A Source Book for Ancient Church History Part 14

The Rule of Faith is altogether one, sole, immovable, and irreformablenamely, of believing in one G.o.d the Almighty, the Maker of the world; and His Son, Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate, on the third day raised again from the dead, received in the heavens, sitting now at the right hand of the Father, coming to judge the quick and the dead, also through the resurrection of the flesh.(53)

(_d_) Tertullian, _Adv. Praxean_, 2. (MSL, 2:156.)

The work of Tertullian against Praxeas is one of his latest works, and is especially important as developing the doctrine of the Trinity as opposed to the Patripa.s.sianism of Praxeas. To this theory of Praxeas, Tertullian refers in the opening sentence of the following extract, quoting the position of Praxeas. See below, 40, _b_.

Therefore after a time the Father was born, and the Father suffered, He himself G.o.d, the omnipotent Lord, Jesus Christ was preached. But as for us always, and now more, as better instructed by the Paraclete, the Leader into all truth: We believe one G.o.d; but under this dispensation which we call the economy there is the Son of the only G.o.d, his Word [_Sermo_] who proceeded from Him, through whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. This One was sent by the Father into the Virgin, and was born of her, Man and G.o.d, the Son of Man and the Son of G.o.d, and called Jesus Christ; He suffered, He died and was buried, according to the Scriptures; and raised again by the Father, and taken up into the heavens, and He sits at the right hand of the Father; He shall come again to judge the quick and the dead: and He thence did send, according to His promise, from the Father, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the Sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.

That this rule has come down from the beginning, even before any of the earlier heresies, much more before Praxeas, who is of yesterday, the lateness of date of all heresies proves, as also the novelties of Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday.

(_e_) Tertullian, _De Prscriptione_, 13. (MSL, 2:30.)

The Rule of Faith is namely, that by which it is believed: That there is only one G.o.d, and no other besides the Maker of the world, who produced the universe out of nothing, through His Word [Verb.u.m], sent forth first of all; that this Word, called His Son, was seen in the name of G.o.d in various ways by the patriarchs, and always heard in the prophets, at last was sent down from the Spirit and power of G.o.d the Father, into the Virgin Mary, was made flesh in her womb, and born of her, lived as Jesus Christ; that thereupon He preached the new law and the new promise of the kingdom of the heavens; wrought miracles; was fastened to the cross; rose again the third day; was caught up into the heavens; and sat down at the right hand of the Father; He sent in His place the power of the Holy Ghost, to lead the believers; He will come again with glory to take the saints into the enjoyment of eternal life and the celestial promises, and to judge the wicked with perpetual fire, with the restoration of the flesh.

30. Later Gnosticism

Though Gnosticism was expelled from the Church as it perfected its organization and inst.i.tutions on the basis of the episcopate, the Canon of Scripture, and the creeds, outside the Catholic Church, or the Church as thus organized, Gnosticism existed for centuries, though rapidly declining in the third century. The strength of the movement was still further diminished by loss of many adherents to Manichanism (_v._ 54), which had much in common with Gnosticism. The persistence of these sects, together with various later heresies, in spite of the very stringent laws of the Empire against them (_v._ 73) should prevent any hasty conclusions as to the unity of the faith and the absence of sects in the patristic age. Unity can be found only by overlooking those outside the unity of the largest body of Christians, and agreement by ignoring those who differed from it.

Theodoret of Cyrus, _Epistul 81_, 145. (MSG, 83:1259, 1383.)

Ep. 81 was written to the Consul Nonus, A. D. 445. Ep. 145 was written to the monks of Constantinople, A. D. 450.

Ep. 81. To every one else every city lies open, and that not only to the followers of Arius and Eunomius, but to Manichans and Marcionites, and to those suffering from the disease of Valentinus and Monta.n.u.s, yes, and even to pagans and Jews; but I, the foremost champion of the teaching of the Gospel, am excluded from every city. I led eight villages of Marcionites with their surrounding country into the way of truth, another full of Eunomians and another of Arians I brought to the light of divine knowledge, and, by G.o.ds grace, not a tare of heresy was left among us.

Ep. 145. I do indeed sorrow and lament that I am compelled by the attacks of fever to adduce against men, supposed to be of one and the same faith with myself, the arguments which I have already urged against the victims of the plague of Marcion, of whom, by G.o.ds grace, I have converted more than ten thousand and brought them to holy baptism.

31. The Results of the Crisis

The internal crisis, or the conflict with heresy, led the Church to perfect its organization, and, as a result, the foundation was laid for such a development of the episcopate that the Church was recognized as based upon an order of bishops receiving their powers in succession from the Apostles. Just what those powers were and how they were transmitted were matters left to a later age to determine. (_V. infra_, 50, 51.)

(_a_) Irenus, _Adv. Hr._, IV, 26:2, 5. (MSG, 7:1053.)

That Irenus, writing about 175, could appeal to the episcopal succession as commonly recognized and admitted, and use it as a basis of unity for the Church, is generally regarded as evidence of the existence of a wide-spread episcopal organization at an early date in the second century. Possibly the connection of Irenus with Asia Minor, where the episcopal organization admittedly was earliest, diminishes the force of the argument. The reference to the charisma of truth, which the bishops were said to possess, was to furnish later a theoretical basis for the authority of bishops a.s.sembled in council.

Ch. 2. Wherefore it is inc.u.mbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church, those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the Apostles; those who together with the succession of the episcopate have received the certain gift [charisma] of the truth according to the good pleasure of the Father; but also to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession and a.s.semble themselves together in any place whatsoever.

Ch. 5. Such presbyters does the Church nourish, of whom also the prophet says: I will give thy rulers in peace, and thy bishops in righteousness [_cf._ Is. 60:17]. Of whom also the Lord did declare: Who, then, shall be a faithful steward, good and wise, whom the Lord sets over His household, to give them their meat in due season? Blessed is that servant whom his Lord when he cometh shall find so doing [Matt. 24:45 _f._]. Paul, then, teaching us where one may find such, says: G.o.d hath placed in the Church, first, Apostles; secondly, prophets; thirdly, teachers [I Cor. 12:28].

Where, then, the gifts of the Lord have been placed there we are to learn the truth; namely, from those who possess the succession of the Church from the Apostles, and among whom exists that which is sound and blameless in conduct, as well as that which is unadulterated and incorrupt in speech.

(_b_) Tertullian, _De Prscriptione_, 32. (MSL, 2:52.)

In Tertullians statement as to the necessity of apostolic succession, the language is more precise than in Irenuss. Bishop and presbyter are not used as interchangeable terms, as would appear in the pa.s.sage in Irenus. The whole is given a more legal turn, as was in harmony with the writers legal mind.

But if there be any heresies bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down from the Apostles, because they were in the time of the Apostles, we can say: Let them produce the originals of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such manner that that first bishop of theirs shall be able to show for his ordainer or predecessor some one of the Apostles or of apostolic mena man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the Apostles. For in this manner the apostolic churches transmit their registers; as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit their several worthies, whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by the Apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed.

Chapter IV. The Beginnings Of Catholic Theology

The theology of the Church, as distinguished from the current traditional theology, was the statement of the beliefs commonly held by Christians but expressed in the more precise and scientific language of current philosophy, the co-ordination of those beliefs as so stated together with their necessary consequences, and their proof by reference to Holy Scripture and reason. In this attempt to build up a body of reasoned religious ideas there were two lines of thought or interpretation of the common Christianity already distinguished by the middle of the second century, and destined to hold a permanent place in the Church. These were the apologetic conception of Christianity as primarily a revealed philosophy ( 32), and the so-called Asia Minor school of theology, with its conception of Christianity as primarily salvation from sin and corruptibility ( 33). In both lines of interpretation the Incarnation played an essential part: in the apologetic as insuring the truth of the revealed philosophy, in the Asia Minor theology as imparting to corruptible man the divine incorruptibility.

32. The Apologetic Conception of Christianity

Christianity was regarded as a revealed philosophy by the apologists. This they considered under three princ.i.p.al aspects: knowledge, or a revelation of the divine nature; a new law, or a code of morals given by Christ; and life, or future rewards for the observance of the new law that had been given. The foundation of all was laid in the doctrine of the Logos (_A_), which involved, as a consequence, some theory of the relation of the resulting distinctions in the divine nature to the primary conviction of the unity of G.o.d, or some doctrine of the Trinity (_B_). As a result of the new law given, moralism was inevitable, whereby a man by his efforts earned everlasting life (_C_). The proof that Jesus was the incarnate Logos was drawn from the fulfilment of Hebrew prophecy (_D_). It should be remembered that the apologists influenced later theology by their actual writings, and not by unexpressed and undeveloped opinions which they held as a part of the common tradition and the Christianity of the Gentile Church. Whatever they might have held in addition to their primary contentions had little or no effect, however valuable it may be for modern students, and the conviction that Christianity was essentially a revealed philosophy became current, especially in the East, finding its most powerful expression in the Alexandrian school. (_V. infra_, 43.)

(A) The Logos Doctrine

As stated by the apologists, the Logos doctrine not only furnished a valuable line of defence for Christianity (_v. supra_, 20), but also gave theologians a useful formula for stating the relation of the divine element in Christ to G.o.d. That divine element was the Divine Word or Reason (Logos). It is characteristic of the doctrine of the Logos as held by the early apologists that, although they make the Word, or Logos, personal and distinguish Him from G.o.d the Father, yet that Word does not become personally distinguished from the source of His being until, and in connection with, the creation of the world. Hence there arose the distinction between the _Logos endiathetos_, or as yet within the being of the Father, and the _Logos prophorikos_, or as proceeding forth and becoming a distinct person. Here is, at any rate, a marked advance upon the speculation of Philo, by whom the Logos is not regarded as distinctly personal.

(_a_) Justin Martyr, _Apol._, I, 46. (MSG, 6:398.)

In addition to the following pa.s.sage from Justin Martyr, see above, 20, for a longer statement to much the same effect.

We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of G.o.d, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians even though they have been thought atheists; as among the Greeks, Socrates and Herac.l.i.tus, and men like them; and among the barbarians, Abraham and Ananias, Azarias, and Missael [the three holy children, companions of Daniel, see LXX, Dan. 3:23 _ff._], and Elias [_i.e._, Elijah], and many others whose actions and names we now decline to recount because we know that it would be tedious.

(_b_) Theophilus, _Ad Autolyc.u.m_, II, 10, 22. (MSG, 6:398.)

Theophilus was the sixth bishop of Antioch, from 169 until after 180. His apology, consisting of three books addressed to an otherwise unknown Autolycus, has alone been preserved of his works. Fragments attributed to him are of very doubtful authenticity. The date of the third book must be subsequent to the death of Marcus Aurelius, March 17, 180, which is mentioned. The first and second books may be somewhat earlier. The distinction made in the following between the _Logos endiathetos_ and the _Logos prophorikos_ was subsequently dropped by theologians.

Ch. 10. G.o.d, then, having His own Logos internal [_endiatheton_] within His own bowels, begat Him, emitting Him along with His own wisdom before all things.