[Footnote 286: In itself the performance of this rite seemed too simple to those who sought eagerly for mysteries. See Tertull., de bapt. 2: "Nihil adeo est quod obduret mentes hominum quam simplicitas divinorum operum, quae in actu videtur, et magnificentia, quae in effecta repromitt.i.tur, ut hinc quoque, quoniam tanta simplicitate, sine pompa, sine apparatu novo aliquo, denique sine sumptu h.o.m.o in aqua demissus et inter pauca verba tinctus non multo vel nihilo mundior resurgit, eo incredibilis existimetur consecutio aeternitatis. Mentior, si non e contrario idolorum solemnia vel arcana de suggestu et apparatu deque sumptu fidem at auctoritatem sibi exstruunt."]

[Footnote 287: But see Euseb., H. E. VI. 43. 15, who says that only the laying on of hands on the part of the bishop communicates the Holy Spirit, and this ceremony _must_ therefore follow baptism. It is probable that confirmation as a specific act did not become detached from baptism in the West till shortly before the middle of the third century. Perhaps we may a.s.sume that the Mithras cult had an influence here.]

[Footnote 288: See Tertullian's superst.i.tious remarks in de bap. 3-9 to the effect that water is the element of the Holy Spirit and of unclean Spirits etc. Melito also makes a similar statement in the fragment of his treatise on baptism in Pitra, a.n.a.l, Sacra II., p. 3 sq. Cyprian, ep.

70. I, uses the remarkable words: "oportet veio mundari et sanctificari aquam prius a _sacer dote_ (Tertull. still knows nothing of this: c. 17: etiam laicis ius est), ut possit baptismo suo peccata hominis qui baptizatur abluere." Ep. 74. 5: "peccata purgare et hominem sanctificare aqua sola non potest, nisi habeat et spiritum sanctum." Clem. Alex.

Protrept. 10.99: [Greek: labete hudor logikos].]

[Footnote 289: It was easy for Origen to justify child baptism, as he recognised something sinful in corporeal birth itself, and believed in sin which had been committed in a former life. The earliest justification of child baptism may therefore be traced back to a philosophical doctrine.]

[Footnote 290: _Translator's note._ The following is the original Latin, as quoted by Prof. Harnack: "Cunctatio baptismi utilior est, praecipue circa parvulos. Quid enim necesse, sponsores etiam periculo ingeri ...

veniant ergo parvuli, dum adolesc.u.n.t; veniant dum disc.u.n.t, dum quo veniant docentur; fiant Christiani, c.u.m Christum nosse potuerint. Quid festinat innocens aetas ad remissionem peccatorum? Cautius agetur in saecularibus, ut cui substantia terrena non creditur, divina credatur ...

Si qui pondus intelligant baptismi, magis timebunt consecutionem quam dilationem."]

[Footnote 291: Under such circ.u.mstances the recollection of the significance of baptism in the establishment of the Church fell more and more into the background (see Hermas: "the Church rests like the world upon water;" Irenaeus III. 17. 2: "Sicut de arido tritico ma.s.sa una non fieri potest sine humore neque unus panis, ita nec nos multi unum fieri in Christo Iesu poteramus sine aqua quae de coelo est. Et sicut aricla terra, si non percipiat humorem, non fructificat: sic et nos lignum aridum exsistentes primum, nunquam fructificaremus vitam sine superna voluntaria pluvia. Corpora unim nostra per lavacrum illam quae est ad incorruptionem unitatem acceperunt, animae autem per spiritum"). The unbaptised (catechumens) also belong to the Church, when they commit themselves to her guidance and prayers. Accordingly baptism ceased more and more to be regarded as an act of initiation, and only recovered this character in the course of the succeeding centuries. In this connection the 7th (spurious) canon of Constantinople (381) is instructive: [Greek: kai ten proten hemeran poioumen autous Christianous, ten de deuteran katechoumenous, eita ten triten exorkizomen autous k.t.l.]]

[Footnote 292: Dollinger, Die Lehre von der Eucharistie in dem ersten 3 Jahrhunderten, 1826. Engelhardt in the Zeitschrift fur die hist.

Theologie, 1842, I. Kahnis, Lehre vom Abendmahl, 1851. Ruckert, Das Abendmahl, sein Wesen und seine Geschichte, 1856. Leimbach, Beitrage zur Abendmahlslehre Tertullian's, 1874. Steitz, Die Abendmahlslehre der griechischen Kirche, in the Jahrbucher fur deutsche Theologie, 1864-1868; cf. also the works of Probst. Whilst Eucharist and love feast had already been separated from the middle of the 2nd century in the West, they were still united in Alexandria in Clement's time; see Bigg, l.c., p. 103.]

[Footnote 293: The collocation of baptism and the Lord's Supper, which, as the early Christian monuments prove, was a very familiar practice (Tert. adv. Marc. IV. 34: "sacramentum baptismi et eucharistiae;"

Hippol., can. arab. 38: "baptizatus et corpore Christi pastus"), was, so far as I know, justified by no Church Father on internal grounds.

Considering their conception of the holy ordinances this is not surprising. They were cla.s.sed together because they were inst.i.tuted by the Lord, and because the elements (water, wine, bread) afforded much common ground for allegorical interpretation.]

[Footnote 294: The story related by Dionysius (in Euseb., l.c.) is especially characteristic, as the narrator was an extreme spiritualist.

How did it stand therefore with the dry tree? Besides, Tertull. (de corona 3) says: "Calicis aut panis nostri aliquid decuti in terram anxie patimur". Superst.i.tious reverence for the sacrament _ante et extra usum_ is a very old habit of mind in the Gentile Church.]

[Footnote 295: Leimbach's investigations of Tertullian's use of words have placed this beyond doubt; see de orat. 6; adv. Marc. I. 14: IV. 40: III. 19; de resuri. 8.]

[Footnote 296: The chief pa.s.sages referring to the Supper in Clement are Protrept. 12. 120; Paed. I. 6. 43: II. 2. 19 sq.: I. 5. 15: I. 6. 38, 40; Quis div. 23; Strom. V. 10. 66: I. 10. 46: I. 19. 96: VI. 14. 113: V.

II. 70. Clement thinks as little of forgiveness of sins in connection with the Supper as does the author of the Didache or the other Fathers; this feast is rather meant to bestow an initiation into knowledge and immortality. Ignatius had already said, "the body is faith, the blood is hope." This is also Clement's opinion; he also knows of a transubstantiation, not, however, into the real body of Christ, but into heavenly powers. His teaching was therefore that of Valentinus (see the Exc. ex. Theod. -- 82, already given on Vol. i. p. 263) Strom. V. 11. 70: [Greek: logikon hemin broma he gnosis]; I. 20. 46: [Greek: hina de phagomen logikos]; V. 10. 66: [Greek: brosis gar kai posis tou theiou logou he gnosis esti tes theias ousias]. Adumbrat. in epp. Joh.: "sanguis quod est cognitio"; see Bigg, l.c., p. 106 ff.]

[Footnote 297: Orig. in Matth. Comment. ser. 85: "Panis iste, quem deus verb.u.m corpus suum esse fatetur, verb.u.m est nutritorium animarum, verb.u.m de deo verbo procedens et panis de pane coe'esti... Non enim panem illum visibilem, quem tenebat in manibus, corpus suum dicebat deus verb.u.m, sed verb.u.m, in cuius mysterio fuerat panis ille frangendus; nec potum illum visibilem sanguinem suum dicebat, sed verb.u.m in cuius mysterio potus ille fuerat effundendus;" see in Matt. XI. 14; c. Cels. VIII. 33. Hom.

XVI. 9 in Num. On Origen's doctrine of the Lord's Supper see Bigg, p.

219 ff.]

[Footnote 298: The conception of the Supper as _viatic.u.m mortis_ (fixed by the 13th canon of Nicaea: [Greek: peri de ton exodeuonton ho palaios kai kanonikos nomos phulachthesetai kai nun, hoste eitis exodeuoi, tou teleutaiou kai anagkaiotatou ephodiou me apostereisthai]), a conception which is genuinely h.e.l.lenic and which was strengthened by the idea that the Supper was [Greek: pharmakon athanasias], the practice of benediction, and much else in theory and practice connected with the Eucharist reveal the influence of antiquity. See the relative articles in Smith and Cheetham's Dictionary of Christian Antiquities.]

[Footnote 299: The fullest account of the "history of the Romish Church down to the pontificate of Leo I." has been given by Langen, 1881; but I can in no respect agree (see Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1891, No. 6) with the hypotheses about the primacy as propounded by him in his treatise on the Clementine romances (1890, see especially p. 163 ff). The collection of pa.s.sages given by Caspari, "Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols,"

Vol. III., deserves special recognition. See also the sections bearing on this subject in Renan's "Origines du Christianisme," Vols. V.-VII.

especially VII., chaps. 5, 12, 23. Sohm in his "Kirchenrecht" I. (see especially pp. 164 ff., 350 ff., 377 ff.) has adopted my conception of "Catholic" and "Roman," and made it the basis of further investigations.

He estimates the importance of the Roman Church still more highly, in so far as, according to him, she was the exclusive originator of Church law as well as of the Catholic form of Church const.i.tution; and on page 381 he flatly says: "The whole Church const.i.tution with its claim to be founded on divine arrangement was first developed in Rome and then transferred from her to the other communities." I think this is an exaggeration. Tschirn (Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte, XII. p. 215 ff.) has discussed the origin of the Roman Church in the 2nd century.

Much that was the common property of Christendom, or is found in every religion as it becomes older, is regarded by this author as specifically Roman.]

[Footnote 300: No doubt we must distinguish two halves in Christendom.

The first, the ecclesiastical West, includes the west coast of Asia Minor, Greece, and Rome together with their daughter Churches, that is, above all, Gaul and North Africa. The second or eastern portion embraces Palestine, Egypt, Syria, and the east part of Asia Minor. A displacement gradually arose in the course of the 3rd century. In the West the most important centres are Ephesus, Smyrna, Corinth, and Rome, cities with a Greek and Oriental population. Even in Carthage the original speech of the Christian community was probably Greek.]

[Footnote 301: Rome was the first city in the Empire, Alexandria the second. They were the metropolitan cities of the world (see the inscription in Kaibel, No. 1561, p. 407: [Greek: threpse m' Alexandreia, metoikon ethapse de Rhome, hai kosmou kai ges, o xene, metropoleis]).

This is reflected in the history of the Church; first Rome appears, then Alexandria. The significance of the great towns for the history of dogma and of the Church will be treated of in a future volume. Abercius of Hieropolis, according to the common interpretation (inscription V. 7 f.) designates Rome as "queen." This was a customary appellation; see Eunap., vita Prohaer. p. 90: [Greek: he basileuousa Rhome].]

[Footnote 302: In this connection we need only keep in mind the following summary of facts. Up to the end of the second century the Alexandrian Church had none of the Catholic and apostolic standards, and none of the corresponding inst.i.tutions as found in the Roman Church; but her writer, Clement, was also "as little acquainted with the West as Homer." In the course of the first half of the 3rd century she received those standards and inst.i.tutions; but her writer, Origen, also travelled to Rome himself in order to see "the very old" church and formed a connection with Hippolytus; and her bishop Dionysius carried on a correspondence with his Roman colleague, who also made common cause with him. Similar particulars may also be ascertained with regard to the Syrian Church.]

[Footnote 303: See the proofs in the two preceding chapters. Note also that these elements have an inward connection. So long as one was lacking, all were, and whenever one was present, all the others immediately made their appearance.]

[Footnote 304: Ignatius already says that the Roman Christians are [Greek: apodiulismenoi apo pantos allotrion chromatos] (Rom. inscr.); he uses this expression of no others. Similar remarks are not quite rare at a later period; see, for instance, the oft-repeated eulogy that no heresy ever arose in Rome. At a time when this city had long employed the standard of the apostolic rule of faith with complete confidence, namely, at the beginning of the 3rd century, we hear that a lady of rank in Alexandria, who was at any rate a Christian, lodged and entertained in her house Origen, then a young man, and a famous heretic. (See Euseb., H. E. VI. 2. 13, 14). The lectures on doctrine delivered by this heretic and the conventicles over which he presided were attended by a [Greek: murion plethos ou monon hairetikon, alla kai hemetephon]. That is a very valuable piece of information which shows us a state of things in Alexandria that would have been impossible in Rome at the same period. See, besides, Dionys. Alex, in Euseb., H. E. VII. 7.]

[Footnote 305: I must here refrain from proving the last a.s.sertion. The possibility of Asia Minor having had a considerable share, or having led the way, in the formation of the canon must be left an open question (cf. what Melito says, and the use made of New Testament writings in the Epistle of Polycarp). We will, however, be constrained to lay the chief emphasis on Rome, for it must not be forgotten that Irenaeus had the closest connection with the Church of that city, as is proved by his great work, and that he lived there before he came to Gaul. Moreover, it is a fact deserving of the greatest attention that the Montanists and their decided opponents in Asia, the so-called Alogi, had no ecclesiastical _canon_ before them, though they may all have possessed the universally acknowledged books of the Romish canon, and none other, in the shape of _books read in the churches_.]

[Footnote 306: See the Prolegg. of Westcott and Hort (these indeed give an opposite judgment), and cf. Harris, _Codex Bezae. A study of the so-called Western text of the New Testament_ 1891. An exhaustive study of the oldest martyrologies has already led to important cases of agreement between Rome and the East, and promises still further revelations. See d.u.c.h.esne, "Les Sources du Martyrologe Hieron." 1885.

Egli, "Altchristliche Studien, Martyrien und Martyrologieen altester Zeit." 1887; the same writer in the "Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie", 1891, p. 273 ff.]

[Footnote 307: On the relations between Edessa and Rome see the end of the Excursus.]

[Footnote 308: See my treatise "Die altesten christlichen Datirungen und die Anfange einer bischflichen Chronographie in Rom." in the report of the proceedings of the Royal Prussian Academy of Science, 1892, pp.

617-658. I think I have there proved that, in the time of Soter, Rome already possessed a figured list of bishops, in which important events were also entered.]

[Footnote 309: That the idea of the apostolic succession of the bishops was first turned to account or appeared in Rome is all the more remarkable, because it was not in that city, but rather in the East, that the monarchical episcopate was first consolidated. (Cf. the Shepherd of Hermas and Ignatius' Epistles to the Romans with his other Epistles). There must therefore have been a very rapid development of the const.i.tution in the time between Hyginus and Victor. Sohm, l.c., tries to show that the monarchical episcopate arose in Rome immediately after the composition of the First Epistle of Clement, and as a result of it; and that this city was the centre from which it spread throughout Christendom.]

[Footnote 310: See Pseudo-Cyprian's work "de aleat" which, in spite of remarks to the contrary, I am inclined to regard as written by Victor; cf. "Texte und Untersuchungen" V. I; see c. I of this writing: "et quoniam in n.o.bis divina et paterna pietas apostolatus ducatum contulit et vicariam domini sedem caelesti dignatione ordinavit et originem authentici apostolatus, super quem Christus fundavit ecclesiam, in superiore nostro portamus."]

[Footnote 311: See report of the proceedings of the Royal Prussian Academy of Science, 1892, p. 622 ff. To the material found there must be added a remarkable pa.s.sage given by Nestle (Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1893, p. 437), where the dates are reckoned after Sixtus I.]

[Footnote 312: Cf. the 8th book of the Apostolic Const.i.tutions with the articles referring to the regulation of the Church, which in Greek MSS.

bear the name of Hippolytus. Compare also the Arabian Canones Hippolyti, edited by Haneberg (1870) and commented on by Achelis (Texte und Untersuchungen VI. 4). Apart from the additions and alterations, which are no doubt very extensive, it is hardly likely that the name of the Roman bishop is wrongly a.s.signed to them. We must further remember the importance a.s.signed by the tradition of the Eastern and Western Churches to one of the earliest Roman "bishops," Clement, as the confidant and secretary of the Apostles and as the composer and arranger of their laws.]

[Footnote 313: See my proofs in "Texte und Untersuchungen," Vol. II., Part 5. The canons of the Council of Nicaea presuppose the distinction of higher and lower clergy for the whole Church.]

[Footnote 314: We see this from the Easter controversy, but there are proofs of it elsewhere, e.g., in the collection of Cyprian's epistles.

The Roman bishop Cornelius informs Fabius, bishop of Antioch, of the resolutions of the Italian, African, and other Churches (Euseb., H. E.

VI. 43. 3: [Greek: elthon eis hemas epistolai Korneliou Rhomaion episkopou pros ... phabion, delousai ta peri tes Rhomaion sunodou, kai ta doxanta pasi tois kata ten Italian kai Aphriken kai tas autophi choras]). We must not forget, however, that there were also bishops elsewhere who conducted a so-called oec.u.menical correspondence and enjoyed great influence, as, e.g., Dionysius of Corinth and Dionysius of Alexandria. In matters relating to penance the latter wrote to a great many Churches, even as far as Armenia, and sent many letters to Rome (Euseb., H. E. VI. 46). The Catholic theologian, Dittrich--before the Vatican Decree, no doubt--has spoken of him in the following terms (Dionysius von Alexandrien, 1867, p. 26): "As Dionysius partic.i.p.ated in the power, so also he shared in the task of the primateship." "Along with the Roman bishop he was, above all, called upon to guard the interests of the whole Church."]

[Footnote 315: This conception, as well as the ideas contained in this Excursus generally, is now entirely shared by Weingarten (Zeittafeln, 3rd. ed., 1888, pp. 12, 21): "The Catholic Church is essentially the work of those of Rome and Asia Minor. The Alexandrian Church and theology do not completely adapt themselves to it till the 3rd century.

The metropolitan community becomes the ideal centre of the Great Church"

... "The primacy of the Roman Church is essentially the transference to her of Rome's central position in the religion of the heathen world during the Empire: _urbs aeterna urbs sacra_."]

[Footnote 316: This is also admitted by Langen (l.c., 184 f.), who even declares that this precedence existed from the beginning.]

[Footnote 317: Cf. chaps. 59 and 62, but more especially 63.]

[Footnote 318: At that time the Roman Church did not confine herself to a letter; she sent amba.s.sadors to Corinth, [Greek: hoitines martures esontai metaxu humon kai hemon]. Note carefully also the position of the Corinthian community with which the Roman one interfered (see on this point Wrede, Untersuchungen zum I Clemensbrief, 1891.)]

[Footnote 319: In Ignatius, Rom. inscr., the verb [Greek: prokathemai]

is twice used about the Roman Church ([Greek: prokathetai en] [to be understood in a local sense] [Greek: topoi khorion Rhomaion]--[Greek: prokathemene tes agapes] = presiding in, or having the guardianship of, love). Ignatius (Magn. 6), uses the same verb to denote the dignity of the bishop or presbyters in relation to the community. See, besides, the important testimony in Rom. II.: [Greek: allous edidaxate]. Finally, it must be also noted that Ignatius presupposes an extensive influence on the part of individual members of the Church in the higher spheres of government. Fifty years later we have a memorable proof of this in the Marcia-Victor episode. Lastly, Ignatius is convinced that the Church will interfeie quite as energetically on behalf of a foreign brother as on behalf of one of her own number. In the Epistle of Clement to James, c. 2, the Roman bishop is called [Greek: ho aletheias prokathezomenos].]

[Footnote 320: Euseb., H. E. IV. 23. 9-12; cf., above all, the words: [Greek: Ex arches humin ethos esti touto, pantas men adelphous poikios euergetein, ekklesiais te pollais tais kata pasan polin ephodia pempein ... patroparadoton ethos Rhomaion Romaioi diaphulattontes.] Note here the emphasis laid on [Greek: Romaioi].]

[Footnote 321: According to Irenaeus a peculiar significance belongs to the old Jerusalem Church, in so far as all the Christian congregations sprang from her (III. 12. 5: [Greek: autai phonai tes ekklesias, ex hes pasa escheken ekklesia tes archen autai phonai tes metropoleos ton tes kaines diathekes politon]). For obvious reasons Irenaeus did not speak of the Jerusalem Church of his own time. Hence that pa.s.sage cannot be utilised.]

[Footnote 322: Iren. III. 3. i: "Sed quomiam valde longum est, in hoc tali volumine omnium ecclesiarum enumerare successiones, maximae et antiquissimae et omnibus cognitae, a gloriosissimis duobus apostolis Paulo et Petro Romae fundatae et const.i.tutae ecclesiae, eam quam habet ab apostolis traditionem et annuutiatam hominibus fidem, per successiones episcoporum pervenientem usque ad nos indicantes confundimus omnes eos, qui quoquo modo vel per sibiplacentiam malam vel vanam gloriam vel per caecitatem et malam sententiam, praeterquam oportet, colligunt. Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem princ.i.p.alitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quae est ab apostolis traditio." On this we may remark as follows: (1) The special importance which Irenaeus claims for the Roman Church--for he is only referring to her--is not merely based by him on her a.s.sumed foundation by Peter and Paul, but on a combination of the four attributes "maxima,"

"antiquissima" etc. Dionysius of Corinth also made this a.s.sumption (Euseb., II. 25. 8), but applied it quite as much to the Corinthian Church. As regards capability of proving the truth of the Church's faith, all the communities founded by the Apostles possess _princ.i.p.alitas_ in relation to the others; but the Roman Church has the _potentior princ.i.p.alitas_, in so far as she excels all the rest in her qualities of _ecclesia maxima et omnibus cognita_ etc. Princ.i.p.alitas = "sovereign authority," [Greek: authentia], for this was probably the word in the original text (see proceedings of the Royal Prussian Academy of Science, 9th Nov., 1893). In common with most scholars I used to think that the "in qua" refers to "Roman Church;" but I have now convinced myself (see the treatise just cited) that it relates to "omnem ecclesiam," and that the clause introduced by "in qua" merely a.s.serts that every church, _in so far as she is faithful to tradition, i.e., orthodox_, must as a matter of course agree with that of Rome. (2) Irenaeus a.s.serts that every Church, i.e., believers in all parts of the world, must agree with this Church ("convenire" is to be understood in a figurative sense; the literal acceptation "every Church must come to that of Rome" is not admissible). However, this "must" is not meant as an imperative, but == [Greek: anagke] == "it cannot be otherwise." In reference to _princ.i.p.alitas_ == [Greek: authentia] (see I. 31. 1: I. 26.

1) it must be remembered that Victor of Rome (l.c.) speaks of the "origo _authentici_ apostolatus," and Tertullian remarks of Valentinus when he apostatised at Rome, "ab ecclesia _authenticae_ regulae abrupit" (adv.