passionateness, - impatience and intense bitterness in debate, are only all - too apparent in his life. But where these, as well as his - scrupulous anxiety for the maintaining of a reputation - for unwavering orthodoxy and by zeal for monasticism - and asceticism, did not stand in the way, we often find - in him an unexpected clearness and liberality of view. - Comp. § 17, 6; 57, 6; 59, 1; 61, 1. To the instructions - of the Jew Bar Hanina he was indebted for his knowledge - of Hebrew and Chaldee. The greatest and most enduring - service was rendered to the study of holy scripture by his - pioneer labours in this direction. He is at his weakest - in his dogmatic works, which mostly are disfigured by - immoderately passionate polemic. In exegesis he represents - the grammatico-historical method, but nevertheless - frequently falls back again into allegorico-mystical - explanations. His style is pure, flowing and elegant, but - in polemic often reckless and coarse even to vulgarity. In - the department of exegesis the first place belongs to his - translation of the bible (§ 59, 1). We have also a number - of Commentaries--on Genesis, Ecclesiastes, Isaiah, Jeremiah, - Ezekiel, Daniel, Minor Prophets, Matthew, Galatians, - Ephesians, Philippians and Philemon. His _Onomasticon s. de - situ et nominibus locorum Hebr._ is a Latin reproduction of - the Τοπικά of Eusebius. In the department of dogmatics we - have polemics against Lucifer of Calaris (§ 50, 3), against - Helvidius, Jovinian and Vigilantius (§ 63, 2), against John - of Jerusalem (§ 51, 2) and in several treatises against - Rufinus, and finally against the Pelagians (§ 53, 4). In - the department of history we have his Latin adaptation and - continuation of the second part of the Eusebian Chronicle, - his _Catalogus Scriptorum ecclest. s. de viris illustr._, - which tells in anecdotal form about the lives and writings - of biblical and ecclesiastical writers, 135 in number, - from Peter down to himself, with the avowed purpose of - proving the falseness of the reproach that only ignorant - and uncultured men had embraced Christianity. It was - afterwards continued by the Gaul =Gennadius= of Marseilles - down to the end of the fifth century. Finally, the romancing - legendary sketches of the lives of the famous monks Paul of - Thebes (§ 39, 4), Hilarion (§ 44, 3) and Malchus, were added. - His 150 Epistles are extremely important for the church - history of his times. Of his translations of the Greek - fathers only those of Didymus, _De Spiritu S._ and that - of 70 _Homilies_ of Origen, are now extant. - - § 47.17. - - b. =Tyrannius Rufinus= of Aquileia after receiving baptism - lived for a long time in monastic retirement. His enthusiasm - for monasticism and asceticism led him in A.D. 373 to Egypt. - At Alexandria he spent several years in intercourse with - Didymus. He contracted there that enthusiastic admiration - of Origen which made his after life so full of debate and - strife. He next went in A.D. 379 to Jerusalem, where bishop - John ordained him presbyter. Here he found Jerome, with whom - he had become acquainted at Aquileia, and the two friends - were brought more closely together from their mutual love for - Origen, although afterwards this was to prove the occasion of - the most bitter enmity (§ 51, 2). About A.D. 397 he returned - to Italy. He died in A.D. 410. His literary activity was - mainly directed to the transplanting of the writings of - Greek fathers to Latin soil. To his zeal in this direction - we owe the preservation of Origen’s most important work Περὶ - ἀρχῶν, _De principiis_, and of no fewer than 124 Homilies. - The former, indeed, has been in many places altered in an - arbitrary manner. He also translated several Homilies of - Basil and Gregory Nazianzen, Pamphilus’ Apology for Origen, - the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions (§ 28, 3), etc. There - are extant of his own works: the Continuation of his Latin - reproduction of the Church History of Eusebius, down to - A.D. 388, the romancing _Historia eremitica s. Vitæ Patrum_, - biographies of 33 saints of the Nitrian desert (§ 51, 1), - an _Apologia pro fide sua_, the _Invectivæ Hieron._ in - 2 bks. the treatise _De benedictionibus Patriarcharum_, - an exposition of Genesis xlix. in the spirit and style of - Origen, and an _Expositio symboli apost._ - - c. =Sulpicius Severus=[149] from Aquitania in Gaul, had gained - great reputation by his eloquence as an advocate, when the - death of his young wife disgusted him with the world, and - led him to withdraw into a monastery. He died about A.D. 410. - In his _Chronica_ or _Historia sacra_ (§ 5, 1), a summary - of biblical and ecclesiastical history, he imitates not - unsuccessfully the eloquence of Sallust, so that he has - been called “the Christian Sallust.” His _Vita_ of Martin - of Tours is a panegyric overflowing with reports of miracles. - The three dialogues on the virtues of Eastern Monks and on - the merits of St. Martin, may be regarded as a supplement to - the _Vita_. - - d. =Petrus [Peter] Chrysologus= is the name by which Peter, - bishop of Ravenna, is best known. He also received the title - _Chrysostomus Latinorum_. He died in A.D. 450. Among the - 176 _Sermones_ ascribed to him, the discourses expository - of the baptismal formula are deserving of special mention. - Of his Epistles, one in Latin and Greek addressed to Eutyches - (§ 52, 4) is still preserved, in which the writer warns - Eutyches against doctrinal errors. - - § 47.18. =The Hero of the Soteriological - Controversy.=--=Augustine=--_Aurelius Augustinus_--was born in - A.D. 354 at Tagaste in Numidia. From his pious mother Monica he - early received Christian religious impressions which, however, - were again in great measure effaced by his pagan father the - _Decurio_ Patricius. While he studied in Carthage, he gave way - to sensuality and worldly pleasure. Cicero’s Hortensius first - awakened again in him a longing after higher things. From about - A.D. 374 he sought satisfaction in the tenets of the Manichæan - sect, strongly represented in Africa, and for ten years he - continued a catechumen of that order. But here, too, at last - finding himself cruelly deceived in his struggle after the - knowledge of the truth, he would have sunk into the most utter - scepticism, had not the study of the Platonic philosophy still for - awhile held him back. In A.D. 383 he left Africa and went to Rome, - and in the following year he took up his residence in Milan as a - teacher of eloquence. An African bishop, once himself a Manichæan, - had comforted his anxious mother, who followed him hither, by - assuring her that the son of so many sighs and prayers could - not be finally lost. At Milan too the sermons of Ambrose made - an impression on Augustine’s heart. He now began diligently to - search the scriptures. At last the hour arrived of his complete - renewal of heart and life. After an earnest conversation with - his friend Alypius, he hastened into the solitude of the garden. - While agonizing in prayer he heard the words thrice repeated: - _Tolle, lege_! He took up the scriptures, and his eye fell upon - the passage Rom. xiii. 13, 14. This utterance of stern Christian - morality seemed as if written for himself alone, and from this - moment he received into his wounded spirit a peace such as he had - never known before. In order to prepare for baptism he withdrew - with his mother and some friends to the country house of one of - them, where scientific studies, pious exercises and conversations - on the highest problems of life occupied his time. Out of - these conversations sprang his philosophical writings. At - Easter A.D. 387 Ambrose baptized him, and at the same time his - illegitimate son Adeodatus, who not long afterwards died. His - return journey to Africa was delayed by the death of his mother - at Ostia, and at last, after almost a year’s residence in Rome, - he reached his old home again. In Rome he applied himself to - combat the errors of Manichæism, arguing with many of his old - companions whom he met there. After his return to Africa in - A.D. 388, he spent some years on his small patrimonial estate - at Tagaste engaged in scientific work. During a casual visit to - Hippo in A.D. 391 he was, in spite of all resistance, ordained - presbyter, and in A.D. 395 colleague of the aged and feeble - bishop Valerius, whose successor he became in the following year. - Now began the brilliant period of his career, in which he stands - forth as a pillar of the church and the centre of all theological - and ecclesiastical life throughout the whole Western world. In - A.D. 400 began his battle against the Donatists (§ 63, 1). And - scarcely had he brought this to a successful end in a religious - discussion at Carthage in A.D. 411, when he was drawn into a far - more important Soteriological controversy by Pelagius and his - followers (§ 53), which he continued till the close of his life. - His death occurred in A.D. 430 during the siege of Carthage by - the Vandals. He has written his own life in his _Confessiones_ - (Engl. translat., Oxf., 1838; Edin., 1876). In the form of an - address to God he here unfolds before the Omniscient One his - whole past life with all its errors and gracious providences - in the language of prayer full of the holiest earnestness and - most profound humility, a lively commentary on the opening - words: _Magnus es, Domine, et laudabilis valde.... Fecisti nos - ad te, et inquietum est cor nostrum, donec requiescat in te._ - The biography of his disciple Possidius may serve as a supplement - to the Confessions.--Augustine was the greatest, most powerful, - and most influential of all the fathers. In consequence of his - thoroughly Western characteristics he was indeed less perfectly - understood and appreciated in the East; but all the greater was - his reputation in the West, where the whole development of church - and doctrine seemed always to move about him as its centre. The - main field of his literary activity in consequence of his own - peculiar mental qualities, his philosophical culture, speculative - faculty, and dialectic skill, as well as the ecclesiastical - conflicts of his time, to which his most important works are - devoted, was Systematic Theology, Dogmatics and Ethics, Polemics - and Apologetics. He is weakest as an exegete; for he had little - interest in philological and grammatico-historical research into - the simple literal sense of scripture. He was unacquainted with - the original language of the Old Testament, and even the New - Testament he treats only in a popular way according to the Latin - translations. Neither does he deal much with the exegetical - foundations of dogmatics, which he rather develops from the - Christian consciousness by means of speculation and dialectic, - and from the proof of its meeting the needs of humanity. Over - against philosophy he insisted upon the independence and - necessity of faith as the presupposition and basis of all - religious knowledge. _Rationabiliter dictum est per prophetam: - Nisi credideretis non intelligetis. Credamus ut id quod credimus - intelligere valeamus._ - - § 47.19. =Augustine’s Works.= - - a. =Philosophical Treatises= belonging to the period preceding - his ordination. The 3 bks. _Contra Academicos_ combat - their main position that men cannot attain to any certain - knowledge; the treatise _De Vita beata_ shows that true - happiness consists in the knowledge of God; the 2 bks. _De - Ordine_ treat of the relation of good and evil in the divine - order of the world; the 2 bks. _Soliloquia_ are monologues - on the means and conditions of the knowledge of supernatural - truths, and contain beside the main question an Appendix _De - immortalitate animæ_, etc. - - b. =Dogmatic Treatises.= The most important are: _De Trinitate_ - in 15 bks. (Engl. transl., Edin., 1874), a speculative - dogmatic construction of the dogma, of great importance - for its historical development; _De doctrina christiana_ - in 4 bks. (Engl. transl., Edin., 1875), of which the first - three bks. form a guide to the exposition of scripture after - the analogy of faith, while the 4th book shows how the truth - thus discovered is to be used (Hermeneutics and Homiletics); - finally, the two bks. _Retractationes_, written in his - last years, in which he passes an unfavourable judgment - on his earlier writings, and withdraws or modifies much in - them. Among his =Moral-ascetic writings= the bk. _De bono - conjugali_ is of special interest, called forth by Jovinian’s - utterances on non-meritoriousness of the unmarried state - (§ 62, 2); he admits the high value of Christian marriage, - but yet sees in celibacy genuinely chosen as a means to - holiness a higher step in the Christian life. Also the - bk. _De adulterinis conjugis_ against second marriages, - and two treatises _De Mendacium_ and _Contra Mendacium ad - Consentium_, which in opposition to the contrary doctrine - of the Priscillianists (§ 54, 2), unconditionally repudiates - the admissibility of equivocation. - - c. =Controversial Treatises.= Of 11 treatises against the - Manichæans (§ 54, 1) the most important is that _C. Faustum_ - in 33 bks. (Engl. transl., Edin., 1875), interesting as - reproducing in quotations the greater part of the last work - of this great champion of the Manichæans. Then came the - discussion with the Donatists (§ 63, 1), which he engaged - in with great vigour. We have ten treatises directed against - them (Engl. transl., Edin., 1873). Of far greater importance - was the conflict which soon after broke out against the - Pelagians and then against the semi-Pelagians (§ 53, 4, 5), - in which he wrote fourteen treatises (Engl. transl., - 3 vols., Edin., 1873-1876). Also the Arians, Priscillianists, - Origenists and Marcionites were combated by him in special - treatises, and in the bk. _De hæresibus_ he gave a summary - account of the various heresies that had come under his - notice. - - d. Among his =Apologetical Treatises= against pagans and - Jews, by far the ablest and most important is the work _De - Civitate Dei_, in 22 bks., a truly magnificent conception - (Engl. transl., 2 vols., Edin., 1873), the most substantial - of all apologetical works of Christian antiquity, called - forth by the reproach of the heathens that the repeated - successes of the barbarians resulted from the weakening and - deteriorating influence of Christianity upon the empire. - The author repels this reproach in the first four bks. - by showing how the Roman empire had previously in itself - the seeds of decay in its godless selfishness, and thence - advancing immorality; Ilium was and continued pagan, but - its gods could not save it from destruction. Ilium’s Epigone, - haughty Rome, meets the same fate. It owed its power only to - God’s will and His government of the world, and to His using - it as a scourge for the nations. The next five books show - the corruption of the heathen religions and the inadequacy - of heathen philosophy. Then the last 12 bks. point out - the contrast between the kingdom of God and the kingdom - of the world in respect of their diverse foundations, - their entirely different motive powers, their historical - development and their ultimate disposal in the last judgment. - - e. The most important and complete of his =Exegetical Works= - are the 12 bks. _De Genesi ad litteram_, a gigantic - commentary on the three first chapters of Genesis, which - in spite of its title very often leaves the firm ground - of the literal sense to revel in the airy regions of - spiritualistic and mystical expatiation. Of his _Sermones_, - 400 are recognised as genuine (Engl. transl., Hom. on N.T., - 2 vols., Oxf., 1844 f.; Hom. on John and 1st John, 2 vols., - Oxf., 1848; Comm. on Psalms, 6 vols., Oxf., 1847 f.; Harmony - of Evangelists, and Serm. on Mt., Edin., 1874; Commentary - on John, 2 vols., Edin., 1875). His correspondence still - preserved comprises 270 Epistles (Engl. transl., 2 vols., - Edin., 1874, 1876). - - § 47.20. =Augustine’s Disciples and Friends.= - - a. =Paulinus=, deacon of Milan, who wrote, at Augustine’s - request, the life of Ambrose, awakened in A.D. 411 the - Pelagian controversy by the charges which he made, and - took part in it himself by writing in A.D. 417 the _Libellus - c. Cœlestium ad Zosimum Papam_. - - b. =Paulus [Paul] Orosius=, a Spanish presbyter, who visited - Augustine in Africa in A.D. 415 to urge him to combat - Priscillianism, took part with him there in his conflict - with the Pelagians. He has left behind a _Commonitorium de - errore Priscillianistarum et Origenistarum ad Augustinum_; - an _Apologeticus de arbitrii libertate c. Pelagium_ and - _Hist. adv. Paganos_ in 7 bks. The last named work was - written at Augustine’s urgent entreaty, and pursues in a - purely historical manner the same end which Augustine in his - _City of God_ sought to reach in a dogmatico-apologetic way. - - c. =Marius Mercator= was a learned and acute layman, belonging - to the West, but latterly resident in Constantinople. He - made every effort to secure the condemnation of Pelagianism - even in the East, and so wrote not only against its Western - leaders but also against its Antiochean supporters, Nestorius - and Theodore of Mopsuestia (§ 53, 4). - - d. =Prosper Aquitanicus=, also a layman and an enthusiastic - follower of Augustine, not only wrote several treatises - against the semi-Pelagians of his native Gaul (§ 53, 5), - but also poured out the vials of his wrath upon them in - poetic effusions (§ 48, 6). He died about A.D. 460. - - e. =Cæsarius, bishop of Arelate=, now Arles in Gaul, originally - a monk in the monastery of Larinum, was one of the most - celebrated, most influential, and in church work most - serviceable of the men of his times. It is also mainly - due to him that in A.D. 529 moderate Augustinianism gained - the victory over semi-Pelagianism. He died in A.D. 543. - His treatise _De gratia et libero arbitrio_ is no longer - extant, but two rules for monks and nuns composed by him, - _Ad monachos_, _Ad virgines_, as well as a considerable - number of _Sermones_, the best of their time, are still - preserved. - - f. =Fulgentius, bishop of Ruspe= in Africa, on account of - his zeal for the Catholic doctrine, was banished by the - Arian Vandal king Thrasimund, but returned after the - king’s death in A.D. 523. He was one of the stoutest - champions of Augustinianism. His writings against Arians - and semi-Pelagians have been often printed. He died in - A.D. 555. His scholar and biographer was =Fulgentius - Ferrandus=, deacon at Carthage about A.D. 547. Alongside - of and after him we meet with bishop =Facundus= of Hermiane, - and the archdeacon =Liberatus of Carthage=, who with - characteristic African energy defend the _Tria Capitula_ - (§ 52, 6) basely surrendered by the Roman bishop Vigilius. - - § 47.21. =Pelagians and semi-Pelagians.= - - I. =Pelagius=, a British monk, the originator of the heresy - named after him (§ 53, 3, 4), left behind a considerable - number of writings, of which, however, for the most part - we have now only fragments in the works of his opponents. - References in Augustine, Marius Mercator, and others show - that to him belong the _Lb._ xiv. _Expositionum in Epistt. - Pauli_, which have been ascribed to Jerome and included - among his works, scholia-like explanations with good sound - grammatico-historical exegesis. The wish to make this - useable and safe for the Catholic church led at an early - date to various omissions and alterations in it. Afterwards - its heretical origin was forgotten which notwithstanding - the purifying referred to is still quite discernible. Two - epistles addressed to Roman ladies recommending virginity - have also got a place among the works of Jerome.--=Julianus, - bishop of Eclanum= in Italy, is the only one among the - followers of Pelagius who can be regarded as of scientific - importance. He was an acute but frivolous and vulgar - opponent of Augustine, whom he honoured with the epithets - _amentissimus et bardissimus_ (comp. § 53, 4). - - II. At the head of the semi-Pelagians or Massilians stands: - - a. =Johannes Cassianus=. Gennadius designates him as - _natione Scythus_; but he received his early education - in a monastery at Bethlehem. He then undertook a - journey in company with the abbot to visit the Egyptian - monks, stayed next for a long time with Chrysostom at - Constantinople, and after his banishment resided some - years in Rome, and finally in A.D. 415 settled down at - Massilia (Marseilles), where he established a monastery - and a nunnery, and organised both after the Eastern - model. He died about A.D. 432. His writings were held - in high esteem throughout the Middle Ages. In the - _De institutis Cœnobiorum_ he describes the manner - of life of the Palestinian and Egyptian monks, and - then treats of the eight vices to which the monks were - specially exposed. The 24 _Collationes Patrum_ report - the conversations which he had with the Eastern monks - and hermits about the ways and means of attaining - Christian perfection. The 13th _Collatio_ is, without - naming him, directed against Augustine’s doctrine, - and develops semi-Pelagian Synergism (§ 53, 5). Both - writings, however are certainly calculated to serve - the development of his own monkish ideal as well as his - own dogmatic and ethical views, rather then to afford - a historically faithful representation of the life and - thinking of oriental monasticism of that time. The 7 bks. - _De incarnatione Christi_ combat not only Nestorianism - but also Pelagianism as in its consequences derogatory - to the divinity of Christ. - - b. =Vincentius [Vincent] Lerinensis=, monk in the Gallic - monastery of Lerinum, was Cassianus’ most distinguished - disciple. He died about A.D. 450. On his often printed - _Commonitorium pro cath. fidei antiquit. et universit._, - comp. § 53, 5. - - c. =Eucherius, bishop of Lyons=, left behind him several - ascetical works (_De laude eremi; De contemtu mundi_), - Homilies, and a _Liber formularum spiritualis - intelligentiæ_ as guide to the mystico-allegorical - interpretation of Scripture. He died about A.D. 450. - - d. =Salvianus=, presbyter at Marseilles, was in his - earlier days married to a heathen woman whom he - converted, and with her took the vow of continency. - He died about A.D. 485. He wrote _Adv. avaritiam_ - Lb. iv., in which the support of the poor and surrender - of property to the church for pious uses are recommended - as means of furthering the salvation of one’s own soul. - In consequence of the oppression of the times during - the convulsions of the migration of the peoples and - the reproach of the heathen again loudly raised that - the weakness of the Roman empire was occasioned by the - introduction of Christianity, he wrote _De providentia - s. de gubernatione Dei et de justo præsentique judicio_, - Lb. viii., which in rhetorical and flowery language - depicted the dreadful moral condition of the Roman - world of that day. - - e. =Faustus of Rhegium=, now Riez in Provence, in his - earlier years an advocate, then monk and abbot of the - cloister of Lerinum, and finally bishop of Rhegium, was - the head of the Gallic semi-Pelagians of his times. In - his writings he stated this doctrine in a moderate form. - He died in A.D. 493. - - f. =Arnobius the Younger=, the contemporary and - fellow-countryman of Faustus, wrote a very important - work entitled _Prædestinatus_, which in a very thorough - and elaborate manner contests the doctrines of Augustine. - Comp. § 53, 5. - - § 47.22. =The Most Important Church Teachers among the Roman - Popes.= - - a. =Leo the Great= occupied the papal chair from A.D. 440 to - A.D. 461. While but a deacon he was the most distinguished - personage in Rome. On assuming the bishopric he gave the - whole powers of his mind to the administration of his office - in all directions. By the energy and consistency with which - he carried out the idea of the Roman primacy, he became the - virtual founder of the spiritual sovereignty of Rome. With - a strong arm he guided the helm of the church, reformed - and organized on every side, settled order and discipline, - defended orthodoxy, contended against heretics (Manichæans, - Priscillianists, Pelagians, Eutychians), and appeased the - barbarians (Attila). Of his writings we have 96 _Sermones_ - and 173 Epistles, which last are of the utmost importance - for the church history of his times. He is also supposed - to be the author of a talented work _De vocatione Gentium_ - (§ 53, 5). - - b. =Gelasius I.=, A.D. 492 to A.D. 496, left behind him a - treatise _Adv. hæresin Pelagianem_, another _De duabus - in Christo naturis_, and a work against the observance of - the Lupercalia which some prominent Romans wished to have - continued. He also wrote 18 Decretals. The celebrated - _Decretum de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis_, in - a sense the oldest _Index prohibitorum_, is ascribed to - him. The first section, wanting in the best MSS., contains - a biblical canon corresponding to that of the Synod of - Hippo, A.D. 393 (§ 59, 1); the second section treats of - the pre-eminence of the Church of Rome granted by our Lord - Himself in the person of Peter; the third enumerates the - œcumenical Councils; and the fourth, the writings of the - fathers received by the Roman Church; the Chronicle and - Church History of Eusebius are found fault with (_quod - tepuerit_) but not rejected; in respect to the writings of - Origen and Rufinus the opinion of Jerome is approved. The - fifth section gives a list of books not to be received--the - New Testament Apocrypha, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, - Arnobius, Cassianus, Faustus of Rhegium, etc. - - c. =Gregory the Great=, A.D. 590 to A.D. 604, born in Rome - about A.D. 540, sprung from a distinguished old Roman - family, held about A.D. 574 the office of city prefect, - after his father’s death founded on his inherited estates, - six monasteries, and himself withdrew into a seventh, - which he built in Rome. Ordained deacon against his will in - A.D. 579, he was entrusted with the important and difficult - office of a papal _apocrisiarius_ in Constantinople, and was - constrained in A.D. 590, after a long persisted-in refusal, - to mount the papal chair, which obliged him to abandon - the long-cherished plan of his life, the preaching of the - gospel to the Anglo-Saxons (§ 77, 4). Gregory united a rare - power and energy of will with real mildness and gentleness - of character, deep humility and genuine piety with the - full consciousness of his position as a successor of Peter, - insight, circumspection, yea even an unexpected measure of - liberal-mindedness (comp. _e.g._ § 57, 4; 75, 3) with all - monkish narrowness and stiff adherence to the traditional - forms, doctrines and views of the Roman Church. He himself - lived in extremest poverty and simplicity according to - the strictest monastic asceticism, and applied all that he - possessed and received to the support of the poor and the - help of the needy. It was a hard time in which he lived, - the age of the birth throes of a new epoch of the world’s - history. There is therefore much cause to thank the good - providence which set such a man as spiritual father, teacher - and pastor at the head of the Western Church. He took special - interest in fostering monasticism and such-like institutions, - which were, indeed, most conducive to the well-being of - the world, for during this dangerous period of convulsion, - monasticism was almost the only nursery of intellectual - culture. The Roman Catholic church ranks him as the last - of the Fathers, and places him alongside of Ambrose, Jerome - and Augustine, the four greatest teachers of the church, - _Doctores ecclesiæ_, whose writings have been long reverenced - as the purest and most complete vehicles of the Catholic - tradition. Among the Greeks a similar position is given to - Athanasius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen and Chrysostom. The - rank thus assigned to Gregory is justifiable inasmuch as - in him the formation and malformation of doctrine, worship, - discipline and constitution peculiar to the ancient church - are gathered up, completed and closed. His most complete - work is the _Expositio in b. Jobum s. Moralium_, Ll. xxxv., - (Engl. transl., Lib. of Fath., 3 vols., Oxf., 1844-1850) - which, by dragging in all possible relations of life which - an allegorical interpretation can furnish, is expanded into - a repertory of moral reflections. His _Regula pastoralis - s. Liber curæ pastoralis_ obtained in the West a position - of almost canonical authority. In his “Dialogues,” of which - the first three books treat “_de vita et miraculis Patrum - Italicorum_,” and the 4th book mostly of visionary views of - the hereafter (heaven, hell and purgatory), “_de æternitate - animarum_,” we meet with a very singular display of the most - uncritical credulousness and the most curious superstition. - Besides these we have from him Homilies on Ezekiel and - the Gospels, as well as a voluminous correspondence in - 880 Epistles of great importance for the history of the - age. To Gregory also is attributed the oft quoted saying - which compares holy scripture to a stream _in quo agnus - peditat et elephas natat_. - - § 47.23. =The Conservators and Continuators of Patristic Culture.= - - a. =Boëthius=, Anicius Manlius Torquatus Severinus, was - descended from a distinguished Roman family, and stood high - in favour with the Ostrogoth Arian king Theodoric. Accused, - however, by his enemies of treasonable correspondence with - the Byzantine court, he was, after a long imprisonment, - condemned unheard and executed, A.D. 525. In prison - he composed the celebrated treatise, _De consolatione - philosophiæ_, which, written in pure and noble language, - was the favourite book of the Latin Middle Ages, and was - translated into all European languages: first of all by - Alfred the Great into Anglo-Saxon, and often reprinted in - its original form. The book owed its great popularity to the - mediæval tradition which made its author a martyr for the - Catholic faith under Arian persecution; but modern criticism - has sought to prove that in all probability he was not even - a Christian. Still more decidedly the theological writings - on the Trinity and the Two Natures of Christ bearing his - name are repudiated as irreconcileable with the contents - and character of the _De consolatione_; though, on the - other hand, their authenticity has again found several - most capable defenders. Finally, Usener has conclusively, - as it seems, in a newly discovered fragment of Cassiodorus, - brought forward a quite incontestable witness for their - authenticity. In any case Boëthius did great service in - preserving the continuity of Western culture by his hearty - encouragement and careful prosecution of classical studies - at a time when these were threatened with utter neglect. Of - special importance was his translation of a commentary on - the logical works of Aristotle as the first and for a long - time almost the only philosophical groundwork of mediæval - scholasticism (§ 99, 2). - - c. Magnus Aurelius =Cassiodorus=, surnamed Senator, belonged - to Southern Italy and held the highest civil offices under - Odoacer and Theodoric for fifty years. About A.D. 540, - he retired to the cloister of Vivarium founded by him in - Southern Italy, and devoted the rest of his life to the - sciences and the instruction of the monks. He collected a - great library in his monastery, and employed the monks in - transcribing classical and patristic writings. He died about - A.D. 575 when almost a hundred years old. His own writings - show indeed no independence and originality, but are all - the more important as concentrated collections of classical - and patristic learning for the later Latin Middle Ages. His - twelve books of the History of the Goths have come down only - in the condensed reproduction of Jordanes or Jornandes. His - twelve books _Variarum_ (_sc. epistolarum et formularum_), - which consist of a collection of acts and ordinances of the - period of his civil service, are important for the history - of his age. His _Historia ecclest. tripartita_ (§ 5, 1), - was for many centuries almost the only text book of church - history, and his _Institutiones divinarum et sæcularum - litterarum_ had a similar position as a guide to the study - of theology and the seven liberal arts (§ 90, 8). Also his - commentary on the Psalms and the most of the books of the - New Testament, made up of compilations, was held in high - esteem. - - c. =Dionysius Exiguus=, a Scythian by birth, who became a Roman - abbot, and died about A.D. 566, may also be placed in this - group. He translated many Greek patristic writings, by his - _Cyclus paschalis_ became founder of the Western reckoning - of Easter (§ 56, 3), and also the more universally adopted - so-called Dionysian era. By his _Codex Canonum_ he is also - the founder of the Western system of Canon Law (§ 43, 3). - - - § 48. BRANCHES OF THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE AND CHRISTIAN POETRY. - - § 48.1. =Exegetical Theology.=--Nothing was done in the way - of criticism of the original biblical text. Even Jerome was - only a translator. For the Old Testament the LXX. sufficed, - and the divergences of the Hebrew text were explained as - Jewish alterations. Hebrew was a _terra incognita_ to the - fathers, Polychronius and Jerome only are notable exceptions. - The allegorical method of interpretation was and continued to be - the prevalent one. The Antiocheans, however, put limits to it by - their theory and practice of the right of historico-grammatical - interpretation. Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia - contested the principles of Origen, while Gregory of Nyssa in his - _Proemium in Cant._ undertook their defence. The first attempt - at a system of =Hermeneutics= was made by the learned Donatist - Tychonius in his book the _Regulæ_ vii. _ad investigandam - intelligentiam ss. Scr._ More profound is Augustine’s _De - Doctrina Chr._ The Εἰσαγωγὴ τῆς θείας γραφῆς of the Greek - Adrianus with its opposition to the immoderate allegorizing - that then prevailed, deserves mention here. Jerome contributed - to biblical =Introduction= by his various _Proœmia_. The - first attempt at a scientific introduction to biblical study - (isagogical and biblico-theological in the form of question - and answer), is met with in the 2 bks. _Instituta regularia - div. legis_ of the African Junilius, a prominent courtier at - Constantinople, about A.D. 550. There is a Latin rendering made - by Junilius at the request of Primasius, bishop of Adrumetum, - of a treatise composed originally in Syriac, by Paul the Persian, - teacher of the Nestorian seminary at Nisibis, which he had - collected from the works of Theodore of Mopsuestia, for the - purposes of instruction. The title _Departibus div. legis_, - usually given to the whole, properly belongs only to the first - part of the treatise. A more popular guide is Cassiodorus’ - _Institutio divinarum litt._ Some contributions were made - to biblical archaeology by Eusebius and Epiphanius. Of the - allegorical =Exegetes= of the East, the most productive was - Cyril of Alexandria. The Antiochean school produced a whole - series of able expositors of the grammatico-historical sense - of scripture. In the commentaries of Chrysostom and Ephraem - [Ephraim] the Syrian, that method of interpretation is applied - in a directly practical interest. The Westerns Hilary, Ambrose, - Ambrosiaster, Jerome and Augustine, as well as their later - imitators, all allegorize; yet Jerome also applied himself very - diligently to the elucidation of the grammatical sense. Only - Pelagius is content to rest in the plain literal meaning of - scripture. From the 6th century, almost all independent work in - the department of exegesis ceased. We have from this time only - _Catenæ_, collections of passages from commentaries and homilies - of distinguished fathers. The first Greek writer of Catenæ, was - Procopius of Gaza, in the 6th century; and the first Latin writer - of these was Primasius of Adrumetum, about A.D. 560. - - § 48.2. =Historical Theology.=--The writing of Church history - flourished especially during the 4th and 5th centuries (§ 5, 1). - For the history of heresies we have Epiphanius, Theodoret, - Leontius of Byzantium; and among the Latins, Augustine, - Philastrius [Philaster], and the author of _Prædestinatus_ - (§ 47, 21f). There are numerous biographies of distinguished - fathers. On these compare the so-called _Liber pontificalis_, see - § 90, 6. Jerome laid the foundation of a history of theological - literature in a series of biographies, and Gennadius of - Massilia continued this work. With special reference to monkish - history, we have among the Greeks, Palladius, Theodoret and - Joh. Moschus; and among the Latins, Rufinus, Jerome, Gregory - the Great and Gregory of Tours (§ 90, 2). Of great importance - for ecclesiastical statistics is the Τοπογραφία χριστιανική - in 12 bks., whose author _Cosmas Indicopleustes_, monk in the - Sinai peninsula about A.D. 540, had in his earlier years as an - Alexandrian merchant travelled much in the East. The connection - of biblical and profane history is treated of in the Chronicle - of Eusebius. Orosius too treats of profane history from the - Christian standpoint. The _Hist. persecutionis Vandalorum_ - (§ 76, 3), of Victor, bishop of Vita in Africa, about A.D. 487, - is of great value for the church history of Africa. For chronology - the so-called _Chronicon paschale_, in the Greek language, is of - great importance. It is the work of two unknown authors; the work - of the one reaching down to A.D. 354, that of the other, down to - A.D. 630. These chronological tables obtained their name from the - fact that the Easter cycles and indictions are always carefully - determined in them. - - § 48.3. =Systematic Theology.= - - a. =Apologetics.= The controversial treatises of Porphyry - and Hierocles were answered by many (§ 23, 3); that of - the Emperor Julian also (§ 42, 5), especially by Gregory - Nazianzen, Chrysostum [Chrysostom] (in the Discourse on - St. Babylas), and most powerfully by Cyril of Alexandria. - Ambrose and the poet Prudentius answered the tract of - Symmachus, referred to in § 42, 4. The insinuations of - Zosimus, Eunapius, and others (§ 42, 5) were met by Orosius - with his _Historiæ_, by Augustine with his _Civ. Dei_, - and by Salvian [Salvianus] with his _De gubernatione - Dei_. Johannes Philoponus wrote against Proclus’ denial - of the biblical doctrine of creation. The vindication of - Christianity against the charges of the Jews was undertaken - by Aphraates, Chrysostom, Augustine, and Gregentius, bishop - of Taphne in Arabia, who, in A.D. 540, disputed for four - days amid a great crowd with the Jew Herban. Apologies of - a general character were written by Eusebius of Cæsarea, - Athanasius, Theodoret and Firmicus Maternus. - - b. In =Polemics= against earlier and later heretics, the - utmost energy and an abundance of acuteness and depth of - thought were displayed. See under the history of theological - discussions, § 50 ff. - - c. Positive =Dogmatics=. Origen’s example in the construction - of a complete scientific system of doctrine has no imitator. - For practical purposes, however, the whole range of Christian - doctrine was treated by Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of - Nyssa, Apollinaris, Epiphanius, Rufinus (_Expositio Symboli - Apost._), Augustine (in the last book of the _Civ. Dei_, in - first book of his _De Doctrina Chr._, and in the _Enchiridium - ad Laurentium_). The African Fulgentius of Ruspe (_De regula - veræ fidei_), Gennadius of Massilia (_De fide sua_), and - Vincentius [Vincent] of Lerinum in his _Commonitorium_. Much - more important results for the development of particular - dogmas were secured by means of polemics. Of supreme - influence on subsequent ages were the mystico-theosophical - writings of the Pseudo-Areopagite. This mysticism, so far - as adopted, was combined by the acute and profound thinker - Maximus Confessor with the orthodox theology of the Councils. - - d. =Morals.= The _De officiis ministr._ of Ambrose is a system - of moral instruction for the clergy; and of the same sort - is Chrysostom’s Περὶ ἱερωσύνης; while Cassianus’ writings - form a moral system for the monks, and Gregory’s _Exposit. - in Jobum_ a vast repertory on general morality. - - § 48.4. =Practical Theology.=--The whole period is peculiarly - rich in distinguished homilists. The most brilliant of the Greek - preachers were: Macarius the Great, Basil the Great, Gregory - Nazianzen, Ephraem [Ephraim] the Syrian, and above all Chrysostom. - Of the Latins the most distinguished were Ambrose, Augustine, - Zeno of Verona, Petrus [Peter] Chrysologus, Leo the Great, and - Cæsarius of Arles. A sort of Homiletics is found in the 4th of - Augustine’s _De Doctr. Chr._, and a directory for pastoral work, - in the _Regula pastoralia_ of Gregory the Great. On Liturgical - writings, comp. § 59, 6; on Constitutional works, § 43, 3-5. - - § 48.5. =Christian Poetry.=--The beginning of the prevalence of - Christianity occurred at a time when the poetic art had already - ceased to be consecrated to the national life of the ancient - world. But it proved an intellectual power which could cause to - swell out again the poetic vein, relaxed by the weakness of age. - In spite of the depraved taste and deteriorated language, it - called forth a new period of brilliancy in the history of poetry - which could rival classical poetry, not indeed in purity and - elegance of form, but in intensity and depth. The Latins in - this far excelled the Greeks; for to them Christianity was more - a matter of experience, emotion, the inner life, to the Greeks - a matter of knowledge and speculation. Among the =Greeks= the - most distinguished are these: =Gregory Nazianzen=. He deserves - notice mainly for his satirical _Carmen de vita sua_, περὶ ἑαυτοῦ. - Among his numerous other poems are some beautiful hymns and - many striking phrases, but also much that is weak and flat. - The drama Χριστὸς πάσχων, perhaps wrongly bearing his name, - modelled on the tragedies of Euripides and in great part made - up of Euripidean verses, is not without interest as the first - Christian passion-play, and contains some beautiful passages; - _e.g._ the lament of Mary; but it is on the whole insipid - and confused. =Nonnus of Panopolis=, about A.D. 400, wrote - a Παράφρασις ἐπικὴ τοῦ Εὐαγγ. κατὰ Ἰωάννην, somewhat more - useful for textual criticism and archaeology, than likely - to afford enjoyment as poetry. Of the poetical works of the - Empress =Eudocia=, wife of Theodosius II., daughter of the - pagan rhetorician Leontius of Athens, hence called Athenais - (she died about the year 460), only fragments of their renderings - in the Cyprian legends have come down to us. The loss of her - _Homero-centoes_ celebrated by Photius, _i.e._ reproductions - of the biblical books of the New Testament in pure Homeric words - and verses, is not perhaps to be very sorely lamented. On the - other hand, the poetic description of the church of Sophia, built - by Justinian I. and of the ambo of that church which =Paulus - Silentiarius= left behind him, is not only of archaeological - value, but also is not without poetic merit. - - § 48.6. =Christian Latin Poetry= reached its highest excellence - in the composition of hymns (§ 59, 4). But also in the more - ambitious forms of epic, didactic, panegyric, and hortatory - poems, it has respectable representatives, especially in Spain - and Gaul, whose excellence of workmanship during such a period - of restlessness and confusion is truly wonderful. To the fourth - century belongs the Spaniard =Juvencus=, about A.D. 330. His - _Hist. evangelica_ in 4 books, is the first Christian epic; - a work of sublime simplicity, free of all bombast or rhetorical - rant, which obtained for him the name of “the Christian Virgil.” - His _Liber in Genesin_ versifies in a similar manner the Mosaic - history of the patriarchs. His countryman =Prudentius=, who died - about A.D. 410, was a poet of the first rank, distinguished for - depth of sensibility, glowing enthusiasm, high lyrical flow, - and singular skill in versification. His _Liber Cathemerinon_ - consists of 12 hymns, for the 12 hours of the day, and his - _Liber Peristephanon_, 14 hymns on the same number of saints who - had won the martyr’s crown; his _Apotheosis_ is an Anti-Arian - glorification of Christ; the _Hamartigenia_ treats of the origin - of sin; the _Psychomachia_ describes the conflict of the virtues - and vices of the human soul; and his 2 bks. _Contra Symmachum_ - combat the views of Symmachus, referred to in § 42, 4.--In the - fifth century flourished: =Paulinus=, bishop of Nola in Campania, - who died in A.D. 431. He left behind him 30 poems, of which - 13 celebrate in noble, enthusiastic language, the life of Felix - of Nola, martyr during the Decian persecution. =Coelius Sedulius=, - an Irishman (?), composed in smooth dignified verse the Life of - Jesus, and the _Mirabilia divina s. Opus paschale_, so called - from 1 Cor. v. 7 in 5 bks.; and a Collatio V. et N.T. in elegiac - verse. The _De libero arbitrio c. ingratos_ of the Gaul =Prosper - Aquitanicus= lashes with poetic fury the thankless despisers of - grace (§ 53, 5).--The most important poet of the sixth century - was =Venantius Fortunatus=, bishop of Poitiers, _Vita Martini_, - hymns, elegies, etc. - - § 48.7. In the =National Syrian= Church, the first place as a - poet belongs to =Ephraem= [Ephraim], the _Propheta Syrorum_. In - poetic endowment, lyrical flow, depth and intensity of feeling, - he leaves all later writers far behind. Next to him stands - =Cyrillonas=, about A.D. 400, a poet whose very name, until quite - recently, was unknown, of whose poems six are extant, two being - metrical homilies. Of =Rabulas of Edessa=, who died in A.D. 435, - the notorious partisan of Cyril of Alexandria (§ 53, 3), and of - =Baläus=, about A.D. 430, we possess only a number of liturgical - odes, which are not altogether destitute of poetic merit. - This cannot, however, be said of the poetic works of =Isaac of - Antioch=, who died about A.D. 460, filled with frigid polemics - against Nestorius and Eutyches, of which their Catholic editor - (Opp. ed. G. Bickell, Giess., 1873 f.) has to confess they are - thoroughly “insipid, flat and wearisome, and move backwards and - forwards in endless tautologies.” Less empty and tiresome are - the poetic effusions of the famous =Jacob of Sarug=, who died - in A.D. 521; biblical stories, metrical homilies, hymns, etc. - Most of the numerous liturgical odes are the compositions of - unknown authors. - - § 48.8. =The Legendary History of Cyprian.=--At the basis of the - poetic rendering of this legend in 3 bks. by the Empress Eudocia, - about A.D. 440, lay three little works in prose, still extant in - the Greek original and in various translations. In early youth - Cyprian, impelled by an insatiable craving after knowledge, power - and enjoyment, seeks to obtain all the wisdom of the Greeks, all - the mysteries of the East, and for this purpose travels through - Greece, Egypt, and Chaldæa. But when he gets all this he is - not satisfied; he makes a compact with the devil, to whom he - unreservedly surrenders himself, who in turn places at his - disposal now a great multitude of demons, and promises to make - him hereafter one of his chief princes. Then comes he to Antioch. - There Aglaidas, an eminent heathen sophist, who in vain abandoned - all to win the love of a maiden named Justina, who had taken - vows of perpetual virginity, calls in his magical arts, in order - thereby to gain the end so ardently desired. Cyprian enters into - the affair all the more eagerly since he himself also meanwhile - has entertained a strong passion for the fair maiden. But the - demons sent by him, at last the devil himself, are forced to flee - from her, through her calling on the name of Jesus and making - the sign of the cross, and are obliged to own their powerlessness - before the Christians’ God. Now Cyprian repents, repudiates his - covenant with the devil, lays before an assembly of Antiochean - Christians a confession inspired by the most profound despairing - sorrow of the innumerable mischiefs wrought by him with the help - of the demons, is comforted by the Christians present by means - of consolatory words of scripture, receives baptism, enters - the ranks of the clergy as reader, passes quickly through the - various clerical offices, and suffers the death of a martyr - as bishop of Antioch, along with Justina, under the Emperor - Claudius II.--Gregory Nazianzen too in a discourse delivered at - Constantinople in A.D. 379, “on the day of the holy martyr and - bishop Cyprian,” treated of the legend, in which without more ado - he identifies the converted Antiochean sorcerer with the famous - Carthaginian bishop of that name, and makes him suffer martyrdom - under Decius (?).--The romance may have borrowed the name of its - hero from an old wizard; but his type of character is certainly - to be looked for in the philosophico-theurgical efforts of - the Syrio-Neoplatonic school of Iamblichus (§ 24, 2), in which - the then expiring heathenism gathered up its last energies - for conflict with victorious Christianity. The conception of - the heroine on the other hand, is with slight modifications - borrowed from the Thecla legend (§ 32, 6). By the _Legenda aurea_ - (§ 104, 8), which is just an adaptation of this earlier one, - the legend of Cyprian was carried down even beyond the time of - the Reformation. Calderon’s “Wonder-working Magician” presents - a Spanish-Catholic, as the Faustus legend of the 16th century - presents a German Protestant construction, which latter, however, - in direct opposition to the tendency of the early Christian - legend, allows the magician to drop into hell because his - repentance came too late. The Romish Church, however, still - maintains the historical genuineness of the old legend, and - celebrates both of the supposed saints on one day, 25th September. - - - - - IV. DOCTRINAL CONTROVERSIES AND HERESIES. - - - § 49. THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE GENERALLY. - - When a considerable fulness of Christian doctrine had already in -previous periods found subjective and therefore variously diversified -development, it had now, besides being required by the altered condition -of things, become necessary that the church should sift and confirm -what was already developed or was still in the course of development. -The endeavour after universal scientific comprehension and accurate -definition became stronger every day. The lively intercourse between -the churches, which prevented the various doctrinal types from being -restricted to particular countries, brought opposite views into contact -and conflict with one another. The court, the people, the monks took -parts, and so the church became the scene of passionate and distracting -struggles, which led to the issuing of a canon of orthodoxy recognised -by the whole Catholic church of the West and of the East, and to the -branding every deviation therefrom with the mark of heresy. - - The =Heresies= of the previous period were mainly of a syncretic - kind (§ 26). Those of the period now under consideration have - an evolutionary or formatory character. They consist in the - construction of the system of doctrine by exclusive attention - and extreme estimation of the one side of the Christian - truth that is being developed, which thus passes over into - errors; while it is the task of orthodoxy to give proportionate - development to both sides and to bring them into harmony. Of - syncratic heresies only sporadic traces from the previous period - are found in this (§ 54). The third possible form of heresies is - the revolutionary or reformatory. Heretics of this class fancy - that they see in the developed and fixed system of the Catholic - church excrescences and degenerations which either do not exist, - so that by their removal the church is injured and hindered in - her essential and normal functions, or do really exist, but for - the most part are not now duly distinguished from the results of - sound and normal development, so that the good would be removed - with the bad. During the period under consideration only isolated - instances of this kind of heresy are met with (§ 62). - - - § 50. THE TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSY, A.D. 318-381.[150] - - The series of doctrinal contendings opened with the Trinitarian or -Arian controversy. It first of all dealt with the nature and being -of the Logos become man in Christ and the relation of this Logos to -the Father. From the time of the controversy of the two Dionysiuses -(§ 33, 7) the idea of the consubstantiality of the Son and the Father -had found supporters even in Alexandria and a new school was formed -with it as the fundamental doctrine (§ 47, 1). But the fear excited -by Sabellius and the Samosatians (§ 33, 8), that the acknowledgment -of the Homoousia might lead to Monarchianism, caused a strong reaction -and doomed many excellent fathers to the bonds of subordinationism. -It was pre-eminently the school of the Antiochean Lucian (§ 31, 9) -that furnished able contenders against the Homoousia. In Origen the -two contraries, subordination and the eternal generation from the -substance of the Father, had been still maintained together (§ 33, 6). -Now they are brought forward apart from one another. On the one side, -Athanasius and his party repudiate subordination but hold firmly by -the eternal generation, and perfected their theory by the adoption -of the Homoousia; but on the other side, Arius and his party gave up -the eternal generation, and held fast to the subordination, and went -to the extreme of proclaiming the Heteroousia. A third intermediate -party, the semi-Arians, mostly Origenists, wished to bind the separated -contraries together with the newly discovered cement of the ὁμοιουσία. -In the further course of the controversies that now broke out and raged -throughout the whole church for almost a century, the question of the -trinitarian position of the Holy Spirit was of necessity dragged into -the discussion. After various experiences of victory and discomfiture, -the Homoousia of the Son and of the Spirit was at last affirmed and -became the watchword of inviolable orthodoxy. - - § 50.1. =Preliminary Victory of the Homoousia, - A.D. 318-325=--=Arius=, a disciple of Lucian, from A.D. 313 - presbyter at Alexandria, a man of clear intellect and subtle - critical spirit, was in A.D. 318 charged with the denial of the - divinity of Christ, because he publicly taught that while the - Son was indeed before all time yet He was not from eternity (ἦν - ὅτε οὐκ ἦν), that by the will of the Father (θελήματι θεοῦ) He - was created out of nothing (κτίσμα ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων), and that by - His mediating activity the world was called into being; as the - most perfect created image of the Father and as executor of the - Divine plan of creation, He might indeed in an inexact way be - called θεός and λόγος. =Alexander=, bishop of Alexandria at that - time, who maintained the doctrine of the eternal generation and - consubstantiality, convened a synod at Alexandria in A.D. 321, - which condemned the doctrine of Arius and deposed him. But the - people, who revered him as a strict ascetic, and many bishops, - who shared his views, took part with him. He also applied for - protection to famous bishops in other places, especially to his - former fellow student (Συλλουκιανίστης) Eusebius of Nicomedia, - and to the very influential Eusebius of Cæsarea (§ 47, 2). - The former unreservedly declared himself in favour of the - Arian doctrine; the latter regarded it as at least not dangerous. - Arius spread his views among the people by means of popular songs - for men of various crafts and callings, for millers, sailors, - travellers, etc. In this way a serious schism spread through - almost all the East. In Alexandria the controversy was carried - on so passionately that the pagans made it the subject of reproach - in the theatre. When Constantine the Great received news of - this general commotion he was greatly displeased. He commanded, - fruitlessly, as might be expected, that all needless quarrels - (ἐλάχισται ζητήσεις) should be avoided. Hosius, bishop of Cordŏva, - who carried the imperial injunction to Alexandria, learnt the - state of matters there and the serious nature of the conflict, - and brought the emperor to see the matter in another light. - Constantine now summoned in A.D. 325 an =Œcumenical Council at - Nicæa=, where he himself and 318 bishops met. The majority, with - Eusebius of Cæsarea at their head, were Origenists and sought, - as did also the =Eusebians=, the party of Eusebius of Nicomedia, - to mediate between the opposing views, the latter, however, - being much more favourable to the Arians. The maintainers of the - Homoousia were in a decided minority, but the vigorous eloquence - of the young deacon =Athanasius=, whom Alexander brought with - him, and the favour of the emperor, secured complete ascendancy - to their doctrine. Upon the basis of the baptismal formula - proposed by Eusebius of Cæsarea to his own congregation, a new - confession of faith was sketched out, which was henceforth used - to mark the limits of this trinitarian discussion. In this creed - several expressions were avoided which, though biblical, had - been understood by the Arians in a sense of their own, such as - πρωτότοκος πάσης τῆς κτίσεως πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνιων, and in their - place strictly Homoousian formulæ were substituted, ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας - τοῦ πατρός, γεννηθεὶς οὐ ποιηθεὶς, ὁμοούσιος τῷ πατρί; while with - added anathemas those entertaining opposite views were condemned. - This was the =Symbolum Nicænum=. Arius was excommunicated and - his writings condemned to be burnt. Dread of deposition and love - of peace induced many to subscribe who were not convinced. Only - Arius himself and two Egyptian bishops, Theonas and Secundus, - refused and went into exile to Illyria. Also Eusebius of Nicomedia - and Theognis of Nicæa, who subscribed the Symbol but refused to - sign the anathematizing formula, were three months afterwards - banished to Gaul.[151] - - § 50.2. =Victory of Eusebianism, A.D. 328-356.=--This unity - under the Nicene Symbol was merely artificial and could not - therefore be enduring. The emperor’s dying sister Constantia and - the persuasion of distinguished bishops induced Constantine to - return to his earlier view of the controversy. Arius agreed to - a Confession drawn up in general terms and was, along with the - other banished ones, restored in A.D. 328. Soon thereafter, in - A.D. 330, the emperor commanded that Arius should be restored to - office. But meanwhile, in A.D. 328, Athanasius himself had become - bishop and replied with unfaltering determination that he would - not comply. The emperor threatened him with deposition, but by - a personal conference Athanasius made such an impression upon him - that he gave way. The enemies of Athanasius, however, especially - the Meletians driven on by Eusebius of Nicomedia (§ 41, 4), - ceased not to excite suspicion about him as a disturber of the - peace, and got the emperor to reopen the question at a Synod at - Tyre, in A.D. 335. consisting of pure Arians. Athanasius appealed - against its verdict of deposition. A new Synod was convened - at Constantinople in A.D. 335 and the emperor banished him to - Treves in A.D. 336. It was now enjoined that, notwithstanding - the opposition of the bishop of Constantinople, Arius should - be there received back again into church fellowship, but on - the evening before the day appointed he died suddenly, being - over eighty years old. Constantine the Great soon followed him, - A.D. 337, and Constantine II. restored Athanasius to his church - which received him with enthusiasm. Constantius, however, was - decidedly favourable to the Eusebians, and this gave tone to the - court and to the capital where in all the streets and markets, - in all the shops and houses, the questions referred to were - considered and discussed. The Eastern bishops for the most part - vacillated between the two extremes and let themselves be led by - Eusebius of Nicomedia. He and his party managed for a time to set - aside the Homoousian formula and yet to preserve an appearance of - orthodoxy. Eusebius, who from A.D. 338 was bishop in the capital, - died in A.D. 341, but his party continued to intrigue in his - spirit. The whole West, on the other hand, was strictly Nicæan. - The Eusebians in A.D. 340 opened a Council at Antioch, which - anew deposed Athanasius, and put in his place a rude Cappadocian, - Gregorius [Gregory]. Athanasius fled to Rome, where a Council - under bishop Julius in A.D. 341 solemnly acknowledged his - orthodoxy and innocence. A new Council convened at Antioch in - A.D. 340 for the consecration of a church, sketched four creeds - one after another, approaching indeed, in order to conciliate - the West, as closely as possible that of Nicæa, but carefully - avoiding the term ὁμοούσιος. In the interests of unity Constantius - and Constans jointly convened an Œcumenical Council at Sardica in - Illyria in A.D. 344. But when the Westerns under the presidency - of Hosius, disregarding the Antiochean anathema, allowed a seat - and vote to Athanasius, the Easterns withdrew and formed an - opposition Council at Philippopolis in Thrace. At Sardica where - important privileges were granted to the Roman bishop Julius - (§ 46, 3), the Nicene creed was renewed and Athanasius was - restored. Constantius, after Gregorius [Gregory] had died, who - meanwhile had become doubly hated because of his violent deeds, - confirmed Athanasius’ restoration, and the Alexandrian church - received again their old pastor with shouts of joy. But after the - death of Constans in A.D. 350, Constantius was again won over to - the side of the Arians. They assembled at the Council of Sirmium - in Pannonia in A.D. 351, where, however, they did not strike - directly at Athanasius but at first only at a friend of his who - presented to them a weak spot. The bishop =Marcellus of Ancyra= - in Galatia by his zealous defence of the Nicene _Homoousia_ had - been betrayed into the use of Sabellian expressions and views. - At a Synod at Constantinople in A.D. 336 he was on this account - suspended, and then contended with by Eusebius of Cæsarea in the - course of this Council; but in the West and at the Council of - Sardica he had been defended. Afterwards, however, one of his - own scholars =Photinus=, bishop of Sirmium, had drifted into - unmistakable, and indeed into dynamic Monarchianism (§ 33, 1). - His doctrine had been already rejected as heretical at a Council - at Antioch in A.D. 344 and also in the West at a distinctly - Nicæan Council at Milan in A.D. 345. The Council of Sirmium - now formally deposed him and with his condemned also Marcellus’ - doctrine.[152] The Eusebians, however, were not satisfied with - this. So soon as Constantius by the conquest of the usurper - Magnentius got an absolutely free hand, he arranged at their - instigation for two Eusebian Synods, one at Arles in Gaul, - A.D. 353, the other at Milan, A.D. 355, where Athanasius was - again condemned. The emperor now commanded that all Western - bishops should subscribe his condemnation. Those who refused were - deposed and banished. Among them were, the Roman bishop Liberius, - Hosius of Cordova, Hilary of Poitiers, Eusebius of Vercelli, - and Lucifer of Calăris [Calaris]. And now a second Gregorius - [Gregory], a Cappadocian, not less rude and passionate than the - first, was forcibly installed bishop of Alexandria. Athanasius - performed the service in a quiet and dignified manner, and then - withdrew to the monks in the Egyptian desert in A.D. 356. Thus - it seemed that Arianism in the modified or rather concealed form - of Eusebianism had secured a final victory throughout the whole - range of the Roman Empire. - - § 50.3. =Victory of Homoiousianism, A.D. 357-361.=--The Eusebians - now, however, fell out among themselves. The more extreme party, - with the Antiochean deacon Aëtius and bishop Eunomius of Cyzicus - at their head, carried their heresy so far as to declare that - the Son is unlike to the Father (ἀνόμοιος). They were hence - called =Anomœans=, also _Exucontians_ (ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων). But also - the distinctly moderate party, called =semi-Arians=[153] or - _Homoiousians_, from their adoption of the formula ὁμοιούσιος, - made preparations for a decisive conflict. At their head stood - Basil, bishop of Ancyra, and Constantius too was favourable - to them. But the intriguing court bishops, Ursacius and Valens, - strictly Arian at heart, knew how to gain their ends by secret - paths. With the emperor’s consent they held a second Council at - Sirmium in A.D. 357, where it was resolved to avoid wholly the - non-biblical phrase οὐσία, which caused all the contention, to - abandon all definitions of the nature of God which to man is - incomprehensible, and to unite upon the simple formula, that - the Son is _like_ the Father (ὅμοιος hence the name =Homoians=). - Hosius of Cordova, facile through age and sufferings, bought his - reprieve by subscription. He died, after a bitter repentance, - in A.D. 361, when almost a hundred years old. The rest of - the Westerns, however, at the Synod of Agenum renewed their - Nicene Confession; the semi-Arians under Basil at Ancyra their - Antiochean Confession. The latter, too, found access to the - emperor, who let their Confession be confirmed at a third Synod - at Sirmium in A.D. 358, and obliged the court bishops to sign it. - The latter then came to a compromise with the semi-Arians in the - formula: τὸν Υἱὸν ὅμοιον τῷ Πατρὶ εἶναι κατὰ πάντα ὡς αἱ ἅγιαι - γραφαὶ λέγουσιν. Liberius of Rome, too, worn out with three - years’ exile, agreed to sign this symbol and ventured to return - to Rome (§ 46, 4). The formula pleased the emperor so well that - he decided to have it confirmed by an œcumenical Council. But in - order to prevent the dreaded combination of the Homoousians and - Homoiousians in the West, Ursacius and Valens contrived to have - two Councils instead of one, an Eastern Council at Seleucia and - a Western Council at Rimini, A.D. 359. Both rejected the formula - of Sirmium; the Easterns holding by that of Antioch, the Westerns - by that of Nicæa. But Ursacius knew how by cunning intrigues to - weary them out. When the bishops had spent two years at Seleucia - and Rimini, which seemed to them no better than banishment, and - their messengers after a half year’s journey had not succeeded - in obtaining an audience of the emperor, they at last subscribed - the _Homoian_ symbol. Those who refused, Aëtius and Eunomius, - were persecuted as disturbers of the church’s peace. Thus - the Homoian creed prevailed through the whole Roman empire. - Constantius’ death, however, in A.D. 361, soon broke up this - artificial bond. - - § 50.4. =Final Victory of the Nicene Creed, A.D. 361-381.=--Julian - gave equal rights to all parties and recalled all the banished - bishops, so that many churches had two or three bishops. - Athanasius also returned. For the restoration of church order - he called a Synod at Alexandria in A.D. 362, and here in the - exercise of a gentle and wise temper he received back into church - fellowship the penitent Arian bishops, in spite of the protest - of the strict zealot Lucifer of Calaris. The happy results of - Athanasius’ procedure led the emperor again to banish him, on the - pretext that he was a disturber of the peace. Julian’s successor, - Jovian, was favourable to the Nicene doctrine and immediately - restored Athanasius, A.D. 364, meanwhile extending toleration - to the Arians. But Valens, to whom his brother Valentinian I. - surrendered the East, A.D. 364-378, proved a zealous Arian. He - raged with equal violence against the Athanasians and against - the semi-Arians, and thus drove the two into close relations - with one another. Athanasius was obliged to flee, but ventured - after four months to return, and lived in peace to the end of - his days. He died in A.D. 373. Valens was meanwhile restricted - in his persecutions on two sides, by the pressing representations - of his brother Valentinian, and by the manly resistance of - eminent bishops, especially the three Cappadocians (§ 47, 4). - The machinations of the Western empress Justinia, during - the minority of her son Valentinian II., were successfully - checkmated by Ambrose of Milan. He passively but victoriously - opposed the soldiers who were to take possession of his church - for the Arians by a congregation praying and singing psalms. - Theodosius the Great gave its deathblow to Arianism. He called - Gregory Nazianzen to the patriarchal chair at Constantinople. - To Gregory also at a subsequent time he assigned the presidency - of the so-called =Second Œcumenical Council at Constantinople - in A.D. 381=.[154]--When, however, his patriarchate was attacked, - because he had changed his bishopric (§ 45), he resigned - his office. No new Symbol was here drawn up, but only the - Nicene Symbol was confirmed as irrefragable. On the so-called - Nicæan-Constantinopolitan Symbol, comp. § 59, 2. After this - the Arians ventured only to hold services outside of the cities. - Subsequently all churches in the empire were taken from them.--The - Constantinopolitan Council of A.D. 381 did not fairly represent - parties. Being called by the then merely Eastern emperor, and - so consisting only of Eastern bishops, it was not properly an - œcumenical synod, and for a long time even in the East itself was - not regarded as such. Still it was of importance to the bishop of - Constantinople that it should have this rank, and his endeavours - were favoured by the circumstance that it had been called - by Theodosius who was honoured both in East and West as Sole - Potentate and “second Constantine.” After the Council of - Chalcedon in A.D. 451 (§ 46, 1) the whole East was unanimous - in recognising it. The West, however, at least Rome, still - rejected it, until finally under Justinian I., in consequence - of the Roman chair becoming dependent upon the Byzantine court - (§ 46, 9), the dispute was here no longer agitated. - - § 50.5. =The Pneumatomachians, A.D. 362-381.=--Arius and the - Arians had described the Holy Spirit as the first creature - produced by the Son. But even zealous defenders of the Homoousia - of the Son vacillated. The Nicene Symbol was satisfied with - a bare καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα ἅγιον; and even Hilary of Poitiers, - avoiding all exact definition, contented himself with recording - the phrases of Scripture. But Athanasius, at the Synod of - Alexandria in A.D. 362, Didymus the Blind, and the three - Cappadocians, consistently applied their idea of the Homoousia - to the Spirit and won the adhesion of the Nicene theologians. - It was hardest for the semi-Arians who had accepted the - Nicene platform, at whose head stood Macedonius, bishop - of Constantinople, who had been deposed by the Homoians - in A.D. 360, to acquiesce in this conclusion (Macedonians, - Pneumatomachians). The so-called second œcumenical Council - of A.D. 381 sanctioned in a now lost doctrinal “Tome” the full - Homoousia of the Holy Spirit. The West had already in A.D. 380 - at a Roman Synod under the presidency of Bishop Damasus condemned - in 24 anathemas, along with all other trinitarian errors, every - sort of opposition to the perfect Homoousia of the Spirit.[155] - - § 50.6. =The Literature of the Controversy.=--Arius himself - developed his doctrine in a half poetical writing, the Θάλεια, - fragments of which are given by Athanasius. Arianism found a - zealous apologist in the Sophist Asterius, whose treatise is lost. - The church historian, Philostorgius (§ 5, 1), sought to vindicate - it historically. On the semi-Arian side Eusebius of Cæsarea wrote - against Marcellus--Κατὰ Μαρκέλλου and Περὶ τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς - θεολογίας. The Ἀπολογητικός of Eunomius is lost. Among the - opponents of Arianism, Athanasius occupies by a long way the - first place (IV. Orations against the Arians, Ep. concerning - Councils of Seleucia and Ariminum, Hist. of Arians to the Monks, - Apology against the Arians, etc., all included in Hist. Tracts - of Athanasius, “Lib. of Fath.,” 2 vols., Oxf., 1843 f.). On the - works of Apollinaris belonging to this controversy see § 47, 5. - Basil the Great wrote 4 bks. against Eunomius; Περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου - Πνεῦματος, Ad Amphilochium, against the Pneumatomachians. - Gregory Nazianzen wrote five Λόγοι θεολογικοί. Gregory of Nyssa - 12 Λόγοι ἀντιῤῥητικοὶ κατὰ Εὐνομίου. Didymus the Blind, 3 bks. - _De Trinitate_. Epiphanius, the Ἀγκυρώτος. Cyril of Alexandria - a θησαυρὸς περὶ τῆς ἁγίας καὶ ὁμοούσιας Τριάδος. Chrysostom - delivered twelve addresses against the Anomoians. Theodoret - wrote _Dialogi VII. d. s. Trinitate_. Ephraëm [Ephraim] Syrus, - too, combated the Arians frequently in his sermons. Among the - Latins the most celebrated polemists are: Lucifer of Calaris - (_Ad Constantium p. Lb. II. pro Athen._); Hilary of Poitiers - (_De Trinitate Lb. I., de Synodus s. de fide Orientalium, contra - Constantium Aug._; _C. Auxentium_); Phœbadius, bishop of Agenum - about A.D. 359 (_C. Arianos_); Ambrose (_De fide ad Gratianum - Aug. Lb. V._); Augustine (_C. Sermonem Arianorum_; _Collatio - cum Maximo Arianorum episc._; _C. Maximinum_); Fulgentius of - Ruspe (_C. Arianos_, and 3 bks. against the Arian Vandal king - Thrasimund). - - § 50.7. =Post-Nicene Development of the Dogma.=--Even the - Nicene Symbol did not completely surmount every trace of - subordinationism. It is at least capable of a subordinationist - interpretation when the Father alone is called εἷς θεός and so - identified with the Monas. Augustine completely surmounted this - defect (_De Trinitate Lb. XV._). The personality of the Spirit, - too, as well as His relation to the Father and the Son, had not - yet been determined. A step was taken towards the formulating of - the doctrine of the Spirit’s personality by the acknowledgment - in the now lost Tome of the Council of Constantinople of A.D. 381 - of the full Homoousia of the Spirit with the Father and the - Son.[156] But the doctrine of the Spirit’s relations to Father - and Son still continued undetermined and even by the addition - (to the εἰς τὸ πν. ἅγ.) of: τὸ κυρίον, τὸ ζωοποιὸν, τὸ ἐκ πατρὸς - ἐκπορευόμενον, τὸ σὺν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ τῷ υἱῷ συνπροσκυνούμενον - καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον in the so-called _Symbolum Nic.-Constant._ - (§ 59, 2), a definition so incomplete was obtained, that even - five hundred years afterwards the great schism that rent the - church into an Eastern and a Western division found in this - its doctrinal basis (§ 67, 1). Augustine, too, had meanwhile - come forward with a further development of this doctrine, - and taught in his speculation upon the Spirit that He proceeded - from the Son as well as from the Father (John xv. 26). - Fulgentius of Ruspe was the next most famous representative - of the further development of the dogma (_De s. Trinitate_). - The so-called Athanasian Creed (§ 59, 2) simply adopted this - advanced development in the proposition: _qui procedit a - Patre et Filio_. Similarly the _Filioque_ is found also in the - so-called Nic.-Constant. Creed laid before the Synod of Toledo - in A.D. 589 (§ 76, 2).--Continuation § 67, 1; § 91, 2. - - § 50.8. =Schisms in consequence of the Arian Controversy.= - - I. =The Meletian Schism at Antioch.= The Arians at Antioch - had already in A.D. 330 driven away Eustathius, the bishop - of the see, who favoured the Nicene doctrine. A portion - of his people, however, remained attached to him and - Homoousianism under the leadership of the Presbyter - Paulinus, and were called Eustathians. When in A.D. 360 - Eudoxius, the Arian bishop, left Antioch, in order to - take possession of the episcopal chair of the capital, - his former congregation chose Meletius, bishop of Sebaste, - formerly a Eusebian, but for some time friendly to the - Nicene party, as his successor. His first sermon, however, - served to undeceive those who had chosen him, so that after - a few weeks they drove him away and put Euzoius, a decided - Arian, in his place. Yet he had already won a following - in the congregation which, when Julian’s succession made - it possible for him to return, took him back as bishop. - Athanasius and the Alexandrian Synod of A.D. 362 had - meanwhile made every effort to reconcile these Meletians - and the Eustathians and to unite them under the banner of - Nicæanism. But Lucifer, bishop of Calaris, sent to Antioch - for this purpose, confirmed the schism instead of healing - it by ordaining Paulinus bishop on the death of Eustathius - in A.D. 360. The whole church now took sides, the East that - of Meletius, the West along with Egypt, that of Paulinus. - The Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381 gave to Meletius - the presidency as the oldest bishop present. When, after - two days, he died, Gregory Nazianzen, his successor in the - presidency, recommended that the next election should be - postponed till the death of the aged Paulinus and that then - both parties should join the election. It was, however, all - in vain. Flavian was appointed successor to Meletius, and - when Paulinus died in A.D. 388, the Presbyter Evagrius was - chosen opposition bishop in his stead. Theodosius I., from - A.D. 392 sole ruler, insisted upon the West recognising - Flavian. But in Antioch itself the schism lasted down - to the death of Evagrius. Finally, in A.D. 415, the - able successor of Flavian, bishop Alexander, effected - a reconciliation, by taking part on a feast day along with - his congregation in the public worship of the Eustathians, - joining with them in singing and prayer, and in this way - won them over to join him in the principal church. - - II. =The Schism of the Luciferians.= After Lucifer by his - irrational zeal had caused so much discord in Antioch, - he returned in A.D. 362 to Alexandria, and there protested - against Athanasius for receiving back penitent Arians and - semi-Arians. He and his fanatical adherents formed the - sect of Luciferians, which renewed the Novatianist demands - for Church purity, and continued to exist down to the fifth - century. - - III. On the =Schism of Damasus and Ursacius at Rome=, see - § 46, 4. - - - § 51. THE ORIGENIST CONTROVERSIES, A.D. 394-438. - - Naturally and necessarily the Christological are closely connected -with the Trinitarian controversies (§ 52). But between the two comes in -another controversy, the Origenistic, which was indeed more of personal -than of ecclesiastical interest, but still strengthened the church in -the conviction that Origen was an arch-heretic. - - § 51.1. =The Monks of the Scetic and Nitrian Deserts.=--The most - distinguished defenders of Nicene orthodoxy, Athanasius, the three - Cappadocians, Didymus, Hilary, etc., had all held Origen in high - esteem. But the constant references of the Arians to his authority - brought him into discredit, not only among the more narrow-minded - opposers of Arius, especially in the West, but also among the - monks of the Scetic desert in Egypt, with Pachomius at their - head. These repudiated the speculation of Origen as the source - of all heresy, and in their views of God and divine things - adopted a crude anthropomorphism. Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis, - also belonged originally to this party (§ 47, 10). In direct - opposition to them, another Egyptian monkish order in the Nitrian - desert adhered to Origen with enthusiastic reverence and occupied - themselves in a pious contemplative mysticism that tended to a - somewhat extreme spiritualism. - - § 51.2. =The Controversy in Palestine and Italy, - A.D. 394-399.=--In Palestine Origen had a warm supporter in - =bishop of Jerusalem=, and in the two Latins =Jerome= and - =Rufinus= who were staying there (§ 47, 16, 17). But when - in A.D. 394 a couple of Westerns who happened to come there - expressed their surprise, Jerome, anxious for his reputation - for orthodoxy, was at once prepared to condemn the errors of - Origen. Meanwhile the Scetic monks had called the attention - of the old zealot =Epiphanius= to the Palestinian nursery of - heresy. Immediately he made his way thither and took advantage - of John’s friendly invitation to occupy his pulpit by preaching - a violent sermon against Origenism. John then preached against - anthropomorphism. Epiphanius pronounced an anathema against that - tendency but desired John to do the same in regard to Origenism. - When John refused, then Epiphanius, together with Jerome and the - Bethlehemite monks withdrew from communion with John and Rufinus, - and invaded John’s episcopal rights by ordaining a presbyter - over the Bethlehemite monks. Now sprang up a violent controversy, - which Theophilus of Alexandria, by sending the presbyter Isidore, - sought to allay. Jerome and Rufinus were reconciled at the altar - in A.D. 396. The latter soon again returned to the West. He - translated, omitting objectionable passages, Origen’s work Περὶ - ἀρχῶν, and was indiscreet enough to remark in the preface that - even the orthodox Jerome was an admirer of Origen. Stirred up - by his Roman friends, Jerome began with unmeasured violence - a passionate polemic against Origenism and the friend of his - youth. He produced at the same time a literal rendering, no - longer extant, of the Περὶ ἀρχῶν. Rufinus replied with equal - bitterness, and the passion displayed by both led to further - causes of offence. The Roman bishop Siricius took part with - Rufinus, but his successor Anastasius summoned him to answer - for his opinions at Rome. Rufinus did not appear, but sent - an apology which so little satisfied Anastasius that he rather - consented to send letters to John of Jerusalem and other oriental - bishops in condemnation of Origenism, A.D. 399. Rufinus withdrew - to Aquileia and there continued to translate the writings of - Origen and others of the Greeks. - - § 51.3. =The Controversy in Alexandria and Constantinople, - A.D. 399-438.=--=Theophilus=, patriarch of Alexandria, a pompous, - ambitious and strong-handed ecclesiastical prince, had down to - A.D. 399 been on good terms with the Origenist monks and even - in the Easter address of that year expressed himself in strong - terms against the heresy of the anthropomorphists. The monks rose - in rebellion over this, attacked him with clubs and forced him - to pronounce an anathema upon Origen. Soon thereafter he had a - personal dispute with his former friends. The aged and venerable - presbyter Isidore and the four so-called “long brothers,” ἀδελφοὶ - μακροί, two of whom served in his church as _œconomi_, refused to - pay him pupils’ and legates’ money and fled from his passionate - displeasure to their companions in the Nitrian desert. In - A.D. 399, however, at an endemic Synod at Alexandria he condemned - Origen, and in A.D. 401 published a violent manifesto against - the Origenists.[157] The noble but shortsighted Epiphanius - approved it and Jerome hastened to translate it into Latin. With - rude military force the Nitrian monks were scattered and driven - away. Persecuted by the warrants issued by the patriarch, they - sought protection from bishop =John Chrysostom= at Constantinople - (§ 47, 8), whose intercession, however, Theophilus contemptuously - rejected. For peace sake Chrysostom now wished to retire. But the - monks found access to the Empress Eudoxia, and upon her appeal - to the Emperor Arcadius, Theophilus was cited before a Synod at - Constantinople over which Chrysostom presided. Theophilus foamed - with rage. He succeeded by misrepresentation of the facts to win - to his side the zealot Epiphanius. The noble old man hasted full - of zeal and prejudice to Constantinople, but coming to see things - in their true light, he withdrew from them with the words, “I - leave to you the court and hypocrisy.” Theophilus, however, knew - well how to get on with the court and hypocrisy. Chrysostom, - by severe and searching preaching, had aroused the anger of - the Empress. Relying upon this, Theophilus landed with a great - retinue at Constantinople, and organized at the Empress’s estate - of Drus, the Oak, near Chalcedon, a Council, _Synodus ad Quercum_, - A.D. 403, which pronounced Chrysostom guilty of immorality, - offences against the church and high treason. The Emperor - condemned him to exile. Chrysostom soothed the people excited - in his favour, and allowed himself quietly to be sent away. A - violent earthquake, however, next night and the incontrollable - excitement of the populace, led the Emperor to entreat the - exile by special messenger immediately to return. After three - days’ absence he had a triumphal entrance again into the city. - Theophilus fled precipitately to Alexandria. Soon thereafter - Chrysostom very solemnly denounced the noisy inauguration of - a statue of the empress during the celebration of worship, and - when on this account her rage flamed up against him afresh, the - unfortunate words were uttered by him in a sermon on the day of - John the Baptist: Πάλιν Ἡρωδίας μαίνεται, πάλιν πράσσεται, πάλιν - ἐπὶ πίνακι τὴν κεφαλὴν τοῦ Ἰωάννου ζητεῖ λαβεῖν. Now the game - was again in Theophilus’ favour. His party fanned the flame at - the court. During the Easter vigils, A.D. 404, armed men burst - into the church of Chrysostom and carried him away an exile to - Cucusus in Armenia. With heroic courage he bore all the miseries - of the journey, the climate and the wild lawless neighbourhood. - With his people from the place of his banishment he maintained - regular pastoral intercourse.--Soon after the outbreak of - the conflict, Theophilus as well as Chrysostom had diligently - sought to obtain the support of the West. Both sent letters and - messengers to Rome, Milan and Aquileia, seeking to justify their - cases before the churches. Innocent I. of Rome urged the deciding - of the controversy at an œcumenical Council, but did not carry - his point. After the disgraceful banishment of Chrysostom the - whole West took his side, and Innocent got Honorius to apply to - Arcadius for his recall; but the only result was that in A.D. 407 - he was sent to still more severe banishment at Pityus, on the - Black Sea. He succumbed to the fatigues of the journey and - died on the way with words on his lips that had been the motto - of his life: Δόξα τῷ θεῷ πάντων ἕνεκεν. A great part of his - congregation at Constantinople refused to acknowledge the new - patriarch Arsacius and his successor Atticus, and continued apart, - notwithstanding all persecutions, under the name of Johannites, - until Theodosius II. in A.D. 438 fetched back with honour the - bones of their revered pastor and laid them in the imperial vault. - Amid personal animosities and embittered feelings the Origenist - controversy was long lost to view, but we must return to it again - further on (§ 52, 6).[158] - - - § 52. THE CHRISTOLOGICAL CONTROVERSY.[159] - - In the Trinitarian controversy we dealt with the pre- and -extra-historical existence of the Son of God, with His divine nature -in itself; but now, at the crucial point of Christian speculation and -ecclesiastical conflict, we come to treat of His historical existence -as that of the incarnate Son of God, of the connection of the divine -nature of the Logos with the human nature of the Son of Mary, and of -the mutual relations of both to one another. Even during the Arian -controversy the conflict was begun, and while the church maintained -against Arius the full divinity of Christ, it also affirmed against -Apollinaris the completeness of His humanity. In three further phases -this conflict was continued. In the Dyoprosopic controversy the church -maintained the unity of the Person of Christ against the Antiochean -extreme represented by Nestorius, which hold both natures so far -apart that the result seemed to be two persons. In the Monophysite -controversy the opposite extreme of the new Alexandrian school -was combated, which in the unity of the person lost sight of the -distinctness of the natures. In the Monothelite controversy a unionistic -effort was resisted which indeed allowed the duality of natures to be -affirmed nominally, but practically denied it by the acknowledgment of -only one will. - - § 52.1. =The Apollinarian Controversy, - A.D. 362-381.=[160]--Previously the older _Modalists_, _e.g._, - Beryllus and Sabellius, had taught that by the incarnation the - Logos had received merely a human body. Marcellus shared this - view; but also his antipodes Arius had adopted it in order - to avoid postulating two creatures in Christ. Athanasius held - by the doctrine of Origen, that the human soul in Christ is - a necessary bond between the Logos and the body, as well as - an organ for giving expression to the Logos through the body. - At the Synod of Alexandria, A.D. 362, therefore, he obtained - ecclesiastical sanction for the recognition of a complete human - nature in Christ. =Apollinaris= of Laodicea (§ 47, 5), who had - helped to arrange for this Council, also disapproved of the - expression σῶμα ἄψυχον, but yet thought that the doctrine of - the completeness of the human nature must be denied. He was led - to this position by his adoption of trichotomic principles. He - maintained that Christ has taken merely a σῶμα with a ψυχὴ ἄλογος, - and that the place of the ψυχὴ λογικὴ (ὁ νοῦς) was represented - in him by the divine Logos. If this were not so then, he thought, - one must assume two persons in Christ or let Christ sink down - to the position of a mere ἄνθρωπος ἔνθεος. Only in this way - too could absolute sinlessness be affirmed of him. On the other - hand, Athanasius and the two Gregories saw that in this way - the substantiality of the incarnation and the completeness of - redemption were lost. The so-called second œcumenical Council of - A.D. 381 rejected the doctrine of Apollinaris, who with his party - was excluded from the Church. The Apollinarians subsequently - joined the Monophysites. - - § 52.2. =Christology of the Opposing Theological Schools.=--In - consequence of the Arian controversy the perfect divinity, and in - consequence of the Apollinarian controversy the perfect humanity, - of Christ were finally established. On the relation between - the two natures conditioned by the union there was definite - result attained unto. Apollinaris had taught a connection of - the divinity with the _incomplete_ manhood so intimate that - he had unwittingly destroyed the duality of the natures, and - by means of an ἀντιμεθίστασις τῶν ὀνομάτων transferred the - attributes of the one nature to the other; so that not only - the body of Christ must have been deified and have been therefore - worthy of worship, but also birth, suffering and death must be - referred to His divinity. In his treatise: Κατὰ μέρος πίστις, - he teaches: οὐ δύο πρόσωπα, οὐδὲ δύο φύσεις, οὐδὲ γὰρ τέσσαρα - προσκυνεῖν λέγομεν, θεὸν καὶ υἱὸν θεοῦ καὶ ἄνθρωπον καὶ πνεῦμα - ἅγιον, and in the tract _De incarnatione Verbi_, wrongly - attributed to Athanasius: Ὁμολογοῦμεν εἶναι αὐτὸν υἱὸν τοῦ - θεοῦ καὶ θεὸν κατὰ πνεῦμα, υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου κατὰ σάρκα· οὐ δύο - φύσεις τὸν ἕνα υἱὸν, μίαν προσκυνητὴν καὶ μίαν ἀπροσκύνητον, - ἀλλὰ μίαν φύσιν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκομένην καὶ προσκυνομένην - μετὰ τῆς σάρκος αὐτοῦ μίᾳ προσκυνήσει. So, too, in the Epistle - ascribed to Julius of Rome. The =Alexandrian Theology=, although - rejecting the mutilation of the human nature favoured by - Apollinaris, sympathized with him in his love for the mystical, - the inconceivable and the transcendental. In opposition to the - Arian heresy it gave special emphasis to the divinity of Christ - and taught a ἕνωσις φυσική of both natures. Only before the - union and _in abstracto_ can we speak of two natures; after - the incarnation and _in concreto_ we can speak only of one - divine-human nature. Mary was therefore spoken of as the mother - of God, θεοτόκος. Athanasius in his treatise against Apollinaris - acknowledged an ἀσύγχυτος φυσικὴ ἕνωσις τοῦ λόγου πρὸς τὴν ἰδίαν - αὐτοῦ γενομένην σάρκα, and explained this φυσικὴ ἕνωσις as a - ἕνωσις κατὰ φύσιν. The Cappadocians (§ 47, 4) indeed expressly - admitted two natures, ἄλλο καὶ ἄλλα, but yet taught a commingling - of them, σύγκρασις, κατάμιξις, a συνδραμεῖν of the two natures, - εἰς ἕν, a μεταποιηθῆναι of the σὰρξ πρὸς τὴν θεότητα. Cyril of - Alexandria taught that the ἐνσάρκωσις was a φυσικὴ ἕνωσις, an - incarnation in the proper sense. Christ consists ἐκ δύο φύσεων, - but not ἐκ δύο φύσεσι, _i.e._ only before the incarnation and - _in abstracto_ (κατὰ μόνην τὴν θεωρίαν) can we speak of two - natures. In the God-man two natures would be two subjects, and - so there would be two Christs; the redeemer would then only be - an ἄνθρωπος θεοφόρος and not a θεάνθρωπος, and could thus afford - no guarantee of a complete redemption, etc. The =Antiochean - Theology= (§ 47, 8, 9), in opposition to Apollinaris, affirmed - most emphatically the complete and unchangeable reality of the - human nature of Christ at and after its union with the divine. - It would therefore only admit of a συναφεία or a ἕνωσις σχετική, - by which both are brought into the relation (σχέσις) of common - being and common action. Expressions like θεοτόκος, θεὸς - ἐγγέννηθεν, θεὸς ἔπαθεν, seemed to the thinkers of this school - blasphemous, or at least absurd. They acknowledged indeed that - the σάρξ of Christ is worthy of adoration but only in so far as - it is the organ of the redeeming Logos, not because in itself - it shares in the divine attributes. The most developed form of - this doctrine was presented by Theodore of Mopsuestia in strict - connection with his anthropology and soteriology. The historical - development of the God-man is with him the type and pattern of - the historical redemption of mankind. Christ assumed a complete - human nature, with all its sinful affections and tendencies, - but he fought these down and raised His human nature by constant - conflict and victory to that absolute perfection to which by the - same way He leads us through the communication of His Spirit. - He expressly guarded himself against the charge of making Christ - into two persons: Christ is ἄλλο καὶ ἄλλο, but not ἄλλος καὶ - ἄλλος for the human nature has in the incarnation renounced - personality and independence.--Each of these two schools - represented one side of the truth of the church’s doctrine; - in the union of the two sides the church proclaimed the full - truth. On the other hand the two schools proceeded more and more - one-sidedly to emphasise each its own side of the truth, and so - tended toward positive error. Thus arose two opposite errors, the - separating of the natures and the confusing of the natures, which - the church rejected one after the other, and proclaimed the truth - that lay at the root of both.--During this discussion arose the - =Western Theology= as the regulator of the debate. So long as it - dealt with the one-sided extreme of the Antiocheans it stood side - by side with the Alexandrians. Augustine, _e.g._ used indeed the - expression _mixture_, but in reality he explains the relation - of both natures to one another quite in accordance with the - afterwards settled orthodoxy. But when at last the method of - exclusions reached the error of the Alexandrians, the Westerns - turned quite as decidedly to the other side and maintained the - union of the two sides of the truth (Leo the Great). The conflict - attracted great attention when it broke out at first in the West, - but it was so quickly settled that soon no trace of it remained. - In Southern Gaul a monk Leporius came forward teaching the - Antiochean doctrine of the union of the two natures. In A.D. 426 - he went to Africa, entered into conflict with Augustine, but - retracted his errors almost immediately. - - § 52.3. =The Dyoprosopic or Nestorian Controversy, - A.D. 428-444.=[161]--In A.D. 428 a monk of Antioch called - =Nestorius=, a distinguished orator, was appointed patriarch of - Constantinople. He was an eloquent and pious man but hasty and - imprudent, with little knowledge of the world and human nature, - and immoderately severe against heretics. The hatred of an - unsuccessful rival in Constantinople called Proclus and the - rivalry of the patriarch of Alexandria, who hated him not only as - a rival but as an Antiochean, made the position of the unsupported - monk a very hard one, and his protection of the expatriated - Pelagians (§ 53, 4) excited the Roman bishop Cœlestine against - him. Anastasius, a presbyter brought with him by Nestorius, - was annoyed at the frequent use of the expression θεοτόκος and - preached against it. Nestorius took his part against people and - monks, sentenced the monks who had insulted him personally to - endure corporal punishment, and at an endemic Synod in A.D. 439 - condemned the doctrine objected to. And now Cyril of Alexandria - (§ 47, 6) entered the lists as champion of the Alexandrian - dogmatics. He won to himself Cœlestine of Rome (§ 46, 6), as - well as bishops Memnon of Ephesus and Juvenalis [Juvenal] of - Jerusalem, and at the court, Pulcheria (sister of Theodosius II. - A.D. 408-450); while the empress Eudocia (§ 48, 5) and the Syrian - bishops took the side of Nestorius. All conciliatory attempts - were frustrated by the stiffness of the two patriarchs. Cœlestine - of Rome in A.D. 430 demanded of Nestorius a recantation within - ten days, and Cyril at a Synod of Alexandria in A.D. 430 produced - twelve strong counterpropositions containing anathemas, which - Nestorius answered immediately by twelve counteranathemas. Thus - the controversy and the parties engaged in it became more and - more violent. For its settlement the emperor called the so-called - =Third= (properly =Second=, comp. § 50, 4) =Œcumenical Council - at Ephesus in A.D. 431=. Nestorius enjoyed the decided favour - of the emperor, the imperial plenipotentiary was his personal - friend, and a portion of the emperor’s bodyguard accompanied him - to Ephesus. But Cyril appeared with a great retinue of bishops - and a faithful guard of servants of the church and seamen, who - should in case of need prove the correctness of the Alexandrian - dogmatics with their fists. In addition Memnon of Ephesus had in - readiness a crowd of clergy, monks and people from Asia Minor. - Before the Roman legates and the Syrian bishops had arrived Cyril - opened the Council without them with 200 bishops. Nestorianism - was condemned, Nestorius excommunicated and deposed, and - Cyril’s anathematizing propositions adopted as the standard - of ecclesiastical orthodoxy. The Roman legate recognised the - Council, but the imperial commissioner refused his approval; - and the Syrian bishops, under the presidency of John of Antioch - proceeded, on their arrival, to hold an opposition Council, which - excommunicated Cyril and Memnon. Nestorius of his own accord - retired into a monastery. Meanwhile in Constantinople, at the - instigation of Pulcheria, a popular tumult was raised in favour - of Cyril. The emperor set aside all the three leaders, Nestorius, - Cyril and Memnon, and authorised a mediating creed drawn up by - Theodoret (§ 47, 9) in which the θεοτόκος was recognised but an - ἀσύγχυτος ἕνωσις was affirmed. Cyril and Memnon still remained - in their offices. They subscribed Theodoret’s formula and John - subscribed the condemnation of Nestorius, A.D. 433, who was - deposed and given over to the vengeance of his enemies. Driven - from his monastic retreat and in many ways ill-treated, he died - in destitution in A.D. 440. The compromise of the two leaders - called forth opposition on every side. The Syrian church - was in revolt over their patriarch’s betrayal of the person - of Nestorius. John avenged himself by deposing his opponents. - This had well-nigh been the fate of the noble Theodoret; - but the patriarch exempted him from condemning the person - of Nestorius in consideration of his condemnation of the - doctrine.--The Egyptians also charged their patriarch with - the denial of the true doctrine. He was at pains, however, to - give proof of his zeal by the vindictiveness of his persecutions. - Not without an eye to results he wrought to have the anathema - of the church pronounced upon the heads of the Antiochean school, - and one of their partisans, bishop Rabulas of Edessa, pounced - upon the famous theological school at Edessa, at the head of - which then stood the distinguished presbyter Ibas (§ 47, 13). - After the death of Rabulas, however, in A.D. 436, the school - again rose to great eminence. Theodoret and Cyril meanwhile - contended with one another in violent writings. Death closed - the mouth of Cyril in A.D. 444. But Rabulas unweariedly sought - out and burnt the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, which - Ibas had translated into Syriac. The latter published a letter - to Maris bishop of Hardashir in Persia, which at a subsequent - period obtained symbolical rank among the Nestorians, and Thomas - Barsumas, bishop of Nisibis, wrought successfully for the spread - of Nestorianism in the Persian church. In A.D. 489 the school of - Edessa was again destroyed by order of the emperor Zeno. Teachers - and scholars migrated to Persia, and founded at Nisibis a school - that long continued famous. At a Synod in Seleucia in A.D. 499, - under the patriarch Babäus of Seleucia, the whole Persian - church finally broke off from the orthodox church of the Roman - empire (§ 64, 2). They called themselves according to their - ecclesiastical language Chaldean Christians. Their patriarch - bore the title Jazelich, καθολικός. The Nestorian church passed - on from Persia into India, where its adherents, appropriating the - old legend that the apostle Thomas had introduced Christianity - into India (§ 16, 4), called themselves Thomas-Christians. - - § 52.4. =The Monophysite Controversy.= - - I. =Eutychianism, A.D. 444-451.=--Cyril’s successor was - =Dioscurus=, who was inferior to his predecessor in - acuteness, but in passionateness and tyrannical cruelty - left him far behind. An old archimandrite in Constantinople - called =Eutyches= taught not only that after His incarnation - Christ had only one nature, but also that the body of - Christ as the body of God is not of like substance with - our own. The patriarch Domnus of Antioch accused him without - success to Theodosius II., and Theodoret wrote against him - a controversial treatise under the title Ἐρανιστὴς ἤτοι - Πολύμορφος, in which he opposed the doctrine of Eutyches - as a conglomeration of many heresies. Dioscurus now joined - in the fray, and wrought upon the emperor, whose minister - the eunuch Chrysaphius and whose consort Eudocia he had - won over to his side, to pass severe measures against the - Syrians, and especially Theodoret, whom the emperor forbade - to pass beyond the range of his diocese. Eusebius, bishop - of Doryläum, in Phrygia, however, accused Eutyches before - an endemic Synod at Constantinople, in A.D. 448, presided - over by the patriarch Flavian. Eutyches, though under - imperial protection, was nevertheless, upon his refusal - to retract, excommunicated and deposed. He appealed to - an œcumenical Synod and betook himself to =Leo the Great= - (§ 46, 7) at Rome. Flavian also appeared before the Roman - bishop. Leo took the side of Flavian, and in a letter to - that patriarch developed with great acuteness and clearness - the doctrine of the two natures in Christ. The emperor, - however, convoked an œcumenical Council at Ephesus, A.D. 449, - at which Dioscurus presided, while Flavian and his party had - no vote and Theodoret was not even present, but at which for - the first time there was a representative of the monastic - order in the person of the zealous monophysite, the Abbot - Barsumas. The Council was conducted in an extremely arbitrary - and violent manner. The doctrine of two natures was rejected, - and when Eusebius stepped forward to defend it, the Egyptians - shouted: Away with him! Burn him! Tear him in two pieces, as - he has torn the Christ! Flavian as well as Eusebius appealed - to the bishop of Rome; but the Synod pronounced on both the - sentence of excommunication. When now some bishops sprang - forward, and embracing Dioscurus’ knees entreated him to - desist from such injustice, he called in the soldiers to - his help who with chains and unsheathed swords rushed into - the church, after them a crowd of fanatical monks, stout - parabolani and a raging rabble. Flavian was sorely injured - by blows and kicks, and died soon afterwards in banishment. - The Roman legates and Eusebius escaped similar maltreatment - only by speedy flight. During the later sittings Eutyches - was restored, but the chiefs of the opposite party, Ibas, - Theodoret, Domnus, etc., were deposed and excommunicated. - Leo the Great addressed to the emperor a vigorous protest - against the decisions of this =Robber Synod=, _Latrocinium - Ephesinum_, σύνοδος ληστρική. The result was that Theodosius - quarrelled with Eudocia, was reconciled to Pulcheria, and - dismissed his minister. Flavian’s body was now taken in - state to Constantinople, and honourably buried. Theodosius’ - death in A.D. 450 prevented any further steps being taken. - His sister Pulcheria, with her husband Marcian, ascended - the throne. A new =Œcumenical Council= (the so-called - =fourth=) =at Chalcedon in A.D. 451=, deposed Dioscurus, - who was banished to Gangra in Paphlagonia, but spared the - other party leaders of the Monophysites, and condemned - Nestorianism as well as Eutychianism. Cyril’s synodal - rescripts against Nestorius and Leo’s Epistle were - made the basis of the formal statement of the orthodox - doctrine: “that Christ is true God and true man, according - to His Godhead begotten from eternity and like the Father - in everything, according to his humanity born of Mary - the Virgin and God bearer in time and like to us men in - everything, only without sin; and that after His incarnation - the unity of the person consists in two natures which - are conjoined without confusion (ἀσυγχύτως) and without - change (ἀτρέπτως), but also without rending (ἀδιαιρέτως) - and without separation (ἀχωρίστως).” In this Synod too - there were frequently scenes which in unruly violence were - little behind those of the Robber Synod. When, for example, - Theodoret entered amid the loud cheers of the orientals, - the Egyptians saluted him with wild shouts (δι’ εὐσέβειαν - κράζομεν, said they): “Away with the Jew, the blasphemer - of God!” A scene of wild confusion and tumult followed - which only with the greatest difficulty was quelled by - the imperial commissioners. Then at the eighth session, - when the Egyptians demanded not only the express and special - condemnation of the doctrine but also that of the person - of Nestorius, and Theodoret sought to justify him, the storm - broke out afresh, and this time the Egyptians gained their - point, but they were again defeated after violent debate, - in their attempt to secure the condemnation of the person - and writings of Ibas.[162] - - § 52.5. - - II. =Imperial Attempts at Union, A.D. 451-519.=--The supporters - of the Alexandrian dogmatics left the Council full of - resentment at the defeat which they had sustained. They - were henceforth called Monophysites. The whole church was - now in a state of feverish excitement. In Palestine the - monk Theodosius, secretly co-operating with the dowager - empress Eudocia living there in exile, roused the mob into - rebellion. In Egypt the uproar was still more violent. - Timotheus Aëlurus assumed the position of an opposition - patriarch and drove out the orthodox patriarch Proterius. - The same thing was done in Antioch by the monk Petrus - [Peter] Fullo (ὁ γραφεύς). In order to give a Monophysite - colour to the liturgy he added to the Trishagion (Is. vi. 3), - which had been liturgically used in the oldest churches, the - formula θεὸς ὁ σταυρωθεὶς δι’ ἡμᾶς. Party violence meanwhile - went the length of insurrections and blood-shedding on both - sides. The new emperor Leo I. the Thracian, A.D. 457-474, - a powerful and prudent ruler, interposed to bring about - a pacification. In accordance with the advice of the most - distinguished bishops of the empire the two mutinous leaders - of the Monophysites were banished, and the patriarchal - sees thus vacated filled by moderate Dyophysites. But after - Leo’s death and the dethronement of his son-in-law Zeno in - A.D. 475, the usurper Basiliscus issued an edict in A.D. 476, - under the name of an =Encyclion=, by which the Chalcedonian - Symbol, along with Leo’s Epistle, was condemned, and - Monophysitism was proclaimed to be the universal national - religion. Fullo and Aëlurus were also reinstated. The - patriarch Acacius of Constantinople, on the other hand, - organized a Dyophysite counter-revolution, Basiliscus was - overthrown, and the emperor Zeno again placed upon the - throne in A.D. 477. About this time Aëlurus died, and his - party chose Petrus [Peter] Mongus (μογγός, stammering) as - his successor; but the court appointed a Dyophysite Johannes - Talaja. Acacius, when Talaja took up a hostile position - towards him, joined with his opponent Mongus. Both agreed - upon a treaty of union, which also found favour with the - emperor Zeno, and by an edict, the so-called =Henoticon= - of A.D. 482 obtained the force of a law. Nestorianism - and Eutychianism were condemned, Cyril’s anathematisms - were renewed, the Chalcedonian decisions abrogated, - and the Nicene faith alone declared valid, while all - controverted points were to be carefully avoided in teaching - and preaching. Naturally protests were made from both sides. - The strict Monophysites of Egypt threw off Mongus, and were - now called Ἀκέφαλοι. Felix III. of Rome, at the head of the - Dyophysites, refused to have church fellowship with Acacius. - Thus arose a 35 years’ schism, A.D. 484-519, between East - and West. Only the Acoimetæ monks in Constantinople (§ 44, 3) - continued to hold communion with Rome. Church fellowship - between the parties was not restored until Justin I., - who thought that the schism would hinder his projected - reconquest of Italy, in conjunction with the Roman bishop - Hormisdas in A.D. 519, cancelled the Henoticon, and deposed - those who adhered to it. - - § 52.6. - - III. =Justinian’s Decrees, A.D. 527-553.=--During the violent - conflict of parties Justinian I. entered upon his long - and politically considered glorious reign, A.D. 527-565. - He regarded it as his life task permanently to establish - orthodoxy, and to win back heretics to the church, above - all the numerous Monophysites. But the well-disposed emperor, - who moreover had no deep insight into the thorny questions - of theological controversy, was in various ways misled by - the intrigues of court theologians, and the machinations - of his crafty consort Theodora, who was herself secretly - a Monophysite. The =Theopaschite Controversy= first called - forth from him a decree. The addition made to the Trishagion - by Petrus [Peter] Fullo, θεὸς ὁ σταυρωθεὶς δι’ ἡμᾶς, - had been smuggled into the Constantinopolitan liturgy - about A.D. 512. The Acoimetæ pronounced it heretical, and - Hormisdas of Rome admitted that it was at least capable of - being misunderstood and useless. But Justinian sanctioned - it in A.D. 533. Encouraged by this first success, Theodora - used her influence to raise the Monophysite Anthimus to - the episcopal chair of the capital. But the Roman bishop - Agapetus, who stayed in Constantinople as ambassador - of the Goths, unmasked him, and obtained his deposition. - Mennas, a friend of Agapetus, was appointed his successor - in A.D. 536. All Monophysite writings were ordered to be - burnt, their transcribers were punished by the loss of their - hand. Two Palestinian abbots, Domitian and Theodore Ascidas, - secret Monophysites and zealous friends of Origen, lived at - court in high favour. To compass their overthrow, Mennas at - an endemic Synod at Constantinople in A.D. 543 renewed the - condemnation of the arch-heretic and his writings. The court - theologians, however, subscribed without objection, and in - concert with Theodora plotted their revenge. Justinian had - long regarded Egypt with peculiar interest as the granary - of the empire. He felt that something must be done to pacify - the Monophysites who abounded in that country. Theodora - persuaded him that the Monophysites would be satisfied - if it were resolved, along with the writings of Theodore, - the father of the Nestorian heresy, to condemn also the - controversial writings of Theodoret against the venerated - Cyril and the Epistle of Ibas to Maris. The supposed errors - of these were collected before him in the _Three Chapters_. - The emperor did this by an edict in A.D. 544, and demanded - the consenting subscription of all the bishops. The - orientals obeyed; but in the West opposition was shown - on all sides, and thus broke out the violent =Controversy - of the Three Chapters=. Vigilius of Rome, a creature of - Theodora (§ 46, 9), had secretly promised his co-operation, - but, not feeling able to face the storm in the West, he - broke his word. Justinian had him brought to Constantinople - in A.D. 547 and forced from him a written declaration, - the so-called _Judicatum_, in which he agreed to the - condemnation of the _Three Chapters_. The Africans, - under Reparatus of Carthage excommunicated the successor - of Peter, and fought manfully for the rights and honour of - the calumniated fathers. Fulgentius Farrandus [Ferrandus] - wrote _Pro tribus capitt._, Facundus of Hermiane, _Defensío - III. capitt._, and the deacon Liberatus of Carthage, - a _Breviarium causæ Nestorian. et Eutychianorum_, an - important source of information for the history of the - Christological Controversies. Justinian finally convened - the =Fifth Œcumenical Council at Constantinople in A.D. 553=, - which confirmed all the imperial edicts. Vigilius issued - a _Constitum ad Imp._, in which he indeed rejected the - doctrines of the Three Chapters but refused to condemn - the persons. Under imprisonment and exile he became pliable, - and subscribed in A.D. 554. He died in A.D. 555 on his - return to his bishopric. His successor Pelagius formally - acknowledged the Constantinopolitan decrees, and North - Africa, North Italy and Illyria renounced the dishonoured - chair of Peter. At last Gregory the Great, with much - difficulty, gradually brought this schism to an end. - - § 52.7. - - IV. =The Monophysite Churches.=--Justinian, however, did not - thereby reach the end he had in view. The Monophysites - continued their separation because the hated Chalcedonian - Symbol was still acknowledged. But more injurious to them - than the persecutions of the orthodox national church - were the endless quarrels and divisions among themselves. - First of all the two leaders in Alexandria, Julianus and - Severus, became heads of rival parties. The =Severians= or - φθαρτολάτραι taught that the body of Christ in itself had - been subject to corruption (the φθορά); the =Julianists= - denied it. This first split was followed by many others. - By transferring the Monophysite confusion of οὐσία - and ὑπόστασις to the doctrine of the Trinity arose the - Monophysite sect of the =Tritheists=, who taught that - in Christ there is one nature, and that in the Trinity - a separate nature is to be ascribed to each of the three - persons. Among them was the celebrated philosopher, Johannes - Philoponus (§ 47, 11), who supported this doctrine by the - Aristotelian categories. He also vindicated the notion that - the present world as to form and matter would perish at the - last day, and an entirely new world with new bodies would - be created. In opposition to this Conon, bishop of Tarsus, - affirmed that the overthrow of the world would be in form - only, and that the risen saints would again possess the - same bodies though in a glorified form. His followers the - so-called =Cononites= separated from the main stem of the - Tritheists and formed an independent sect.--The Monophysites - were most numerous in Egypt. Out of hatred to the Greek - Catholics they forbade the use of the Greek language in - their churches, and chose a Coptic patriarch for themselves. - They aided the Saracens in their conquest of Egypt in - A.D. 640, who out of gratitude for this drove away the - Catholic patriarch. From Egypt Monophysitism spread into - Abyssinia (§ 64, 1). Already in A.D. 536 Byzantine Armenia - had been conquered by the Persians, who showed favour to - the previously oppressed Monophysites (§ 64, 3). In Syria - and Mesopotamia, during Justinian’s persecutions, the - unwearied activity of a monk, Jacob Zanzalus, commonly - called el Baradai, because he went about clad as a beggar, - ordained by the Monophysites as bishop of Edessa and the - whole East, saved the Monophysite church from extinction. - He died in A.D. 538. After him the Monophysites were - called =Jacobites=. They called the Catholics Melchites, - _Royalists_. Their patriarch resided at Guba in Mesopotamia. - Subordinate to him was a suffragan bishop at Tagrit with the - title of _Maphrian_, _i.e._ the Fruit-bearer. At the head of - the Armenian Monophysites stood the patriarch of Aschtarag - with the title _Catholicus_. The Abyssinian church had a - metropolitan with the title _Abbuna_[163]--_Continuation_ - § 72, 2. - - § 52.8. =The Monothelite Controversy, A.D. 633-680.=--The - increasing political embarrassments of the emperor made a - union with the Monophysites all the more desirable. The emperor - Heraclius, A.D. 611-641, was advised to attempt a union of - parties under the formula: that Christ accomplished His work - of redemption by the exercise of one divine human will (μιᾷ - θεανδρικῇ ἐνεργείᾳ). Several Catholic bishops found nothing - objectionable in this formula which had already been used by - the Pseudo-Dionysius (§ 47, 11). In A.D. 633 the patriarchs - Sergius of Constantinople and Cyrus of Alexandria on the basis - of this concluded a treaty, in consequence of which most of - the Severians attached themselves again to the national church. - Honorius of Rome also was won over. But the monk Sophronius, who - soon thereafter in A.D. 634 became patriarch of Jerusalem, came - forward as the decided opponent Of this union, which led back - to Monophysitism. The conquest of Jerusalem, however, soon - after this, A.D. 637, by the Saracens put him outside of the - scene of conflict. In A.D. 638 the emperor issued an edict, - the =Ecthesis=, by which it was sought to make an end of the - strife by substituting for the offensive expression ἐνέργεια the - less objectionable term θέλημα, and confirming the Monothelite - doctrine as alone admissible. Now the monk Maximus (§ 47, 12) - entered the lists as the champion of orthodoxy. He betook - himself to Africa, where since Justinian’s time zeal for the - maintenance of the Chalcedonian faith was strongest, and here - secured political support in Gregorius [Gregory] the imperial - governor who sought to make himself independent of Byzantium. - This statesman arranged for a public disputation at Carthage - in A.D. 645 between Maximus and the ex-patriarch Pyrrhus of - Constantinople, the successor of Sergius, who, implicated in - a palace intrigue, deposed from his office and driven from - Constantinople, sought refuge in Africa. Pyrrhus willingly - submitted and abjured his error. An African General Synod in - A.D. 646 unanimously condemned Monothelitism, renounced church - fellowship with Paulus, the new patriarch of Constantinople, and - demanded of Pope Theodorus, A.D. 642-649, a fulmination against - the heresy. In order to give this demand greater emphasis, - Maximus and Pyrrhus travelled together to Rome. The latter was - recognised by the pope as legitimate patriarch of Constantinople, - but, being induced by the exarch of Ravenna to recant his - recantation, he was excommunicated by the pope, with a pen - dipped in the sacramental wine, returned to Constantinople and - was, after the death of Paulus, reinstated in his former office. - Maximus remained in Rome and there won the highest reputation - as the shield of orthodoxy.--The proper end of the union, namely - the saving of Syria and Egypt, was meanwhile frustrated by - the Mohammedan conquest of Syria in A.D. 638, and of Egypt - in A.D. 640. The court, however, for its own honour still - persevered in it. Africa and Italy occupied a position of - open revolt. Then emperor Constans II., A.D. 642-668, resolved - to annul the Ecthesis. In its place he put another enactment - about the faith, the =Typus=, A.D. 648, which sought to get back - to the state of matters before the Monothelite movement; that - neither one nor two wills should be taught. But Martin I. of - Rome at the first Lateran Synod at Rome in A.D. 649 condemned - in the strongest terms the Typus as well as the Ecthesis along - with its original maintainers, and sent the Acts to the emperor. - The exarch of Ravenna, Olympius, was now ordered to take the - bold prelate prisoner, but did not obey. His successor sent the - pope in chains to Constantinople. In A.D. 653 he was banished - for high treason to the Chersonese, where he literally suffered - hunger, and died in A.D. 655 six months after his arrival. - Still more dreadful was the fate of the abbot Maximus. At - the same time with Martin or soon after he too was brought - to Constantinople a prisoner from Rome. Here for a whole year - every effort imaginable was made, entreaties, promises, threats, - imprisonment, hunger, etc., in order to induce him to acknowledge - the Typus, but all in vain. The emperor then lost all patience. - In a towering rage at the unparalleled obstinacy of the monk’s - resistance he doomed him, A.D. 662, to dreadful scourging, to - have his tongue wrenched out and his hand hewn off, and to be - sent into the wildest parts of Thrace, where he died a few weeks - after his arrival at the age of 82 years. Such barbaric severity - was effectual for a long time. But under the next emperor - Constantinus Pogonnatus, A.D. 668-685, the two parties prepared - for a new conflict. The emperor resolved to make an end of it - by a General Council. Pope Agatho held a brilliant Synod at Rome - in A.D. 679, where it was laid down that not one iota should - be abated from the decisions of the Lateran Synod. With these - decisions and a missive from the pope himself, the papal legates - appeared at the =Sixth Œcumenical Council at Constantinople in - A.D. 680=, called also _Concil. Trullanum I._, because it was - held in the mussel-shaped vaulted hall Trullus in the imperial - castle, under the presidency of the emperor. As at Chalcedon - the Epistle of Leo I., so also here that of Agatho lay at the - basis of the Council’s doctrinal decrees: δύο φυσικὰ θελήματα - ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀμερίστως, ἀσυγχύτως, οὐχ ὑπεναντία, ἀλλὰ - ἑπόμενον τὸ ἀνθρώπινον καὶ ὑποτασσόμενον τῷ θείῳ. The Synod even - condescended to grant the pope a report of the proceedings and - to request his confirmation of its decisions. But the Greeks, - finding a malicious pleasure in the confusion of their rivals, - contrived to mix in the sweet drink a strong infusion of bitter - wormwood, for the Council among the other representatives of - Monothelite error ostentatiously and expressly condemned pope - Honorius as an accursed heretic. Pope Leo II. in a letter - to the emperor confirmed the decisions of the Council, - expressly homologating the condemnation of Honorius, “_qui - profana proditione immaculatam fidem subvertere conatus - est_.”--Henceforth Dyothelitism prevailed universally. Only - in one little corner of Asia, to which the arm of the state - did not reach, a vestige of Monothelitism continued to exist. - Its scattered adherents gathered in the monastery of St. Maro - in Lebanon, and acknowledged the abbot of this cloister as - their ecclesiastical head. They called themselves Maronites, and - with sword in hand maintained their ecclesiastical as well as - political independence against Byzantines and Saracens (§ 72, 3). - - § 52.9. =The Case of Honorius.=--The two Roman Synods, A.D. 649 - and 679, had simply ignored the notorious fact of the complicity - of Honorius in the furtherance of Monothelite error, and Agatho - might hope by the casual statement in his letter, that the Roman - chair never had taken the side of heretical novelties, to beguile - the approaching œcumenical Synod into the same obliviousness. But - the Greeks paid no heed to the hint. His successor Leo II. could - not do otherwise than homologate the Eastern leaders’ condemnation - of heresy, even that of Honorius, hard though this must have - been to him. On the other hand, the biographies of the popes from - Honorius to Agatho in the Roman _Liber pontificalis_ (§ 90, 6) - help themselves out of this dilemma again by preserving a dead - silence about any active or passive interference of Honorius - in the Monothelite controversy. In the biography of Leo II. for - the first time is Honorius’ name mentioned among those of the - condemned Monothelites, but without any particular remark about - him as an individual. So too in the formulary of a profession of - faith in the _Liber diurnus_ of the Roman church made by every - new pope and in use down to the 11th century (§ 46, 11). From - the biography of Leo in the Pontifical book was copied the simple - name into the readings of the Roman Breviary for the day of - this saint, and so it remained down to the 17th century. It had - then been quite forgotten in the West that by this name a pope - was designated. Oftentimes it had been affirmed that even Roman - popes might fall and actually had fallen into error; but only - such cases as those of Liberius (§ 46, 4), Anastasius (§ 46, 8), - Vigilius (§ 52, 6), John XXII. (§ 110, 3; 112, 2) were adduced; - that of Honorius occurred to nobody. It was only in the 15th - century, through more careful examination of Acts of Synods that - the true state of matters was discovered, and in the 16th century - when the question of the infallibility of the pope had become - a burning one (§ 149, 4), the case of Honorius became the real - Sisyphus rock of Roman Catholic theology. The most laborious - attempts have been made by most venturesome means to get it out - of the way. The condemnation of Honorius by the sixth œcumenical - Council has been described as merely a spiteful invention of - later Greeks, who falsified everything relating to him in the - Acts of the Council; so, _e.g._ Baronius, Bellarmine, etc.--The - condemnation actually took place but not at the œcumenical first, - but at the schismatical second, Trullan Council of A.D. 692 - (§ 63, 2), and the record of procedure has been by the malice - of later Greeks transferred from the record of the second to - that of the first.--Forged epistles of Honorius were laid before - the sixth œcumenical Council, by means of which it was misled - into passing sentence upon him.--The condemnation of the pope - did not turn upon his doctrine but upon his unseasonable love - of peace.--The pope meant well, but expressed himself so as - to be misunderstood; so _e.g._ the Jesuit Garnier in his ed. - of the _Liber diurnus_, the Vatican Council, and Hefele in - the 2nd ed. of his Hist. of the Councils.--In the epistles - referred to he spoke as a private individual and not officially, - _ex cathedra_.--It is, however, fatal to all such explanations - that the infallible pope Leo II. solemnly denounced _ex cathedra_ - his infallible predecessor Honorius as a heretic. Besides the - only other possible escape by distinguishing the _question du - fait_ and the _question du droit_ has been formally condemned - _ex cathedra_ in connection with another case (§ 156, 5).[164] - - - § 53. THE SOTERIOLOGICAL CONTROVERSIES, A.D. 412-529.[165] - - While the Trinitarian and Christological controversies had their -origin in the East and there gave rise to the most violent conflicts, -the West taking indeed a lively interest in the discussion and by the -decisive voice of Rome giving the victory to orthodoxy at almost every -stage of the struggle, it was in the West that a controversy broke -out, which for a full century proceeded alongside of the Christological -controversy, without awakening in the East more than a passing and even -then only a secondary interest. It dealt with the fundamental questions -of sin and grace. In opposition to the Pelagian _Monergism_ of human -freedom, as well as the semi-Pelagian _Synergism_ of divine grace and -human freedom, the Augustinian _Monergism_ of divine grace finally -obtained the victory. - - § 53.1. =Preliminary History.=--From the earliest times the - actual universality of sin and the need of divine grace in - Christ for redemption from sin received universal acknowledgment - throughout the whole church. But as to whether and how far the - moral freedom of men was weakened or lost by sin, and in what - relation human conduct stood to divine grace, great uncertainty - prevailed. Opposition to Gnosticism and Manichæism led the older - fathers to emphasise as strongly as possible the moral freedom - of men, and induced them to deny inborn sinfulness as well - as the doctrine that sin was imprinted in men in creation, - and to account for man’s present condition by bad training, - evil example, the agency of evil spirits, etc. This tendency - was most vigorously expressed by the Alexandrians. The new - Alexandrian school showed an unmistakable inclination to connect - the universality of sin with Adam’s sin, without going the length - of affirming the doctrine of inherited sinfulness. In Soteriology - it remained faithful to its traditional synergism (comp., however, - § 47, 7k, l.) The Antiochean school sought to give due place to - the co-operation of the human will alongside of the necessity of - divine grace, and reduced the idea of inherited sin to that of - inherited evil. So especially Chrysostom, who was indeed able to - conceive that Adam by his actual sin become mortal could beget - only mortal children, but not that the sinner could beget only - sinners. The first man brought death into the world, we confirm - and renew the doom by our own sin. Man by his moral will does - his part, the divine grace does its part. The whole East is - unanimous in most distinctly repudiating all predestinational - wilfulness in God. In the West, on the other hand, by Traducianism - or Generationism introduced by Tertullian, which regards - the soul as begotten with the body, the way was prepared - for recognising the doctrine of inherited sin (_Tradux animæ, - tradux peccati_) and consequently also of monergism. Tertullian, - himself, proceeding from the experience, that in every man - from birth there is present an unconquerable tendency to sin, - spoke with great decidedness of a _Vitium originis_. In this - he was followed by Cyprian, Ambrose and Hilary. Yet even these - teachers of the church had not altogether been emancipated - from synergism, and alongside of expressions which breathe the - hardest predestinationism, are found others which seem to give - equal weight to the opposite doctrine of human co-operation in - conversion. Augustine was the first to state with the utmost - consistency the doctrine of the divine monergism; while Pelagius - carried out the synergism of the earlier fathers until it became - scarcely less than human monergism.--Meanwhile Traducianism did - not succeed in obtaining universal recognition even in the West. - Augustine vacillates; Jerome and Leo the Great prefer Creationism, - which represents God as creating a new soul for each human being - begotten. Most of the later church fathers, too, are creationists, - without, however, prejudicing the doctrine of inherited sin. - Those of them who supported the trichotomic theory (§ 52, 1) - held that it was the cobegotten ψυχὴ ἄλογος, _anima sensitiva_ - as opposed to the _anima intellectualis_, while those who - supported the dichotomic theory, which posits merely body and - soul, held that it was the soul created good by God, which was - infected on its passing into the body begotten by human parents - with its inherited sin. The theory of Pre existence, which - Origen had brought forward (§ 31, 5) had, even in the East, - only occasional representatives (§ 47, 7m, n, o.).[166] - - § 53.2. =The Doctrine of Augustine.=--During the first period - of his Christian life, when the conflict with Manichæism still - stood in the forefront of his thinking and controversial activity, - Augustine, looking at faith as a self-determining of the human - will, had thought a certain measure of free co-operation on the - part of man in his conversion to be necessary and had therefore - refused to maintain his absolute want of merit. But by his whole - life’s experience he was irresistibly led to acknowledge man’s - natural inability for any positive co-operation and to make faith - together with conversion depend solely upon the grace of God. The - perfect and full development of this doctrine was brought about - by means of his controversy with the Pelagians. Augustine’s - doctrinal system in its most characteristic features is as - follows: Man was created free and in the image of God, destined - to and capable of attaining immortality, holiness and blessedness, - but also with the possibility of sinning and dying. By the - exercise of his freedom he must determine his own career. Had - he determined himself for God, the being able not to sin and not - to die, would have become an impossibility of sinning and dying, - the _Posse non peccare et mori_ would have become a _Non posse - peccare et mori_. But tempted by Satan he fell, and thus it - became for him impossible that he should not sin and die, _non - posse non peccare et non mori_. All prerogatives of the Divine - image were lost; he retained only the capacity for outward civil - righteousness, _Justitia civilis_, and a capacity for redemption. - In Adam, moreover, all mankind sinned, for he was all mankind. By - generation Adam’s nature as it was after sin, with sin and guilt, - death and condemnation, but also the capacity for redemption, - passed over to all his posterity. Divine grace, which alone can - redeem and save man, attached itself to the remnant of the divine - image which expressed itself in the need of redemption and the - capacity for redemption. Grace is therefore absolutely necessary, - in the beginning, middle and end of the Christian life. It is - granted man, not because he believes, but that he may believe; - for faith too is the work of God’s grace. First of all grace - awakens through the law the consciousness of sin and the desire - for redemption, and leads by the gospel to faith in the Redeemer - (_gratia præveniens_). By means of faith it thus secures the - forgiveness of sin as _primum beneficium_ through appropriating - the merits of Christ and in part the powers of the divine - life through the implanting of living fellowship with Christ - (in baptism). Thus is free will restored to the good (_Gratia - operans_) and evidences itself in a holy life in love. But - even in the regenerate the old man with his sinful lusts is - still present. In the struggle of the new with the old he is - continually supported by Divine grace (_Gratia co-operans_) - unto his justification (_Justificatio_) which is completed in - the making righteous of his whole life and being through the - Divine impartation (_Infusio_) of new powers of will. The final - act of grace, which, however, according to the educative wisdom - of God is not attained in this life, is the absolute removal - of evil desire (_Concupiscentia_) and transfiguration into the - perfect likeness of Christ through resurrection and eternal - life (_Non posse peccare et mori_). Apart from the inconsistent - theory of justification proposed, this view of nature and grace - is thoroughly Pauline. Augustine, however, connects with it the - doctrine of an absolute predestination. Experience shows that not - all men attain to conversion and redemption. Since man himself - can contribute nothing to his conversion, the ground of this must - be sought not in the conduct of the man but only in an eternal - unconditional decree of God, _Decretum absolutum_, according - to which He has determined out of the whole fallen race of man, - _Massa perditionis_, to save some to the glory of His grace and - to leave others to their deserved doom to the glory of His penal - righteousness. The ground of this election is only the wise and - mysterious good pleasure of the divine will without reference to - man’s faith, which is indeed only a gift of God. If it is said: - “God wills that all men should be saved,” that can only mean, - “all who are predestinated.” As the outcasts (_Reprobati_) - can in no way appropriate grace unto themselves, the elect - (_Electi_) cannot in any way resist it (_Gratia irresistibilis_). - The one sure sign that one is elected is, therefore, undisturbed - perseverance in the possession of grace (_Donum perseverantiæ_). - To the heathens, even the noblest of them, he refused salvation, - but made a distinction in the degrees of their penal tortures. - So too unbaptized children were all regarded as lost. Although - over against this he also set down the proposition: _Contemtus, - non defectus sacramenti damnat_, the resolution of this - contradiction lay in the special divine election of grace, which - secures to the elect the dispensation of the sacrament.[167] - - § 53.3. =Pelagius and his Doctrine.=--Pelagius (§ 47, 21), - a British monk of respectable learning and decided moral - earnestness, living far away from the storms and strife of life, - without any strong inward temptations, without any inclination - to manifest sins and without deep experience of the Christian - life, knowing and striving after no higher ideal than that of - monkish asceticism, had developed a theory quite antagonistic - to that of Augustine. He was strengthened in his opposition to - Augustine’s doctrine of the corruption of human nature and its - unfitness for all co-operation in conversion and sanctification, - by observing that this doctrine was often misused by careless men - as an excuse for carnal confidence and moral selfishness. He was - thus made more resolute in maintaining that it is more wholesome - to preach to men an imperative moral law whose demands they, as - he thought, could satisfy by determined will and moral endeavour. - Man at first was created mortal by God, and not temporal but - spiritual death is the consequence and punishment of sin. Adam’s - fall has changed nothing in human nature and has had no influence - upon his descendants. Every man now is born just as God created - the first man, _i.e._ without sin and without virtue. By his - wholly unweakened freedom he decides for himself on the one - side or the other. The universality of sin results from the - power of seduction, of mere example and habit. Still there may - be completely sinless men; and there have been such. God’s grace - facilitates man’s accomplishment of his purpose. It is, therefore, - not absolutely, but by the actual universality of sin, relatively - necessary. Grace consists in enlightenment by revelation, in - forgiveness of sin as the expression of divine forbearance, and - in the strengthening of our moral powers by the incentive of - the law and the promise of eternal life. God’s grace is destined - for all men, but man must make himself worthy of it by honest - striving after virtue. Christ became man, in order by His perfect - teaching and by the perfect pattern of His life to give us the - most powerful incentive to reformation and the redeeming of - ourselves thereby. As in sin we are Adam’s offspring, so in - virtue shall we be Christ’s offspring. He regarded baptism as - necessary (infant baptism _in remissionem futurorum peccatorum_). - Children dying unbaptized he placed in a lower stage of - blessedness. The same inconsistent submission to the fathers - of ecclesiastical tradition shows itself in the acceptance of - ecclesiastical views of revelation, miracles, prophecy, the - Trinity and the Divinity of Christ, whereas a more consistent - and systematic thinker would have felt compelled from his - anthropological principles to set aside or at least modify these - supernaturalistic elements. - - § 53.4. =The Pelagian Controversy, A.D. 411-431.=--From A.D. 409 - Pelagius resided in Rome. Here he gained over to his views - Cœlestius, a man of greater acuteness and scientific attainments - than himself. Both won high respect in Rome for their zeal for - morality and asceticism and promulgated their doctrine without - opposition. In A.D. 411 both went to Carthage, whence Pelagius - went and settled in Palestine. Cœlestius remained behind - and obtained the office of presbyter. Now for the first time - his errors were opposed. Paulinus deacon of Milan (§ 47, 20) - happening to be there formally complained against him, and a - provincial Synod at Carthage A.D. 412 excommunicated him, on - his refusal to retract. In the same year too Augustine published - his first controversial treatise: _De peccatorum meritis et - remissione et de baptismo parvulorum, Lb. III._ In =Palestine= - Pelagius had attached himself to the Origenists. Jerome, besides - passing a depreciatory judgment upon his literary productions, - contested his doctrine as an expounder of the Origenist heresy - (_Ep. ad Ctesiphontem_ and _Dialog. c. Pelagium, Lb. III._), - and a young Spanish presbyter Paulus [Paul] Orosius (§ 47, 20) - complained of him to the Synod of Jerusalem A.D. 415, under the - presidency of bishop John of that city. The synergistic orientals, - however, could not be convinced of the dangerous character of - his carefully guarded doctrine. Such too was the result of the - Synod of Diospolis or Lydda in A.D. 415 under bishop Eulogius of - Cæsarea, where two Gallic bishops appeared as accusers. Augustine - proved to the Palestinians in _De gestis Pelagii_ that they had - allowed themselves to be kept in the dark by Pelagius. Orosius - too published a controversial tract, _Apologeticus c. Pelag._, - in reply to which, or more probably to Jerome, Theodore of - Mopsuestia wrote the book now lost, Περὶ τοὺς λέγοντας, φύσει - καὶ οὐ γνώμη πταίειν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους. Then the Africans again - took up the controversy. Two Synods at Mileve and Carthage, in - A.D. 416, reiterated their condemnation and sent their decree - to Innocent I. at Rome. The Pope acquiesced in the proceedings - of the Africans. Pelagius sent a veiled confession of faith and - Cœlestius appeared personally in Rome. Innocent died, however, - in A.D. 417, before his arrival. His successor Zozimus [Zosimus], - perhaps a Greek and certainly weak as a dogmatist, allowed - himself to be won over by Cœlestius and brought severe charges - against the Africans, against which again these entered a - vigorous protest. In A.D. 418 the emperor Honorius issued his - _Sacrum rescriptum_ against the Pelagians and a general Synod - at Carthage in the same year emphatically condemned them. Now - Zozimus [Zosimus] was prevailed on also to condemn them in his - _Epistola tractatoria_. Eighteen Italian bishops, among them - Julian of Eclanum in Apulia, the most acute and able apologist - of Pelagianism, refused to subscribe and were banished. They - sought and obtained protection from the Constantinopolitan bishop - Nestorius. But this connection did harm to both. The Roman bishop - Cœlestine took part with those who opposed the Christological - views of Nestorius (§ 52, 3), and at the =Œcumenical Council - of Ephesus in A.D. 431=, the orientals condemned along with - Nestorius also Pelagius and Cœlestius, without, however, - determining anything positive in regard to the doctrine under - discussion. To this end with unwearied zeal laboured Marius - Mercator, a learned layman of Constantinople, who published - two _Commonitoria_ against Pelagius and Cœlestius, and a - controversial treatise against Julian of Eclanum. Meanwhile - too Augustine rested not from his energetic polemic. In A.D. 413 - he wrote _De spiritu et littera ad Marcellinum_; in A.D. 415 - against Pelagius, _De natura et gratia_; against Cœlestius, - _De perfectione justitiæ hominis_. In A.D. 416, _De gestis - Pelagii_. In A.D. 418, _De gratia Dei et de peccato originali - Lb. II. c. Pelag. et Cœl._ In A.D. 419, _De nuptiis et - concupiscentia Lb. II._, against the charge that his doctrine - was a reviling of God-appointed marriage. In A.D. 420, _C. duas - epistolas Pelagianorum et Bonifatium I._, against the vindicatory - writings of Julian and his friends. In A.D. 421, _Lb. VI. - c. Julianum_. And later still, _Opus imperfectum c. secundam - Juliani responsionem_. Engl. Transl.; Ante-Nicene Lib.: - Anti-Pelag. Wr., 3 vols., Edin., 1867 ff. - - § 53.5. =The Semi-Pelagian Controversy, A.D. 427-529.=--Bald - Pelagianism was overthrown, but the excessive crudeness of the - predestination theory, as set forth by Augustine, called forth - new forms of opposition. The monks of the monastery of Adrumetum - in North Africa, by severely carrying out the predestination - theory to its last consequences, had fallen, some into - sore distress of soul and despair, others into security and - carelessness, while others again thought that to avoid such - consequences, one must ascribe to human activity in the work - of salvation a certain degree of meritoriousness. The abbot of - the monastery in this dilemma applied to Augustine, who in two - treatises, written in A.D. 427, _De gratia et libero arbitrio_ - and _De correptione et gratia_, sought to overcome the scruples - and misconceptions of the monks. But about this time in Southern - Gaul there was a whole theological school which rejected the - doctrine of predestination, and maintained the necessity of - according to human freedom a certain measure of co-operation - with divine grace, in consequence of which sometimes the one, - sometimes the other, is fundamental in conversion. At the head - of this school was Johannes Cassianus († A.D. 432), a disciple - and friend of Chrysostom, founder and president of the monastery - at Massilia. His followers are thence called Massilians or - Semi-Pelagians. He had himself contested Augustine’s doctrine, - without naming it, in the 13th of his _Collationes Patrum_ - (§ 47, 21). Of his disciples the most famous was Vincentius - [Vincent] Lerinensis (of the monastery of Lerinum), who in his - _Commonitorium pro Catholicæ fidei antiquitate et universitate_ - (Engl. Transl., Oxford, 1836) laid down the principle that the - catholic faith is, _quod semper, ubique et ab omnibus creditum - est_. Judged by this standard Augustine’s doctrine was by no - means catholic. The second book of this work, now lost, probably - contested Augustinianism expressly and was, therefore, suppressed. - But Augustine had talented supporters even in Gaul, such as - the two laymen Hilarius and Prosper Aquitanicus (§ 47, 20). What - took place around them they reported to Augustine, who wrote - against the Massilians _De predestinatione Sanctorum_ and - _De dono perseverantiæ_. He was prevented by his death, which - took place in A.D. 430, from taking part longer in the contest. - Hilarius and Prosper, however, continued it. Since the Roman - bishop Cœlestine, before whom in A.D. 431 they personally made - complaint, answered with a Yes and No theology, Prosper himself - took up the battle in an able work _De gratia Dei et libero - arbitrio contra Collatorem_, but in doing so unwittingly smoothed - off the sharpest points of the Augustinian system. This happened - yet more decidedly in the ingenious treatise _De Vocatione - gentium_, whose author was perhaps Leo the Great, afterwards - pope but then only a deacon. On the other side, opponents - (Arnobius the younger?) used the artifice of presenting, in - the notable work entitled _Prædestinatus_, pretending to be - written by a follower of Augustine, a caricature of the doctrine - of predestination carried to the utmost extreme of absurdity, - and these sought to justify their own position. The first book - contains a description of ninety heresies, the last of which is - predestinationism; the second gives as supplement to the first - the pretended treatise of such a predestinarian; and the third - confutes it. A certain presbyter Lucidus, a zealous adherent of - the doctrine of predestination, was by a semi-Pelagian synod at - Aries in A.D. 475 forced to recant. Faustus, bishop of Rhegium - (§ 47, 21), sent after him by order of the Council a controversial - treatise _De gratia Dei et humanæ mentis libero arbitrio_, and - also in the same year A.D. 475, a Synod at Lyons sanctioned - semi-Pelagianism. The treatise of Faustus, although moderate - and conciliatory, caused violent agitation among a community - of Scythian monks in Constantinople, A.D. 520. They complained - through bishop Possessor of Carthage to pope Hormisdas, but - he too answered with a Yes and No theology. Then the Africans - banished by the Vandals to Sardinia took up the matter. They - held a Council in A.D. 523, by whose order Fulgentius of Ruspe - (§ 47, 20), a zealous apologist of Augustinianism composed his - _De veritate prædest. et gratia Dei Lb. III._, which made an - impression even in Gaul. And now two able Gallic bishops, Avitus - of Vienne and Cæsarius of Arles (§ 47, 20) entered the lists in - behalf of a moderate Augustinianism, and won for it at the Synod - of Oranges in A.D. 529 a decided victory over semi-Pelagianism. - Augustine’s doctrine of original sin in its strictest form, - and his assertions about the utter want of merit in every human - act and the unconditional necessity of grace were acknowledged, - faith was extolled as exclusively the effect of grace, but - predestination in regard to the _Reprobati_ was reduced to - mere foreknowledge, and predestination to evil was rejected as - blasphemy against God. A synod held in the same year, A.D. 529, - at Valence confirmed the decrees of Oranges. Boniface II. of Rome - did the same in A.D. 530.[168]--Continuation § 91, 5. - - - § 54. REAPPEARANCE AND REMODELLING OF EARLIER HERETICAL SECTS. - - Manichæism (§ 29) had still numerous adherents not merely in the far -off eastern provinces but also in Italy and North Africa; and isolated -Marcionite churches (§ 27, 11) were still to be found in almost all the -countries within the empire and also beyond its bounds. An independent -reawakening of Gnostic-Manichæan tendencies arose in Spain under the -name of Priscillianism. - - § 54.1. =Manichæism.=--The universal toleration of religion, - which Constantine introduced, was also extended to the Manichæans - of his empire (§ 29, 3). But from the time of Valentinian I. - the emperors issued repeatedly severe penal laws against them. - The favour which they obtained in Syria and Palestine led bishop - Titus of Bostra in Arabia Petræa, about A.D. 370, to write - his 4 Bks. against the Manichæans. The Manichæan church stood - in particularly high repute in North Africa, even to the 4th - and 5th centuries. Its most important representative there, - Faustus of Mileve, published a controversial treatise against - the Catholic church, which Augustine, who had earlier been - himself an adherent of the Manichæans, expressly answered in - 33 Bks. (Engl. Transl.: “Ante-Nicene Lib.” Treatises against - Faustus the Manichæan, Edin., 1868). When the Manichæan Felix, - in order to advance the cause of his church, came to Hippo, - Augustine challenged him to a public disputation, and after two - days’ debate drove him into such straits that he at last admitted - himself defeated, and was obliged to pronounce anathema on Mani - and his doctrine. With still greater zeal than by the imperial - government were the African Manichæans persecuted by the Vandals, - whose king Hunerich (§ 76, 3) burnt many, and transported whole - ships’ loads to the continent of Europe. In the time of Leo - the Great († A.D. 461) they were very numerous in Rome. His - investigations tend to show that they entertained antinomian - views, and in their mysteries indulged in lustful practices. - Also in the time of Gregory the Great († A.D. 604) the church - of Italy was still threatened by their increase. Since then, - however, nothing more is heard of Manichæan tendencies in - the West down to the 11th century, when suddenly they again - burst forth with fearfully threatening and contagious power - (§ 108, 1). In the eastern parts of the empire, too, numerous - Gnostic-Manichæan remnants continued to exist in secret, and - from the 9th to the 12th century reappeared in a new form (§ 71). - Still more widely about this time did such views spread among the - Mussulman rulers of the Eastern borderlands, as far as China and - India, as the Arabian historians of this period testify (§ 29, 1). - - § 54.2. =Priscillianism, A.D. 383-563.=--The first seeds of the - Gnostic-Manichæan creed were brought to Spain in the 4th century - by an Egyptian Marcus. A rich and cultured layman Priscillian - let himself be drawn away in this direction, and developed - it independently into a dualistic and emanationistic system. - Marriage and carnal pleasures were forbidden, yet under an - outward show of strict asceticism were concealed antinomian - tendencies with impure orgies. At the same time the sect - encouraged and required lies and perjury, hypocrisy and - dissimulation for the spread and preservation of their community. - “_Jura, perjura, secretum perdere noli._” Soon Priscillianists - spread over all Spain; even some bishops joined them. Bishop - Idacius of Emerida by his passionate zeal against them fanned - the flickering fire into a bright flame. A synod at Saragossa - in A.D. 380 excommunicated them, and committed the execution of - its decrees to Bishop Ithacius of Sossuba, a violent and besides - an immoral man. Along with Idacius he had obtained from the - emperor Gratian an edict which pronounced on all Priscillianists - the sentence of banishment. Priscillian’s bribes, however, not - only rendered this edict inoperative, but also an order for the - arrest of Ithacius, which he avoided only by flight into Gaul. - Here he won over the usurper Maximus, the murderer of Gratian, - who, greedy for their property, used the torture against the - sect, and had Priscillian as well as some of his followers - beheaded at Treves in A.D. 385. This was the first instance - of capital punishment used against heretics. The noble bishop, - Martin of Tours (§ 47, 14), to whom the emperor had previously - promised that he would act mildly, hastened to Treves and - renounced church fellowship with Ithacius and all bishops - who had assented to the death sentence. Ambrose too and other - bishops expressed their decided disapproval. This led Maximus - to stop the military inquisition against them. But the glory of - martyrdom had fired the enthusiasm of the sect, and among the - barbarians who made their way into Spain from A.D. 409 they - won a rich harvest. Paulus [Paul] Orosius (§ 47, 20) wrote his - _Commonitorium de errore Priscillianist._ in A.D. 415, looking - for help to Augustine, whom, however, concern and contests - in other directions allowed to take but little part in this - controversy. Of more consequence was the later interference - of Leo the Great, occasioned by a call for help from bishop - Turribius of Astorga. Following his instructions, a _Concilium - Hispanicum_ in A.D. 447 and still more distinctly a Council - at Braga in A.D. 563 passed vigorous rules for the suppression - of heresy. Since then the name of the Priscillianists has - disappeared, but their doctrine was maintained in secret for - some centuries longer.[169] - - - - - V. WORSHIP, LIFE, DISCIPLINE AND MORALS. - - - § 55. WORSHIP IN GENERAL. - - Christian worship freed by Constantine from the pressure of -persecution developed a great wealth of forms with corresponding -stateliness of expression. But doctrinal controversies claimed so -much attention that neither space nor time was left for carrying the -other developments in the same way through the fire of conflict and -sifting. Hence forms of worship were left to be moulded in particular -ways by the spirit of the age, nationality and popular taste. The public -spirit of the church, however, gave to the development an essential -unity, and early differences were by and by brought more and more into -harmony. Only between East and West was the distinction strong enough -to make in various ways an impression in opposition to the levelling -endeavours of catholicity. - - The age of Cyril of Alexandria marks an important turning point - in the development of worship. It was natural that Cyril’s - prevailing doctrine of the intimate connection of the divine - and human natures in the person of Christ should have embodied - itself in the services of the church. But this doctrine was - yet at least one-sided theory which did not wholly exclude - its perversion into error. In the dogma, indeed, thanks to - the exertions of Leo and Theodoret, the still extant Monophysite - error had no place given it. But in the worship of the church - it had embedded itself, and here it was not overcome, and its - presence was not even suspected, so, it could now not only - develop itself undisturbed in the direction of worship of saints, - images, relics, of pilgrimages, of sacrifice of the mass, etc., - but also it could decisively deduce therefrom a development of - dogmas not yet established, _e.g._ in the doctrine of the church, - of the priesthood, of the sacraments, especially of the Lord’s - Supper, etc., etc. - - - § 56. FESTIVALS AND SEASONS FOR PUBLIC WORSHIP. - - The idea of having particular days of the week consecrated in memory -of special incidents in the work of redemption had even in the previous -period found expression (§ 37), but it now passed into the background -all the more as the church began to apply itself to the construction in -the richest possible form of a Christian year. The previous difference -in the development of East and West occasioned each to take its -own particular course, determined in the one case very much by a -Jewish-Christian, in the other by a Gentile-Christian, tendency. -Nevertheless in the 4th century we find a considerable levelling -of these divergences. This at least was attained unto thereby that -the three chief festivals received an essentially common form in both -churches. But in the 5th and 6th centuries, in the further development -of the Christian year, the two churches parted all the more decidedly -from one another. The Western church especially gave way more and more -unreservedly to the tendency to make the natural year the type and -pattern for the Christian year. Thus the Western Christian year obtained -a richer development and grew up into an institution more vitally and -inwardly related to the life of the people. The luxuriant overgrowth -of saints’ days, however, prevented the church from here reaching its -ideal. - - § 56.1. =The Weekly Cycle.=--Constantine the Great issued a law - in A.D. 321, according to which all magisterial, judicial and - municipal business was stopped on =Sunday=. At a later period - he also forbade military exercises. His successors extended the - prohibition to the public spectacles. Alongside of Sunday the - =Sabbath= was long celebrated in the East by meetings in the - churches, avoidance of fasting and by standing at prayers. The - _Dies stationum_, Wednesday and Friday (§ 37), were observed in - the East as fast days. The West gave up the Wednesday fast, and - introduced in its place the anti-Judaic Sabbath fast. - - § 56.2. =Hours and Quarterly Fasts.=--The number of appointed - _hours of prayer_ (the 3rd, 6th and 9th hours, comp. Dan. - vi. 10-14; Acts ii. 15; iii. 1; x. 9) were increased during - the 5th century to eight (_Horæ canonicæ: Matutina_ or matins - at 3 a.m.; _Prima_ at 6 a.m.; _Tertia_ at 9 a.m.; _Sexta_ at - 12 noon; _Nona_ at 3 p.m.; _Vesper_ at 6 p.m.; _Completorium_ - at 9 p.m.; and _Mesonyktion_ or Vigils at 12 midnight); yet - generally two of the night hours were combined, so as to - preserve the seven times required in Ps. cxix. 164. This - arrangement of hours was strictly observed by monks and clerics. - The common basis of prayer for devotions at these hours was the - Psalter divided among the seven days of the week. The rest of the - material adapted to the course of the Christian year, consisting - of scripture and patristic readings, legends of martyrs and - saints, prayers, hymns, doxologies, etc. gradually accumulated - so that it had to be abbreviated, and hence the name _Breviarium_ - commonly given to such selections. The Roman Breviary, arranged - mainly by Leo the Great, Gelasius and Gregory the Great, gradually - throughout the West drove all other such compositions from the - field. An abbreviation by Haymo, General of the Minorites, in - A.D. 1241 was sanctioned by Gregory IX., but had subsequently - many alterations made upon it. The Council of Trent finally - charged the Papal chair with the task of preparing a new - redaction which the clergy of the whole catholic church would - be obliged to use. Such a production was issued by Pius V. in - A.D. 1568, and then in A.D. 1631 Urban VIII. gave it the form - in which it is still current.--In the West the year was divided - into three-monthly periods, _quatuor tempora_, corresponding to - the seasons of prayer recurring every three hours. There were - harvest prayer and thanksgiving seasons, occupied, in accordance - with Joel ii., with penance, fasting and almsgiving. Leo the - Great brought this institution to perfection. The _quatuor - tempora_, ember days, occur in the beginning of the Quadragesima, - in the week after Pentecost, and in the middle of the 7th and - 10th months (Sept. and Dec.), and were kept by a strict fast on - Wednesday, Friday and Saturday with a Sabbath vigil. - - § 56.3. =The Reckoning of Easter.=--At the Council of Nicæa in - A.D. 325 the Roman mode of observing Easter prevailed over that - of Asia Minor (§ 37, 2). Those who adhered to the latter method - were regarded as a sect (_Quartadecimani_ Τεσσαρεσκαιδεκατῖται). - The Council decreed that the first day of full moon after the - spring equinox should be regarded as the 14th Nisan, and that the - festival of the resurrection should be celebrated on the Sunday - following. The bishop of Alexandria undertook the astronomical - determination of the festival on each occasion, because there - astronomical studies were most diligently prosecuted. He - published yearly, usually about Epiphany, a circular letter, - _Liber paschalis_, giving to the other churches the result of - the calculation, and took advantage generally of the opportunity - to discuss the ecclesiastical questions of the day. First of all - at Alexandria, probably to prevent for all time a combination - of the Jewish and Christian Easter festivals, the practice was - introduced of keeping the feast when the 14th and 16th of the - new moon fell upon Friday and Sunday, not on the same Sunday - but eight days later,--a practice which Rome also, and with her - a great part of the West, adopted in the 5th century (§ 77, 3). - A further difference existed as to the point of time with - which the day of full moon was to be regarded as beginning. - The Easter Canon of Hippolytus (§ 31, 3) had calculated it in - a very unsatisfactory manner according to a sixteen-years’ cycle - of the moon, after the course of which the day of full moon would - again occur on the same day of the year. In Alexandria the more - exact nineteen-years’ cycle of Anatolius was adopted, according - to which the day of full moon had an aberration of about one - day only in 310 years, and even this was caused rather by - the imperfection of the Julian year of 365 days with three - intercalary days in 400 years. But in Rome the reckoning was - made as the basis of an eighty-four years’ cycle which had indeed - the advantage of completing itself not only on the same day of - the year but on the same day of the week; while, on the other - hand, it had this drawback that after eighty-four years it had - fallen about a day behind the actual day of full moon. There was - also this further difference that in Alexandria the 21st of March - was regarded as the day when day and night were equal, and at - Rome, but wrongly, the 18th of March. The cycle of 532 (28 ✕ 19) - years reckoned in A.D. 452 by Victorius, a bishop of Aquitaine, - was assimilated to the Alexandrian, without, however, losing - the advantage of the eighty-four years’ cycle above referred - to, which, however, it succeeded in obtaining only by once in - every period of nineteen years fixing the equinox on the 20th - of March. The Roman abbot Dionysius Exiguus (§ 47, 23), finally, - in A.D. 525 harmonized the Roman and the Alexandrian reckoning - by setting up a ninety-five years’ cycle (5 ✕ 19), and this cycle - was introduced throughout all the West by Isidore of Seville - and the Venerable Bede (§ 90, 2). The error occasioned by the - inexactness of the Julian calendar continued till the Gregorian - reform of the calendar (§ 149, 3). - - § 56.4. =The Easter Festivals.=--The pre-eminence of the - Christian festival of victory (the resurrection) over that - of suffering, especially among the Greeks, led, even in the - 4th century to the former as the fruit of the latter being drawn - into the paschal season, and distinguished as πάσχα ἀναστάσιμον - from that as πάσχα σταυρώσιμον, and also at last to the adoption - of the one name of Paschal or Easter Festival and to the regarding - of the whole Quadragesima season as a preparation for Easter. - The Saxon name Easter is derived from the old German festival - of Ostara the goddess of spring which was celebrated at the same - season.--With the beginning of the Quadragesima the whole mode - of life assumes a new form. All amusements were stopped, all - criminal trials sisted and the din of traffic in streets and - markets as far as possible restricted. The East exempted Sunday - and Sabbath from the obligation of fasting, with the exception - of the last Sabbath as the day of Christ’s rest in the grave, - but the West exempted only Sunday. Gregory the Great, therefore, - fixed the beginning of the Quadragesima on Wednesday of the - seventh week before Easter, _Caput jejunii, Dies cinerum_, Ash - Wednesday, so called because the bishop strewed ashes on the - heads of believers with a warning reference to Gen. iii. 19, - comp. xviii. 27. With the Tuesday preceding, Shrove Tuesday - (from _shrive_, to confess), ended the carnival season (_carni - valedicere_) which, beginning with 6th Jan. or the feast of the - three holy kings, reached its climax in the last days, from three - to eight, before Ash Wednesday. On this closing day the people - generally sought indemnification for the approaching strict - fast by an unmeasured abandoning of themselves to pleasure. From - Italy where this custom arose and was most fully carried out, - it subsequently found its way into the other lands of the West. - In opposition to these unspiritual proceedings the period of - the Easter festivals was begun three weeks earlier with the 10th - Sunday before Easter (_Septuagesima_). The Hallelujah of the Mass - was silenced, weddings were no more celebrated (_Tempus clausum_), - monks and clerics already began the fast. The Quadragesima - festival reached its climax in the last, the _great_ week. It - began with Palm Sunday (ἑορτὴ τῶν βαΐων) and ended with the great - Sabbath, the favourite time for baptisms (Rom. vi. 3). Thursday - as the memorial day of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, - and Friday as the day of Christ’s death, Good Friday, were days - of special importance. A solemn night service, Easter vigils, - marked the transition to the joyous Easter celebrations. The old - legend that on this night Christ’s second coming would take place - rendered the service peculiarly solemn. Easter morning began with - the jubilant greeting: The Lord is risen, and the response, He is - risen indeed. On the following Sunday, the Easter Octave, _Pascha - clausum_, ἀντίπασχα, the Easter festival was brought to a close. - Those baptized on the great Sabbath wore for the last time their - white baptismal dress. Hence this sabbath was called _Dominica - in albis_; subsequently, in accordance with the Introitus - from 1 Pet. ii. 2, Quasimodogeniti; and by the Greeks, καινὴ - κυριακή. The joyous celebrations of Easter extended over all - the Quinquagesima period between Easter and Pentecost. Ascension - day, _Festum ascensionis_, ἑορτὴ τῆς ἀναλήψεως, and Pentecost, - πεντεκοστή, were introduced as high festivals by vigil services; - and the latter was concluded by the Pentecost-Octave, by the - Greeks called κυριακὴ τῶν ἁγίων μαρτυρησάντων and at a much later - date styled by the Latins Trinity Sunday. The Festival-Octaves, - ἀπολύσεις, had an Old Testament pattern in the עֲצֶרֶת of the Feast - of Tabernacles, Lev. xxiii. 26. - - § 56.5. =The Christmas Festivals.=--The first traces of the - Christmas festival (_Natalis Christi_, γενέθλια) in the Roman - church are found about A.D. 360. Some decades later they appear - in the Eastern church. The late introduction of this festival - is to be explained from the disregard of the birthday and the - prominence given to the day of the death of Christ in the ancient - church; but Chrysostom even regarded it as the μητρόπολις πασῶν - τῶν ἑορτῶν. Since the 25th of March as the spring equinox was - held as the day of creation, the day of the incarnation, the - conception of Christ, the second Adam, as the beginning of the - new creation was held on the same day, and hence 25th Dec. was - chosen as the day of Christ’s birth. The Christian festival thus - coincided nearly with the heathen _Saturnalia_, in memory of - the Golden Age, from 17th to 23rd Dec., the _Sigillaria_, on - the 24th Dec., when children were presented with dolls and images - of clay and wax, sigilla, and the _Brumalia_, on 25th Dec., _Dies - natalis invicti solis_, the winter solstice. It was considered - no mere chance coincidence that Christ, the eternal Sun, - should be born just on this day. The Christmas festival too - was introduced by a vigil and lasted for eight days, which in - the 6th century became the _Festum circumcisionis_. The revelling - that characterised the New Year Festival of the pagans, caused - the ancient church, to observe that day as a day of penance and - fasting. The feast of the Epiphany on the 6th Jan. (§ 37, 1) was - also introduced in the West during the 4th century but obtained - there a Gentile-Christian colouring from Luke ii. 21 and was - kept as the festival of the first fruits of the Gentiles and - received the name of the Festival of the three holy kings. For - even Tertullian in accordance with Ps. lxxii. 10 had made the - Magi kings; it was concluded that they were three because of - the three gifts spoken of; and Bede, about A.D. 700, gives their - names as Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar. By others this festival - was associated with Christ’s first miracle at the marriage in - Cana, and also with the feeding of the 5,000 in the wilderness. - After the analogy of the Easter festival since the 6th century - a longer preliminary celebration has been connected with the - Christmas festival. In the Eastern church, beginning with the - 14th of Nov., it embraced six Sundays with forty fast days, as - the second Quadragesima of the year. In the Latin church, as - the season of Advent, it had only four Sundays, with a three - weeks’ fast. - - § 56.6. =The Church Year= was in the East a symbolic adaptation - of the natural year only in so far as it brought with it the - Christianising of the Jewish festivals and the early recognition - of Western ideas about the feasts. Only on the high festivals, - Christmas, Easter and Pentecost are they retained; on the - other Sundays and festivals they never obtained expression. - The Easter festival was considered the beginning of the church - year; thereafter the Quadragesima or Epiphany; and finally, - the Old Testament beginning of the year in September. The whole - church year was divided into four parts according to the _Lectio - continua_ of the gospel, and the Sundays were named thereafter. - The κυριακὴ πρώτη τοῦ Ματθαίου was immediately after Pentecost. - The =Latin Church Year= begins with the season of Advent, and - distinguishes a _Semestre Domini_ and a _Semestre ecclesiæ_. - But only the former was fully developed: Christmas, Easter, - Pentecost with the Sundays belonging to them, representing the - founding, developing and completing of the history of salvation. - To a corresponding development of the second half we find early - contributions, _e.g._ the Feast of Peter and Paul on 29th June - as festival of the founding of the church by the Apostles, the - Feast of the leading martyr Laurentius (§ 22, 5) on 10th August - as memorial of the struggle prescribed to the _Ecclesia militans_, - and the Feast of Michael on 29th September with reference to the - completion in the _Ecclesia triumphans_. That in these feasts we - have already the germs of the three festivals of the community - of the church which were to correspond to the three festivals of - the Lord’s history appears significantly in the early designation - of the Sundays after Pentecost as _Dominica post Apostolos, post - Laurentium, post Angelos_. But it never was distinctly further - carried out. This deeply significant distribution was overlaid - by saint worship, which overflowed the _Semestre Domini_. The - principle of Christianising the Pagan rites was legitimated by - Gregory the Great. He instructed the Anglo-Saxon missionaries - to the effect (§ 77, 4), that they should convert the heathen - temples into churches and heathen festivals into ecclesiastical - festivals and days of martyrs, _ut duræ mentes gradibus vel - passibus non autem saltibus eleventur_. The saints henceforth - take the place of gods of nature and the church year reproduced - with a Christian colouring all the outstanding points in the - natural year.--As the last festival connected with the history - of the Lord, the Feast of the Glorification, ἁγία μεταμόρφωσις, - was held in the East on 6th August. According to tradition - the scene was enacted on Mt. Tabor, hence the feast was called - Θαβώριον. The Latin church adopted it first in the 15th century - (_F. transfigurationis_).[170] - - § 56.7. =The Church Fasts= (§ 37, 3).--In the Greek church the - ordinance of fasting was more strict than in the Latin. In one - period, however, we have a system of fasts embracing four great - fasting seasons: The Quadragesima of Easter and of Christmas, the - period of from three to five weeks from the Pentecost Octave (the - Greek Feast of All Saints) to that of Peter and Paul on 29th June, - and the fourteen days before the Ascension of Mary on 15th August. - There were also the νηστεῖαι προεόρτιοι on the evenings previous - to other festivals; and finally, the weekly recurring fasts - of Wednesday and Friday. The strictest was the pre-Easter fast, - observed with gradually advancing rigidness. On Sexagesima Sunday - flesh was eaten for the last time, then followed the so-called - Butter week, when butter, cheese, milk and eggs were still - allowed; but thereafter complete avoidance of all fattening - food was enjoined, reaching during the great week to the - utmost possible degree of abstinence. In the West instead - of Wednesday, Saturday was taken along with Friday, and down - to the 13th century it was enjoined that nothing should be - eaten on these two days of the week, as also on the quarterly - days (_quatuor tempora_) and the evenings preceding the feasts - of the most famous Apostles and martyrs, the vigil fasts, until - 3 p.m. (_Semijejunium_) or even till 6 p.m. (_Plenum jejunium_); - while in the longer seasons of fasting before Easter and before - Christmas the injunction was restricted to avoidance of all fat - foods (_Abstinentia_).--Continuation § 115, 1. - - - § 57. WORSHIP OF SAINTS, RELICS AND IMAGES.[171] - - Though with the times of persecution martyrdom had ceased, asceticism -where it was preached with unusual severity gave a claim to canonisation -which was still bestowed by the people’s voice regarded as the voice of -God. Forgotten saints were discovered by visions, and legend insensibly -eked out the poverty of historical reminiscences with names and facts. -The veneration of martyrs rose all the higher the more pitiable the -present generation showed in its lukewarmness and worldliness over -against the world-conquering faith of that great cloud of witnesses. -The worship of Mary, which came in as a result of the Nestorian -controversy, was later of being introduced than that of the martyrs, -but it almost immediately shot far ahead and ranked above the adoration -of all the other saints. The adoration of Angels, of which we find the -beginnings even in Justin and Origen, remained far behind the worship -of the saints. Pilgrimages were zealously undertaken, from the time -when the emperor’s mother Helena, in A.D. 326, went as a pilgrim to -holy places in Palestine and afterwards marked these out by building -on them beautiful churches. The worship of images was introduced first -in the age of Cyril of Alexandria and was carried out with peculiar -eagerness in the art-loving East. The Western teachers, however, -and even Gregory the Great himself, only went the length of becoming -decoration, using images to secure more impressiveness in teaching and -greater liveliness in devotion. In the West, however, still more than -in the East, veneration of relics came into vogue. - - § 57.1. =The Worship of Martyrs and Saints= (§ 39, 5).[172]--At - a very early period churches were built upon the graves of - Martyrs (_Memoria_, _Confessio_, μαρτύριον), or their bones - were brought into churches previously built (_Translationes_). - New edifices were dedicated in their names, those receiving - baptism were named after them. The days of their death were - observed as special holy seasons with vigil services, Agape - and oblations at their graves. In glowing discourses the orators - of the church, in melodious hymns the poets, sounded forth - their praises. The bones of the martyrs were sought out with - extraordinary zeal and were looked upon and venerated as - supremely sacred. Each province, each city and each calling - had its own patron saint (_Patronus_). Perhaps as early as the - 3rd century several churches had their martyr calendars, _i.e._ - lists of those who were to have the day of their death celebrated. - In the 4th century this custom had become universal, and from the - collection of the most celebrated calendars, with the addition - of legendary stories of the lives and sufferings of martyrs or - saints (_Legendæ_, so called because they were wont to be _read_ - at the memorial services of the individuals referred to), sprang - up the _Martyrologies and Legends of the Saints_, among the - Greeks called _Menologies_ from μήν, a month. Most esteemed - in the West was the martyrology of the Roman church, whose - composition has been recently put down, equally with and upon - the same grounds as that of the so called _Liber Comitis_, - § 59, 3, to the time of Jerome as the chief representative of - Western theological learning. This collection formed the basis - of the numerous Latin martyrologies of the Middle Ages (§ 90, 9). - A rich choice was afforded by these catalogues of saints to - those wishing names to use at baptism or confirmation; the saint - preferred became thereby the patron of him who took his name. The - three great Cappadocians in the East and Ambrose in the West were - the first to open the floodgates for the invocation of saints - by their proclaiming that the glorified saints through communion - with the Lord shared in His attribute of omniprescence and - omniscience; while Augustine rather assigned to the angels - the task of communicating the invocations of men to the saints. - In the liturgies prayers for the saints were now displaced by - invocations for their intercession. In this the people found - a compensation for the loss of hero, genius and _manes_ worship. - The church teachers at least wished indeed to make a marked - distinction between _Adoratio_ and _Invocatio_, λατρεία and - δουλεία, rendering the former to God only. A festival of All the - Martyrs was celebrated in the East as early as the 4th century - on the Pentecost octave (§ 56, 4). In the West, Pope Boniface IV., - in A.D. 610, having received from the Emperor Phocas the Pantheon - as a gift and having converted it into a church of the most - Blessed Virgin and all the Martyrs, founded a _Festum omnium - Sanctorum_, which was not, however, generally recognised before - the 9th century (1st Nov.). Owing to the great number of saints - one or more had to be assigned to each day in the calendar. The - day fixed was usually that of the death of the saint. The only - instance of the celebration of a birthday was the festival - of John the Baptist (_Natalis S. Joannis_). The 24th June was - fixed upon by calculating from Christmas (acc. to Luke i. 26), - and its occurring in the other half of the year from that of - Christ afforded a symbolical parallel to John iii. 30. As an - appendage to this we meet even in the 5th century with the - _F. decollationis S. Joannis_ on 29th Aug. On the second day - of the Christmas festival the Feast of the Proto-martyr Stephen - was celebrated as the first fruits of the incarnation of God; - on the third, the memory of the disciple who lay on the Master’s - breast; on the fourth, the innocent children of Bethlehem - (_F. innocentium_) as the _flores_ or _primitiæ martyrum_. The - festival of the Maccabees (πανήγυρις τῶν Μακκαβαίων) leads yet - further back as the memorial of the heroic mother and her seven - sons under Antiochus Epiphanes. It was observed as early as the - 4th century and did not pass out of use till the 13th. Among the - festivals of Apostles that of Peter and Paul (_F. Apost. Petri - et Pauli_) on 29th June, as the solemnization of their common - martyrdom at Rome, was universally observed. But Rome celebrated - besides a double _F. Cathedræ Petri_, for the _Cathedra Romana_ - on 18th Jan., and for the _Cathedra Antiochena_ on 22nd Feb. - For a long time a symbolical arrangement of the calendar days - prevailed; the patriarchs of the Old Testament were put in the - time before Christmas, the later saints of the old dispensation - in the Quadragesima, and the Apostles and Founders of the church - after Pentecost, then the Martyrs, next the Confessors, and - finally, the Virgins as prototype of the perfected church. - - § 57.2. =The Worship of Mary and Anna.=[173]--The εὐλογουμένη ἐν - γυναιξί who herself full of the Holy Ghost had prophesied: ἰδοὺ - γὰρ, ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν μακαριοῦσι με πᾶσαι αἱ γενεαί, was regarded - as the highest ideal of all virginity. All the reverence, which - the church accorded to virginity, culminated therefore in her. - Even Tertullian alongside of the Pauline contrasts Adam and - Christ, placed this other, Eve and Mary. The _perpetua virginitas - b. Mariæ_ was an uncontested article of faith from the 4th century. - Ambrose understood of her Ezek. xliv. 3, and affirmed that she - was born _utero clauso_; Gregory the Great saw an analogy between - this and the entering of the Risen One through closed doors - (John xx. 19); and the second Trullan Council, in A.D. 692, - confessed: ἀλόχευτον τὸν ἐκ τῆς παρθένου θεῖον τόκον εἶναι. - Irenæus, Tertullian, Origen, Basil, Chrysostom, had indeed - still found something in her worthy of blame, but even Augustine - refuses to admit that she should be reckoned among sinners: _Unde - enim scimus, quid ei plus gratiæ collatum fuerit ad vincendum - omni ex parte peccatum?_ Yet for a long time this veneration of - Mary made little progress. This was caused partly by the absence - of the glory of martyrdom, partly by its development in the - church being forestalled and distorted by the heathenish and - godless Mariolatry of the Collyridians, an Arabian female sect - of the 4th century, which offered to the Holy Virgin, as in - heathen times to Ceres, cakes of bread (κολλυρίδα). Epiphanius, - who opposed them, taught: ἐν τιμῇ ἔστω Μαρία, ὁ δὲ Πατὴρ καὶ Υἱὸς - καὶ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα προσκυνείσθω, τὴν δὲ Μαρίαν οὐδεὶς προσκυνείτω. - On the Antidicomarianites, see § 62, 2. The victory of those who - used the term θεοτόκος in the Nestorian controversy gave a great - impulse to Mariolatry. Even in the 5th century, the festival - of the Annunciation, _F. annunciationis, incarnationis_, ἑορτὴ - τοῦ εὐαγγελισμοῦ, τοῦ ἀσπασμοῦ, was held on the 25th March. - With this was also connected in the West the festival of the - Purification of Mary, _F. purificationis_ on 2nd Feb., according - to Luke ii. 22. On account of the candles used in the service - it was called the Candlemas of Mary, _F. candelarum, luminum_, - Luke ii. 32. In consequence of an earthquake and pestilence in - A.D. 542, Justinian founded the corresponding ἑορτὴ τῆς ὑπαπάντης, - _F. occursus_, only that here the meeting with Simeon and Anna - (Luke ii. 24) is put in the foreground. Both festivals, the - Annunciation and the Purification, had the same dignity as those - dedicated to the memory of our Lord. From the endeavour to put - alongside of each of the festivals of the Lord a corresponding - festival of Mary, about the end of the 6th century the Feast - of the Ascension of Mary (πανήγυρις κοιμήτεως, _F. assumptionis, - dormitionis M._) was introduced and celebrated on 15th Aug.; - and in the 7th century, the Feast of the Birth of Mary (_F. - nativitatis M._), on 8th Sept. The former was founded on the - apocryphal legend (§ 32, 4), according to which Christ with the - angels brought the soul of his just departed mother, and, on the - following day, its glorified body, to heaven, and there united - it again with the soul.--The first traces of a =veneration of - Anna= around whom, as the supposed wife of Joachim and mother of - the Virgin, the apocryphal gospels of the childhood had already - gathered a mass of romantic details, are found in the 4th century - in Gregory of Nyssa and Epiphanius. Justinian I. in A.D. 550 - built a church of St. Anna in Constantinople. In the East the - 25th of July was celebrated as the day of her death, the 9th Sept. - as the day of her marriage, and the 9th Dec. as the day of her - conception. In the West the veneration of Anna was later of being - introduced. It became popular in the later Middle Ages and was - made obligatory on the whole catholic church by Gregory XIII. - in A.D. 1584. The day fixed was 26th July. Yet Leo III. in the - 8th century had allowed a pictorial representation of the legend - of St. Joachim and St. Anna to be put in the church of St. Paul - in Rome.--Continuation § 104, 7, 8. - - § 57.3. =Worship of Angels.=--The idea of guardian angels - of nations, cities, individuals, was based on Deut. xxxii. 8 - (in the LXX.); Dan. x. 13, 20, 21; xii. 1; Matt. xviii. 10; - Acts xii. 15, even as early as the 2nd century. Ambrose - required the invocation of angels. But when the Phrygian sect - of the Angelians carried the practice the length of idolatrous - worship, the Council at Laodicea in the 4th century opposed - it, and Epiphanius placed it in his list of heresies. Supposed - manifestations of the Archangel Michael led to the institution - from the 5th century of the feast of Michael observed on 29th - Sept., as a festival of the angels collectively representing - the idea of the church triumphant. - - § 57.4. =Worship of Images= (§ 38, 3).--The disinclination of - the ancient church to the pictorial representations of the person - of Christ as such, and also the unwillingness to allow religious - pictures in the churches, based upon the prohibition of images - in the decalogue, was not yet wholly overcome in the 4th century. - Eusebius of Cæsarea, with reference to the statues of Paneas - (§ 13, 2) and other images of Christ and the Apostles, speaks - of an ἐθνικὴ συνηθεία. He administered a severe reproof to the - emperor’s sister, Constantia, and referred to the prohibition - of the decalogue, when she expressed a wish to have an image - of Christ. Asterius, bishop of Amasa in Pontus († A.D. 410), - earnestly declaimed against the custom of people of distinction - wearing clothes embroidered with pictures from the gospel history, - and recommends them rather to have Christ in their hearts. The - violent zealot, Epiphanius, the most decided opponent of all - religious idealism, tore the painted curtain of a Palestinian - village church in Anablatha with the injunction to wrap therewith - a beggar’s corpse. But Greek love of art and the religious needs - of the people gained the victory over Judaic-legal rigorism - and abstract spiritualism. Here too the age of Cyril marks - the turning point. In the 5th century authentic miraculous - pictures of Christ, the Apostles and the God-mother (εἰκόνες - ἀχειροποίητοι), made their appearance, and with them began image - worship properly so called, with lighting of candles, kissing, - burning incense, bowing of the knee, prostrations (προσκύνησις - τιμητική). Soon all churches and church books, all palaces - and cottages, were filled with images of Christ and the saints - painted or drawn by the monks. Miracle after miracle was wrought - beside, upon or through them. In this, however, the West did not - keep pace with the East. Augustine complains of image worship - and advises to seek Christ in the bible rather than in images. - Gregory the Great, while blaming the violence of Serenus, bishop - of Massilia in breaking the images, wishes that in churches - images should be made to serve _ad instruendas solummodo mentes - nescientium_. The Nestorians who were strongly opposed to images, - expressly declared that the hated Cyril was the originator of - _Iconolatry_. - - § 57.5. =Worship of Relics= (§ 39, 5).--The veneration for - relics (λείψανα) proceeded from a pious feeling in human nature - and is closely associated with that higher reverence which the - church paid to its martyrs. It began with public assemblies - at the graves of martyrs, memorial celebrations and services - in connection with the translations of their bones held in - the churches. Soon no church, no altar (Rev. vi. 9), could be - built without relics. When the small number of known martyrs - proved insufficient, single parts of their bodies were divided - to different churches. But dreams and visions showed rich stores - previously unthought of in remnants of the bones of martyrs - and saints. The catacombs especially proved inexhaustible mines. - Miracles and signs vouched for their genuineness. Theodosius I. - already found it necessary in A.D. 386, to prohibit the traffic - in relics. Besides bones, were included also clothes, utensils, - instruments of torture. They healed the sick, cast out devils, - raised the dead, averted plagues, and led to the discovery of - offenders. The healed expressed their gratitude in votive tablets - and in presentations of silver and golden figures of the healed - parts. A scriptural foundation was sought for this veneration of - relics in 2 Kings xiii. 21; Ecclesiastic. xlvi. 14; Acts xix. 12. - According to a legend commonly believed in the 5th century, - but unknown to Eusebius and the Bordeaux pilgrim of A.D. 333, - Helena, mother of Constantine, found in A.D. 326 the Cross of - Christ along with the crosses of the two thieves. The one was - distinguished from the others by a miracle of healing or of - raising from the dead. The pious lady left one half of the cross - to the church of the Holy Sepulchre and sent the rest with the - nails to her son, who inlaid the wood in his statues and some of - the nails in his diadem, while of the rest he made a bit for his - horse. Since the publication of the _Doctrina Addaei_, § 32, 6, - it has become apparent that this Helena legend is just another - version of the old Edessa legend about the Byzantine saint, - according to which the wife of the emperor Claudius converted - by Peter is represented in precisely similar circumstances as - having found the cross. To pious and distinguished pilgrims - permission was given to take small splinters of the wood - kept in Jerusalem, so that soon bits of the cross were spread - and received veneration throughout all the world. According - to a much later report a σταυρώσιμος ἡμέρα on 14th Sept. was - observed in the East as early as the 4th century in memory of - the finding of the cross. From the time of Gregory the Great a - _F. inventionis S. Crucis_ was observed in the West on 3rd May. - The festival of the exaltation of the cross, σταυροφανεία, _F. - exaltationis S. Crucis_, on 14th Sept., was instituted by the - emperor Heraclius when the Persians on their being conquered - in A.D. 629, were obliged to restore the cross which they had - taken away. - - § 57.6. =The Making of Pilgrimages.=--The habit of making - pilgrimages (pilgrim=peregrinus) to sacred places also rested - upon a common tendency in human nature. The pilgrimage of Helena - in A.D. 326 found numerous imitators, and even the conquest - of Palestine by the Saracens in the 7th century did not quench - pilgrims’ ardour. Next to the sacred places in Palestine, Sinai, - the grave of Peter and Paul at Rome (_Limina Apostolorum_), the - grave of Martin of Tours (§ 47, 14) and the supposed scene in - Arabia of the sufferings of Job, as a foreshadowing of Christ’s, - were the spots most frequented by pilgrims. Gregory of Nyssa - in an Epistle Περὶ τῶν ἀπιόντων εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα most vigorously - opposed the immoderate love of pilgrimages, especially among - monks and women. In the strongest language he pointed out the - danger to true religion and morality; and even Jerome so far - gave way to reason as to say: _Et de Hierosolymis et de Brittania - æqualiter patet aula cœlestis_. Chrysostom and Augustine, too, - opposed the over estimating of this expression of pious feeling. - - - - - § 58. THE DISPENSATION OF THE SACRAMENTS. - - During this period nothing was definitely established as to the idea -and number of the sacraments (μυστήρια). The name was applied to the -doctrines of grace in so far as they transcended the comprehension of -the human understanding, as well as to those solemn acts of worship by -which grace was communicated and appropriated in an incomprehensible -manner to believers, so that only in the 12th century (§ 104, 2) were -the consecrations and blessings hitherto included therein definitely -excluded from the idea of the sacrament under the name Sacramentalia. -It was, however, from the first clearly understood that Baptism and the -Lord’s Supper were essentially the sacramental means of grace. Yet even -in the 3rd century, anointing and laying on of hands as an independent -sacrament of Confirmation (_Confirmatio_, χρίσμα) was separated -from the idea of baptism, and in the West, from the administration -of baptism. The reappearance of the idea of a special priesthood as -a divine institution (§ 34, 4) gave also to Ordination the importance -of a sacrament (§ 45, 1). Augustine whom the Pelagians accused -of teaching by his doctrine of original sin and concupiscence that -God-ordained marriage was sinful, designated Christian marriage, with -reference to Eph. v. 32, a sacrament (§ 61, 2) in order more decidedly -to have it placed under the point of view of the nature sanctified by -grace. Pseudo-Dionysius, in the 6th century (§ 47, 11), enumerates six -sacraments: Baptism, Chrism, Lord’s Supper, Consecration of Priests -and Monks and the Anointing of the Dead (τῶν κεκοιμημένων). On Extreme -Unction, comp. § 61, 3. - - § 58.1. =Administration of Baptism= (§ 35, 4).--The postponing - of baptism from lukewarmness, superstition or doctrinal prejudice, - was a very frequent occurrence. The same obstacles down to the - 6th century stood in the way of infant baptism being regarded - as necessary. Gregory of Nyssa wrote Πρὸς τοὺς βραδύνοντας - εἰς τὸ βάπτισμα, and with him all the church fathers earnestly - opposed the error. In case of need (_in periculo mortis_) it - was allowed even by Tertullian that baptism might be dispensed - by any baptized layman, but not by women. The institution of - godfather was universal and founded a spiritual relationship - within which marriage was prohibited not only between the - godparents themselves, but also between those and the baptized - and their children. The usual ceremonies preceding baptism were: - The covering of the head by the catechumens and the uncovering - on the day of baptism; the former to signify the warding - off every distraction and the withdrawing into oneself. With - exorcism was connected the ceremony of breathing upon (John - xx. 22), the touching of the ears with the exclamation: Ephphatha - (Mark vii. 34), marking the brow and breast with the sign of - the cross; in Africa also the giving of salt acc. to Mark ix. 50, - in Italy the handing over of a gold piece as a symbol of the - pound (Luke xiii. 12 f.) entrusted in the grace of baptism. The - conferring of a new name signified entrance into a new life. - At the renunciation the baptized one turned him to the setting - sun with the words: Ἀποτάσσομαί σοι Σατανᾶ καὶ πασῇ τῇ λατρείᾳ - σου; to the rising sun with the words: Συντάσσομαί σοι Χριστέ. - The dipping was thrice repeated: in the Spanish church, in the - anti-Arian interest, only once. Sprinkling was still confined - to _Baptismus Clinicorum_ and was first generally used in the - West in infant baptism in the 12th century, while the East still - retained the custom of immersion. - - § 58.2. =The Doctrine of the Supper= (§ 36, 5).--The doctrine - of the Lord’s Supper was never the subject of Synodal discussion, - and its conception on the part of the fathers was still in a high - degree uncertain and vacillating. All regarded the holy supper as - a supremely holy, ineffable mystery (φρικτόν, _tremendum_), and - all were convinced that bread and wine in a supernatural manner - were brought into relation to the body and blood of Christ; but - some conceived of this relation spiritualistically as a dynamic - effect, others realistically as a substantial importation to - the elements, while most vacillated still between these two - views. Almost all regarded the miracle thus wrought as μεταβολή, - _Transfiguratio_, using this expression, however, also of the - water of baptism and the anointing oil. The spiritualistic theory - prevailed among the Origenists, most decidedly with Eusebius of - Cæsarea, less decidedly with Athanasius and Gregory Nazianzen, - and again very decidedly with Pseudo-Dionysius. In the West - Augustine and his disciples, even including Leo the Great, favour - the spiritualistic view. With Augustine the spiritualistic view - was a consequence of his doctrine of predestination; only to the - believer, _i.e._ to the elect can the heavenly food be imparted. - Yet he often expresses himself very strongly in a realistic - manner. The realistic view was divided into a dyophysitic or - consubstantial and a monophysitic or transubstantial theory. - A decided tendency toward the idea of transubstantiation was - shown by Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, Hilary of Poitiers, - and Ambrose. The view of Gregory of Nyssa is peculiar: As by - Christ during His earthly life food and drink by assimilation - passed into the substance of His body, so now bread and wine - by the almighty operation of God by means of consecration is - changed into the glorified body of Christ and by our partaking - of them are assimilated to our bodies. The opposing views were - more sharply distinguished in consequence of the Nestorian - controversy, but the consistent development of dyophysitism - in the eucharistic field was first carried out by Theodoret - and Pope Gelasius († A.D. 496). The former says: μένει γὰρ - ἐπὶ τῆς προτέρας οὐσίας; and the latter: _Esse non desinit - substantia vel natura panis et vini.... Hoc nobis in ipso Christo - Domino sentiendum_ (Christological), _quod in ejus imagine_ - (Eucharistical), _profitemur_. The massive concrete popular - faith had long before converted the μεταβολή into an essential, - substantial transformation. Thence this view passed over into - the liturgies. Gallican and Syrian liturgies of the 5th century - express themselves unhesitatingly in this direction. Also - the tendency to lose the creaturely in the divine which still - continued after the victory of Dyophysitism at Chalcedon, told - in favour of the development of the dogma and about the end of - our period the doctrine of Transubstantiation was everywhere - prevalent.[174]--Continuation § 91, 3. - - § 58.3. =The Sacrifice of the Mass= (§ 36, 6).--Even in the - 4th century the body of Christ presented by consecration in - the Supper was designated a sacrifice, but only in the sense - of a representation of the sacrifice of Christ once offered. - Gradually, however, the theory prevailed of a sacramental - memorial celebration of the sacrifice of Christ in that of - an unbloody but actual repetition of the same. To this end - many other elements than those mentioned in § 36, 6 co-operated. - Such were especially the rhetorical figures and descriptions - of ecclesiastical orators, who transferred the attributes of the - one sacrifice to its repeated representations; the re-adoption of - the idea of a priesthood (§ 34, 4) which demanded a corresponding - conception of sacrifice; the pre-eminent place given to the - doctrine of sacraments; the tendency to place the sacrament - under the point of view of a magically acting divine power, etc. - The sacrificial idea, however, obtained its completion in its - application to the doctrine of Purgatory by Gregory the Great - (§ 61, 4). The _oblationes pro defunctis_ which had been in use - from early times became now masses for the souls of individuals; - their purpose was not the enjoyment of the body and blood - of Christ by the living and the securing thereby continued - communion with the departed, but only the renewing and repeating - of the atoning sacrifice for the salvation of the souls of the - dead, _i.e._ for the moderating and shortening of purgatorial - sufferings. The redeeming power of the sacrifice of the eucharist - was then in an analogous manner applied to the alleviation of - earthly calamities, sufferings and misfortunes, in so far as - these were viewed as punishments for sin. For such ends, then, - it was enough that the sacrificing priest should perform the - service (_Missæ solitariæ_, Private Masses). The partaking - of the membership was at last completely withdrawn from the - regular public services and confined to special festival - seasons.--Continuation § 88, 3. - - § 58.4. =The Administration of the Lord’s Supper.=--The sharp - distinction between the _Missa Catechumenorum_ and the _Missa - Fidelium_ (§ 36, 2, 3) lost its significance after the general - introduction of infant baptism, and the name _Missa_, mass, was - now restricted to the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper properly so - called. In the Eastern and North African churches the communion - of children continued common; the Western church forbade it in - accordance with 1 Cor. xi. 28, 29. The _Communis sub una_ (sc. - _specie_), _i.e._ with bread only, was regarded as a Manichæan - heresy (§ 29, 3). Only in North Africa was it exceptionally - allowed in children’s communion, after a little girl from natural - aversion to wine had vomited it up. In the East, as early as the - 4th century, one observance of the Lord’s Supper in the year was - regarded as sufficient; but Western Councils of the 5th century - insisted upon its observance every Sunday and threatened with - excommunication everyone who did not communicate at least on - the three great festivals. The elements of the supper were still - brought as presents by the members of the church. The bread - was that in common use, therefore usually leavened. The East - continued this practice, but the West subsequently, on symbolical - grounds, introduced the use of unleavened bread. The colour of - the wine was regarded as immaterial. Subsequently white wine was - preferred as being free from the red colouring matter. The mixing - of the wine with water was held to be essential, and was grounded - upon John xix. 34; or regarded as significant of the two natures - in Christ. Only the Armenian Monophysites used unmixed wine. - The bread was broken. To the sick was often brought in the - East instead of the separate elements bread dipped in wine. - Subsequently also, first in children’s communion and in the - Greek church only, bread and wine together were presented in - a spoon. The consecrated elements were called εὐλογίαι after - 1 Cor. x. 16. The εὐλογίαι left over (περισσεύουσα) were after - communion divided among the clergy. At a later period only so - much was consecrated as it was thought would be needed for use - at one time. The overplus of unconsecrated oblations was blessed - and distributed among the non-communicants, the catechumens - and penitents. The name εὐλογίαι was now applied to those - elements that had only been blessed which were also designated - ἀντίδωρα. The old custom of sending to other churches or bishops - consecrated sacramental elements as a sign of ecclesiastical - fellowship was forbidden by the Council at Laodicea in the - 4th century.--Continuation § 104, 3. - - - § 59. PUBLIC WORSHIP IN WORD AND SYMBOL. - - The text of the sermon was generally taken from the bible portion -previously read. The liturgy attained a rich development, but the -liturgies of the Latin and Greek churches were fundamentally different -from one another. Scripture Psalms, Songs of Praise with Doxologies -formed the main components of the church service of song. Gnostics -(§ 27, 5), Arians (§ 50, 1), Apollinarians and Donatists found hymns -of their own composition very popular. The church was obliged to outbid -them in this. The Council at Laodicea, however, in A.D. 360, sought to -have all ψαλμοὶ ἰδιωτικοί banished from the church, probably in order -to prevent heretical poems being smuggled in. The Western church did -not discuss the subject; and Chrysostom at least adorned the nightly -processions which the rivalry of the Arians in Constantinople obliged -him to make, with the solemn singing of hymns. - - § 59.1. =The Holy Scriptures= (§ 36, 7, 8).--The doubts about - the genuineness of particular New Testament writings which - had existed in the days of Eusebius, had now greatly lessened. - Fourteen years after Eusebius, Athanasius in his 39th Festal - Letter of A.D. 367 gave a list of canonical scriptures in which - the Eusebian antilegomena of the first class (§ 36, 8) were - without more ado enumerated among the κανονιζόμενα. From these - he distinguished the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Esther, - Judith, and Tobit, as well as the Διδαχὴ καλουμένη τῶν Ἀποστόλων - and the Shepherd of Hermas as ἀναγινωσκόμενα, _i.e._ as books - which from their excellent moral contents had been used by - the fathers in teaching the catechumens and which should be - recommended as affording godly reading. The Council at Laodicea - gave a Canon in which we miss only the Apocalypse of John, - objected to probably on account of the unfavourable view of - chiliasm entertained by the church at that time (§ 33, 9); - as regards the Old Testament it expressly limited the public - readings in churches to the 22 bks. of the Hebrew canon. The - Council at Hippo, in A.D. 393, gave synodic sanction for the - first time in the West to that Canon of the New Testament which - has from that time been accepted.--The question as to the value - of the books added to the Old Testament in the LXX. remained - undecided down to the time of the Reformation. The Greek church - kept to the Athanasian distinction of these as ἀναγινωσκόμενα - from the κανονιζόμενοι, until the confession of Dositheus in - A.D. 1629 (§ 152, 3) in its anti-Calvinistic zeal maintained - that even those books should be acknowledged as γνήσια τῆς - γραφῆς μέρη. In the North African church Tertullian and Cyprian - had characterized them without distinction as holy scripture. - Augustine followed them, though not altogether without hesitation: - _Maccab. scripturam non habent Judæi ... sed recepta est ab - ecclesia non inutilitor, si sobrie legatur vel audiatur_; and - the Synods at Hippo in A.D. 393 and at Carthage in A.D. 397 and - A.D. 419 put them without question into their list of canonical - books, adding this, however, that they would ask the opinion of - the transmarine churches on the matter. Meanwhile too in Rome - this view had prevailed and Innocent I. in A.D. 405 expressly - homologated the African list. Hilary of Poitiers and Rufinus on - the other hand upheld the view of Athanasius, and Jerome in his - _Prologus galeatus_ after enumerating the books of the Hebrew - Canon went so far as to say: _Quidquid extra hos est, inter - Apocrypha ponendum_, and elsewhere calls the addition to Daniel - merely _næniæ_. In the _Præfatio in libros Salom._, he expresses - himself more favourably of the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, - Judith, Tobit and Maccabees: _legit quidem ecclesia, sed inter - canonicas scripturas non recipit ... legat ad ædificationem - plebis sed non ad auctoritatem dogmatum confirmandam_. This - view prevailed throughout the whole of the Middle Ages among - the most prominent churches down to the meeting of the Council - of Trent (§ 136, 4); whereas the Tridentine fathers owing - to the rejection of the books referred to by the Protestants - (§ 161, 8), and their actual or supposed usefulness in supporting - anti-Protestant dogmas, _e.g._ the meritoriousness of good works, - Tob. iv. 11, 12; intercession of saints, 2 Macc. xv. 12-14; - veneration of relics, Ecclus. xlvi. 14; xlix. 12; masses - for souls and prayers for the dead, 2 Macc. xii. 43-46, felt - themselves constrained to pronounce them canonical.--The - inconvenient _Scriptio continua_ in the biblical Codices led - first of all the Alexandrian deacon Euthalius, about A.D. 460, - by stichometric copies of the New Testament in which every line - (στίχος) embraced as much as with regard to the sense could - be read without a pause. He also undertook a division of the - Apostolic Epistles and the Acts into chapters (κεφάλαια). An - Alexandrian church teacher, Ammonius, even earlier than this, - in arranging for a harmony of the gospels had divided the gospels - in 1,165 chapters and added to the 355 chapters of Matthew’s - gospel the number of the chapter of parallel passages in the - other gospels. Eusebius of Cæsarea completed the work by his - “Evang. Canon,” for he represents in ten tables which chapters - are found in all the four, in three, in two or in one of the - gospels.[175]--Jerome made emendations upon the corrupt text - of the Itala by order of Damasus, bishop of Rome, and then made - from the Hebrew a translation of the =Old Testament= of his own, - which, joined to the revised translation of the New Testament, - after much opposition gradually secured supremacy throughout all - the West under the name of the =Vulgata=. The Monophysite Syrians - got from Polycarp in A.D. 508 at the request of bishop Xenajas - or Philoxenus of Mabug, a new slavishly literal translation of - the New Testament. This so-called Philoxenian translation was, - in A.D. 616, corrected by Thomas of Charcal, provided after - the manner of the Hexapla of Origen with notes--the Harclensian - translation--and in A.D. 617 enlarged by a translation of the - Old Testament executed by bishop Paulus of Tella in Mesopotamia - according to the Hexapla text of the LXX.--Diligent =Scripture - Reading= was recommended by all the fathers, with special fervour - by Chrysostom, to the laity as well as the clergy. Yet the - idea gained ground that the study of Scripture was the business - of monks and clerics. The second Trullan Council, in A.D. 692, - forbade under severe penalties that scripture should be understood - and expounded otherwise than had been done by the old fathers. - - § 59.2. =The Creeds of the Church.= - - I. =The Nicæno-Constantinopolitan Creed.=--The Nicene Creed - (§ 50, 1, 7) did not =in the East= succeed in dislodging - the various forms of the Baptismal formula (§ 35, 2); - indeed, owing to the statement of this third article - restricting itself to a mere καὶ εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα ἅγιον - it was little fitted to become a universal symbol. But - what the _Nicænum_ in spite of its unexampled pretensions - never won, the so-called _Nicæno-Constantinopolitanum_ - of A.D. 451, not being chargeable with the deficiency - referred to, actually achieved. The idea prevailing - until quite recently that this Symbol originated at - the so-called second œcumenical Council at Constantinople - in A.D. 381 as an enlargement of the Nicene confession, - has now been shown to be quite erroneous. After the Romish - theologian Vincenzi laboured to prove that this was a - production forged by the Greeks in the interests of their - “heretical” doctrine of the procedure of the Holy Spirit - from the Father only (§ 50, 7), Harnack on the basis of - the researches of Caspari and Hort reached the following - results: The so-called Nicæno-Constantinopolitan Creed is - identical with the creed recommended by Epiphanius in his - _Anchoratus_, about A.D. 373, as genuinely apostolic-Nicene; - the creed of the Anchoratus is that which forms the subject - of Cyril’s Catechetical Lectures (§ 47, 10), probably at - a later date revised, enriched by the introduction of the - most important phrases from the Nicænum and an additional - section on the Holy Spirit (comp. § 50, 5, 7), and - issued in his own name by Cyril while bishop of Jerusalem - (A.D. 351-386) as a Baptismal formula for the church of - Jerusalem; this new recension of the Jerusalem Symbol - was probably laid before the Council at Constantinople - in A.D. 381 by Cyril as a proof of his own orthodoxy that - had always been somewhat questionable and as such passed - over into the Acts which are now lost; thus at least is - it most simply explained how even in A.D. 451 it could be - quoted in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon alongside - of the Nicene as the Constantinopolitan; in proportion - then as the Council of Constantinople of A.D. 381 came - to be regarded as an œcumenical Council (§ 50, 4), this - creed, erroneously ascribed to that Council, had accorded - to it the rank of an œcumenical Symbol. - - II. =The Apostles’ Creed.=--The Roman church and with it the - whole =West=, standing upon the supposed Apostolic origin - of their symbol, did not suffer it to be dislodged by the - Nicænum nor to be assimilated by any importations from - it. Nevertheless during the period when the Roman chair - was dominated by the Byzantine court theology (§ 52, 3) - the so-called _Nicæno-Constantinopolitanum_ succeeded in - displacing the old Western creed, aided by the opposition - to the Arianism that was being driven forward by the - Visigoths and Ostrogoths in Italy and Spain (§ 76, 2, 7), - which demanded a more decidedly anti-Arian formula. - After this danger had been long overcome, the desire - was expressed in the 9th century for a shorter creed - that might serve as a baptismal formula and as the basis - of catechetical teaching. They fell back, however, not - upon the old Roman creed, but upon a more modern Gallic - expansion of it, which forms what is called by us now - the Apostles’ Creed. Owing to the reverence shown to the - Roman church this creed soon found its way throughout - all the West, and arrogated to itself here the name - of an œcumenical Symbol, although it has never been - acknowledged by the Greek church. The legend of its - apostolic origin was carried out still further by the - assertion that each of the twelve Apostles composed one - article as his contribution to the formula (συμβολή). - Laurentius Valla and Erasmus were the first to dispute - its apostolic origin. - - III. =The Athanasian Creed.=--The so-called Athanasian Symbol, - which from its opening words is also known as _Symb._ - “_Quicunque_,” sprang up in the end of the 5th century - out of the opposition of Western Catholicism to German - Arianism, so that it is doubtful whether it had its - origin in Gaul, Spain or North Africa. In short, sharply - accentuated propositions it sets forth first of all the - Nicene-Constant. doctrine of the Trinity in its fuller - form as developed by Augustine (§ 50, 7), then in the - second part the dogmatic results of the Nestorian and - Eutychian controversies (§ 52, 3, 4), and in the severest - terms makes eternal salvation dependent on the acceptance - of all these beliefs. The earliest certain trace of its - existence is found in Cæsarius of Arles (A.D. 503-543) who - quotes some sentences borrowed from it as of acknowledged - authority. The idea that Athanasius was its author arose - in the 8th century and was soon accepted throughout the - West as an undoubted truth. It was first taken notice of - by the Greek church in the 11th century, and on account - of the _filioque_ (§ 67, 1) was pronounced heretical.[176] - - § 59.3. =Bible Reading in Church and Preaching.=--The =Reading= - of non-canonical books in church, which had previously been - customary (§ 36, 3), was now forbidden. The _Lectio continua_, - _i.e._ the reading of entire biblical books was the common - practice down to the 5th century. In the Latin church at each - service there were usually two readings, one from the Gospels, - the other from the Epistles or the Prophets. The _Apostolic - Constitutions_ (§ 43, 4) have three, the Prophets, Epistles, - and Gospels; so too the Gallican and Spanish churches; while - the Syrian had four, the additional one being from Acts. As - the idea of the Christian Year was carried out, however, the - _Lectio continua_ gave place to the _Lectio propria_, _i.e._ - a selection of passages which correspond to the character - of the particular festival. In the West this selection was - fixed by the _Lectionaries_ among which the so-called _Liber - comitis_, which tradition assigned to Jerome, in various - forms and modifications, found acceptance generally throughout - the West. In the East where the _Lectio continua_ continued - much more prevalent, lectionaries came into use first in the - 8th century. The lesson was read by a reader from a reading desk; - as a mark of distinction, however, the gospel was often read by - the deacon. For the same purpose, too, lights were often kindled - during this reading.--The =Sermon= was generally by the bishop, - who might, however, transfer the duty to a presbyter or deacon. - Monks were forbidden to preach in the church. They were not - hindered from doing so in the streets and markets, from roofs, - pillars and trees. The bishop preached from his episcopal throne, - but often, in order to be better heard, stood at the railing of - the choir (_Cancelli_). Augustine and Chrysostom often preached - from the reading desk. In the East preaching came very much to - the front, lasted often for an hour, and aimed at theatrical - effects. Very distracting was the practice, specially common - in Greece of giving loud applause with waving of handkerchiefs - and clapping of hands (κρότος, _Acclamatio_). In the West the - sermon consisted generally of short simple addresses (_Sermones_). - Extempore discourses (ὁμιλίαι σχεδιασθεῖσαι) were greatly - appreciated, more so than those repeated from memory; reading - was quite an exceptional occurrence. Even the emperors after - Constantine’s example gave sometimes sermonic lectures in - extra-ecclesiastical assemblies. Among the Syrians sermons in - verse and strophically arranged, with equal number of syllables - in the lines but unrhymed, were very popular. - - § 59.4. =Hymnology.=[177]--Ephraëm [Ephraim] the Syrian - († A.D. 378) introduced melodious orthodox hymns in place - of the heterodox hymns of the Syrian Gnostics Bardesanes and - Harmonius (§ 27, 5). On the later Syrian hymn writers, see - § 48, 7. The introduction of their hymns into the public service - caused no trouble. For the Greeks orthodox hymns were composed - by Gregory Nazianzen and Synesius of Ptolemais. The want of - popularity and the ban of the Laodicean Council hindered their - introduction into the services of the church; but this ban was - removed as early as the 5th century. Under the name of Troparies, - from τρόπος=art of music, shorter, and soon also longer, poems - of their own composition were introduced alongside of the church - service of Psalms (§ 70, 2). But unquestionably the palm for - church hymn composition belongs to the Latin church. With Hilary - of Poitiers († A.D. 368) begins a series of poets (Ambrose, - Damasus, Augustine, Sedulius, Eunodius, Prudentius, Fortunatus, - Gregory the Great) who bequeathed to their church a precious - legacy of spiritual songs of great beauty, spirituality, depth, - power, grandeur and simplicity. - - § 59.5. =Psalmody and Hymn Music.=[178]--From the time when - clerical _cantores_ (§ 34, 3) were appointed the symphonic - singing of psalms by the congregation seems to have been on - the wane. The Council of Laodicea forbade it altogether, without, - however, being able quite to accomplish that. Antiphonal or - responsive singing was much enjoyed. Hypophonic singing of the - congregation in the responses with which the people answered the - clerical intonings, readings and prayers, and in the beating of - time with which they answered the clerical singing of psalms, was - long persisted in in spite of clerical exclusiveness. The singing - of prayers, readings and consecrations was first introduced - in the 6th century. At first church music was simple, artless, - recitative. But the rivalry of heretics forced the orthodox - church to pay greater attention to the requirements of art. - Chrysostom had to declaim against the secularisation of Church - music. More lasting was the opposition of the church to the - introduction of instrumental accompaniments. Even part singing - was at this time excluded from the church. In the West psalmody - took a high flight with a true ecclesiastical character. Even in - A.D. 330, bishop Sylvester erected a school at Rome for training - singers for the churches. Ambrose of Milan was the author of a - new kind of church music full of melodious flow, with rhythmical - accent and rich modulation, nobly popular and grandly simple - (_Cantus Ambrosianus_). Augustine speaks with enthusiasm of the - powerful impression made on him by this lively style of singing, - but expresses also the fear that the senses might be spellbound - by the pleasant sound of the tune, and thus the effect of - the words on the mind be weakened. And in fact the Ambrosian - chant was in danger during the 6th century through increasing - secularisation of losing its ecclesiastical character. Then - appeared Gregory the Great as reformer and founder of a new - style of music (_Cantus Romanus, ferinus, choralis_) for which - at the same time, in order that he might fix it in a tune book - (_Antiphonarium_), he invented a special notation, the so-called - _Neumæ_, either from πνεῦμα as characterizing the music, or from - νεῦμα as characterizing the musical notes, a wonderful mixture - of points, strokes and hooks. The Gregorian music is in unison, - slow, measured and uniform without rhythm and beat, so that - it approaches again the old recitative mode of psalm singing, - while still at the same time its elaboration of the art with - much richer modulation marks an important step in advance. The - Ambrosian briskness, freshness and popular style were indeed - lost, but all the more certainly the earnestness, dignity and - solemnity of Church music were preserved. But it was a very great - defect that the Gregorian music was assigned exclusively to well - equipped choirs of clerical singers, hence _Cantus choralis_, for - the training of which Gregory founded a school of music in Rome. - The congregation was thus deprived of that lively participation - in the public service which up to that time it had enjoyed. - - § 59.6. =The Liturgy.=--The numerous liturgies that had sprung - up since the 4th century were reared on the basis of one common - type which we find in the liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions - (§ 43, 4). The most important orthodox liturgies are: the - Jerusalem liturgy which is ascribed to the Apostle James, the - Alexandrian which claims as its author Mark, disciple of the - Apostles (§ 16, 4), the Byzantine which professes to have been - composed by Basil and abbreviated by Chrysostom, which ultimately - dislodged all others from the orthodox church of the East. - Among Western liturgies the following are distinguished for - antiquity, reputation and significance: the Gallican Masses - of the 5th century, the Milan liturgy, professedly by Barnabas, - probably by Ambrose, and the Roman or that of St. Peter, to the - successive revisions of which are attached the names of the great - popes Leo the Great, † A.D. 461, Gelasius I., † A.D. 496, and - Gregory the Great, † A.D. 604. It gradually obtained universal - ascendancy in the West. Its components are: The _sacramentarium_, - prayers for the service of the Mass, the _antiphonarium_, the - _lectionarium_, and the _Ordo Romanus_, guide to the dispensation - of the Mass. The uniting of these several writings to the _Missale - Romanum_ belongs to a later period.--=The Greek Liturgy= in the - combining of the vesper, matins and principal service of worship - represents a threefold religious drama in which the whole course - of the sacred history from the creation of the world to the - ascension of our Lord is brought to view. In the lighting and - extinguishing of candles, in opening and closing of doors, - in the figured cloth covering the altar space, (§ 60, 1), in - burning of incense and presentations, in the successive putting - on of various liturgical vestments, in the processions and - genuflections of the inferior clergy, in the handling of the - sacramental elements, etc., the chief points of the gospel - history are symbolically set forth. The word accompanying the - ceremonies (intonations, responses, prayers, readings, singing) - has a subordinate significance and forms only a running commentary - on the drama.--=The Latin Church= changed the dramatic character - of the liturgy into a dogmatic one. It is no longer the objective - history of salvation which is here represented, but the subjective - appropriation of salvation. The sinner in need of redemption - comes to the altar of the Lord, seeks and finds quickening and - instruction, forgiveness and grace. The real pillar of the whole - service is therefore the word, and to the symbol is assigned only - the subordinate part of accompanying the word with a pictorial - representation. The components of the liturgy are partly such - as invariably are repeated in every Mass, partly such as change - with the calendar and the requirements of particular festivals. - Among the former the canon of the Mass forms the real centre of - the whole Mass. It embraces the eucharistic forms of consecration - with the prayer offered up in connection with the offering of it - up.--Among the liturgical writings are specially to be named the - =Diptychs= (δὶς ἀπτύσσω, to fold twice), writing tablets which - were covered on the inside with wax. They were the official lists - of persons of the ancient church, and were of importance for the - liturgy inasmuch as the names written upon them were the subject - of special liturgical intercession. We have to distinguish, - δίπτυχα ἐπισκόπων, in which are written the names of the foreign - bishops with whom church fellowship is maintained, and δίπτυχα - ζώντων or lists of their own church members as the offerers, and - δίπτυχα νεκρῶν.[179] - - § 59.7. =Liturgical Vestments.=--A special clerical costume which - made the clergy recognisable even in civil life arose from their - scorning to submit to the whims of fashion. The transition from - this to a compulsory liturgical style of dress was probably - owing to the fact that the clergy in discharging their official - functions wore not their every-day attire, but a better suit - reserved for the purpose. If in this way the idea of sacred - vestments was arrived at it was an easy step to associate - them with the official costume of the Old Testament priesthood, - attributing to them, as to the dress of the Jewish priests, a - symbolico-mystical significance, to be diversified according to - their patterns as well as according to the needs of the worship - and their hierarchical rank. In the West the proper dress for - Mass was and continued the so-called _Alba_, among the Greeks - στοιχάριον or στιχάριον, a white linen shirt reaching down - to the feet after the pattern of the old Roman _Tunica_ and - corresponding to the long coat of the Old Testament priest, - with a girdle (_Cingulum_). The shorter _Casula_ or _Pineta_, - among the Greeks φελώνιον, over the Alba took the place of the - _Toga_. It was originally without sleeves, simply a coloured - garment of costly material furnished with an opening for the - head, but in later times made more convenient by being slit half - way down on both sides. The _Orarium_, ὀράριον, afterwards called - _Stola_, is a long wide strip of costly cloth which the deacon - threw over his left shoulder and on his right thigh, but the - priest and the bishop wore it over both shoulders and at the - sacrifice of the Mass in the form of the cross over the breast. - Over these priestly vestments the bishop wore as representing - the high priest’s ephod the so-called _Dalmatica_, among the - Greeks σάκκος, a costly sleeved robe; and the archbishop also - the _Pallium_, ὠμοφόριον. This last was originally a complete - robe, but in order not to conceal the episcopal and priestly - ornaments it was reduced to a small white woollen cape with two - strips hanging down on the breast and the back. To episcopal - ornaments of the Greeks besides belonged the ἐπιγονάτιον, a - square-shaped piece of cloth, hanging down from the σάκκος on - the left side, ornamented with a picture of Christ sewed on - stiff pasteboard; and to correspond to the high priest’s Urim - and Thummim, the πανάγιον, a painting in enamel of a saint, - hung to the breast by a golden chain. Among the Latins the place - of the latter is taken by the golden cross for the breast or - _Pectorale_. As covering of the head the priest had the Barretta - (_birretum_), the bishop the mitre, _mitra_ (§ 84, 1). The ring - and staff (marriage ring and shepherd’s staff) were in very early - times made the insignia of the episcopal office. The settling of - the various liturgical colours for the successive festivals of - the Christian year was first made during the 12th century.[180] - - § 59.8. =Symbolical Acts in Worship.=--The fraternal kiss - was a general custom throughout the whole period. On entering, - the church door or threshold was kissed; during the liturgical - service the priest kissed the altar, the reader the Gospel. Even - relics and images were kissed. When one confessed sin he beat - upon his breast. The sign of the cross was made during every - ecclesiastical action and even in private life was frequently - used. The custom of washing the hands on entering God’s house - and lighting candles in it, was very ancient. No quite certain - trace of sprinkling with holy water is found before the 9th - century. The burning of incense (_thurificari_) is first found - late in the 4th century. In earlier times it was supposed to draw - on and feed the demons; afterwards it was regarded as the surest - means of driving them away. The consecration of churches and the - annual commemoration thereof are referred to even by Eusebius - (ἐγκαινίων ἑορταί). Even so early as the times of Ambrose the - possession of relics was regarded as an indispensable condition - to such services. - - § 59.9. =Processions= are of early date and had their - prototypes in the heathen worship in the solemn marches - at the high festivals of Dionysos, Athene, etc., etc. First at - burials and weddings, they were practised since the 4th century - at the reception of bishops or relics, at thanksgivings for - victories, especially at seasons of public distress and calamity - (_Rogationes_, _Supplicationes_). Bishop Mamertus of Vienna about - A.D. 450 and Gregory the Great developed them into regularly - recurring institutions whose celebration was rendered more solemn - by carrying the gospels in front, costly crosses and banners, - blazing torches and wax candles, relics, images of Mary and the - saints, by psalm and hymn singing. The prayers arranged for the - purpose with invocation of saints, and angels and the popular - refrain, _Ora pro nobis!_ were called _Litanies_. - - - § 60. PLACES OF PUBLIC WORSHIP, BUILDINGS - AND WORKS OF ART.[181] - - Church architecture made rapid advance as a science in the times -of Constantine the Great. The earliest architectural style thus -developed is found in the Christian _Basilicas_. Whether this was -a purely original kind of building called forth by the requirements -of congregational worship, or whether and how far it was based upon -previously existing styles, is still a subject of discussion. In later, -and especially oriental, church buildings the flat roof of the basilica -was often changed into a cupola. Of the plastic arts painting was the -next to be represented. - - § 60.1. =The Basilica.=--The original form of the Christian - basilica was that of an oblong four-sided building running from - west to east. It was divided lengthwise by rows of pillars, into - three parts or aisles, in such a way as to leave the middle aisle - at least double the breadth of each of the other two. The middle - aisle led up to a semicircular recess (κόγχη, ἀψίς, _Concha_, - _Absida_), curved out of the eastern side wall, which was - separated from the middle aisle proper by a railing (κιγκλίδες, - _Cancelli_) and a curtain (καταπέτασμα, _Velum_), and, because - raised a few steps, was called βῆμα (from βαίνω). From the 5th - century the pillars running down the length of the house were - not carried on to the eastern gable, and thus a cross passage - or transept was formed, which was raised to the level of the - Bema and added to it. This transept now in connection with the - middle aisle and the recess imprints upon the ground plan of the - church the significant form of the cross. At the entrance at the - western end there was a porch which occupied the whole breadth - of the house. Thus then the whole fell into three divisions. - The =Bema= was reserved for the clergy. The elevated seat of - the bishop (θρόνος, _Cathedra_) stood in the middle of the - round wall forming the recess, lower seats for the presbyters - on both sides (σύνθρονοι), the altar in the centre or in front - of the recess. As a place reserved for the altar and the clergy - the βῆμα had also the names ἅγιον, ἄδυτον, ἱερατεῖον, _Sacrarium_, - _Sanctuarium_, the name “Handbook of Painting: Italian Schools. - Based on Kügler’s Handbook.” by Eastlake; new ed. by Layard, - 2 vols., Lond., 1886.] of Choir being first given it in the Middle - Ages. Under the Apse or Bema there was usually a subterranean - chamber, κρυπτή, _Memoria_, _Confessio_, containing the bones of - martyrs. The altar space in later times in the Eastern churches - instead of being marked off by railings or curtains was separated - by a wooden partition which because adorned with sacred pictures - painted often on a golden ground and inlaid with most precious - stones, was called the picture screen (εἰκονόστασις). It had - usually three doors of which the middle one, the largest of the - three, the so-called “Royal” door, was reserved for the bishop - and for the emperor when he communicated. The =Nave= or main - part of the building, consisting of three, less frequently of - five, aisles (νάος, ναῦς, _Navis_, so called partly from its - oblong form, partly and chiefly on account of the symbolical - significance of the ship as a figure of the means of salvation, - Gen. vii. 23), was the place where the baptized laity met, and - were arranged in the different aisles according to sex, age - and rank. In the Eastern churches galleries (ὑπερῶα) were often - introduced along the sides for the women. The =Porch= (πρόναος, - _Vestibulum_) which from its great width was also called νάρθηξ - or _Ferula_, properly the hollow stalk of an umbelliferous plant, - was the place occupied by the catechumens and penitents. In front - of it, in earlier times unroofed, afterwards covered, was the - enclosure (αἴθριον, αὐλή, _Atrium_, _Area_) where a basin of - water stood for washing the hands. Here too the penitents during - the first stage of their discipline, as well as the _energumeni_, - had to stand. That the Atrium was also called _Paradisus_, as - Athanasius tells us, is best explained by supposing that here - for the warning of penitents there was a picture of Adam and - Eve being driven out of Paradise. The porch and the side aisles - just to the height of the pillars, were shut in with tesselated - rafters and covered with a one-sided slanting roof. But middle - aisle and transept were heightened by side walls resting on the - pillars and rising high above the side roofs and covered with a - two-sided slanting roof. In order that the pillars might be able - to bear this burden, they were bound one to another by an arched - binding. The walls of the middle aisle and transepts rising above - the side roofs were supplied with windows, which were usually - wanting in the lower walls.--Utility was the main consideration - in the development of the plan of the basilicas, but nevertheless - at the same time the idea of symbolical significance was also - in many ways very fully carried out, such as the form of the - cross in the ground plan, and the threefold division into middle - and side aisles. In the bow-shaped binding of the pillars the - idea of pressing forward (Phil. iii. 13, 14) was represented, - for there the eye was carried on from one pillar to the other - and led uninterruptedly forward to the recess at the east end, - where stood the altar, where the Sun of righteousness had risen - (Mal. iv. 2). The semicircle of the recess to which the eye was - carried forward reminded of the horizon from which the sun rose - in his beauty; and the bold rising of the walls of the middle - aisle, which rested on the arched pillars, pointed the eye - upwards and gave the liturgical _sursum corda_ which the bishop - called out to the congregation a corresponding expression in - architectural form. This significance was further intensified - by the light falling down from above into the sacred place. - - § 60.2. =Secular Basilicas.=--All spaces adorned with pillared - courts were called among the ancient Romans basilicas. In - the private houses of distinguished Romans the name _Basilica - domestica_ was given to the so-called Oëcus, _i.e._ the chamber - reserved for solemn occasions with the peristyle in front, - the inner open court surrounded by covered pillared halls; - while public markets and courts of justice were called _Basilicæ - forenses_. The latter were oblong in shape; at the end opposite - the entrance the dividing wall was broken through and in the - opening a semicircular recess was carved out with an elevated - platform, and in this were the tribunal of the prætor and seats - for the assessors and the jury. In the covered pillared courts - along the two sides were the wares exposed for sale and in the - usually uncovered large middle space the buyers and lookers-on - moved about. Outside of the enclosing wall before the entrance - was often a pillared porch standing by itself for a lobby.--From - having the same name and many correspondences in construction - the later Christian basilica was supposed to have been copied - from the forensic basilica. Zestermann was the first to contest - this theory and in this found hearty support especially on - the Catholic side. According to him the Christian basilica - had nothing in common with the forensic, but was called forth - quite independently of any earlier style of building by the - requirements of Christian worship. Now certainly on the one - side the similarity had been quite unduly over-estimated. - For almost everything that gave its symbolically significant - character to the ecclesiastical basilica,--the transept and - the form of the cross brought out by it, the bow-shaped binding - of the pillars, the walls of the middle aisle resting on the - pillars rising sheer into the heights, as well as the entirely - new arrangement of the whole house, are the essential and - independent product of the Christian spirit. But on the other - hand, differences have been greatly exaggerated and features - which the ecclesiastical basilica had in common with the forensic, - which were demonstrably copied from the latter, have been ignored. - On both sides, too, the importance for our question of the - _basilicæ domesticæ_ used for worship before regular churches - were built, has been overlooked. Here the peristyle with its - pillared courts with the oëcus attached supplied the divisions - needed for the different classes attending divine service (clergy, - congregation, penitents, catechumens). What was more natural - than that this form of building, brought indeed into more perfect - accord with the Christian idea and congregational requirements, - should be adopted in church building and with it also the name - with a new application to Christ the heavenly King? But one - and indeed a very essential feature in the later basilica style - is wanting generally in the oëcus of private houses, viz. the - Apse. One would naturally suppose that it was borrowed from the - forensic basilica in consideration of its purpose there, scruples - against such procedure being lessened as the heathen state passed - over to Christianity. Thus too it is easily explained how the - earliest basilicas, like that of Tyre consecrated in A.D. 313, - of which Eusebius’ description gives us full information, have - as yet no Apse. - - § 60.3. =The Cupola Style.=--We meet with the first example of - the cupola style among Christian buildings in the form of Roman - mausoleums in chapels or churches raised over martyrs’ graves. - This style, however, was in many ways unsuitable for regular - parish churches. The necessarily limited inner space embraced - within the circular or polygonal walls would not admit of - the significant shape of the nave being preserved; it could - not be proportionally partitioned among clergy, congregation, - catechumens and penitents. In an ideal point of view only - the centre of the whole space was suitable for the bema with - the altar, bishop’s throne, etc. In that case, however, the - half of the congregation present would have to stand behind - the officiating clergy and so this arrangement was not to be - thought of. In the later ecclesiastical buildings, therefore, - of the cupola style the ground plan of the basilica was adopted, - with atrium and narthex at the west end and bema and apse at - the east end. The old basilica style, though capable of so - much artistic adornment, passed now indeed more and more into - desuetude before the overpowering impression made upon one - entering the building by the cupola (θόλος, _Cuppula_) like - a cloud of heaven overspanning at a giddy height the middle - space, pierced by many windows and resting on four pillars - bound by arches one to another. Besides this main and complete - cupola there were often a number of semi- and secondary cupolas, - which gave to the whole building from without the appearance - of a rich well ordered organism. The greatest masterpiece - in this style, which Byzantine love of art and beauty valued - far more than the simple basilica, is the church of Sophia at - Constantinople (Σοφία=Λόγος), at the completion of which in - A.D. 587 Justinian I. cried out: Νενίκηκά σε Σαλομών. - - § 60.4. =Accessory and Special Buildings.=--Alongside of the main - building there generally were additional buildings for special - purposes (ἐξέδραι), surrounded by an enclosing wall. Among these - isolated extra buildings _Baptistries_ (βαπτιστήρια, φωτιστήρια) - held the first rank. They were built in rotunda form after the - pattern of the Roman baths. The baptismal basin (κολυμβήθρα, - _Piscina_) in the middle of the inner space was surrounded by - a series of pillars. In front there was frequently a roomy porch - used for the instruction of catechumens. When infant baptism - became general, separate baptistries were no longer needed. Their - place was taken by the baptismal font in the church itself on the - north side of the main entrance. For the custody of church jewels, - ornaments, robes, books, archives, etc. in the larger churches - there were special buildings provided. The spirit of brotherhood, - the _Philadelphia_, expressed itself in the πτωχοτροφεῖα, - ὀρφανοτροφεῖα, γηροκομεῖα, βρεφοτροφεῖα (Foundling Hospitals), - νοσοκομεῖα, ξενοδοχεῖα. The burying ground (κοιμητήριον, - _Cimeterium_, _Dormitorium_, _Area_) was also usually within - the wall enclosing the church property. The privilege of burial - within the church was granted only to emperors and bishops. When - clocks came into vogue towers were introduced, but these were at - first simply attached to the churches, occasionally even standing - quite apart. - - § 60.5. =Church furniture.=--The centre of the whole house of - God was the _Altar_ (ἁγία τράπεζα, θυσιαστήριον, _Ara_, _Altare_), - since the 5th century commonly of stone, often overlaid with gold - and silver. The altar stood out at the east end, the officiating - priest behind it facing the congregation. The introduction of - the _Missæ solitariæ_ (§ 58, 3) made it necessary in the West to - have a large number of altars. In the Greek church the rule was - to have one altar. Moveable altars, for missionaries, crusaders, - etc., were necessary since the consecration of the altar had - been pronounced indispensable. The Latins used for this purpose - a consecrated stone plate with a cover (_Palla_); the Greeks - only a consecrated altar cloth (ἀντιμήνσιον). The altar cloth - was regarded as essential, a _denudatio alteris_ as impious - desecration; according to liturgical rule, however, the altar - was bared on Friday and Saturday of Passion Week. From the - altar cloth was distinguished the _Corporale_, εἰλητόν, for - covering the oblations. On the altar stood the _Ciborium_, a - canopy supported by four feet, to which by a golden chain was - attached a dove-shaped vessel (περιστήριον) with the consecrated - sacramental elements for the communion of the sick. The - _Thuribulum_ was for the burning of incense, cross for marches - and processions (_Cruces stationales_) and banners (_Vexilla_). - In the nave were seats for the congregation; in the narthex - there were none. The pulpit or reading desk (_Pulpitum_) at - first movable, afterwards permanently fixed to the railings - in the middle of the bema in the basilica was called the _Ambo_ - from ἀναβαίνω, or _Lectorium_, our English Lectern. In many - churches two ambos were erected, on the north or left side for - the gospel, and on the south or right side for the epistle. In - larger churches, however, the ambo was often brought forward into - the nave. Our chancel had its origin late in the Middle Ages by - a separate preaching Ambo being erected beside the lectern, and - raised aloft in order that the preacher might be better seen and - heard.--The introduction of church clocks (_Nolæ_, _Campanulæ_, - because commonly made of Campanian brass which was regarded as - the best) is sometimes ascribed to bishop Paulinus of Nola in - Campania, who died in A.D. 431, sometimes to Pope Sabinianus, - who died in A.D. 606. In the East they were first introduced - in the 9th century. In early times the hours of service were - announced by _Cursores_, ἀνάδρομοι, afterwards by trumpets or - beating of gongs. - - § 60.6. =The Graphic and Plastic Arts= (§ 38, 3; § 57, 4).--The - Greek church forbade all nudity; only face, hands and feet - could be left uncovered. This narrowness was overcome in the - West. Brilliancy of colour, costliness of material and showy - overloading of costume made up for artistic deficiencies. - The εἰκόνες ἀχειροποίητοι afforded stereotyped forms for the - countenances of images of Christ, Mary and the Apostles. The - _Nimbus_, originally a soft mist or transparent cloud, with which - pagan poets and painters surrounded the persons or heads of the - gods, in later times also those of the Roman emperors, made its - appearance during the 5th century in Christian painting as the - _halo_, in the form of rays, of a diadem or of a circle, first - of all in figures of Christ. Images of the Saviour bound to the - cross were first introduced about the end of the 6th century. - The symbol was previously restricted to the representation of - a lamb at the foot of the cross, a bust of Christ at the top or - in the middle of the cross, or the full figure of Christ holding - His cross before Him. _Anastasius Sinaita_ in the 7th century, - to show his opposition to the monophysite doctrine that only the - body had been crucified, painted a figure of the crucified which - straightway came to be regarded in the Eastern church as the - pattern figure, without the crown of thorns, with nimbus, the - wound of the spear with blood streaming forth, the cross with an - inscription on both sides--JC. XC.--and a sloping peg as support - for the feet, and under the cross the skull of Adam. The Western - crucifix figures, on the other hand, though likewise governed - by a special type, show greater freedom in artistic development. - Wall or fresco painting was most extensively carried on in - the Catacombs during the 4th-6th centuries. Mosaic painting, - _Musivum_, λιθοστράτια, with its imperishable beauty of colouring, - was used to decorate the long flat walls of the basilicas, - the vaulted ceilings of the cupolas and the curving sides of - the apse (glass-mosaic on a gold ground). Liturgical books were - adorned with miniature figures. Sublimity came more and more - to characterize ecclesiastical art; it became more majestic, - dignified and dispassionate, but also stiffer and less natural. - Statues seemed to the ancient church heathenish, sensuous and - realistic. The Greek church at last prohibited them entirely - and would not suffer even a single crucifix, but only simple - crosses with a sloping transverse beam at the foot. The West - had more liberal views, yet even there Christian statues were - only quite isolated phenomena. There was less scruple in regard - to bas-reliefs and alto-reliefs (ἀναγλυφαί) especially on - sarcophagi and ecclesiastical furniture. - - - - - § 61. LIFE, DISCIPLINE AND MORALS.[182] - - When whole crowds of worldly-minded men, who only sought worldly -advantages from professing Christ, were drawn into the church after -the State had become Christian, the Christian life lost much of the -earnestness, power and purity, by which it had conquered the old -world of heathenism. More and more the church became assimilated -and conformed to the world, church discipline grew more lax, and moral -decay made rapid progress. Passionate contentions, quarrels and schisms -among bishops and clergy filled also public life with party strife, -animosity and bitterness. The immorality of the court poisoned by its -example the capital and the provinces. Savagery and licentiousness -grew rampant amid the devastating raids of the barbarians. Hypocrisy -and bigotry speedily took the place of piety among those who strove -after something higher, while the masses consoled themselves with -the reflection that every man could not be a monk. But in spite of -all Christianity still continued to act as a leaven. In public and -civil life, in the administration of justice and the habits of the -people, the Christian spirit, theoretically at least, and often also -practically, was still everywhere present. The requirements of humanity -and the rights of man were recognised; slavery was more and more -restricted; gladiatorial shows and immoral exhibitions were abolished; -the limits of proud exclusive nationality were broken through; polygamy -was never tolerated, and the sanctity of marriage was insisted upon, -the female sex obtained its long unacknowledged rights; benevolent -institutions (§ 60, 4) flourished; and the inveterate vices of ancient -paganism could at least be no longer regarded as the sound, legitimate -and natural conditions and expressions of civil and social life. Even -the pagan, who, adopting the profession of Christianity, remained -pagan at heart, was obliged at least to submit himself to the forms -and requirements of the church, to its discipline and morals. The shady -side of this period is glaring enough, but a bright side and noble -personages of deep piety, moral earnestness, resolute denial of self -and the world, are certainly not wanting. - - § 61.1. =Church Discipline.=--The Penitential Discipline of - the 3rd century (§ 39, 2) dealt only with public offences which - had become common scandal. But even those who were burdened in - conscience with heavy but hidden sins and thereby felt themselves - excluded from church fellowship, were advised to seek deliverance - from this secret excommunication by public confession of sin - before the church in the form of _exomologesis_ and to submit to - whatever humiliation the church should lay upon them. In presence - of this hard and unreasonable demand the need must have soon - become apparent of a secret and private tribunal in place of - this public one, which when once introduced would soon drive - the earlier out of the field. The first step in this direction - was taken in the end of the 3rd and beginning of the 4th century - in the Eastern church by the appointment of a special penitential - presbytery (πρεσβ. ἐπὶ τῆς μετανοίας), who under an oath of - secresy heard the confession of such sinners and laid upon them - the proper penances. But when in A.D. 391, a female penitent, a - married lady of good family in Constantinople, having committed - adultery in the church with a deacon during her time of penance, - confessed this sin also to a priestly confessor and so brought - about the excommunication of the guilty deacon, the Patriarch - Nectarius was obliged on account of the popular feeling excited - to again abolish the whole institution and to leave to the - consciences of such sinners themselves the question of partaking - in the sacraments. But it was evident that this could not - exclude pastoral advice and guidance by the clergy. In the - West, notwithstanding the confident assertions of Socrates, - we never meet with a penitential priest expressly appointed - to such duties. Jerome on Matt. xvi. 19 calls it pharisaic - pride in a bishop or presbyter to arrogate the judicial function - of forgiving sins, “_cum apud Deum non sententia sacerdotum, sed - reorum vita quæratur_.” Augustine distinguishes three kinds of - penance corresponding to the three classes in the congregation. - - 1. The penance of catechumens; all their previous sins are - atoned for by baptism. - - 2. The penance of believers whose venial sins (_peccata - venialia_) occasioned by the universal sinfulness of human - nature obtain forgiveness in daily prayer. - - 3. The penance of those who on account of serious actual - breaches of the decalogue (_peccata gravia s. mortalia_) - are punished with ecclesiastical excommunication. - - In estimating the church discipline to be exacted of this last - class of offenders he lays down the principle that the degree - of its publicity is to be measured in accordance with the degree - of publicity of the offence committed, and according to the - magnitude of the scandal which it has occasioned. And when - some Italian bishops demanded “_in pœnitentia, quæ a fidelibus - postulatur_” the reading before the congregation of a written - confession of their sin, Leo the Great forbade this extreme - practice, as unevangelical as it was unreasonable, declaring - that it was quite enough to confess the sin first to God and - then in secret confession to the priest. But when Leo added the - assertion: _divina bonitate ordinatum esse, ut indulgentia Dei - nisi supplicationibus sacerdotum nequeat obtineri; et salvatorem - ipsum, qui hane præpositis ecclesiæ tradidit potestatem, ut - et confidentibus actionem pœnitentiæ durent, et eosdem salubri - satisfactione purgatos ad communionem sacramentorum per januam - reconciliationis admitterent, huic utique operi incessabiliter - intervenire_,--we have here the first foundation laid of the - present Roman Catholic doctrine of penance. But this _confessio - secreta_ is still something very different from the later - so-called Auricular Confession. Leo’s ordinance treats only of - the confession of grave offences, which, if openly committed or - proclaimed, would have called forth punishment from the judicial - tribunal; _quibus_, says Leo, _possint legum constitutione - percelli_. But still more important is the distinction that even - Leo does not confer upon the priest absolute power of forgiving - sin as God’s vicegerent, but only allows him to officiate as - “_peccator pro delictis pœnitentium_.” Besides Leo’s view of - the unconditional necessity of confession in order to obtain - divine forgiveness of heinous sins by no means gained universal - acceptance in the church. The opinion that it was enough to - confess sins to God alone, and that confession to a priest, - while helpful and wholesome, was not absolutely necessary, was - universally prevalent in the East, where Chrysostom especially - maintained it, and even in the West down to the time of Gratian, - A.D. 1150, and Petrus [Peter] Lombardus [Lombard], † A.D. 1164, - had numerous and important representatives among the teachers - of the church (§ 104, 4). An important step onwards on the path - opened up by Leo was taken soon after him in the West when not - merely actual sins but even sinful dispositions and desires, - ambition, anger, pride, lust, etc., of which Joh. Cassianus - enumerates eight as _vitia principalia_, as well as the sinful - thoughts springing from them, were included in the province - of secret confession. A system of confession as a regular - and necessary preparation for observing the sacrament did - not as yet exist.--The so-called Penitential books from the - 6th century afforded a guide to determine the penances to - be imposed upon the penitents in the form of fasts, prayers, - almsgiving, etc., according to the degree of their guilt. The - first Penitential book for the Greek church is ascribed to - the Patriarch of Constantinople, Joh. the Faster or Jejunator, - † A.D. 595, and is entitled: Ἀκολουθία καὶ τάξις ἐπὶ τῶν - ἐξομολογουμένων.[183]--Continuation § 89, 6. - - § 61.2. =Christian Marriage.=--The ecclesiastical consecration - of the marriage tie (§ 39, 1) performed after, as well as before, - civil marriage by mutual consent before two secular witnesses, - was made more solemn by being separated from the ordinary - worship and celebrated at a special week-day service (_missa - pro sponsis_), and a rich ritual grew up which gradually - developed itself into an independent liturgy. Into this many - bridal customs hitherto despised as heathenish were introduced, - the wedding ring, veiling the bride, the crowning both betrothed - parties with wreaths, bridal sashes, bridal torches, bridesmaids - or παράνυμφοι. The granting of the wedding ceremony was regarded - as an honour which would be refused in the case of marriages not - approved by the church. But neither the refusal nor the neglect - of the ceremony on the part of those newly married interfered - with the validity of the marriage. Charlemagne was the first - in the West and Leo VI. (§ 70, 2) was the first in the East, - to make the church ceremony obligatory. Marriage between free - and bond, which was regarded by the state as concubinage, was - regarded by the church as perfectly valid. Blood relationship by - consanguinity and affinity was regarded as hindrance to marriage; - artificial relationship by adoption and spiritual relationship - by baptismal and confirmational sponsorship (§ 58, 1) were also - hindrances. Marriage between brothers’ or sisters’ children was - pronounced unbecoming by Augustine. Gregory the Great forbade - it on physiological grounds, and permitted marriage only in the - third or fourth degree of relationship. With gradually increasing - strictness the prohibition was extended even to the seventh - degree, but finally was fixed at the fourth by Innocent III. - in A.D. 1215. In direct opposition to the Roman law of hereditary - claims which established the degree of relationship according - to the number of actual descendants, so that father and son were - counted as related in the first degree to one another, brothers - and sisters as in the second degree, uncle and niece or nephew - as in the third, brothers’ or sisters’ children as in the fourth - degree, the canon law on hindrances to marriage begins this - reckoning after the withdrawal of the common parents, so that - brother and sister are related in the first degree, uncle and - niece in the second, etc. Several Councils of the 4th century - wished to make the contracting of a second marriage occasion - of church discipline; subsequently this demand was abandoned. - Many canonists, however, contest even yet the legitimacy of a - third marriage, and a fourth was almost universally admitted to - be sinful and unallowable (§ 67, 2). The contracting of mixed - marriages, with heathens, Jews or heretics, demanded penance, - and was strictly forbidden by the second Trullan Council in - A.D. 692. Only adultery was usually admitted as affording ground - for divorce; and also for the most part, unnatural vice, murder - and apostasy. The Council at Mileve in Africa in A.D. 416 for - the first time forbade divorced persons marrying again, even - the innocent party, and Pope Innocent I. † A.D. 417, made this - prohibition applicable universally.--Continuation § 89, 4. - - § 61.3. =Sickness, Death and Burial.=--The anointing the sick - with oil (Mk. vi. 13; Jas. v. 14) as means of charismatic bodily - healing is met with down to the 5th century. Innocent I. put - it in a decretal of A.D. 416, for the first time as a sacrament - for the dispensation of spiritual blessing to the sick. But many - centuries passed before the anointing of the sick was generally - observed as the sacrament of Extreme Unction (§ 70, 2; 104, 5). - On the other hand, the Areopagite (§ 47, 11) reckoned the - anointing of the dead a sacrament. The closing of the eyes - implied that death was a sleep with the hope of an awakening - in the resurrection. The fraternal kiss sealed the communion - of Christians even beyond the grave. The putting garlands on - the corpse as expressive of victory still met with opposition. - Several Synods found it necessary to forbid the absurdity of - squeezing the consecrated elements into the lips of the dead - or laying them in the coffin. Passionate lamentation, rending - of garments, wearing sackcloth and ashes, hired mourners, cypress - branches, etc., were regarded as despairing, heathenish customs. - So too festivals of the dead by night were condemned, while on - the contrary funeral processions by day, with torches, lamps, - palm and olive branches, were in high repute. Julian and the - Vandals prohibited them. In the 4th century the celebration of - the Agape and Supper at the grave was still frequent. In their - place afterwards we find mourning feasts, but these, on account - of their being abused, were disallowed by the church. - - § 61.4. =Purgatory and Masses for Souls.=--The connection of the - custom already referred to by Tertullian of not only praying in - family worship for members of the family that had fallen asleep, - but also by oblations of sacramental elements on the memorial - days of the dead (_Oblationes pro defunctis_) of giving to the - intercessions at the Supper in public worship a special direction - to them, with the doctrine of =Purgatory= (_Ignis purgatorius_) - which had developed itself in the West since the 5th century, - gave rise to the institution of masses for souls (§ 58, 3). The - idea of a place of punishment between death and the resurrection, - in which the venial sins (_peccata venialia_) of believers must - be atoned for, was quite unknown to the whole ancient church down - to the age of Augustine and to the Greek church till even after - his day (§ 67, 6). Mention is made indeed even by Origen of a - future πῦρ καθάρσιον or καθαρτικόν; but he means by it a mere - spiritual burning, from which even a Paul and a Peter were not - exempted. In the West it was first Augustine who deduced from - Matt. xii. 32, that even in the hereafter forgiveness of sins - is possible, holding in accordance with 1 Cor. iii. 13-15 that - it is not incredible, but yet always questionable, that many - believers who took over with them into the hereafter a sinful - connection with their earthly past life, might there he purified - by an “_ignis purgatorius_” of longer or shorter duration - as the continuation and completion of the earthly “_ignis - tribulationis_,” fiery trial, from the earthly dross still - adhering to them, and so might be saved. With greater confidence - _Cæsarius of Arles_ teaches that believers who during their - earthly life had neglected to atone for their minor offences - by almsgiving and other good works, must be purified by a - lingering fire in the next world, in order to win admission - into eternal blessedness. Finally, Gregory the Great raised - this idea into an established dogma of the Western church, while - he, at the same time, taught that by the intercession of the - living for the dead, and especially by the sacrifices of the - mass offered for them their purgatorial pains would be moderated - and curtailed. He too referred to Matt. xii. and 1 Cor. iii. - The reference to 2 Maccabees xii. 41-46 belongs to a later - period.--Continuation, § 106, 2, 3. - - - § 62. HERETICAL REFORMERS. - - During the 4th century a spirit of opposition to the dominant -ecclesiastical system was awakened, but as it manifested itself in -isolated forms, it had no abiding result and was soon stamped out. -This spirit showed itself in various attempts which passed beyond what -evangelical principles could vindicate. It directed its attacks partly -against the secularization of the church, branching out often into -wild fanaticism and rigorism, and partly against superstition and -externalism. Disgusted with the interminable theological controversies -and heresy huntings of that age, many came to regard the distinction -between orthodoxy and heresy as a matter of indifference so far -as religion is concerned, and to look for the core and essence of -Christianity not so much in doctrine as in morals. - - § 62.1. =Audians and Apostolics.=--As fanatical opponents of the - secularizing of the church, besides the Montanists (§ 40, 1) and - the Novatians (§ 41, 3) still surviving as isolated communities - down to the 5th century, we meet during the 4th century with the - Donatists (§ 63, 1), the Audians and the Apostolics. The sect - of the =Audians= was founded about A.D. 340 by a layman, a monk, - Audius or Udo from Mesopotamia. Having been challenged for his - crude anthropomorphic views, in support of which he referred to - Gen. i. 26 and other passages, he allowed himself to be chosen - and ordained bishop over his adherents. Placed thus in a directly - hostile relation to the Catholic church, they accused the church - of most arrant worldliness and degeneracy, called for a return - to apostolic poverty and avoided all communion with its members. - They also rejected the Nicene canon on the observance of Easter - and adopted the quartodeciman practice (§ 56, 3). On the motion - of several Catholic bishops the emperor banished the founder - of the sect to Scythia, where he laboured earnestly for the - conversion of the Goths, founded also some bishoprics and - monasteries with strict rules, and died in A.D. 372. The - persecution of the Christians under Athanaric, in A.D. 370 - (§ 76, 1), pressed sorely upon the Audians. Still remnants of - them continued to exist down to the end of the 5th century.--The - so-called =Apostolics= of Asia Minor in the 4th century went - even further than the Audians. Of their origin nothing certain - is known. They declared that the holding of private property and - marriage are sinful, and unconditionally refused readmission to - all excommunicated persons. - - § 62.2. =Protests against Superstition and External - Observances.=--About the end of the 4th century lively protests - were made against the superstitions and shallow externalism of - the church. They were directed first of all to the worship of - Mary, especially the now wide-spread belief in her _perpetua - virginitas_ as mother of Jesus (§ 57, 2). The first protesters - against this doctrine that we meet with are the so-called - =Antidicomarianites= in Arabia, whom Epiphanius sought to turn - from their heresy by a doctrinal epistle incorporated in his - history of heresies. In the West too there sprang up several - opponents of this dogma of the church. One of the most prominent - of these was a layman =Helvidius= in Rome in A.D. 380, a scholar - of Auxentius, the Arian bishop of Milan. Then about A.D. 388 the - Roman monk =Jovinian= opposed on substantial doctrinal grounds - the prevailing notions about the merit of works and external - observances, especially monasticism, asceticism, celibacy - and fasting. And finally, =Bonosus=, bishop of Sardica, about - A.D. 390, wrought in the same direction, though at a later period - he seems to have given his adhesion to the Ebionite error that - Jesus had been an ordinary man whom God adopted as His Son on - account of His merit (_Filius Dei adoptivus_). At least his - younger contemporary Marius Mercator describes him as an advocate - of these views alongside of Paul of Samosata and Photinus. We - also find many allusions during the 7th century to a sect of - Bonosians teaching similar doctrines in Spain and Gaul, who are - frequently associated with the Photinians. Even before Jovinian, - =Aërius=, a presbyter of Sebaste in Armenia, about A.D. 360, - entered his protest against the doctrine of the merit of external - observances. He objected to prayer and oblations for the dead, - would have no compulsory fasting, and no distinction of rank - between bishops and presbyters. In this way he was brought into - collision with his bishop Eustathius (§ 44, 3). Persecuted on all - sides, his adherents betook themselves to the caves and forests. - The two monks of Milan, Sarmatio and Barbatianus, about A.D. 396, - were perhaps scholars of Jovinian, were at least of the same - mind with him. Finally, =Vigilantius=, presbyter at Barcelona - about A.D. 400, with passionate violence opposed the veneration - of relics, the invocation of saints, the prevailing love of - miracles, the vigil services, the celibacy of the clergy and the - merit of outward observances.--The counterblast of the church was - hot and violent. Epiphanius wrote against the Audians and Aërians; - Ambrose against Bonosus and the followers of Jovinian; Jerome - with unparalleled bitterness and passion against Helvidius, - Jovinian and Vigilantius; Augustine with greater moderation - discussed the views of Jovinian which in their starting point - were related to his own soteriological views.[184] - - § 62.3. =Protests against the Over-Estimation of Doctrine.=--Even - in the times of Athanasius a certain Rhetorius made his appearance - with the assertion that all heretics had a right to their opinion, - and Philastrius [Philaster] speaks of a sect of =Rhetorians= in - Egypt who, perhaps with a reference to Phil. i. 18, set aside - altogether the idea of heresy and placed the essence of orthodoxy - in fidelity to convictions. The =Gnosimachians= were related to - them in the depreciation of dogma, but went beyond them by wholly - withdrawing themselves from the domain of dogmatics and occupying - themselves exclusively with morals. They are put in the list of - heretics by Joh. Damascenus. This sect had sprung up during the - monophysite and monothelite controversies, and maintained that - since God requires of a Christian nothing more than a righteous - life (πράξεις καλάς), all striving after theoretical knowledge - is useless and fruitless. - - - § 63. SCHISMS. - - The Novatian and the Alexandrian Meletian Schisms (§ 41, 3, 4) -continued to rage down into our period. Then in consequence of the -Arian controversy there arose among the orthodox three new schisms -(§ 50, 8). Among them was a Roman schism, followed later by several -others that grew out of double elections (§ 46, 4, 6, 8, 11). The -most threatening of all the schisms of this period was the Donatist in -North Africa. On the Johannite schism in Constantinople, see § 51, 3. -Owing to various diversities in the development of doctrine (§ 50, 7), -constitution (§ 46), worship (§ 56 ff.), and discipline (§ 61, 1), -material was accumulating for the grand explosion that was to burst -up the connection of East and West (§ 67). The imperial union attempts -during the Monophysite controversy caused a thirty-five years’ schism -between the two halves of the Christian world (§ 52, 5), and want of -character in the Roman bishop Vigilius split off the West for half a -century (§ 52, 6). The split between the East and West over the union -with the Monothelite party (§ 52, 8) was soon indeed overcome. But -soon thereafter the second Trullan Council at Constantinople, A.D. 692, -which, as the continuation of the 5th and 6th œcumenical Councils -(σύνοδος πενθέκτη, _Concilium quinisextum_), occupied itself exclusively -with questions of constitution, worship, and discipline, which had -not there been discussed, gave occasion to the later incurable and -disastrous schism. - - § 63.1. =The Donatist Schism, A.D. 311-415.=--In North Africa, - where echoes of the Montanist enthusiasm were still heard, many - voluntarily and needlessly gave themselves up to martyrdom during - the Diocletian persecution. The sensible bishop of Carthage - Mensurius and his archdeacon Cæcilian [Cæcilius] opposed this - fanaticism. Both had given up heretical books instead of the - sacred books demanded of them. This was sufficient to make the - opposite party denounce them as _traditores_. Mensurius died - in A.D. 311, and his followers chose Cæcilian [Cæcilius] as - his successor, and had him hastily ordained by bishop Felix - of Aptunga, being sorely pressed by the machinations of the - other party. The opposition, with a bigoted rich widow Lucilla - at its head, denounced Felix as a traditor, and so treated his - ordination as invalid. It put up a rival bishop in the person of - the reader Majorinus, who soon got, in A.D. 313, a more powerful - successor in Donatus, called by his own followers the Great. The - schism spread from Carthage over all North Africa. The peasants, - sorely oppressed by exorbitant taxes and heavy villeinage, - took the side of the Donatists (_Pars Donati_). Constantine - the Great at the very first declared himself against them. When - they complained of this, the emperor convened for the purpose of - special investigation a clerical commission at Rome in A.D. 313, - under the presidency of the Roman bishop Melchiades, and then a - great Western Synod at Arles in A.D. 314. Both decided against - the Donatists. They appealed to the immediate decision of the - emperor, who also heard the two parties at Milan, but decided - in accordance with previous judgments in A.D. 316. Now followed - severe measures, taking churches from them and banishing - their bishops which powerfully excited and increased their - fanaticism. Constantine resorted therefore to milder and - more tolerant procedure, but in their fanatical zeal they - repudiated all compromises. Under Constans the matter became - still more formidable. Ascetics mad with enthusiasm, drawn from - the very dregs of the people, who called themselves _Milites - Christi_, _Agonistici_, swarmed as beggars through the country, - _Circumcelliones_, roused the oppressed peasants to revolt, - preached freedom and fraternity, forced masters to do the work - of slaves, robbed, murdered, and burned. Political revolution - was carried on under the cover of a religious movement. An - imperial army put down the revolt, and an attempt was made - in A.D. 348 to pacify the needy Donatists by imperial gold. - But Donatus flung back the money with indignation, and the - rebellion was renewed. A severe sentence was now passed upon - the heads of the party, and all Donatist churches were closed - or taken from them. Julian restored the churches and recalled - the exiled bishops. He allowed the Donatists with impunity to - take violent revenge upon the Catholics. Julian’s successor - however again issued strict laws against the sectaries, and - schisms arose among themselves. Toward the end of the 4th - century bishop Optatus of Mileve opposed them in his treatise - _De Schismate Donatistarum Ll. VII._ In A.D. 400 Augustine, - bishop of Hippo Regius, began his unwearied attacks upon this - sect. The mildest terms were offered to induce the Donatists to - return to the church. Many of the more moderate took advantage - of the opportunity; but this only made the others all the - more bitter. They refused repeated invitations to a discussion, - fearing Augustine’s masterly dialectic. Augustine, who at first - maintained that force should not be used in matters of faith, was - moved by the persistent stiffneckedness and senseless fanaticism - of his opponents to change his opinion, and to confess that - in order to restore such heretics to the church, to salvation, - recourse must be had to violent compulsion (_coge intrare_, - Lk. xiv. 23). A synod at Carthage in A.D. 405 called upon the - Emperor Honorius to take proceedings against this stiffnecked - sect. He did so by imposing fines, banishing their clergy, - and taking their churches. Augustine renewed the challenge to - a public disputation. The Donatists were at last compelled by - the emperor to enter the lists. Thus came about the three days’ - _Collatio cum Donatistis_ of A.D. 411 at Carthage. There appeared - 279 Donatist and 286 Catholic bishops. Petilian and Primian were - the chief speakers on the side of the Donatists, Augustine and - Aurelian of Carthage on the other. The imperial commissioner - assigned the victory to the Catholics. In vain the Donatists - appealed. In A.D. 414 the Emperor declared that they had - forfeited all civil rights, and in A.D. 415 he threatened - all who attended their meetings with death. The Vandals, who - conquered Africa in A.D. 429, persecuted Catholics and Donatists - alike, and a common need furthered their reconciliation and - secured a good mutual understanding.--The Donatists started from - the principle that no one who is excommunicated or deserves to - be excommunicated is fit for the performance of any sacramental - action. With the Novatians they demanded the absolute purity - of the church, but admitted that repentance was a means for - regaining church fellowship. They maintained that they were - the pure and the Catholics were schismatics, who had nothing - in common with Christ, whose administration of the sacraments - was therefore invalid and useless, so that they even rebaptized - those who had Catholic baptism. The partiality of the state for - their opponents and confused blending of the ideas of the visible - and invisible church led them to adopt the view that church - and state, the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the world, had - nothing in common with one another, and that the state should not - interfere in religious matters. - - § 63.2. =The _Concilium Quinisextum_, A.D. 692.=--This Council - claimed to be regarded as œcumenical and was recognised as such - even by Pope Sergius I. The Greeks had not yet got over their - vexation at the triumph which Rome had won at the last œcumenical - Council (§ 52, 8). It thus happened that among the multitude of - harmless decrees the following six were smuggled in which were - in flat contradiction to the Roman practice. - - 1. In enumerating the sources of the canon law alone valid - almost all the Latin Councils and Papal Decretals were - omitted, and the whole 85 _Canones Apostt._ (§ 43, 4) - included, whereas Rome had pronounced only the first - 50 valid. - - 2. The Roman custom of enforcing celibacy on presbyters and - bishops is condemned as unjustifiable and inhuman (§ 45, 2). - - 3. Fasting on the Saturdays of the Quadragesima is forbidden - (§ 56, 4). - - 4. The 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon which makes the - patriarch of Constantinople equal to the bishop of Rome is - repeated and anew enforced (§ 46, 1, 7). - - 5. The Levitical prohibition against blood and things strangled - is sanctioned as still binding upon Christians, although it - had never been enforced by the Roman church. - - 6. Images of Christ in the shape of a lamb, which were very - common in the West, were forbidden. The papal legates - subscribed the decrees of the Council; but the Pope forbade - their publication in all the churches of the West. Compare - further § 46, 11. - - - - - VI. THE CHURCH OUTSIDE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.[185] - - - § 64. MISSIONARY OPERATIONS IN THE EAST. - - The real missionarizing church of this period was the Western -(§ 75 ff.). It was pre-eminently fitted for this by its practical -tendency and called to it by its intimate connection with the hordes -of the migrating peoples. Examples of organized missionary activity in -the East are rare. Yet other more occasional ways were opened for the -spread of Christianity outside of the empire, by Christian fugitives -and prisoners of war, political embassies and trade associations. -Anchorets, monks and stylites, too, who settled on the borders of -the empire or in deserts outside, by their extraordinary appearance -made a powerful impression on the surrounding savage tribes. These -streamed in in crowds, and those strange saints preached Christ to -them by word and work. - - § 64.1. =The Ethiopic-Abyssinian Church.=[186]--About A.D. 316 - a certain Meropius of Tyre on a voyage of discovery to the - countries south of Egypt was murdered with his whole ship’s - company. Only his two nephews Frumentius and Aedesius were spared. - They won the favour of the Abyssinian king and became the tutors - of the heir apparent, Aizanas. Frumentius was subsequently, in - A.D. 438, ordained by Athanasius bishop of the country. Aizanas - was baptised, the church spread rapidly from Abyssinia to - Ethiopia and Numidia. A translation of the bible into the Geez - dialect, the language of the country, is attributed to Frumentius. - Closely connected with the Egyptian mother church, it fell with - it into Monophysitism (§ 52, 7). In worship and discipline, - besides much that is primitive, it has borrowed many things - from Judaism, and retained many of the old habits of the country, - _e.g._ observing the Sabbath alongside of the Sunday, forbidding - certain meats, circumcision, covenanting. Their canon comprised - 81 books: besides the biblical, there are 16 patristic writings - of the Pre-Chalcedonian age. - - § 64.2. =The Persian Church.=--The church had taken root in - Persia as early as the 3rd century. With the 4th century there - came a sore time of bloody persecution, which was constantly fed - partly by the fanatical Magians, partly by the almost incessant - wars with the Christian Roman empire, which aroused suspicion of - foreign sympathies hostile to the country. The first great and - extensive persecution of the Christians broke out in A.D. 343 - under Shapur or Sapores [Sapor] II. It lasted 35 years and during - this dreadful time 16,000 of the clergy, monks and nuns were - put to death, but the number of martyrs from the laity was far - beyond reckoning. Only shortly before his death Shapur [Sapor] - stopped the persecution and proclaimed universal religious - toleration. During 40 years’ rest the Persian church attained - to new vigour; but the fanaticism of Bishop Abdas of Susa who - caused a fire-temple to be torn down in A.D. 418, occasioned - a new persecution, which reached its height in A.D. 420 under - Bahram or Baranes V. and was carried on for 30 years with the - most fiendish ingenuity of cruel tortures. The generosity of a - Christian bishop, Acacius of Amida in Mesopotamia, who by the - sale of the church property redeemed a multitude of Persian - prisoners of war and sent them to their homes, at last moved - the king to stop the persecution. The Nestorians driven from the - Roman empire found among the Persians protection and toleration, - but were the occasion under king Firuz or Peroz of a new - persecution of the Catholics, A.D. 465. In A.D. 498 the whole - Persian church declared in favour of Nestorianism (§ 52, 3), - and enjoyed forthwith undisturbed toleration, developed to an - unexpected extent, retained its bloom for centuries, gave itself - zealously to scientific studies in the seminaries at Nisibis, - and undertook successfully mission work among the Asiatic tribes. - The war with the Byzantines continued without interruption. - Chosroes II. advanced victoriously as far as Chalcedon in - A.D. 616 and persecuted with renewed cruelty the Catholic - Christians of the conquered provinces. Finally the emperor - Heraclius plucked up courage. By the utter rout of A.D. 628 - the power of the Persians was broken (§ 57, 5), and in A.D. 651 - the Khalifs overthrew the dynasty of the Sassanidæ. - - § 64.3. =The Armenian Church.=--There were flourishing Christian - churches in Armenia so early as Tertullian’s time. The Arsacian - ruler Tiridates III., from A.D. 286, was a violent persecutor - of the Christians. During his reign, however, Gregory the - Illuminator, the Apostle of Armenia, carried on his successful - labours. He was the son of a Parthian prince, who, snatched - when a child of two years’ old by his nurse from the midst - of a massacre of his whole family, received in Cappadocia a - Christian training. In A.D. 302 he succeeded in winning over - to Christianity the king and the whole country. He left behind - him the church which he thus founded in a most prosperous - condition. His grandson Husig, his great grandson Nerses I. - and his son Isaac the Great held possession of the patriarchal - dignity and flourished even in the hard times, when Byzantines, - Arsacides, and Sassanidæ fought for possession of the country. - Mesrop, with the help of Isaac, whose successor he became in - A.D. 440 (dying in A.D. 441), gave to his church a translation - of the bible into their own tongue, for which he had to invent - a national alphabet. Under his successor, the patriarch Joseph, - the famous religious war with the Persian Sassanidæ broke - out, who wished to lead back the Armenians to the doctrine - of Zoroaster. In the fierce battle at the river Dechmud in - A.D. 451 the holy league was defeated. But Armenia still - maintained amid sore persecution its Christian confession. - In A.D. 651 the overthrow of the Sassanidæ brought it under - the rule of the Khalifs.--The Armenian church had vigorously - and earnestly warded off Nestorianism, but willingly opened - its arms to Monophysitism introduced from Byzantine Armenia. - At a synod at Feyin, in A.D. 527, it condemned the Chalcedonian - dogma.--Gregory the Illuminator had excited among the Armenians - an exceedingly lively interest in culture and science, and when - Mesrop gave them an independent system of writing, the golden age - of Armenian literature dawned (the 5th century). Not only were - many works of classical and patristic Greek and Syrian literature - made the property of the Armenians through translations, but - numerous writers built up a literature of their own. The history - of the conversion of Armenia was written in the 4th century - by Agathangelos, private secretary of the king. Whether this - was composed in Greek or in Armenian is doubtful; both texts - are still extant, evidently much interpolated with fabulous - matter and also in many points conflicting with one another. - In the 5th century Eznik in his “Overthrow of Heretics” addressed - a vigorous polemic against pagans, Persians, Marcionites and - Manichæans. Moses of Chorene, also a scholar of Mesrop, composed - from the archives a history of Armenia, and Elisaeus described - the Armeno-Persian religious war, in which, as secretary of the - Armenian commander in chief, he had taken part. On the service - done by the Mechitarists to the old Armenian literature, see - § 164, 2.[187] - - § 64.4. =The Iberians=, in what is now called Georgia and Grusia, - received Christianity about A.D. 326 through an Armenian female - slave Nunia, whose prayer had healed many sick. The church then - extended from Iberia to the =Lazians= in what is now Colchias - and among the neighbouring =Abasgians=. In =India= Theophilus - of Diu (an island of the Arabian Gulf?) found in the middle - of the 4th century several isolated Christian communities. He - was sent by his fellow-citizens as hostage to Constantinople and - there was educated for the Arian priesthood. He then returned - home and carried on a successful mission among the Indians. - The relations of the Indian to the Persian church led to the - former becoming affected with Nestorianism (§ 52, 3). Cosmas - Indicopleustes (§ 48, 2) found in the 6th century three Christian - churches still surviving in India. Theophilus also wrought in - =Arabia=. He succeeded in converting the king of the Himyarite - kingdom at Yemen. In the 6th century, however, a Jew Dhu-Nowas - obtained for himself the sovereignty of Yemen and persecuted the - Christians with unheard of barbarity. At last Eleesban king of - Abyssinia interfered; the crowned Jew was slain, and from that - time Yemen had Christian kings till the Persian Chosroes II. made - it a Persian province in A.D. 616. Anchorets, monks and stylites - wrought successfully among the Arab nomadic hordes. - - - § 65. THE COUNTER-MISSION OF THE MOHAMMEDANS.[188] - - Abu Al’ Kasem Mohammed from Mecca made his appearance as a prophet in -A.D. 611, and founded a mixed religion of arid Monotheism and sensual -Endæmonism drawn from Judaism, Christianity and Arabian paganism. -His work first gained importance when driven from Mecca he fled to -Medina (Hejira, 15th July, A.D. 622). In A.D. 630 he conquered Mecca, -consecrated the old Heathen Kaaba as the chief temple of the new -religion, Islam (hence Moslems), and composed the Coran, consisting -of 114 suras, which had been collected by his father-in-law, Abu Bekr. -At his death all Arabia had accepted his faith and his rule. As he made -it the most sacred duty of his adherents to spread the new religion by -the sword and had inspired them with a wild fanaticism, his successors -snatched one province after another from the Roman empire and the -Christian church. Within a few years, A.D. 633-651, they conquered -all Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Persia, then, in A.D. 707, North Africa, -and, in A.D. 711, Spain. Farther, however, they could not go for the -present. Twice they unsuccessfully besieged Constantinople, A.D. 669-676, -and A.D. 717-718, and, in A.D. 732, Charles Martel at Tours completely -crushed all their hopes of extending further into the West. But the -whole Asiatic church was already reduced by their oppressions to the -most miserable condition, and three patriarchates, those of Alexandria, -Antioch and Jerusalem, were forced to submit to their caprices. Amid -manifold oppressions the Christians in those conquered lands were -tolerated on the payment of a tax, but fear and an eye to worldly -advantages led whole crowds of nominal Christians to profess Islam. - - § 65.1. =The Fundamental Principle of Islam= is an arid - Monotheism. Abraham, Moses and Jesus are regarded as God-sent - prophets. The miraculous birth of Jesus, by a virgin, is also - accepted, and Mary is identified with Miriam the sister of Moses. - The ascension of Christ is also received. Mohammed, the last and - highest of all the prophets, of whom Moses and Christ prophesied, - has restored to its original purity his doctrine, which had - been corrupted by Jews and Christians. At the end of the days - Christ will come again to conquer Antichrist and give universal - sovereignty to Islam. Most conspicuous among the corruptions - of the doctrine of Jesus is the dogma of the Trinity, which - is without more ado pronounced Tritheism, and conceived of as - including the mother of Jesus as the third person. So too the - incarnation of God is regarded as a falsification. The doctrine - of divine providence is strongly emphasized, but is contorted - into the grossest fatalism. The Mussulman is in need of no - atonement. Faith in the one God and His prophet Mohammed secure - for him the divine favour, and his good works win for him the - most abundant fulness of eternal blessedness, which consists in - absolutely unrestricted sensual enjoyments. The constitution is - theocratic; the prophet and his successors the Khalifs are God’s - vicegerents on earth. Worship is restricted to prayers, fastings - and washings. The Sunna or tradition of oral utterances of the - prophet is acknowledged as a second principal source for Islam, - alongside of the Coran. The opposition of the Shiites to the - Sunnites is rooted in the non-recognition of the first three - Khalifs and the prophet’s utterances only witnessed to by them. - Mysticism was first fostered among the Ssufis. The Wechabites, - who first appear in the 12th century, are the Puritans of Islam. - - § 65.2. =The Providential Place of Islam.=--The service under - Providence rendered by Mohammedanism which first attracts - attention is the doom which it executed upon the debased church - and state of the East. But it seems also to have had a positive - task which must be sought mainly in its relation to heathenism. - It regarded the abolition of idolatry as its principal task. - Neither the prophet nor his successors gave any toleration to - paganism. Islam converted a mass of savage races in Asia and - Africa from the most senseless and immoral idolatries to the - worship of the one God, and raised them to a certain stage of - culture and morality to which they could never have risen of - themselves. But also upon yet another side, though only in a - passing way, it has served a providential purpose, in spurring - on mediæval Christianity by its example of devotion to scientific - pursuits. Syncretic, as its religious and intellectual life - originally was, during its flourishing period from A.D. 750, - under the brilliant dynasty of the Abassidean Khalifs at Bagdad - in Asia, and from A.D. 756 (comp. § 81) under the no less - brilliant dynasty of the Ommaiadean Khalifs at Cordova in Spain, - driven out by the Abassidæ from Damascus, it readily appropriated - the elements of culture which the classical literature of - the ancient Greeks afforded it (§ 42, 4), and with youthful - enthusiasm its scholars for centuries on this foundation kept - alive and advanced scientific studies--philosophy, astronomy, - mathematics, natural science, medicine, geography, history--and - by their appropriation of those researches the Latin Middle Ages - reached to the height of their scientific culture (§ 103, 1). - But also the reawakening of classical studies in the Byzantine - Middle Ages (§ 68, 1), which is of still more importance for the - West (§ 120, 1), is preeminently due to the impetus given by the - scientific enthusiasm of the Moslems of Bagdad, who shamed the - Greeks into the study of their own literature. With the overthrow - of those two dynasties, the culture period of the Moslems closed - suddenly and for ever, but not until it had accomplished its task - for the Christian world.[189] - - - - - THIRD SECTION. - - HISTORY OF THE GRÆCO-BYZANTINE CHURCH - IN THE 8TH-15TH CENTURIES - (A.D. 692-1453). - - - I. Developments of the Greek Church in Combination - with the Western. - - - § 66. ICONOCLASM OF THE BYZANTINE CHURCH (A.D. 726-842).[190] - - The worship of images (§ 57, 4) had reached its climax in the East -in the beginning of the 8th century. Even the most zealous defenders -of images had to admit that there had been exaggerations and abuses. -Some, _e.g._, had taken images as their godfathers, scraped paint off -them to mix in the communion wine, laid the consecrated bread first -on the images so as to receive the body of the Lord from their hands, -etc. A powerful Byzantine ruler, who was opposed to image worship from -personal dislike as well as on political grounds, applied the whole -strength of his energetic will to the uprooting of this superstition. -Thus arose a struggle that lasted more than a hundred years between -the enemies of images (εἰκονοκλάσται) and the friends of images -(εἰκονολάτραι), in which there stood, on the one side, the emperor -and the army, on the other, the monks and the people. Twice it seemed -as if image worship had been completely and for ever stamped out; -but on both occasions a royal lady secured its restoration. In practice -indeed the Roman church remained behind the Greek, but in theory -they were agreed, and in the struggle it gave the whole weight of -its authority to the friends of images. On the part taken by the -Frankish church, see § 92, 1. - - § 66.1. =Leo III., the Isaurian, A.D. 717-741.=--Leo, who was - one of the most powerful of the Byzantine emperors, after the - attack of the Saracens on Constantinople, in A.D. 718, had - been successfully repelled, felt himself obliged to take other - measures against the aggressions of Islam. In the worship of - images abhorred by Jews and Moslems he perceived the greatest - obstacle to their conversion, and, being personally averse to - image worship, he issued an edict, in A.D. 726, which first - ordered the images to be placed higher in the churches that - it might be impossible for the people to kiss them. But the - peaceable overcoming of this deeply rooted form of devotion - was frustrated by the unconquerable firmness of the ninety-year - old patriarch Germanus in Constantinople, as well as by the - opposition of the people and the monks. The greatest dogmatist - of this age, Joh. Damascenus, who was secured from the rage - of the emperor in Palestine under Saracen rule, issued three - spirited tracts in defence of the images. A certain Cosmas - took advantage of a popular rising in the Cyclades, had himself - proclaimed emperor and went with a fleet against Constantinople. - But Leo conquered and had him executed, and now in a second edict - of A.D. 730 ordered all images to be removed from the churches. - Now began a war against images by military force, which went - to great excess in fanatical violence. Repeated popular tumults - were quelled in blood. Only in Rome and North Italy did the - powerful arm of the emperor make no impression. Pope Gregory II., - A.D. 715-731, treated him in his letters like a stupid, - ill-mannered school-boy. In proportion as the bitterness - against the emperor increased enthusiasm for the pope increased, - and gave expression to itself in the most vehement revolts - against the imperial Council. A great part of the exarchate - (§ 46, 9) surrendered voluntarily to the Longobards and so - much of it in the north as remained with the emperor proved - more obedient to the pope than to the sovereign. Gregory III., - A.D. 731-741, at a Synod in Rome in A.D. 731 excommunicated - all enemies of images. The emperor fitted out a powerful fleet - to chastise him, but a storm broke it up. He now deprived the - pope of all his revenues from Southern Italy, severed Illyria - (§ 46, 5) in A.D. 732 from the papal chair and gave it to the - patriarch of Constantinople, but in doing so he cut the last - cord that bound the Roman chair to the interests of the Byzantine - Court (§ 82, 1). - - § 66.2. =Constantine V. A.D. 741-775.=--To the son and successor - of Leo the monks gave the unsavoury names of Copronymus and - Caballinus in token of their hatred, the latter on account - of his love of horses, the former because it was said that - at his baptism he had defiled the water. He was like his father - a powerful ruler and soldier, and in the battle against images - yet more reckless and determined. He conquered his brother-in-law - who had rebelled with the aid of the friends of the images, and - caused him to be cruelly treated and blinded. As popular tumults - still continued, he thought to get ecclesiastical sanction - for his principles from an œcumenical Council. About 350 bishops - assembled in Constantinople, A.D. 754. But, as the chair of - Constantinople had just become vacant, while Rome, which had - excommunicated the enemies of images, refused to answer the - summons, and Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem were under Saracen - rule, there was not a single patriarch present at the Synod. - The Council excommunicated all who made images of Christ, for - it declared that the Supper was the only true image of Christ, - and condemned every kind of veneration of images. These decrees - were now relentlessly carried out with savage violence. Thousands - of monks were scourged, imprisoned, banished, chased through - the circus with nuns in their arms for the sport of the people, - or forced into marriage, many had their eyes gouged out, or had - their nose or ears cut off, and the monasteries were turned into - barracks or stables. Even in private houses no image of a saint - was any longer to be seen. From Rome Stephen II. protested - against the decisions of the Council, and Stephen III. from - a Lateran Synod of A.D. 769 thundered a fearful anathema against - the enemies of images. But in the Byzantine empire monkery and - image worship were well nigh extinguished. - - § 66.3. =Leo IV., Chazarus, A.D. 775-780.=--The son of - Constantine was of the same mind with his father, but wanted - his energy. His wife =Irene= was an eager friend of the images. - When the emperor discovered this, he began to take active - measures, but his suspiciously sudden death put a stop to - operations. Irene now used the freedom which the minority - of her son Constantine VI. afforded her for the introduction - of image worship. She called a new Council at Constantinople - in A.D. 786, which also Hadrian I. of Rome attended, while the - other patriarchs, being under Saracen rule, took no part in it. - But the imperial guard attacked the place where they were sitting, - and broke up the Council. Irene now arranged for the =Seventh - Œcumenical Council at Nicæa, A.D. 787=. The eighth and last - session was held in the imperial palace at Constantinople, after - the guards had been withdrawn from the city and disarmed. The - Council annulled the decisions of A.D. 754, and sanctioned image - worship for it allowed the bowing and prostration before the - images (τιμητικὴ προσκύνησις) as a token of the reverence - which was due to the original, and declared that this in no - way interfered with that worship (λατρεία) which was due to - God alone.[191] - - § 66.4. The next emperors were friendly to image worship, but - the victory had departed from their standards. Then the army, - which had always been hostile to images, proclaimed =Leo V., - the Armenian, A.D. 813-820=, emperor, an avowed opponent of - images. He proceeded very cautiously, but the soldiers set aside - his prudence and launched out into violent raids against images. - At the head of the patrons of images was Theodorus Studita, abbot - of the monastery of Studion (§ 44, 2), a man of unfeigned piety - and unfaltering decision of character, the most acute apologist - of image worship, who had even in exile been eagerly promoting - the interests of his party. He died in A.D. 826. Leo lost his - life at the hand of conspirators. His successor, =Michael II., - Balbus, A.D. 820-829=, allowed at least that images should be - reverenced in private. His son =Theophilus, A.D. 829-842=, on - the other hand, made it the business of his life to root out - entirely every trace of image worship. But his wife =Theodora=, - who after his death conducted the government as regent, had it - formally reintroduced by a Synod at Constantinople in A.D. 842. - Since then all opposition to it has ceased in the Greek church, - and the day of the Synodal decision, 19th February, was appointed - a standing festival of orthodoxy. - - - § 67. DIVISION BETWEEN GREEK AND ROMAN CHURCHES AND - ATTEMPTS AT UNION, A.D. 857-1453.[192] - - The second Trullan Council in A.D. 692 had given the first occasion -to the great schism which rent the Christian world into two halves -(§ 63, 2); Photius gave it a doctrinal basis in A.D. 867; and Michael -Cærularius in A.D. 1053 completed its development. The increasing -need of the Byzantine government drove it to make repeated attempts -at reconciliation, but these either were never concluded or the union, -if at all completed, proved a mere paper union. The Sisyphus labour of -union efforts ended only with the overthrow of the Byzantine empire in -A.D. 1453. The three stages referred to--the early misunderstandings, -the avowed doctrinal divergence, and the final decisive separation--as -well as the persistent rejection of attempts at reunion, were not -wholly owing to the importance of ceremonial differences. After as -well as before there had been free church communion between them. -It was not owing to the importance of the almost solitary point of -doctrinal difference between them, in reference to the _filioque_ -(§ 50, 7), where if there had been good will a common understanding -might easily have been won. It was really the papal claims to the -primacy to which the Greeks absolutely refused to submit. - - § 67.1. =Foundation of the Schism, A.D. 867.=--During the - minority of the emperor Michael III., son of Theodora (§ 66, 4), - surnamed the Drunkard, his uncle Bardas, Theodora’s brother, - directed the government. Ignatius, patriarch of Constantinople - at that time, himself descended from the imperial family, lashed - severely the godless, vicious life of the court, and in A.D. 857 - kept back from the communion the all-powerful Bardas, who lived - in incestuous intercourse with his own daughter-in-law. He was - then deposed and banished. =Photius=, the most learned man of his - age, previously commander of the imperial bodyguard, was raised - to the vacant chair, and inherited the hatred of all the friends - of Ignatius. He made proposals of agreement which were proudly - and scornfully rejected. He then held a Synod in A.D. 859, which - confirmed the deposition of Ignatius and excommunicated him. But - nothing in the world could make his party abandon his claims. Now - Photius wished to be able to lay in the scales the Roman bishop’s - approval of his questionable proceedings. He therefore laid - an account of matters highly favourable to himself before Pope - =Nicholas I.=, and sought his brotherly love and intercessions. - The pope answered that he must first examine the whole affair. - His two legates, Rhodoald of Porto and Zacharias of Anagni, were - bribed and at a Council at Constantinople in A.D. 861 gave their - consent to the deposition of Ignatius. Nicholas, however, had - other reporters. He excommunicated his own legates and pronounced - Ignatius the lawful patriarch. Bitterness of feeling reached its - height in Constantinople, when soon thereafter the Bulgarians - broke their connection with the Byzantine mother church and - submitted to the pope (§ 73, 3). Photius now by an Encyclica - of A.D. 866 called the patriarchs of the East to a Council - at Constantinople, and charged the Roman church with the most - extreme heresies; that it enjoined fasting on Saturday (§ 56, 1), - allowed milk, butter and cheese to be eaten during the first - week of the Quadragesima (§ 56, 7), did not acknowledge married - priests (§ 45, 2), did not prohibit the clergy from shaving the - beard (§ 45, 1), pronounced anointing by a presbyter invalid - (§ 35, 4), but above all, that by the addition of the _filioque_ - (§ 50, 7) it had falsified the creed, recognising thus two - principles and so falling back into dualism. With such heresies - too the pope had now infected the Bulgarians. The meeting of the - Council took place in A.D. 867. Three monks, tutored by Photius, - represented the patriarchs under Saracen rule. Excommunication - and deposition were hurled against the pope, and this sentence - was communicated to the Western churches. The pope was evidently - alarmed. He justified himself before the Frankish clergy and - insisted that they should answer the charges of the Greeks - in a scholarly reply. This was done by several, most ably by - Ratramnus, monk at Corbie. But during that year, A.D. 867, the - emperor Michael was murdered. His murderer and successor Basil - the Macedonian undertook the patronage of the party of Ignatius, - and asked of Pope Hadrian II. a new investigation and decision. - A =Synod at Constantinople, A.D. 869=, counted by the Latins - the 8th œcumenical, condemned Photius and restored Ignatius. - The deciding about the Bulgarians, however, was not committed - to the Council but to the reputed representatives of the Saracen - patriarchs as impartial umpires. They naturally decided in favour - of the Byzantine patriarch. In vain the legates remonstrated. - Photius in other respects under misfortune displays a character - worthy of our esteem. For several years he languished without - company, without books, under the strictest monastic rules. - Yet he reconciled himself to Ignatius. Basil entrusted him with - the education of his children, and on the death of Ignatius in - A.D. 878, restored him to the patriarchate. But still the ban of - an œcumenical Council lay upon him. Only a new œcumenical Council - could vindicate him. John VIII. agreed to this against the - remonstrances of the Bulgarians. But at the ninth =Council - at Constantinople, A.D. 879=, the eighth according to the Greeks, - the papal legates were completely duped. There was no mention of - the Bulgarians, the Council of A.D. 869 was repudiated, and every - one excommunicated who dared add anything to the creed. The pope - afterwards indeed launched an anathema against the patriarch, - his Council, and his followers. The succeeding emperor, Leo the - Philosopher, A.D. 886-911, again deposed Photius in A.D. 886, but - only that he might put an imperial prince in his place. Photius - died in monastic exile in A.D. 891. - - § 67.2. =Leo VI., the Philosopher, A.D. 886-911.=--This emperor - was three times married without having any children. He married - the fourth only when he had assured himself that she would not - be barren. The patriarch Nicolaus [Nicolas] Mysticus refused - (§ 61, 2) to celebrate the marriage and was deposed. A Synod - at Constantinople in A.D. 906, attended by the legates of Pope - Sergius III., approved the marriage and the deposition. But - on his deathbed Leo repented of his violence. His brother and - successor Alexander restored the patriarch Nicolas, and Pope - John X. attended a Synod at Constantinople in A.D. 920, which - condemned the Council of A.D. 906, and pronounced a fourth - marriage absolutely unallowable, but showed no inclination to - make any concessions to the pope. New negociations were begun - by the emperor =Basil II.= In consideration of a large sum of - money the venal pope John XIX. was willing to acknowledge the - Byzantines as œcumenical patriarchs of the East, and to resign - all claims of the chair of Peter upon the Eastern church. But the - affair became known before it was concluded. The removal of the - new Judas was loudly demanded throughout the West, and the pope - was compelled to break off his negociations. - - § 67.3. =Completion of the Schism, A.D. 1054.=-Though so many - anathemas had been flung at Rome by Byzantium and at Byzantium - by Rome, they had hitherto been directed only against the persons - and their followers, not against the respective churches as - such. This defect was now to be supplied. The emperor Constantine - Monómachus sought the papal friendship which he thought necessary - to the success of his warlike undertakings. But the patriarch - =Michael Cærularius= frustrated his efforts. In company with the - Metropolitan of the Bulgarians, Leo of Achrida, he addressed in - A.D. 1053 an epistle to bishop John of Trani in Apulia, in which - he charged the Latins with the worst heresies, and adjured the - Western bishops to separate from them. To the heresies already - enumerated by Photius, he added certain others; the use of blood - and things strangled, the withdrawal of the Hallelujah during - the fast season, and above all the use of unleavened bread in - the Supper (§ 58, 4), on account of which he invented for the - heretics the name of Azymites. This letter fell into the hands - of Cardinal =Humbert=, who translated it and laid it before pope - Leo IX. A violent correspondence followed. The emperor offered - to do anything to restore peace. At his request the pope sent - three legates to Constantinople, among them the occasion of the - strife, Humbert (§ 101, 2), and Cardinal Frederick of Lothringen, - afterwards pope Stephen IX. (§ 96, 6). These fanned the flame, - instead of quenching it. Imperial pressure indeed brought the - abbot of Studion, Nicetas Pectoratus to burn his controversial - treatise before the legates, but no threat nor violence could - move to submission the patriarchs, on whose side were the people - and the clergy. The legates finally laid a formal decree of - excommunication on the altar of the church of Sophia, which - Michael together with the other Eastern patriarchs solemnly - returned, A.D. 1054. - - § 67.4. =Attempts at Reunion.=--The crusades increased the breach - instead of healing it. Many negociations were begun but none of - them came to much. At a Synod at Bari in Naples, in A.D. 1098, - Anselm of Canterbury (§ 101, 1), who then lived as a fugitive - in Italy, proved to the Greeks there present the correctness - of the Latin doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Spirit. - In A.D. 1113, Petrus [Peter] Chrysologus, Archbishop of Milan, - vindicated it in a complete discourse before the emperor at - Constantinople. And in A.D. 1135, Anselm of Havelberg, who - went to Constantinople as ambassador for Lothair II., disputed - with the Archbishop Nicetas of Nicomedia, and afterwards at the - command of the pope wrote down the disputation with creditable - faithfulness. The hatred and abhorrence of the Greeks reached - its climax on the erection of the Latin empire at Constantinople, - A.D. 1204-1261 (comp. § 94, 4). Nevertheless =Michael Palæologus, - A.D. 1260-1282=, who brought this dynasty to an end, strove - on political grounds in every way possible to overcome this - ecclesiastical schism. The patriarch Joseph of Constantinople - and his librarian, the celebrated =Joannes Beccus=, stubbornly - withstood him. The latter indeed in imprisonment became convinced - that the differences were unessential and that a union was - possible. This change of mind secured for him the patriarch’s - chair. Meanwhile the negotiations of the emperor with the pope, - Gregory X., in which he acknowledged the Roman chair to be the - highest court of appeal in doctrinal controversies, were brought - to a point in the œcumenical =Council at Lyons, A.D. 1274=, - reckoned by the Latins the fourteenth. The imperial legates here - acknowledged the primacy of the pope and subscribed a Roman creed, - while to them was granted liberty to use their creed without the - addition and to practise their peculiar ecclesiastical customs. - Beccus vindicated this union in several treatises. But a change - of dynasty overthrew him in A.D. 1283. Joseph was restored and - the union of Lyons was broken up leaving no trace behind. - - § 67.5. The advance of the Turks made it absolutely necessary - for the East Roman emperors to secure the support of the West - by reconciling and uniting themselves with the papacy. But the - powerful party of the monks, supported by popular prejudice - against the proposal, thwarted the imperial wishes on all sides. - The patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem too were - zealous opponents, not only animated by the old bitterness toward - their more prosperous rivals on the chair of Peter, but also - influenced against the views of the emperor by the policy of - their Saracen rulers. The emperor =Andronicus III. Palæologus= - won to his side the abbot =Barlaam= of Constantinople, hitherto, - though born in Calabria and there educated in the Roman Catholic - faith, a zealous opponent of the Western doctrine. Barlaam went - at the head of an imperial embassy to Avignon where the pope - at that time, Benedict XIII., resided, A.D. 1339. Negotiations, - however, broke down through the obstinacy of the pope, who - demanded of the Greeks above all unconditional submission in - doctrine and constitution, and also showed not once any wish - for renewing the conference.--On Barlaam, comp. § 69, 2.--The - political difficulties of the emperor, however, continually - increased, and so =Joannes V. Palæologus= took further steps. - He himself in A.D. 1369 in Rome passed over to the Latin church, - but neither did he get his people to follow him, nor did pope - Urban V. get the Western princes to give help against the Turks. - - § 67.6. The union attempts of =Joannes VII. Palæologus= had more - appearance of success. The emperor had won over the patriarch - Joseph of Constantinople, as well as the clever and highly - cultured archbishop =Bessarion= of Nicæa, and went personally - in company with the latter and many bishops, in A.D. 1438, - to the papal Council at =Ferrara= (§ 110, 8), where the pope, - Eugenius IV., fearing lest the Greeks might join the reformatory - Council at Basel, showed himself very gracious. The Council, - nominally on account of the outbreak of a plague at Ferrara - was transferred to =Florence=, and here the union was actually - consummated in A.D. 1439. The primacy of the pope was acknowledged, - though not altogether without dubiety of expression, the ritual - differences as well as the priestly marriages of the Greeks - tolerated, the doctrinal difference reduced to a misunderstanding - and the orthodoxy of both churches maintained. In the Latin text - of the decree referred to the pope was acknowledged as “Successor - of Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and the vicar of Christ,” - as “head of the whole Church, and father and teacher of all - Christians, to whom plenary power was given by our Lord Jesus - Christ to feed, rule, and govern the universal Church”--yet - with the significant addition “in such a way as it is set forth - in the œcumenical Councils and in the sacred Canons,” by which - certainly the Greeks thought only of the Canons of Nicæa and - Chalcedon referred to in § 46, 1, but the Latins mainly of the - Pseudo-Decretals of § 87, 2; and thus it happens that in most - of the Greek texts the propositions that define the universal - primacy of the pope are either wanting, or essentially modified. - The first place after the pope is given to the patriarch of - Constantinople. In regard to the doctrine of the Procession - of the Holy Spirit it was admitted that the Greek formula “_ex - Patre per Filium_” was essentially the same as the Latin “_ex - Patre Filioque_,” and by the definition “_quod Sp. S. ex P. simul - et F. et ex utroque æternaliter tanquam ab uno principio et unica - spiratione procedit_,” the latter was saved from the charge of - dualism. A new difference, however, came to light in reference - to Purgatory (§ 61, 4). The intercessions of the living and the - presenting of masses for the dead were allowed by the Greeks as - helping to secure the forgiveness of their still unatoned for - venial sins, but they decidedly opposed the view that any of the - dead could obtain this by his own temporary endurance of penal - sufferings, and they would not hear of a fire as a means for its - attainment. The Latins also taught that the unbaptized or those - dying in mortal sin immediately pass into eternal condemnation - and the perfectly pious immediately pass into God’s presence; - while the Greeks maintained that this happens only at the last - judgment. After long disputes, the Greeks, urged by their emperor, - at last gave in on both points. Without much difficulty they - accepted the seven sacraments of the Westerns (§ 104, 2). Thus - was the union consummated amid embracings and jubilant shoutings. - But in reality everything remained as of old. A powerful party at - whose head stood archbishop Marcus Eugenicus of Ephesus, who had - been shouted down at Florence, roused the whole East against the - union that had been made on paper. The new patriarch Metrophanes, - whom they repudiated, was ridiculed as Μητροφόνος, and in - A.D. 1443 the rest of the Eastern patriarchs at a Synod at - Jerusalem excommunicated all who maintained the union. When - moreover the hoped for help from the West did not come even - the union party lost their interest in it. Bessarion passed - over to the Roman church, became cardinal and bishop of Tuscoli, - and was as such on two occasions very near being made pope.[193] - - § 67.7. The Byzantine Christian empire went meanwhile rapidly - to decay. On the 29th May, 1453, Constantinople was stormed by - Mohammed II. The last emperor, Constantine XI., fell in a heroic - struggle against tremendous odds. Mohammed conferred upon the - patriarch Gennadius (§ 68, 5) the spiritual primacy and even - temporal supremacy and full jurisdiction over the whole orthodox - inhabitants of the empire, making him, however, answerable for - their conduct. The other two patriarchates of Jerusalem and - Antioch were in religious matters co-ordinate, in political - matters subordinate, to him. For the executing of his spiritual - power he had around him a Synod of twelve archbishops, of whom - four as holders of the four divisions of the patriarchal diocese - resided in Constantinople. The Synod chose the patriarchs and - the Sultan confirmed the elections.--All union negociations were - now at an end, for the Porte could only wish for the continuance - of the schism. The enormous crowds of Greek refugees who sought - protection in foreign lands, especially in Italy, Hungary, - Galicia, Poland, Lithuania, either went directly over to the - Roman Catholic church, or formed churches of their own under - the name of United Greeks, purchasing liberty to observe their - old church constitution and liturgy by accepting the Romish - doctrine and the papal primacy. - - - - - II. Developments in the Eastern Church without the - Co-operation of the Western. - - - § 68. THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE AND LITERATURE. - - The iconoclastic struggle, A.D. 726-842, was to some extent a war -against art and science. At least no period in the history of the Greek -Middle Ages is so poor in these as this. But about the middle of the -9th century Byzantine culture awoke from its deep torpor to a vigour -of which no one would have thought it capable. What is still more -wonderful, for six hundred years it maintained its position without -a break at this elevation and prosecuted literary and scientific -studies with a zeal that seemed to be quickened as its political -condition became more and more desperate. What specially characterized -the scholarly efforts of this time was the revival of classical studies -which from the 6th century had been almost entirely neglected. Now all -at once the decaying Greeks, who were threatened with intellectual as -well as political bankruptcy, began to realize the rich heritage which -their pagan forefathers had bequeathed them. They searched out these -treasures amid the dust of libraries and applied to them a diligence, -an enthusiasm, a pride, which fills us with astonishment. The Hellenic -intellect had, indeed, long lost its genial creative power. The most -ambitious effort of this age did not go beyond explanatory reproduction -and scholarship. Upon theology, however, bound hard and fast in -traditional propositions and Aristotelian formulæ, the revival of -classical studies had relatively little influence, and where it did -break the fetters it only gave entrance to a deluge of heathen Hellenic -views that paganized Christianity. - - § 68.1. The shame caused by the zeal with which the Khalifs - of the Abassidean line at the end of the 8th century applied - themselves to the classical Greek literature seems to have given - the first impulse to the =Revival of Classical Studies=. Behind - this we must suppose there was the influence of the Byzantine - rulers, unless they had lost all trace of national feeling. - Bardas, the guardian and co-regent of Michael III. (§ 67, 1), - if there is nothing else in him worthy of praise, has the credit - of having been the first to lay anew the foundation of classical - studies by establishing schools and paying their teachers. Basil - the Macedonian, although himself no scholar, patronized and - protected the sciences. Photius was the teacher of his children, - and implanted in them a love of study which they transmitted to - their children and children’s children. Leo, the Philosopher, the - son, and Constantine Porphyrogenneta, the grandson, of Basil were - the brilliant scholars in the Macedonian dynasty. Their place was - taken by the line of the Comneni from A.D. 1057, which introduced - a most brilliant period in the history of scientific studies. - The princesses of this house, Eudocia and Anna Comnena, won high - fame as gifted and learned authors. What Photius was for the - age of the Macedonians, Psellus was for the age of the Comneni. - Thessalonica vied with Constantinople as a new Athens in - the brilliancy of its classical culture. The rudeness of - the crusaders threatened during the sixty years’ interregnum - of the Latin dynasty, to undo the work of the Comneni. But - when in A.D. 1261 the Palæologi again obtained possession of - Constantinople, learning rose once more to the front and won - an ever increasing significance. And when the Turks took it in - A.D. 1453 crowds of learned Greeks settled in Italy and spread - their carefully fostered culture all over the West. - - § 68.2. =Aristotle and Plato.=--The revival of classical studies - secured again a preference for Plato, who seemed more classical, - at least more Hellenic, than Aristotle. But the ecclesiastical - imprimatur that had been given to Aristotle, which had been - formally expressed by Joh. Damascenus, formed a barrier against - the overflowing of Platonism into the theological domain. The - church’s distrust of Plato, on the other hand, drove many of - the more enthusiastic friends of classical studies into a sort - of Hellenic paganism. The eagerness of the struggle reached its - height in the 15th century. Gemisthus Pletho moved heaven and - earth to drive the hated usurper Aristotle from the throne of - science. He called for unconditional surrender to the wisdom of - the divine Plato and expressed the confident hope that soon the - time would come when Christianity and Islam would be conquered - and the religion of pure humanity would have universal sway. - Of similar views were his numerous scholars, of whom the most - distinguished was Bessarion (§ 67, 6). But Aristotle also - had talented representatives in George of Trebizond and his - scholars. Numerous representatives of the two schools settled - in Italy and there carried on the conflict with increasing - bitterness.--Continuation § 120, 1. - - § 68.3. =Scholasticism and Mysticism= (μάθησις and - μυσταγωγία).--By the application of the Aristotelian - method which Joh. Philoponus (§ 47, 11) had suggested, and - Joh. Damascenus had carried out, the scientific treatment of - doctrine in the Greek church had taken a form which in many - respects resembles the scholasticism of the Latin Middle Ages, - without being able, however, to reach its wealth, power, subtlety - and depth. But alongside of the dialectic scholastic treatment - of dogma there was found, especially in the quiet life of the - monasteries, diligent fostering of the mysticism based upon - the pseudo-Areopagite (§ 47, 11). Its chief representative - was Nicolas Cabasilas. This mysticism never ran counter to - the worship or doctrine of the church, but rather rendered to - it unconditional acknowledgment, and was specially characterized - by its decided preference for the symbolical, to which it is - careful to attach a thoroughly sacramental significance. No - reason existed for any hostile encounters between dialectic - and mysticism. - - § 68.4. =The Branches of Theological Science.=--About the - beginning of our period Joh. Damascenus collected the results - of previous =Dogmatic= labours in the Greek church by the use - of the dialectic forms of Aristotle into an organic system. His - Ecdosis is the first and last complete dogmatic of the old Greek - church. The manifold intercourse with the Latin church occasioned - by the union efforts was not, however, without influence on - the Greek church. In spite of the keenest opposition on debated - questions, the far more thoroughly developed statement by Latin - scholasticism of doctrines in regard to which both were agreed - communicated itself to the Greek church, so that all unwittingly - it adopted on many points the same bases and tendencies of - belief. =Polemics= were constantly carried on with Nestorians, - Monophysites and Monothelites, and fresh subjects of debate were - found in the iconoclastic disputes, newly emerging dualistic - sects, the Latin schismatics and the defenders of the union. By - the changed circumstances of the time =Apologetics= again came - to the front as a theological necessity. The incessant advance - of Islam and the Jewish polemic, which was now gaining boldness - from the protection of the Saracens, urgently demanded the - work of the Apologist, but the dominant scholastic traditional - theology of the Greeks in its hardness and narrowness was little - fitted to avert the storm of God’s judgment. Finally, too, the - revival of classical studies and the introduction of pagan modes - of thought were followed by a renewal of anti-pagan Apologetics - (Nicolas of Methone). In =Exegesis= there was no independent - original work. Valuable catenas were compiled by Œcumenius, - Theophylact and Euthymius Zigabenus. =Church History= lay - completely fallow. Only Nicephorus Callisti in the 14th century - gave any attention to it (§ 5, 1). Incomparably more important - for the church history of those times are the numerous _Scriptores - hist. Byzantinæ_. As a writer of legends Simeon Metaphrastes in - the 10th century (?) gained a high reputation. - - § 68.5. The most distinguished theologian of the 8th century - was =Joannes Damascenus=. He was long in the civil service of - the Saracens, and died about A.D. 760 as monk in the monastery - of Sabas in Jerusalem. His admirers called him _Chrysorrhoas_; - the opponents of image worship who pronounced a thrice repeated - anathema upon him at the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 754, - called him Mansur. His chief work, which ranks in the Greek - church as an epoch-making production, is the Πηγὴ γνώσεως. Its - first part, Κεφάλαια φιλοσοφικά, forms the dialectic, the second - part, Περὶ αἱρέσεων, the historical, introduction to the third or - chief part: Ἔκδοσις ἀκριβὴς τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως, a systematic - collection of the doctrines of faith according to the Councils, - and the teachings of the ancient Fathers, especially of the three - Cappadocians. His Ἱερὰ παράλληλα contain a collection of _loci - classici_ from patristic writings on dogmatic and moral subjects - arranged in alphabetical order. He wrote besides controversial - tracts against Christological heretics, the Paulicians, - the opponents of image worship, etc., and composed several - hymns for church worship.[194]--Among the numerous writings - of =Photius=, who died in A.D. 891, undoubtedly the most - important is his Bibliotheca, Μυριοβίβλιον. It gives reports - about and extracts from 279 Christian and pagan works, which - have since in great part been lost. In addition to controversial - treatises against the Latins and against the Paulicians, - there are still extant his Ἀμφιλόχια, answers to more than - 300 questions laid before him by bishop Amphilochius, and his - Nomo-canon (§ 43, 3) which is still the basis of Greek canon - law, and was, about A.D. 1180, commented on by the deacon of - Constantinople, Theodore Balsamon in his Ἐξήγησις τῶν ἱερῶν καὶ - θείων κανόνων.--The brilliant period of the Comnenian dynasty - was headed by =Michael Psellus=, teacher of philosophy at - Constantinople, a man of wide culture and possessed of an - astonishingly extensive store of information which was evinced - by numerous works on a variety of subjects, so that he was - designated φιλοσόφων ὕπατος. He died in A.D. 1105. Among his - theological writings the most important is Περὶ ἐνεργείας - δαιμόνων (comp. § 71, 3). As this work is of the utmost - importance for the demonology of the Middle Ages, so the - Διδασκαλία παντοδαπή, a compendium of universal science on - the basis of theology, is for the encyclopædic knowledge of that - period. His contemporary =Theophylact=, archbishop of Achrida, - in Bulgaria, left behind him an important commentary in the form - of a catena. Euthymius Zigabenus, monk at Constantinople, in the - beginning of the 12th century, composed, by order of the emperor - Alexius Comnenus, in reply to the heretics, a Πανοπλία δογματικὴ - τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως ἤτοι ὁπλοθήκη δογμάτων in 24 bks., - which gained for him great repute in his times. It is a mere - compilation, and only where he combats the sects of his own - age is it of any importance. His exegetical compilations are of - greater value. The most important personality of the 12th century - was =Eustathius=, archbishop of Thessalonica. As commentator on - Homer and Pindar he has been long highly valued by philologists; - but from the publication of his theological _Opuscula_ it appears - that he is worthy of higher fame as a Christian, a theologian, a - church leader and reformer of the debased monasticism of his age - (§ 70, 4). His friend and pupil, =Michael Acominatus= of Chonæ, - archbishop of Athens, treated with equal enthusiasm of the church - and his fatherland, of Christian faith and Greek philosophy, of - patristic and classical literature, and in a beautiful panegyric - raised a becoming memorial to his departed teacher. His younger - brother, =Nicetas Acominatus=, a highly esteemed statesman of - Constantinople, wrote a Θεσαυρὸς ὀρθοδοξίας in 27 bks., which - consists of a justificatory statement of the orthodox doctrine - together with a refutation of heretics, much more independent - and important than the similar work of Euthymius. He died in - A.D. 1206. At the same time flourished the noble bishop =Nicolas - of Methone= in Messenia, whose refutation of the attacks of the - neo-Platonist Proclus, Ἀνάπτυξις τῆς θεολογικῆς στοιχειώσεως - Πρόκλου is one of the most valuable productions of this period. - His doctrine of redemption, which has a striking resemblance - to Anselm of Canterbury’s theory of satisfaction (§ 101, 1), is - worthy of attention. He also contributed several tracts to the - struggle against the Latins. During the times of the Palæologi, - A.D. 1250-1450, the chief subjects of theological authorship - were the vindication and denunciation of the union. =Nicolas - Cabasilas=, archbishop of Thessalonica and successor of Palamas, - deserves special mention. He was like his predecessor the - vindicator of the Hesychasts (§ 69, 2), and was himself one - of the noblest mystics of any age. He died about A.D. 1354. - His chief work is Περὶ τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ ζωῆς. His mysticism is - distinguished by depth and spirituality as well as by reformatory - struggling against a superficial externalism. He also shares the - partiality of Greek mysticism for the liturgy as his _Expositio - Missæ_ shows. From his contemporary =Demetrius Cydonius= we have - an able treatise _De Contemnenda Morte_. Archbishop =Simeon of - Thessalonica= belongs to a somewhat later time, about A.D. 1400, - a thorough expert in classical and patristic literature and a - distinguished church leader. His comprehensive work, _De Fide, - Ritibus et Mysteriis Ecclesiast._ is an important source of - information about the church affairs of the Greek Middle Ages. - =Marcus Eugenicus= of Ephesus, the most capable opponent of the - Florentine union (§ 67, 2), besides controversial tracts, wrote - a treatise Περὶ ἀσθενείας ἀνθρώπου as a philosophico-dogmatic - foundation of the doctrine of eternal punishment at which the - emperor John VII. Palæologus had taken offence as incompatible - with divine justice and human frailty. His disciple Gregorius - [Gregory] Scholarius, known as a monk by the name =Gennadius=, - was the first patriarch of Constantinople after it had been taken - by the Turks. At the Council of Florence he still supported the - union, but was afterwards its most vigorous assailant. In the - controversy of the philosophers he contended against Pletho for - the old-established predominance of Aristotle. At the request of - the Sultan, Mohammed II., he laid before him a _Professio fidei_. - - § 68.6. A religious romance entitled =Barlaam and Josaphat= - whose author is not named, but evidently belonged to the East, - was included, even in the Middle Ages, among the works of - Joh. Damascenus, read by many especially in the West, translated - into Latin and rendered often in metrical form. It describes - the history of the conversion of the Indian prince Josaphat - by the eremite Barlaam with the object of showing the power of - Christianity against the allurements of sin and its superiority - to other religions. An uncritical age accepted the story as - historical, and venerated its two heroes as saints. The Roman - martyrology celebrated the 27th Nov. in their memory. Liebrecht - has discovered that the romance so popular in its days was - but a Christianized form of a legendary history of the life - and conversion of the founder of Buddhism, which existed in - pre-Christian times, and has come down to us under the title - _Lalita ristara Purâna_, often copying its original even in the - minutest details. - - - § 69. DOCTRINAL CONTROVERSIES IN THE 12TH-14TH CENTURIES. - - With the mental activity of the Comnenian age there was also -reawakened a love of theological speculation and discussion, and -several doctrinal questions engaged considerable attention. Then there -came a lull in the controversial strife for two hundred years, to be -roused once more by a question of abstruse mysticism. - - § 69.1. =Dogmatic Questions.=--Under the emperor Manuel - Comnenus, A.D. 1143-1180, the question was discussed whether - Christ presented His sacrifice for the sins of the world only to - the Father and the Holy Spirit, or also at the same time to the - Logos, _i.e._ to Himself. A Synod at Constantinople in A.D. 1156 - sanctioned the latter notion.--Ten years later a controversy - arose over the question whether the words of Christ: “The Father - is greater than I,” refer to His divine or to His human nature - or to the union of the two natures. The discussion was carried on - by all ranks with a liveliness and passionateness which reminds - one of the similar controversies of the 4th century (§ 50, 2). - The emperor’s opinion that the words applied to the God-man - gained the victory at a Synod at Constantinople in A.D. 1166. - The dissentients were punished with the confiscation of their - goods and banishment.--Manuel excited a third controversy by - objecting to the anathema of “the God of Mohammed” in the formula - of abjuration for converts from Mohammedanism. In vain did the - bishops show the emperor that the God of Mohammed was not the - true God. The formula had to be altered. - - § 69.2. =The Hesychast Controversy, A.D. 1341-1351.=--In the - monasteries of Mount Athos in Thessaly the Areopagite mysticism - had its most zealous promoters. Following the example given three - centuries earlier by Simeon, an abbot of the monastery of Mesnes - in Constantinople, the monks by artificial means put themselves - into a condition that would afford them the ecstatic vision - of God which the Areopagite had extolled as the highest end - of all mystic endeavours. Kneeling in a corner of the solitary - closed cell, the chin pressed firmly on the breast, the eyes set - fixedly on the navel, and the breath held in as long as possible, - they sank at first into melancholy and their eyes became dim. - Continuing longer in this position the depression of spirit which - they at first experienced gave way to an inexpressible rapture, - and at last they found themselves surrounded by a bright halo of - light. They called themselves _Resting Ones_, ἡσυχάζοντες, and - maintained that the brilliancy surrounding them was the uncreated - divine light which shone around Christ on Mount Tabor. Barlaam - (§ 67, 5), just returned from his unfortunate union expedition, - accused the monks and their defender, Gregorius [Gregory] Palamas, - afterwards archbishop of Thessalonica, as Ditheistic heretics, - scornfully styling them _navel-souls_, ὀμφαλόψυχοι. But a Council - at Constantinople, in A.D. 1341, the members of which were - unfavourable to Barlaam because of his union efforts, approved - the doctrine of uncreated divine light which as divine ἐνεργεία - is to be distinguished from the divine οὐσία. Barlaam, in order - to avoid condemnation, recanted, but withdrew soon afterwards - to Italy, where he joined the communion of the Latin church - in A.D. 1348, and died as a bishop in Calabria. A disciple - of Barlaam, Gregorius [Gregory] Acindynos and the historian - Nicephorus Gregoras [Gregory] continued the controversy against - the Hesychasts. Down to A.D. 1351 as many as three Synods had - been held, which all decidedly favoured the monks. - - - § 70. CONSTITUTION, WORSHIP AND LIFE. - - The Byzantine emperors had been long accustomed to carry out in a -very high-handed manner their own will even in regard to the internal -affairs of the church. The anointing with sacred oil gave them a -sacerdotal character and entitled them to be styled ἅγιος. Most of -the emperors, too, from Leo the Philosopher (§ 68, 1), possessed some -measure of theological culture. The patriarchate, however, if amid so -many arbitrary appointments and removals it fell into the proper hands, -was always a power which even emperors had to respect. What protected -it against all encroachments of the temporal power was the influence -of the monks and through them of the people. In consequence of the -controversies about images, Theodorus Studita (§ 66, 4) founded a -strong party which fought with all energy against every interference -of the State in ecclesiastical matters and against the appointing of -ecclesiastical officers by the temporal power, but only with temporary -success. The monks, who had been threatened by the iconoclastic -Isaurian with utter extermination, at the restoration grew and -prospered more than ever in outward appearance, but gave way more -and more to spiritual corruption and extravagance. The Eastern monks -had not that genial many-sided culture which was needed for the -cultivation of the fields and the minds of the barbarians. They -were deficient in those powers of tempering, renovating and ennobling, -whereby the monks of the West accomplished such wonderful results. -But, nevertheless, if in those debased and degenerate days one looks -for examples of fidelity to convictions, firmness of character, -independence and moral earnestness, he will always find the noblest -in the monasteries.--Public worship had already in the previous period -attained to almost complete development, but theory and practice -received enrichment in various particulars. - - § 70.1. =The Arsenian Schism, A.D. 1262-1312.=--Michael - Palæologus, after the death of the emperor Theodore Lascaris - in A.D. 1259, assumed the guardianship of his six years’ old - son John, had himself crowned joint ruler, and in A.D. 1261 had - the eyes of the young prince put out so as to make him unfit - for governing. The patriarch Arsenius then excommunicated him. - Michael besought absolution, and in order to obtain it submitted - to humiliating penances; but when the patriarch insisted that - he should resign the throne, the emperor deposed and exiled - him, A.D. 1267. The numerous adherents of Arsenius refused to - acknowledge the new patriarch Joseph (§ 67, 4), seceded from the - national church, and when their leader died in exile in A.D. 1273, - their veneration for him expressed itself in burning hatred - of his persecutors. When Joseph died in A.D. 1283, an attempt - was made to decide the controversy by a direct appeal to God’s - judgment. Each of the two parties cast a tract in defence of its - position into the fire, and both were consumed. The Arsenians, - who had expected a miracle, felt themselves for the moment - defeated and expressed a readiness to be reconciled. But on - the third day they recalled their admissions and the schism - continued, until the patriarch Niphon in A.D. 1312 had the bones - of Arsenius laid in the church of Sophia and pronounced a forty - days’ suspension on all the clergy who had taken part against him. - - § 70.2. =Public Worship.=--In the Greek church preaching retained - its early prominence; the homiletical productions, however, are - but of small value. The objection to hymns other than those found - in Scripture was more and more overcome. As in earlier times - (§ 59, 4) Troparies were added to the singing of psalms, so now - the New Testament hymns of praise and doxologies were formed - into a so-called Κανών, _i.e._ a collection of new odes arranged - for the several festivals and saints’ days. The 8th century was - the Augustan age of church song. To this period belonged the - celebrated ἅγιοι μελωδοί, Andrew of Crete, John of Damascus, - Cosmas of Jerusalem, and Theophanes of Nicæa. The singing after - this as well as before was without instrumental accompaniment and - also without harmonic arrangement.--There was a great diversity - of opinion in regard to the idea of the sacraments and their - number. Damascenus speaks only of two: Baptism and the Lord’s - Supper. Theodorus Studita, on the other hand, accepts the - six enumerated by the Pseudo-Areopagite (§ 58). Petrus [Peter] - Mogilas in his Anti-Protestant _Confessio orthodoxa_ of A.D. 1643 - (§ 152, 3) is the first confidently to assert that even among - the Latins of the Middle Ages the Sacraments had been regarded - as seven in number. The Greeks differed from the Latins in - maintaining the necessity of immersion in baptism, in connecting - the chrism with the baptism, using leavened bread in the Supper - and giving both elements to all communicants. From the time of - Joh. Damascenus the teachers of the church decidedly subscribed - to the doctrine of Transubstantiation; but in regard to penance - and confession they stoutly maintained (§ 61, 1), that not the - priest but God alone can forgive sins. The _Unctio inferiorum_, - εὐχέλαιον, also made way in the Greek church, applied in the form - of the cross to forehead, breast, hands and feet; yet with this - difference that, expressly repudiating the designation “extreme” - unction, it was given not only in cases of mortal illness, but - also in less serious ailments, and had in view bodily cure as - well as spiritual benefit.--The emperor Leo VI. the Philosopher - made the benediction of the church (§ 61, 2) obligatory for a - legally valid marriage. - - § 70.3. =Monasticism.=--The most celebrated of all the monastic - associations were those of Mount Athos in Thessaly, which was - covered with monasteries and hermit cells, and as “the holy - mount” had become already a hallowed spot and the resort of - pilgrims for all Greek Christendom. The monastery of Studion, - too (§ 44, 3), was held in high repute. There was no want of - ascetic extravagances among the monks. There were numerous - stylites; many also spent their lives on high trees, δενδρίται, - or shut up in cages built on high platforms (κιονῖται), or - in subterranean caverns, etc. Others bound themselves to - perpetual silence. Many again wore constantly a shirt of iron - (σιδηρούμενοι), etc. A rare sort of pious monkish practice made - its appearance in the 12th century among the =Ecetæ=, Ἱκέται. - They were monks who danced and sang hymns with like-minded nuns - in their monasteries after the pattern of Exod. xv. 20, 21. - Although they continued orthodox in their doctrine and were - never charged with any act of immorality, Nicetas Acominatus - proceeded against them as heretics. - - § 70.4. =Endeavours at Reformation.=--In the beginning of - the 12th century a pious monk at Constantinople, Constantinus - Chrysomalus, protested against prevailing hypocrisy and formalism. - A decade later the monk Niphon took a similar stand. Around both - gathered groups of clergy and laymen who, putting themselves - under their pastoral direction and neglecting the outward - forms of the church, applied themselves to the deepening of - the spiritual life. Both brought down on themselves the anathema - of the church. The patriarch Cosmas, who was not convinced that - Niphon was a heretic and so received him into his house and at - his table, was deposed in A.D. 1150. Eustathius, archbishop of - Thessalonica (§ 68, 5), carried on his reformatory efforts quite - within the limits of the dominant institutions of the church, - and so kept himself safe from the machinations of his enemies. - Relentlessly and powerfully he struggled against the corruption - in the Christian life of the people, and especially against - the formalism and hypocrisy, the rudeness and vulgarity, the - spiritual blindness and pride, and the eccentric caricatures of - ascetism that were exhibited by the monks, though he was himself - in heart and soul a monk. Two hundred years later Nicolas - Cabasilas (§ 68, 5) yet more distinctly maintained that a - consistent life was the test and love the root of all virtue. - - - § 71. DUALISTIC HERETICS. - - Remnants of the Gnostic-Manichæan heresy lingered on into the 7th -century in Armenia and Syria, where the surrounding Parseeism gave them -a hold and support. Constantinus of Mananalis near Samosata gathered -these together about the middle of the 7th century and reformed them -somewhat in the spirit of Marcion (§ 27, 11). The Catholics, sneeringly -called by them Ῥομαῖοι, gave the name of =Paulicians= to them because -they regarded Paul alone as a true apostle. Even before the rise of the -Paulicians, a sect existed in Armenia called =Children of the Sun= who -had mixed up the Zoroastrian worship with Christian elements. They, too, -during the 9th and 10th centuries, by reorganization reached a position -of more importance, and represented, like the Paulicians, a reformatory -opposition to the formal institutions of the Catholic church. A similar -attitude was assumed by the =Euchites= in Thrace during the 11th -century. Like the old Euchites (§ 44, 7), they got their name from -the unceasing prayers which they regarded as the token of highest -perfection. Their dualistic-gnostic system is met with again among -the =Bogomili= in Bulgaria. These were still more decidedly hostile -to the Catholic church, and had adopted the anthropological views -of Saturninus and the Ophites as well as the trinitarian theory -of Sabellius (§ 27, 6, 9; 33, 7). All these sects were accused by -their Catholic opponents with entertaining antinomian doctrines and -practising licentious orgies and unnatural abominations. - - § 71.1. =The Paulicians.=--They called themselves only Χριστιανοί, - but were in the habit of giving to their leaders and churches the - names of Paul’s companions and mission stations. They combined - dualism, demiurgism and docetism with a mysticism that insisted - upon inward piety, demanded a strict but not rigorous asceticism, - forbade fasting and allowed marriage. Their worship was very - simple, their church constitution moulded after the apostolic - pattern, with the rejection of the hierarchy and priesthood. They - were specially averse to the accumulation of ceremonies and the - veneration of images, relics and saints in the Catholic church. - They also urged the diligent study of Scripture, rejecting, - however, the Old Testament, and the Jewish-Christian gospels - and epistles of the New Testament. The Catholic polemists - of the 9th century traced their origin and even their name - (=Παυλοϊωάννοι) to a Manichæan family of the fourth century, - a widow Callinice and her two sons Paul and John. None of the - distinctive marks of Manichæism, however, are discoverable - in them, and their founding by Constantine of Mananalis is a - historic fact, as also that he, in A.D. 657, assumed the Pauline - name of Sylvanus. The first church, which he called _Macedonia_, - was founded by him at Cibossa in Armenia. From this point he made - successful missionary journeys in all directions. The emperor - Constantinus Pogonnatus, A.D. 668-685, began a bloody persecution - of the Paulicians. But the martyr enthusiasm of Sylvanus, who - was stoned in A.D. 685, made such an impression upon the imperial - officer Symeon, that he himself joined the sect, was made their - chief under the name of Titus, and on the renewal of persecution - in A.D. 690 joyfully died at the stake. His successor Gegnesius, - who took the name of Timothy, was obliged by Leo the Isaurian to - undergo an examination under the patriarch of Constantinople, had - his orthodoxy attested, and received from the iconoclast emperor - a letter of protection. Soon, however, divisions sprang up within - the sect itself. One of their chiefs Baanes, on account of his - antinomian practices, was nicknamed ὁ ῥυπαρός the smutty. But, - about A.D. 801, Sergius Tychicus, converted in earlier years - by a Paulician woman, who directed him to the Bible, made his - appearance as a reformer and second founder of the sect. He - died in A.D. 835. Leo the Armenian, A.D. 813-820, organized an - expedition for their conversion. The penitents were received back - into the church, the obstinate were executed. A mob of Paulicians - murdered the judges, fled to the Saracen regions of Armenia, and - founded at Argaum, the ancient Colosse, a military colony which - made incessant predatory and retaliating raids upon the Byzantine - provinces. They were most numerous in Asia Minor. The empress - Theodora (§ 66, 4) carried out against them about A.D. 842 a - new and fearfully bloody persecution. Many thousands were put to - death. This too was the fate of an officer of high rank. His son, - Carbeas, also an officer, incited by an ardent desire for revenge, - gathered about 5,000 armed Paulicians around him in A.D. 844, - fled with them to Argaum, and became military chief of the sect. - New crowds of Paulicians streamed daily in, and the Khalifs - assigned to them two other fortified frontier cities. With a - well organized army, thirsting for revenge, Carbeas wasted the - Byzantine provinces far and wide, and repeatedly defeated the - imperial forces. Basil the Macedonian after two campaigns, at - last in A.D. 871, hemmed in the Paulician army in a narrow pass - and annihilated it. Their political power was now broken. The - sect, however, still continued to gather members in Syria and - Asia Minor. In A.D. 970, the emperor John Tzimisces transported - the greater part of them as watchers of the frontier of Thrace, - where Philippopolis became their Zion. They soon had possession - of all Thrace. Alexius Comnenus, A.D. 1081-1118, was the first - earnestly again to attempt their conversion. He himself appeared - at Philippopolis in A.D. 1115, disputed a whole day with their - leaders, promised and threatened, rewarded and punished, but - all his efforts were fruitless. From that time we hear nothing - more of them. Their remnants probably joined the Euchites and - the Bogomili. - - § 71.2. =The Children of the Sun=, or Arevendi were a sect - gathered and organized in the 9th century in Armenia by a - Paulician Sembat in the country town of Thontrace into a separate - community of Thontracians. In A.D. 1002 the metropolitan Jacob - of Harkh gave a Christian tinge to their doctrine, went through - the country preaching repentance and the performances of ritual - observances, and obtained much support from clergy and laity. The - Catholicus of the Armenian church caused him to be branded and - imprisoned. He made his escape, but was afterwards slain by his - opponents. - - § 71.3. =The Euchites=, Messelians [Messalians], Enthusiasts, - attracted the attention of the government in the beginning of - the 11th century as a sect widely spread in Thrace. In common - with the earlier Euchites (§ 44, 7) they had great enthusiasm - in prayer, but they were distinguished from them by their dualism. - Their doctrine of the two sons of God, Satanaël and Christ, shows - a certain relation to the form of Persian dualism, which derives - the two opposing principles, Ormuzd and Ahriman, from one eternal - primary essence, Zeruane Acerene. The germs of this sect may - have come from the transplanting of Paulicians to Thrace by the - emperor Tzimisces. The Byzantine government sent a legate to - Thrace to suppress them. This may have been Michael Psellus - (§ 68, 5) whose Διάλογος περὶ ἐνεργείας δαιμόνων is the only - source of information we have regarding them. - - § 71.4. =The Bogomili=, θεόφιλοι, taught: that Satanaël, the - firstborn son of God, as chief and head over all angels, clothed - with full glory of the Godhead, sat at the right hand of the - Father; but, swelling with pride, he thought to found an empire - independent of his Father and seduced a portion of the angels to - take part with him. Driven with them out of heaven, he determined - after the pattern of the creation of the Father (Gen. i. 1) to - create a new world out of chaos (Gen. ii. 3 ff.). He formed the - first man of earth mixed with water. When he set up the figure, - some of the water ran out of the great toe of the right foot - and spread out over the ground; and after he had breathed his - breath into it, that also escaped owing to the looseness of the - figure by the toe, permeated the soil moistened with the water - and animated it as a serpent. At Satanaël’s earnest entreaty the - heavenly Father took pity on the miserable creature, and gave - it life by breathing into it His own breath. Afterwards with - the Father’s help Eve, too, was created. Satanaël in the form - of the serpent seduced, deceived and lay with Eve in order that - by his seed, Cain and his twin sister Calomina, Adam’s future - descendants, Abel, Seth, etc., might be oppressed and brought - into bondage. Jealous lest the latter should obtain that heavenly - dwelling place from which they had been driven, Satanaël’s angels - seduced their daughters (Gen. vi.). From this union sprang giants - who rebelled against Satanaël, but were destroyed by him in the - flood. Henceforth he reigned unopposed as κοσμοκράτωρ, seduced - the greater part of mankind, and endowed Moses with the power of - working miracles as the instrument of his tyranny. Only a few men - under the oppression of his law attained the end of their being; - the sixteen prophets and those named in Matt. i. and Luke iii. - Finally, in the year 5,500 after the creation of man, the supreme - God moved with pity caused a second son, the Logos, to go forth - from His bosom, who as chief of the good angels is called Michael, - and sent Him to earth for man’s redemption. He entered in an - ethereal body through the right ear into the virgin to be born - of her with the semblance of an earthly body. Mary noticed - nothing of all this. Without knowing how or whence, she found - the child in swaddling clothes before her in the cave. His - death on the cross was naturally in appearance only. After his - resurrection he showed himself to Satanaël in his true form, - bound him with chains, robbed him of his divine power, and - compelled him to abandon his divine designation, by taking the - El from his name, so that he is henceforth called Satan. Then He - returned to the Father, took the seat that formerly was Satanaël’s - at His right hand, and sinks again into the bosom of the Father - out of which He had come. This, however, did not take place - before a new Aëon [Æon], the Holy Spirit, emanated from the - Godhead, and was sent forth as continuator and completer of the - work of redemption. This Spirit, too, after he has finished his - task will sink back again into the Father’s bosom.--Of the Old - Testament the Bogomili acknowledged only the Psalter and the - Prophets; of the New Testament books they valued most the - Gospel of John. Veneration of relics and images, as well as - the sign of the cross they abhorred as demoniacal inventions. - Church buildings were regarded by them as the residences of - demons. Satanaël himself in earlier days resided in the temple - of Jerusalem, later in the church of Sophia at Constantinople. - Water baptism, which was introduced by John the Baptist a - servant of Satanaël, they rejected; but the baptism of Christ is - spiritual baptism (παράκλησις=_Consolamentum_). It was imparted - by laying the Gospel of John on the head of the subject of - baptism, with invocation of the Holy Spirit and chanting the - Lord’s Prayer. They declared the Catholic mass to be a sacrifice - presented to demons; the true eucharist consists in the spiritual - nourishment by the bread of life brought down in Christ from - heaven, to which also the fourth petition in the Lord’s Prayer - refers. They placed great value upon prayer, especially the use - of the Lord’s Prayer. So too they valued fasting. Their ascetism - was strict and required abstinence from marriage and from - the eating of flesh. But prevarication and dissimulation they - regarded as permissible.--The emperor Alexius Comnenus caused - their chief Basil to be brought to Constantinople, under the - delusive pretext of wishing himself to become a proselyte of - the sect, got him to open all his heart, and enticed him under - the semblance of a purely private conference to make reckless - statements, while behind the curtain a judge of heresies was - taking notes. This first act in the drama was followed by a - second. The sentence of death was passed upon all adherents of - Basil who could be laid hold upon. Two great funeral piles were - erected, one of which was furnished with the figure of the cross. - The emperor exhorted them, at least to die as true Christians, - and in token of this to choose the place of death provided with - a cross. Those who did so were pardoned, the rest for the most - part condemned to imprisonment for life. Basil himself, however, - was actually burnt, A.D. 1118. The sect was not by any means thus - rooted out. The Bogomili hid themselves mostly in monasteries, - and Bulgaria long remained the haunt of dualistic heresy, which - spread thence through the Latin church of the West. - - - § 72. THE NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CHURCHES OF THE EAST. - - The Nestorian and Monophysite churches of the East owed the -protection and goodwill of their Moslem rulers to their hostile -position in regard to the Byzantine national church. Among the Persian -Nestorians as well as among the Syrian and Armenian Monophysites we find -an earnest endeavour after scholarship and great scientific activity. -They were the teachers of the Saracens in the classical, philosophical -and medical sciences, and with no little zeal pursued the study -of Christian theology. The Nestorians also long manifested great -earnestness in missions. Only when the science-loving Khalifs gave -place to Mongolian and Turkish barbarians did those churches lose -their prestige, and that stagnation and torpidity passed over them in -which they still lie. In order to crown the Florentine union attempts -of A.D. 1439 (§ 67, 6), Rome solemnly proclaimed in the immediately -following year the complete union with all the detached churches of -the East. But this was a vain self-delusion or a bit of jugglery. Men -pretending to be deputed by those churches treated about restoration to -the bosom of the church, which was accorded them amid great applause. - - § 72.1. =The Persian Nestorians=, or Chaldean Christians - (§ 64, 2), stood in peculiarly friendly relations to the Khalifs, - who, in the Nestorian opposition to Theotokism, worship of saints, - images and relics, and priestly celibacy, saw an approach to a - rational Christianity more in accordance with the Moslem ideal. - The Nestorian seminaries at Edessa, Nisibis, Seleucia, etc., were - in high repute. The rich literature issued by them is, however, - mostly lost, and what of it remains is known only by Asseman’s - [Assemani’s] quotations (_Biblioth. Orientalia_). Among the later - Nestorian authors the best known is Ebed Jesus, Metropolitan - of Nisibis, who died in A.D. 1318. His writings treat of all - subjects in the domain of theology. The missionary zeal of the - Nestorians continued unabated down to the 13th century. Their - chief mission fields were China and India. At the beginning - of the 11th century they converted the prince of the Karaites, - a Tartar tribe to the south of Lake Baikal, who as vassals of - the great Chinese empire had the name Ung-Khan. A large number - of the people followed their prince. The Mongol conqueror - Genghis-Khan married the daughter of the Karaite prince, but - quarrelled with him, drove him from his throne, and took his life, - A.D. 1202.--With the overthrow of the Khalifs by Genghis-Khan - in A.D. 1219, the prosperity of the Nestorian church came to an - end. At first the Nestorians attempted missionary operations not - unsuccessfully among the Mongols. But the savage Tamerlane, the - Scourge of Asia, A.D. 1369-1405, drove them into the inaccessible - mountains and wild ravines of the province of Kurdistan.[195] - - § 72.2. Among the =Monophysite Churches= the most important was - the =Armenian= (§ 64, 3). It boasted, at least temporarily and - partially, of political independence under national rulers. The - Armenian patriarch from the 12th century had his residence in - the monastery of Etshmiadzin at the foot of Ararat. The literary - activity in the translation of classical and patristic writings, - as well as in the production of original works, reached a - particularly high point in the 8th and then again in the 12th - century. To the earlier period belong the patriarch Johannes - Ozniensis and the metropolitan Stephen of Sünik, to the later, - the still more famous name of the patriarch Nerses IV. Clajensis, - whose epic “Jesus the Son” is regarded as the crown of Armenian - poetry, and his nephew, the metropolitan Nerses of Lampron. The - two last named readily aided the efforts for reunion with the - Byzantine church, but owing to the troubles of the time these - came to nothing. The Western endeavours after union which were - actively carried on from the beginning of the 13th century, split - upon the dislike of the Armenian church to the Western ritual, - and found acceptance with only a relatively small fragment of - the people. These _United Armenians_ acknowledged the primacy of - the pope and the catholic system of doctrine, but retained their - own constitution and liturgy.--In =the Jacobite-Syrian Church= - (§ 52, 7), too, theological and classical studies were prosecuted - with great vigour. The most distinguished of its scholars during - our period was George, bishop of the Arabs, who died in A.D. 740. - He translated and annotated the Organon of Aristotle, and wrote - exegetical, dogmatic, historical and chronological works, also - poems on various themes, and a number of epistles important for - the history of culture during these times, in which he answered - questions put to him by his friends and admirers. The brilliant - Gregory Abulfarajus is the last of the distinguished scholars of - the Jacobite-Syrian church. He was the son of a converted Jewish - physician, and hence he is usually called Barhebræus. He was - made bishop of Guba, afterwards Maphrian of Mosul, and died - in A.D. 1286. His noble and truly benevolent disposition, his - extraordinary learning, the rich and attractive productions - of his pen, and his skill as a physician made him universally - revered by Christians, Mohammedans and Jews. Among his writings, - for the most part still in manuscript, the most important - and best known is the _Chronicon Syriacum_.--The Jacobite - church suffered most in =Egypt=. The perfidy of the Copts, who - surrendered the country to the Saracens, was terribly avenged. - From A.D. 1254 the Fatimide Khalifs held them down under the - most severe oppression, and this became yet more severe under - the Mamelukes. The Copts were completely driven out of the - cities, and even in the villages maintained only a miserable - existence. Their church was now in a condition of utter - stagnation. In =Abyssinia= (§ 64, 1) the national rulers - maintained their position, though pressed within narrower - limits from time to time by the Saracens. But here, too, church - life became fossilized. At the head of the church was an Abbuna - consecrated by the Coptic patriarch (§ 64, 1; 165, 3). - - § 72.3. =The Maronites= (§ 52, 8) attached themselves to the - Western church on the appearance of the crusades in A.D. 1182, - renouncing their Monothelite heresy and acknowledging the primacy - of the pope, but retaining their own ritual. In consequence of - the Florentine union measures they renewed their connection in - A.D. 1445, and subsequently adopted also the doctrinal conclusions - of the Council of Trent. Their numbers at the present day amount - to somewhere about 200,000. - - § 72.4. =The Legend of Prester John.=--In A.D. 1144 Bishop Otto - of Freisingen obtained from the bishop of Cabala in Palestine, - whom he met at Viterbo, information about a powerful Christian - empire in Central Asia, and published it in A.D. 1145 in his - widely-read Chronicle. According to this story the king of that - region, a Nestorian Christian, who was named Prester John, had - not long before driven to flight the Mohammedan kings of the - Persians and Medes, and thus delivered from great danger the - crusaders in the Holy Land. He had also wished to go to the - help of the church of Jerusalem, but was prevented by the Tigris - which overflowed its banks. Twenty years later appeared a writing - attributed to Prester John, first referred to by the Chronicler - Alberich. It was addressed to the European princes in a Latin - translation which contained the most fabulous stories, borrowed - from the Alexander legends, about the extent and glory of - his empire and the many wonders in nature, white lions, the - phœnix, giants and pigmies, dog-headed and horned men, fauns, - satyrs, cyclops, etc., which were to be seen in his country; and - notwithstanding all these absurdities it was received as genuine. - The pope, Alexander III., took occasion from its appearance to - send an answer to Prester John by his own physician Philip, of - whose fate nothing more is known. When in A.D. 1219 the first - news reached Palestine of the irrepressible advance of Mongolian - hordes under Genghis Khan, the crusaders felt justified in - assuming that he was the successor of the celebrated Prester John, - and was now to accomplish what his distinguished predecessor - had wished to undertake. But they were soon cruelly undeceived. - The missionaries sent to the Mongols about the middle of - the 13th century (§ 93, 15), reported that the last Prester - John had lost his kingdom and his life in battle with Genghis - Khan. Nevertheless the belief in the continued existence of an - exceedingly glorious and powerful empire ruled by a Christian - priest in further India was not by any means overthrown; but it - was no longer sought in an Asiatic but in an African “India,” and - the Portuguese actually believed that at last the famed Prester - John had been found in the Christian king of Abyssinia, so that - that country was known down to the 17th century as _Regnum presb. - Joannis_.--The Jacobite historian Barhebræus had identified the - first Presbyter-king with the prince of the Mongolian Karaites - converted by the Nestorians. His name Ung-Khan or Owang-Khan - corresponded both to the name Joannes and to the Chaldean - כַּהֲנָא=priest. This notion prevailed until recently the Orientalist - Oppert by careful examination and comparison of all Oriental - and Western reports reached the conclusion (§ 93, 16) that these - legends are to be referred to the kingdom established about - A.D. 1125 by Kur-Khan, prince of the tribe of the Caracitai in - the Mandshuria of to-day. This prince, who was probably himself - a Nestorian Christian, favoured the establishment of Christianity - in his country; but this was utterly destroyed by Genghis Khan so - early as A.D. 1208. The title Prester or Presbyter given to the - prince of this tribe is to be explained perhaps by the statement - of the missionary Ruysbroek that almost all male Nestorians in - Central Asia received priestly consecration.[196] - - - § 73. THE SLAVONIC CHURCHES ADHERING TO THE ORTHODOX - GREEK CONFESSION. - - Among the crowds of immigrants whom the wanderings of the people had -set in motion, the Germans and the Slavs are those whose future is of -most historic interest. The former went at once in a body over to the -Roman Catholic church, and at first it appeared as if the Slavs were -with similar unanimity to attach themselves to the Byzantine orthodox -church. But only the Slavs of the Eastern countries remained true to -that communion, though they were mostly with it brought under the yoke -of the Turkish power. So was it with the specially promising Bulgarian -church. All the more important was the incomparably more significant -gain which the Greek church made in the conversion of the Russians. - - § 73.1. Soon after Justinian’s time the Slavic hordes began to - overflow the =Greek Provinces=--Macedonia, Thessaly, Hellas and - Peloponnesus. The old Hellenic population was mostly rooted out; - only in well fortified cities, especially coast towns, as well as - on the islands, did the Greek people and the Christian confession - remain undisturbed. The empress Irene made the first successful - attempt to restore Slavic Greece to the allegiance of the empire - and the church, and Basil the Macedonian, A.D. 867-886, completed - the work so thoroughly that at last even the old pagan Mainottes - (§ 42, 4) in the Peloponnesus bent their necks to the double yoke. - Regenerated Hellenism by its higher culture and national, as well - as ecclesiastical, tenacity, completely absorbed by assimilation - the numerically larger Slavic element of the population, and - Mount Athos with its hermits and monasteries (§ 70, 3) became - the Zion of the new church. - - § 73.2. The =Chazari= in the Crimea asked about A.D. 850 for - Christian missionaries from Constantinople. The court sent them - a celebrated monk Constantine, surnamed the Philosopher, better - known under his monkish name of =Cyril=. Born at Thessalonica, - and so probably of Slavic descent, at least acquainted with the - language of the Slavs, he converted in a few years a great part - of the people. In A.D. 1016, however, the kingdom of the Chazari - was destroyed by the Russians. - - § 73.3. =The Bulgarians= in Thrace and Mœsia had obtained a - knowledge of Christianity from Greek prisoners, but its first - sowing was watered with blood. A sister, however, of the Bulgarian - king Bogoris had been baptized when a prisoner in Constantinople. - After her liberation, she sought, with the help of the Byzantine - monk =Methodius=, a brother of Cyril, to win her brother to - the Christian faith. A famine came to their aid, and a picture - painted by Methodius, representing the last judgment, made a - deep impression on Bogoris. In A.D. 861 he was baptized and - compelled his subjects to follow his example. But soon thereafter, - Methodius, along with his brother Cyril, was called to labour in - another field, in Moravia (§ 79, 2), and political considerations - led the Bulgarian prince in A.D. 866 to join the Western church. - At his request pope Nicholas I. sent bishops and clergy into - Bulgaria to organize the church there after the Roman model. - Byzantine diplomacy, however, succeeded in winning back the - Bulgarians, and at the œcumenical Council at Constantinople in - A.D. 869, their ambassadors admitted that the Bulgarian church - according to divine and human laws belonged to the diocese of the - Byzantine patriarch (§ 67, 1). Meantime the two Apostles of the - Slavs, Cyril and Methodius, by the invention of a Slavic alphabet - and a Slavic translation of the Bible, laid the foundation of a - Slavic ecclesiastical literature, which was specially fostered - in Bulgaria under the noble-minded prince Symeon, A.D. 888-927. - Basil II., the Slayer of the Bulgarians, conquered Bulgaria in - A.D. 1018. It gained its freedom again, together with Walachia, - in A.D. 1186; but fell a prey to the Tartars in A.D. 1285, and - became a Turkish province in A.D. 1391. - - § 73.4. =The Russian Church.=--Photius speaks in A.D. 866 of the - =Conversion of the Russians= as an accomplished fact. In the days - of the Grand Duke Igor, about A.D. 900, there was a cathedral at - Kiev. Olga, Igor’s widow, made a journey to Constantinople and - was there baptized in A.D. 955 under the name Helena. But her son - Swätoslaw could not be persuaded to follow her example. The aged - princess is said according to the report of German chroniclers - to have at last besought the emperor Otto I. to send German - missionaries, and that in response Adalbert of Treves, afterwards - archbishop of Magdeburg, undertook a missionary tour, from which, - however, he returned without having achieved his purpose, after - his companions had been slain. Olga’s grandson, Vladimir, “Equal - of the Apostles,” was the first to put an end to paganism in - the country. According to a legend adorned with many romantic - episodes he sent ten Boyars in order to see how the different - religions appeared as conducted in their chief seats. They were - peculiarly impressed with the beautiful service in the church of - Sophia. In A.D. 988, in the old Christian commercial town Cherson, - shortly before conquered by him, Vladimir was baptized with the - name Basil, and at the same time he received the hand of the - princess Anna. The idols were now everywhere broken up and burnt; - the image of Perun was dragged through the streets tied to the - tail of a horse, beaten with clubs and thrown into the Dnieper. - The inhabitants of Kiev were soon afterwards ordered to gather - at the Dnieper and be baptized. Vladimir knelt in prayer on the - banks and thanked God on his knees, while the clergy, standing - in the stream, baptized the people. On the further organization - of the Russian church Anna exercised a powerful and salutary - influence. Vladimir died in A.D. 1015. His son Jaroslaw I., the - Justinian of the Russians, attended to the religious needs of his - people by the erection of many churches, monasteries and schools, - improved the worship, enriched the psalmody, awakened a taste for - art and patronized learning. The monastery of Petchersk at Kiev - was the birthplace of Russian literature and a seminary for the - training of the clergy. Here, at the end of the 11th century, the - monk Nestor wrote his annals in the language of the country. The - metropolitan of Kiev was the spiritual head of the whole Russian - church under the suzerainty of the patriarch of Constantinople. - After the great fire of A.D. 1170, which laid the glory of Kiev - in ashes, the residency of the Grand Duke was transferred to - Vladimir. In A.D. 1299 the metropolitan also took up his abode - there, but only for a short time; for in A.D. 1328 the Grand Duke - Ivan Danilowitsch settled at Moscow and the metropolitan went - there along with him. The patriarch of Constantinople on his own - authority consecrated in A.D. 1353 a second Russian metropolitan - for the forsaken Kiev, to whom he assigned the Southern and - Western Russian provinces which since A.D. 1320 had been under - the rule of the pagan Lithuanians. This schism was overcome - in A.D. 1380 on the next occasion of a vacancy in the Moscow - chair by the appointment to Moscow of the Kiev metropolitan. But - the Lithuanian government, which had meanwhile become Catholic - (§ 93, 15), compelled the South Russian bishops in A.D. 1414 to - choose a metropolitan of their own independent of Moscow, who in - A.D. 1594 with his whole diocese at the Synod of Brest (§ 151, 3) - attached himself to Rome. The primate of Moscow continued under - the jurisdiction of Constantinople until, in A.D. 1589, the - patriarch Jeremiah II. (§ 139, 26), on the occasion of his being - personally present at Moscow voluntarily declared the Russian - church independent of him, and himself consecrated Job, the - metropolitan of that time, its first patriarch.[197] - - § 73.5. =Russian Sects.=--About A.D. 1150, the monk Martin, an - Armenian by birth, insisted upon a liturgical reform that seemed - to him most necessary. Among other things he declared that it was - sinful to lead the subject of baptism to the baptismal font from - right to left or from south to north; the direction should be - reversed following the course of the sun. But it seemed to him - most important that a reform should be made in the hitherto - prevalent mode of making the sign of the cross. Instead of - symbolizing, as up to this time had been done, the two natures in - Christ and the three persons in the Trinity by bending the little - finger and the thumb, and making the sign of the cross with other - three, they made this sign with the fore and middle fingers. - For nearly ten years this monk was allowed to disseminate his - errors unchecked, till a Council obliged him to retract. Two - hundred years later a certain Carp Strigolnik at Novgorod in - A.D. 1375 publicly accused the clergy of sinning, because, - in accordance with an old custom, they took fees in assisting - in the consecration of bishops, and demanded of all orthodox - Christians that they should separate from them as unworthy of - their office. But he, along with many of his followers, was - mobbed by the adherents of the opposite party and drowned in - the Volga. More dangerous than all the earlier sectaries was - the so-called Jewish sect at the end of the 15th century, - which sought to reduce orthodox Christianity to a rationalistic - cabbalistic Ebionitism. About A.D. 1470 the Jew Zachariah arrived - at Novgorod. He won two distinguished priests Alexis and Denis to - his views, that Christ was nothing more than an ordinary Jewish - prophet, that the Mosaic law is a divine institution and is of - perpetual obligation. By the advice of the Jew the two priests - continued to profess the greatest zeal for the ceremonial laws - of the Church, and by strict observance of the fasts obtained - a great reputation for piety, but secretly they wrought all the - more successfully for the dissemination of their sect among all - classes of the people. When the czar, Ivan III., in A.D. 1480, - came to Novgorod, they made so favourable an impression on - him that he took them with him to Moscow, where they reaped a - rich harvest for their secret doctrine. They succeeded through - their influence with the czar in placing at the head of the - whole Russian church a zealous proselyte for their sect in the - archimandrite Zosima. Meanwhile at Novgorod iconoclast excesses - were committed by the sectaries, which the archbishop of that - place, Gennadius, set himself to suppress by imposing generally - mild penalties. His successor Joseph Ssanin proceeded much more - energetically. He did not rest till the czar in A.D. 1504 called - a Church Synod at Novgorod which condemned the chiefs of the sect - to be burnt, and their followers to be shut up in monasteries. - Even the metropolitan Zosima as a favourer of the sect was sent - to a monastery; but Alexis managed so cleverly that he retained - his office and dignity to the end of his life. Secret remnants - of this sect, as well as of the two previously referred to, - continued to exist for a long time, even down to the 17th - century, when sectarianism in the Russian Church made again - a new departure (§ 163, 10). - - § 73.6. =Romish Efforts at Union.=--From a very early time Rome - cast a covetous glance at the young Russian church, and she - spared neither delicate hints nor attempts to subdue by force - by the aid of Danes, Swedes, Livonians and at a later time, - the Poles. In order to avert this danger and to obtain from - the West assistance against the oppressive yoke of the Mongols, - A.D. 1234-1480, the Grand Duke Jaroslav [Jaroslaw] II. of - Novgorod was not averse to a union. His son Alexander succeeded - him in A.D. 1247. By a glorious victory over the Swedes in - A.D. 1240, on the Neva, he won for himself the surname Newsky, - and in A.D. 1242 he defeated the Livonians on the ice of Lake - Peipus. Pope Innocent IV. who had already in A.D. 1246 nominated - Arch bishop Albert Suerbeer (§ 93, 12) a legate to Russia with the - power to erect bishoprics there, addressed an earnest exhortation - to the young prince in A.D. 1248 with promises of help against - the Mongols, urging him to go in the footsteps of his father and - to secure his own and his subjects’ salvation by doing what his - father had promised. The Grand Duke referred to the wisest men - of the land and answered the Pope: From Adam to the flood, from - that to the Confusion of languages, etc., down to Constantine and - the seventh œcumenical Council, we know the true history of the - Church, but yours we do not wish to acknowledge. Alexander Newsky - died in A.D. 1263, and has been ever since venerated by his - country as a national hero and by his Church as a national saint. - The prospects of the Roman Curia were more favourable during - the 14th century owing to the Lithuanian and Polish supremacy in - South and West Russia, and by the schism of the Russian Church - into Kiev and Moscow primacies. In those Southern and Western - provinces there was originally less disinclination to Rome than - in Moscow. Still even here we meet during the 15th century in the - metropolitan Isidore, born in Thessalonica, a prelate who made - everything work toward a union with Rome. When the Union Synod - of A.D. 1438 was to meet at Ferrara (§ 67, 6), he represented to - the Grand Duke Vassili that it was his duty to appear there. He - gave a hesitating and unwilling consent. At the Council Isidore - along with Bessarion showed himself a zealous promoter of the - union. He returned in A.D. 1441 as cardinal and papal legate. - But when at the first public service in Moscow he read aloud the - union documents, the Grand Duke had him imprisoned and banished - to a monastery. He escaped from his prison and died in Rome in - A.D. 1643.--Continuation, § 151, 3. - - - - - SECOND DIVISION. - - THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE GERMAN AND ROMAN CHURCH - DURING THE MIDDLE AGES.[198] - - - § 74. CHARACTER AND DIVISIONS OF THIS PERIOD - OF THE DEVELOPMENT. - - With the historically significant appearance of the Germanic peoples, -from whose blending with the old Celtic and Latin races of the conquered -countries the _Romance_ group of nationalities has its origin, there -begins a new phase in the historical development of the world and the -church. The so-called migration of the nations produced an upheaval -and revolution among the very foundations and springs of history such -as have never since been seen. For a similar significance cannot be -ascribed to the appearance at a somewhat later period of a motley crowd -of Slavic tribes and a detached contingent of the Turanian-Altaic race -(Finns, Magyars, etc.), because the stream of their development ran in -the same channel. Thus the appearance of the Germans forms the watershed -between the old world and the new. This dividing boundary, however, -is not a straight line; for the shoots of the old world run on for -centuries alongside of and among the young growths of the new world. -In so far as those remnants of the old have no relation to the new -and work out uninfluenced by their surroundings their own material -in their own way, the history of their developments has no place here; -but even these demand consideration at this point in so far as they -affect the development of the new world as a means of educating and -moulding, arresting and perverting. Just as the history of the church -and the world as a whole is distributed into ancient and modern, -so the special history of the Germano-Roman world can and must be -distributed into ancient and modern, the dividing boundary of which -is the Reformation of the 16th century. The earlier of these two phases -of history presents itself to us with a Janus-head, whose two faces are -directed the one to the ancient, the other to the modern world. This -follows from the fact that the groups of peoples referred to did not -require any longer to pursue the weary way of their development on -their own charges, but rather entered upon the spiritual heritage of -the defunct ancient world, and were able by means thereof more quickly -and surely to grow to the maturity of their own proper and independent -rank and culture. The Roman and, for some branches of the Slavic races, -also the Byzantine, church was the bearer and medium of this spiritual -heritage, and as such became teacher and disciplinarian of the young -world. The Reformation is the emancipation from the administrator of -discipline, whose leading strings were cast off by the youth when he -reached the maturity of man’s estate. It is the assertion of the German -nation that it had reached its intellectual majority. - - § 74.1. =The Character of Mediæval History.=--As its name implies - the mediæval period of church history is one of transition from - the old to the new. The old is the now completed development - of Christianity under the moulding influences of the ancient - Greek and Roman world; the new is the complete incorporation of - the special forms of life and culture that characterize the new - peoples, who are placed by means of the migration of the nations - in the foreground of history. But since the peculiar culture - of these nations was first present only potentially and as a - capacity, and was to realize itself first through the influence - of the early Christian culture, between the old and the new a - middle and intermediate age intervened, the extent of which was - just that influence of the old completed culture upon the new - developing culture. This conflict during the whole course of the - Middle Ages was carried on by those powerful waves of action and - reaction (formation, deformation, reformation), which, however, - amid the ferment of the times displayed an ever varying mixing - of the one with the other. The Middle Ages have brought forth - the most magnificent phenomena, the papacy, the monastic system, - scholasticism, etc., but characteristic of them all is that - crude blending of the three kinds of movement named above, which - hindered its effectiveness and led to its own deterioration. - First in the beginning of the 16th century did the reformatory - endeavours become so mature and strong that it could assume a - purer form and carry out its efforts with success. With this too - we reach the end of the Middle Ages and witness the birth of the - modern world. - - § 74.2. =Periods in the Church History of the German-Roman - Middle Ages.=--The first regular period is marked by the end of - the Carolingian age, which may be regarded as completed by the - dying out of the German Carolingians in A.D. 911. The movement - in all the chief departments of the church was hitherto regular - and unbroken: before Charlemagne an ascending one, during his - reign reaching the summit, and after his death declining. It is - the =universal German= period of history. The fundamental idea - of the Carolingian dynasty, which survived even its weakest - representatives, was no other than the combination of all - German, Roman and Slavic nationalities under the sceptre of - one German empire. The last German Carolingian carried this - idea with him to the grave. The powerful impulse present even in - the 9th century toward national separation and the dismemberment - of the Carolingian empire into independent Germanic, Romanic and - Slavic nations has since asserted its irresistible power. But - with the Carolingian empire the Carolingian epoch of civilization - also came to an end. And even the glory of the papacy, whose - intrigues had undermined the empire, because it had thus snapped - the branch on which it sat, now sank into the lowest depths of - weakness and corruption. When we take a general survey of the - beginning of the 10th century, we find on all sides, in church - and state, in secular and spiritual governments, in science, - culture and art, the creations of Charlemagne overthrown, and - a _seculum obscurum_ introduced from which amid great oppression - and savagery, emerge the conditions, earnests and germs of a new - golden age.--A second period is marked out, in quite a different - fashion, by the age of Pope Boniface VIII. or the beginning of - the 14th century. Up to this time =Germany= stood distinctly in - the foreground both of the history of the world and of the church; - but the unhappy conflict of Boniface with Philip the Fair of - France placed the papacy at the mercy of French policy, and so - henceforth in all the movements of Church history =France= stands - in the front. The pontificate of Boniface forms a turning point - also for the historical development within the church itself. The - most vast and influential products of mediæval ecclesiasticism - are the papacy, monasticism and scholasticism. The period before - Boniface is characterized by the growth and flourishing of these; - the period after Boniface by their decay and deterioration. - The reformatory current, too, which permeated the whole of - the Middle Ages, has in each of these two periods its own - distinctive character. Before Boniface those representatives of - the dominant ecclesiastical system were themselves inspired by a - powerful reformatory spirit working its way up from the great and - widespread depravation of the 10th century, accompanied, however, - by a hierarchical lust of power far beyond the limits justifiable - on evangelical principles. The evangelical reformatory endeavours - again directed against those representatives of ecclesiasticism - are still relatively few and isolated and find but a slight echo, - while as their caricature we see alongside of them heretical - extravagances which have scarcely ever had their like in history. - Toward the end of the first period, however, this relation - begins to be reversed. The papacy, monasticism and scholasticism - becoming more and more deteriorated are the patrons of every sort - of deterioration within the church. The revolutionary heretical - movement is indeed overcome, but all the more powerfully, - generally and variedly does the evangelical reformatory movement, - though still always burdened with much that was confused and - immature, assert itself independently of and over against those - ecclesiastical principalities, without being able, however, - to exert upon them any abiding influence.--Thus our phase of - development is divided into three periods: the period from the - 4th to the 9th cent. (till A.D. 911); the period from the 10th - to the 13th cent. (A.D. 911-1294); and the period of the 14th - and 15th cent. (A.D. 1294-1517). - - - - - FIRST SECTION. - - HISTORY OF THE GERMAN-ROMAN CHURCH FROM THE 4TH TO - THE 9TH CENTURY (DOWN TO A.D. 911). - - - - - I. Founding, Spread, and Limitation of the German Church.[199] - - - § 75. CHRISTIANITY AND THE GERMANS. - - In the pre-German age Europe was for the most part inhabited by -Celtic races. In Britain, Spain and Gaul, however, these were subjugated -by the Roman forces and Romanized, whereas in northern, eastern and -middle Europe they were oppressed, exterminated or Germanized by the -Germans. In its victorious march through Europe, Christianity met with -Celtic races of unmixed nationality only in Ireland and Scotland, for -even among the neighbouring Britons the Celtic nationality was already -blended with the Roman. Only in a very restricted field, therefore, -could the church first of all develop itself according to the Celtic -mode of culture. But here, with a wonderful measure of independence, -missionary operations were so energetically prosecuted that for a -long time it seemed as if the greater part of the opposite continent -with its German population was to be its prey, until at last the Romish -church would be driven out of its own home as well as out of its hopeful -mission fields (§ 77).--Even in pre-Christian times a second and more -powerful immigration from the East had begun to pour over Europe. The -various Germanic groups of tribes now presented themselves, followed -by other warlike races, Huns, Slavs, Magyars, etc., alternately driving -and being driven. The Germans first came into contact with Christian -elements in the second half of the 3rd century, and toward the end of -the 5th a whole series of powerful German peoples are found professing -the Christian faith, and each successive century far down into the -Middle Ages brings always new trophies from these nations into the -treasure-house of the church. It would certainly be wrong to ascribe -these results to a national predisposition of the German churches -and type of mind for Christianity. This cannot be altogether denied, -but it did not predispose the German peoples to Christianity as it -then was preached, but was first developed when this by other ways -and means had found an entrance and only at the Reformation of the -16th century did it get full expression. For that predisposition was -directed to the deepest and innermost sides of Christianity, for which -the ecclesiastical institution of the times in its externalism had -little appreciation; and the first task of the German spirit was to -secure recognition of this reformatory principle. - - § 75.1. =The Predisposition of the Germans for - Christianity.=--What we have been accustomed to hear about - this subject is in part greatly exaggerated, in part sought - for where its proper germ does not lie. The German mythology - may indeed conceal many deep thoughts under the garb of legendary - poetry which have some relation to Christian truth and afford - evidence of the religious needs, the speculative gifts and the - characteristic profundity of German thought, but this scarcely - in a larger measure than in the Greek myths, philosophemes and - mysteries.[200] Much more suggestive of a predisposition to - Christianity than such bright spots in the mythological system - of the Germans are the special and distinguishing characteristics - of the life of the German people. The fidelity of the vassal to - his lord, transferred to Christ the heavenly king, constitutes - the special core of Christianity. Besides, closely connected - therewith, the love of battle and faithfulness in battle for - and with the hereditary or elected chief found a parallel in - the struggles and victories of the Christian life. Further, - the Germans’ noble love of freedom, sanctified by the Gospel, - afforded form and expression for the glorious freedom of the - children of God. And finally, the spirituality of the Germans’ - worship, praised even by Tacitus, who says that they _nec - cohibere parietibus Deos, neque in ullam humani oris speciem - adsimulare, ex magnitudine cœlestium arbitrantur_, predisposed - them in favour of the worshipping of God in spirit and in truth. - - § 75.2. What is of most significance, however, for understanding - the almost unopposed =Adoption of Christianity= by so many German - races is the slight hold that their heathen religion had upon - them at that time. It is essentially characteristic of heathenism - as the religion of nature that it can flourish only on its - native soil. German paganism, however, had been uprooted by its - transplantation to European soil and had, amid the movements of - peoples during the first centuries after their migration, never - quite struck root in the new ground. In the later centuries, - when it had long enough time for doing so, _e.g._ among the - Frisians, Saxons, Danes, it offered an incomparably more resolute - resistance. Again, rapid conversion will be furthered or hindered - according as the new home is one where already from Roman times - Christian institutions existed or even had existed, or is one - where the old primitive heathenism still prevailed. Only in - the latter case could German paganism develop its full power - and strike its roots deeply and feel at home upon the new soil; - whereas in the other case, the higher culture and spiritual - power of Christianity, even where it had been vanquished by - the barbarians, disturbed the even tenour and naïvete of the - genuinely pagan course of development. The circumstance also - deserves mention, that the marriage of heathen princes with - Christian princesses frequently secured their conversion along - with that of their subjects. In the narrower circles of the home, - the family, the tribe, innumerable instances of the same sort of - thing repeatedly occurred. There is something specially Germanic, - in the prominent position which German feeling had assigned to - the wife: _Inesse quin etiam_, says Tacitus, _sanctum aliquid - et providum putant; nec aut consilia earum adspernantur, aut - responsa negligunt_.[201] - - § 75.3. =Mode of Conversion in the Church of these Times.=--Apart - from the too frequent practice of Christian rulers to secure - conversions by the sword, baptism and conversion were commonly - regarded as an _opus operatum_, and whole crowds of heathens - without any knowledge of saving truth, with no real change of - heart and mind, were received into the church by baptism. No one - can approve this. But it must be admitted that only in this way - could striking and rapid results have been reached; that indeed - in the stage of childhood, in which the Germans then were, it - had a certain measure of justification. By the history even of - its attack upon German paganism an entirely different career of - conflict and victory was marked out to Christianity than that - through which it had to pass in its conquests of Græco-Roman - paganism. In this latter case it had to confront a high form of - civilization which had outlived its powers and had lost itself - in its own perplexities, which for a thousand years had proved - in its civilization and history a παιδαγωγὸς εἰς Χριστόν. - All this was wanting to the Germans. If the Roman world might - be compared to a proselyte who in ripe, well proved and much - experienced maturity receives baptism, the conversion of the - Germans may be compared to the baptism of children.--Gregory the - Great had at first directed the missionaries to the Anglo-Saxons - (§ 77, 4) to destroy the idol temples of converted heathens. But - further reflection convinced him that it was better to transform - them into Christian churches, and now he laid it down as a maxim - in Roman Catholic missions that pagan forms of worship and places - of worship which were capable of modification to Christian uses - should be carefully preserved and respected: “_Nam duris mentibus - simul omnia abscindere impossibile esse dubium non est, quia et - is qui summum locum ascendere nititur, gradibus vel passibus, - non autem saltibus, elevatur._” It was a fateful, two-edged word, - which led Catholic missions to a brilliant outward success, but - has saturated the Catholic worship and life with a pagan leaven, - which works in it powerfully down to the present day. - - - § 76. THE VICTORY OF CATHOLICISM OVER ARIANISM.[202] - - The first conversions of multitudes of the German races occurred -at the time when Arianism had reached its climax in the Roman empire. -Internal disturbances and external pressure compelled a portion of -the Goths in the second half of the fourth century to throw themselves -into the arms of the East Roman empire and to purchase its protection -by the adoption of Arian Christianity. The missionary zeal of the -national clergy, with bishop Ulfilas at their head, though we cannot -indicate particularly his methods, spread Arianism in a short time -over a multitude of the German nationalities. Down to the end of -the fifth century Arianism was professed by the larger portion of -the German world, by Visigoths and Ostrogoths, by Vandals, Suevi and -Burgundians, by the Rugians and Herulians, by the Longobards, etc. And -as the early friendly relations to the Roman empire had given Arianism -a foundation among those peoples, so the later hostile relations to the -Roman empire now turned Catholic made them cling tenaciously to their -Arian heresy. Arianism had more and more assumed the character of a -national German Christianity, and it almost seemed as if the whole -German world, and with it the universal history of the future, were -its secure prey. But a quick end was made of these expectations by -the conversion of one of its chief branches to Catholicism. The Franks -had from the first pursued a policy which was directed rather to -the strengthening of the future of its brother tribes, than to the -accelerating of the downfall of the Roman empire. This policy led them -to embrace Catholicism. Trusting to the protection of the Catholic -Christians’ God and the sympathies of the whole Catholic West, the -Frankish rulers took advantage of the call to suppress heresy and -conquer heretics’ lands. To renounce heresy so as to find occasion for -attacking the territories of heretics, was probably with them a matter -of political necessity. - - § 76.1. =The Goths in the lands of the Danube.=--From the middle - of the 3rd century Christianity had found an entrance among the - Goths through Roman prisoners of war. At the Council of Nicæa - in A.D. 325 there was present a Gothic bishop Theophilus. From - A.D. 348 the scion of an imprisoned Cappadocian Christian family, - =Ulfilas=[203] by name, wrought as bishop among the Visigoths, - already attached to the Arian confession, with so much zeal and - success for the spread of Christianity that the hatred of the - pagans was roused to such a pitch that in A.D. 355 they began - a bloody persecution of the Christians. With a great part of the - Gothic Christians Ulfilas fled over the Danube, and the emperor - Constantius, who honoured him as a second Moses, assigned him - a dwelling-place in Mount Hæmus. Ulfilas continued his work for - thirty-three years with many tokens of blessing. In order that - the Goths might have access to the original fount of saving - knowledge, he translated the Holy Scriptures into their language, - for which he invented a written character of his own. He died - in A.D. 381. A short biography of the Apostle of the Goths - was written by his disciple Auxentius, bishop of Dorostorus - in Silistria, which gives an account at first hand of his life - and doctrine. But not all Gothic Christians were expatriated - with Ulfilas. Those who remained behind were a leaven which - ever continued to expand and spread. So Athanaric, king of the - Thervingians, about A.D. 370, started a new and cruel persecution - against them. Soon afterwards a rebellion broke out among the - pagan Thervingians. At the head of the malcontents was Frithigern. - He was subdued, but got aid from the emperor Valens and in - gratitude for the help given adopted the Arian religion of - the emperor. This was the first conversion in multitude among - the Goths. A second followed not long after. The Huns had rushed - down like a whirlwind in A.D. 375 and destroyed the empire of the - Ostrogoths. A part of these were obliged to join the Huns; while - another fled into the country of the Thervingians. These last - again were driven before the conquerors and crossed the Danube - under Frithigern and Alaviv, where in A.D. 376 Valens gave - them a settlement on condition that they should profess Arian - Christianity. But this friendship did not last long, and Valens - fell in A.D. 378 fighting against them. Theodosius, the restorer - of the Catholic faith in the Roman empire, made peace with them. - They retained, however, their Arian Confession, which spread - from them in a way not yet explained to the Ostrogoths and other - related tribes. Chrysostom started a Catholic mission among them, - but it was stopped at his death. - - § 76.2. =The Visigoths in Gaul and Spain.=--The death of - Theodosius in A.D. 395 and the partition of his empire gave - the signal to the Visigoths to attempt securing for themselves - more room. Alaric devastated Greece, broke in upon Italy in - search of prey and plundered Rome in A.D. 410. His successor - Athaulf descended upon southern Gaul, and Wallia founded there - a Visigoth empire with Toulouse for its capital, which under - Euric, who died in A.D. 483, reached the summit of its glory. - Euric extended his kingdom in Gaul, and in A.D. 475, conquered - the most of Spain. He sought to strengthen his government by - having one system of law and one religion, but in his projected - conversion of his subjects to Arianism, he met with unexpected - opposition, which he sought in vain to put down by a severe - persecution of the Catholics. The Roman population and the - Catholic bishops longed for a Catholic government and placed - their hopes in the Frankish king Clovis who had been converted - in A.D. 496. As saviour and avenger of the Catholic faith Clovis - completely destroyed the Visigoth power on this side the Pyrenees - in a battle at Vouglé near Poitiers in A.D. 507. In Spain, - however, the Visigoths retained their power and persisted in - their efforts to convert all to the Arian faith. Under the - violent Leovigild these efforts culminated in A.D. 585 in a - cruel persecution. His son and successor Reccared, however, - saw the vanity and danger of this policy and took the opposite - course. At the third Synod of Toledo in A.D. 589 he adopted the - Catholic faith and with the co-operation of the able metropolitan - Leander of Seville secured complete ascendency for Catholicism - throughout the empire. Under the later kings the Visigoth power - sank lower and lower amid the treacheries, murders and revolts of - internal factions, and in A.D. 711 the last king of the Visigoths, - Roderick, after a bloody fight at Xeres de la Frontera yielded to - the Saracens who had rushed down from Africa upon Spain. - - § 76.3. =The Vandals in Africa.=--Early in the 5th century - the Vandals, who were even then Arian Christians, combining - with the Alani and Suevi, made a descent from Pannonia upon - Gaul in A.D. 406 and from thence upon Spain in A.D. 409, and - made dreadful havoc of these rich and fertile lands. In A.D. 428 - the Roman proconsul of Africa, Boniface, unjustly accused of - treason by the Roman government, in his straits called in the - aid of the Vandals. Their king Genseric went in A.D. 429 with - 50,000 men. Boniface, however, was meanwhile reconciled with - his government and did all in his power to get the barbarians - to retire. But all in vain. Genseric conquered Africa and founded - there a powerful Vandal empire. In A.D. 455 he even made an - attack upon Rome, which was plundered by his hordes for fourteen - days. In order to prevent any sympathy being shown by Africa - for Rome he determined to secure throughout his empire uniform - profession of the Arian creed, and in prosecuting this purpose - during his fifty years’ reign exercised continual cruelties. - He died in A.D. 477. But the African Catholics were faithful to - their creed unto death and went forth to martyrdom in a spirit - worthy of their ancestors of the 2nd or 3rd centuries. His - son Hunneric allowed them only a short respite and began again - in A.D. 483 the bloody work. He died in A.D. 484. Under his - successor Guntamund [Gunthamund], who died in A.D. 496, a stop - was put to the persecution; but Thrasamund [Thrasimund], who died - in A.D. 523, again adopted bloody measures. Hilderic, who died - in A.D. 530, a man of mild and generous temper, and the son of - a Catholic mother, openly favoured the Catholics. Gelimer, a - great-grandson of Genseric, put himself at the head of the Arians - whom Hilderic’s catholic sympathies had alienated, took Hilderic - prisoner and had him executed. But before he could carry out the - intended persecution, Justinian’s general Belisarius marched into - Africa, annihilated the Vandal army in a battle near Tricameron - in A.D. 533, and overthrew the Vandal empire.[204] - - § 76.4. =The Suevi= were still heathens when they entered Spain - with the Vandals in A.D. 409. Here under their king Rechiar they - adopted the Catholic faith. But Remismund to please the Visigoths - went over to Arianism in A.D. 465 with the whole people. Carraric, - who thought he owed the cure of his son to the relics of Martin - of Tours, passed over again to Catholicism in A.D. 550. With - the co-operation of Martin, metropolitan of Braga, he converted - his people, and a Provincial Synod at Braga in A.D. 563 under - Theodimir I. completed the work. The empire of the Suevi was - destroyed by Leovigild king of the Visigoths, in A.D. 585. - - § 76.5. =The Burgundians= carried on by the irresistible advance - of Vandals, Suevi and Alani from their home on the Main and the - Neckar, where they had adopted the Catholic faith, founded an - independent kingdom in the Jura district. Here they came into - contact with the Visigoths and for the most part fell away to - Arianism. Of Gundiac’s four sons, who divided the empire among - them, only Chilperic II., the father of Clotilda, remained - Catholic. By fratricide his brother Gundobald secured complete - sovereignty. The bishop Avitus of Vienne (§ 53, 5), however, - vigorously opposed Arianism, and to secure its suppression called - a Council at Epaon in A.D. 517, the decisions of which were - recognised by Sigismund, Gundobald’s son, and were made valid - throughout the empire. But even this did not satisfy Clotilda, - the wife of the Frankish king Clovis, as an atonement for her - father’s death. Her sons, urged by their mother to prove avengers - of her father’s blood, made an end of the Burgundian empire in - A.D. 534. - - § 76.6. =The Rugians=, in combination with the Herulians, - Scyrians and Turcellingians, had founded an independent kingdom - in the Old Roman Noricum, the Lower Austria of to-day. Arianism - had been introduced among them by the Goths but without the - complete expulsion of paganism. The Romans among them attached to - Catholicism were sorely oppressed. But from A.D. 454, =Severinus= - wrought among them like a messenger from heaven to bless, help - and comfort the heavily burdened. He died in A.D. 482. Even from - the barbarians he won the deepest reverence, and over heathens - and Arians he had an almost magical power. He prophesied to the - Scyrian Odoacer his future greatness. This prince in A.D. 476 - put an end to the West Roman empire and ruled ably and wisely - as king of Italy for seventeen years. He put an end too to Arian - fanaticism in Rugiland in A.D. 487 by overthrowing the empire of - the Rugians. But in A.D. 489 the Ostrogoth Theodoric came down - upon Italy, conquered Ravenna after a three years’ siege, took - Odoacer prisoner and in a wild drunken revel had him put to death - in A.D. 493. - - § 76.7. =The Ostrogoths= when they conquered Italy had already - for a long time been Arians, but were free from that fanaticism - which so often characterized German Arianism. Theodoric granted - full liberty to Catholicism, spared, protected and prized Roman - culture, in all which certainly his famous minister Cassiodorus - (§ 47, 23) had no small share. This liberal-minded tolerance was - indeed made easy to the king by the thirty-five years’ schism of - that time (§ 52, 5), which prevented any suspicions of danger to - the state from the combination of Roman and Byzantine Catholics. - And in fact, when this schism was healed in A.D. 519, Theodoric - began to interest himself more in Arianism and to give way - to such suspicions. He died in A.D. 526. The confusions that - followed his death were taken advantage of by the emperor - Justinian for the reconquest of Italy. His general Narses - annihilated the last remnants of the Ostrogoth power in A.D. 554. - The Byzantine government again rose upon the ruins of the Goths, - and in A.D. 567 established the exarchate with Ravenna as its - capital. For the time being Arianism was completely destroyed - in Italy.[205] - - § 76.8. =The Longobards in Italy.=--In A.D. 569 the Longobards - under Alboin made a descent upon Italy from the lands of the - Danube, and conquered what has been called Lombardy after them, - with its capital Ticinum, now Pavia. His successors extended - their conquests farther south, till at last only the farthest - point of Italy, the duchies of Naples, Rome and Perugia, Ravenna - with its subject cities and Venice, acknowledged Byzantine rule. - Excited by desire of plunder and political jealousy, the Arian - Longobards warred incessantly for twenty years with Roman - culture and Roman Catholicism. But after this first outburst of - persecution had been stilled, religious indolence won the upper - hand and the Arian clergy were not roused from their indifference - to spiritual things by the growing zeal for conversions which - characterized the Catholic bishops. Pope Gregory the Great, - A.D. 590-604, devoted himself unweariedly to the task, and was - powerfully supported by a Bavarian princess, the zealous Catholic - queen Theodelinde. The Longobards were so enamoured of this - fair and amiable queen that, when her first husband Anthari was - murdered in A.D. 590, one year after their marriage, they allowed - her to choose for herself one of the dukes to be her husband and - their king. Her choice fell on Agilulf, who indeed himself still - continued an Arian, but did not prevent the spread of Catholicism - among his people. Their daughter Gundiberge, married successively - to two Longobard kings, Ariowald († A.D. 636) and Rothari - († A.D. 652) was an equally zealous protectress of the Catholic - church; and with Rothari’s successor Aribert, brother’s son of - Theodelinde, who died in A.D. 663, begins the series of Catholic - rulers of the Longobards.--Continuation, § 82, 1. - - § 76.9. =The Franks in Gaul.=--When the West Roman empire was - overthrown by Odoacer in A.D. 476, the Roman authority was still - for a long time maintained in Gaul by the proconsul Syagrius. - But the Merovingian Clovis, A.D. 481-511, put an end to it by - the battle of Soissons in A.D. 486. In A.D. 493 he married the - Burgundian princess Clotilda, and she, a zealous Catholic, used - every effort to convert her pagan husband. The national pride - of the Frank resisted long, but she got permission to have her - firstborn son baptized. The boy, however, died in his baptismal - robes, and Clovis regarded this as a punishment from his gods. - Nevertheless on the birth of his second son he was unable to - resist the entreaties of his beloved wife. He too sickened after - his baptism; but when contrary to expectation he recovered amid - the fervent prayers of the mother, the heathen father confessed - that prayer to the Christian’s God is more powerful than Woden’s - vengeance. He remembered this when threatened in A.D. 496 at - Tolbiac with loss of the battle, of his life and of his empire - in the war with the Alemanni. Prayer to the national gods had - proved fruitless. He now turned in prayer to the God of the - Christians, promising to own allegiance to Him, if He should - get the victory. The fortune of battle soon turned. The army and - kingdom of the Alemanni were destroyed. At his baptism at Rheims - on Christmas Eve, A.D. 496, Archbishop Remigius addressed him - thus: “Bend thy neck, proud Sigamber; adore what thou hast burnt, - burn what thou hast adored!” The later tradition, first reported - by Hincmar of Rheims in the 9th century, relates that when the - church officer with the anointing oil could not get forward - because of the crowd, in answer to Remigius’ prayer a white dove - brought an oil flask from heaven, out of which all the kings of - the Franks from that day have been anointed. The conversion of - Clovis, soon followed by that of the nobles and the people, seems - really to have been a matter of conviction and genuine according - to the measure of his knowledge of God. He made a bargain with - the Christian’s God and fulfilled the obligations under which - he had placed himself. Of an inner change of heart we can indeed - find no trace. There was, however, no mention of that in his - bargain. Just after his conversion he commits the most atrocious - acts of faithlessness, treachery and secret murder. The Catholic - clergy of the whole West nevertheless celebrated in him a second - Constantine, called of God as avenger upon heathenism and Arian - heresy, and asked of him nothing more, seeing in this the task - which providence had assigned him. The conversion of Clovis was - indeed in every respect an occurrence of the greatest moment. - The rude Arianism of the Germans, incapable of culture, received - here its deathblow. The civilization and remnants of culture of - the ancient world found in the Catholic church its only suitable - vehicle for introduction into the German world; and now the - Franks were at the head of it and laid the foundation of a new - universal empire which would for centuries form the central - point of universal history. On the work of Friddin [Fridolin] - and Columbanus in the land of the Franks, see § 77, 7. - - - § 77. VICTORY OF THE ROMISH OVER THE OLD BRITISH CHURCH.[206] - - According to an ancient but more than doubtful tradition a British -king Lucius about the middle of the 2nd century is said to have asked -Christian missionaries of the Roman bishop Eleutherus and by them to -have been converted along with his people. This, however, is certain, -that at the end of the 3rd century (§ 22, 6) Christianity had taken -root in Roman Britain, probably through intercourse with the Romans. -Down to the Anglo-Saxon invasion in A.D. 449, the British church -certainly kept up regular communication with that of the continent, -especially with Gaul. From that time, being driven back into North -and South Wales, it was completely isolated from the continental church; -but all the more successfully it spread itself out among its neighbours -in the allied tribes of Ireland and Scotland, among the former through -Patrick, the Apostle of the Irish, among the latter by Columba, the -Apostle of the Scots, and followed a thoroughly independent course of -development. When one hundred and fifty years later, in A.D. 596 the -long interrupted intercourse with Rome was again renewed by a Romish -mission to the Anglo-Saxons, several divergences from Roman practice -were discovered among the Britons in respect of worship, constitution -and discipline. Rome insisted that these should be corrected, but -the Britons insisted on retaining them and repudiated the pretensions -of the Romish hierarchy. The keen struggle which therefore arose, -beginning amid circumstances that promised a brilliant success to -the British church, ended with complete submission to Rome. The -battle-field was then transferred to Germany, and there too in spite -of the resolute resistance of their apostles the contest concluded -with the same result (§ 78). The struggle was not merely one of highly -tragic interest but of incomparable importance for the history of -Europe. For had the result been, as for a time it seemed likely that -it would be, in favour of the old British church, not only England but -also all Germany would have taken up a decidedly anti-papal attitude, -and not only the ecclesiastical but also the political history of -the Middle Ages would have most likely been led into an altogether -different course. - - § 77.1. =The Conversion of the Irish.=--Among the Celtic - inhabitants of the island of Ireland there were some individual - Christians from the beginning of the 5th century. The mission - of a Roman deacon Palladius in A.D. 431 was without result. But - in the following year, A.D. 432, the true apostle of the Irish, - =Patrick=, with twenty-four companions, stept upon the shore of - the island. The only reliable source of information about his - life and work is an autobiography which he left behind him, - _Confessiones_. According to it he was grandson of a presbyter - and son of a deacon residing at Banava, probably in Britain, not - likely in Gaul. In his sixteenth year he was taken to Ireland by - Irish pirates and sold to an Irish chief whose flocks he tended - for six years. After his escape by flight the love of Christ - which glowed within his heart gave him no rest and his dreams - urged him to bring the glorious liberty of the children of God - to those who so long kept him bound under hard slavery. Familiar - with the language and the customs of the country, he gathered the - people by beat of drum into an open field and told them of the - sufferings of Christ for man’s salvation. The Druids, priests - of the Celts, withstood him vigorously, but his attractive and - awe-inspiring personality gained the victory over them. Without - a drop of martyr’s blood Ireland was converted in a few years, - and was thickly strewn with churches and monasteries. Patrick - himself had his residence at Macha, round which the town of - Armagh, afterwards the ecclesiastical metropolis, sprang up. He - died about A.D. 465, and left the island church in a flourishing - condition. The numerous monasteries, in which calm piety - flourished along with diligent study of Scripture and from which - many teachers and missionaries went forth, won for the land the - name of _Insula Sanctorum_. Only after the robber raids of the - Danes in the 9th century did the glory of the Irish monasteries - begin to fade.[207] - - § 77.2. =The Mission to Scotland.=--A Briton, Ninian, educated - at Rome, wrought, about A.D. 430, among the Celtic =Picts= and - =Scots= in Scotland or Caledonia. But those converted by him fell - back into paganism after his death. The true Apostle of Scotland - was the Irishman =Columba=. In A.D. 563 he settled with twelve - disciples on the small Hebridean island Hy. Its common name, - Iona, seems to have originated by a clerical error from Ioua, - and was then regarded as the Hebrew equivalent of Columba, a dove. - Icolmkill means Columba’s cell. Here he founded a monastery and - a church, and converted from this centre all Caledonia. Although - to the last only a presbyter and abbot of this monastery, he had - all the authority of an apostle over the Scottish church and its - bishops, a position that was maintained by successive abbots of - Iona. He died in A.D. 597. The numerous monasteries founded by - him vied with the Irish in learning, piety and missionary zeal. - The original monastery of Iona flourished in a superlative - degree.[208] - - § 77.3. =The Peculiarities of the Celtic Church.=--In the - Anglo-Saxon struggle the following were the main points at issue. - - 1. On the part of Rome it was demanded that they should submit - to the archiepiscopal jurisdiction instituted by the pope, - which the British refused as an unrighteous assumption. - - 2. The British had an =Easter Canon= different from that - of the Romish church. They were indeed nothing else than - Quartodecimans, although they like these in ignorance - referred to the Johannine tradition (§ 34, 2), but celebrated - their Easter always on a Sunday, the settling of which they - decided according to an 84 years’ cycle of the moon, after - Rome had adopted a cycle of 19 years (§ 56, 3). - - 3. The Celtic clergy had also a different =Tonsure= from the - Roman _Tonsura Petri_ which seems to have been the Greek - _Tonsura Pauli_ (§ 45, 1), although the zealous advocate of - the Roman customs, Ceolfrid, abbot of Jarrow, in a letter - to Naitan, king of the Picts, derives it from Simon Magus. - - 4. Besides this there was also the question of the Marriage - of Priests, which indeed the popish Anglo-Saxon Archbishop - Augustine declared himself at first willing to allow to the - British, which, however, was subsequently so passionately - denounced by Boniface as _fornicatio_ and _adulterium_. - - 5. If, further, according to Bede’s statement, besides their - divergent views about Easter, the British _et alia plurima - imitati ecclesiasticæ contraria faciebant_, this certainly - cannot be understood of doctrinal divergences, but - only of different forms of constitution and worship, - or ecclesiastical habits and customs, as might be well - expected in churches that had been completely separated - since A.D. 449. We need only think, _e.g._, of the progress - made by the idea of the papal primacy (§ 46, 7-10), the - consolidation and reconstruction of monasticism under - Benedict (§ 85), the codification of Roman canon law by - Dionysius Exiguus (§ 43, 3), the modification of the idea - of penance since Leo the Great (§ 61, 1) and the development - of the doctrine of the mass down to Gregory the Great - (§ 58, 3; 59, 6). The most considerable peculiarity of - constitution in the Celtic church seems to have been that - above referred to in placing the abbots of the principal - monasteries at the head of the hierarchy. Only in one - passage (Bede, III. 19) is there mention of ecclesiastical - doctrine: In A.D. 640 Pope John IV. addressed a conciliatory - letter to the Scots in which he warns them against the - Pelagian heresy, “_quam apud eos revivescere didicerat_.” - - When then we turn our attention to the Celtic church planted on - the continent at a later period, it is specially Columbanus’ view - of Easter that is regarded in France as heretical. Often and loud - as Boniface lifted up his voice against the horrible heresies - of British, Irish and Scotch intruders, it is found at last that - these consist in the same or similar divergences as those of the - Anglo-Saxons. Not insisting upon the law of celibacy, opposition - to the Roman primacy, the Romish tradition and the Romish canon - law, especially the ever-increasing strictness of the Roman - marriage laws (§ 61, 2), more simple modes of administering the - sacraments and conducting public worship, even in unconsecrated - places in forests and fields,--these and such like were the - heresies complained of.--As concerns the _pro_ and _con._ of - the evangelical purity of the ancient British Christianity, so - highly praised by Ebrard, one occupying an impartial historical - standpoint is justified in expecting that as all the good - development so also all the bad development which had taken - firm root in the common thought and feeling of the church down - to the middle of the 5th century, would not have been uprooted - from the church of Patrick and Columba, so also in the 7th - century it would be still prevalent there. And this expectation - is in general confirmed, so far as our information goes about - all which was not expressly imported from Rome into the British - church. If we deduct the by no means insignificant amount of - unevangelical corruption which was first introduced into the - Romish church during the period between Leo the Great and Gregory - the Great, A.D. 440-604, partly by exaggerating and adorning - elements previously there, partly by bringing in wholly new - elements of ecclesiastical credulity, superstition and mistaken - faith, there still remains for the Celtic church standing outside - of this process of deterioration a relatively purer doctrine. Yet - the Christianity that remains is by no means free of mixture from - unevangelical elements as Jonas of Bobbio himself shows in his - biography of his teacher Columbanus. But the more embittered the - conflict between the British and the Romish churches became over - matters of constitution and worship, the more did differences - in faith and life, which had been overlooked at first, assume - serious proportions, and supported by a careful study of - Scripture, led to greater evangelical freedom and purity on - the side of the British. This is thoroughly confirmed by Ebrard’s - numerous quotations from the literature of that period.[209] - - § 77.4. =The Romish Mission to the Anglo-Saxons.=--To protect - himself against the robber raids of the Picts and Scots, the - British king Vortigern sought the aid of the Germans inhabiting - the opposite shores. Two princes of the Jutes, Hengist and Horsa, - driven from their home, led a horde of Angles and Saxons over - to Britain in A.D. 449. New hordes kept following those that had - gone before and after a hundred years the British were driven - back into the western parts of the island. The incomers founded - seven kingdoms; at the head of all stood the prince of one of - the divisions who was called principal king, the Bretwalda. The - Anglo-Saxons were heathens and the bitter feelings that prevailed - between them and the ancient Britons prevented the latter - from carrying on missionary operations among the former. The - opportunity which the British missed was seized upon by Rome. - The sight of Anglo-Saxon youths exposed as slaves in the Roman - market inspired a pious monk, afterwards Pope Gregory I., with - a desire to evangelize a people of such noble bodily appearance. - He wished himself to take the work in hand, but was hindered - by the call to the chair of Peter. He now bought Anglo-Saxon - youths in order to train them as missionaries to their - fellow-countrymen. But when soon thereafter the Bretwalda - Ethelbert of Kent married the Frankish princess Bertha, Gregory - sent the Roman abbot =Augustine= to England with forty monks in - A.D. 596. Ethelbert gave them a residence and support in his own - capital Dorovernum, now Canterbury. At Pentecost the following - year he received baptism and 10,000 of his subjects followed his - example. Augustine asked from Gregory further instructions about - relics, books, etc. The pope sent him what he sought and besides - the pallium with archiepiscopal rights over the whole Saxon and - British church. Augustine now demanded of the Britons submission - to his archiepiscopal authority and that they should work - together with him for the conversion of the Saxons. But the - British would do nothing of the sort. A personal interview with - their chiefs under Augustine’s oak in A.D. 603 was without result. - At a second conference everything was spoilt by Augustine’s - prelatic pride in refusing to stand up on the arrival of the - Britons. Inclined to compliance the Britons had just proposed - this at the suggestion of a member as a sign. Augustine died - in A.D. 605. The pope nominated as his successor his previous - assistant Laurentius. Ethelbert’s heathen son and successor, - Eadbald, oppressed the missionaries so much that they decided - to withdraw from the field, in A.D. 616. Only Laurentius delayed - his retreat in order to make a final attempt at the conversion of - Eadbald. He was successful. Eadbald was baptized; the fugitives - returned to their former posts. In the kingdom of Essex Augustine - had already established Christianity, but a change of government - had again restored paganism. The gospel, however, soon afterwards - got entrance into Northumbria, the most powerful of the seven - kingdoms. King Edwin, the founder of Edinburgh, won the hand of - the Kentish princess Ethelberga, daughter of Bertha. With her, - as spiritual adviser of the young queen, went the monk Paulinus, - A.D. 625. These two persuaded the king and he again persuaded - his nobles and the priests to embrace Christianity. At a popular - assembly Paulinus proved the truth of Christianity, and the - chief priest Coisi, setting at defiance the gods of his fathers, - flung with his own hand a spear into the nearest idol temple. - The people thought him mad and looked for Woden’s vengeance. - When it came not, they obeyed the command of Coisi and burnt - down the temple, A.D. 627. Paulinus was made bishop of Eboracum, - now York, which pope Honorius on sending a pallium raised to - a second metropolitanate. Edwin, however, fell in battle in - A.D. 633 fighting against Penda, the pagan king of Mercia; - Paulinus had to flee and the church of Northumbria was almost - entirely rooted up.[210] - - § 77.5. =Celtic Missions among the Anglo-Saxons.=--The saviour - of Northumbria was Oswald, A.D. 635-642, the son of a former - king who had been driven out by Edwin. He had found refuge as - a fugitive in the monastery of Hy and was there converted to - Christianity. To restore the church in Northumbria the monks - sent him one of their number, the amiable Aidan. Oswald acted as - his interpreter until he acquired the Saxon language. His success - was unexampled. Oswald founded a religious establishment for him - on the island of Lindisfarne, and supported by new missionaries - from Hy, Aidan converted the whole of the northern lands to - Christianity. Oswald fell in battle against Penda. He was - succeeded as king and also as Bretwalda by his brother Oswy. - Irish missionaries joined the missionary monks of Hy, rivalling - them in their exertions, and by A.D. 660 all the kingdoms of - the Heptarchy had been converted to Christianity, and down to - this date all, with the exception of Kent, which alone still - adhered to the Romish church, belonged to the ancient British - communion.[211] - - § 77.6. =The Celtic Element Driven out of the Anglo-Saxon - Church.=--Oswy perceived the political danger attending the - continuance of such ecclesiastical disputes. He succeeded in - convincing also his neighbour kings of the need of ecclesiastical - uniformity. The only question was as to which of the two should - be recognised. The choice fell upon the Romish. Oswy himself - most decidedly preferred it. His wife Eanfled, Edwin’s daughter, - was a zealous partisan of the Romish church, and on her side - stood a man of extraordinary power, prudence and persistence, the - abbot Wilfrid, a native Northumbrian, trained in the monastery of - Lindisfarne. He had, however, visited Rome, and since then used - all his eloquence and skill in intrigue in order to lay all - England at the feet of the pope. The queen and the abbot wrought - together upon the Bretwalda, and he in his turn upon the other - princes. To these personal influences were added others of a - more general kind: the preference for things foreign over those - of home growth, the brilliancy and preponderating weight of the - Romish church, and above all, the gulf, not yet by any means - bridged over, between the Saxons and the British. When secret - negociations toward the desired end had been carried out, Oswy - called a general Synod at the nunnery of Streoneshalch, now - Whitby, _Synodus Pharensis_, A.D. 664. Here all the civil and - ecclesiastical notabilities of the Heptarchy were assembled. - The chief speaker on the Roman side was Wilfrid, on the Celtic - side bishop Colman of Lindisfarne. The observance of Easter was - the first subject of discussion. Wilfrid referred to the Apostle - Peter, to whom the Lord said: Thou art Peter, etc. Then Oswy - asked Colman whether it was true that the Lord had said so to - Peter. Colman could not deny it, and Oswy declared that he would - follow him who had the power to open for them the gates of heaven. - And so the question was settled. Oswy as Bretwalda carried out - with energy the decisions of the Council, and within a few weeks - the scissors had completed the conversion of the whole Heptarchy - to the Roman tonsure and the Roman faith.[212] - - § 77.7. =Spread and Overthrow of the British Church on the - Continent.=--The first Celtic missionary who crossed the channel - was the Irishman =Fridolin=, about A.D. 500. With several - companions he settled near Poitiers in Aquitaine which was - then under the Visigoths, converted the Arian bishop of that - place together with his congregation to trinitarian orthodoxy, - and, under the protection of Clovis, who had meanwhile, A.D. 507, - overthrown the Visigoth power in Gaul, founded churches and - monasteries. Afterwards he wrought among the heathen Alemanni in - Switzerland (§ 78, 1). We have fuller and more reliable accounts - of Columba the younger, usually called =Columbanus=, an Irishman - by birth, who, in A.D. 590, with twelve zealous companions, went - forth from the British monastery of Bangor in Co. Down, Ireland, - and settled among the Vosges mountains. Here they founded the - monastery of Luxovium, now Luxeuil, as centre with many others - affiliated to it. They cultivated the wilderness and wrought - laboriously in restoring church discipline and order in a region - that had been long spiritually neglected. But their strict - adherence to the British mode of observing Easter caused offence. - The severe moral discipline which they enjoined was galling to - the careless Burgundian clergy, and the aged Brunehilda swore - to compass their death and destruction, because of the influence - adverse to her authority which they exercised upon her grandson, - the young king Theodoric II. Thus it happened that in A.D. 610, - after twenty years’ labours, they were driven away. They turned - then to Switzerland (§ 78, 1). But when persecuted here also, - Columbanus with his followers migrated to Italy, about A.D. 612, - where, under Agilulf’s protection (§ 76, 8), he founded the - celebrated monastery of Bobbio and contended against Arianism. - The _Regula Columbani_ extant in several MSS. constitutes a - written guide to Christian piety and breathes a free evangelical - spirit, while the annexed _Regula cœnobialis fratrum de Hibernia_, - also ascribed to him, bears a rigoristic ascetic character, - enjoining frequent flagellations. Columbanus died in A.D. 615. - The monks of his order joined the Benedictines in the 9th century. - On his personal relation to the Romish chair during his residence - in Gaul and Italy we get some information from three of his - epistles still extant. In the first he asks Gregory the Great - for an explanation of the Gallic observance of Easter, and in - the second he asks Boniface IV. to confirm his old British mode - of reckoning Easter. In both he recognises the pope as occupier - of the chair of Peter, and in the second greets him as head of - all the churches of Europe and describes the Roman church as the - chief seat of the orthodox faith. In the third, on the other hand, - he demands of the pope in firm terms an account of his own faith - and that of the Roman church. He did so in consequence of a - report having reached him, probably through the mention by the - 5th œcum. Council (§ 52, 6) of a schism between Rome and Northern - Italy, that the Roman chair had fallen into the heresies of - Eutyches and Nestorius.--The ablest of Columbanus’ followers - was Gallus or St. Gall. He remained in Switzerland and had his - faithfulness rewarded by rich success. After Columbanus had been - expelled from France traces of Celtic ecclesiastical institutions - may indeed for a considerable time have lingered on among his - Frankish scholars and friends animated by the missionary zeal - of their master. For from their midst as it would seem proceeded - most of those Frankish missionaries who carried the gospel in the - 7th century to the German lands (§ 78). But from the time of the - overthrow of the old Celtic ecclesiastical system at the Synod of - Streoneshalch in A.D. 664, whole troops of its adherents, British, - Irish, Scotch and Anglo-Saxons, crossed the channel to convert - Germany. With very few exceptions, only the names of these men, - and for the most part not even these, have come down to us. But - their zeal and success are witnessed to by the fact that even in - the beginning of the 8th century throughout all the district of - the Rhine, as well as Hesse, Thuringia, Bavaria and Alemannia - we find a network of flourishing churches bearing the impress - of Celtic institutions. And the overthrow of this great and - promising ecclesiastical system, partly by peaceful, partly by - violent transportation into the Romish church, was the work of - the Anglo-Saxon Winfrid, whom the Romanists, quite rightly from - their point of view, honour, under the name of Boniface, as the - Apostle of Germany (§ 78, 4-8).[213] - - § 77.8. =Overthrow of the Old British System in the Iro-Scottish - Church.=--After the British Church had lost, in A.D. 664, all - support in the Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy, it could not long maintain - itself in its own original Celtic home. The Scottish kings - on political grounds, in order to avoid giving their Saxon - neighbours an opportunity of gratifying the love of conquest - under the pretext of zeal for the faith, were obliged to - assimilate their church organization with that of the Southerns. - The learned Abbot Adamnan of Hy, when, in A.D. 684, by order - of his king, he visited the Northumbrian court, professed to - be there convinced of the correctness of the Romish observance - of Easter. But when his monks stoutly resisted, he left the - monastery and went on a missionary tour to Ireland where he - urged his views so successfully that in A.D. 701 the most of the - Irish adopted the Roman reckoning. Some years later, in A.D. 710, - Naitan II., the powerful king of the Picts, asked instructions - from Abbot Ceolfrid about the superiority of the Romish practice - regarding Easter and the tonsure, forced his whole people to - adopt the Romish doctrine and banished the obstinate priests. - Finally, the Anglo-Saxon Egbert, educated in Ireland, but - subsequently won over to the Romish church, induced by visions - and tempests to abandon his projected mission to the heathen - Frisians (§ 78, 3), and to devote himself to what was regarded - as the more arduous task of the conversion of the schismatical - monks of Hy, succeeded in A.D. 716 in so far overcoming their - obstinacy that they at least gave up their divergent tonsure and - Easter reckoning. Thereafter the Romanists were satisfied with - the gradual Romanizing of the whole Celtic regions in the west - and north. In worship, constitution and discipline all remained - for a long time as it had been of old. The Roman law of celibacy - could not win its way. Public worship was conducted and the - sacraments dispensed in the language of the people and in the - simple forms of primitive times. Canon law was almost everywhere - made subordinate to the customs of the national church. Indeed, - when in A.D. 843, the kingdom of the Picts, where the papacy - had made most progress, went by inheritance to the Scottish - king Kenneth, he restored even there the old ecclesiastical - institutions of their fathers. Malcolm III., who died in - A.D. 1093, was the first of the Scottish kings to begin the - complete, thorough and lasting Romanizing of the whole country. - His marriage with the English princess Margaret, a zealous - supporter of the papacy, marks the beginning of that policy - which was carried out and completed by their son David, who - died in A.D. 1152. In Ireland the English conquest of A.D. 1171 - under Henry III. prepared the way for the complete Romanizing - of the island. Still in both Scotland and Ireland down to the - 14th century many of the old Celtic priests survived. To them was - given the Celtic name Kele-de, _servus_ or _vir Dei_, Latinized - as Colidei, and in modern form, Culdees. They were secular - priests who, bound by a strict rule, in companies generally of - twelve with a prior over them, like a Catholic canon (§ 84, 1), - devoted themselves to a common spiritual life and activity, - maintaining an existence in many places down to the end of - the 8th century. The origin of the rule under which they lived - is still very obscure. It allowed them to marry but enforced - abstinence from marital intercourse during the period of their - service, and required of them, besides the charge of the public - services, special attention to the poor. In Scotland particularly - their societies soon became so numerous that almost the whole - secular clergy went over to them. By the forcible introduction - of regular canons they were crushed more and more down to the - 11th century, or where they still existed, they were deprived - of the right of pastoral supervision and administration of the - sacraments and reduced to subordinate positions, such as that - of choir singers.--The usual application of the name of Culdees - to all, even earlier representatives of the Celtic church, is - quite unjustifiable.[214] - - - § 78. THE CONVERSION AND ROMANIZING OF GERMANY.[215] - - In the Roman period the regions of the Rhine and the Danube had -become Christian countries, but the rush of the migration of the -peoples had partly destroyed the Christian foundations, partly overlaid -them with heathen superstitions. By the end of the 6th century a great -part of Germany was already under the dominion of the Franks, and, -to distinguish it from the country of the West Franks or Neustria, -was called Austrasia or the land of the East Franks. South-western -and South-eastern Germany (Alemannia, Bavaria, Thuringia) was governed -by native dukes under the often disputed over-lordship of the Franks. -North-western Germany (embracing the Frisians and the Saxons) still -enjoyed undisputed national independence. The first serious attempt -to introduce or restore Christianity in Austrasia began about the end -of the 6th century. The missionaries who took the work in hand went, -partly from Neustria, partly from this side of the Channel. The Irish -and Scottish monasteries were overflowing. Those dwelling in them -had an unconquerable passion for travel and in their hearts an eager -longing to spread Christ’s kingdom by preaching the gospel. This -impulse was greatly strengthened by the overthrow of their national -prestige (§ 77, 6). They were thus out of sympathy with their native -land, and were encouraged to hope that they might win on the opposite -continent what they had lost at home. Crowds of monks from Iro-Scottish -monasteries crossed over into the heathen provinces of Germany. But -Romish Christian Anglo-Saxons, no less fond of travel, impelled by -the same missionary fervour and no slight zeal for their own communion, -followed in their steps. Thus in the 8th century on German soil the -struggle was renewed which at home had been already fought out, to -end again as before in the defeat of the Celtic claims. In almost all -German countries we find traces of Irish or Scottish missionaries and -married priests, reproachfully styled adulterers. What mainly secured -for the Anglo-Saxons the victory over them was the practical talent for -organization shown by the former, and their attachment to the imposing -spiritual power of the papal see. To them alone is Germany indebted -for her incorporation into the Roman ecclesiastical union; for even -the Frankish missionaries for the most part had no connection with -Rome.--Most rapid and successful progress was made by the mission -where there had previously been Christian institutions, _e.g._ in -the provinces of the Rhine and the Danube. The work was more difficult -on the east of the Scheldt in Friesland, Hesse, Thuringia and Saxony, -where paganism had reigned undisturbed. Mission work was at once -furthered and hindered by the selfish patronage of the Frankish rulers. -Paganism and national liberty, the yoke of Christ and the yoke of the -Franks, seemed inseparably conjoined. The one stood and fell with the -other. The sword of the Franks was to make the way for the cross of -Christ, and the result of preaching was to afford an introduction to -political subjection. The missionaries submitted regretfully to this -amalgamation of religious and political interests, but it was generally -unavoidable. - - § 78.1. =South-Western Germany.=--Here were located the - powerful race of the =Alemanni=. Of the Christian institutions - of the Roman period only some shadowy remnants were now to be - seen. The diet of Tolbiac in A.D. 496 which gave the Franks a - Christian king, first secured an entrance among the Alemanni - to Christianity. Yet progress was slow, for the Franks did - not resort to force. The revision of Alemannian jurisprudence, - concluded by Dagobert I. about A.D. 630, assumed indeed that the - country was wholly Christian, but it only anticipated what the - country was destined to become. =Fridolin= (§ 77, 7), founder - of the monastery of Seckingen on an island of the Rhine above - Basel, is called the first Apostle of the Alemanni, A.D. 510. - The reports that have reached us of his work are highly legendary - and unreliable. After =Columbanus= in A.D. 610 had been compelled - along with his companions to leave the Frankish territory - (§ 77, 7), he chose Alemannian Switzerland as the field of their - operations. They settled first of all at Tuggen on the Zurich - lake. The fiery zeal with which they destroyed heathen idols, - roused the wrath of the inhabitants, who maltreated them and - drove them away. They next wrought for three years at Bregentz - where they converted many pagans. The main instrument in this - work was =Gallus= who had gained thorough mastery of the language - of the people. Driven from this place also, Columbanus and - his followers settled in Italy. Only =Gallus=, who was ill at - the time, remained behind. He felt obliged, in spite of all - unfavourable circumstances, to carry on the work that had been - begun. In a wild forest dale by the stream Steinach, where he - was held firm by a thorn bush while on his knees praying, he - built a cell, from which arose in later times the famous abbey of - St. Gall. He died, after an eminently useful and successful life - in his 95th year in A.D. 646. He does not seem to have been so - persistent as Columbanus in maintaining the peculiarities of the - British church. His disciple =Magnoald= continued his work and - founded the monastery of Füssen on the Upper Lech in Swabia. At - the same time there wrought at Breisgau the hermit =Trudpert=, an - Irishman, who laid the foundation of the future abbey of Trudpert - at the foot of the Black Forest, and was murdered in A.D. 643 - by a servant given up to him for forced labour. Somewhat later - we meet with =Pirminius=, a Frankish cleric, on the Lake of - Constance, where, under the protection of the Frankish ruler - Charles Martel, he founded the monastery of Reichenau in A.D. 724. - A national rising of the Alemanni against the Franks drove him - away after three years; but the monastery remained uninjured. He - then proceeded down the Rhine and founded several monasteries, - the last at Hornbach in the diocese of Metz, where he died in - A.D. 753. - - § 78.2. =South-Eastern Germany.=--After the successful labours - of Severinus (§ 76, 6) the history of the Danubian provinces - is shrouded in thick darkness. A hundred years later we find - there the powerful nation of the Boyars, now Bavarians, with - native dukes descended from Agilulf. Only scanty remnants of - Christianity were to be seen. In A.D. 615 the Frankish abbot - =Eustasius= of Luxeuil, the successor of Columbanus, appears - prosecuting the missionary labours, and struggling against the - so-called heresies of Bonosus and Photinus, remnants probably - of Gothic Arianism. About the middle of the 7th century, at the - court of the Duke of Bavaria, Theodo I., at Regensburg, =Emmeran=, - bishop of Poitiers, laboured for three years. Suddenly he - left the country and made a pilgrimage to Italy. Being charged - with the seduction of the Princess Ota, he was on his journey - in A.D. 652, according to others in A.D. 715, overtaken by her - brother and cruelly murdered. Ota is said at the advice of the - saint himself to have named him as her seducer, in order to - screen the actual seducer from vengeance. The true Apostle of - Bavaria was bishop =Rupert= of Worms. In A.D. 696 he baptized - the Duke Theodo II. with his household, founded many churches - and monasteries, and almost completed the Christianizing of - the country. The centre of his operations was the bishopric of - Salzburg, founded by him. About A.D. 716 he returned to Worms - and died there in A.D. 717. An old tradition describes him as - a Scot, whether in respect of his descent or of his undoubtedly - ecclesiastical tendencies, is uncertain. We find at least no - trace of his having had any connection with Rome. Soon after - him a Frankish itinerant bishop called =Corbinianus= made his - appearance in Bavaria, and was the founder of the episcopal see - at Freisingen, A.D. 724. He was a man of imperious temper and - unbending stubbornness, who exercised discipline with reckless - strictness, rooted out the remnants of pagan superstition, and - founded many churches and monasteries. He died in A.D. 730.--That - the Frankish missionaries were still more or less influenced by - the old British traditions is shown by the fact that Boniface - found the Bavarian church free from Rome. Duke Theodo II. soon - after Rupert’s departure on a pilgrimage to Rome had indeed - entered into relations with Gregory II., in consequence of which - three Roman clerics made their appearance in Bavaria. But the - organization of the Bavarian church committed to them by the - pope could not be carried out on account of political troubles. - Boniface was the first who succeeded in some measure in - doing this.--The Apostle of the neighbouring Thuringians was - an Irishman =Kilian= or Kyllena, who, toward the end of the - 7th century, along with twelve companions, entered the province - of Würzburg. These faithful men found the reward of their labours - in the crown of martyrdom. But crowds of their zealous believing - fellow-countrymen followed them, and continued with rich success - the work which they had begun, until, after a hard struggle, they - were obliged to resign the field to Boniface. - - § 78.3. =North-Western Germany.=--In the Middle Rhine provinces - Christian episcopal dioceses had been maintained, but in a feeble - condition and overrun with crowds of heathen people. About the - middle of the 6th century a Frank called =Goar= settled as a - hermit within the bounds of the diocese of Treves, converted - many of the surrounding heathens and put to shame the envious - suspicions of the clergy of Treves, his holiness being attested - according to later legends by many extraordinary miracles. The - beautiful town of St. Goar has grown up round the spot where he - built his cell and church. After him in the same region wrought - a Longobard =Wulflaich= who as a stylite (§ 44, 6), in spite - of the northern climate, preached down to the heathens from - his pillar. But the neighbouring bishops disliked his senseless - asceticism and had the pillar thrown down.--After the Frankish - king Dagobert I. conquered the south of the Netherlands in - A.D. 630, an accomplished Frankish priest, =Amandus=, appeared - at Rome preaching the gospel among the Frisians settled there. - The command given by him for the compulsory baptism of all the - pagans only intensified the hatred against him and his sacred - message. Insulted, maltreated and repeatedly thrown into the - Scheld, he left the country to missionarize among the Basques - of the Pyrenees and then among the Slavs of the Danube. But at - a later period he returned to Ghent, and gained great influence - after having succeeded in converting a rich Frisian called - Bavo, with whose help he built two monasteries. In A.D. 647 - he was chosen bishop of Maestricht, but retired in A.D. 649, - notwithstanding the dissuasion of Pope Martin I., on account of - the opposition of his clergy, and then founded the monastery of - Elno, afterwards called St. Amand, near Tournay, where he died - in A.D. 648. During the same period wrought =Eligius=, formerly a - skilful goldsmith at the court of Dagobert, from A.D. 641 bishop - of Noyon, where he died in A.D. 658. He took numerous missionary - journeys for the conversion of the Frisians extending as far - as the Scheld. From this side of the Channel too wistful eyes - had looked over to the Frisian coasts. A Briton said to have - been converted to Romanism by Augustine the Apostle of the - Anglo-Saxons, =Livinus=, appeared as a missionary on the Scheld - about A.D. 650, but was slain by the heathens soon after his - arrival. The celebrated supporter of Romish claims, =Wilfrid= - (§ 77, 6), first preached the gospel to the Frisians living - north of the Scheld. He had been elected archbishop of York, but, - expelled from his bishopric (§ 88, 3), he went to seek protection - at Rome and was cast by a storm on the Frisian shores, which was - fortunate for him as hired assassins waited for him in France. - He spent the winter of A.D. 677-678 in Friesland, preached daily, - baptized Duke Aldgild and “thousands” of the people. But in - the following spring he took his departure. Aldgild’s successor - Radbod († A.D. 719), who passed his whole life in war with Pippin - of Heristal († A.D. 714) and Charles Martel, hated and persecuted - Christianity as the religion of the Franks, and the seed sown - by Wilfrid perished. Pippin’s victory at Dorstadt in A.D. 689 - compelled him for a time to show greater toleration. Then - immediately a Frankish mission was started under bishop =Wulfram= - of Sens, a pupil of the monastery of Fontanelle founded by - Columbanus. According to an interesting tradition, which, however, - does not stand the test of criticism, Radbod was himself just - about to receive baptism, but drew back from the baptismal font, - because he would rather go with his glorious forefathers to hell - than enter the Christian heaven with a crowd of miserable people. - It is probably only a legend designed in the interest of the - doctrine of predestination.--The true Apostle of the Frisians was - the Anglo-Saxon =Wilibrord= who, in company with twelve followers, - undertook the work in A.D. 690. Born in Northumbria about - A.D. 658, he received his first training under Wilfrid at the - monastery of Ripon and then in an Irish monastery under the - direction of Egbert, whose debt to the Frisians (§ 77, 8) he - now undertook to pay. Pippin gave protection and aid to the - missionaries, and Wilibrord travelled to Rome that he might get - there support for his life work. He returned armed with papal - approbation and supplied with relics. But meanwhile a party of - his followers, probably dissatisfied with his control, sent one - of their number called Suidbert to England, where he received - episcopal consecration. Wilibrord’s party, however, kept the - upper hand. Suidbert went to the Bructeri on the Upper Ems, and, - when driven thence by the Saxons, to the Rhine, where he built a - monastery on an island of the Rhine given him by Pippin, and died - there in A.D. 715.--After many years’ successful labour Wilibrord, - at Pippin’s command, went a second time to Rome in A.D. 696, to - be there consecrated a bishop. Sergius I. gave him consecration - under the name of Clement, distinguishing him in this way as - an eminent man, and Pippin gave him the castle of Utrecht as - an episcopal residence. From this centre his missionary labours - stretched out over Radbod’s realm and even across the Danish - frontier. During a visit to the island of Heligoland he ventured - to baptize three men in a holy well. Radbod would have the - blasphemers together to sacrifice to the gods; thrice he enquired - at the sacred lot, but it answered regularly in favour of the - missionaries. But, in consequence of the complete defeat which - Charles Martel suffered at the hands of Radbod at Cologne, in - A.D. 715, the Frisian mission was stopped and only after Radbod’s - death in A.D. 719 could Wilibrord commence operations again from - the monastery of Echternach, to which he had meanwhile withdrawn. - When he died at the age of eighty-one in A.D. 739, the conversion - at least of South Friesland was almost completed. We hear nothing - of conflicts and disputes with Celtic missionaries all through - his fifty years of missionary labour, in consequence, no doubt, - of his mild and peaceful temper, which led him to attend rather - to the Christianizing of the heathen than to the Romanizing - of those who were already Christian.--In consequence of - jurisdictional claims of the Cologne see, the episcopate of - Utrecht remained vacant for a long time after Wilibrord’s death. - The mission among the heathens was meanwhile conducted with zeal - and success by =Gregory=, a Frankish nobleman of the Merovingian - family and a favourite pupil of Boniface, who as abbot of the - monastery of Utrecht presided over its famous seminary. Willehad, - the Anglo-Saxon, was held in high repute by his scholars and - was made bishop of Bremen by Charlemagne. The conversion of the - northern Frisians was completed by =Liudger=, a native Frisian, - afterwards bishop of Münster. - - § 78.4. =The Missionary Work of Boniface.=--The Anglo-Saxon - =Winfrid= or =Boniface=,[216] born at Kirton in Wessex - about A.D. 680 had at an early age, on account of his piety, - ecclesiastical tastes and practical talent, gained an honourable - position in the church of his native land. But he was driven by - an irresistible impulse to devote himself to the heathen tribes - of Germany. In A.D. 716 he landed in Friesland. Although Radbod, - then at war with Charles Martel, considering that he had no - connection with the Franks, put no hindrances in his way, he - had not such success as encouraged him to continue, and so before - winter he returned home. But his missionary ardour gave him no - rest; even his election as abbot of his monastery of Nutscall was - not sufficient to hold him back. And so in the spring of A.D. 718 - he crossed the Channel a second time, but went first of all to - Rome, where Gregory II., A.D. 715-731, supplied him with relics - and papal authority for the German mission. The task to which - he now applied himself was directed less to the uprooting of - paganism than to the overthrow of that Celtic heresy which had - on many sides struck its roots deeply in German soil. He next - attempted to gain a footing in Thuringia. But he could neither - induce the “adulterous” priests to submit to Rome, nor seduce - their people from allegiance to them. News of Radbod’s death - in A.D. 719 moved him to make a journey into Friesland, where - he aided Wilibrord for three years in converting the heathens. - Wilibrord wished him to remain in Friesland as his coadjutor, - and to be his future successor in the bishopric of Utrecht. But - this reminded him of his own special task. He tore himself away - and returned to Upper Hesse in A.D. 722. Here he won to Roman - Christianity two Christian chiefs Dettic and Deorulf, erected - with their help the monastery of Amanaburg (Arnöneburg, not - far from the Ohm or _Amana_), and baptized, as his biographer - Willibald assures us, in a short time “many thousands” of the - heathens. He reported his success to the pope who called him to - Rome in A.D. 723, where, after exacting of him a solemn vow of - fealty to the papal chair, he consecrated him Apostolic bishop - or Primate of all Germany, and gave him a _Codex canonum_ and - commendatory letters to Charles Martel and the German clergy, - as well as to the people and princes of Thuringia, Hesse, and - even heathen Saxony. He next secured at the court of Charles - Martel a letter of protection and introduction from that powerful - prince, and then again betook himself to Hesse. The cutting - down of the old sacred oak of Thor at Geismar near Fritzlar - in A.D. 724, against which he raised the axe with his own hand - amid the breathless horror of the heathen multitudes, building - a Christian chapel with its timber, marked the downfall of - heathenism in the heart of Germany. In the following year, - A.D. 725, he extended his operations into Thuringia, where - Celtic institutions were still more widely spread than in Hesse. - This extension of his field of labour required a corresponding - increase of his staff. He applied to his English friends, of whom - bishop Daniel of Winchester was the most distinguished. His call - was responded to year after year by Anglo-Saxon priests, monks - and nuns. All England was roused to enthusiasm for the work of - its apostle and supported him with advice and practical aid, - with prayers and intercessions, with gifts and presents for his - personal and ecclesiastical necessities. Thus there soon arose - two spiritual armies over against one another; both fought with - equal enthusiasm for what seemed to them most high and holy. - But the Anglo-Saxon invader gained ground always more and more, - though indeed amid much want, weariness and care, and the Celtic - church gradually disappeared before advancing Romanism. Meanwhile - Gregory II. had died. His successor Gregory III., A.D. 731-741, - to whom Boniface had immediately submitted a report, answered by - sending him the archiepiscopal pallium with a commission as papal - legate in the German lands to found bishoprics and consecrate - bishops. His work in Thuringia, after ten years’ struggles and - contests, was so far successful that he could look around for - other fields of labour. He chose now, however, not heathen Saxony - but the already Christianized Bavaria, which, as still free from - Rome and strongly infected with the British heresy, seemed to - afford a more attractive field for his missionary zeal. He made - a hasty tour of inspection through the country in A.D. 735-736. - The most important result of this journey was the accession - of a fiery young Bavarian named Sturm, supposed to be next in - succession to Odilo the heir of the throne, whom Boniface took - with him to educate at the seminary at Fritzlar. In the following - year he undertook a third journey to Rome, undoubtedly to consult - with the pope about the further organization of the German - church and the best mode of its accomplishment. He had the most - flattering reception and stayed almost a whole year in Rome. - The pope sent him away in A.D. 738 with apostolic letters to - the clergy, people and nobles of Middle Germany, and also to - some distinguished Bavarian and Alemannian bishops, in which - those addressed were urged to assist his legate by their ready - and hearty obedience in bringing about a much-needed organization - of the churches in their several provinces.[217] - - § 78.5. =The Organization Effected by Boniface.=--The attention - of Boniface was directed first of all to Bavaria, and duke Odilo - reigning there since A.D. 737 anticipated it by an invitation. - Arriving in Bavaria he divided the whole Bavarian church into - four dioceses. Bivilo of Passau had before this been consecrated - as bishop in Rome. Erembert of Freisingen received consecration - at the hand of the legate. The bishops of Regensburg and Salzburg, - however, down to the close of their lives, asserted themselves - as opposition bishops over against those appointed by Boniface. - Odilo, too, withdrew from him his favour, and entrusted not - to him but to Pirminian the Alemannian Apostle, who sided with - the Celtic church, the organization and oversight of several - newly-founded Bavarian monasteries. Thus the results of the papal - legate’s visit to Bavaria were of a very doubtful kind, and he - had not even made a beginning of Romanizing Alemannia. In the - meantime, however, an incident occurred which gave him in a short - time the highest measure of influence and success. Charles Martel - died in A.D. 741 and his sons succeeded him, Carloman in Austrasia - and Pepin the Short in Neustria. Charles Martel had indeed on - Gregory’s recommendation given Boniface a letter of protection - that he might carry on his work in Hesse and Thuringia, but - he had never gone further, so that Boniface often complained - bitterly to his English friends of the indolent, even hostile - attitude of the Frankish prince. But he could not wish a better - coadjutor than Carloman, who was really rather more a monk than - a prince. And so Boniface no longer delayed the organization of - the Hessian and Thuringian churches, for in the course of the - year 741 he founded four bishoprics there. It was a matter of - still greater consequence that Carloman and then also Pepin aided - him in the reorganization of the Frankish national church on - both sides of the Vosges mountains, where partly on account of - sympathy with the British church system, partly on account of the - wild spirit engendered by a life of war and the chase, the clergy - had not hitherto submitted to the influence of the papal emissary. - In order that the estates of the realm might be advised by “the - envoy of St. Peter” and the clergy of the empire about what was - necessary for the Austrasian church, Carloman, at the close of - an imperial diet, at a place unknown, called the first Austrasian - Synod, _Concilium Germanicum_, in A.D. 742, and gave to its - decrees the authority of imperial laws. Boniface was recognised - as Archbishop and Primate of the whole Austrasian church; it was - forbidden that the higher or lower clergy should have anything - to do with arms, hunting and war, that all “false and adulterous” - priests should be expelled; that the admission of “strange” - clerics should be dependent on examination before a Synod to - be held annually; that in all monasteries the Benedictine rule - (§ 85, 1) should be enforced; and that it be made the duty of - counts to support the bishops in maintaining church discipline - and stamping out all remnants of paganism. In the next year, - A.D. 743, Carloman summoned the Second Austrasian Synod at - Liptinä, now Lestines, near Cambray, which confirmed the decrees - of the first and enlarged their scope, especially in regard to - the rooting out of pagan superstition and enforcing strictly the - Romish prohibition of marriage between those naturally (§ 61, 2) - and spiritually (§ 58, 1) related. Thus upon the whole the - legal reorganization of the church of Austrasia might have - been regarded as complete, even though its actual enforcement - required yet many severe struggles. In A.D. 744 Boniface laid - the foundation of the famous monastery of Fulda which for - many centuries was a chief resort and principal school of - the Benedictine monks of Germany. Its first abbot was young - Sturm.--After the close of the Austrasian Synod Boniface began - to treat with Pepin about the reorganization of the church in - Neustria. Pepin called a Neustrian provincial Synod at Soissons - in A.D. 744. Its decrees in regard to discipline were in essential - agreement with those of the two Austrasian Synods. Besides it was - resolved to erect three metropolitan sees. Two of the prelates - designate, however, refused to accept the pallium offered by pope - Zacharias, A.D. 741-752, ostensibly on the plea that the payment - of the fee demanded would render them guilty of simony. Their - refusal, however, was perhaps mainly due to Pepin’s discovery - that the political unity of Neustria required a Primate at Rheims - rather than three metropolitans (§ 83). At a national Synod, - place of meeting unknown, held in A.D. 745, called by the two - princes acting together, at Boniface’s request the bishop Gewilib - of Mainz, a rude warrior guilty of secret murders, was deposed. - It was now the wish of Boniface that he should receive the vacant - episcopal chair of Cologne, which was destined to be raised - into a metropolitan see. Yet, through the machinations of his - opponents, the vacancy at Cologne was otherwise filled, and - Boniface was at last obliged to be satisfied with the less - important bishopric of Mainz. At a second national Council - of A.D. 748 held probably at Düren he succeeded in getting - a considerable number of Austrasian and Neustrian bishops to - subscribe a declaration of absolute submission to the pope - in which they fully acknowledged the papal supremacy over the - Frankish church. Pepin, who now, after the retirement of his - brother Carloman from the government in A.D. 747, in order to - spend the rest of his days in the monastery of Monte Cassino, - was sole ruler of both kingdoms, obtained the express approval - of pope Zacharias in A.D. 752 in making an end of the puppet - show of a sham Merovingian royalty (§ 82, 1). But it is quite - a mistake to say that Boniface was the intermediary in this - matter between the pope and the mayor of the palace. His letters - rather show, from the disfavour in which he at that time stood - at the court of Pepin, that the negociations were carried on - directly with the pope without his knowledge.[218] - - § 78.6. =Heresies Confronted by Boniface.=--Among the numerous - heresies with which Boniface had to deal the most important were - those of the Frankish Adalbert, the Scotchman Clement, and the - Irishman Virgilius. Adalbert wrought on the left bank of the - Rhine far into the interior of Neustria; Clement among the East - Franks. In the summer of A.D. 743 Carloman had at Boniface’s - urgent request cast both into prison, and at the Neustrian Synod - of Soissons in A.D. 744 Boniface secured Adalbert’s condemnation. - Yet soon after we find both at liberty. Boniface now accused them - before the pope Zacharias, and they were condemned unheard at - a Lateran Council in A.D. 745. The legate’s written accusation - charged the Frankish =Adalbert= with the vilest hypocrisy and - blasphemy: He boasted that an angel had brought him relics - of extraordinary miracle-working power, by which he could do - anything that God could; he placed himself on an equality with - the apostles; he introduced unlearned and uncanonically ordained - bishops; he forbade pilgrimages to Rome, and the consecration - of churches and chapels in the names of apostles and martyrs, - but had no objection to their consecration in his own name; he - neglected divine service in consecrated places and assembled the - people for worship in woods and fields and wheresoever it seemed - good to him; he let his own hair and nails be venerated as relics; - he absolved those who came to him in confession with the words: - I know all your sins, for nothing is hidden from me, confession - is unnecessary, go in peace, your sins are forgiven you, etc.; - in this way he won great influence especially over women and - peasants, who honoured him as a great apostle and miracle-worker. - Three documents supported the report of Boniface; viz., a - biography of Adalbert composed by one of his admirers, according - to which his mother in the “ever blessed” hour of his birth had - in vision seen an ox go forth out her right side; also, a letter - said to have fallen from heaven to Jerusalem which guaranteed his - divine mission; and finally, a prayer composed by him which while - generally breathing a spirit of deep humility and firm faith, - went on to invoke a rarely-named angel. If we strike out from - these charges those which evidently rest upon misunderstanding - and legendary or malevolent exaggeration, we have before us a - man who in opposition to the prevailing worship of saints and - relics maintained that the relics set up for veneration were no - more worthy of it than his own hair and nails would be, who also - disputed the advantage of pilgrimages, denied the necessity of - auricular confession, insisted upon the universal priesthood of - believers in opposition to Romish hierarchical claims, and the - evangelical worship of God in spirit and in truth in opposition - to the Romish overestimation of consecrated places; but in - doing so perhaps, more certainly in mystic-theosophic enthusiasm - than in conscious deceitfulness, he may have boasted of divine - revelations and the possession of miracle-working power.--The - figure of the Scotchman =Clement= comes out yet more distinctly - in the charge formulated against him. He is simply an adherent - of the pure and unadulterated ecclesiastical system of the old - British church. He treats with contempt the Canon law, and does - not regard himself as bound by the decrees of Synods or the - authority of the Latin Fathers; he claims to be a bishop and - still lives in “adulterous” wedlock; he affirms that a man - may marry the widow of his deceased brother; he teaches with - reference to Christ’s descent into hell that even those who - died in heathenism may yet be redeemed, and “_affirmat multa - alia horribilia de prædestinatione Dei contraria fidei cath_.” - The pope committed to his legate the execution of the Synod’s - condemnatory judgment. But still in A.D. 747 Boniface again - complains that the undiminished reputation of both heretics at - all points stands in his way. Soon after this, however, Carloman, - after Adalbert had submitted in a disputation with Boniface, sent - him into confinement in the monastery of Fulda, from which he - made his escape, and after long wanderings was at last killed - by the swineherds. No information has reached us as to the end - of Clement.--The Irishman =Virgilius= was from A.D. 744 bishop - of Salzburg, and, as before at the court of Pepin, so now at his - recommendation at the court of the Bavarian duke Odilo, he stood - in high favour. After a long and determined refusal he at last - agreed to submit to the Romish choice of bishops. A priest of - his diocese unskilled in Latin had baptized _in nomine patria - et filia et speritus sancti_, Boniface pronounced such baptism - invalid. Virgilius thought otherwise and appealed to the pope - who was obliged to admit that he was right. But now Boniface - complained of him as a heretic because he taught: _Quod alius - mundus et alii homines sub terra sint_, and this time the pope - took the side of his legate, because upon the accepted notion - of the orbicular form of the earth, the doctrine of antipodes - (already regarded by Lactantius and Augustine as of dangerous - tendency) amounted to a denial of the unity of the human - race and the universality of redemption, whereas the Irishman - belonging to a seafaring race probably considered the earth to - be globular. The pope, in A.D. 748, ordered his deposition and - removal from the clerical order, which Boniface, however, was - not able to accomplish.[219] - - § 78.7. =The End of Boniface.=--On the one hand, distrusted, - and set aside by Pepin and the new pope Stephen II., A.D. 752-757, - from his position as legate (§ 82, 1), and also, on the other - hand, feeling himself overborne in his old age by the burden of - his episcopal and archiepiscopal cares, sorrows and conflicts, - Boniface had his favourite pupil, the energetic Lullus, already - recognised by pope Zacharias, elected as his successor, and - with Pepin’s consent transferred to him at once the independent - administration of the episcopal diocese of Mainz. He now - determined to devote his last as he had his first energies - undividedly to his archiepiscopal diocese embracing the Frisian - church, which still needed firm episcopal control and was now - threatened with a pagan reaction. After Wilibrord’s death in - A.D. 739, Cologne, resting its pretensions on an ancient deed - of gift by Dagobert, claimed jurisdiction over the Frisian church. - Boniface indeed at Carloman’s orders had ordained a new bishop - to the Utrecht chair, in A.D. 741, probably the Anglo-Saxon - Eoban. Yet this new bishop never came into actual, at least not - into undisputed possession. In one of his last letters Boniface - earnestly but in vain implores pope Stephen II. to disallow the - unjust pretensions of Cologne. Charlemagne first settled the - dispute by requiring Alberich, Gregory’s successor in the Utrecht - see, to receive consecration at the hands of the Cologne prelate. - With a stately retinue of fifty-two followers clerical or lay, - and with a foreboding presentiment carrying with him a winding - sheet, Boniface sailed down the Rhine in the spring of A.D. 754. - Whether he had now in view a reorganization of the existing - Frisian church and how far he succeeded, we have no means of - knowing. On the other hand his biographers in their legendary - exaggeration cannot sufficiently extol the wonderful success - of his missionary preaching. Wherever he appeared throughout - the land he baptized thousands of heathens. At last he had - pitched his tent in the neighbourhood of what is now Dokkum, - and there, on June 5th, A.D. 755, a number of neophytes received - confirmation. But a wild troop of heathen apostates rushed down - on them before the break of day. The guard desired to offer armed - resistance, but Boniface refused to shed blood, and, according - to the report of an old woman, received his deathblow holding the - gospel over his head. His companions were also cut down around - him. Utrecht, Mainz and Fulda quarrelled over his bones. Signs - and wonders at last decided in favour of Fulda, which he had - himself fixed upon as their resting place.--By order of Lullus, - a priest of Mainz called Wilibald wrote his life about A.D. 760. - Another life by an anonymous author in Utrecht appeared about - A.D. 790; and yet another by the Regensburg monk Othlo about - A.D. 1060. His literary remains consist of Epistles, Sermons, - and Penitentials of doubtful authenticity. - - § 78.8. =An Estimate of Boniface.=--In opposition to the current - Roman Catholic apotheosis of Boniface which assigns to him as the - true Apostle of the Germans the highest place of honour in the - firmament of German saints and cannot find the least shadow or - defect in all his life, struggles and doings, ultra-protestant - estimates have run to the very contrary extreme. Ebrard has - carried this to the utmost length. He refuses to credit him with - zeal, any hearty regard, any real capacity for proper mission - work among the heathens. Alongside of Wilibrord he was only a - despicable Romish spy; in Hesse and Thuringia only the brutal - destroyer of the Culdee church that flourished there, and in the - Frankish empire only the inconscionable agent of Rome who allied - himself to the Rome-favouring dynasty of Pepin in order to secure - the overthrow of the Culdee-favouring Merovingians, purchasing - thus Frankish aid in subjecting the German and Frankish churches - to the hierarchical tyranny of Rome. He can find in him no - trace of intellectual or spiritual greatness. On the contrary - fanaticism, hatred and a persecuting spirit, intrigue and - dishonesty, servility, dissimulation, hypocrisy, lying and - double dealing are there in abundance. His world-wide fame - is accounted for by this, that he is the accursed founder of - all mischief which has arisen upon Germany from its connection - with the papal chair.--It is true that Boniface stopped the - course of the national and independent development of the German - church that had begun and put it on the track of Roman Catholic - development and mal-development. But even had Boniface never - crossed the Channel this fate could scarcely have been averted. - It is further true that Boniface was far more eager in uprooting - heretical “Celtism” and bringing Frankish and Bavarian Christians - under the Romish yoke than in converting heathen Saxons to - Christianity. But he was thus eager because that seemed to him - in the first instance more necessary and important than aiming - at new conversions. It is a crying injustice to deny that he - showed any zeal, any energy, or that he had any success in the - conversion of the heathen in Friesland, Hesse and Thuringia. All - his thoughts, labours and endeavours are dominated by a steadfast - conviction that the pope is the head and representative of - the church in which alone salvation can be found. But yet with - him the church laws which emanate from the Holy Spirit stand - superior to the pope. Hence the right of final decision on all - ecclesiastical questions belongs indeed to the pope, but only - _secundum canones_. The expression ascribed to Boniface in - Gratian’s Decretal: _Papa a nemine judicetur nisi devius a - fide_ is never met with in any of his extant writings, but - it thoroughly well characterizes his position. Thus alongside - of the most abject submission to the chair of Peter, we see - how firmly he speaks to pope Zacharias in connection with - the Neustrian pallium affair about the Simoniacal greed of - the officials, and on another occasion declares his profound - indignation at the immoral, superstitious and blasphemous - proceedings, fit to be compared to the old pagan Saturnalia, - which, went on in Rome openly before the eyes of the pope - unchecked and unpunished. He also showed brave resistance - when papal dispensations infringed his ordinances founded - upon the canon law, and protested vigorously, when Stephen II., - in A.D. 754, disregarding the archiepiscopal authority gave - episcopal consecration to Chrodegang of Metz. But Boniface never - mixed himself up with the political intrigues of the popes, nor - did he ever intermeddle in the political manœuvres between Pepin - and the Merovingians, between the Frankish empire and its German - vassals. An inventive genius, great and profound thoughts, a - liberal and comprehensive view of matters, we certainly often - miss in him. All his thoughts, feelings and desires were bound - within the narrow limits of Romish ecclesiasticism. His piety - was deep, earnest and sincere, but is quite of the legalistic - and hard external kind that characterizes Roman Catholicism. - With the most painful conscientiousness he holds by Rome’s - ecclesiastical institutions; any resistance to these is abhorrent - to him and he persecutes heresies as cursed and soul-destroying. - He clearly understands the absurdity of prohibiting marriage - between those who are related only in baptism and at confirmation. - For he sees that on this principle all marriages between Christian - people as recipients of baptism must be forbidden since by - baptism they have all become sons and daughters of Christ and His - church, and so are spiritually brothers and sisters. But then he - willingly sacrifices his understanding, and continues to denounce - all marriages between those spiritually related as fearful sin - and horrible incest. Very characteristic too are many of his - questions to the popes as to what should be held on this point - and that, mostly about very trivial and indifferent matters of - common life. Thus he lets himself be informed that raw bacon - should only be eaten smoked, but that the eating of the flesh of - horses, hares, beavers, jackdaws, ravens and storks is absolutely - forbidden, “_immundum enim est et execrabile_.”[220] - - § 78.9. =The Conversion of the Saxons.=--The first missionary - attempts among the Saxons, who had forced their way from the - north-west of Germany down to the neighbourhood of the Rhine, - were made by two Anglo-Saxon monks, who were both called Ewald, - the black or the white Ewald. A Saxon peasant received them - hospitably, but so soon as he discovered their object, fell - upon them with his household servants and slew them, A.D. 691. - Boniface had many pious wishes about his heathen kinsfolk but - did nothing for their conversion. The most that he did was - to found the monastery of Fulda on the Saxon frontier as the - rallying point for a future clerical raid upon Saxon paganism. - For thirty years, however, this remained but a pious wish, till - at last the sword of the most powerful of the Frankish kings - took up the mission. The subjugation of the powerful as well as - hostile Saxon people was with Charlemagne a political necessity. - But lasting subjugation was impossible without conversion and - conversion was impossible without subjugation; for the Saxons - hated the religion of the Franks no less heartily than they did - the Franks themselves. Alcuin with true magnanimity exerted all - his influence with his royal friend against any use of force in - conversion, but political necessity overcame the counsel of the - much trusted friend. The Saxon war lasted for thirty-three years, - A.D. 772-804. In the very first campaign the strongest Saxon - fortress Eresburg was stormed and their most revered idol, the - Erminsul, was destroyed. Frankish priests followed the Frankish - arms and Christianized immediately the conquered districts. But - as soon as Charlemagne’s army was engaged elsewhere, the Saxons - proceeded to destroy again all Christian foundations. In the - imperial diet at Paderborn in A.D. 777 they were obliged to - swear that life and property would be forfeited by a new apostasy. - But the most powerful of the Saxon princes, Wittekind, who had - not appeared at the diet, organized a new revolt. The Frankish - army sustained a fearful defeat at Mount Sunthal, all Christian - priests were murdered, all churches were destroyed. Charlemagne - took a dreadful revenge. At Verden he beheaded in one day 4,500 - Saxons. After a new rebellion, a second diet at Paderborn in - A.D. 785 prescribed for them horribly bloody laws. The least - resistance against the precepts of the church was punished with - death. Wittekind and Albion, the two most famous Saxon chiefs, - acknowledged the vanity of further resistance. They were baptized - in A.D. 785 and continued thenceforward faithful to the king - and the church. But the rebellions of the rest of the Saxons - were still continued. In A.D. 804 Charlemagne drove 10,000 Saxon - families from their homes on the Elbe, and gave the country to - the Obohites [Obotrites] that were subject to him. Now for the - first time was a lasting peace secured. Charlemagne had founded - eight bishoprics in Saxony, and under these bishops’ care - throughout this blood-deluged country, no longer disturbed, - a Christianity was developed as truly hearty and fresh as in - any other part of Germany. One witness to this among others is - afforded by the popular epic the Heliand (§ 89, 3).[221] - - - § 79. THE SLAVS IN GERMAN COUNTRIES.[222] - - The sudden rush of the wild hordes of the Huns in the 5th century -drove the Slavs to the south of the Danube and to the west of the -Vistula. Again in the 6th century Slavic tribes forced their way -westward under pressure from the Mongolian Avars who took possession -of Dacia, Pannonia and Dalmatia. For the conversion of the Slavs in -north-eastern Germany nothing was done; but much was attempted on -behalf of the conversion of the southern Slavs and the Avars, who were -specially under the care of the see of Salzburg. - - § 79.1. =The Carantanians and Avars.=--The Carantanian prince - Boruth, in what is now called Carinthia, in A.D. 748 asked the - help of the Bavarian duke Thassilo II. against the oppression - of the Avars. His nephew Chatimar, who had received a Christian - training in Bavaria, when in A.D. 753 he succeeded to the throne, - introduced Christianity into his country. After the overthrow - of Thassilo in A.D. 788, Carinthia came under Frankish rule, and - Charlemagne extended his conquests over the Avars and Moravians. - Bishop Arno of Salzburg, to whom metropolitan rights had been - accorded, conducted a regular mission by Charlemagne’s orders - for the conversion of these peoples. In A.D. 796, Tudun, the - prince of the Avars, with a great band of his followers, received - baptism, and vowed in A.D. 797 to turn the whole nation of the - Avars to Christianity, and asked for Christian teachers. In - the 9th century, however, the name of the Avars passed away - from history. - - § 79.2. =The Moravian Church.=--In A.D. 855 Rastislaw, Grand - Duke of Moravia, freed his country from the Frankish yoke and - deprived the German bishops of all their influence. He asked - Slavic missionaries from the Byzantine emperor. The brothers - =Cyril= and =Methodius= (§ 73, 2, 3) who had already approved - themselves as apostles of the Slavs, answered the call in - A.D. 863. They introduced a liturgy and public worship in the - language of the Slavs, and by preaching in the Slavic tongue - they won their way to the hearts of the heathen people. But in - spite of this encouraging success they found themselves, amid - the political convulsions of the age, in a difficult position. - Only by attachment to the pope could they reasonably expect - to hold their ground. They accepted therefore an invitation - of Nicholas I. in A.D. 867, but on their arrival in Rome they - found that Hadrian II. had succeeded to the papal chair. Cyril - remained in Rome and soon died, A.D. 869. =Methodius= swore - fealty to the pope and was sent away as archbishop of Moravia. - But now all the more were the German bishops hostile to him. - They suspected his fidelity to the pope, charged him with heresy - and inveighed against the Slavic liturgy which he had introduced. - John VIII., rendered suspicious of him by these means, called - upon him in strong terms in A.D. 879 to make answer for himself - at Rome. Methodius obeyed and succeeded in completely vindicating - himself. The pope confirmed him in his archiepiscopal rank and - expressly permitted him to use the Slavic liturgy, enjoining, - however, that by way of distinction the gospel should first be - read in Latin and then rendered in a Slavic translation. The - intrigues of the German clergy, however, continued and embittered - the last days of the good and brave apostle of the Slavs. He - died in A.D. 885. A general persecution now broke out against - the Slavic priests and the metropolitan chair of Moravia remained - vacant for fourteen years. John IX. restored it in A.D. 899. But - in A.D. 908 the Moravian kingdom was overthrown. The Bohemians - and Magyars shared the spoil between them. - - § 79.3. =The Beginnings of Christianity in Bohemia.=--On New - Year’s day of A.D. 845 fourteen Bohemian lords appeared at - Regensburg at the court of Louis of Germany and asked for - baptism along with their followers. Of the motives and of - the consequences of this step we know nothing. When Rastislaw - raised the Moravian empire to such a height of glory the - Bohemians connected themselves closely with Moravia. Rastislaw’s - successor Swatopluc married a daughter of the Bohemian - prince Borsivoi in A.D. 871. After that Methodius extended - his missionary labours into Bohemia. Borsivoi himself and his - wife, Ludmilla, were baptized by Methodius in A.D. 871. The sons - of Borsivoi, also, Spitihnew, who died in A.D. 912 and Wratislaw, - who died in A.D. 926, with the active support of their mother - furthered the interests of the church in Bohemia. - - - § 80. THE SCANDINAVIAN NATIONS.[223] - - The mission to the Frisians and Saxons called the attention of -missionaries to the neighbouring Jutes and Danes. Wilibrord (§ 78, 3) -in A.D. 696 carried the gospel across the Eider, and Charlemagne felt -it necessary in order to maintain his authority over the Frisians and -Saxons to extend his conquest and that of the church over the peninsula -of Jutland to the sea coast. He could not, however, accomplish his -design. Better prospects opened up before Louis the Pious. Threatened -with expulsion through disputes about the succession, Harald the king -of the Jutes sought the protection of the Franks. Consequently Ebo, -archbishop of Rheims, crossed the Eider in A.D. 823 at the head of an -imperial embassy and clothed with full authority from pope Paschalis I. -He baptized also a number of Danes, and when, after a year’s absence, -he returned home, he took with him several young Jutes to educate as -teachers for their countrymen. But Harald was again hard pressed and -concluded to break entirely with the national paganism. In A.D. 826 he -took ship, with wife and child, accompanied by a stately retinue, and -at Mainz, where Louis then held his court, received baptism with great -pomp and ceremony. Soon after his return a young monk followed him -from the monastery of Corbei on the Weser. =Ansgar=, the apostle of -the north, had committed to him by Louis the hard and dangerous task -of winning the Scandinavian nations for the church. Ansgar devoted his -whole life to the accomplishment of this task, and in an incomparable -manner fulfilled it, so far as indomitable perseverance, devotion and -self-denial amid endless difficulties and perverse opposition could -do it. - - § 80.1. =Ansgar= or Anschar, the son of a Frankish nobleman, born - A.D. 801, was educated in the monastery of Old Corbie in Picardy, - and on the founding of New Corbie in A.D. 822 was made Superior - of it. Even in very early youth he had dreams and visions which - led him to look forward to the mission field and the crown of - martyrdom. Accompanied by his noble-minded brother monk Autbert, - who would not let his beloved friend go alone, Ansgar started in - A.D. 826 on his first missionary journey. Harald had established - his authority in the maritime provinces of Jutland, but he - ventured not to push on into the interior. In this way the - missionary efforts of the two friends were restricted. On the - frontier of Schleswig, however, they founded a school, bought - and educated Danish slave youths, redeemed Christian prisoners - of war and preached throughout the country. But in the year - following Harald was driven out and fled to the province of - Rüstringen on the Weser, which Louis assigned to him for life. - Also the two missionaries were obliged to follow him. Autbert - died in the monastery of Corbie in A.D. 829, having retired - again to it when seized with illness. Soon afterwards the emperor - obtained information through ambassadors sent by the Swedish - king Bjorn, that there were many isolated Christians in their - land, some of them merchants, others prisoners of war, who had - a great desire to be visited by Christian priests. Ansgar, with - several companions, undertook this mission in A.D. 830. On the - way they were plundered by Norse pirates. His companions spoke - of returning home, but Ansgar would not be discouraged. King - Bjorn received them in a very kindly manner. A little group - of Christian prisoners gathered round them and heartily joined - in worship. A school was erected, boys were bought and adults - preached to. Several Swedes sought baptism, among them the - governor of Birka, Herigar, who built at his own cost the first - Christian church. After eighteen months Ansgar returned to the - Frankish court in order to secure a solid basis for his mission. - Louis thus perceived an opportunity of founding a bishopric for - the Scandinavian Norsemen at Hamburg on the borders of Denmark. - He appointed Ansgar bishop in A.D. 834, and assigned to him and - the mission the revenues of the rich abbey of Turholt in Flanders. - Ansgar obtained in Rome from Gregory IV. the support of a bull - which recognised him as exclusively vicar apostolic over all the - Norse. Then he built a cathedral at Hamburg, besides a monastery, - bought again Danish boys to educate for the priesthood and sent - new labourers among the Swedes, at whose head was the Frankish - monk Gauzbert. But soon misfortunes from all sides showered down - upon the poor bishop. His patron Louis died in A.D. 840, Harald - apostatized from the faith, the Swedish missionaries were driven - out by the pagans, the Norse rushed down on Hamburg and utterly - destroyed city, church, monastery, and library. Moreover Charles - the Bald took possession of the abbey of Turholt which according - to the Treaty of Verdun in A.D. 843 had fallen to Flanders, in - order to bestow it upon a favourite. Ansgar was now a homeless - beggar. His clergy, when he had no longer support for them, left - him. His mission school was broken up. His neighbour, bishop - Leuterich of Bremen, with whom he sought shelter, inspired by - despicable jealousy, turned him from his door. At last he got - shelter from a nobleman’s widow who provided for him at her - own expense a lodging at Ramslo, a country house near Hamburg. - In A.D. 846 Leuterich died. Louis of Germany now gave to the - homeless Apostle of the North a fixed habitation by appointing - Ansgar to the vacant bishopric. The bishops of Cologne and Verden - had divided between them the shattered fragments of the Hamburg - bishopric. But at last pope Nicholas I. in A.D. 834 put an end - to their selfish pretensions by uniting the two dioceses of - Hamburg and Bremen into one, and conferring upon it metropolitan - rights for the North. But meanwhile Ansgar notwithstanding all - the neediness in which he himself lived had been working away - uninterruptedly on behalf the Scandinavian mission. In =Denmark= - the king was Eric whose court Ansgar repeatedly visited as - ambassador of the German king. By Eric’s favour he had been - enabled to found a church in Schleswig and to organize a mission - stretching over the whole country. Eric did not venture himself - to pass over to Christianity, and when pagan fanaticism broke out - in open rebellion in A.D. 854, he fell in a battle against his - nephew who headed the revolt. A boy, Eric II., perhaps grandson - of the fallen Eric, mounted the throne. But the chief Jovi - reigned in his name, a bitter foe of the Christians, who drove - away all Christian priests and threatened every Christian in the - land with death. Yet in A.D. 855 Eric II. emancipated himself - from the regency of Jovi and granted toleration to the Christians. - The work of conversion was now again carried on with new zeal and - success.--All attempts, by means of new missionaries, to gather - again the fragments of the mission in =Sweden=, broken up by - Gauzbert’s expulsion, had hitherto proved vain. At last Ansgar - himself started on his journey thitherward about A.D. 850. By - rich presents and a splendid entertainment he won king Olaf’s - favour. A popular assembly determined to abide by the decision - of the sacred lot and this decided in favour of the adoption - of Christianity. From that time the Swedish mission was carried - on without check or hindrance under the direction of Erimbert, - whom Ansgar left there. Ansgar died in A.D. 865. The most dearly - cherished hope of his life, that he should be honoured with the - crown of martyrdom, was not realized; but a life so full of toil, - privation and trouble, sacrifice, patience and self-denial, was - surely nobler than a martyr’s crown.[224] - - § 80.2. =Ansgar’s Successor= in the see of Hamburg-Bremen was - =Rimbert=, his favourite scholar, his companion in almost all - his journeys, who wrote an account of his master’s life and - pronounced him a saint. He laboured according to his ability - to follow in the steps of his teacher, especially in his care - for the Scandinavian mission. But he was greatly hindered by - the wild doings of the Danish and Norse pirates. This trouble - reached its height after Rimbert’s death, and went so far - that the archbishop of Cologne on the pretext that the Hamburg - see had been extinguished was able to renew his claims upon - Bremen.--Continuation, § 93. - - - § 81. CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM.[225] - - From A.D. 665 the Byzantine rule in =North Africa= (§ 76, 3) was -for a time narrowed and at last utterly overthrown by the Saracens -from Egypt, with whom were joined the Berbers or Moors who had been -converted to Islam. In A.D. 711, called in by a rebel, they also -overthrew the Visigoth power in =Spain= (§ 76, 2). In less than -five years the whole peninsula, as far as the mountain boundaries -of the north, was in the hands of the Moors. Then they cast a covetous -glance upon the fertile plains beyond the Pyrenees, but Charles Martel -drove them back with fearful loss in the bloody battle of Poitiers -in A.D. 732. The Franks were in this the saviours of Europe and of -Christianity. In A.D. 750 the Ommaiadean dynasty at Damascus, whose -lordship embraced also the Moors, were displaced by the Abbassidean, -but a scion of the displaced family, Abderrhaman I., appeared in Spain -and founded there an independent khalifate at Cordova in A.D. 756, -which soon rose to an unexampled splendour. Also in =Sicily= the Moslem -power obtained an entrance and endeavoured from that centre to maintain -itself by constant raids upon the courts of Italy and Provence. The -expulsion of the Moors from Spain and Sicily was first completely -accomplished during the next period (§ 95). - - § 81.1. =Islam in Spain.=--The Spanish Christians under the - Ommaiade rule were called Mozarabians, _Arabi Mustaraba_, _i.e._ - Arabianized Arabs as distinguished from Arabs proper or _Arabi - Araba_. They were in many places under less severe restrictions - than the Oriental Christians under Saracen rule. Many Christian - youths from the best families attended the flourishing Moorish - schools, entered enthusiastically upon the study of the Arabic - language and literature, pressed eagerly on to the service of the - Court and Government, etc. But in opposition to such abandonment - of the Christian and national conscience there was developed - the contrary extreme of extravagant rigorism in obtrusive - confessional courage and uncalled-for denunciation of the prophet. - Christian fanaticism awakened Moslem fanaticism, which vented - itself in a bloody persecution of the Christians in A.D. 850-859. - The first martyr was a monk Perfectus. When asked his opinion - about Mohammed he had pronounced him a false prophet, and was - executed. The khalif of that period, Abderrhaman II., was no - fanatic. He wished to stop the extravagant zeal of the Christians - at its source, and made the metropolitan Recafrid of Seville - issue an ecclesiastical prohibition of all blasphemy of the - prophet. But this enactment only increased the fanaticism of - the rigorists, at whose head stood the presbyter, subsequently - archbishop, Eulogius of Cordova and his friend Paulus - Alvarus (§ 90, 6). Eulogius himself, who kept hidden from - her parents a converted Moorish maiden, and was on this account - beheaded along with her in A.D. 859, was the last victim of - the persecution.--The rule of the Arabs in Spain, however, was - threatened from two sides. When Roderick’s government (§ 76, 2) - had fallen before the arms of the Saracens in A.D. 711, Pelayo, - a relation of his, with a small band of heroic followers, - maintained Christian national independence in the inaccessible - mountains of Asturia, and his son-in-law Alphonso the Catholic - in the Cantabrian mountains on the Bay of Biscay. Alphonso - subsequently united both parties, conquered Galicia and the - Castilian mountain land, erecting on all sides the standard - of the cross. His successors in innumerable battles against - the infidels enlarged their territory till it reached the - Douro. Of these Alphonso II., the Chaste, who died in A.D. 850, - specially distinguished himself by his heroic courage and his - patronage of learning. Oviedo was his capital. On the east - too the Christian rule now again made advance.--Charlemagne - in A.D. 778 conquered the country down to the Ebro. But a - rebellion of the Saxons prevented him advancing further, and - the freebooting Basques of the Pyrenees cut down his noblest - heroes. Two subsequent campaigns in A.D. 800, 801, reduced all - the country as far as the Ebro, henceforth called the Spanish - March, under the power of the Franks.[226] - - § 81.2. =Islam in Sicily.=--A Byzantine military officer - fled from punishment to Africa in A.D. 827 and returned with - 10,000 Saracen troops which terribly devastated Sicily. Further - migrations followed and in a few years all Sicily was under the - rule of the Arabs, who made yearly devastating raids from thence - upon the Italian coasts, venturing even to the very gates of Rome. - In A.D. 880 they settled on the banks of the Garigliano, and put - all central Italy under tribute, until at last in A.D. 916 the - efforts of pope John X. were successful in driving them out. - Spanish-Moorish pirates landed in A.D. 889 on the coasts of - Provence, besieged the fortress of Fraxinetum, and plundered - from this centre for a hundred years the Alpine districts and - northern Italy. Their robber career in south Italy was most - serious of all. It lasted for three centuries and was first - brought to an end by the Norman invasion.--Continuation, § 95, 1. - - - - - II. THE HIERARCHY, THE CLERGY AND THE MONKS. - - - § 82. THE PAPACY AND THE CAROLINGIANS. - - The Christianizing of the German world was in great part accomplished -without the help of Rome. Hence the German churches, even those that -were Catholic, troubled themselves little at first about the papal -chair. The Visigoth church in Spain was most completely estranged -from it. The Saracen invasion of A.D. 711 cut off all possibility -of intercourse with Rome. Even the free Christian states in Spain -down to the 11th century had no connection with Rome. The Frankish -churches, too, in Gaul as well as in Austrasia, throve and ran wild -in their independence during the Merovingian age. On the other hand, -the relation of the English Church to Rome was and continued to be -very intimate. Numerous pilgrimages of Anglo-Saxons of higher and lower -ranks were undertaken to the grave of the chief of the Apostles, and -increased the dependence of the nation on the chair of St. Peter. For -the support of these pilgrims and as a training school for English -clergy, the _Schola Saxonica_ was founded in the 8th century, and for -its maintenance and that of the holy places in the city, on Peter’s day -the 29th June was collected the so-called Peter’s pence, a penny for -every house. Out of this sprang a standing impost on all the English -people for the papal chair, which in the 13th century became a money -tax upon the kings of England which Henry VIII. was the first to -repudiate in A.D. 1532. The credit belongs to the Anglo-Saxons and -especially to Boniface of not only delivering the rich sheaves of their -missionary harvest into the granaries of Rome, but also of organizing -the previously existing churches of the Frankish territories after -the Romish method and rendering them obedient to the Roman see. Since -then there has been such a regular intercourse between the pope and -the Carolingian rulers that it absorbed almost completely the whole -diplomatic activity of the Romish curia. - - § 82.1. =The Period of the Founding of the States of the - Church.=--From bequests and presents of ancient times the - Roman chair succeeded to an immense landed property, _Patrimonium - S. Petri_, which afforded it the means of greatly assuaging the - distress of the inhabitants of Italy during the disturbances - of the migrations of the peoples. There was naturally then no - word of the exercise of sovereign rights. From the time of the - restoration of the Byzantine exarchate in A.D. 567 (§ 76, 7) the - political importance of the pope grew immensely; its continued - existence was often dependent on the good will of the pope for - whom generally indeed the idea of becoming the court patriarch - of a Longobard-Roman emperor was not an enticing one. But the - pope could not prevent the Longobard power (§ 76, 8) from gaining - ground in the north as well as in the south of the peninsula. An - important increase of influence, power and prestige was brought - to the papal chair under =Gregory II.=, A.D. 715-731, through - the rebellions in northern and central Italy occasioned by the - Byzantine iconoclastic disputes. Rome was in this way raised - to a kind of political suzerainty not only over the Roman duchy - but also over the rest of the exarchate in the north--Ravenna - and the neighbouring cities together with Venice (§ 66, 1). - =Gregory III.=, A.D. 731-741, hard pressed by Luitprand the - Longobard, thrice (A.D. 739, 740) applied for help to the Frank - =Charles Martel=, who, closely bound in friendship with Luitprand, - his ally against the Saracens, sent some clerics to Italy to - secure a peaceful arrangement. Gregory’s successor =Zacharias=, - A.D. 741-752, sanctioned by his apostolic judgment the setting - aside of the Merovingian sham king Childeric III., whereupon - =Pepin the Short=, in A.D. 752, assumed the royal title with - the royal power which he had long possessed. The next elected - pope called Stephen died before consecration, consequently his - successor of the same name is usually designated =Stephen II.=, - A.D. 752-757. The Longobard Aistulf had in A.D. 751 conquered - Ravenna and the cities connected with it. Pope Stephen II. sought - help anew of the Frankish king and supported his petition by - forwarding an autograph letter of the Apostle Peter, in which - he exhorted the king of the Franks as his adopted son under - peril of all the pains of hell to save Rome and the Roman church. - He himself at Pepin’s invitation went to France. At Ponthion, - where, in A.D. 754, the king greeted him, Pepin promised the - pope to restore to Rome her former possessions and to give - protection against further inroads of the Longobards; while the - pope imparted to the king and his two sons Charles and Carloman - the kingly anointing in the church of St. Dionysius or Denis - in Paris. At Quiersy then Pepin took counsel with his sons and - the nobles of his kingdom about the fulfilling of his promise, - bound the Longobard king by oath in the year following after - a successful campaign to surrender the cities, properties and - privileges claimed by the pope, and assigned these in A.D. 755 - as a present to St. Peter as their possessor from that time forth. - But scarcely had he retired with his army when Aistulf not only - refused all and any surrender, but broke in anew upon Roman - territory, robbing and laying waste on every side. By a second - campaign, however, in A.D. 756, Pepin compelled him actually - to deliver over the required cities in the provinces of Rome - and Ravenna the key of which he deposited with a deed of gift, - no longer extant, on the grave of St. Peter; while the pope, - transferring to Pepin the honorary title of Exarch of Ravenna, - decorated him with the insignia of a Roman patrician. When the - Byzantine envoys claimed Ravenna as their own property, Pepin - answered that the Franks had not shed their blood for the Greeks - but for St. Peter.--Aistulf’s death followed soon after this - and amid the struggles for the succession to the throne one of - the candidates, duke Desiderius of Tuscany, sought the powerful - support of the pope and promised him in return the surrender - of those cities of the eastern province of Ravenna which still - remained in the hands of the Longobards. The pope obtained - Pepin’s consent to this transaction, and Desiderius was - made king. But neither Stephen nor his successor Paul I., - A.D. 757-767, could get him completely to fulfil his promise, - and new encroachments of the Longobards as well as new claims - of the pope intensified the bad feeling between them, which the - conciliation of Pepin, who died in A.D. 768 had not by any means - overcome.[227] - - § 82.2. After the death of Paul I. the nobles forced one of - their own order upon the Romans as pope under the name of - Constantine II. Another party with Longobard help appointed - a presbyter, Philip. The former maintained his ground for - thirteen months, but was then overthrown by a clerical party - and, with his eyes put out, was cast into the street. They now - united in the choice of =Stephen III.=, A.D. 768-772.--Desiderius - wished greatly to form a marriage connection with the Frankish - court, and found a zealous friend in Bertrada, the widow of Pepin. - When Stephen heard of it his wrath was unbounded, and he gave - unbridled expression to it in a letter which he sent to her sons - Charlemagne and Carloman. Referring to the fact that the devil - had already in Paradise by the persuasion of a woman overthrown - the first man and with him the whole race, he characterized this - plan as _propria diabolica immissio_, declared that any idea - of a connection by marriage of the illustrious reigning family - of the Franks with the _fœtentissima Longobardorum gens_, from - which all vile infections proceed, was nothing short of madness, - etc. Not peace and friendship, but only war and enmity with this - robber of the patrimony of Peter would be becoming in the pious - kings of the Franks. He laid down this his exhortation at the - grave of Peter and performed over it a Mass. Whoever sets himself - to act contrary to it, on him will fall the anathema and with the - devil and all godless men he shall burn in everlasting flames; - but whosoever is obedient to it, shall be partaker of eternal - salvation and glory. Nevertheless Charles married Desiderata the - daughter of Desiderius, and Gisela, Charles’ sister, married the - son of Desiderius. But before a year had passed, in A.D. 771, - he wearied of the Longobard wife and sent her home. Soon after - this Carloman died. Charles seized upon the inheritance of his - youthful nephews, who together with their mother found shelter - with Desiderius. When =Hadrian I.=, A.D. 772-795, refused to give - the royal anointing to Carloman’s sons, Desiderius took from him - a great part of the States of the Church and threatened Rome. But - Charles hastened at the pope’s call to give him help, conquered - Pavia, shut up king Desiderius in the monastery of Corbei, and - joined Lombardy to the Frankish empire. Further information - as to what passed between him and Hadrian at Rome in A.D. 774 - is only to be got from the _Vita Hadriani_ (§ 90, 6) written - during the reign of Louis of France. It relates as follows: At - the grave of Peter the pope earnestly exhorted him to fulfil - at last completely the promise which his father Pepin I. with - his own consent and that of the Frankish nobles gave to pope - Stephen II. at Quiersy in A.D. 754. Charles after reading over - the document referred to agreed to everything promised therein, - and produced a new deed of gift after the style (_ad instar_) - of the old, undertaking to transfer to the Roman church - a territorial possession which, together with the assumed - _Promissio_ of Pepin described with geographical precision, - embraced almost all Italy, excepting Lombardy but including - Corsica, Venice and Istria. It is now quite inconceivable that - Charles, let alone Pepin, should have given the pope such an - immense territory which Pepin for a simple footing in A.D. 754, - and Charles for at least three-fourths of it, must have first - themselves conquered. Moreover this account of the matter is - directly contradicted by the statement of all the witnesses of - Pepin’s own times. On the part of the Franks the continuator of - the Chronicler Fredégar, on the part of the Romans the biographer - of Stephen II. in the _Liber pontificalis_ and that pope himself - in his letters to Pepin, all speak of the negociations between - the king and the pope as having reference simply to Rome and - Ravenna. And since all attempts to reconcile these contradictions - by exegetical devices have failed, we can only regard this - as a fiction designed to palm off upon Louis of France Rome’s - own ambitious territorial scheme. All that Charlemagne did was - to confirm and renew his father’s gifts, as Hadrian himself - distinctly states: _Amplius_ (=further, _i.e._ for time to - come) _confirmavit_.--Moreover Pepin, and still more Charlemagne, - would hardly have granted to the holy father by his gift - absolute sovereignty over the States of the Church thus founded. - By conferring the patriciate upon the two Frankish princes, - the pope, indeed, himself acknowledged that the suzerainty - now belonged to them which formerly the Byzantine emperor - had exercised by his viceroy, the exarch of Ravenna. A more - exact definition of these rights, however, may have been first - given when Charles was crowned emperor, his imperial authority - undoubtedly extending over the Papal States. The pope as a - temporal prince was his vassal and must himself, like all - citizens of Rome, take the oath of allegiance to the emperor. - Judicial authority and the appointment of government officials - belonged to him; but they were supervised and controlled by - the Frankish ambassadors, _Missi dominici_, who heard appeals - and complaints of all kinds and were authorized to give a final - judgment. - - § 82.3. =Charlemagne and Leo III.=--Hadrian I. was succeeded by - =Leo III.=, A.D. 795-816. During a solemn procession in A.D. 799 - he was murderously attacked by the nephews of his predecessor - and severely beaten. Some of the bystanders declared that they - had seen the bandits tear out his tongue and eyes. The legend - vouched for by the pope himself was added that Peter by a miracle - restored him both the next night. Leo meanwhile escaped from - his tormentors and fled to Charlemagne. His opponents accused - him before the king of perjury and adultery, and the hearing of - witnesses seems to have confirmed the serious charges, for Alcuin - hastened to burn the report which was given in to him on the - subject. But the pope was honourably discharged and assumed again - the chair of Peter under the protection of a Frankish guard. - Next year Charles crossed the Alps with his army for a campaign - against Benevento. He convened a Synod at Rome; but the bishops - maintained that the pope, the head of all, can be judged of none; - yet the pope with twelve sponsors swore an oath of purgation and - prayed for his accusers. At the Christmas festival Charles went - to the church of St. Peter. At the close of Mass the pope amid - the applause of the people placed a beautiful golden crown upon - his head (A.D. 800). The world is asked to believe that he did - it by the immediate impulse of a divine inspiration; but it was - the result of the negociations of years and the fulfilment of - a promise by which the pope had purchased the king’s protection - against his enemies. With the idea of the imperial power - Charlemagne connected the idea of a theocratic Christian - universal monarchy in the sense of Daniel’s prophecy. The - Greeks had proved themselves unworthy of this position and - so God had transferred it to the king of the Franks. As emperor, - Charles stands at the head of all Christendom, and has only - God and His law over him. He is the most obedient son, the most - devoted servant of the church, so far as it is the vehicle and - dispenser of salvation; but he is its supreme lord and ruler so - far as it needs to adopt earthly forms and an earthly government. - Church and state are two separate domains, which, however, on all - sides limit and condition one another. Their uniting head they - have in the person of the emperor. Hence on every hand Charles’ - legislation enters the domain of the church, in respect of her - constitution, worship and doctrine. On these matters he consults - the bishops and synods, but he confirms, enlarges and modifies - their decisions according to his own way of thinking, because for - this he is personally answerable to God. In the pope he honours - the successor of Peter and the spiritual head of the church; - but, because the emperor stands over church and state, he is also - ruler of the pope. The pope who gave him imperial consecration - did it not by any power of his own immanent in the papacy, but - by special divine impulse and authority. Hence the crowning - of the emperor is only to be once received at the pope’s hand. - This rank is henceforth hereditary in the house of Charles, and - only the emperor can beget and nominate the new emperor. The - unity of the empire is to be maintained under all circumstances, - and hence, contrary to the Frankish custom of dividing the - inheritance, younger sons are to receive only the subordinate - rank of ruling princes.[228] - - § 82.4. =Louis the Pious and the Popes of his - Time.=--Charlemagne’s weaker son Louis the Pious, A.D. 814-840, - was not in a position to carry out the work his father had begun. - But pious as Louis was, he was yet as little inclined as his - immediate successor to give up the imperial suzerainty over - the city and chair of St. Peter. The popes were most expressly - required before receiving papal consecration to obtain imperial - confirmation of their election. Leo’s successor =Stephen IV.=, - A.D. 816-817, seems indeed to have evaded it, yet still he let - the Romans take the oath of fealty to the emperor, and unasked - submitted to make a journey over the Alps in order to get over - the anomaly of an emperor without the consecration of Peter’s - hand. An agreement come to on that occasion, A.D. 816, between - emperor and pope has not been preserved. A few days after - his return the pope died. The newly-elected =Paschalis I.=, - A.D. 817-824, also indeed mounted the papal chair without - imperial confirmation, but apologized by an embassy on the ground - that he had been unwillingly obliged to act so, and praying for a - continuation of the agreement made with his predecessor, to which - the emperor consented. Indeed, according to a diploma of A.D. 817, - extant only in a transcript, bearing the name of Louis, the - king was to bestow upon the papal chair, besides what Pepin and - Charlemagne had given, Corsica, Sardinia and Sicily, and many - estates in Calabria and Naples. There was also an undertaking - that only after having been consecrated should any newly-elected - pope interchange friendly greetings with the emperor. All copies - of this document can be traced back to a collection of imperial - grants to the Romish church of the 11th century. At its basis - there lay probably a genuine document, but it has been variously - altered in the interests of the high church party.--Some years - later, after he had decoyed to France and blinded his illegitimate - nephew Bernard, who had as reigning prince in Italy rebelled - against the law of succession passed in A.D. 817, Louis sent his - son Lothair into Italy to quiet the tumults there, and the pope - availed himself of this opportunity to crown the prince already - crowned by his father as co-emperor. But scarcely had Lothair - got over the Alps again when two of the most distinguished and - zealous of the Frankish partisans were in A.D. 823 blinded and - beheaded in the papal palace. Before the imperial commission - the pope took an oath of purgation, to which 34 bishops and - 5 presbyters joined with him in swearing, but bluntly refused - to deliver up the perpetrator of the deed. As the pope died soon - afterwards, Lothair was sent a second time to Rome, in order - to enforce once and for all upon his successor =Eugenius II.=, - A.D. 824-827, the observance of imperial rights. The result of - their conference was the so-called _Constitutio Romano_, by which - the election of the pope (§ 46, 11) was taken from the common - people and given to the clergy and nobles, but the consecration - was made dependent on the emperor’s confirmation and an oath - of homage from the newly-elected pope (A.D. 824). Nevertheless - his successor Valentine was elected and consecrated without any - reference to the constitution. He died, however, after six months, - and now the Frankish party came forward so energetically that - the new pope =Gregory IV.=, A.D. 827-844, was obliged to submit - in all particulars to the requirements of the law. But soon - after political troubles arose in the Frankish kingdom which - could not fail to contribute to the endeavours of the papacy - after emancipation. From his weak preference for his younger - son, Charles the Bald, born of a second marriage, Louis was - led in A.D. 829 to set aside the law of succession he himself - had issued in A.D. 817. The sons thus disinherited rebelled with - the assistance of the most distinguished Frankish prelates, at - whose head was Wala, abbot of Old Corbie, cousin of Charlemagne, - and the bishops Agobard of Lyons, Ebo of Rheims, etc., as - assertors of the unity of the empire. Also pope Gregory IV., - whose predecessors had sanctioned the law of succession now set - aside, was won over and was taken across the Alps by Lothair to - strengthen his cause by the weight of his apostolic authority. - The pope threatened with the ban those bishops who remained true - to the old emperor and had obeyed his summons to attend the diet. - But they answered the pope that he had no authority in the empire - of the Franks, and that if he did not quietly take himself over - the Alps again they would excommunicate him. He was inclined to - yield, but Wala’s counsel restrained him. He answered the bishops - earnestly and moderately, and, as a last attempt at conciliation, - went himself personally to the camp of the emperor, but was - unable to effect anything. But next morning Louis had no army; - during the night most of his soldiers had passed over to the camp - of his enemy. The emperor now had to surrender himself prisoner - to his son Lothair, then at a diet at Compiègne in A.D. 833, - to do humble penance in church and to resign the government. His - penitent son, Louis the German, however, set him free in A.D. 834. - A severe judgment was now passed upon the confederate prelates at - the Diedenhosen in A.D. 835. But the brothers continued constantly - at war with one another, and Louis the Pious did not live to see - the end of it. - - § 82.5. =The Sons of Louis the Pious and the Popes of their - Days.=--The Treaty of Verdun, A.D. 843, put an end to the bitter - war between the sons of Louis the Pious, and made of the western - empire three independent groups of states under Lothair, Louis - the German and Charles the Bald. Lothair I., who got the title - of Emperor with Italy and a strip of land between Neustria and - Austrasia, died in A.D. 855. Of his sons, Louis II. inherited - Italy with title of Emperor, Lothair II. the province called - after him Lotharingia, _Lotharii regnum_, and Charles Burgundy - and Provence. Lothair and Charles died in A.D. 869 soon after one - another without heirs, and before the emperor Louis II. could lay - his hands upon their territories they were seized by the uncle. - By the treaty of Mersen, A.D. 870, Charles took the Romanic, and - Louis the German took the German portions. Thus was completed - the partition of the Carolingian empire into three parts - distinguished as homogeneous groups of states by language - and nationality: Germany, France and Italy.--Gregory IV. had - survived the overthrow of the universal monarchy of Charlemagne. - His successor, =Sergius II.=, A.D. 844-847, did not observe - the obligations devolving on him by the _Constitutio Romana_. - But Lothair I. was not inclined to let pass this slight to - his imperial authority. His son Louis was sent into Italy with - a powerful army, and obliged the pope and the Romans to take - the oaths of fealty to his father with the promise not again to - consecrate a pope before they had the emperor’s consent. But the - next pope =Leo IV.=, A.D. 847-855, was also consecrated without - it, but excused himself from the circumstances of the age, - the pressure of the Saracens, while making humble professions - of most dutiful obedience. His successor =Benedict III.=, - A.D. 855-858, did not regard the imperial consent as necessary, - and the anti-pope set up by the French party could not maintain - his position. - - § 82.6. =The Legend of the Female Pope Joanna.=--Between Leo IV. - and Benedict III. is inserted an old legend of the pontificate - of a woman, the so-called female pope Joanna: A maiden from Mainz - went in man’s clothes with her lover to Athens, obtained there - great learning, then appeared at Rome as Joannes Anglicus, - was elected pope, but having become pregnant by one of her - chamberlains, was seized with labour pains in the midst of a - solemn procession and died soon after, having been pope under - the name of John VIII. for two years, five months and four days. - This story was widely credited from the 13th to the 17th century, - but its want of historical foundation is proved by the following - facts: - - 1. The immediate succession of Benedict III. to Leo. IV. has - contemporary testimony from the _Annales Bertiniani_ of - A.D. 855, also from a letter of Hincmar to Nicholas I., - Benedict’s successor, as well as the inscription “Benedict” - and “Lothair,” on a Roman denarius of the same year. - - 2. Neither Photius nor Michael Cærularius, who certainly would - not have failed to make a handle of such a papal scandal - (§ 67), know anything of the matter. - - 3. The first certain trace of the existence of such a legend - is found about A.D. 1230 in Stephen of Bourbon, yet there - indeed the words are added: _Ut dicitur in chronicis_; but - he makes the female pope mount St. Peter’s chair only about - A.D. 1100, knows neither her name nor her native country, - and describes the catastrophe of her overthrow differently - from the legend current in later times. - - 4. On the other hand, the existence of her biography in the - _Liber pontificalis_ between that of Leo IV. and that of - Benedict III., was regarded down to the 17th century as - the oldest and indeed almost contemporary witness to the - historicity of the female pope. It is wanting, however, in - the oldest and best MSS. and must therefore be considered - a later interpolation. This also applies to the reference - made thereto by Marianus Sectus (d. A.D. 1086), Sigbert of - Semblours (d. A.D. 1113), Otto of Friesingen (d. A.D. 1158), - and Godfrey of Viterbo (about A.D. 1190). Even in the oldest - MSS. of the Chronicle of the Roman penitentiary Martinus - Polonus (d. A.D. 1278) we read nothing of the female pope; - yet the story must soon have been inserted there, for - Tolomeo of Lucca about A.D. 1312 affirms in his Church - History, that all writers whom he had read, with the single - exception of Martin, made Benedict III. follow immediately - after Leo IV. Perhaps Martin himself in a second enlarged - edition of his chronicle had inserted a biography of the - female pope, which he might do with the less hesitation - if it was true that the pope of his own time John XX., - A.D. 1276-1277, thought it wrong not to count the female - pope and so styled himself John XXI. From that time all - chroniclers of the Middle Ages without the slightest - expression of doubt repeated the legend in essentially the - same way as Martin’s chronicle and the _Liber pontificalis_ - report it. The Reformed theologian, David Blondel, in - A.D. 1649, performed a service to the Catholic church - by his elaborate critical treatment of the legend which - destroyed all belief in its historicity. After this, however, - it was again vindicated by Spanheim (_Opp._ ii. 577) and - Kist; and even Hase regards it as still conceivable that - the church which has affirmed the existence of things that - never were, may have denied the existence of things that - were, if the knowledge of it might prove hazardous to the - interests of the papacy. - - The origin and gradual development of the legend, about the - middle of the 12th century and certainly in Rome, may be most - simply explained with Döllinger from a combination of the - following data. - - 1. From the time of Paschalis II. in A.D. 1099 it was customary - for the new pope in the solemn Lateran procession when - having his entrance on office attested to sit upon two - old chairs standing in the Lateran with pierced seats, - which probably came from an old Roman bath. But the popular - wit of the Romans suggested another reason for the pierced - seats. The chairs were thus pierced in order that before the - consecration a deacon might satisfy himself of the manhood - of the new pope; for, it would be added by and by, a woman - in disguise was once made pope, etc. - - 2. In a street of Rome was found a statue in white robes with - a child and an enigmatical inscription, the letter P six - times repeated which some read: _Parce pater patrum papissæ - prodere partum_, others: _Papa pater patrum peperit papissa - papellum_; so that this statue was supposed to represent the - female pope with her child. - - 3. Further the papal processions between the Lateran and the - Vatican at a point where the direct way was too narrow were - wont to diverge into another wider street; this was done, it - was now said, because at this place the catastrophe referred - to had befallen the female pope. - - 4. That the name Joannes was given to the female pope is easily - explained from the frequency of this name among the popes. - In A.D. 1024 it had been already held by nineteen. And that - she who had brought such a disgrace upon the papacy should - have been described as a native of the German city of Mainz, - is explained from national antipathy entertained by the - Italians for everything German. - - 5. Finally, the most difficult part of the problem, why this - episode should have been inserted just between Leo IV. and - Benedict III., may perhaps find satisfactory solution in the - supposition that the legend may have been first introduced - as an appendix to a codex of the _Liber ponficalis_ which - closed with the biography of Leo IV.[229] - - § 82.7. =Nicholas I. and Hadrian II.=--The successor of - Benedict III., =Nicholas I.=, A.D. 858-867, was chosen with - the personal concurrence of the emperor Louis II. then in - Rome. This pope was undoubtedly the greatest of all the popes - between Gregory I. and Gregory VII. He was a man of inflexible - determination, clear insight and subtle intellect, who, favoured - by the political movement of the age, supported by public opinion - which regarded him as a second Elijah, and finally backed up in - his endeavours after papal supremacy by the Isidorian collection - of decretals just now brought forward (§ 87, 2), could give - prestige and glory to the struggle for law, truth and discipline. - Among the many battles of his life none brought him more credit - and renown than that with Lothair II. of Lothringia. That - he might marry his mistress Waldrade, Lothair accused his - wife Thielberga of committing incest before her marriage with - her brother, abbot Hucbert, and of having obtained abortion - to conceal her wickedness. Before a civil tribunal she was in - A.D. 858 acquitted by submitting to a divine ordeal, the boiling - caldron ordeal which a servant undertook for her. But Lothair - treated her so badly that at last, in order simply to be rid of - her tormentors, she confessed herself guilty of the crime charged - against her before a Synod at Aachen in A.D. 859 attended by the - two Lothringian metropolitans Günther of Cologne and Thietgaut - of Treves, and expressed the wish that she should atone for - her sins in a cloister. But soon she regretted this step and - fled to Charles the Bald in Neustria. A second Synod at Aachen - in A.D. 860 now declared the marriage with Thielberga null, - and Lothair formally married Waldrade. Meanwhile the Neustria - metropolitan Hincmar of Rheims had published an opinion in - respect of civil and ecclesiastical law (_De divortio Lotharii_) - wholly favourable to the ill-used queen, and she herself had - referred the matter to the pope. Nicholas sent two Italian - bishops, one of whom was Rhodoald of Porto (§ 67, 1), to - Lothringia to investigate the affair. These took bribes and - decided at the Synod of Metz in A.D. 863 in favour of the - king. But Nicholas annulled the decisions of the Council, - excommunicated his legates and deposed the two Lothringian - metropolitans who had vainly trusted to the omnipotence of - Lothringian gold in Rome. Thirsting for revenge they incited - the emperor Louis II., Lothair’s brother, against the pope. - He besieged Rome, but came to an understanding with the pope - through his wife’s mediation. Lothair, detested by his subjects, - threatened with war by his uncles Louis of Germany and Charles - the Bald as champions of the childless Thielberga, repented and - besought the pope for grace and protection from the ambitious - designs of his uncles. Nicholas now sent a legate, Arsenius, - across the Alps, who acting as plenipotentiary in all three - kingdoms, obliged Lothair to take back Thielberga and put away - Waldrade. But she flung herself upon him and in her arms Lothair - soon forgot the promise to which he had sworn. At the same time - he reconciled himself to his uncles whose zeal had somewhat - cooled in presence of the lordly conduct of the papal legate. - Thielberga now herself sought divorce from the pope. But Nicholas - continued firmly to insist upon his demands. His successor - =Hadrian II.=, A.D. 867-872, an old man of seventy-five years, - could only gradually emancipate himself from the imperial party - which had elected him and taken him under its protection. He - received back again the two excommunicated metropolitans, without, - however, restoring them to their offices, released Waldrade - from church discipline, and always put off granting Thielberga’s - reiterated request for divorce. Lothair now went himself to - Rome, took a solemn oath that he had no carnal intercourse with - Waldrade since the restoration of his wife, and received the - sacrament from the pope’s hand. Full of hope that he would get - success in his object he started for home, but died at Piacenza - of a violent fever in A.D. 869. When dead the uncles pounced - upon the kingdom. Hadrian used all his influence in favour of - the emperor, the legitimate heir, and threatened his opponents - with excommunication. But Hincmar of Rheims composed a state - paper by order of his king, in which he told the pope that the - opinion of France was that he should not interfere with things - about which he knew nothing. The pope was obliged to let this - insult pass unrevenged. In a dispute of his own Hincmar succeeded - in giving the pope a second rebuff (§ 83, 2).[230] - - § 82.8. =John VIII. and his Successors.=--His successor - =John VIII.=, A.D. 872-882, was more successful than Hadrian - in bringing the Carolingian king to kneel at his footstool. - In the art of intrigue and in the perfidy, hypocrisy and - unconscionableness required therefor, he was, however, greatly - superior. He succeeded almost completely in freeing the papal - chair from the imperial authority. But he did so only to make it - a playball of the wildest party interests around his own hearth. - To his account mainly must be laid the unfathomable degradation - and debasement of the papacy during the 10th century. When the - emperor Louis II. died in A.D. 875, Louis the German, as elder - and full brother of his father, ought to have been his heir. - But the pope wished to show the world that the papal favour - could make a gift of the imperial crown to whomsoever it chose. - Accepting his invitation, Charles the Bald appeared in Rome and - was crowned by the pope on Christmas Day, A.D. 875. But he had - to pay dearly for the papal favour, by formally renouncing all - claims to the rights of superior over the States of the Church, - allow for the future absolute freedom in the election of popes, - and accept a papal representative and clerical primate for all - France and Germany. But not altogether satisfied with this, - the pope made the new emperor submit himself to a formal act - of election by the Lombards of Pavia, and in order to secure - the approval of his own nobles to his proceedings he even agreed - to give them the right of election. The Neustrian clergy, however, - with Hincmar at their head, offered a vigorous resistance and - at the first Synod at Pontion in A.D. 876 there were violent - altercations. The shameful compromise satisfied neither pope - nor emperor. In Rome a wild party faction gained ground against - the pope, and the Saracens pressed further and further into Italy. - From the emperor, who knew not how to keep back the advances of - the Normans in his own country, no help could be expected. Yet - he made hasty preparations, purchased a dishonourable peace - from the Normans, and crossed the Alps. But new troubles at - home imperiously called him back, and at the foot of Mount Cenis - in A.D. 877, he died in a miserable hut of poison administered - by his physician, a Jew. The pope got into yet greater straits - and made his position worse by further intrigues. Also his - negotiations with Byzantium in A.D. 879 involved him in yet - more serious troubles (§ 67, 1). He died in A.D. 882, apparently - by the hand of an assassin. A year before his death Charles - the Fat, the youngest son of Louis the German, had been crowned - emperor, and he, the least capable of all the Carolingian line, - by the choice of the Neustrian nobles, united once more all the - Frankish empire under his weak sceptre. Marinus, the successor - of John VIII., died after a single year’s pontificate. So - was it, too, with Hadrian III. And now the Romans, without - paying any heed to the impotent wrath of the emperor, elected - and consecrated =Stephen V.=, A.D. 885-891, as their pope. In - A.D. 857 the German nobles at last put an end to the despicable - rule of the fat Charles by passing an act of formal deposition. - They chose in his place Arnulf of Carinthia, a natural son of - Charles’ brother Carloman. Pope =Formosus=, A.D. 891-896, called - him to his assistance in A.D. 894, and crowned him emperor. But - he could not hold his ground in Italy and the opposition emperor - Lambert, a Longobard, had possession of the field. Formosus died - soon after Arnulf’s withdrawal. Boniface VI., who died after - fifteen days, was succeeded by =Stephen VI.= in A.D. 896. This - man, infected by Italian fanaticism, had the body of Formosus, - who had favoured the Germans, lifted from the grave, shamefully - abused and then thrown into the Tiber. The three following popes - reigned only a few weeks or months, and were either murdered - or driven away. John IX., A.D. 898-900, in order to pacify the - German party, honoured again the memory of Formosus.--Arnulf’s - tenure of the empire, however, had only been a short vain dream; - but in Germany during a trying period he wielded the sceptre - with power and dignity. When he died in A.D. 899, the German - nobles elected his seven-year-old son, Louis the Child. He - died in A.D. 911, and with him the dynasty of the Carolingians - in Germany became extinct. In France this line continued to - exist in pitiable impotence down to the death of Louis V. in - A.D. 987.--Continuation, § 96. - - § 82.9. =The Papacy and the Nationalities.=[231]--From the - time of Charlemagne the policy of the French kings was to - establish bishoprics on the frontiers of their territories - for Christianizing the neighbouring heathen countries, and - thereby securing their conquest, or, if this had been already - won, confirming it. The first part of this purpose the popes - could only approve and further, but just as decidedly they - opposed the second. There must be a reference to the chair - of Peter, that the pope may maintain and preserve as head of - the universal church the rights of nationalities. Each country - won to Christianity should be received into the organism of the - church with its national position unimpaired, and so under the - spiritual fatherhood of the pope there would be established - a Christian family of states, of which each member occupies - a position of perfect equality with the others. In this way - the interests of humanity, and at the same time, the selfish - interests of papal policy, were secured. This policy was - therefore directed to the emancipating as soon as possible - the newly founded national churches from the supremacy of the - German clergy and giving them an independent national church - organization under bishops and archbishops of their own. - - - § 83. THE RANK OF METROPOLITAN.[232] - - The position of metropolitan was not regarded with equal favour in -the German church and in the German state. Amid the variety of races -the metropolitans represented the unity of the national church, as -the pope did that of the universal church, while at the same time -as an estate of the empire they exercised great influence on civil -administration and foreign policy. The reigning princes recognised -in the unity of the ecclesiastical administration of the country a -support and security for the political unity and therefore opposed -the partition of the national church into several metropolitanates, -or, where the larger extension of the empire required several -archbishoprics, wished rather to give the ablest of these the rank -and authority of a primate. The popes on the other hand endeavoured to -give each of the larger countries at least two or three metropolitans, -and to prevent as far as possible the appointment of a national church -primate; for in the unity of the national church they perceived the -danger of such a prelate sooner or later giving way to the desire to -emancipate himself from Rome and secure for himself the position of an -independent patriarch. - - § 83.1. =The Position of Metropolitans in General.=--As - representing the unity of the national churches the interests - of the metropolitans were bound up with those of the ruling - princes. They were the most vigorous supporters of their policy, - and generally got in return the prince’s hearty support. This - coalition of the metropolitans and the civil power, however, - threatened the subordinate clergy with abject servitude, and - drove them to champion the interests of the pope. Through - pressure of circumstances, a widespread conspiracy of bishops - and abbots was formed during the last years of Louis the Pious - to emancipate the clergy and especially the episcopate from - the dominion of the state and the metropolitans and to place - them immediately under the papal jurisdiction. They founded upon - the Isidorian decretals as showing their rights in the earliest - times (§ 87, 2). Their endeavour met indeed powerful opposition, - but the statements of the Pseudo-Isidore had now obtained the - validity of canon law. - - § 83.2. =Hincmar of Rheims.=--Among the =French= prelates - after the restoration of the order of metropolitans by Boniface - the first place was held by the occupant of the see of Rheims. - It reached the summit of its glory under Hincmar of Rheims, - A.D. 845-882, the ablest of all the ecclesiastical leaders of - France. His life consists of an uninterrupted series of battles - of the most varied kind. The first fight in which he engaged was - the predestination controversy of Gottschalk (§ 91, 5). But his - strength did not lie in dogmatics but in church government. And - here, every inch a metropolitan, he has fought the most glorious - battles of his life and affirmed, against the assumptions of - popes and emancipation efforts of bishops, the autonomy of - reigning princes, the freedom and independence of national - churches, and the jurisdiction of metropolitans. Of this sort - was his contest with bishop Rothad of Soissons. Hincmar had - deposed him in A.D. 861 for insubordination. Rothad appealed to - pope Nicholas I. on the ground of the Sardican Canon (§ 46, 3), - which, however, had never been accepted in the Frankish Empire. - He had at the same time referred the pope to the Isidorian - decretals. Thus supported, Nicholas after a hard struggle had - Rothad reinstated in A.D. 865. The insolent defiance of his - own nephew, Hincmar, bishop of Laon, led the archbishop into - another obstinate fight. Here too the Isidorian decretals played - a prominent part. Hadrian II. in A.D. 869 took the side of the - nephew, but the metropolitan gained the victory, and the nephew, - who defied the king as well as the metropolitan and moreover had - entered into treasonable communication with the German court, - ended his course by being deprived of his eyes by the king. Down - to A.D. 875 Hincmar was inflexibly true to the king as a pillar - of his policy and his throne. But when Charles the Bald in - that year paid down as purchase price for the imperial throne, - not only the autonomy of the empire but also the freedom of the - French church and the rights of the metropolitans, he was obliged - now to turn his weapons against him. Hincmar died in A.D. 882 - in flight before the Normans. With him the glory of the French - archbishopric sank into its grave. The pseudo-Isidorian party - had triumphed, the bishops were emancipated from the government - of the princes of their country, but instead of this were often - surrendered to the rude caprice of secular nobles. - - § 83.3. =Metropolitans in other lands.=--The =English= princes - in the interests of the political unity of the Heptarchy for - a long time withstood the endeavours of the popes to place a - rival alongside of the archbishop of Canterbury. The action and - reaction of these opposing interests were particularly strong - in the time of Wilfrid (§ 78, 3), whom the Roman party had - appointed archbishop of York. Wilfrid was driven away and died - in A.D. 709 after an eventful life, without succeeding in taking - possession of the place to which he had been appointed. At last, - however, the pope reached his end. In A.D. 735 a Northumbrian - prince obtained a pallium, and after that the see of York got - an undisputed place alongside that of Canterbury.--In =Northern - Italy= there were metropolitan sees at Ravenna, Milan and - Aquileia which still made their old claims to self-government - (§ 46, 1). Sergius, the prelate of Ravenna, about A.D. 760, - thought it would be well out of the ruins of the exarchate to - found an ecclesiastical state after the model of that of Rome. - There was often opposition there to the Roman supremacy. On - this account the violent archbishop John of Ravenna, who was - also a defrauder of the church, suffered the most complete - humiliation from Nicholas I. in A.D. 861, in spite of the - emperor’s protection. The force of public opinion compelled - the emperor to abandon his protégé when excommunicated by the - pope. But during the pontificate of John VIII., Ausbert, prelate - of Milan (died A.D. 882), who kept true to the German party, - could defy papal anathema and deposition. His successor, however, - again acknowledged the papal supremacy.--In =Germany=, since - the time of Charlemagne, new metropolitan sees had been created - at Salzburg, Cologne, Treves and Hamburg-Bremen. Mainz, however, - still claimed the primacy and represented the unity of the German - church. The Isidorian forgery availed not here as in the land of - its birth to stop the contention of the archbishop. The German - metropolitanate to the advantage of the empire maintained its - rights untouched for centuries. Among the primates of Mainz - the most important by far was =Hatto I.=, A.D. 891-913. Even - under Arnulf (died A.D. 899), whose most trusted adviser he - was, he exercised a wide as well as wholesome influence on the - administration of the empire. It was still greater under Louis - the Child (died A.D. 911) whom he raised to the throne and for - whom he acted as regent. Conrad I. (§ 96, 1) also owed to him - his election as king of the Germans. In the internal affairs - of the German church, he directed and adjusted, organized and - ruled in this time of general upheaval with wonderful insight, - wisdom and energy, most conspicuously, and that too against - papal assumptions, at the great national synod of Tribur in - A.D. 895. The primate regarded it as a political axiom, that, - in order to conserve and advance the unity of the empire, the - particularism of the several races and the struggles of their - chiefs and princes for independence should be crushed. Owing to - the consistency and energy with which he carried out his idea, - he did indeed make many enemies. The stories of insidious perfidy - and bloody violence which have attached themselves to his memory - are to all appearance due to their calumnious hatred. His sudden - death probably gave rise to the legend that the devil fetched - him away and cast him into the mouth of Etna. To him, and not - to the much less important Hatto II., who died in A.D. 970, is - the other equally baseless legend of the Mäusethurm near Bingen - to be referred.--Continuation, § 97, 2. - - - § 84. THE CLERGY IN GENERAL.[233] - - The bishops subject to the archbishop were called diocesan bishops, -or, as voting members of the Provincial Synod, suffragan bishops. The -canonical election of bishops by the people and clergy was completely -done away with in the German national church. Kings without opposition -filled vacant bishoprics according to their own choice. Louis the -Pious at the Synod of Aachen, in A.D. 817, restored canonical election -by people and clergy, subject to the emperor’s confirmation, but -his successors paid no attention to the law. Deposition was usually -carried out by the Provincial and National Synods. The investiture of -bishops with pastoral staff and marriage ring by the reigning prince -is occasionally met with even in the Merovingian age and became general -after the development of the benefice system in the 9th century. Out -of the institution of bishops without dioceses, _Episcopi regionarii_, -originally intended for missionary service, arose in all probability -the institution of _Chorepiscopi_ which flourished especially in -France during the 8th and 9th centuries. With the old _Chorepiscopi_ -(§ 34, 2; § 45) they have nothing in common beyond the name. They -were subordinate assistants of the diocesan bishops, whose convenience, -unspirituality and often absence on state affairs demanded such -substitutes. But by their arbitrary conduct and refractoriness they -often gave great trouble to those bishops who had any care for their -flock. A Synod at Paris, therefore, in A.D. 849, withdrew all authority -from them. From that time they gradually sank out of view. The inferior -clergy, taken generally from the serfs, stood mostly in slavish -dependence on the bishop and often had not the barest necessaries -of culture. Their appointment lay with the bishop, yet the founder of -a church and his successors frequently retained the right of patronage -in choosing their own officiating clergymen.[234] Especially in the -later Merovingian and earlier Carolingian periods, the Frankish clergy, -superior and inferior, had become terribly corrupt. Boniface was the -first to reintroduce some sort of discipline (§ 78, 5) and Charlemagne’s -powerful government contributed in an extraordinary measure to the -ennobling of the clergy. Yet the corruption was too general and too -great to be altogether eradicated. Louis the Pious, therefore, in -A.D. 816, extended to the whole kingdom a reformation which Chrodegang -of Metz had introduced fifty years previously among his own clergy, by -which means discipline and order were again improved for some decades. -But in the troublous times of the last Carolingians everything went -again into confusion and decay. Exemption from civil jurisdiction -was accorded the clergy during this period only to this extent, that -the secular courts could not proceed against a clergyman without the -advice of the bishop, and the bishop himself was subject only to the -jurisdiction of the king and the Provincial Synod. - - § 84.1. =The Superior Clergy.=--In the German states from - the earliest times the superior clergy constituted a spiritual - aristocracy which by means of their higher culture won a more - influential position in civil life than the secular nobles. In - all important affairs of state the bishops were the advisers of - the king; they were almost exclusively employed on embassies; on - all commissions there were clerical members and always one half - of the _Missi dominici_ were clerics. This nearness to the person - of the king and their importance in civil life made them rank as - one of the estates of the realm. The Frankish idea of immunity, - in consequence of which by royal gift along with the rights of - territorial lords there were handed over to the new proprietors - also the princely right of levying taxes and administering - justice, brought to them secular as well as spiritual jurisdiction - over a great part of the land. As the court of the Frankish - king was moved from place to place, he required a special court, - chapel, with a numerous court-clergy, at the head of which was - an Arch-chaplain, usually the most distinguished prelate in - the land. The names _Capella_ and _Capellani_ were originally - applied only to court chapels and court chaplains, and were - derived from the fact that in the chapel was kept the _Cappa_ - or coat of Martin of Tours as a precious relic and the national - palladium of France. The court clergy formed the nursery for - future bishops of the realm. In addition to the ring and staff - as episcopal insignia we find in the Carolingian age the bishop’s - cap, consisting of two long sheets of tin or pasteboard running - up to a peak, covered with silk of the same colour as the dress - used in celebrating mass, generally richly ornamented with gold - and precious stones, called by the old pagan name _Infula_ or - _Mitra_.[235] - - § 84.2. =The Inferior Clergy.=--The enormous expansion of - episcopal dioceses rendered a new arrangement of the =inferior - clergy= indispensable. The extension churches in towns and the - country churches which previously had been served by the clergy - of the cathedral church, obtained a regular clergy of their - own. As these churches were always dedicated to a saint they - were called _Tituli_, and the clergy appointed to officiate in - them, _Intitulati_, _Incardinati_, _Cardinales_. Thus originated - the idea of _Parochia_, παροικία and of _Parochus_ or parish - priest,[236] who, because the _cura animarum_ was committed to - him was also called Curate, as in the French curé. Over about - ten parishes was placed an _Archipresbyter ruralis_ who was - called _Decanus_, Dean. As the right of administering baptism - belonged originally to him exclusively, his church was called - _Ecclesia baptisimalis_; his diocese, _Christianitas_ or _Plebs_; - he himself also, _Plebanus_. A further arrangement was first - introduced in the 8th century by Heddo of Strasburg [Strassburg], - who gave to each of the deans in his diocese seven archdeacons, - _præpositi_, provosts. Besides the parish churches there were - many chapels or oratories where divine service was conducted - only at certain times by the neighbouring parish clergy or - chaplains appointed for that purpose. To this class also belong - the domestic chapels in episcopal residences or on the estates - of noblemen which were served by special domestic or castle - chaplains. The latter indeed had in addition the duty of feeding - the dogs, waiting at table and taking charge of the lady’s pony. - Notwithstanding repeated reinforcement of the old law: _Ne quis - vage ordinetur_, there was still a great number of so-called - _Clericis vagis_, mostly vagabonds and idlers, who, ordained by - unprincipled bishops for a reward, roamed over the country like - clerical pedlars. - - § 84.3. =Compulsory Celibacy= was stoutly resisted by the German - clergy. The inferior clergy were mostly married. At ordination - they were ordered indeed to separate from their wives and to - abstain from marital intercourse, but the promise was rarely - fulfilled. Among the unmarried clergy, fornication, adultery - and unnatural lust were prevalent. A bishop, Ulrich of Augsburg, - addressed to Nicholas I. a philippic against the law of celibacy - with fearless exposures of its evil consequences. The =moral - condition= of the clergy was generally speaking shockingly low. - Legacy hunting, forging of documents, simony and chaffering for - benefices were carried on in a shameless way. The lordly habits - of the bishops consisted in hunting, going about with dogs and - falcons, and in wild drunken revels. In the 7th century it was - the peculiar pleasure of the Frankish bishops in wild scenes - of blood that induced them to take part in the wars, and led - to their being afterwards obliged to fit out contingents for - the field at the cost of their ecclesiastical revenues. Pepin, - Charlemagne and Louis the Pious passed stringent laws against - these warlike habits of churchmen; but the later Carolingians - not only tolerated but actually encouraged them. - - § 84.4. =Canonical life.=--Augustine’s institution of a - _monasterii Clericorum_ (§ 45, 1) was often imitated in later - times. But bishop =Chrodegang of Metz=, who died in A.D. 766, - gave it for the first time, about A.D. 760, a fixed and permanent - form. His rule or _Canon_ is closely connected with the monastic - rule of St. Benedict (§ 85), with the omission of the vow of - poverty. He built a commodious residence Domus, _monasterium_ - (comp. Germ. words Dom and Münster), in which all the clergy of - his cathedral church were obliged to live, pray, work, eat and - sleep under the constant and strict supervision of the bishop - or his archdeacon. This was the _Vita canonica_. After morning - devotions all the members of the establishment gathered together - in the hall where the bishop or provost read to them a chapter - from the Bible, most frequently from Leviticus, from the rule or - from the fathers, and added thereto the necessary explanations - and exhortations. The hall was therefore called the Chapter House; - then the name =Chapter=[237] was given to the whole body gathered - together there. The =Colleges=[238] were a subsequent development - of the chapter in non-episcopal city churches, with a provost - or deacon at their head. Louis the Pious allowed Chrodegang’s - rule to be revived and generalized by the deacon Amalarius of - Metz, and at the National Assembly at Aachen in A.D. 817 enforced - it for the whole kingdom. It is known as _Regula Aquisgranensis_. - But soon after the Canons endeavoured to emancipate themselves - more and more from the burdensome yoke of episcopal control. - Gunther of Cologne (§ 82, 7) who, though deposed by the pope, - retained his official position, was obliged to purchase the - support of his chapter by a bargain in accordance with which - a great part of the ecclesiastical revenues of the chapter were - placed at their own full disposal as Prebends or Benefices. And - what this one chapter gained for itself was afterwards contended - for by others.[239]--Continuation, § 97, 3. - - - § 85. MONASTICISM.[240] - - While from the 5th century one rush of migrating peoples was rapidly -followed by another, the monkish orders fell into decay, barbarism and -corruption. They would scarcely have survived this period of commotion, -at least would not have proved the great blessing that they have -been to the German west, had not the spirit of ancient Rome with its -practical turn, its appreciation of law and order and its organizing -talent, given them at the right time, what they hitherto wanted, a -rule answering to the requirements and circumstances of the age, and -by means of it firm footing, unity, order and legal form. This task was -accomplished by =Benedict of Nursia= (d. A.D. 543), the patriarch of -Western Monasticism. The rule, which he prescribed in A.D. 529 to the -monks of the monastery of Monte Cassino in Campania founded by him, was -not unduly ascetic, combined strict discipline with a certain degree -of mildness and indulgence, estimated the needs of human nature as well -as the circumstances of the times, and was, in short, adaptable and -practical. From the rule of Cassiodorus (§ 47, 23) Benedict’s disciples -borrowed that zeal for scholarly studies about which their master had -given no directions, and Gregory the Great inspired the order with -enthusiasm for missionary labours. Thus the Benedictine order obtained -its full consecration to its calling of worldwide significance. Soon -spreading over all the West, being introduced into France by Maurus in -A.D. 543, it nobly fulfilled its vocation by cultivating the soil and -the mind, by clearing the forests, bringing in waste lands, zealously -preaching the gospel, rooting out superstition and paganism, educating -the young, fostering and restoring literature, science and art. The -barbarous age, however, which saw the overthrow of the Merovingians -and the rise of the Carolingians, exerted a deteriorating influence -also on the Benedictines. But Charlemagne restored strict discipline, -and assigned to the monasteries the task of erecting schools and -prosecuting scholarly studies. By authority of Louis the Pious and -by order of the National Assembly at Aachen in A.D. 817, =Benedict of -Aniane= undertook a reformation and re-organization of all the monkish -systems throughout the empire. At the head of a commission appointed -for that purpose he visited all the Frankish monasteries, and compelled -them to organize themselves after his improved Benedictine Rule. - - § 85.1. The one source of information regarding the life - of =Benedict of Nursia= is the miracle-laden record of the - miracle-loving pope Gregory the Great in the second book of - his Dialogues. Benedict’s =Rule= comprises 73 chapters. The - first principle of the monastic life is obedience to the Abbot, - as representative of Christ. The choice of abbot lies with the - brothers. Of serving brothers the rule knows nothing. The chief - occupation is agriculture. Idleness is strictly forbidden. Charge - of the kitchen and reading at table are duties performed by all - the monks in turn week about. Divine service begins at 3 a.m. and - is rendered regularly through all the seven hours (§ 56, 2). Two - meals a day are partaken of and each monk has daily half a bottle - of wine. Flesh meat is given only to the sick and weak. At table - and after the _Completorium_ or last hour of prayer, no word - was allowed to be spoken. All the brothers slept in a common - dormitory, each in a separate bed, but completely dressed and - girded, so as to be ready at call for matins. The discipline was - strict and reasonable; first private, then public rebuke, then - penal fasting, corporal punishment, and finally excommunication. - Hospitality and attention to the poor were enjoined on all - monasteries. Reception was preceded by a year’s novitiate. - The vow included _Stabilitas loci_, _Conversio morum_ (poverty - and chastity) and _Obedientia_. The _Oblati_ were a special kind - of novices, _i.e._ children who in their early youth were placed - in the monastery by their parents. They were educated in the - monastic schools and were not allowed to go back to the world. - - § 85.2. =Benedict of Aniane= (A.D. 821) was originally called - Witiza and was the son of a Visigoth count. He had served as - a soldier under Charlemagne. In attempting to save his brother - he was himself almost drowned. His ambition was now directed - to an ascetic life, in which his personal performances were - most remarkable. On the river Anianus in Languedoc he founded - in A.D. 779 the monastery of Aniane. He was the indispensable - and all-powerful counsellor of Louis the Pious. In order to have - him always near him, Louis founded for him the monastery of Inda - or the Cornelius-Münster near Aachen. In the interests of his - cloister reform he published in A.D. 817 a _Codex regulorum_ in - which he collected all the monastic rules previously known. - - § 85.3. The rule of the elder Benedict made no reference to - =Nunneries=; but his sister Scholastica is regarded as the - founder of the order of female Benedictines. Another form of - female asceticism was developed after the model of the canonical - life of the secular clergy in the institution of canonesses. The - rule, which Louis the Pious at Aachen in A.D. 816 allowed them - to draw up for themselves, is distinctly milder than that of - the nuns. The ladies’ orders gradually became places of resort - for the unmarried daughters of the nobles. The canonical age for - taking the nun’s vows was twenty-five. The novitiate lasted three - years. Besides the _propria professio_ the _paterna devotio_ was - also regarded as binding. In regard to dress the adoption of the - veil was the main thing; but in addition they wore the wreath as - a symbol of virginity and the ring as token of spiritual marriage. - At this time the cutting of the hair was only a punishment for - unchaste nuns. The honourable position of the wife among the - Germans secured special respect for the abbess, and obtained - for the most famous nunneries exemption, civil prerogatives and - proprietary, even princely rights. The frequent appearance of - =Double-Cloisters= where monks and nuns, naturally in separate - dwellings, under a common rule either of an abbess as often in - England, or of an abbot, was also peculiarly German. - - § 85.4. =The Greater Monasteries=, formed as they were of a vast - number of separate buildings for agriculture, cattle rearing, - handicraft and arts of all kinds, for elementary teaching, for - higher education, for hospitable entertainment, caring for the - sick, etc., came by and by to attain the proportions of little - towns. Frequently they were the centre around which cities were - raised. The monastery of Vivarium in Calabria, Cassiodorus’ - foundation, inspired Western monasticism with an enthusiasm - for scholarly studies. The regulations of Monte Cassino were - extended to all monasteries of the West. Columbanus’ monastery - of Bobbio rooted out paganism and Arianism in northern Italy. The - monasteries of Iona in Scotland and Bangor in Ireland gained high - repute in the struggle of the Celtic church against the Roman. - The English monastery of Wearmouth was a famous school of science. - In France St. Denys near Paris and Old Corbei in Picardy gained - a high reputation. In South Germany St. Gall, Reichenau, Lorsch - and Hirschau, in Central Germany Fulda, Hersfeld and Fritzlar, - and in North Germany New Corbei, a branch from Old Corbei, were - main centres of Christian culture. - - § 85.5. In its new Western form also monasticism was still - without the clerical character. But there was an ever-increasing - tendency to draw the monastic and the clerical institutions - more and more closely together. By means of celibacy and - the introduction of the canonical life (§ 84, 4) the clergy - came to have the monkish character, and on the other hand, - most of the monks, in the first instance for monastic and - mission services, took clerical orders. By and by monks sought - appointments as curates (§ 84, 2), and thus rivalries arose - between them and the clergy. The monasteries were wholly under - the jurisdiction of the bishops in whose diocese they lay. The - exemptions of this period were limited to security for the free - election of the abbot, independent administration of property - and gratuitous performance of consecrations by the bishop. In - the Frankish empire, however, abbots were ordinarily appointed - to vacancies by the court, and rich abbeys were also often - bestowed upon distinguished noblemen _in commendam_, _i.e._, - for temporary administration with the enjoyment of their revenues, - or even to court and military officers as a reward for special - services. Such lay abbots or _abbacomites_ often stayed in the - monasteries for months with their families, their huntsmen and - their soldiers, and made them the scene of their drinking bouts, - their field sports and their military exercises. The kings - retained the richest abbacies to themselves or gave them to - their sons and daughters, wives and concubines. - - § 85.6. =The Stylites= (§ 44, 6) on account of the climate, - could gain no footing, though attempts were indeed made, _e.g._ - by Wulflaich (§ 78, 3). In place of them we find male and female - recluses, =Reclusi= (_Inclusi_) and _Reclusæ_, who shut themselves - up in cells which they never quitted. =Hermits of the Woods=, - unfettered by any rules, found great favour among the Germans. - Their national melancholic temperament inclining them to solitude, - their strong love of nature, their passionate delight in roaming - unchecked through woods and mountains, contributed to make such a - mode of life attractive. It was during the 6th century that this - craze for hermit life reached its height in Germany, and its main - seat was in Auvergne with its wild mountains, glens and gorges. - But as the cell of the saint was often in later times developed - into a monastery on account of the crowds of disciples that - gathered round, the hermit life gradually passed over into a - regulated cœnobite life. In Switzerland Meinard, son of a count - of Zollern, was a hermit of this sort. In A.D. 861 he had been - murdered by two robbers, and this was afterwards discovered, the - legend says, by means of two ravens feeding upon the body of the - murdered man. His cell in later times grew into the beautiful - Benedictine abbey of Maria-Einsiedeln with its miracle-working - image of the mother of God, which at this day is visited by more - than a hundred thousand pilgrims yearly. - - - § 86: THE PROPERTY OF CHURCHES AND MONASTERIES. - - The inalienableness of church property being regarded as the first -principle of its administration, it grew by enormous strides from year -to year through donations and legacies, At the end of the 7th century -there was in Gaul fully a third of the whole territory in the possession -of the churches and monasteries, while the national exchequer was -quite exhausted. In this emergency Charles Martel founded the benefice -system, for which he also converted into money the abundant possessions -of the church. His sons, however, Carloman and Pepin the Short, in -consideration of the reorganization of the Frankish church effected by -Boniface (§ 78, 5), sought to avert the impoverishment of many churches -and cloisters by a partial restitution so far as the neediness of the -times would allow. Charlemagne and Louis the Pious did still more in -this direction, so that partly by these means, partly by the continued -donations of rich people, church property soon acquired its earlier -proportions. Thus, _e.g._, the monastery of Luxeuil had in the 9th -century an estate with 15,000 farm-houses upon it.--The administration -of the property of churches and monasteries lay in the hands of the -bishops and abbots. For defending and maintaining secular and legal -rights there were ecclesiastical and monastic advocates, _Advocati -ecclesiæ_. This institution, however, often degenerated into an -agency for oppressing the peasants and plundering the property of -their clients; for many advocates assumed arbitrary powers and dealt -with the property of the church and its proceeds just as they chose. - - § 86.1. =The Revenues of Churches and Monasteries.=--The main - sources of their growing wealth were donations and legacies. - Princes often made bequests of enormous magnitude and rich people - in private life vied with them. Occasions were never wanting; - restoration from sickness, escape from danger, the birth of - a child, etc., regularly won for the church whose patron saint - had been helpful, some valuable present. The clergy also used - all means in their power to encourage this prevailing readiness - to bestow presents; and to this must in great measure be traced - the beginnings of the forging of deeds. A peculiar form for - bequeathing a gift was that of the _Precaria_, according to - which the giver retained to himself for his lifetime the use - of the goods which he gifted. Church property was farther greatly - increased by the personal possessions of the clergy and the - monks, which at the death of the former and at the _conversio_ - of the latter usually became part of the revenue of the church - or cloister to which their owners belonged. Besides the proceeds - of its own estates the church drew the tithes of all property - and incomes of parishioners, the claim being enforced as a _jus - divinum_ by a reference to the Mosaic legislation and made a - law of the empire by the injunction of Charlemagne. On the other - hand the clergy were forbidden to exact payment for discharge - of official duties, so called stole-dues, because they were - performed by the priest dressed in the _stola_. The cathedral - church was entitled to an annual tax, _Honor cathedræ_, levied - upon all the churches of the diocese. The inferior clergy, on the - other hand, often arrogated to themselves the right in accordance - with a bad custom of grasping by violent plunder the possessions - of their deceased bishop, _Spolium_.[241] - - § 86.2. =The Benefice System.=--In consequence of the vast - gifts of the Merovingians to the churches and their ministrants, - when Charles Martel assumed the government, the sources of crown - revenue that hitherto seemed inexhaustible were almost completely - dried up, while this prince, in order to deliver the country from - the Saracens and in order to maintain his rule over against the - innumerable petty tyrants who threatened to dismember the empire, - required a yet fuller treasury than any of his predecessors. Out - of these circumstances grew the =Benefice System=. The soldiers - who had served the nation and princes had been as before rewarded - by grants of lands. These, however, were no longer given as - hereditary possessions but only for the lifetime of the receiver - (_Beneficium_), and for this he was under obligation to supply - a proportionate contingent for military service. When the crown - lands had been well nigh exhausted, Charles Martel did not - hesitate to lay claim to the church property. His son Carloman - at the first Austrasian national Synod in A.D. 742 (§ 78, 5) - promised to restore the church property that had thus been - alienated, but had soon to confess his inability to perform his - promise. At the second Austrasian Synod at Lestines in A.D. 743 - he therefore limited the immediate restitution to the most - pressing cases of notoriously poor and needy churches and - monasteries. He was driven to this by the absolutely needful - claims of the civil and military departments. But the claim - of the church to get back the property was secured by the - beneficiary giving a _Precarial_ letter and by the payment of - an annual tax of a solidus for every farm house on the estate. - The king also promised the full restoration on the death of - the beneficiary, with express retention, however, of the right, - if the needs of the times required it, to lease out again the - vacant _precariæ_. Even Pepin at the Neustrian national Synod - at Soissons in A.D. 744 granted similar concessions, but yet - in the execution of them did not go so far as his brother. In - A.D. 751 he caused a _descriptio et divisio_, _i.e._ an inventory - of church property with an exact fixing of the limits of its - various titles to be made.[242]--The annual tax referred to was - transformed by Charlemagne into a second tithe, the so-called - _Nonæ_. But even after the partial restitution effected by the - descendants of Pepin there still remained upon the restored - property the beneficial burdens that had been laid upon it, - especially the obligation to supply and equip a certain number - of soldiers, and this was thence transferred to the whole - property of the church.--The benefice system, originating - in the pressure of circumstances, continued to spread more - and more, and formed the foundation of the entire social and - civil organization of the Middle Ages.[243] - - - § 87. ECCLESIASTICAL LEGISLATION. - - The construction of ecclesiastical legislation for the German -empire was at first wholly the work of the Synods. The popes exerted -scarcely any influence upon it, but all the more powerfully was -felt the influence of the kings. They summoned the Synods, laid -down to them the subjects to be discussed, and confirmed according -to their own judgment their decisions. From the time that the Frankish -bishoprics were filled by native Franks the independent life of -the Synods was quenched, and ecclesiastical affairs were arranged -at the national assemblies in which the bishops also took part as -territorial nobles. The great national Synods, too, at which Boniface’s -reorganization of the church in accordance with Roman ecclesiastical -law as carried (§ 78, 5) were _Concilia mixta_ of this kind; and -even under Charlemagne and Louis of France these were still prevalent. -Charles, however, made their proceedings more orderly by grouping the -nobles into three ranks as bishops, abbots and counts. Under the Pepin -dynasty alongside of the synodal we have the royal decrees, arranged -in separate chapters, and hence the ordinances are called _Capitularia_. -Purely ecclesiastical Synods in later times again gained a footing and -were particularly numerous in the times of Hincmar. - - § 87.1. =Older Collections of Ecclesiastical Law.=--Gregory II. - furnished Boniface with a _Codex canonum_, undoubtedly the - _Dionysiaca_ (§ 43, 3), and Hadrian II. presented Charlemagne - with one which was solemnly received at the National Synod of - Aachen in A.D. 802. There was in Spain a new collection which - was erroneously attributed to bishop Isidore of Seville, who to - distinguish him from the Frankish Pseudo-Isidore is designated - the genuine Isidore, or more correctly as _Hispana_. This - collection in form attaches itself to _Dionysiaca_. In the - 9th century it was introduced among the Franks, and here gave - contents and name to the Pseudo-Isidorian collection. In close - connection with this masterpiece of forgery stands the collection - of laws by Benedictus Levita of Mainz, which was indeed called - a collection of capitularies, but was gathered mainly from - documents of ecclesiastical legislation, genuine and spurious. A - collection of true and genuine capitularies was made in A.D. 827 - by Ansegis, Abbot of Fontenelles. Benedict’s collection was - included in it as 5th, 6th, and 7th books. Besides these large - collections many bishops prepared epitomized collections for - the use of their own dioceses, of which several are extant under - the name of _Capitula Episcoporum_. Decidedly in the interest - of the Pseudo-Isidore are the _Capitula Angilramni_, composed - and subscribed by bishop Angilramnus of Metz (d. A.D. 791). The - dates and contents of the three first-named collections were - determined in the interest of the Pseudo-Isidorian, and are still - a matter of controversy. Benedict, according to his own credible - statement, undertook his work at the command of the archbishop - Otgar, of Mainz, for the archives of Mainz, but completed and - published it probably in France only after Otgar’s death, which - occurred in A.D. 847. But while in earlier times it was generally - believed that Benedict had used the Pseudo-Isidore, Hinschius - has become convinced that the author of the capitula is identical - with the Pseudo-Isidore, and from Benedict’s capitularies has - unravelled first the composition of the capitula and then that - of the decretals.[244] - - § 87.2. =The Collection of Decretals of the Pseudo-Isidore.=--In - the fiftieth year of the 9th century there appeared in France - under the name of Isidorus Mercator a collection of canons and - decretals, which indeed completely embraced the older so-called - _Isidoriana_, but was enlarged by the addition of a multitude - of forged decretals. The surname Mercator, otherwise Peccator, - is probably derived from the well known Marius Mercator - (§ 47, 20), who had also occupied himself with the translation - of ecclesiastical documents, which the Pseudo-Isidore used - for his work. It begins with the fifty _Canones Apostt._, then - follow fifty-nine forged decretals which are assigned to the - thirty oldest popes from Clement to Melchiades (d. A.D. 314). - The second part embraces, besides the original document of - the Donation of Constantine, genuine synodal decrees falsified - apparently only in one passage. The third part, again, contains - decretals of Sylvester, the successor of Melchiades, down to - Gregory II. (d. A.D. 731), of which thirty-five are not genuine. - The non-genuine decretals are for the most part not altogether - forgeries, but are rather based upon the literature of theology - and canon law then existing, amplified or altered, and wrought - up to serve the purposes of the compiler. The system of the - Pseudo-Isidore is characterized by the following peculiarities: - Over the _Imperium_ is raised the _Sacerdotium_, ordained of - Christ to be governor and judge of the world. The unity and - head of the _Sacerdotium_ is represented by the pope. Bishops - are related to the pope as the other apostles were to Peter. - The metropolitan is only _primus inter pares_. Between the pope - and the bishops as an intermediate rank we have the primates or - patriarchs. This rank, however, belongs only to such metropolitan - sees as either were ordained to it by the apostles and their - successors, or to such sees in more recently converted lands - as were elevated to this position in consequence of the multitude - of bishops belonging to them. Provincial Synods should be held - only with the consent of the pope, their decrees become valid - only after receiving his confirmation, and all _causæ majores_, - especially all complaints against bishops, belong solely to - his own judicature. Priests are the _Familiares Dei_, the - _Spirituales_; the laity, on the other hand, are the _Carnales_. - No clergyman, least of all a bishop, may be taken before a - secular tribunal. A layman may not appear as an accuser against - a clergyman, and the Synods are enjoined to render charges - against a bishop as difficult as possible. An expelled bishop, - before the charges against him can be examined, must have been - fully restored (_Exceptio Spolii_). If the accused regards his - judges as _inimici_ or _suspecti_, he may appeal to be examined - before the pope. For the establishing of a charge at least - seventy-two witnesses are necessary, etc. - - § 87.3. The forgery originated in France, where it had been in - existence for some years before it was known in Rome, as appears - from the process against Rothad of Soissons (§ 83, 2). Rothad - first brought it to Rome in A.D. 864. Blondel and Kunst regard - Benedict Levita as its author. He first gave currency to the - forgery in his Collection of Capitularies. and so arouses - the suspicion that he is himself the forger. Philipps fathers - it upon Rothad of Soissons; Wasserschleben ascribes it to - archbishop Otgar of Mainz, who, as a prominent head of the - clerical conspiracy against Louis the Pious (§ 82, 4), would - have reason to defend himself against the judgment which would - befall conspirators. But this doom did not in any very special - manner threaten Otgar. On Louis’ restoration he was not sentenced - or deposed by any synod, but was without more ado received into - favour by the emperor. The Pseudo-Isidore’s hostile attitude - toward the chorepiscopi (§ 84), while gaining no footing in - Germany, certainly prevailed in France; and France, not Germany, - was the place where this collection first appeared between - A.D. 853 and 864. Since now, moreover, the prominence given - by the Pseudo-Isidore to the rank of primate may be regarded - as equally favourable to the see of Rheims as to that of Mainz, - Weizsäcker and v. Noorden have sought the original home of the - forgery in the diocese of Rheims, and point to Ebo, archbishop of - Rheims, Hincmar’s predecessor, as the forger. And Ebo certainly - stood in the front rank of the revolt referred to. Before him - Louis had specially to humble himself. He was therefore taken - prisoner immediately upon the emperor’s restoration, and deprived - of his office at the Synod of Didenhofen in A.D. 835 (§ 82, 4). - The emperor Lothair, indeed, restored him in A.D. 840, but - his position was still very insecure, as he had before a year - passed to save himself by flight on the approach of Charles - the Bald, and never again saw Rheims, which till Hincmar’s - elevation remained in the hands of chorepiscopi. The composition - of the collection, according to v. Noorden, belongs to the - period immediately preceding and lasting through his restitution. - Finally Hinschius regards Rheims as undoubtedly the scene - of the composition of these forgeries, but he cannot ascribe - them to Ebo because, according to his demonstration, Benedict’s - Pseudo-Isidore used as his authority only a collection completed - after A.D. 847, and by that time Ebo could not have the shadow - of a hope of restoration. But he also advances other weighty - considerations. Ebo himself had never attempted to make good - the claims which the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals would have - afforded him. If his own affairs had first led him to think - of forging decretals he must have foreseen that the extensive - studies necessary for such a work would have demanded many years - of laborious effort, and would be concluded much too late to - serve his purpose. It would, therefore, seem to him safer to - confine himself to what his immediately present circumstances - urgently required; whereas the actual Pseudo-Isidore, on the - contrary, puts in the mouths of the early popes, with no little - zeal and emphasis, a vast array of other exhortations and decrees - that seemed to him useful amid the troubles of that age for the - well being of the church and its ministers. Thus the whole work - assumes more of the character of a _pia fraus_ of a somewhat - high church cleric of that time than of a forgery devised in - the selfish interests of an individual. This much, however, - must be admitted, that the directions quoted about judicial - procedure against accused bishops exactly fit the case of Ebo. - As the first attempt to use the non-genuine decretals only found - in Pseudo-Isidore was made at the Synod of Soissons in A.D. 853, - by those clerics who had been ordained by Ebo after his deposition - but rejected by Hincmar, the final redaction and publication must - fall between A.D. 847 and 853. Langen fixes the date at A.D. 850, - and refers its authorship to Servatus Lupus (§ 90, 5). Nobody - then doubted their genuineness. Even Hincmar seems for a long - time to have had no doubts. But he decidedly repudiated their - legal authority in the Frankish church, and energetically opposed - them when they were sought to be enforced against the independence - of the church. Thus he could always refer to them where their - contentions agreed with his own, or, as in the case against his - nephew, where they supported his rights as primate, in order to - defeat his opponents with their own weapons. Subsequently however, - in A.D. 872, in a letter written in the name of his king to pope - Hadrian, he characterized them in contrast with the genuine and - valid decretals as _secus a quoquam compilata sive conficta_. - The Magdeburg Centuriators were the first conclusively to prove - them spurious. The Jesuit Turrianus, however, entered the lists - once more on their behalf. But the reformed theologian, David - Blondel, castigated so sharply and thoroughly this theological - unprincipledness, that even in the Roman Catholic church their - non-genuineness has been now since admitted.[245] - - § 87.4. Among the many spurious documents which the - Pseudo-Isidore included in his collection of ecclesiastical - laws, we find an =Edictum Constantini Imperatoris=. In the - first part of it, the so-called _Confessio_, Constantine makes - a confession of his faith, and relates in detail in what a - wonderful way he was converted to Christianity by pope Sylvester, - and cured of leprosy (§ 42, 1). Then in the second part, the - so-called _Donatio_, he confers upon the chair of Peter, with - recognition of its absolute primacy over all patriarchates of - the empire, imperial power, rank, honour, and insignia, as all - privileges and claims of imperial senators upon its clergy. In - order that the possessor of this gift may be able to all time to - maintain the dignity of his position, he gives him the Lateran - palace, transfers to him independent dominion over “_Romanam - urbem et omnes Italiæ seu_ (in Frankish Latin of the 8th and - 9th centuries this means ‘as well as’) _occidentalium regionum - provincias, loca et civitates_” (therefore not merely Italy - but the whole West Roman empire); he removes his own imperial - residence to Byzantium, “_quoniam ubi principates Sacerdotum et - Christ. religionis Caput ab Imperatore cœlesti constitutum est, - justum non est, ut illic Imperator terrerum habeat potestatem_.” - In a letter of Hadrian I. to Charlemagne in A.D. 788, in which he - salutes the emperor as a second Constantine who is called upon by - God not only to restore to the apostolic chair the “_potestas in - his Hesperiæ partibus_,” which had been already assigned it by - the first Constantine, but also all later legacies and donations - “of various patricians and other God-fearing men,” which the - godless race of the Longobards in course of time tore from it, - we have the first hint at the idea of a _Donatio Constantini_. - The same pope, too, according to the _Vita Hadriani_ in the - Romish Pontifical, on the occasion of Charles’ visit to Rome - in A.D. 774 is said to have reclaimed from him an enormous grant - of land (§ 82, 2). It seemed therefore an extremely probable - supposition that assigned Rome as the place where this document - originated, and the period of the overthrow of the Longobard - empire, whether actually accomplished or on the eve of taking - place, as the date of its fabrication (§ 82, 1, 2). Against - this view, almost universally prevalent, quite recently Grauert - has advanced a vast array of powerful arguments, _e.g._, the - limitation of the _Donatio_ of Constantine to Italy which - is here suggested contradicts its own express statement. The - words of the letter of Hadrian referred to speak not of a - dominion =over= Italy, and which they could have read, “_in - has H. partes_,” but of a dominion in Italy which was founded - upon Constantine’s munificence and enlarged by many subsequent - presents. They do not, therefore, refer like the words of - the _Donatio_ to sovereign territorial authority, but to the - exceedingly wide-spread and rich property included in the - _Patrimonium Petri_ (§ 46, 10). The “potestas,” said to have - been assigned by Constantine to the Roman see, does not exceed - the authority which even according to the _Vita Sylvestri_ of - the Pontifical had been given by Constantine to that pope.--Thus - the donation document is met with first in the Pseudo-Isidore. - It was often afterwards referred to by the Frankish government. - By Rome, on the other hand, although even Nicholas I. was made - acquainted with the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals by Rothad, and - referred to them in A.D. 865, they are never used, either against - the Franks or against the Byzantines until, in A.D. 1053, we meet - an allusion to them in a letter from Leo IX. to the patriarch - Michael Cærularius (§ 67, 3). Grauert accounts for this by saying - that there were two recensions of Pseudo-Isidore, a shorter, - which had only the first part of the document, the so-called - _Confessio_; and a longer, which had also the _Donatio_, and - that Rothad took probably only the shorter one to Rome. From - these and other data adduced by Grauert it seems more than - probable that the foundry in which the document was forged - was not in Rome, but rather in France among the high church - party there, from which also the full-fledged forgery - proceeded. It would also seem that a double purpose was - served by its composition. On the one hand, over against the - Greeks it represented the chair of Peter as raised above all - the patriarchates of the empire, and the Western empire as a - thoroughly legitimate one transferred by Constantine the Great - to the pope, and then by him to the kings of the Franks. And, - on the other hand, it also made it clear to the Frankish princes - that all temporal power in the West essentially, and from of old, - belonged to the pope, and is bestowed upon them by means of their - coronation by the pope’s hands.--That from the time when they met - with the document unto the 11th century the Byzantines did not - contest its genuineness, need not surprise us when we consider - the uncritical character of the age. They would also be the less - disposed to do so as they could only thereby hope to win that - perfect equality in spiritual authority as well as in secular - rank with the Roman bishop which the fourth œcumenical council - had assigned to their patriarchal see. But while the Byzantines - may be regarded as inconsiderately incorporating this donation - of Constantine into their historical and legal books, blotting - out indeed the passages which seemed to them to favour the - pretensions of the pope to universal sovereignty, it is a - more difficult task to secure for it acceptance among Western - diplomatists. Even in A.D. 999 a state paper of Otto III. - describes it as a pure fiction. High church tendencies, however, - raised their standard also in the West during the 11th century - (§ 96, 4, 5). Indeed, even in A.D. 1152, an Arnoldist (§ 108, 7), - named Wetzel, wrote to the Emperor Frederick I.: “Their lies - and heretical fables are now so completely exploded that even - day-labourers and cow-men could prove to scholars their emptiness, - and the pope with his cardinals ventures not for shame to show - himself in the city of Rome.” The victory, however, of the papacy - over the Hohenstaufen gained currency for it again, and it was - the treatise of Laurentius Valla, “De falso credita et ementita - Constantini donatione declamatio,” which Ulrich von Hutten issued - in multitude from the press, gave it the death blow (§ 120, 1). - When, thereafter, even Baronius admitted the spuriousness of the - document, though assigning its fabrication to the Greeks, who - wished by it to prove that the Roman primacy was not of Christ - but from Constantine, it found no longer a vindicator even in the - Roman Catholic church. - - - - - III. THE CHURCH AND THE PEOPLE. - - - § 88. PUBLIC WORSHIP AND ART. - - The German Arians undoubtedly used the language of the people -in their services. The adoption of Catholicism, however, led to the -introduction of the Latin tongue. The last trace of acquaintance with -Ulfilas’ translation of the Bible is found in the 9th century. The -nations converted directly to Catholicism had from the first the Latin -language in public worship. Only the Slavs still retained the use of -their mother tongue (§ 79, 2). The Roman liturgy, as well as the Roman -language, was adopted in all churches with the exception of those of -Milan and Spain. After Pepin had entered into closer relations with -the popes, he endeavoured, in A.D. 754, at their desire, to bring about -a uniformity between the Frankish ritual and the Roman pattern; and -Charlemagne, whom Hadrian I. presented with a Roman Sacramentarium, -carried it out with relentless energy. The slightness of the liturgical -contributions of the Germans is to be accounted for partly by the -fact that the Roman liturgy was already presented to them in a -richly developed and essentially complete form, but also partly -by the exclusion of the national languages and the refusal to give -the people a share in the liturgical services. Under the constraint -of a foreign tongue the Germans could not put the impress of their -national character on a department in which language plays so important -a part. - - § 88.1. =Liturgy and Preaching.=--Alongside of the Roman or - Gregorian =Liturgy= many others also were in use. The people - and clergy of Milan so determinedly adhered to their old - Ambrosian liturgy, that even Charlemagne could not dislodge - it, and down to the present day Milan has preserved this - treasure. No less energetically did the Spaniards hold by - their national liturgy, the so-called Mozarabic (§ 81, 1). - It has a strong resemblance to the oriental liturgies, but - was further elaborated by bishops Leander and Isidore of Seville - (§ 80, 2), and was recognised by the National Synod of Toledo in - A.D. 633 as valid for the whole of Spain. The Gallican liturgies - too of the Carolingian times betrayed a certain dependence upon - the oriental rituals. =Preaching=, in the services of the Western - churches was always subordinate to the liturgy, and the relapse - into savagery occasioned by the migrations of the peoples drove - it almost completely out of the field. The missionary fervour in - the Western church during the 7th century was the first thing to - re-awaken a sense of its importance. But then very few priests - could compose a sermon. Charlemagne, therefore, about A.D. 780, - had a Latin Homiliarium compiled by Paulus Diaconus [Paul - Warnefrid] (§ 90, 3) from the fathers for all the Sundays and - Festivals of the year, as a model for their own composition, - or, where that was too much to be expected, for reading in - the original or in a translation. During the whole Middle - Ages and beyond the Reformation it continued to be one of the - most read and most diligently used books in the Roman Catholic - church. Missionaries naturally preached themselves or through - interpreters in the language of the people; even in constituted - churches preaching was generally conducted in the speech of - the country. Charlemagne and the Synods of his time insisted - at least upon German or Romanic preaching. - - § 88.2. =Church Music= (§ 59, 4, 5).--After Gregory’s ordinance - church music continued to be restricted to the clergy. Charlemagne - indeed insisted, but unsuccessfully, that all the people should - take part in singing the _Gloria_ and the _Sanctus_. In the - 7th-9th cent. a number of Latin hymn-writers flourished, of - whom the most distinguished were Bede, Paul Warnefrid, Theodulf - of Orleans, Alcuin, Rabanus Maurus, and Walafrid Strabo. The - beautiful Pentecost hymn _Veni creator Spiritus_ is ascribed - to Charlemagne. The old classical form and colouring were - more and more lost, but all the more the essentially Christian - and Germanic character of simplicity and spirituality became - prominent. Toward the end of our period the composition of Latin - hymns obtained a new and fruitful impetus from the adoption - of the so-called =Sequences= or =Proses= in the Mass. Under - the long series of notes, hitherto without words attached, - which were appended to the Alleluia to express inarticulate - jubilation, hence called _jubilationes_, were now placed - appropriate rhythmical words in Latin prose, which, however, - soon assumed the form of metre, rhyme and strophes. The first - famous writer of Sequences was the monk Notker Balbulus of - St. Gall, who died in A.D. 912. Connected in form with the - Latin Sequences were the more recently introduced Old Frankish - _Lais_ (Celtic=verse, song) and the Old German _Leiche_ (=melody, - song), to simple airs that had been used for popular songs. The - only one which the church allowed to the people, and that only - in services outside of the church, in processions, rogations and - pilgrimages, in going to the church, at translations of relics, - funerals, consecrations of churches, popular religious festivals, - etc., was the singing or rather reciting of the _Kyrie eleison_ - from the great Litany. The fondness of the Germans for singing - and composing hymns led, in the second half of the 9th century, - to the attaching to these words short rhyming sacred verses in - their mother tongue, and this in such a manner that the _Kyrie - eleison_ always formed the refrain of a strophe, so that they - were called =Leisons=. This was the beginning of German church - music. Of the Leisons only one hymn to St. Peter in the Old - High-German dialect has come down to our day.--=The Gregorian - Music=, _Cantus firmus_ or _choralis_, won a most complete - victory over the Ambrosian (§ 59, 5). In A.D. 754 Pepin at - the request of Stephen II. ordered that in France only the - Roman singing should be allowed, and Charlemagne secured for - it complete and exclusive ascendency in all the West by violently - extirpating the already very degenerate Ambrosian music, by - establishing the celebrated singing schools of Metz, Soissons, - Orleans, Paris, Lyons, etc., at the head of which he placed - teachers brought from Rome, and by introducing instruction in - singing in all the higher and lower schools. The first =Organ= - came to France in A.D. 757 as a present to Pepin the Short from - the Greek emperor Constantinus Copronymus; the second to Aachen - with an embassy from the emperor Michael I. in Charlemagne’s - time. From that time they became more common. They were still - as instruments very imperfect. They had only from 9 to 12 notes, - and the keys were so stiff that they had to be beaten down with - the fist.[246]--Continuation, § 104, 10, 11. - - § 88.3. =The Sacrifice of the Mass.=--As the idea of sacrifice - gained place there sprang up in addition to the masses for the - souls of the departed (§ 58, 3) private masses for various other - purposes, for the success of some undertaking, for the recovery - of a sick person, for good weather and a good harvest, etc. - To some extent the multiplication of masses was limited by the - ordinance that celebration should be made at the same altar - and by the same priest only once in the day. From the wish to - secure that as many masses as possible should be said for their - souls after death, churches and monasteries were formed into - fraternities with a stipulated obligation to celebrate a certain - number of masses for each deceased member of the fraternity in - all the churches and monasteries belonging thereto. Fraternities - of this kind, into which as a special favour princes and nobles - were received, were called =Confederacies for the Dead=. - - § 88.4. =The Worship of Saints= (§ 57).--This practice - found a very ready response from the Germans. It afforded - some compensation for the abandoned worship of their ancestors. - But over all other saints towered the mother of God, the meek - and gentle queen of heaven. In her the old German reverence - for woman found its ideal and full satisfaction. In respect of - =Image Worship= (§ 57, 4) the Germans lagged behind, partly from - the scarcity of images, partly from national aversion to them. - The Frankish church of the Carolingian age protested formally - against them (§ 92, 1). But all the greater was the zeal shown - in the =Worship of Relics= (§ 57, 5) in which the worshipper - had the saint concretely and bodily. The relics of the West were - innumerable. Rome was an inexhaustible storehouse; and from the - successive missionaries, from the deserts and solitudes, from the - monasteries and bishops’ seats, there went forth crowds of new - saints whose bones were venerated with enthusiasm. The gaining - of a new relic for a church or monastery was regarded as a piece - of good fortune for the whole land, and amid thousands assembled - from far and near the translation was carried out, accompanied - with liberal gifts of money. The Frankish monastery of Centula - could show in the 9th century an immensely long list of the - relics which it possessed, from the grave of the Innocents, - the milk of the Holy Virgin, the beard of Peter, his cloak, - the _Oratorium_ of Paul, and even from the wood of the three - tabernacles that Peter wished to build on Tabor. The custom of - making =Pilgrimages= (§ 57, 6) also found great favour among the - travel-loving Germans, especially among the Anglo-Saxons. The - places most frequented by pilgrims were the tomb of the chief - Apostles at Rome, then the tomb of Martin of Tours, and, toward - the end of our period, that of St. James of Compostella, _Jacobus - Apostolus_ the elder, the supposed founder of the Spanish church, - whose bones were discovered there by Alfonso the Chaste. The - immoralities consequent upon pilgrimages, about which even - the ancient church complained, were also only too apparent - in this later age. On account of them Boniface urges that his - countrywomen should be forbidden to go on pilgrimages, since - this only served to supply the cities of Gaul and Italy with - prostitutes. The idea of =Guardian Angels= (§ 57, 3) was eagerly - adopted by the Germans. They were specially drawn to the warlike - Archangel Michael, the conqueror of the great dragon (Dan. xii. 1; - Jude 9; Rev. xii. 7 ff.).--Continuation, § 104, 8. - - § 88.5. =Times and Places for Public Worship.=--The beginning - of the church year was changed from Easter to Christmas. All - Saints’ Day (§ 57, 1), originally a Roman local festival, was - made a universal ordinance by Gregory IV. who, in A.D. 835, fixed - its date at 1st Nov. The abundance of relics and the multitude - of masses that were said made it necessary to increase the number - of altars in the churches beyond what Charlemagne had enjoined. - Afterwards they were usually limited to three. The high altar - stood out by itself in the middle of the choir recess. The side - altars leant on pillars or on the chief altar. A relic shrine - generally from the 8th century formed the back of the altar. No - trace of a chancel is found, not even of a confessional chair. In - churches which had the right of baptizing (§ 84, 2) there were as - a rule separate baptistries. In place of these, after the right - of baptizing was conferred on all churches, the baptismal font - was introduced, either on the left side of the main entrance or - at the point where the transepts crossed the nave. This change - required the substitution of sprinkling for immersion. Clocks and - towers became always more common. The latter, at first separate - from the buildings, were from Charlemagne’s time attached to the - church edifice. The baptism of bells, their consecration with - water, oil and chrism, with the bestowing on them of some saint’s - name, was forbidden by Charlemagne, but it was nevertheless - continued, and is common to this day in the Roman Catholic church. - - § 88.6. Most attention was paid to ecclesiastical architecture - and painting, south of the Alps during the Ostro-gothic period, - north of the Alps during the Carolingian period. The Anglo-Saxons, - however, in their island home also developed a taste for art. - During the 9th century it received special attention in the - German monasteries of St. Gall and Fulda. The monk Tutilo of - St. Gall, d. A.D. 912, was pre-eminently distinguished both as - a master in architecture, painting and sculpture, and in poetry - and scholarship. The old Roman basilica style still maintained - the front rank in church building. Yet at Ravenna, the Byzantium - of Italy, during the Gothic domination there were several - beautiful churches in the Byzantine cupola style. Einhard - received from Charlemagne the rank of a court architect. Of - all the churches built in Charlemagne’s time the most important - was the cathedral of Aachen. It was built in the cupola style - after the pattern of the cathedral church of Ravenna. Intended - as a royal chapel, it was connected by a pillared passage with - the palace. It was therefore also of only moderate dimensions. - Its being appropriated as the coronation church led subsequently - to its enlargement by the addition to it in A.D. 1355 of a - large choir in the Gothic style. The church afforded abundant - scope for the use of the art of the statuary. Costly shrines - for relics were required, crucifixes, lamps, _ciboria_, incense - vessels, etc., on which might be lavished all the refinements - of artistic skill. The church books had artistically carved - covers. Church doors, episcopal thrones, reading desks, - baptismal fonts, afforded room for practice in _relievo_ - work. Among the various kinds of pictorial representations - miniature painting was most diligently practised upon copies - of the church books.--Continuation, § 104, 12, 14. - - - § 89. NATIONAL CUSTOMS, SOCIAL LIFE AND CHURCH DISCIPLINE. - - The remains of Christian popular poetry of this period afford a -convincing proof of the powerful and profound manner in which the -truths of Christianity (§ 75, 1) had been grasped by the German races. -The great mass of the people indeed had adopted the new faith in a -purely historical fashion. Only gradually did it make its way into -the inner spiritual life, and meanwhile out of the not fully conquered -paganism there grew up a rich crop of superstitions in connection -with the Christian life. It must be confessed that the state of -morality among the Germans had fallen very low as compared with -that which prevailed before Germany’s conversion to Christianity. -A sadder contrast is scarcely conceivable than that presented by a -comparison of the description in Tacitus of the old German customs -and discipline and the account of Gregory of Tours of colossal -criminality and brutish sensuality in the Merovingian Age. But -never more than here does the fallacy: _Post hoc ergo propter hoc_, -require to be guarded against. The moral deterioration of the German -peoples was carried out independently of their contemporaneous, merely -external, Christianization. The cause of it lies only in the overturning -of the foundations of German life by the migration of the peoples. -Severed from their original home, the most powerful guardian of -ancestral customs, and set down as conquerors in the midst of rich -countries with morally base surroundings, which had a poisonous effect -upon them, with that eagerness and tenacity which characterize children -of nature, they seized upon the seductive treasures and enjoyments, -and their unfettered passion broke through all restraints of discipline -and morality. The clearest proof of this view lies in the fact that the -moral decay appeared in so remarkable a degree only among such peoples -as settled in the corrupt Roman world and became amalgamated with it, -most conspicuously among the Franks in Gaul and the Longobards in Italy, -whereas among the Anglo-Saxons and the inhabitants of Germany the moral -development was more normal. - - § 89.1. =Superstition.=--A powerful impulse was given to - superstition on the one hand by the church, according to the - educational method recommended by Gregory the Great (§ 75, 3), - refusing recklessly to root out every element of paganism and - rather endeavouring to give Christian applications to heathen - institutions and views and to fill pagan forms with Christian - contents, and on the other hand, by the representatives of the - church not regarding belief in the existence of heathen deities - as a delusion but counting the gods and goddesses as demons. - The popular belief therefore saw in them a set of dethroned - deities who in certain realms of nature maintain their ancient - sway, whom therefore they dare not venture altogether to - disoblige. The fanciful poetic view of nature prevailing - among the Germans contributed also to this result, with its - love of the mysterious and supernatural, its fondness for - subtle enquiries and intellectual investigations. Thus, in - the worship of the saints as well as in the church’s belief in - angels and devils, new rich worlds opened themselves up before - the Christianized Germans, which the popular belief soon improved - upon. The pious man is exposed on all sides to the vexations of - demons, but he is also on all sides surrounded by the protecting - care of saints and angels. The popular belief made a great deal - of the devil, but the relation of men to the prince of darkness - and his attendant spirits seemed much too earnest and real to be - as yet the subject of the humour which characterized the devil - legends of the later Middle Ages, in which the cheated, “stupid” - devil is represented as at last possessed only of impotent rage - and sneaking off in disgrace. - - § 89.2. =Popular Education.=--The idea of a general system - of education for the people was already present to the mind - of Charlemagne. Yet as we may suppose only beginnings were made - toward its realization. Bishop Theodulf of Orleans was specially - active in founding schools for the people in all the villages - and country towns of his diocese. The religious instruction of - the youth was restricted as a rule to the teaching of the Lord’s - Prayer and the Apostles’ Creed. Whatever grown up man or woman - did not know these two was at Charles’ command to be subjected - to flogging and fasting and to be made to learn them besides. - As evidence of the extent of a religious consciousness among - the people may be adduced the German forms of adjuration, - belief, confession and prayer, of the 8th and 9th centuries - which are still preserved. Further means of advancing the - religious education of the people were afforded by the attempts - to make the biblical and patristic books accessible to the people - by translations in their own language. Among the Germans the - monastery of St. Gall was famous for its zeal in originating - a national literature. Among the Anglo-Saxons this effort was - made and carried out by Alfred the Great, who died in A.D. 901 - (§ 90, 10). - - § 89.3. =Christian Popular Poetry.=--It makes its first - appearance at the end of the 7th century and continued far - down into the 9th century. It flourished chiefly in England - and Germany. Under the name of the Northumbrian =Cædmon=, who - died in A.D. 680, there has been preserved a whole series of - biblical poems of no small poetic merit, which range over the - whole of the Old and New Testament history. The most important - Anglo-Saxon poet after him was his countryman =Cynewulf= living - about a century later. His poems are less homely and simple, - but more elaborate than those of Cædmon, and as full of poetic - enthusiasm as these. He too paints for us in his “Christ” the - picture of the Redeemer as that of a manly victorious prince - among his true “champions and earls” with such clear-cut features - that “whoever once beholds them will never again forget them.” - His poetically wrought up legends bear more of the Romish stamp - with traces of saint worship and the doctrine of merit.[247] - Still higher than these two Anglo-Saxon productions stands - the German-Saxon epic the =Heliand=, of the time of Louis of - France, a song of the Messiah worthy of its august subject, - truly national, perfect in form, simple, lively and majestic - in style, transposing into German blood and life a genuine deep - Christianity. In poetic value scarcely less significant is the - “Krist” of Otfried, a monk of Weissenberg about A.D. 860. Near - to his heart as well as to that of the Anglo-Saxon singers lay - the thought: _thaz wir Kriste sungun in unsere Zungun_. It is, - however, no longer popular but artistic poetry, in which the old - German letter rhyme or alliteration gives place to the softer - and more delicate final rhyme. To this class belongs also the - so-called =Wessobrunner Prayer=, of which the first poetical - half is probably a fragment of a larger hymn of the creation, - and a poem in High German on the end of the world and the last - judgment, known by the name of =Muspilli=, extant only as a - fragment which is, however, almost unsurpassable in dignity - and grandeur of description. - - § 89.4. =Social Condition.=--From the point of view of German - law the contract of betrothal had the validity of =marriage= - and the subsequent nuptial ceremony or surrender of the bride - to the bridegroom in a public legal manner by her father or legal - guardian was held to be only the carrying out of that contract. - The bridal ceremony with the ecclesiastical benediction of the - marriage bond already legally tied, was frequently celebrated - only on the day following the marriage, therefore after its - consummation. The Capitulary of Charlemagne of A.D. 802 came - to the support of the claims of the church (§ 61, 2), ordaining - that without previous careful enquiry as to the relationship of - the parties by the priest, and the elders of the people, and also - without the priestly benediction, no marriage could be concluded. - The Pseudo-Isidorian decretals ascribed this demand to the popes - of the 4th and 5th centuries. But the right to perform marriages - was not thereby committed to the church; it was only that the - religious consecration of the civil ordinance of marriage was - now made obligatory. It seemed best of all when sooner or later - the spouses voluntarily renounced marital intercourse; but this - was strictly forbidden during Lent (§ 56, 4, 5), on all festivals - and on the station days of the week (Wednesday, Friday, Saturday - and Sunday). Second marriages were branded with the reproach of - incontinence and called forth a lengthened penance. There was on - the other hand as yet no prohibition of divorce, and the marrying - again of those separated was only unconditionally forbidden in - particular cases. The church was not willing to tolerate mixed - marriages with heathens, Jews and Arians. The Germans found it - most difficult to reconcile themselves to the strict requirements - of the church in regard to the prohibited degrees of relationship. - National customs had regarded many such marriages, especially - with a brother’s widow, as even a pious duty.[248]--Continuation, - § 104, 6.--=Slavery= or Serfdom was an institution so closely - connected among the Germans with their notions of property that - the church could not think of its entire abolition; indeed the - church itself, with its large landed possessions, owned quite - a multitude of slaves. Yet it earnestly maintained the religious - and moral equality of masters and servants, assigned to the - manumission of slaves one of the first places among good works, - and was always ready to give protection to bondmen against cruel - masters.[249]--The church with special energy entered upon the - task of =Caring for the Poor=; even proud and heartless bishops - could not overlook it. Every well appointed church had several - buildings in which the poor, the sick, widows and orphans were - maintained at the church’s cost.[250] - - § 89.5. =Practice of Pubic Law.=--The custom of =Blood Revenge= - was also a thoroughly German institution. It had, however, - been fairly restricted by the custom of =Composition= or the - payment of satisfaction in the form of a pecuniary fine. The - church from its dislike of capital punishment decidedly favoured - this system. As a means of securing judicial evidence oaths - and ordeals were administered. Only the freeman, who was quite - capable of acting in accordance with his own judgment, was - allowed to take an =Oath=; the husband took the oath for his - wife, the father for the children, the master for the slave. - Relatives, friends and equals in rank swore along with him as - sharers of his oath, _Conjuratores_. Although they repeated with - him the oath formula, the meaning of their action simply was - that they were fully satisfied as to the honour and truthfulness - of him who took the oath. Where the oath of purgation was not - allowed, _conjuratores_ were not forthcoming and the other means - of proof awanting, the =Ordeal= (_Ordale_ from _Ordâl_=judgment) - was introduced. Under this may be included: - - 1. The Duel, derived from the old popular belief: _Deum adesse - bellantitus_. Only a freeman was allowed to enter the lists. - Old men, women, children and priests were allowed to put in - their place another of the same rank by birth. - - 2. Various fire tests; holding the bare hand a length of time - in the fire; in a simple shirt walking over burning logs of - wood; carrying glowing iron in the bare hand for nine paces; - walking barefoot over nine or twelve glowing ploughshares. - - 3. Two water tests: the accused was obliged to pick up with - his naked hand a ring or stone out of a kettle filled with - boiling water, or with a cord round his naked body he was - cast into deep water, his sinking was the proof of his - innocence. - - 4. The cross test: he whose arms first sank with weariness from - the cruciform position, was regarded as defeated. - - 5. The Eucharist test, applied especially to priests: it was - expected that the criminal should soon die under the stroke - of God’s wrath. As a substitute for this among the laity - we find the test of the consecrated morsel, _Judicium offæ_ - which the accused was required to swallow during mass. - - 6. The bier test, _Judicium feretri_: if when the accused - touched the wound of the murdered man blood flowed from - the wound or forth from the mouth, it was regarded as proof - of his guilt. - - The church with its belief in miracles occupied the same - ground as that on which the ordeal practice was rooted. It - could therefore only combat the heathen conception of the - ordeal and not the thing itself. But the church took charge of - the whole procedure, and certainly did much to reduce the danger - to a minimum. It was Agobard of Lyons, who died in A.D. 840, who - first contended against the superstition as worthy of reprobation. - Subsequently the Roman chair, first by Nicholas I., forbade - ordeals of all kinds.--Among the various kinds of privileges - involving the inviolability of person and goods, profession and - business, the privileges of the church were regarded as next - highest to those of the king. Any injury done to ecclesiastical - persons or properties and any crime committed in a sacred place, - required a threefold greater composition than _ceteris paribus_ - would have otherwise been required. The bishop ranked with the - duke, the priest with the count. - - § 89.6. =Church Discipline and Penitential Exercises= - (§ 61, 1).--=The German= State allowed the church a share in - the administration of punishments, and regarded an evildoer’s - atonement as complete only when he had submitted to the - ecclesiastical as well as the secular judgment. Out of this grew - the institution of Episcopal =Synodal Judicatures=, _Synodus_, - under Charlemagne. Once a year the bishop accompanied by a royal - _Missus_ was to travel over the whole diocese, and, of every - parish priest assisted by assessors sworn for the purpose, should - inquire minutely into the moral and ecclesiastical condition - of each of the congregations under him and punish the sins and - shortcomings discovered. Directions for the conducting of Synodal - judicatures were written by Regino of Prüm and Hincmar of Rheims - (§ 90, 5). The state also gave authority to =Ecclesiastical - Excommunication= by putting its civil forces at the disposal - of the church. Pepin ordained that no excommunicated person - should enter a church, no Christian should eat or drink with - him, none should even greet him. Directions for the practice of - =Penitential Discipline= are given in the various =Penitentials= - or Confessional-books, which, after the pattern of forensic - productions, settle the amount of penal exactions for all - conceivable sins in proportion to their enormity. The Penitential - erroneously ascribed to Theodore archbishop of Canterbury - (§ 90, 8) is the model upon which most of these are constructed. - The Confessional-books that go under the names of the Venerable - Bede and Egbert of York obtained particularly high favour. All - these books, even in their earliest form extremely perverse and - in their later much altered forms full of contradictions, errors - and arbitrary positions, reduced the whole penitential practice - to the utmost depths of externalization and corruption. How - confused and warped the church idea of penitence had become is - seen by the rendering of the word _pœnitentia_ by penance, _i.e._ - satisfaction, atonement. In the Penitentials _pœnitere_ is quite - identical with _jejunare_. The idea of _pœnitentia_ having been - once associated with external performances, there could be no - objection to substitute the customary penitential act of fasting - (§ 56, 7) for other spiritual exercises, or by adoption of - the German legal practice of receiving composition to accept - a money tax for ecclesiastical or benevolent purposes. In this - way the first traces made their appearance of the Indulgences - of the later Roman Catholic church. It therefore followed from - this, that, as satisfaction could be rendered for all sins by - corresponding acts of penance, so these works might also be - performed vicariously by others. Thus in the Penitentials there - grew up a system of =Penitential Redemptions= which formed the - most despicable mockery of all earnest penitence. For example, - a direction is given as to how a rich man may be absolved from - a penance of seven years in three days, without inconveniencing - himself, if he produces the number of men needed to fast for - him. Such deep corruption of the penitential discipline, however, - aroused, in the 8th and 9th centuries, a powerful reaction - against the Confessional-books and their corrupt principles. - It was first brought forward at the English Synod at Clovesho - in A.D. 747; in its footsteps followed the French Synods of - Chalons in A.D. 813, of Paris A.D. 829, of Mainz, A.D. 847. - The Council of Paris ordered that all Confessional-books should - be seized and burnt. They nevertheless still continued to be - used.--There did not as yet exist any universal and unconditional - compulsion to make confession. The custom, however, of a yearly - confession in the Easter forty days’ season was even during the - 9th century so prevalent, that the omission of it was followed by - a severe censure by the synodal court. The formulæ of absolution - were only deprecative, not judicative.[251] - - - - - IV. THEOLOGY AND ITS BATTLES. - - - § 90. SCHOLARSHIP AND THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE.[252] - - With the exception of Ulfilas’ famous efforts, the Arian period of -German church history is quite barren in scientific performances. Yet -those few who preserved and fostered the scientific gains of earlier -times were honoured and made use of by the noble-minded Ostrogoth king -Theodoric, and under him Boethius [Boëthius] and Cassiodorus (§ 47, 23) -performed the praiseworthy task of saving the remnants of classical -and patristic learning. For Spain the same office was performed by -Isidore of Seville, who died in A.D. 636, whose text-books continued -for centuries, even on this side the Pyrenees, to supply the groundwork -of scholarly studies. The numerous Scottish and Irish monasteries -maintained their reputation down to the 9th century for eminent piety -and distinguished scholarship. Among the Anglo-Saxons the learned Greek -monk Theodore of Tarsus, who died in A.D. 690, and his companion Hadrian, -enkindled an enthusiasm for classical studies, and the venerable Bede, -who died in A.D. 735, though he never quitted his monastery, became -the most famous teacher in all the West, The Danish pirates did indeed -crush almost to extinction the seeds of Anglo-Saxon culture, but Alfred -the Great sowed them anew, though this revival was only for a little -while. In Gaul Gregory of Tours, who died in A.D. 595, was the last -representative of Roman ecclesiastical learning. After him we enter -upon a chaos without form and void, from which the creative spirit of -Charlemagne first called a new day which spread over the whole West its -enlightening beams. This light, however, was put out even by the time of -the great emperor’s grandson, and then we suddenly pass into the night -of the _Sæculum Obscurum_ (§ 100). - - § 90.1. =Rulers of the Carolingian Line.=--=Charlemagne=, - A.D. 768-814, may be regarded as beginning his scientific - undertakings on his first entrance into Italy in A.D. 774. - On this occasion he came to know the scholars Peter of Pisa, - Paul Warnefrid, Paulinus of Aquileia, and Theodulf of Orleans, - and brought them to his palace. From A.D. 782, however, the - particularly brilliant star of his court was the Anglo-Saxon - scholar Alcuin, whom Charles had met in Italy in the previous - year. Scientific studies were now carried on in an exceedingly - vigorous manner in the palace. The royal family, the whole court - and its surroundings engaged upon them, but of them all Charles - himself was the most diligent and successful of Alcuin’s students. - In the royal school, _Schola palatina_, which was ambulatory - like the royal residence itself, the sons and daughters of the - king with the children of the most distinguished families of - the land received a high-class education. The teaching staff - was constantly recruited from England, Ireland and Italy. After - such preparations Charles issued in A.D. 787 a circular to all - the bishops and abbots of his kingdom which enjoined under threat - of his severe royal displeasure that schools should be erected in - all monasteries and cathedral churches. Meanwhile his endeavours - were most successful, but were rather one-sided in the preference - given to classical and patristic literature, without a proper - national foundation. Charles’s great and generous nature indeed - had a warm interest in national culture, but those around him, - with the single exception of Paul Warnefrid, had in consequence - of their Latin monkish training lost all taste for German thought, - language and nationality, and fearing lest such studies might - endanger Christianity and cause a relapse into paganism, they - did not help but rather hindered the king’s effort to promote - a national literature.--=Louis the Pious=, A.D. 814-840, had his - weak government disturbed by the strifes of parties and of the - citizens. This period, therefore, was not specially favourable - to the development of scientific studies, but the seed sown by - his father still bore noble fruit. His son Lothair issued an - ordinance which gave a new organization to the educational system - of Italy, indeed created it anew. But Italy restless and full of - factions was the land where least of all such institutions could - be successfully conducted. A new golden age, however, dawned - for France under =Charles the Bald=, A.D. 840-877. His court - resembled that of his great grandfather in having gathered to - it the élite of scholars from all the West. The royal school - gained new renown under the direction of _Joannes Scotus Erigena_. - The cathedral and monastic schools of France vied with the most - famous institutions of Germany (St. Gall, Fulda, Reichenau, etc.), - and over the French episcopal sees men presided who had the most - distinguished reputation for scholarship. But after Charles’s - death the bloom of the Carolingian period passed away with almost - inconceivable rapidity amid the commotions of the time into thick - darkness, chaos and barbarism. - - § 90.2. =The most distinguished Theologians of the - Pre-Carolingian Age.= - - 1. In Merovingian France flourished =Gregory of Tours=, - sprung of a good Roman family. When in A.D. 573, in - order to get cured of an illness, he made a pilgrimage - to the tomb of St. Martin (§ 47, 14), he had the bishopric - of Tours conferred upon him, where he continued till his - death in A.D. 595. His _Historia Ecclesiastica Francorum_ - in ten Bks. affords us the only exact and trustworthy - information we possess of the Merovingian age. The - _Ll. VII. Miraculorum_ are a collection of several - hagiographic writings, four of them recounting some - of the innumerable miracles of St. Martin. - - 2. Scientific studies were prosecuted more vigorously on the - other side of the Pyrenees than on this. In the empire of - the Suevi (§ 76, 4) archbishop =Martin of Braccara=, now - Braga, distinguished himself in the work of Catholicising - the Arian population. He was previously abbot of the - monastery of Dumio, and died about A.D. 580. He was a - voluminous writer on church law and also in the departments - of moral and ascetical theology. His writings in the latter - section have so much in common with those of Seneca that - they were at one time ascribed to the Roman moralist. The - treatise _De Correctione Rusticorum_ is very important for - the history of the morals, legal institutions and culture - of that period.--The great star of the Spanish Visigothic - kingdom was =Isidorus [Isidore] Hispalensis=, who died - in A.D. 636. He was descended from a distinguished Gothic - family, and, as successor of his brother Leander, rose to - the archbishopric of Seville (Hispalis). His writings are - diligent compilations, which have preserved to us many - fragments and items of information otherwise unknown. - Incomparably greater, however, was the service they rendered - in conveying classical and patristic learning to the German - world of that age. His most comprehensive work consists - of xx. Bks. _Originum s. Etymologiarum_, an encyclopædic - exhibition of the whole field of knowledge of the day. He - also wrote a _Chronicon_ reaching down to A.D. 627, and - _Hist. de regibus Gotorum_, a shorter _Hist. Vandalorum - et Suevorum_, and a continuation of Jerome’s _Catalogus - de viris illustr_. Of more importance than his numerous - compilations of mystico-allegorical expositions of Scripture - are the iii. Bks. _Sententiarum_, a well-arranged system of - doctrine and morals from patristic passages, especially from - Augustine and Gregory the Great, and the _Lb. II. de ecclest. - officiis_. The two last-named works were highly prized - as text-books throughout the Middle Ages. The two books - _Contra Judæos_ belong to the department of apologetics. - He also composed a monastic rule (comp. further § 87, 1 - and 88, 1).--Isidore’s elder brother =Leander of Seville=, - who died in A.D. 590, had a good reputation as a church - leader (§ 76, 2; 88, 1), and had no insignificant rank - as a theological writer. The same may be said of the two - bishops of Toledo, =Ildefonsus=, who died in A.D. 669, and - =Julianus=, who died in A.D. 690. - - 3. England’s greatest and most famous teacher was the - Anglo-Saxon, the =Venerable Bede=. Trained in the monastery - of Wearmouth, he subsequently took up his residence in - the monastery of Jarrow, where he died in A.D. 735. He - was a proficient in all the sciences of his time and - withal a model of humility, piety and amiability. While - his numerous pupils reached the highest places in the - service of the church, their famous teacher continued - in quiet retirement as a simple monk. He himself wished - nothing else. Even on his deathbed he continued unweariedly - to teach and write. Immediately before his death he - dictated the last chapter of an Anglo-Saxon translation - of the Gospel of John. By far his most important work - for us is the _Hist. ecclest. gentis Anglorum_ in 5 Bks. - reaching down to A.D. 731 (Engl. Transl. by Giles, Lond., - 1840; and by Gidley, Lond., 1871). Connected with this are - his biographies of several saints of his native land, also - a history of the monastery of Wearmouth, and a _Chronicon - de sex ætatibus mundi_ reaching down to A.D. 729. His - commentaries ranging over almost all the books of the Old - and New Testament give evidence of a wonderful knowledge - of the fathers. His numerous sermons are mostly exegetical - and practical, rarely doctrinal. He was distinguished too - as a poet in Latin as well as in his mother tongue. - - § 90.3. =The most distinguished Theologians of the Age of - Charlemagne.= - - 1. The brightest star in the theological firmament of this - period was the Anglo-Saxon =Alcuin= (Albinus) with the - Horatian surname of Flaccus, which he got for his poetical - productions. He was educated in the famous school of York - under Egbert and Elbert. When the latter was made archbishop - in A.D. 766, Alcuin undertook the presidency of the schools. - While on a visit to Rome in A.D. 781 he met Charlemagne who - took him to his court, where he became the emperor’s teacher, - friend and most trusted counsellor. Down to his death in - A.D. 804 he was the king’s right hand in all religious - ecclesiastical and educational matters. In order to allay - a feeling of home-sickness, he undertook a journey in - A.D. 789 to his native country as ambassador of Charlemagne, - returned in A.D. 793, and did not again quit France. In - A.D. 796 Charles gave him the abbacy of Tours. He soon - raised its monastic school to the highest rank as a seminary - of learning. His exegetical works are mere compilations. The - _Ll. II. de fide s. et Individuæ Trinitatis_ may be regarded - as his dogmatic masterpiece; a compendium of dogmatics based - upon Augustine’s writings. The _Quæstiones de Trin._ treat - of the same matter in the catechetical form of question and - answer. He contributed to the doctrinal controversies of his - time the _Libellus de processione Spiritus S._ (§ 91, 2) and - by several learned controversial tracts against the leaders - of the Adoptionists (§ 91, 1). It is doubtful whether at all, - and if so to what extent, he had to do with the composition - of the _Libri Carolini_ (§ 94, 1) which appeared during his - stay in England. His numerous epistles, about 300 in number, - are very important for the history of his times. In his - Latin poems he sometimes very happily imitates his classical - models.[253] - - 2. =Paulus Diaconus= or Paul (the son of) Warnefrid, of - an honourable Longobard family, was next to Alcuin the - most distinguished scholar of his age. Probably sorrow - at the overthrow of his people (§ 82, 2) drove him into - the monastery of Monte Cassino; but Charlemagne took - him to his court in A.D. 782, where he was an object - of admiration as a Homer among the Grecians, a Virgil, - Horace, Tibullus, among the Latinists, and a Philo (!) - among the Hebraists. Love of his native land, however, - led him back to his monastery in A.D. 786, where he died - at a very advanced age in A.D. 795. What was specially - praiseworthy in this learned and amiable man, all the more - that few then took interest in those matters, was love and - enthusiasm for the language, the national legends and heroic - tales, the old laws and customs of his fellow-countrymen. - His most important work is the _Historia s. de Gestis - Langobardorum_ in 6 bks., reaching down to A.D. 774. The - earlier _Hist. Romana_, composed at the wish of a daughter - of king Desiderius, is, so far as its earlier periods are - concerned, compiled from the classical historians, but for - the later periods down to the overthrow of the Gothic rule - is more independent. At the Frankish court he composed the - _Hist. Episcoporum Mettensium_. He was also distinguished - as a poet. On his _Homiliarius_ comp. § 88, 1.[254] - - 3. =Theodulf, bishop of Orleans=, distinguished as a Christian - poet and learned theologian, and especially as a promoter - of popular education, stood in high repute with Charlemagne, - but under Louis the Pious, being suspected of treasonable - correspondence with Bernard of Italy, was deposed and - banished in A.D. 818. Subsequently, however, he was - pardoned and recalled, but died in A.D. 821 before he - reached his diocese. His book _De Spiritu S._ was a - contribution to the controversy about the procession - of the Holy Spirit (§ 91, 2). At Charlemagne’s request - he described and explained the baptismal ceremony in the - book _De ordine baptismi_. His numerous poems have been - published in 6 bks. - - 4. =Paulinus=, patriarch of Aquileia, who died in A.D. 804, - and bishop =Leidrad of Lyons=, who died in A.D. 813, took - part in Alcuin’s controversy against the Adoptionists by - the publication of able treatises. - - 5. Of the works of =Hatto=, abbot of Reichenau, subsequently - bishop of Basel, who died in A.D. 836, we still have - the so-called _Capitulare Hattonis_, with prefatory - directions for the official guidance of the Basel clergy, - and the _Visio Wettini_, describing the vision of a monk - of Reichenau called Wettin, who in A.D. 824 three days - before his death was conducted by an angel through hell, - purgatory and paradise. Hatto wrote it in prose and Walafrid - Strabo rendered it into verse. It made a great impression - on his contemporaries and was probably not without influence - upon Dante’s _Divina Comediá_. - - § 90.4. =The most distinguished Theologians of the Age of Louis - the Pious.= - - 1. =Agobard of Lyons=, a Spaniard by birth, died as - archbishop of Lyons in A.D. 840. As the resolute defender - of the integrity of the empire and the head of the national - church party among the Frankish clergy, he was drawn into - a conspiracy against Louis the Pious in A.D. 833 (§ 82, 4), - which led to his deposition and banishment in A.D. 835. - After two years, however, he was pardoned. He was a man - of remarkable culture and extraordinary force of character, - and withal a vigorous opponent of all ecclesiastical and - extra-ecclesiastical superstition. On his writings referring - to these matters see § 92, 2. In the book _Adv. dogma - Felicis_ he contended against Adoptionism (§ 91, 1). In - connection with his battle against the insolence and pride - of the numerous and wealthy Jews in his diocese he wrote and - dedicated to the emperor the accusatory tract _De insolentia - Judæorum_, followed by several similar addresses to the - most influential councillors of the crown. Another series - of writings from his pen was devoted to the vindication - of the attitude which he had assumed in the struggle - between Louis the Pious and his sons. Several treatises - on the position and task, the rights and duties of the - ministerial office show a reformatory tendency. He engaged - in a passionate controversy with Amalarius of Metz about - the necessity of a liturgical reform. Against Fredigis of - Tours, Alcuin’s successor, he maintained the view regarding - the prophets and apostles that the Holy Spirit _non solum - sensum prædicationis et modos vel argumenta dictionum - inspiraverit, sed etiam ipsa corporalia verba extrinsecus - in ora illorum ipse formaverit_. - - 2. =Claudius, bishop of Turin=, who died in A.D. 839, was - also a Spaniard by birth and a scholar of Felix of Urgel - (§ 91, 1), without, however, imbibing his heretical views. - He was throughout his whole career a zealous and determined - reformer. His reformatory notions were set forth first - of all in his exegetical works that covered almost the - whole range of Scripture. Of these only the commentary - on Galatians is now extant. He also vindicated his position - against the attacks of his old friend the abbot Theodemir - in his _Apologeticus_ (§ 92, 2). - - 3. =Jonas of Orleans=, the successor of Theodulf, was one of - the most distinguished prelates of his age, who wrought - earnestly and successfully for the restoring of discipline - and order in his diocese. In the struggle between Louis the - Pious and his sons he resolutely took the side of the old - king. He died in A.D. 844. His three books, _De institutione - laicali_ constitute a handbook of morals for married - persons, which also, because it deals with the sins and - vices that were then rampant, is of value as a picture of - the moral condition of his age. The book _De institutione - regia_, addressed to Louis’ son Pepin, may be regarded - as an appendix to the former treatise. In opposition to - the iconoclastic opinions of Claudius (§ 92, 2) he wrote - _Ll. III. De cultu imaginum_. - - 4. The principal work of the priest =Amalarius of Metz= is - his _De ecclesiasticis officiis_ in 4 bks., a detailed - description of all the ceremonies of public worship and - the ecclesiastical furniture and vestments, with many - arbitrary mystico-allegorical explanations, which called - forth a crushing rejoinder from Agobard. On his revision - of the rule of Chrodegang, see § 84, 4. - - 5. From the pen of the German monk =Christian Druthmar= of Old - Corbei we have a commentary on Matthew, which is remarkable - for the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper which it sets forth - (§ 91, 3), as well as for the hermeneutical principle there - laid down, that first and foremost the exegete must secure - a thorough understanding of the historical literal sense, - before he may think of developing the spiritual sense, which - must have the former as its basis. - - 6. =Rabănus [Rabanus] Magnentius Maurus=, the most - distinguished scholar of his age, was descended from an - old Roman family but one that had long been Germanized at - Mainz. His earliest education was received at the monastery - of Fulda. He then became a pupil of Alcuin at Tours. In - A.D. 803 he became himself a teacher at Tours, and in - A.D. 822 was made abbot of Fulda. After the death of Louis - the Pious he took the side of Lothair against Louis the - German, and was consequently obliged to resign his position - as abbot and to quit Fulda in A.D. 842. Subsequently, - however, he obtained Louis’ favour, and upon Otgar’s - death in A.D. 847 (§ 87, 3) was appointed his successor - in the archiepiscopal see of Mainz. He died in A.D. 856. - The monastic school at Fulda was raised by him to the - highest eminence. His commentaries extending over almost - all the Old and New Testaments are mainly occupied with - the development of the so-called spiritual sense, manifest - wonderful familiarity with the writings of the Latin fathers - from Ambrose to Bede, and were held in the highest esteem - throughout the Middle Ages. The same may be said of his - numerous homilies. The encyclopædic work _De universo_ - in 22 bks., is a continuation of Isidore’s _Origines_. - His book _De institutione clericorum_ in 3 bks. affords - a summary of all that was then to be learnt by the clergy - for the practical work of the ministry. The _Tractatus de - diversis quæstionibus ex V. et N. T. contra Judæos_ is an - apologetic treatise. He wrote against Gottschalk’s doctrine - of predestination in a letter to bishop Noting of Verona - (§ 91, 5), and another to the abbot Eigil of Prüm against - Radbert’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper (§ 91, 3). Of his - many other works we may mention a _Martyrologium_ based - upon ancient authorities. - - 7. =Walafrid Strabo= received his early training in the - monastery of Reichenau. He studied subsequently under - Rabanus at Fulda, in which institution he became a teacher. - About A.D. 842 he was made abbot of Reichenau; the seminary - here he raised to high repute, although he died in his - early prime in A.D. 849. Among his evangelical writings - his so-called _Glossæ ordinariæ_, _i.e._ short explanations - of the Latin text of the Bible, mostly culled from the - commentaries of Rabanus, were extremely popular, and - continued in use throughout the Middle Ages as an exegetical - handbook. In the liturgical department we have his treatise - _De exordiis et incrementis rerum ecclesiasticarum_, in - which he expresses himself on the image controversy in - the spirit of the old Frankish church (§ 92, 1). Walafrid - was also famous as a writer of sacred and secular poems. - - § 90.5. =The Most Distinguished Theologians of the Age of Charles - the Bald.= - - 1. The powerful metropolitan =Hincmar of Rheims=, who died - in A.D. 882 (§ 82, 7; 83, 2), was not indeed strong in - dogmatics, but in his writings just as well as in his life - and struggle he was heart and soul a church leader and - statesman. His most important work from a theological point - of view is the _Capitula Synodica ad presbyteros parochiæ - suæ_ on various points of worship and discipline, a notable - witness to the zeal and care which this man, so much taken - up with affairs of state and ecclesiastical controversies, - showed in the discharge of his ministerial duties. Of his - writings in connection with the Gottschalk controversy - (§ 91, 5, 6) only the prolix work _De predest. Dei et libero - arbitrio_ vindicating the decrees of Quiersy of A.D. 853 are - now extant. - - 2. =Paschasius Radbertus=, who died about A.D. 865, was - monk, and, from A.D. 844-851, also abbot of the monastery - of Corbei in Picardy. But among the monks of that place - there was a cotery which occasioned the most profound grief - to the pious-minded abbot; especially the learned monk - Ratramnus under the protection of court favour took delight - in contesting the somewhat ultra-pietistic views of his - abbot. Probably it was this that led Radbertus to resign his - office in A.D. 851. Besides the two treatises controverted - by Ratramnus he composed biblical commentaries, which are - more independent and contain more of his own than was common - at that time. He also wrote 3 bks. on faith, love and hope; - besides several Hagiographies. - - 3. =Ratramnus=, the antagonist of the former, takes a very - prominent place among the clear and subtle thinkers of that - age. Besides his controversial treatises against Radbertus - (§ 91, 3, 4) and against Hincmar (§ 91, 5, 6), he took part - in the burning controversy between the Greeks and Latins - (§ 67, 1) and wrote, _Contra Græcorum opposita Romanam eccl. - infamantium_. - - 4. =Florus Magister= was a cleric of the diocese of Lyons - distinguished no less for great learning than for poetic - gifts. His principal work _De actione Missarum, s. expositio - in Canonem Missæ_ is, notwithstanding its title, not so - much a liturgical treatise as a controversial tract against - Radbertus’ doctrine of the Eucharist (§ 91, 3). In the - liturgical controversy between Agobard and Amalarius, - he took the side of Agobard and argued against Amalarius - in several epistles. In the predestinarian controversy - he published the work _Contra J. Scoti Erigenæ erroneas - definitiones_ (§ 91, 5). He also composed a _Martyrologium_. - - 5. =Haymo, bishop of Halberstadt=, who died in A.D. 853, won - great reputation not only by his compiled exegetical works - and his _Homiliarium_ for the festival part of the year, - but also as author of a Church History, which, however, is - nothing more than a working up of extracts from Rufinus. - - 6. =Servatus Lupus=, scholar of Rabanus, was from A.D. 842 - abbot of Ferrières. His 130 epistles are important for the - history of his time, as he was in constant correspondence - with the most famous men of his day. On the side of - Gottschalk in the predestinarian controversy he wrote - his treatise _De tribus quæstionibus_. - - 7. =Remigius of Auxerre=, who died about A.D. 908, was - teacher of the monastic school at Rheims, and subsequently - at Paris. Besides numerous commentaries on the books of - the Old and New Testaments in the usual compilatory and - allegorical style, he has left in his _Expositio Missæ_ - a mystico-allegorical explanation of the ceremonies of - the mass. - - 8. =Regius of Prüm=, abbot of the monastery there, - subsequently resigned his rank and retired into the - monastery of Treves. He died in A.D. 915. His _Chronicon_ - reaching down to A.D. 906 is of great value for his own - times. His 2 bks. _De cantis synodalibus et disciplinis - ecclesiasticis_ are a directory for the visitation of - churches to be carried out by means of synodical judicatures. - - § 90.6. - - 9. =Anastasius Bibliothecarius= was abbot of a Roman monastery - and librarian under popes Nicholas I., Hadrian II. and - John VIII., and visited the Byzantine court in A.D. 869 - as member of an embassy of Emperor Louis II., and was also - present at the 8th œcumenical Council at Constantinople - (§ 67, 1). He translated the acts of this synod into Latin, - wrote the lives of several saints, and composed a _Hist. - ecclest. s. Chronographia tripartita_ drawn from three - Byzantine historical works of that period. To the _Liber - Pontificalis s. de vitio Roman. pontificum_, reaching down - to the death of Stephen V. in A.D. 891, which has been - ascribed to him, he can only have contributed the _Vita_ - of pope Nicholas I., and perhaps also the _Vitæ_ of his - four immediate predecessors. It is a history of the popes - gathered together from various sources that had their - origin at different times, the earliest of which goes back - to A.D. 354. The oldest extant recension of it reaches - down to Pope Conon in A.D. 687, and forms an important - link in the chain of Romish fabrications and interpolations, - by means of which the numerous fabricated acts of Romish - martyrs, as well as already existing fables referring - to particular popes and emperors (comp. _e.g._ § 42, 1), - gained credence, more recently introduced liturgical - practices had assigned to them a more remote antiquity, - and the popes were represented as legislators for the - whole church. The complete biographies often written by - contemporaries preserved in this collection are of great - historical value. - - 10. =Eulogius of Cordova= was chosen archbishop in A.D. 858, - but was not received by the Moorish government, and suffered - martyrdom in A.D. 859 (§ 81, 1). The most important of his - writings is the historical _Memoriale Sanctorum s. Ll. III. - de Martyrib. Cordubens_. The _Apologeticus Sanctorum_ is a - continuation of the former with violent invectives against - Islam and its false prophet. =Paulas [Paul] Alvarus= of - Cordova, from his youth closely associated with Eulogius, - wrote his life and vindicated in a _Judiculus luminosus_ - the tendency to court martyrdom then frequently shown by - Christians but often objected to. - - § 90.7. - - 11. =Joannes Scotus Erigena=, the miracle as well as the - enigma of his age, by birth probably an Irishman, who - flashed out as a brilliant meteor in the court of Charles - the Bald and passed away from view, without its being known - whence he came or whither he went, was the greatest scholar, - the most profound, subtle and liberal thinker of his times, - with a speculative power the like of which was not seen - for centuries before and after. He died after A.D. 877. - His extant works embrace fragments of his commentary - on the Areopagite (§ 47, 11), and a Latin faithful, - literal and therefore hard to understand translation - of the Areopagite’s writings, also a translation of a - work of Maximus Confessor on difficult passages from - the writings of Gregory Nazianzen (_Loca ambigua_), his - controversial treatise _De prædestinatione_ (§ 91, 5), - a homily on the prologue of John’s gospel, a fragment of - a speculative-mystical treatise _De egressu et regressu - animæ ad Deum_, and the _Opus palmare_ of the author, by - far the most comprehensive of his writings, the 5 bks. _De - divisione naturæ_. Based upon the gnosis of the school of - Origen, but resting mainly on the theosophical mysticism of - the Areopagite and the dialectic of Maximus Confessor, he - produced in this treatise a system of speculative theology - of magnificent dimensions which, in spite of every effort - to hold by the doctrinal position of the church, is but - one piece of heterodoxy from beginning to end. He starts - from the principle that true theology and true philosophy - are only formally different, but essentially identical. - The _Fides_ have to express the truth as _Theologia - affirmativa_ (καταφατική) in the biblically revealed and - ecclesiastically communicated shell, accommodating itself - to the finite understanding by figurative and metaphorical - expressions. But the task of the _Ratio_ is to strip off - this shell (_Theologia negativa_, ἀποφατική), and by means - of speculation raise the faith to knowledge. The title of - this book is to be explained from its fundamental thought - that nature, _i.e._ the sum of all being and non-being, by - which he understands everything the existence of which is - yet unknown, or merely potential, or necessarily belonging - to things past, comprises four forms of existence:--_Natura - creatrix non creata_, _i.e._ God as the potential sum of - all being, _Natura creatrix creata_, _i.e._ the eternal - thoughts of God regarding the world as the eternal primal - types of all creation, _Natura creata non creans_, _i.e._ - the world in time as the visible product and sensible - realization of the eternal invisible world of ideas, - and _Natura nee creata nee creans_, _i.e._ God as the - final end of all created being, to whom all creation - when all contradictions have been overcome returns in - the ἀποκατάστασις τῶν πάντων. The Aristotelian threefold - division into the unmoved and moving, the moved and moving, - and the moved and not moving, seems to have afforded - him the starting-point for his fourfold division; while - the divergent conception of them, their enlargement and - development may be traced to Platonic and Neo-Platonic - influences.--That such a system must essentially tend - to pantheism soon became evident, but on the other hand - Erigena’s own Christian consciousness strongly reacted - against the pantheistic current of his thought, and he was - anxiously concerned to preserve the fundamental truths of - Christian Theism. By the fundamental fourfold division of - his system he could not give to the doctrine of the Trinity - a necessary and controlling but only an accidental and - occasional position. Only the presence of this doctrine - in Scripture and tradition obliged him to maintain it. - He speaks indeed of three persons in God, but he uses the - expression only in an improper sense, and has no intention - of explaining Father, Son and Spirit as mere names of - divine relations (_habitudines_, _relationes_): _Pater - vult, Filius facit, Spir. S. perficit_. In the Son as - the creative Word of God are all original causes of - things, undistinguished, unordered; by the Spirit are - they differentiated into the various phenomena and - effects in the kingdom of nature as well as of grace. - On his doctrine of evil, comp. § 91, 5. As Origen has - in himself the germs of all orthodoxy and heterodoxy of - the ancient church undeveloped and uncontrasted, so also - in Erigena are there the germs of the contradictions - of later scholasticism and mysticism. Had he lived - three centuries later he would probably have set the - whole learned world astir, but now he passed unhonoured, - misunderstood, scarcely regarded worth dealing with for - heresy (§ 91, 5), and apparently leaving little trace - behind him. His great work _De divisione naturæ_ was - first condemned by a provincial Council at Sens, and - this judgment was confirmed by Honorius III. in A.D. 1225. - The book was characterized as _Scatens vermibus hæreticæ - pravitatis_; orders were given that it should be sought out - everywhere and burnt.[255] - - § 90.8. =The Monastic and Cathedral Schools= had as their - main task the training of capable servants for the church. The - handbooks mainly in use were those of Cassiodorus, Isidore, Bede, - Alcuin and Rabanus. Great diligence was shown, especially in the - monasteries, in founding libraries and multiplying books by means - of good copies. Alcuin made a threefold division of all sciences; - ethics, physics and theology. Ethics corresponded to what was - afterwards called the Trivium (Grammar, Rhetoric and Dialectic); - Physics to the Quadrivium (Arithmetic, Geometry, Music and - Astronomy). These two together comprehended the whole range - of the seven _free_ arts, _i.e._ worthy of the study of a free - man, liberal studies. Latin was the language of intercourse - and instruction. Greek, which was spread by Theodore of Tarsus, - a Greek monk, who, after being long a teacher in Rome, was in - A.D. 669 made archbishop of Canterbury, and by his pupils was - also taught in the more important schools. Acquaintance with - Hebrew was much more rare, and was often obtained by means - of intercourse with learned Jews. Boethius [Boëthius] was the - vehicle of instruction in philosophy. In the 9th century the works - ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite (§ 47, 11) were sent to - France as a present from the Byzantine emperor Michael to Louis - of France. He was identified with the founder of the church of - Paris of the same name, and patriotic feeling gave an immense - impulse to the study of his writings. The abbot Hildmin of - St. Denys, and subsequently Joannes Erigena, translated them - into Latin. Encyclopædic works, giving compendiums of the whole - range of the sciences then known, were produced by Isidore and - Rabanus.[256]--Continuation, § 99, 3. - - § 90.9. =Various Branches of Theological Science.=--The labours - of the German church in the department of scientific theology was - directed to the church’s immediate needs, and hence the character - of its theology was biblical and practical, and the reputation of - the fathers so extravagantly high, that wherever it was possible, - teaching, preaching, proving and refuting were all carried on in - their very words. Charlemagne’s powerful efforts in the direction - of reform gave even in the department of theology abundant - occasion and encouragement to scholars round about him to a - more independent procedure, and the theological controversies - of the 9th century afforded sufficient scope to independent - thinking. - - 1. =Exegesis= on the basis of the Vulgate was most diligently - prosecuted. Charlemagne set Alcuin to produce a critical - revision of its very corrupt text. Agobard combated the - mechanical theory of inspiration by the assertion that the - holy prophets were something better than Balaam’s ass. Only - one out of the very numerous exegetes, Christian Druthmar, - recognised it as a first principle, most essential and - necessary, if not the only task of the exegete, to bring - out the grammatical and historical sense of the words - of Scripture. The literal sense was and continued to - be regarded as the scullion of interpretation, while it - was thought that the most precious treasures of Divine - wisdom were to be found in the _allegorical_ sense, - _i.e._ with application to the mysteries of the faith, - the _tropological_ or moral, and the _anagogical_, which - aimed at the elevation of the mind. - - 2. In =Systematic Theology= Apologetics was most feebly - represented. The humble form of the paganism to be - controverted did not require elaborate defences of the - Christian faith, but the advance of Mohammedanism and the - great number of Jews established in France, especially - under Louis of France, by means of their wealth and bribes, - developed an incredible arrogance. While Jewish and pagan - slaves were not allowed to have baptism, Christian slaves - on the other hand were compelled to observe the Sabbath, - to work on Sunday, to eat flesh on fast days; they openly - blasphemed Christ, insulted the church and sold Christian - slaves to the Saracens. Agobard fought against them - energetically by word, Scripture and action, but the - needy court protected them. Isidore and Rabanus in their - apologetical writings proved the nullity of the Jewish - beliefs. From the time of Charlemagne theologians were - much more eagerly engaged in polemics (§§ 91, 92). Isidore - in his _Ll. III. Sententiarum_ collected from patristic - passages a system of doctrine and morals, which continued - a favourite text-book for centuries. Alcuin’s _Ll. III. - De fide Trinitatis_ form a compendium of dogmatics. The - introduction of the Pseudo-Areopagita into the West prepared - the way for speculative mysticism, which had its first - representative in Joannes Scotus Erigena. - - 3. In =Practical Theology= homiletical literature was but - poorly represented. Besides the Homiliarius of Paul - Warnefrid (§ 88, 1), we meet with Bede, Walafrid, Rabanus - and Haymo as authors of sermons. On the other hand great - and constant interest was shown in developing a theory of - worship, in describing it and giving a mystical explanation - of it. Isidore with _De officiis ecclesiasticis_ was - the first in this department. Charlemagne set to all his - theologians the task of explaining the baptismal ceremony. - In the time of Louis the Pious, Agobard appears as a - reformer of the liturgy, in connection with which he - passionately contended against Amalarius, against whom - also Florus Magister entered the lists. Important works - in this department were also written by Rabanus, Walafrid - and Remigius. On works treating of church law and church - discipline, see § 87 and § 89, 5. - - 4. Finally, as to the department of =Historical Theology= all - knowledge of earlier church history was derived from Rufinus - and Cassiodorus. Even Haymo’s Church History is made up - simply of extracts from Rufinus. All the greater diligence - was shown throughout the Middle Ages in chronicling the - ecclesiastical and political events of the immediate - present and also keeping the past in memory. This endeavour - shows itself in a threefold direction. (a) The writing of - =National Chronicles=. The Visigoths had their Isidore, the - Ostrogoths their Cassiodorus,[257] the Longobards their Paul - Warnefrid, the Franks their Gregory of Tours, the Britons - their Gildas[258] and Nennius,[259] the Anglo-Saxons - their Bede.--(b) Then we have the clumsy compilations of - =Annals= and =Chronicles= which most monasteries produced, - and which were continued from year to year.--(c) And - further, =Biographies=, both of distinguished statesmen - and distinguished churchmen. The _Vitæ Sanctorum_ are - innumerable, mostly quite uncritical, composed purely for - the glorification of some local saint. To this category - belong the numerous _Martyrologies_, arranged in the - order of the Calendar. Among the most famous were those - prepared by Bede, Ado of Vienne, Usuardus, Rabanus, Notker - Balbulus, Wandelbert, etc. In the department of historical - biography proper may be included the portion of the - _Liber pontificalis_ belonging to this period, the _Hist. - Mettensium Episcoporum_ of Paul Warnefrid, and Isidore’s - continuation of Jerome’s _Catalogus_, which was further - continued by Ildefonsus of Toledo. - - § 90.10. =Anglo-Saxon Culture under Alfred the Great=, - A.D. 871-901.--Alfred the Great, the greatest and noblest of - all the kings that England has ever had, was the grandson of - Egbert who had united in A.D. 827 the seven Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. - When five years old he received papal anointing at Rome and two - years later in company with his pious father he travelled thence, - made a considerable stay at the brilliant court of Charlemagne - where he received the impress of its superior culture, and - began his reign in A.D. 871 in his 22nd year when the kingdom - was sorely oppressed by Danish invasions. He applied all the - energy of his mind to the difficult problems of government, to - the emancipation and civilization of his country and people by - driving out the Danish robbers, and then improving the internal - condition of the land by attention to agriculture, industry and - trade, by a wise organization, legislation and administration, - by the founding of churches, monasteries and schools, and - by furthering every scientific endeavour from a thoroughly - national point of view. When already thirty-six years of age - he learnt the Latin language and used this acquirement for the - enriching of Anglo-Saxon literature by translations from his - own hand, with many important additions of his own, of Boëthius’ - _Consolatio philosophiæ_, the Universal History of Orosius, Bede’s - History of the Church of England and the _Regula pastoralis_ of - Gregory the Great. He also began a translation of the Psalms. - He stimulated his learned friends to a like activity, among whom - bishop Asser of Sherborne in his _Vita Alfredi_ (Engl. transl. - in “Six Old English Chronicles”) has reared a worthy memorial - of his master.[260]--Continuation, § 100, 1. - - - § 91. DOCTRINAL CONTROVERSIES. - - The first important heresy that grew up independently on German -soil was Adoptionism. This heresy took its rise at that point in the -development of Christology that was reached by the 6th œcumenical -Council of Constantinople in A.D. 680 (§ 52, 8), for it recognises -the double nature and the double will while denying the double sonship. -Frankish orthodoxy, however, saw in it not a further development of -doctrine, but a relapse into Nestorianism, and so condemned the new -doctrine. During the same period the dogma of the procession of the -Holy Spirit was the subject of lively controversy, and the Frankish -church came forward as defender of Western orthodoxy against the Greeks. -In the Eucharistic controversy the most eminent Frankish theologians -opposed the Transubstantiation doctrine of Balbutus [Balbulus]. -A further controversy as to the conception of the Blessed Virgin -was closely connected with the one just referred to. Neither of -them was made the subject of any synodal decision. On the other -hand very definite synodal decisions were passed in reference to the -predestination controversy, without, however, bringing that controversy -by any means to a conclusion. Of subordinate importance was the dispute -over the expression _Trina Deitas_. - - § 91.1. =The Adoptionist Controversy, A.D. 782-799.=--Of all - Christian dogmas none were so offensive to the Moslems as that - of the Trinity which to their barren monotheism necessarily - appeared as Tritheism, and none were the subject of so much scorn - as the idea that God should have a son. It need not, therefore, - surprise us to find that Spanish theologians endeavoured to - put this doctrine in a form as little offensive as possible - to the Moslems. One =Migetius= went so far as to adopt a very - crude form of Sabellianism, for he, undoubtedly approaching - the Mohammedan view of the prophetic order, represented the - Trinitarian development of the one Divine Being as a threefold - historical manipulation of God: in David the person of the - Father is revealed, in Christ as son of David that of the Son, - and finally, in the Apostle Paul that of the Holy Spirit. At - a Spanish synod of A.D. 782 he was successfully opposed by the - archbishop =Elipandus of Toledo=, who took the opportunity of - attempting a further development of the Christological dogma. - This also was more fully elaborated by =Felix of Urgel= in - the Spanish Mark. Both taught: That Christ is properly Son of - God only according to His divine nature (_Filius Dei Naturâ_); - according to His human nature He is properly, like all of us, - a servant of God, and only by the decision of the Divine will - is He adopted as the Son of God (_Filius Dei Adoptivus_), just - as all of us may by Him and after His example be raised from the - condition of servant into the family of God. According to His - Divine nature therefore He is the =Only Begotten=, according to - His human nature the =First Begotten= Son of God. The adoption - of the human nature into Divine Sonship began with its conception - by the Holy Ghost, but was more definitely determined in His - baptism, and perfected in His resurrection. The first scene of - the controversy called forth by this doctrine was enacted on - Spanish soil. Two representatives of the Asturian clergy, the - presbyter Beatus of Libana and bishop Etherius of Osma, contended - by word and writing against the heresy of Elipandus (A.D. 785). - This was done perhaps with the view of emancipating the Asturian - church from the see of Toledo then under Saracen domination. The - Asturians applied to Hadrian I., who in an epistle to the bishops - of Spain in A.D. 786 condemned Adoptionism as a heresy. The - controversy entered upon a second stage through the interference - of Charlemagne. The absence of Adoptionism in Frankish Spain - afforded him an excuse for interfering, and he readily seized - upon this, because it gave him an opportunity of posing as the - defender of orthodoxy in the West, _i.e._ as Emperor _in esse_. - Before a Synod at Regensburg in A.D. 792, Felix was compelled - to renounce this heresy, and was sent to Rome to pope Hadrian I. - There he had to make a second recantation, but escaped from - prison and fled to Saracenic territory. In the meantime Alcuin - had returned from his travels in England, and immediately engaged - in controversy by addressing an affectionate exhortation to - Felix. The Spaniards gave a very firm reply and Charlemagne - then convened the famous œcumenical German Synod of Frankfort - in A.D. 794. After further investigation Adoptionism was again - condemned, and the judgment of the synod, in order that it might - have an œcumenical character, was sent to Spain accompanied - by four complete reports as representing the various national - churches and authorities. But on the Spaniards this made little - impression. Just as little effect had a learned controversial - tract of Alcuin’s, to which Felix made a smart rejoinder. - Meanwhile Charlemagne sent a clerical commission under Leidrad - of Lyons and Benedict of Aniane (§ 85, 2) into the Spanish - Mark, in order to root out the weeds of heresy that were growing - there. Felix declared himself ready for further enquiry. At the - national Synod of Aachen in A.D. 792 he disputed for six days - with Alcuin, and declared himself at last thoroughly convinced. - Alcuin and Paulinus of Aquileia published new controversial - tracts, and Leidrad went a second time into the Spanish Mark - where he succeeded in rooting out the heresy. But all the more - determined were the bishops of Saracenic Spain in maintaining - their doctrine, and Elipandus answered a conciliatory letter of - Alcuin in a passionate and angry tone. Felix remained until the - end of his life in A.D. 818 under the guardianship of the bishop - of Lyons. Leidrad’s successor, Agobard, found among his papers - undoubted evidence that to the end he was at heart an Adoptionist, - and from this took occasion to publish another controversial - tract. This was the very last of these productions. But in Spain - Adoptionism seems to have maintained its hold down to the second - half of the 9th century. At last about that time Paulus Alvarus - of Cordova (§ 90, 6) contended with a certain Joannes Spalensis - on account of his Adoptionist views. In the 12th century the - controversy again broke out on German soil (§ 102, 6).[261] - - § 91.2. =Controversy about the Procession of the Holy - Spirit.=--At a Synod at Gentiliacum in A.D. 767, held for - the purpose of meeting a Byzantine embassy about the iconoclast - controversy, the addition to the creed of the _Filioque_ was - spoken about (§ 67, 1). The result of the discussion is unknown. - In Charlemagne’s time Alcuin and Theodulf defended the Latin - doctrine in special treatises, and at a Synod at Friaul in - A.D. 791 Paulinus of Aquileia justified its adoption into - the creed and the Carolingian books (§ 92, 1). The discussion - was renewed when the Latin monks of Mount Olivet, blamed by - the Greeks because of the addition, appealed to the usage of - the Frankish church. Pope Leo III. communicated in regard to - this with Charlemagne, and a Council at Aachen in A.D. 809 - defended the addition. But the pope, although not contesting - the correctness of the doctrine, disallowed the change in the - creed, and had two silver tablets erected in St. Peter’s in Rome - with the creed wanting the addition. This was evidently a damper - upon the ecclesiastico-political movements of the emperor. - - § 91.3. =The Eucharistic Controversy, A.D. 844.=--Vacillations - about the doctrine of the Supper (§ 58, 2) lasted down to the - 9th century. Paschasius Radbertus, monk at Corbie, undertook - in A.D. 831, in his treatise _De Sanguine et corpore Domini_, - theologically to justify, and on all sides to develop the - doctrine of the Supper, which had long ago struck its roots - in the practice of the church and the faith of the people. - The air of genuine piety which meets us in this work impresses - us favourably, and it cannot be denied that he had a profound - perception of fulness, power, and depth of the Sacrament. It - was, therefore, quite in accordance with popular belief. He - could, also, refer to facts from the _Vitæ Sanctorum_, where - the inner _Veritas_ had come to outer manifestation. He thinks - that the fact that this did not always happen is to be accounted - for partly by this, that the Supper in its very nature is - a _Mysterium_ for faith and not a _Miraculum_ for unbelief, - partly by the divine condescendence which takes into account the - natural horror at flesh and blood, and would take away from the - heathen all occasion for blasphemy. At this time, A.D. 831, the - Scriptures were not appealed to. Meantime Radbertus was made - abbot of Corbie, and in this important position he revised his - work, and presented it to Charles the Bald in A.D. 844. The king - called upon the learned monk, =Ratramnus= of Corbie, to express - his opinion on the subject, and he was only too ready to do - an injury to his abbot. Without naming him, he contested his - doctrine in his treatise, _De corp. et sang. Domini ad Carolum - Calvum_, with bitter criticism, and subtly developed his own - view, according to which the body and blood of Christ are enjoyed - only _spiritualiter et secundum potentiam_. Rabanus Maurus, - Scotus Erigena, and Florus of Lyons also opposed the magical - transformation doctrine of Radbertus in favour of a merely - spiritual enjoyment. Hincmar and Haymo, on the other hand, - took the side of Radbertus, while Walafrid Strabo, and the able, - energetic Christian Druthmar, found in the idea of impanation - and consubstantiation a more fitting expression for the solemn - mystery. But Radbertus had spoken the word which gave clear - utterance to the ecclesiastical feeling of the age; the protest - of so many great authorities might delay, but could not destroy - its effects. Continuation, § 101, 2. - - § 91.4. =Controversy about the Conception of the Virgin.=--This - notion of the magical operation of the Divine prevailed with - Radbertus when soon afterwards he undertook in his own way, - and also in accordance with Ps. xxii. 10 and Jer. xxxi. 22, - in the tract, _De partu virginali_, to establish the opinion - already expressed by Ambrose and Jerome (§ 57, 2), that Mary - brought forth _utero clauso_, and without pain. Ratramnus also - has left a treatise on this theme: _De eo quod Christus ex - Virigine natus est_. He maintains equally with Radbertus that - during conception as well as in bearing, the Virgin did not - lose her virginity. But while Radbertus contended against those - who taught less than this, _i.e._, that though Mary conceived - as a virgin, she bore after the manner of all women, Ratramnus - directed his attack against those who affirmed more than that, - _i.e._, that Christ at His birth did not leave His mother’s womb - in the usual, natural manner, by His mother bearing Him. Further, - while the former was angry at the profaning of the mystery of - the birth of Christ, by ranking it under the laws of nature, the - latter emphasized the fact that in no case should it be regarded - as in itself ignominious to be placed under the laws of nature. - Finally, while Radbertus unconditionally repudiated the position, - _Vulvam aperuit_, Ratramnus felt compelled by Luke ii. 23 to - admit it in a certain sense. C. v. “_Utique vulvam aperuit, - non et clausam corrumperet, sed et per eam suæ nativitatis - ostium aperiret, sicut et in Ezech. xliv. 3 porta et clausa - describitur et tamen narratur Domino aperta; non quod liminis - sui fores dimoverit ad ejus egressum, sed quod sic clausa - patuerit dominanti_,” and c. viii. “_Exivit clauso sepulchro - (?) et ingressus foribus obseratis (Jo. xx. 9) ... ut et clausam - relinqueret et per eam transiret ... nec haureundo patefecit_.” - The polemic, therefore, was most probably occasioned not by - anything in the writings, but rather in their oral utterances. - Neither understood the other’s view, and the one drew consequences - from the other’s statements that were not warrantable. But when - Ratramnus pretends to be debating, not with his abbot but with an - unnamed German opponent, this can only be regarded as a literary - artifice. - - § 91.5. =The Predestinarian Controversy A.D. 847-868.=--The - earlier predestinarian controversy (§ 53, 5), was, so far - from being brought to a conclusion, that all the gradations - of doctrinal views, from that of Semi-Pelagianism to a doctrine - of predestination to condemnation that went far beyond Augustine, - could find representatives among the teachers of the church. In - the 9th century the controversy broke out in a passionate form. - =Gottschalk=, the son of Berno, a Saxon count, had been placed - by his parents when a child in the monastery of Fulda. A Synod - at Mainz in A.D. 829 allowed him to go forth, but the abbot of - Fulda at that time, Rabanus Maurus, got Louis the Pious to annul - this dispensation. Transferred to the monastery of Orbais, in - the diocese of Soissons, Gottschalk sought comfort in the study - of the writings of Augustine, and was an enthusiastic defender - of the doctrine of absolute predestination. In one point he - even went beyond Augustine himself, for he taught a two-fold - predestination (_Gemina prædestinatio_), a predestination to - salvation and a predestination to condemnation, while Augustine - had spoken of the latter mostly as a giving over to deserved - condemnation. He took advantage of two journeys into Italy in - A.D. 840 and A.D. 847 for spreading his doctrine. Impelled with - a vehement desire to make converts, he made an attempt upon - bishop Noting of Verona. Through him Rabanus, from A.D. 847 - archbishop of Mainz, obtained information thereof, and issued - to Noting, as well as to Count Eberhard of Friaul, with whom - Gottschalk was living, threatening letters which distorted - Gottschalk’s doctrine in many particulars, and drew from it - unfair consequences, making the _Prædestinatio ad damnationem_ - a _Prædestinatio ad peccatum_. Rabanus’s own doctrine - distinguished prescience and predestination, and placed the - condemnation of the wicked under the former point of view. At - the same time, in A.D. 848, he convened a Synod at Mainz, before - which Gottschalk stated his doctrine without reserve, in the - joyous conviction that it was in accordance with the doctrine - of the church. But the Council excommunicated him, and assigned - him for punishment to his metropolitan Hincmar of Rheims. Hincmar - had him anew condemned at the Synod of Quiersy in A.D. 849, - then, because he steadily refused to recant, had him savagely - scourged and consigned to imprisonment for life in the monastery - of Hautvilliers. Gottschalk offered to prove the justice of - his cause by submitting to an ordeal; but Hincmar, though in - other instances a defender of the ordeal, denounced this as the - proposal of a second Simon Magus. The inhuman treatment of the - poor monk, and the rejection of the doctrine of Augustine by two - church leaders, occasioned a mighty commotion in the Frankish - church, which was mainly directed against Hincmar. At first, - bishop Prudentius of Troyes took the condemned monk’s part. Then - Charles the Bald asked the opinions of Ratramnus of Corbie and - the abbot Servatus Lupus of Ferrières. Both of these took the - side of Gottschalk. Hincmar’s position threatened to become very - serious. He looked out for supporters, and succeeded in finding - champions in the deacon Florus of Lyons, the priest Amalarius of - Metz, and the learned Joannes Scotus Erigena. But the latter’s - advocacy was almost more dangerous to the metropolitan than the - charges of his accusers. For the speculative Irishman founded - his objections to the doctrine of predestination on the position, - unheard of before in the West, that evil is only a μὴ ὄν, and - condemnation therefore not a positive punishment of God, but - consisting only in the consciousness of a defect. Hincmar’s - position was now worse than ever, for his opponents made him - responsible for the heresies of Scotus. And not only an old - objector, Prudentius of Troyes in his _De prædest. c. Joh. - Scotu_, but even archbishop Wessilo of Sens and the deacon - Florus of Lyons, who had hitherto supported him, now put on - their armour against him. But Charles the Bald took the part - of the sorely-beset metropolitan, and summoned the national - Synod of Quiersy of A.D. 853, where in four articles (_Capitula - Carisiaca_), a modified Augustinianism, rejecting the _gemina - prædestinatio_, was set forth as the orthodox faith. The - Neustrian objectors were now compelled to keep silence, but - archbishop Remigius of Lyons set a Lothringian national Synod - of Valence of A.D. 855 over against the Neustrian Synod. This - Synod expressly condemned the decisions of the Synod of Quiersy, - together with the Scottish mixture (_pultus Scotorum_), and - laid down six conflicting articles as the standard of orthodoxy. - Finally the rulers of the West Franks combined their forces and - called an Imperial Synod at Savonnières, a suburb of Toul, in - A.D. 859. But harmony was not yet secured, and they were likely - to part with bitter feelings, when Remigius made the proposal to - reserve decision for a subsequent assembly to be convened in a - less agitated time, and meanwhile to maintain the peace. This - was agreed upon, and so the controversy put out of view, for - the proposed assembly was never brought about. Gottschalk, left - in the lurch by his former friends, now turned for help to the - powerful pope Nicholas I. The pope ordered Hincmar to answer - before the papal plenipotentiaries for his proceedings against - the monk at the Synod of Metz in A.D. 863 (§ 82, 7). Hincmar - preferred not to comply to this demand, and to his delight the - pope himself annulled the decisions of the Synod because his - legates had been bribed. Moreover the metropolitan succeeded by - intercession and well-planned letters in winning over the pope. - Thus then Gottschalk was cheated out of his last hope. For twenty - years he languished in prison, but with his latest breath he - rejected every proposal of recantation. He died in A.D. 868, - and by Hincmar’s orders was buried in unconsecrated earth. - - § 91.6. =The Trinitarian Controversy, A.D. 857.=--From his - prison Gottschalk had accused his metropolitan of a second - heresy. Hincmar had removed from a church hymn, _Te trina Deitas - unaque poscimus_, the expression, =trina Deltas=, as favouring - Arianism, and substituted the words, _sancta Deitas_. His - opponents therefore charged him with Sabellianism, and Ratramnus - made this accusation in a controversial tract no longer extant. - Ratramnus, on the other hand, to whom Hincmar applied, supported - the change, but would not commit himself to a written approval - of it, whereupon Hincmar himself undertook a defence of the - expression substituted in his treatise, _De una et non trini - Deitate_.[262] - - - § 92. ENDEAVOURS AFTER REFORMATION. - - The independence which Charlemagne gave to the German church first -awakened in it the consciousness of its vocation as a reformer. -This consciousness was maintained throughout the Middle Ages, -though hampered indeed by much narrowness, one-sidedness, and error. -Charlemagne himself stood first in the series of reformers with his -energetic protest against image worship. Louis the Pious too persevered -in this same direction, and encouraged Agobard of Lyons and Claudius of -Turin when they contested similar forms of ecclesiastical superstition. - - § 92.1. =The Carolingian Opposition to Image Worship, - A.D. 790-825.=--On the occasion of an embassy of the emperor - Constantinus Copronymus (§ 66, 2) Pepin the Short convened a - Synod at Gentiliacum in A.D. 767 (§ 91, 2) where the question - of image worship was dealt with. We have no further information, - as the acts of this Synod have been lost. Then in A.D. 790 - Hadrian I. sent to Charlemagne the acts of the 7th occasional - Synod of Nicæa (§ 66, 3). Charles, as emperor-elect, regarded - himself as grievously wronged by the assumption of the Greeks, - who, without consulting the German court, sought to enact - laws that were wholly antagonistic to the Frankish practice. - He published under his own name a state paper in 4 bks., the - so-called _Libri Carolini_, in which the Byzantine proceedings - were censured in strong terms, the synodal acts refuted one by - one, every form of image worship denounced as idolatry, while at - the same time the position of the iconoclasts was repudiated and, - with reference to Gregory the Great (§ 57, 4), the usefulness - of images in quickening devotion, instructing the people and - providing suitable decoration for sacred places was admitted. - Veneration of saints, relics, and the cross is, on the other - hand, permitted. Charlemagne sent this writing to the pope, - who in the most courteous language wrote a refutation, which, - however, made no impression upon Charlemagne. On the contrary he - now hastened preparations for calling a great œcumenical Synod of - all German churches that would outdo the Synod of the Byzantine - court. Alcuin utilized his visit to England for securing a - representation at this Synod of the Anglo-Saxon church. The - Synod met at Frankfort in A.D. 794 and confirmed the positions - of the Caroline books. The pope found it prudent to yield to - the times and the people. Under Louis the Pious the matter was - brought forward anew on the occasion of an embassy from the - iconoclast emperor Michael Balbus. A national Synod at Paris - in A.D. 825 condemned image worship sharply, in opposition to - Hadrian I., and affirmed the positions of the Caroline books. - Pope Eugenius II. kept silent on this subject. In the Frankish - empire down to the 10th century no recognition was given to the - 2nd Nicene Council, and official opposition was continued against - image worship. - - § 92.2. Soon after the Parisian council of A.D. 825, =Agobard - of Lyons= made his appearance with a powerful polemic: _Contra - superstitionem eorum, qui picturis et imaginibus sanctorum - adorationis obsequiem deferendum putant_. He goes much further - than the Caroline books, for not only does he regard it as - advisable, on account of the inevitable misuse on the part of - the people, to banish images entirely, but with image worship - he also rejects all adoration of saints, relics, and angels. Man - should put his trust in the omnipotent God alone, and worship - and reverence only the one Mediator, Christ. He comes forward - also as a reformer of the liturgy. He finds fault with all - sensuous additions to Divine service, would banish from it all - non-Biblical hymns, urges to earnest study of Scripture, contends - against the folly of the ordeal (_De Divinis Sententiis_), the - popular superstitions about witchcraft and weather omens (_Contra - insulsam vulgi opinionem de grandine et tonitruis_), and the - idea that by presents to churches a stop can be put to epidemics - and pestilences. Also on inspiration he entertained very liberal - opinions (§ 90, 9). No one thought on account of these views to - charge him with heresy. =Claudius of Turin= went still further - than Agobard. By the help of Augustine he was able to grasp more - profoundly than any of his contemporaries the essential core of - saving truth, that man without any merit of works is justified - and saved by the grace of God in Christ alone. Louis the - Pious appointed him to the bishopric of Turin with the express - injunction that he should contend against image worship in his - Italian diocese. He found there image worship along with an - extravagant devotion to relics, crosses and pilgrimages carried - on to such a degree that he felt himself constrained reluctantly - because of the condition of affairs to cast images and crosses - out of the churches altogether. The popular excitement over this - proceeding rose to the utmost pitch, and his life was saved and - his office retained only through dread of the Frankish arms. When - pope Paschalis intimated to him his displeasure, he said the pope - is only to be honoured as apostolic, when he does the works of - an apostle, otherwise Matt. xxiii. 2-4 applies to him. Against - the views of his early scholar and friend the abbot Theodemir, - regarding monastic psalmody, he vindicated himself in A.D. 825 - in his controversial tract _Apologeticus_, which is now known - only from the replies of his opponents. A Scotchman, Dungal, - teacher at Pavia, entered the lists against him and accused him - before the emperor, who, however, contented himself with calling - upon bishop Jonas of Orleans to refute the apologetical treatise. - This refutation appeared only after the death of Claudius. It - assumed the position of the Frankish church on the question of - image worship, as also Dungal had done. - - - - - Butler & Tanner, The Selwood Printing Works, Frome, and London. - - - - - FOOTNOTES. - - - [1] Dowling, “Introduction to Study of Eccl. Hist.; its - Progress and Sources.” Lond., 1838. - Smedt, “Introd. generalis ad Hist. Eccl. critice - tractandam.” Gandavi, 1876. - - [2] See Sermon on The Pharisees in Mozley’s “Univ. Sermons.” - Lond., 1876; also - Schürer, Div. II., vol. ii., pp. 1-43, “Pharisees and - Sadducees.” - - [3] See Lightfoot, _Ep. to the Col._, 5th ed., Lond., 1880, - Diss. on “Essenes, their Name, Origin, and Relation to - Christianity.” pp. 349-419; also - Schürer, Div. II., vol. ii., pp. 188-218, “The Essenes.” - - [4] Nutt, _Sketch of Samaritan History, Dogma, and - Literature_. Lond., 1874. - - [5] On Philo, see Schürer, Div. II., vol. iii., pp. 321-381. - - [6] J. Bannerman, “The Church of Christ.” 2 vols., - Edin., 1868. - Jacob, “Ecclesiastical Polity of the New Testament.” - Lond., 1871. - Hatch, “The Organization of the Early Chr. Churches.” - Lond., 1881; 2nd ed., 1883. - D. D. Bannerman, “The Doctrine of the Church.” - Edin., 1887. - Hodge, “The Church and its Polity.” Edin., 1879. - Binnie, “The Church.” Edin., 1882. - Pressensé, “Life and Pract. of Early Church.” Lond., 1879. - Lightfoot, “Comm. on Philip.” “Essay on Christian - Ministry.” 6th ed., Lond., 1881, pp. 181-269. - - [7] Mommsen, “De collegiis et sodaliciis Rom.” Kiel, 1843. - Foucart, “Les associat. relig. chez les Grecs.” - Paris, 1873. - Hatch, “Organization of Early Chr. Churches.” pp. 26-39. - - [8] Lightfoot, “Epistle to Phil.” 6th ed., Lond., 1881, - p. 95. Detached notes on the synonyms “bishop” and - “presbyter.” “Diss. on Christian Ministry.” - pp. 187-200. - - [9] Blondel, “Apologia pro sententia Hieron. de episcop. et - presbyt.” Amst., 1646. - - [10] The φίλημα ἅγιον of Rom. xvi. 16; 1 Cor. xvi. 20. - - [11] Of these we probably find fragments in Eph. ii. 14; - 1 Tim. iii. 16; 2 Tim. ii. 11-13; and perhaps also in - 1 Tim. iii. 1, 16; Jas. i. 17; Rev. i. 4; iv. 11; v. 9; - xi. 15; xv. 3; xxi. 1; xxii. 10. - - [12] Acts ii. 4, 6; xx. 7. - - [13] John xx. 26; Acts xx. 7; 1 Cor. xvi. 2; Rev. i. 10. - - [14] Acts ii. 39; xvi. 33; 1 Cor. vii. 14. - - [15] Acts viii. 17; vi. 6; xiii. 3; 1 Tim. iv. 14. - - [16] On the subject of this section consult: - Pressensé, “Early Years of Christianity.” Vol. 2, - “Apostolic Age.” Lond., 1879, pp. 361-381. - Lechler, “Apostolic and Post Apostolic Times.” 2 vols., - Edin., 1886; Vol. i., pp. 37-67, 130-144. - - [17] Burton, “Heresies of the Apostolic Age.” Oxford, 1829. - - [18] As authorities for this period consult: - Moshemii, “Commentarii de reb. Christianor. ante - Constant.” Helmst., 1753. - Baur, “First Three Centuries of the Christian Church.” - Lond., 1877. - Milman, “Hist. of Chr. to Abol. of Pag. in Rom. Emp.” - 3 vols., Lond., 1840. - Pressensé, “Early Years of Christianity.” 4 vols., - Lond., 1879. - - [19] Consult: - Killen, “The Ancient Church.” Edin., 1859; “The Old - Catholic Church.” Edin., 1871. - Lechler, “Apost. and Post-Apost. Times.” 2 vols., - Edin., 1886; Vol. ii., pp. 260-379. - Robertson, “Hist. of Chr. Church.” Vol. i., (A.D. 64-590), - Lond., 1858. - - [20] Although the Post-Apostolic and Old Catholic Ages are - sharply enough distinguished from one another in point - of time and of contents along many lines of historical - development, and are rightly partitioned off from each - other, so that they might seem to require treatment as - independent periods; yet, on the one hand, passing over - from the one to the other is so frequent and is for the - most part of so liquid and incontrollable a nature, while - on the other hand, the opposition of and the distinction - between these two periods and the œcumenical Catholic - Imperial Church that succeeds are so thorough-going, - that we prefer to embrace the two under one period and - to point out the boundary lines between the two wherever - these are clearly discernible. - - [21] Inge, “Society in Rome under the Cæsars.” Lond., 1887. - - [22] Uhlhorn, “Conflict of Christianity with Heathenism.” - Steere, “Account of the Persecutions of the Church under - the Roman Emperors.” - - [23] Renan, “Antichrist.” Lond., 1874. - Merivale, “Hist. of Rom. Emp.” Vols. v. vi., - Lond., 1856, 1858. - Farrar’s “Early Days of Christianity.” Lond., 1884; - Bk. I., pp. 1-44. - Mommsen, “Hist. of Rome.” 6 vols., Lond., 1875 ff. - - [24] Renan, “Marcus Aurelius.” Lond., 1883. - Lightfoot, “Ignatius and Polycarp.” 3 vols., Lond., 1885. - - [25] Lightfoot, “Ignatius.” Vol. i., pp. 469-476. - - [26] “Kirchengesch. v. Dtschl.” I. 94. - - [27] Mason, “The Persecution of Diocletian.” Cambridge, 1876. - - [28] Cotterill, “Peregrinus Proteus.” Edin., 1879; Engl. - Transl. of Lucian’s works, by Dr. Francklin, 4 vols., - Lond., 1781. - - [29] Baur, “Christian Church in First Three Centuries.” - Lond., 1877. - “Celsus and Origen.” in vol. iv. of Froude’s “Short - Studies.” - - [30] Philostratus, “Life of Apollonius of Tyana.” First 2 bks., - Transl. by Blount, Lond., 1680. - Newman, “Hist. Sketches.” Vol. i., chap. ii., “Apollonius - of Tyana.” - - [31] The works of Plotinus consist of 54 treatises arranged - in 6 Enneads, “Opera Omnia.” ed. Creuzer, 3 vols., - Oxon., 1835. Several of the treatises transl. into - English by H. Taylor, Lond., 1794 and 1817. - - [32] Zeller, “History of Eclecticism in Greek Philosophy.” - Lond., 1831. - Ueberweg, “Hist. of Phil.” Lond., 1872; Vol. i., - pp. 240-252. - - [33] “Narratio orig. rituum et error. Christianor. S. Joannis.” - Rom., 1652. - - [34] Ewald, “Hist. of Israel.” Lond., 1886; Vol. viii., p. 120. - - [35] In de Sacy’s “Chrestom. Arabe.” 2 ed., I. 333. - - [36] 1 Cor. xvi. 3; 2 Cor. viii. 19; Gal. ii. 9. - - [37] Burton, “Heresies of the Apostolic Age.” Oxford, 1829. - Zeller, “Acts of the Apostles.” 2 vols., London, - 1875, 1876. - Pressensé, “Apostolic Age.” London, 1879, pp. 66-73; - 318-330. - - [38] Neander’s “First Planting of Christianity and - Antignostikus.” (Bohn), 2 vols., Lond., 1851. - Mansel, “Gnostic Heresies of First and Second Centuries.” - Ed. by Bishop Lightfoot, Lond., 1875. - King, “Remains of the Gnostics.” Lond., 1864; - new ed., 1887. - Ueberweg, “Hist. of Phil.” 2 vols., Lond., 1872, Vol. i., - pp. 280-290. - - [39] These are published among the works of Origen. Recently - Caspari discovered an admirable Latin translation of them - made by Rufinus, and published it in his “Kirchenhist. - Anecdota.” I., (Christ., 1883). - - [40] Lipsius, “Valentinus and his School.” in Smith’s “Dict. - of Biography.” Vol. iv., Lond., 1887. - - [41] In Cureton’s “Spicil. Syr.” Lond., 1855. - - [42] In its extant Coptic form, ed. by Petermann, Brl., 1851. - In a Latin transl. by Schwartze, Brl., 1853. - In English transl. in King’s “Remains of the Gnostics.” - Lond., 1887. - - [43] Yet the school of Baur regard this Gospel of Marcion as - the original of Luke. Hilgenfeld thinks that both our - Luke and Marcion drew from one earlier source. Hahn - has sought to restore the Marcionite Gospel in Thilo’s - “Cod. Apoc. N.T.” I. 401. - Sanday, “Gospels in the Second Century.” London, 1876. - - [44] Salmon, “Introd. to the N.T.” London, 1885, pp. 242-248. - Reuss, “Hist. of N.T.” Edin., 1884, §§ 291, 246, 362, 508. - - [45] Lightfoot, “Comm. on Galatians.” Camb., 1865; Diss. - “St. Paul and the Three.” - - [46] Lechler, “Apost. and Post-Apostol. Times.” Vol. ii., - p. 263 ff. - Ewald, “Hist. of Israel.” Lond., 1886, Vol. viii., - p. 152. - - [47] Ewald, “Hist. of Israel.” Vol. viii., p. 122. - - [48] We possess this work in the original Greek. The first - complete edition was that of Cotelerius in his “Pp. - Apost.” The latest and most careful separate ed., is by - Lagarde, Lps., 1865; Eng. transl. in Ante Nicene Lib., - Edin., 1871. - - [49] Existing only in the Latin transl. of Rufinus. Published - in Cotelerius, “Pp. Apost.” - Separate ed. by Gersdorf, Lps., 1838; Eng. transl. - Ante-Nicene Lib., Edin., 1867. - - [50] See de Sacy, “Mem. sur diverses antiqu. de la Perse.” - Par., 1794. - The most important of these Arabic works are the Literary - History of An-Naddim, Kitab al Fihrist, ed. Flügel and - Roediger, Lps., 1871; then - Al-Shurstani’s “Hist. of relig. and phil. sects.” ed. - Cureton, Lond., 1842; and - Al-Biruni’s “Chron. d. Orient Völker.” ed. Sachau, - Lps., 1878. - - [51] Among the Mandeans _mana rabba_ means one of the highest - æons, and is thus perhaps identical with the name - Paraclete borrowed from the Christian terminology, - which Manes assumed. - - [52] Ueberweg, “Hist. of Phil.” 2 vols., Lond., 1872, Vol. i., - pp. 290-325. Patristic. Phil. down to Council of Nicæa. - - [53] Donaldson, “Apostolic Fathers.” Lond., 1874. - Lightfoot, “Clement of Rome.” 2 vols., Lond., 1869, 1877; - Ignatius and Polycarp, 3 vols., Lond., 1885. - Sanday, “The Gospels in the Second Century.” Lond., 1876. - - [54] Luke i. 1; § 32, 4; 36, 7; 59, 1. - - [55] “Patrum Apost. Opera.” Ed. Gebhardt, Harnack and Zahn, - 3 vols., Lps., 1876 ff. - “Apostolic Fathers.” Engl. transl. in Ante-Nicene Library, - Edin., 1867. - Donaldson, “Apostolic Fathers.” Edin., 1874. - - [56] At Constantinople, 1875. - - [57] Comp. Lightfoot, “St. Clement of Rome, An Appendix.” etc., - Lond., 1877. - - [58] Donaldson, “History of Christian Literature.” Vol. i., - Lond., 1864. - Cunningham, “Dissertation on Epistle of St. Barnabas.” - Lond., 1877. - - [59] “Hermæ Pastor.” ed. Hilgenfeld, 2 ed., Lps., 1881. Down - to the middle of the 19th century it was known only in - a Latin translation, but since then the Greek original - has been accessible in two recensions, as well as - in an ancient Ethiopic translation (ed. d’Abbadie, - Lps., 1860). One of the Greek recensions almost complete - was found in the monastery of Athos; and an older, but - less perfect one, was found in the _Codex Sinaiticus_. - Schodde, “Hermâ Nabî; The Ethiopic version of Pastor - Hermæ examined.” Lps., 1876. - - [60] Comp. - Harnack in _Expositor_ for March, 1886, pp. 185-192. - Lightfoot, “Ignatius and Polycarp.” Lond., 1885, vol. ii., - pp. 433-470. - - [61] Cureton, “Corpus Ignatianum.” (Rom., Eph., and Ep. to - Polyc.), Lond., 1819. - - [62] Against their genuineness: - Dallæus, “De scrr. quæ sub Dionysii et Ignatii nom. - circumfer.” Gen., 1666. - Killen, “Ignatian Epistles entirely Spurious.” - Edin., 1886. - - In favour: - Pearson, “Vindiciæ St. Ignat.” Cantab., 1672. - Lightfoot, “Ignatius and Polycarp.” 3 vols., Lond., 1885. - - [63] Salmon, “Introd. to the New Testament.” Lond., 1885, - pp. 104-126. - Sanday, “Gospels in Second Century.” Lond., 1876. - - [64] Schaff, “The Oldest Church Manual.” Edin., 1886. - Hitchcock and Brown, “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.” - New York, 1884. - Taylor, “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles with Illus. - from the Talmud.” Cambr., 1886. - _Expositor_, April and June, 1886, pp. 319 f. and - 401 ff.; Nov., 1887, pp. 359-371. - - [65] Donaldson, “Hist. of Chr. Lit. from death of App. to Nic. - Council.” 3 vols., Lond., 1864, Vols. ii. and iii., - “The Apologists.” - - [66] The Syriac translation of a treatise of Melito’s given - in Cureton’s “Spicileg. Syr.” Lond., 1853, which gives - itself out as an address delivered before Antoninus - Cæsar, is not identical with his Apology to Antoninus - Pius, of which Eusebius has preserved three fragments, - as these passages are not found in it. - - [67] The fragments of Melito’s works are collected by Routh, - “Reliquiæ Sacr.” L., Oxon., 1814. - - [68] “Opera.” ed. Otto, 3 vols., Jena, 1876; Engl. transl. in - Ante-Nicene Library, Edin., 1867. - Semisch, “Just. Mart.” 2 vols., Edin., 1843. - Kaye, “Writings and Opin. of Just. Mart.” Lond., 1853. - - [69] Salmon, “Introd. to New Test.” On Tatian, pp. 96-104. - Wace on “Zahn’s Tatian’s Diatessaron.” in _Expositor_ - for Sept. and Oct., 1882. - - [70] Bigg, “The Christian Platonists of Alexandria.” Bampton - Lect. for 1886, Oxf., 1886. - Kingsley, “Alexandria and her Schools.” Camb., 1854. - - [71] “Opera.” ed. Harvey, Cantab., 1857; Introd. II. - “Life and Wr. of Irenæus.” Engl. transl. in Ante-Nicene - Lib., 2 vols., Edin., 1868, 1869. - Lightfoot, “Churches of Gaul.” in _Contemp. Review_, - Aug. 1876. - Lipsius, “Irenæus.” in Smith’s “Dict. of Chr. Biog.” - III., pp. 253-279. - - [72] Many works ascribed to him have been lost; whatever fragments - of these exist have been collected by Fabricius and Lagarde. - These were: - _Exeget._, a Com. on Daniel; - _Apolog._, Πρὸς Ἰουδαίους; - _Polem._, - against Gnostics and Monarchians, - against the Asiatic Observance of Easter (§ 37, 2); - _Dogmat._, - Περὶ τῆς τοῦ πάντος οὐσίας, - Περὶ τοῦ Ἀντιχρίστου, - Περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως (§ 22, 4), - Περὶ χαρισμάτων; - Hist.-chron., - Chronicle, and Easter-Canon. - On Philosophoumena: - Döllinger, “Hippolytus and Callistus.” Edin., 1876. - - [73] “Opera.” ed. Dindorf, 4 vols., Oxon., 1868. - “Supplementum Clementinum, in Zahn’s Forsch.” Vol. iii., - Engl. transl. in Ante-Nicene Lib., 2 vols., Edin., 1867. - Bigg, “Chr. Plat. of Alex.” Lectt. II. III., Oxf., 1886. - Kaye, “Clement of Alexandria.” London, 1855. - Reuss, “Hist of Canon.” Edin., 1884, pp. 112-116. - - [74] Jerome reckons them at 2,000; Epiphanius at 6,000; these - must include the thousands of separate epistles and - homilies. - Bigg, “Chr. Platonists of Alex.” Lectt. IV.-VI., - Oxf., 1886. - - [75] _Hexaplorum quæ supersunt._ Ed. Field, Oxon., 1871. - - [76] Ed. Selwyn, Cantab., 1876; Engl. transl. of C. Celsum - and De Principiis, in Ante-Nicene Library, 2 vols., - Edin., 1869-1872. - - [77] “Gregory Thaumaturgus, Dionysius of Alex. and Archelaus.” - transl. by Prof. Salmond, Edin., 1871. - - [78] Neander, “Antignosticus, or the Spirit of Tertull.” - appended to “Hist. of Planting of Chr. Church.” - 2 vols., Lond., 1851. - Kaye, “Eccles. Hist. of 2nd and 3rd Cents. illustr. from - Wr. of Tertull.” 2 ed., Camb., 1829. - Tertullian, “Works.” 3 vols., Ante-Nicene Lib., - Edin., 1869. - - [79] “Cyprian’s Treatises and Epistles.” Lib. of Fathers, - 2 vols., Oxf., 1839, 1844. - “Writings of Cyprian.” Ante-Nicene Lib., 2 vols., - Edin., 1868. - Poole, “Life and Times of C.” Oxf., 1840. - Pressensé, “Martyrs and Apologists.” Lond., 1879, - pp. 414-438. - - [80] Dillmann, “Pseudepigraph. des A. Ts.” Herzog, xii. 341. - Reuss, “Hist. of the N. T.” Edin., 1884. - Salmon, “Introd. to N. T.” 2nd ed., Lond., 1886. - - [81] “Fabricius, Codex pseudepigr. V.T.” Ed. 2., Hamb., 1722. - - [82] Drummond, “Jewish Messiah.” Lond., 1877. - Lawrence, “Book of Enoch.” Oxf., 1821. - Schodde, “Bk. of Enoch.” Andover, 1882. - Schurer, “Hist. of Jew. Peo. in Times of J. Chr.” - Div. II., Vol. 3., pp. 59 ff., 73 ff., 93 ff., 134 ff.; - (Enoch, Assumptio, Ezra, Bk. of Jub.). - Bensly, “Missing Fragment of Lat. Transl. of 4th Bk. of - Ezra.” Cambr., 1875. - - [83] Sinker, “Test. XII. Patriarchum.” Cambr., 1869; - Appendix, 1879. - Malan, “Book of Adam and Eve.” Lond., 1882. - Hort on Bks. of Adam, in Smith’s “Dict. of Chr. Biog.” - Lond., 1877. - - [84] Salmon, “Introd. to N.T.” Lond., 1885; Lect. XII., - “Apoc. and Her. Gospels.” pp. 226-248. - - [85] Nicholson, “The Gosp. acc. to the Hebrews.” Lond., 1879. - - [86] Giles, “Cod. Apoc. N. T.” 2 vols., Lond., 1852. - Tischendorf, “Evv. Apocr.” Ed. 2, Lps., 1876. - - [87] Wright, “Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles.” Syriac and - English, 2 vols., Lond., 1871. - Malan, “The Conflicts of the Holy Apostles.” Lond., 1871. - Tischendorf, “Acta app. Apocr.” Lps., 1851. - - [88] Phillips, “Addai the Apostle.” Syriac and English, - Lond., 1876. - - [89] Lightfoot, “Comm. on Phil.” 6th ed., Lond., 1881; “Diss. - on Paul and Seneca.” pp. 270-328; “Letters of Paul - and Seneca.” pp. 329-333. - Lightfoot, “Comm. on Col.” 5 ed., Lond., 1880; - pp. 274-300, “The Epistle from Laodicea.” - - [90] Dorner, “Hist. of Dev. of Doctr. of Person of Chr.” - 5 vols., Edin., 1862. - Pressensé, “Heresy and Christian Doctrine.” Lond., 1879. - - [91] Deut. xviii. 15; Isa. liii. 3; Matt. xii. 32; Luke i. 35; - John viii. 40; Acts ii. 22; 1 Tim. ii. 5. - - [92] Tertullian says: _Ita duo negotia diaboli Praxeas Romæ - procuravit, prophetiam expulit et hæresim intulit, - paracletum fugavit et patrem crucifixit._--Ps.-Tertull.: - _Hæresim introduxit, quam Victorinus corroborare - curavit._ - - [93] Dorner, “Person of Christ.” Vol. ii. - - [94] Pressensé, “Life and Practice in the Early Church.” - Lond., 1872. - - [95] Hatch, “The Organization of the Early Christian - Churches.” Lond., 1881; “The Growth of Church - Institutions.” Lond., 1887. - Bannerman, “Doctr. of the Church.” 2 vols., Edin., 1858; - espec. vol. i., pp. 277-480. - Lightfoot, “Comm. on Phil.” 6th ed., Lond., 1881: - “Dissertat. on Chr. Ministry.” - Papers in _Expositor_, 1887, on “Origin of Chr. Ministry.” - by Sanday, Harnack and others. - - [96] We are not carried further than this by Irenæus, iii. 3. - Similarly, too, Cyprian, _De Unitate Ecclesiæ_, iv. - Tertullian also does not accept the Roman tradition - as of supreme authority, but prefers that of Asia - Minor in regard to the Easter Controversy, and, in the - _De Pudicitia_, he opposes with bitter invective the - penitential discipline of the Roman bishop Zephyrinus or - Callistus. So, too, Cyprian repudiates the Roman practice - in regard to heretics’ baptism (§ 35, 5); and on the same - subject Firmilian of Cæsarea in Cappadocia hesitates not - to write: _Non pudet Stephanum, Cyprianum pseudo-christum - et pseudo-apostolum et dolosum operarium dicere: - qui omnia in se esse conscius prævenit, ut alteri - per mendacium objiceret, quæ ipse ex merito audire - deberet._--Consult: - Blondel, “Traité hist. de la primauté.” Gen., 1641. - Salacious, “De Primatu Papæ.” Lugd. Bat., 1645. - Kenrick, “The Primacy of the Apostolic See Vindicated.” - New York, 1848. - “The Pope and the Council.” by Janus, Lond., 1869. - - [97] Wall, “Hist. of Infant Baptism.” with Gale’s Reflections, - and Wall’s Defence, 4 vols., Oxf., 1836. - Wilberforce, “Doctr. of Holy Baptism.” Lond., 1849. - - [98] Funk’s assertion that the ἀκροᾶσθαι and the γονυκλίνειν - were not stages in the Catechumenate, but penal ranks - in which offending Catechumens were placed, and that - there was only one order of Catechumens is untenable - for these reasons: - - 1. Because the penitential institution presupposes a - falling away from the grace of baptism; - - 2. Because the Canon of Neo-Cæsarea with its - κατηχούμενος ἁμαρτάνων, ἐὰν μὲν γονυκλίνων, ἀκροάσθω, - necessarily implies that γονυκλίνειν is a stage in - the Catechumenate; - - 3. Because this Canon provides that after the first - penal procedure, not after passing through two - penitential orders, the sinner will be expelled; - - 4. Finally, because the γονυκλίνειν of the Catechumens, - just like that of the congregation in prayer, is - even in expression something quite different from - the ὑπόπτωσις of the penitents.--Consult: - - Pressensé, “Life and Practice in the Early Church.” - Lond., 1879, pp. 5-36, 333. - - [99] Pressensé, “Life and Practice in the Early Church.” - pp. 201-216, 263-286. - Lechler, “Apostolic and Post-Apost. Times.” 2 vols., - Edin., 1886; Vol. ii. 298. - Jacob, “Ecclest. Polity of N. T.” Lond., 1871, - pp. 187-319. - - [100] Jacob, “Ecclest. Polit. of N.T.” Lond., 1871, Lect. vii., - “The Lord’s Supper.” - Waterland, “Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist.” - Lond., 1737. - - [101] See, _De Doctr. Christiana._ II. ii. 15.--“Old Latin - Biblical Texts.” Edited by John Wordsworth, Bp. of - Salisbury, Oxford, 1885, etc. - - [102] Lechler, “Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times.” - Edin., 1886, Vol. ii., pp. 301-310. - - [103] Bosio, “Roma Sotteranea.” Rom., 1632. - De Rossi, “Roma sott. crist.” 3 vols., Rome, 1864-1877. - Northcote and Brownlow, “Roma Sotteranea.” Lond., 1869. - Withrow, “The Catacombs of Rome.” Lond., 1876. - - [104] Marriott, “Testimony of the Catacombs.” Lond., 1877. - - [105] Zöckler, “The Cross of Christ.” Lond., 1877. - Allen, “Early Christian Symbolism.” Lond., 1887. - Didson, “Chr. Iconography.” 2 vols., Lond., 1886. - - [106] Schmidt, “The Social Results of Early Christianity.” - Lond., 1886. - Brace, “Gesta Christi.” Lond., 1883. - Uhlhorn, “Chr. Charity in the Ancient Church.” - Edin., 1883. - Pressensé, “Life and Practice in Early Church.” - Lond., 1879, pp. 345-477. - Ryan, “Hist. of the Effects of Relig. upon Mankind.” - Dublin, 1820. - - [107] Morinus, “De discipl. in administr. s. pœnitentiæ.” - Par., 1651. - Marshall, “Penitential Discipline of the Prim. Church for - the First Four Centuries.” Lond., 1844 (1st ed., 1718). - Tertullian, “De Pœnitentia.” See Transl. in Library of - Fathers, Tertullian, vol. i., “Apologetic and Practical - Treatises.” Oxf., 1843; XI. Of Repentance, with long - and valuable notes by Dr. Pusey, pp. 349-408. - - [108] J. de Soyres, “Montanism and the Primitive Church.” - Cambr., 1878. - Cunningham, “The Churches of Asia.” Lond., 1880, - p. 159 ff. - - [109] Bunsen, “Hippolytus and his Age.” Lond., 1854. - Wordsworth, “St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome.” - Lond., 1852. - Döllinger, “Hippolytus and Callistus.” Edin., 1876 - (orig. publ. 1853). - - [110] “Library of Fathers.” Oxf., 1843, Cyprian’s Treatises: - v.“On Unity of the Church.” vi. “On the Lapsed.” with - prefaces. - Also, “Epp. of S. Cyprian.” (1844) xli.-xlv., lii. - and lix. - - [111] “Library of Fathers.” Oxf., 1844; “Epp. of S. Cyprian.” - Ep. lii., also Ep. lv. - - [112] Merivale, “Conversion of the Roman Empire.” Lond., 1864. - Milman, “Hist. of Christianity to Abol. of Pag. in Rom. - Emp.” 3 vols., Lond. - Lecky, “Hist. of Eur. Morals.” Vol. ii., “From Constantine - to Charlemagne.” - - [113] Döllinger, “Fables respecting the Popes of the Middle - Ages.” Lond., 1871. - - [114] Original source is Eusebius, “Life of Constantine.” - Trans. Lond., 1842. - See interesting lect. on Constantine in Stanley’s “Hist. - of Eastern Church.” Lond., 1861. - Madden, “Christian Emblems on Coins of Constantine I.” - Lond., 1878. - - [115] Neander, “The Emperor Julian and his Generation.” - Lond., 1850. - G. H. Rendall, “The Emperor Julian.” Lond., 1879. - Newman, “Miracles in Eccl. Hist.” Oxf., 1842. - Bp. Wordsworth, “Julian.” in Smith’s Dict. of Biog., - vol. iii., pp. 484-523. - - [116] On this whole period consult: Histories of Theodoret, - Sozomen, Socrates, and Evagrius (containing much - fabulous matter, but useful as contemporary records - extending down to A.D. 594). Transl. in 4 vols., - Lond., 1812-1846. - For Theodosius I. see Hefele, “Hist. of Councils.” - vol. ii., p. 341 ff., Edin., 1876. - - [117] A careful reconstruction of the whole as far as - possible has been attempted by Neumann (Leipz., 1880), - accompanied by prolegomena and a German translation. - - [118] Hefele, “Hist. of Church Councils.” Edin., 1872, Vol. i., - pp. 1-48. - Pusey, “Councils of Ch. from A.D. 51 to A.D. 381: their - constit., obj., and history.” Oxf., 1857. - - [119] Its original form is probably preserved in a Syriac - translation; see Bunsen’s “Analecta Antenicæna.” - ii. 45-338, Lond., 1854. - - [120] First published in the Greek original by Bickell under - the title, inapplicable to the first part: Αἱ διαταγαὶ - αἱ διὰ Κλήμεντος καὶ κανόνες ἐκκλησιαστικοὶ τῶν ἁγίων - ἀποστόλων. - - [121] Maitland, “The Dark Ages.” Lond., 1844. - Ozanam, “Hist. of Civilization in 5th Cent.” Transl. - by Glyn, 2 vols. - Montalembert, “Monks of the West, from Benedict to - Bernard.” 7 vols., Edin., 1861 ff. - - [122] Stephens, “Chrysostom: his Life and Times.” 3rd ed., - London, 1883, pp. 59 ff., 294 ff. - - [123] Hatch, “Organization of the Early Christian Churches.” - London, 1881, pp. 124-139. - Hatch, “Ordination.” in Smith’s “Dict. of Bibl. Antiq.” - Vol. ii. - - [124] Hatch, “Organization of Chr. Ch.” p. 161. - Bede, “Eccles. Hist.” iv. 1. - - [125] Dale, “Synod of Elvira, and Christ. Life in the 4th cent.” - London, 1882. - Lea, “Hist. of Sacerdotal Celibacy.” Philad., 1867. - Lecky, “Hist. of Europ. Morals.” London, 1877, Vol. ii., - pp. 328 ff. - Hefele, “Hist. of Christ. Councils.” Edin., 1872, Vol. i., - pp. 150, 380, 435. - - [126] Neale, “Hist. of the Holy Eastern Church.” 5 vols., - London, 1847-1873. - Stanley, “Lect. on the Eastern Church.” London, 1861. - - [127] Greenwood, “Cathedra Petri: Pol. Hist. of Great Latin - Patriarchate from 1st to 16th cent.” 6 vols., London, - 1856 ff. - - [128] Hefele, “Hist. of Councils.” Vol. ii., Edin., 1876, - pp. 231 ff., 483 ff. - - [129] Comp. Döllinger, “Fables Respecting the Popes of the - Middle Ages.” Lond., 1871. - - [130] Milman, “Latin Christianity.” Vol. i. - - [131] Bright, “Hist. of Church from A.D. 313-451.” 2 ed., - Cambr., 1869. - Milman, “Latin Christianity.” Vol. i. - - [132] Kellett, “Pope Gregory the Great and his Relations with - Gaul.” (Cambridge Essays, No. ii.), Cambridge, 1889. - - [133] Engl. Transl.: - “Eccles. Hist. with Life of Euseb. by Valesius.” - Lond., 1843. - “Theophania, or Div. Manifest. of the Lord.” from Syr. - by Dr. Sam. Lee, Lond., 1843. - “Life of Constantine.” Lond., 1844. - “Life of Eusebius.” by Bright, prefixed to Oxf. ed. - of Eccl. Hist. of 1872. - - [134] “Festal Epp. of Athanasius.” (transl. from Syriac - discovered in 1842 by Tattam, and first edited by - Cureton in 1848), Oxf., 1854. - - [135] “Treatises against Arians.” 2 vols., Oxf., 1842 (new ed., - 1 vol., 1877). - “Historical Tracts.” Oxf., 1843; “Select Tracts,” with - Newman’s Notes, 2 vols., Lond., 1881. - - [136] Newman’s, “Hist. Sketches.” Vol. ii., chap. v; Sketches - of Basil, Gregory, etc. Originally publ. under title - “Church of the Fathers.” Lond., 1842. - - [137] Ullmann, “Gregory Nazianzen.” Oxford, 1855; and Newman - “Church of the Fathers.” - - [138] Cyril’s Comm. on Luke is transl. from the Syriac by - Dr. Payne Smith, Oxf., 1859. - - [139] A very full and admirable account of Synesius and his - writings is given by Rev. T. R. Halcomb in Smith’s - “Dict. of Chr. Biog.” Vol. iii., pp. 756-780. - - [140] Neander, “Life of Chrysostom.” Lond., 1845. - Stephens, “Life of Chrysostom.” 3rd ed., Lond., 1883. - Chase, “Chrysostom: a Study.” Cambr., 1887. - His Homilies and Addresses are transl. in 15 vols. in - the “Lib. of the Fathers.” Oxf., 1839-1851. - Various Eng. translations of the tract “On the - Priesthood.” - - [141] Newman’s “Historical Sketches.” Vol. ii., chap. i., - “Theodoret.” - - [142] Translated by Dean Church in “Lib. of the Fathers.” - Oxf., 1838; with interesting and instructive Preface - by Newman. - - [143] Ueberweg, “Hist. of Philosophy.” Lond., 1872, Vol. i., - pp. 349-352. - Colet, “On the Hierarchies of Dionysius.” ed. by - Lupton, Lond., 1869. - Wescott, “Dionysius the Areopagite.” in _Contemp. - Review_ for May, 1867. - - [144] Etheridge, “The Syrian Churches: their Early Hist., - Liturg. and Lit.” Lond., 1846. - - [145] Morris, “Select Writings of Ephraim the Syrian.” - Oxford, 1817. - Burgess, “Repentance of Nineveh, Metrical Homily by - Ephraem.” Lond., 1853. - “Select Metrical Hymns and Homilies of Eph. Syr.” - Lond., 1853. - - [146] Newman, “Church of the Fathers.” 2nd ed., London, 1842. - Reprinted in Hist. Sketches, vol. ii. - Gilly, “Vigilantius and his Times.” London, 1844. - - [147] “Lib. of Fathers.” in vol. of Cyprian’s Epps., Oxf., 1844, - pp. 318-384. For phrase quoted, see p. 322. - - [148] A good account of the writings of Jerome is given by the - late Prof. William Ramsay in Smith’s “Dict. of Grk. and - Rom. Biogr.” Vol. ii., p. 460. - Milman, “Hist. of Chr.” Vol. iii., ch. xi. - Cutts, “St. Jerome.” Lond., 1877. - Gilly, “Vigilantius and his Times.” Lond., 1844. - - [149] Gilly, “Vigilantius and his Times.” London, 1844. - - [150] Newman’s “Arians of the 4th Century.” London, 1838. - Gwatkin, “Studies of Arianism.” Camb., 1882. - Hefele, “Hist. of Councils.” Vols. i. ii., Edin., - 1872, 1876. - Newman’s “Tracts Theolog. and Eccles.” Chap. ii.; Doctrinal - Causes of Arianism. - “Select Treatises of Athanasius.” Ed. by Newman, 2 vols., - London, 1881, Vol. 2 containing notes on Arius, - Athanasius, etc. - - [151] Hefele, “Hist. of Councils.” I., pp. 231-447. - Kaye, “Hist. of Council of Nicæa.” London, 1853. - Tillemont, “Hist. of Arians and Council of Nice.” - London, 1721. - - [152] Newman’s “Select Treat. of Athanasius.” Vol. ii., p. 196 f. - Hefele, “Hist. of Councils.” Vol. ii., Edin., 1876, p. 193. - - [153] Newman’s “Select Treat. of Athanasius.” Vol. ii., p. 282 ff. - Hefele, “Hist. of Councils.” ii., p. 217. - - [154] Hefele, “Hist. of Councils.” ii., pp. 340-373. - Hort, “Two Dissertations.” ii., On the Constantinople Creed - and other Eastern Creeds of the 4th cent., Camb., 1874. - - [155] Swete, “The Hist. of the Doctr. of the Procession of the - Holy Spirit from Apost. Age to Death of Charlemagne.” - Cambr., 1876. - Pusey, “On the clause ‘And the Son.’” Oxf., 1876. - - [156] Hefele, “Hist. of Councils.” ii., p. 348 ff., § 97, The - Tome and the Creed. - - [157] Stephens, “Chrysostom.” pp. 287-305. - Hefele, “Hist. of Councils.” ii., p. 430 ff. - - [158] The most useful and complete account of Chrysostom is - that of Stephens. Consult also Milman, “Hist. of Chr.” - Vol. iii., pp. 206 ff. - - [159] Dorner, “Hist. of the Development of the Doctr. of the - Person of Christ.” 5 vols., Edin., 1861. - - [160] Newman, “Tracts Theological and Ecclesiastical.” - Chap. iii., Apollinarianism. - - [161] Hefele, “Hist. of Councils.” Vol. iii., pp. 1-156. - - [162] Most informing about all these transactions is Hefele, “Hist. - of Councils.” iii., Edin., 1883; (Robber Synod, p. 241 ff.; - Chalcedon, p. 451 ff.). - Perry, “Second Council of Ephesus.” London, 1877. - Bright, “Hist. of Church from A.D. 313-451.” Cambr., 1869. - - [163] Butler, “Ancient Coptic Churches.” 2 vols., London, 1884. - - [164] Döllinger, “Fables respecting the Popes of the Middle - Ages.” Lond., 1871. - Willis, “Pope Honorius and the New Roman Dogma.” Lond., 1879. - Bottalla, “Pope Honorius before the Tribunal of Reason and - History.” London, 1868. - - [165] Wiggers, “Augustinianism and Pelagianism.” Andover, 1840. - Müller, “Chr. Doctrine of Sin.” 2 vols., Edin., 1868. - Ritschl, “Hist. of Chr. Doctr. of Justific. and - Reconciliation.” Edin., 1872. - - [166] Laidlaw, “The Bible Doctrine of Man.” Edin., 1879. - Heard, “Tripartite Nat. of Man.” 3rd ed., Edin., 1870, - pp. 189-200. - Delitzsch, “Biblical Psychology.” 2nd ed., Edin., 1869, - pp. 128-142. - Beck, “Outlines of Biblical Psychology.” Edin., 1877, p. 10. - - [167] For an entirely different representation of the Augustinian - system see Cunningham, “S. Austin and his Place in Hist. - of Chr. Thought.” Lond., 1886; esp. chaps. ii. and iii., - pp. 45-107. - A good outline and defence in Hodge’s “System. Theol.” - Edin., 1874, Vol. ii., pp. 333-353. - Mosheim, “Eccl. Hist.” ed. by Dr. J. S. Reid, Lond., 1880, - p. 210, notes 3 and 4; (pt. II., chap. v., § 25.) - Mozley, “Augustinian Doctrine of Predestination.” - Lond., 1855. - - [168] Hodge, “Systematic Theology.” Vol. ii., pp. 166-168. - - [169] Lardner, “Credibility of the Gospel Hist.” Vol. iv., - London, 1743. - - [170] Butcher, “The Ecclesiastical Calendar.” London. - Hampson, “Medii Ævi Kalend.” - - [171] Gieseler, “Ecclesiastical History.” Edinburgh, 1848, - Vol. ii., pp. 141-145. - - [172] Tyler, “Image Worship of Ch. of Rome contrary to Scripture - and the Prim. Ch.” London, 1847. - - [173] Tyler, “Worship of Virgin Mary contrary to Script. and - Faith of Ch. of first 5 Cents.” London, 1851. - Clagett, “Prerogatives of Anna the Mother of God.” - London, 1688. Also by same: “Discourse on Worship of - Virgin and Saints.” London, 1686. - - [174] Cosin, “Scholastic History of Popish Transubstantiation.” - Lond., 1676. - - [175] Reuss, “History of the N.T. Scriptures.” Edin., 1884, - § 377. - Keil, “Introduction to the O.T.” Edin., 1870, Vol. ii., - pp. 201-203. - - [176] Swainson, “The Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds.” Camb., 1875. - Westcott, “The Historic Faith.” Lond., 1883, note iii., - the Creeds. - Harvey, “Hist. and Theology of the three Creeds.” - Camb., 1854. - Hort, Two Dissertations: II. “The Constantinopolitan Creed - and the Eastern Creeds of 4th cent.” Camb., 1876. - Schaff, “Creeds of Christendom.” Edin., 1877, vol. i. - Lumby, “History of the Creeds.” Camb., 1873. - Waterland, “Crit. Hist. of Athanasian Creed.” Camb., 1724. - Heurtley, “The Athanasian Creed.” Oxf., 1872. - Ommaney, “Ath. Creed: an Exam. of Recent Theories - respecting its Date and Origin.” Lond., 1875. - - [177] Neale, “Hymns of the Eastern Church.” Lond., 1863. - “Mediæval Hymns and Sequences.” Lond., 1863. - Gieseler, “Ecclesiastical History.” Vol. iii., p. 353. - - [178] Hawkins, “History of Music.” Lond., 1853. - - [179] Hammond, “Ancient Liturgies.” Oxf., 1878. - Neale and Littledale, “Translations of Primitive Liturgies.” - Lond., 1869. - Neale, “Essays on Liturgiology.” Lond., 1867. - - [180] Marriott, “Vestiarium Christianum: Origin and gradual - development of Dress of Holy Ministry of Church.” - Lond., 1868. - - [181] Woltmann and Woermann, “History of Painting.” 2 vols., - Lond., 1886; vol. i., “Anc., Early Chr. and Mediæval - Painting.” ed. by Prof. Sidney Colvin. - “Handbook of Painting: Italian Schools. Based on Kügler’s - Handbook.” by Eastlake; new ed. by Layard, 2 vols., - Lond., 1886. - - [182] Ozanam, “Hist. of Civilization during the 5th Century.” - 2 vols. - Lecky, “Hist. of European Morals.” Vol. ii. - - [183] Smith’s “Dictionary of Christian Biography.” vol. iii., - p. 367. - - [184] Gilly, “Vigilantius and his Times.” Lond., 1840. - - [185] Gieseler, “Eccl. Hist.” ii. 148. - - [186] Ludolphus, “History of Ethiopia.” London, 1684. - - [187] Malan, “Gregory the Illuminator: his Life and Times.” - London, 1868. - Article by Lipsius on Eznik in Smith’s “Dictionary of Chr. - Biography.” Vol. ii., p. 439. - - [188] Muir, “Life of Mohammed and Hist. of Islam.” 4 vols., Lond. - Bosworth Smith, “Mohammed and Mohammedanism.” Lond., 1874. - Mühleisen-Arnold, “Islam, its Hist., Chr. and Rel. to - Christianity.” 3rd ed., Lond., 1874. - Deutsch, “Literary Remains: Islam.” Lond., 1874. - Stephens, “Christianity and Islam.” Lond., 1877. - Mills, “Hist. of Mohammedanism.” Lond., 1817. - - [189] Muir, “Annals of the Earlier Khalifate.” - - [190] Finlay, “Hist. of Greece from Rom. Conquest.” 7 vols., - Lond., 1864, new ed., 1877; vols. ii. and iii. - Bower’s “Lives of Popes.” Vols. iii. and iv., Lond., 1754. - Comber, “Disc. on 2nd Council of Nicæa.” Reprinted in - Gibson’s “Preserv. from Popery.” Lond., 1848. - Didron, “Christian Iconography.” 2 vols., Lond., 1886. - - [191] Mendham, “The Seventh General Council, the Second of - Nicæa.” in which the worship of images was established. - - [192] Allatius, “De eccl. occid. et orient. perpetua - consensione.” Colon., 1669. - Swete, “Hist. of the Procession of the Holy Spirit.” - Camb., 1876. - Ffoulkes, “Christendom’s Divisions.” London. - Neale, “Holy Eastern Church.” 5 vols., London, 1847. - - [193] Popoff, “Hist. of Council of Florence.” Transl. from - Russian by Neale, London, 1861. - - [194] Lupton, “St. John of Damascus.” London, 1882. - - [195] Badger, “The Nestorians and their Rituals.” 2 vols., - London, 1852. - - [196] Baring-Gould, “Curious Myths of the Middle Ages.” - Lond., 1881. - - [197] Murawieff, “Hist. of the Church of Russia.” Trans. from - the Russ., Lond., 1842. - Romanoff, “Sketches of the Rites and Customs of the - Græco-Russian Church.” Lond., 1869. - - [198] Potthast, “Biblioth. Hist. Modii Ævi.” Berol., 1862, with - suppl. in 1868. - D’Achery, “Vett. Script. Spicilegium.” (1655), 3 vols., - Par., 1783. - Eccard, “Corpus Hist. Medii Ævi.” 2 vols., Lps., 1723. - Du Chesne, “Hist. Francorum Serr.” 5 vols., Par., 1636. - Parker, “Rer. Brit. Serr. Vetust.” Lugd. B., 1587. - Gale, “Hist. Brit., Saxon., Anglo-Dan. Scrr.” 2 vols., - Oxf., 1691. - Wharton, “Anglia Sacra.” 2 vols., Lond., 1691. - Wilkins, “Conc. Brit. et Hib.” 4 vols., Lond., 1737. - Haddan and Stubbs, “Councils and Eccles. Documents.” - (Revision of Wilkins), Lond., 1879 ff. - Maitland, “The Dark Ages: Essays on the State of Relig. and - Lit. in 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th Centuries.” Lond., 1844. - - [199] Bryce, “The Holy Roman Empire.” Lond., 1866. - Ranke, “History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations.” - Lond., 1886. - - [200] Ebrard, “Christian Apologetics.” 3 vols., Edin., 1886-1887, - Vol. ii., p. 407; “The Religion of the Germans and that - of the Slavs.” - - [201] Mallet, “Northern Antiquities.” London, 1848. - Hallam, “Europe during the Middle Ages.” - Guizot, “Hist. of Civiliz. in Europe.” - - [202] Hodgkin, “Italy and her Invaders: A.D. 376-476.” 2 vols., - London, 1880. - - [203] Scott, “Ulfilas, the Apostle of the Goths.” Cambr., 1885. - Douse, “Introduction to the Gothic of Ulfilas.” London, 1886. - Bosworth’s “Gothic and Anglo-Saxon Gospels.” Oxf., 1874. - - [204] Gibbon, “Decline and Fall of Roman Empire.” Chaps. xxxiii., - xxxvi., xxxvii. - - [205] Freeman, “Historical Essays.” 3rd series, Lond.; “The Goths - at Ravenna.” - - [206] Ussher, “Brit. Eccl. Antiqu.” Lond., 1639. - Perry, “Hist. of English Church.” i., Lond., 1882. - Lanigan, “Eccl. Hist. of Ireland.” 4 vols., 2nd ed., - Dublin, 1829. - Stokes, “Ireland and the Celtic Ch.” Lond., 1886. - Lingard, “Hist. and Antiqu. of Anglo-Sax. Ch.” 2 vols., - Lond., 1845. - Maclauchlan, “Early Scottish Church.” Edinb., 1865. - Reeves, “The Culdees of the British Islands.” Dublin, 1864. - Skene, “Celtic Scotland.” 3 vols., Edin., 1876; 2 ed., 1886. - Bright, “Chapters of Early Eng. Ch. Hist.” Oxf., 1878. - Pryce, “Ancient British Church.” Lond., 1886. - - [207] Todd, “Life of St. Patrick.” Dublin, 1864. - Cusack, “Life of St. Patrick.” Lond., 1871. - O’Curry, “Lects. on Anc. Irish History.” Dublin, 1861. - Writings of St. Patrick. Transl. and ed. by Stokes and - Wright, Lond., 1887. - - [208] Maclauchlan, “Early Scottish Church.” Pp. 145-205. - Adamnan, “Life of Columba.” Ed. by Dr. Reeves, Dublin, 1857. - Smith, “Life of Columba.” Edin., 1798. - Forbes, “Lives of Ninian, Columba, Kentigern.” in series of - Historians of Scotland. - - [209] Ussher, “Discourse of the Religion anciently Professed by - the Irish and British.” Lond., 1631. - Maclauchlan, “Early Scottish Church.” Pp. 239-250. - Warren, “Ritual and Liturgy of the Celtic Church.” - Oxf., 1881. - - [210] Soames, “The Anglo-Saxon Church.” 4th ed., Lond., 1856. - Stanley, “Historical Memorials of Canterbury.” Lond., 1855. - Hook, “Lives of Archbishops of Canterbury.” Vol. i. - Sharon Turner, “Hist. of Anglo-Saxons to the Roman - Conquest.” 6 ed., 3 vols., Lond., 1836. - - [211] Lappenburg, “Anglo-Saxon Kings.” Lond., 1845. - Bede, “Eccles. History.” Book III. - Maclauchlan, “Early Scottish Church.” Pp. 217-238. - - [212] Gildas († A.D. 570), “De excidio Britanniæ.” Engl. transl. - by Giles, London, 1841. - Bede († A.D. 735), “Eccles. Hist. of Engl.” Transl. by - Giles, London, 1840. - - [213] Lanigan, “Eccl. Hist. of Ireland.” iii., ch. 13. - Innes, “Ancient Inhab. of Scotland.” in the Series of - Historians of Scotland. - - [214] Maclauchlan, “Early Scottish Church.” p. 435. - Reeves, “The Culdees of the British Islands.” Dublin, 1864. - Robertson, “Scotland under her Early Kings.” Edin., - 2 vols., 1862. - - [215] Merivale, “Conversion of the Northern Nations.” - London, 1866. - Maclear, “Apostles of Mediæval Europe.” - - [216] That he first received the Latin name after his consecration - as bishop in A.D. 723 is rendered more than doubtful by - the fact that it is found in letters of earlier date. It - is probably only a Latinizing of the Anglo-Saxon Winfrid - or Wynfrith (from Vyn=fortune, luck, health; frid or - frith=peace; therefore: peaceful, wholesome fortune) - into the name, widely spread in Christian antiquity, of - _Bonifatius_ (from _bonumfatum_, Greek: Eutyches, good - luck). But the transposition into the form Bonifacius - which might seem the equivalent of the Anglo-Saxon word - “Benefactor” of the German people, is first met with, - although even then only occasionally, in the 8th century, - but afterwards always more and more frequently, and then - is given to the popes and other earlier bearers of the name. - By the 15th century the original and etymological style of - writing the name and that used in early documents had been - completely discarded and forgotten, till modern philology, - diplomatics and epigraphies have again clearly vindicated - the earlier form. - - [217] Wright, “Biog. Britannica Literaria.” Lond., 1842. - Cox, “Life of Boniface.” Lond., 1853. - Hope, “Boniface.” London, 1872. - Maclear, “Apostles of Mediæval Europe.” - - [218] Trench, “Lectures on Mediæval Church History.” Lond., 1877. - Hardwick, “History of Christian Church during Middle Ages.” - - [219] Mosheim, “Eccl. Hist.” Ed. by Reid, London, 1880, p. 285, - Cent. viii., pt. ii., ch. 5. - Wright, “Biographia Brit. Literaria.” London, 1842. - - [220] Milman, “Hist. of Latin Christianity.” Vol. ii., Trench’s - “Lectures on Mediæval Church History.” - - [221] “William of Malmesbury’s Chronicle of Kings of England.” - Bk. I., ch. 4. - - [222] Freeman, “Historical Essays.” 2nd series: “The Southern - Slavs.” - - [223] Adam of Bremen, “Gesta Hammaburgensia.” A.D. 788-1072. - Pontoppidan, “Annales Eccles. Danicæ.” Copenhag., 1741. - Merivale, “Conversion of the Northern Nations.” - London, 1865. - - [224] Geijer, “History of the Swedes.” Transl. by Turner, - Lond., 1847. - - [225] Muir, “Annals of Early Khalifate.” - Ockley, “Hist. of Saracens and their Conquests in Syria, - Persia and Egypt.” - - [226] Condé, “History of Dominion of Arabs in Spain.” 3 vols. - Freeman, “Hist. and Conquests of the Saracens.” 2nd ed., - Lond., 1876. - Abd-el-Hakem, “History of the Conquest of Spain.” Tr. from - Arabic by Jones, Gött., 1858. - - [227] Kingsley, “Roman and Teuton.” Lectures in Univ. of Cambr.: - “The Popes and the Lombards.” - - [228] Crakenthorp, “The Defence of Constantine, with a Treatise - on the Pope’s Temporal Monarchy.” Lond., 1621. - - [229] Platina, “Lives of Popes.” Under John VII. - Bower, “Lives of Popes.” Vol. iv. - Blondel, “Joanna Papissa.” Amst., 1657. - Hase, “Church History.” New York, 1855, p. 186. - - [230] Cunningham, “Discussions on Church Principles.” - Edin., 1863, pp. 101-163; “Temporal Supremacy of the Pope - and Gallican Liberties.” - Barrow, “Pope’s Supremacy.” London, 1683. - - [231] Hatch, “Growth of Church Institutions.” ch. viii., National - Churches, pp. 139-154. - - [232] Hefele, “History of Councils.” iii. 69, 131, 149. - Field, “Of the Church.” Reprint by Eccl. Hist. Society, - 5 vols., London, 1847; vol. iii., pp. 7, 245 ff. - Hatch, “Growth of Church Institutions.” ch. vii., The - Metropolitan, pp. 128-135. - - [233] Lea, “Studies in Church History.” Philad., 1869. - Lecky, “History of European Morals.” 3rd ed., 2 vols., - London, 1877. - - [234] Hatch, “Growth of Church Institutions.” London, 1887, - p. 43. - - [235] Marriott, “Vestiarium Christianum.” P. 187 ff., - London, 1868. - - [236] Hatch, “Growth of Church Institutions.” Ch. v., The Parish, - pp. 89-97. - - [237] Hatch, “Growth of Church Institutions.” Ch. ix., The - Canonical Rule, pp. 157-172; Ch. x., The Cathedral - Chapter, pp. 175-190. - - [238] Hatch, “Growth of Ch. Instit.” Ch. xi., The Chapter of the - Diocese, pp. 193-208. - Stubbs, “Constit. Hist. of England.” Vol. iii. - - [239] Walcott, “Cathedralia.” - _Ibid._, “Sacred Archæology.” - Hatch, “Growth of Church Institutions.” Ch. iii., Fixed - Tenure of Parish Priest; Ch. iv., The Benefice. - - [240] Lecky, “Hist. of Europ. Morals.” ii., 183-248. - Montalembert, “Monks of West from Benedict to Bernard.” - 7 vols., Edin., 1861 ff. - - [241] Hatch, “Growth of Church Institutions.” Ch. vi., Tithes and - their Distribution, pp. 101-117. - - [242] Roth, however, regards this _divisio_ as putting a complete - stop to the secularization of church property. - - [243] Hatch, “Growth of Ch. Institutions.” Ch. iv., The Benefice, - pp. 61-77. - Art. “Benefice.” in Smith’s “Dict. of Chr. Antiquities.” - - [244] Ayliffe, “Parergon Juris Canonici.” Lond., 1726. - Guizot, “Hist. of Civilization.” Transl. by Hazlitt, - Lond., 1846. - Walcott, “Sacred Archæology.” - - [245] Blondel, “Pseudo-Isid. et Turrianus vapulantes.” - Genev., 1628. - - [246] Hopkins, “The Organ, its hist. and construct.” Lond., 1855. - - [247] Guest, “History of English Rhythms.” Vol. ii., - London, 1838. - Wright, “Biogr. Brit. Lit. Anglo-Saxon Period.” - London, 1842. - Thorpe, “Cædmon’s Paraphrase in Anglo-Saxon with Engl. - Transl.” London, 1832. - Conybeare, “Illustr. of Anglo-Saxon Poetry.” London, 1827. - - [248] Evans, “Treatise on Chr. Doct. of Marriage.” New - York, 1870. - Hammond, “On Divorces.” In his Works, vol. i., - London, 1674. - Cosin, “Argument on the Dissolution of Marriage.” Works, - vol. iv., Oxf., 1854. - Tertullian, Treatise in “Lib. of Fath.” Oxf., 1854, with - two Essays by Pusey, “On Second Marriages of the Clergy.” - and “On Early Views as to Marriage after Divorce.” - - [249] Babington, “Influence of Chr. in promoting the Abolition - of Slavery in Europe.” London, 1864. - Edwards, “Inquiry into the State of Slavery in the Early - and Middle Ages of the Christian Era.” Edin., 1836. - - [250] Smith’s “Dict. of Chr. Antiq.” Vol. i., pp. 785-792; Arts.: - “Hospitality, Hospitals, Hospitium.” - - - [251] Haddan and Stubbs, “Councils and Eccl. Documents.” - Vol. iii., Oxf., 1871. - - [252] Barington, “Lit. Hist. of the Middle Ages.” Lond., 1846. - Hallam, “Europe in Middle Ages.” 2 vols., Lond., 1818. - Trench, “Lect. on Med. Ch. Hist.” Lond., 1877. - - [253] Lorentz, “Life of Alcuin.” Transl. by Slee, Lond., 1837. - - [254] Kingsley, “Roman and Teuton: Paulus Diaconus.” - - [255] Hampden, “The Scholastic Philosophy in its rel. to Chr. - Theology.” Oxf., 1833. - Ueberweg, “Hist. of Philosophy.” Vol. i., pp. 358-365. - - [256] Mullinger, “Schools of Charles the Great and Restoration - of Education in the 9th cent.” Cambr., 1877. - - [257] Cassiodorus’ work in 12 bks., _De rebus gestes Gotorum_, - has indeed been lost, but about A.D. 550 Jornandes, who - also used other documents, embodied this work in his - _De Getarum orig. et reb. gestis_. - - [258] Gildas wrote about A.D. 560 his: _Liber querulis de - excidio Britanniæ_ (Eng. transl. in “Six Old English - Chronicles.” London, Bohn). - - [259] Nennius wrote about A.D. 850 his: _Eulogium Britanniæ s. - Hist. Britonum_ (Engl. transl. in “Six Old Engl. Chron.”). - - [260] Collected Ed. of Alfred’s works, by Bosworth, 2 vols., - Lond., 1858. - Fox, “Whole Wks. of Alfred the Great, with Essays on Hist., - Arts and Manners of 9th cent.” 3 vols., Oxf., 1852. - Spelman, “Life of Alfred the Great.” Oxf., 1709. - Pauli, “Life of Alfred the Gt.” transl. with Alfred’s - Orosius, Lond., 1853. - Hughes, “Alfred the Great.” - Giles, “Life and Times of King Alfred the Great.” - Lond., 1848. - - [261] Robertson, “Hist. of Chr. Church.” Vol. ii., London, 1856; - pp. 154 ff. - Dorner, “Hist. Development of Person of Chr.” Div. II., - vol. i. - - [262] Ussher, “Gotteschalci et controv. ab eo motæ hist.” - Dubl., 1631. - - - - - TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES. - - - The following corrections have been made in the text: - - § 7, 1. - Sentence starting: There are mysterious phenomena.... - - added omitted Word ‘to’ - (which seemed to establish) - - § 14. - Sentence starting: The Levite Barnabas,... - - ‘ministery’ replaced with ‘ministry’ - (and strengthened his own ministry) - - § 16, 1. - Sentence starting: That Babylon is mentioned.... - - ‘23’ replaced with ‘13’ - (1 Pet. v. 13) - - § 20. - Sentence starting: As the history of.... - - ‘beginings’ replaced with ‘beginnings’ - (the beginnings of the church) - - § 25, 2b. - Sentence starting: The school of Baur.... - - ‘§ 183, 9’ replaced with ‘§ 182, 7’ - (school of Baur (§ 182, 7)) - - § 26, 4. - Sentence starting: The most important of extant.... - - ‘Hippolylus’ replaced with ‘Hippolytus’ - (and of Hippolytus Ἔλεγχος) - - § 27, 2. - Sentence starting: After him there arose... - - ‘Hebdomes’ replaced with ‘Hebdomas’ - (the so-called Hebdomas) - - § 27, 11. - Sentence starting: He consequently developed... - - ‘irreconcileable’ replaced with ‘irreconcilable’ - (the irreconcilable opposition of righteousness) - - § 31, 1. - Sentence starting: The latter especially gave.... - - ‘gramatico’ replaced with ‘grammatico’ - (grammatico-historical examination of scripture.) - - § 31, 8. - Sentence starting: Sextus Julius Africanus,... - - ‘Septimus’ replaced with ‘Septimius’ - (campaign of Septimius Severus) - - § 32, 6 f. - Sentence starting: It assigns the founding.... - - ‘§ 12, 2’ replaced with ‘§ 13, 2’ - (Christ’s promise (§ 13, 2).) - - § 35, 2. - Sentence starting: Only a few unimportant.... - - ‘immobolis’ replaced with ‘immobilis’ - (immobilis et irreformabilis) - - § 38, 1. - Sentence starting: Thereafter they were used.... - - ‘were’ replaced with ‘where’ - (and spots where martyr’s relics) - - § 40, 1. - Sentence starting: Themison, Alcibiades’ successor,... - - ‘ἐπστολή’ replaced with ‘ἐπιστολή’ - (a Καθολικὴ ἐπιστολή,) - - § 40, 4. - Sentence starting: The following are some of.... - - ‘§ 57, 3’ replaced with ‘§ 37, 3’ - (On _dies stationum_ (§ 37, 3) nothing) - - § 44, 4. - Sentence starting: But twenty years later.... - - ‘portea’ replaced with ‘postea’ - (esset postea gloriæ) - Sentence starting: Martin of Tours.... - - ‘§ 47, 15’ replaced with ‘§ 47, 14’ - (Martin of Tours (§ 47, 14) established) - - § 45, 4. - Sentence starting: But the Council at Macon.... - - ‘§ 85, 1’ replaced with ‘§ 86, 1’ - (Carolingian legislation (§ 86, 1).) - - § 46, 3. - Sentence starting: In this year, however,... - - ‘§ 53, 2’ replaced with ‘§ 50, 2’ - (the Council of Sardica (§ 50, 2),) - - § 46, 6. - Sentence starting: To his legates at the Council.... - - ‘Ephesns’ replaced with ‘Ephesus’ - (at the Council of Ephesus) - - § 47, 15. - Sentence starting: He deserves special credit for.... - - ‘§ 69, 4-6’ replaced with ‘§ 59, 4-6’ - (Hymn Composition, § 59, 4-6) - - § 47, 22c. - Sentence starting: Ordained deacon against his.... - - ‘apocrisarius’ replaced with ‘apocrisiarius’ - (a papal _apocrisiarius_ in Constantinople) - - § 48, 2. - Sentence starting: For the history of heresies.... - - ‘§ 57, 21h’ replaced with ‘§ 47, 21f’ - (the author of _Prædestinatus_ (§ 47, 21f).) - - § 48, 7. - Sentence starting: This cannot, however, be said.... - - ‘Eutchyes’ replaced with ‘Eutyches’ - (against Nestorius and Eutyches) - - § 50, 4. - Sentence starting: For the restoration of church.... - - ‘followship’ replaced with ‘fellowship’ - (received back into church fellowship) - - § 50, 6. - Sentence starting: Basil the Great wrote 4 bks.... - - ‘Eunonius’ replaced with ‘Eunomius’ - (4 bks. against Eunomius) - - ‘Amphilochum’ replaced with ‘Amphilochium’ - (Ad Amphilochium, against the) - - § 52, 4. - Sentence starting: He appealed to an œcumenical.... - - ‘§ 467’ replaced with ‘§ 46, 7’ - (to =Leo the Great= (§ 46, 7) at Rome) - - § 52, 5. - Sentence starting: The strict Monophysites of.... - - ‘Diophysites’ replaced with ‘Dyophysites’ - (at the head of the Dyophysites) - - § 56, 4. - Sentence starting: The pre-eminence of the Christian.... - - ‘Quadrigesma’ replaced with ‘Quadragesima’ - (the whole Quadragesima season) - - § 59 1, - Sentence starting: This view prevailed.... - - ‘§ 160, 8’ replaced with ‘§ 161, 8’ - (referred to by the Protestants (§ 161, 8)) - - § 59, 4. - Sentence starting: Under the name of Troparies,... - - ‘§ 71, 2’ replaced with ‘§ 70, 2’ - (church service of Psalms (§ 70, 2).) - - § 63. - Sentence starting: Owing to various diversities.... - - ‘§ 61, 7’ replaced with ‘§ 61, 1’ - (and discipline (§ 61, 1),) - - § 67, 7. - Sentence starting: For the executing of his spiritual.... - - ‘divisons’ replaced with ‘divisions’ - (holders of the four divisions) - - § 71, 1. - Sentence starting: The Catholic polemists of the.... - - ‘Manichiæan’ replaced with ‘Manichæan’ - (to a Manichæan family) - - § 73, 5. - Sentence starting: Secret remnants of this sect,... - - ‘§ 162, 10’ replaced with ‘§ 163, 10’ - (a new departure (§ 163, 10)) - - § 76, 8. - Sentence starting: Pope Gregory the Great,... - - ‘694’ replaced with ‘604’ - (Gregory the Great, A.D. 590-604) - - § 77. - Sentence starting: This, however, is certain,... - - ‘§ 23, 6’ replaced with ‘§ 22, 6’ - (end of the 3rd century (§ 22, 6)) - - § 77, 4. - Sentence starting: Two princes of the Jutes.... - - removed duplicate ‘of’ - (led a horde of Angles and Saxons) - - § 77, 6. - Sentence starting: His wife Eanfled, Edwin’s daughter.... - - ‘decidly’ replaced with ‘decidedly’ - (most decidedly preferred it) - - § 78, 8. - Sentence starting: Thus he lets himself be informed.... - - ‘forbiden’ replaced with ‘forbidden’ - (and storks is absolutely forbidden) - - § 86. - Sentence starting: This institution, however,... - - ‘ust’ replaced with ‘just’ - (just as they chose) - - § 87, 3. - sentence starting: Langen fixes the date.... - - ‘§ 290, 5’ replaced with ‘§ 90, 5’ - (to Servatus Lupus (§ 90, 5)) - - § 91, 2. - Sentence starting: At a Synod at Gentiliacum.... - - ‘Gentiliscum’ replaced with ‘Gentiliacum’ - (At a Synod at Gentiliacum) - - Footnote 82. - - ‘Assumtio’ replaced with ‘Assumptio’ - (Enoch, Assumptio, Ezra, Bk. of Jub.) - - Footnote 251. - - ‘Hadden’ replaced with ‘Haddan’ - (Haddan and Stubbs) - - - - - -End of Project Gutenberg's Church History, Volume 1 (of 3), by J. H. Kurtz - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CHURCH HISTORY, VOLUME 1 (OF 3) *** - -***** This file should be named 51489-0.txt or 51489-0.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/5/1/4/8/51489/ - -Produced by Jon Ingram, Richard Hulse and the Online -Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - |