Doctrinal Controversies: Causes and Features

I.--CAUSES AND FEATURES.

Even general church history must take considerable note of the doctrinal controversies of this period. They entered too deeply into the life of the age, were too large a factor in the great events of the Christian Empire, that they should be left entirely to the history of doctrine. However, we shall endeavor to observe the distinction between the two branches, and without dwelling upon the minutiæ of doctrine, or the arguments adduced in their support, shall consider the controversies mainly as factors in the life and public events of the age.

The reign of Constantine inaugurated, almost of necessity, an era of theological activity, if not of theological strife. That the Church, when relieved of the strong outward pressure, should apply itself with great zeal to the deeper problems of the faith, was a very natural turn of events. Where there is mental life, there is always speculation in some department or other, always philosophizing, always endeavors after the exact definition and the satisfactory defense of truth. In the centuries following Constantine, philosophizing was drawn by an irresistible attraction into the theological field. Christianity uplifting itself in the freshness and glory of a new and triumphant power, and claiming to be the absolute religion embracing the whole circle of divine truth, must necessarily absorb very much of the speculative energies of the times.

Indifference to matters of creed was practically an impossibility. Many whom custom still bound to their old, worn-out heathenism may have had but a moderate interest in its tenets. But Christianity with its unforgotten record of heroic conflicts, with its long list of honored martyrs, with its lofty promises, with its comparative freshness, and with its felt superiority to all the religious products of the ancient world, claimed too lively an interest from thoughtful adherents to allow of an indifferent attitude towards its doctrinal contents.

Aside from indifference to matters of creed, unanimity of opinion was the only thing which could have saved the Church of that era from doctrinal controversies. But this, too, was practically out of the question. The depth of the subject was enough by itself to prevent unanimity of opinion, especially on the part of men coming from such varied antecedents as belonged to the transition from a Jewish and heathen to a Christian world. There were causes, therefore, comparatively normal and legitimate, that acted powerfully in the direction of doctrinal agitation.

But these causes were re-enforced by others that have less claim upon our charity. A false impetus was given to theological strife by a wide-spread failure properly to recognize the broad distinction which exists between faith and orthodoxy. The abhorrence of heresy, which had been engendered by such gross aberrations from Christian truth as Gnosticism and Manichæism, conjoined with the unspiritual temper of numerous adherents of the victorious Church, led not a few to confound evangelical belief with allegiance to a creed. According to their superficial estimate, a zealous championship of the right articles of faith was a supreme evidence of Christian character. Coalescing with this stimulus to controversy was the old Greek disputatiousness which still survived. It was easy for the Greek mind to run into a mania for speculation and discussion, to the neglect of practical interests. Cicero in his day complained of the controversial bias of the Greeks, and accused them of thirsting for contention rather than for truth. Not a little of this spirit came unconquered into the Church.

Controversy was also intensified and embittered by the action of the government. The design of the emperors was indeed the promotion of peace and harmony in the Church, but their interference none the less bore the natural fruit of increased strife. What else could have been the result of the principle established under the administration of Constantine; namely, that the minority of bishops, gathered or represented in a council, must submit their faith to the decision of the majority, and, in case of refusal, feel the force of civil as well as of ecclesiastical proscription? The inevitable consequence was, that, when a doctrinal dispute arose, the partisans of either side were intent upon securing for themselves a majority in a council and the co-operation of the government. The government, thus flattered by the appeals of contending factions, was incited to mage a full show of its power and importance. Emperors having least understanding of the subjects under debate were quite apt to be most zealous in their attempts to control doctrinal settlements. Hence full scope was given, in the treatment of theological questions, to all the expedients of the most violent political strife.

Finally, the populace of the large cities, by their characteristic bias to faction and extreme partisanship, fostered controversy, and contributed to it an element of ferocity. "The abstruse tenets of the Christian theology," says Milman, "became the ill-understood, perhaps unintelligible watchwords of violent and disorderly men. The rabble of Alexandria and other cities availed themselves of the commotion to give loose to their suppressed passion for the excitement of plunder and bloodshed. If Christianity is accused as the immediate exciting cause of these disastrous scenes, the predisposing principle was in that uncivilized nature of man, which not merely was unallayed by the gentle and humanizing tenets of the gospel, but, as it has perpetually done, pressed the gospel itself, as it were, into its own unhallowed service." [History of Christianity, Book III., chap. v.]

From all these causes resulted an age intensely polemical. As many testimonies and incidents assure us, controversial zeal burned with indescribable ardor. "Disputes and contentions," writes Theodoret, "arose in every city and in every village, concerning theological dogmas. These were indeed melancholy scenes over which tears might have been shed. For it was not as in bygone ages, when the Church was attacked by strangers and enemies: they who fought against each other [in this strife of tongues] were members of each other, and belonged to one body." [Hist. Eccl., i. 6.] "Every thing in the city," says Gregory of Nyssa, speaking of the Arian controversy in Constantinople, "is full of such [as dogmatize over things incomprehensible], --the lanes, the markets, the avenues, the streets, the clothiers, the bankers, the dealers in provisions. When you ask one how much a thing costs, he will favor you with a discourse about the begotten and the unbegotten. When you inquire the price of bread, he replies,'The Father is greater than the Son, and the Son is subordinate.' If you ask,'Is the bath ready?' he declares, 'The Son was created from nothing.' I know not by what name, whether frenzy or madness or other kindred term, this evil which has come upon the people may fitly be called." [Orat. de Deitate Filii et Spiritus Sancti.] In like manner Gregory Nazianzen testifies: "It has gone so far that the whole market resounds with the discourses of heretics, every banquet is corrupted by this babbling even to nausea, every merry-making is transformed into a mourning, and every funeral solemnity is almost alleviated by this brawling as a still greater evil; even the chambers of women, the nurseries of simplicity, are disturbed thereby, and the flowers of modesty are crushed by this precocious practice of dispute." [Orat., xxvii. 2 (Schaff's rendering).] If such language applies to the doctrinal strifes of the fourth century, what shall describe the polemic zeal of the fifth century? Said Nestorius in his inaugural sermon at Constantinople: "Give me, O Emperor, the earth purified from heretics, and I will give you heaven in return; help me to destroy the heretics, and I will help you to conquer the Persians." [Socrates, Hist. Eccl., vii. 29.] But intolerant as was the zeal which these words reveal, it by no means exceeded that which was directed against Nestorius himself as he fell under suspicion of heresy. At the council of Ephesus in 431, a whole string of anathemas was hurled against him. One bishop remarked, that, as those who counterfeit the imperial coins are deserving of the severest penalties, so Nestorius, who has dared to falsify the orthodox faith, was deserving of all punishments at the hands of God and of men. Another declared that he was worse than Cain and the Sodomites, and that the earth might fitly open to swallow him up, or fire from heaven descend upon him. In the official notification by the council of his condemnation, Nestorius was named a "new Judas" [Mansi, Concilia, iv. 1228.] and the city of Ephesus expressed its delight over the sentence by processions, torches, and illuminations. [Ibid., iv. 1241; Opera Cyrilli, Epist. xxiv (Migne).] A layman and a lawyer, writing subsequently, named Nestorius "that God-assaulting tongue, that second conclave of Caiaphas, that work-shop of blasphemy." [Evagrius, Hist. Eccl., i. 2.] Cyril of Alexandria, who was the soul of the crusade against Nestorius, scrupled at no means for securing his ends, even to the bribing of numerous court officials. The letters of his archdeacon show conclusively that he made presents to various parties at court, and exhorted the church at Constantinople to be careful to do their part in satisfying the avarice of certain persons. [See Neander, iv. 203; also Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, § 156] Hefele attempts, indeed, to palliate the practice of Cyril, on the plea that it was Oriental custom to introduce a negotiation with a sovereign or other dignitaries with presents.

[§ 150. Hefele seems half-conscious of the weakness of his apology, for he seeks to withdraw attention from Cyril by reference to the Protestant theologians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries who prefaced their communications to the dignitaries of the Greek Church with presents. Supposing that the cases were parallel, it would do little toward rescuing the saintship of Cyril. But they are not parallel. If the Protestant theologians had beset the officials of their own government with lavish presents, in order to secure a special act of administration, such as vengeance upon a hated rival, there would have heen a ground of comparison.]

No doubt, in opening communication with a distant and comparatively unknown court, Oriental courtesy emphasized the propriety of making some gift. But who imagines that the custom of that day made it incumbent upon Cyril to accompany with a multitude of presents his approaches to his own government at Constantinople, with which he had already been in close communication? Judged by the nature and intent of the transactions, it was a gross case of bribery. [That Cyril had gained a reputation for simony (Isidore of Pelusium, Epist, ii. 127), does not tend to soften the interpretation of these transactions.] All that can be said is, that the conscience of the time was not fully up to the modern standard in its judgment of such practices. But, with all his unscrupulous and relentless ardor, Cyril scarcely represents the extreme of controversial heat. His successor Dioscurus surpassed him. The council of Ephesus, in 449, was ruled by him and his cohort of monks with till the arts of terrorism which might have been chosen by a military dictator. Flavian, the venerable patriarch of Constantinople, was set upon with such atrocity that he soon died from his injuries. Any opinion counter to the sentiment of the dominant party was greeted with a furious anathema. As words implying two natures in Christ were quoted from Eusebius of Dorylæum, a chorus of voices shouted, "Burn him alive ! As he has divided Christ, so let him be divided!" In the rage for dogma, conduct was completely ignored. Charges of adultery and other crimes being brought against a bishop, Dioscurus answered, "If you have any accusation to prefer against the man's orthodoxy, we will receive charges; but we have not come here to pass sentence for adultery." [So Theodoret reports, Epist., cxlvii.] Even the honored and important council of Chalcedon often became a Babel of anathematizing voices. Violent invectives were liberally hurled. As the council made place for Theodoret, the party of Dioscurus cried out, "Cast out the Jew, the enemy of God!" To this the friends of Theodoret responded with the exclamation, "Cast out the disturber, cast out the murderer!" The fifth ecumenical council, held at Constantinople in 553, was not content with condemning merely living heretics: resorting to ex post facto decrees, it anathematized, on the score of doctrines not authoritatively settled in his day, Theodore of Mopsuestia, a man who had died long before in unquestioned fellowship with the Church. The West, as a general thing, did not proceed to quite the same extreme as the East, in this controversial era. Jerome, however, did not fall much below the Eastern standard. He stigmatized the opinions of Jovinian as the "hissings of the old serpent," and named him, though a monk, an Epicurus, because he opposed the current over-valuation of monasticism. [Adv. Jovin., i. 4, ii. 36.] Of Vigilantius, he said that he might more properly be called Dormitantius, and intimated that his presence in Gaul had supplied a full compensation for the lack of mythologic monsters in that country. [Cont. Vigilant.] A still more signal exhibition of controversial rancour appears in his reference to Rufinus. At a time when the grave invited to charity, he wrote: "The scorpion is buried under the soil of Sicily, with Enceladus and Porphyrion; the many-headed hydra has ceased to hiss against us." [Comm. in Ezech., Pref.]

Truly an unsightly picture is that which is formed from the combination of such features! Still, it would indicate a very superficial judgment, if these controversies should be regarded as unmeaning events and a total waste. The remark which has sometimes been handed about respecting the Arian controversy -- namely, that the whole strife was over a mere iota-- is very shallow, not to say utterly senseless; just as though the difference of a single letter may not make an immeasurable difference between the meanings of two words. Some of the subjects discussed were vitally related to a true conception of Christianity. Whatever of passion and intrigue may have mingled in the strife, there was still a strong current of fundamental thought, a genuine canvassing of truth upon its merits. While narrow and hot-headed partisans had their place, there were also in the field some of the ablest and noblest men whom God has given to the Church, men of invincible integrity and powerful intellects, such as Athanasius, Basil, the two Gregories, Hilary, and Augustine. A profound and honest engagement of mind was brought to bear upon the great problems of the Christian faith, and certain landmarks were set up for the guidance of all subsequent ages. Unseemly factors are likely to attach themselves to any great movement, as the Reformation clearly illustrates. This first polemical era in Christian history will compare not unfavorably with some later eras. Intolerant as was partisan zeal, there was a general hesitation before the shedding of blood. Some instances there were of deliberate cruelty at the hands of imperial or episcopal tyrants; but the shedding of blood was confined mainly to outbreaks of mob-like violence. There was no organized murder, no Saint Bartholomew massacre, no Spanish Inquisition, no sword of Alva reeking with the blood of thousands. The conditions of the age opened a wide field to bigoted zeal; but the same poison of bigotry is ever stealing into the human heart, and we scarcely need to go back of the present generation to find humiliating examples, though the more perfect checks in our times stand in the way of the more virulent outbreaks.

The Catacombs, and their Testimony on Christian Life and Thought

IV. --THE CATACOMBS, AND THEIR TESTIMONY ON CHRISTIAN LIFE AND THOUGHT.

De Rossi, a leading investigator of the Catacombs in recent times, finds good evidence that at least three or four of them were commenced within the first century; and Christian burial-places of this kind were probably preceded by Jewish. Their chief, if not their sole, design at first was to provide suitable resting-places for the bodies of the dead. This was the original aim in their excavation. The old theory that they were deserted quarries or sand-pits, which the Christians appropriated, is untenable, being clearly contradicted by the structure, of which narrow corridors and sharp angles are characteristic features. It is also a mistake to suppose that primarily the use of the catacombs as places of refuge was an influential motive in their construction. The attempt at secrecy in their structure did not become prominent till in the third century. This was clearly the case with the Roman Catacombs. "They were, like the pagan tombs, situated on the high roads entering the city. Their entrances were frequently protected and adorned by elegant structures of masonry, such as that which is still visible at the Catacomb of St. Domitilla." [W. H. Withrow, The Catacombs of Rome, Book I., chap. ii.] So far as the mere purpose of burial was concerned, these cemeteries could claim the protection of that respect which classic antiquity generally awarded to the resting-places of the dead. The decrees that were finally issued against visiting them (such as the Valerian edict in 257) had probably more reference to their use as assembling-places than as mere burial-places.

The earliest catacombs were most likely of private origin. Wealthy Christians could easily be constrained to offer the family sepulchers upon their own grounds for the burial of distinguished martyrs, as also of the poor. Thus burial centers were established, about which catacombs, of greater or less extent, were formed in process of time. It is hardly to be doubted, also, that the Christians soon formed burial associations among themselves. Great tolerance was awarded to this kind of association. Preserved documents show that a great number of burial societies, representing different trades and professions, existed at Rome. An assessment upon the members of these provided for the necessary expenses. There are indications that the very extensive Catacomb of St. Callistus was under the charge of the Roman Church, and was recognized by the government as the cemetery of a burial association. [Hippolytus, Philos., ix. 7.]

The largest and most noteworthy of the catacombs are found near the great roads leading from Rome, and within three miles of the walls. [Catacombs are found in many other places, those at Naples being among the most important. Victor Schultz gives a list of thirteen places in the Orient, and thirty-three in the meet, that have catacombs (Die Katakomben, p. 25.)] Their entrance at present, when not through the crypt of an ancient church, is by a descending stairway through an aperture or archway. They consist essentially of narrow corridors, with an occasional addition of a small chamber, built in a friable, volcanic formation, the tufa granolare. The corridors range from two to five feet in width, intersect each other for the most part nearly at right angles, are usually vaulted and naked, but are occasionally plastered or supported by masonry. Graves, out into the sides and sealed up with slabs of marble or other material, thickly line these narrow ways, which are themselves very numerous, and arranged in line would extend hundreds of miles. Michele de Rossi [Brother of the chief investigator, Giiovanni Battista de Rossi.] estimates that those of St. Callistus, the largest catacomb, would extend about the whole length of Italy. The same author computes that the Roman catacombs, with the compact style of burial employed, contain room enough for nearly four millions of bodies. To economize space more perfectly, the galleries were sometimes arranged upon different planes, one below the other. In individual instances, there are as many as five stories in a catacomb. The chambers are small, vaulted rooms, often not more than eight or ten feet square. These, if not simply burial chambers, may have been used for the celebration of funeral services, and for the administration of the Eucharist near the graves of the martyrs.

The accession of Constantine, with its addition of security and enlarged resources to the Church, lessened the motive for the use of underground cemeteries. Still, for a considerable interval, burials in these continued to be in the majority. After the year 373, however, the inclination toward this kind of interment rapidly decreased; and, according to Kraus, the year 454 marks the last instance in which a body was consigned to a catacomb. [Die Römischen Katakomben, Buch II., kap. iii.] Thereafter these resting-places of the dead were used as chapels and pilgrim resorts. Meanwhile, a work of spoliation or depletion was begun, first at the hands of barbarian invaders, and then at the hands of the authorities of the Church, who sought to secure relies by depositing them within the walls of the city. A great number of bodies were transferred; an inscription records the translation, by Pope Paschal I., of twenty-three hundred on a single day of the year 817. During the Middle Ages, the Catacombs fell into neglect, and became largely lost to knowledge. In the sixteenth and the following centuries some progress was made toward rediscovery and description; but it was reserved for De Rossi and his co-laborers, in the last few decades, to bring the crowning investigations to the subject.

Among the objects of interest in the Catacombs, are symbols and symbolical paintings; various works of art, including gilt glasses, different styles of lamps, terra-cotta vases, children's toys, occasional specimens of sculpture; sepulchral inscriptions. The principal symbols are the anchor, the ship, the palm, the crown, the dove,the olive-branch, the peacock, and the phoenix as significant of immortality, the shepherd, the lamb, the fish, and the cross. Dear as was this last symbol to the hearts of Christians, it is not of frequent occurrence in the Catacombs, and, moreover, appears usually in some disguised form, inasmuch as it was peculiarly exposed to heathen scorn. The fish is an oft-recurring symbol, and seems to have had a very full import to the early Christians. It is highly probable that it embraced the meaning of the letters in the Greek word for fish, these letters being used as initials of the following titles of the Redeemer, Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour. It may also have had some connection with baptism, or with the vocation of Christ's ambassadors as "fishers of men." Sometimes it appears in conjunction with bread and wine, in which case it has reference to the heavenly food which Christ supplies, or to the Eucharist.

The pictures in the Catacombs show considerable dependence upon classic art, but also exhibit abundant traces of the marked influence of the new religion. A noticeable feature is the absence of sorrowful representations. The crucifixion of Christ nowhere appears among the pictures of the first three centuries. Within the same period, only a single portrayal of Christian martyrdom has been identified with a good degree of probability; and this enters into no incidents of torture and suffering, simply representing two confessors standing before their judge, and the retreating form of the heathen priest who served as their accuser. [Kraus, Buch IV., kap. v.]

Many of the inscriptions are very brief expressions of domestic affection or of Christian hope and confidence. The following may serve as examples: "To Libera Maximilla, a most loving wife. She lived in peace." "To the well-deserving Silvana, who sleeps here in peace." "Aurelia, our very sweet daughter, who retired from the world, Severus and Quintus being consuls." "To the highly venerable, most devout, and very sweet father, Secundus. His wife and sons, in expression of their dutifulness, have placed this slab." "Laurentius was born into eternity in the twentieth year of his age. He sleeps in peace."

The evidence supplied by the inscriptions and representations in the Catacombs is somewhat qualified by the paucity of dates. The proportion of dated inscriptions is quite small. The characteristics of these, however, furnish a basis for an approximate determination of the age of many others. Allowing a sufficient margin for the element of chronological uncertainty, we may still derive important information as respects the life and belief of the early Christians. No doubt the theological literature of the period abounds much more in explicit statements upon doctrinal points than do these monumental remains; nevertheless, the latter make a valuable supplement to the former, and have the special advantage of being unstudied expressions of what was commonly in the hearts of Christians. "The voice we hear is not that of a bishop or doctor speaking ex cathedra, but the voice of Martha and Mary by the grave of Lazarus, pouring forth at once their sorrow and their hope." [Pressensé, Christian Life, Book III., chap. vii.]

1. The Catacombs bespeak a genuine recognition of the principles of Christian brotherhood and equality. Not only are titles of nobility wanting: there is scarcely a record of the distinction between master and slave.
2. The Catacombs, as a whole, testify to a very high appreciation of the gospel virtues on the part of the early Church. Such graces as humility, gentleness, sympathy, and self-renunciation are here commended as highest ornaments of character.
3. The Catacombs testify to the joyful faith of the Church, its living and inspiring belief in the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the body. "The glorious doctrine of the resurrection was everywhere recorded. It was symbolized in the ever recurring representations of the story of Jonah, and of the raising of Lazarus, and was strongly asserted in numerous inscriptions. As the early Christians laid the remains of the departed saint in their last long rest, the sacred words of the gospel, 'I am the resurrection and the life,' must have echoed with a strange power through the long corridors of that silent city of the dead, and have filled the hearts of believers, though surrounded by the evidences of their mortality, with an exultant thrill of triumph over death and the grave. This was a recompense for all their pains." [Withrow, Book III., chap. ii.]
4. The Catacombs witness to the central place of Christ in the faith and hopes of the early Church, and to the recognition of His divinity. His name appears distinctly combined with that of Deity in such expressions as, "God, the Lord Christ;" "God Christ Almighty;" "God, holy Christ, only light;" "To Christ, the one holy God."
5. The Catacombs witness to the freedom of the early Church from any idolatrous veneration of the Virgin Mary. There is no apparent attempt to exalt her above the place which would naturally and necessarily be assigned to her in a full list of biblical representations. "In those earliest decorations of the Catacombs," says Marriott, "which De Rossi and other Roman antiquaries believe to be before the age of Constantine, representations of the Virgin Mary occur only in such connection as is directly suggested by Holy Scripture." [The Testimony of the Catacombs and other Monuments of Christian Art.] To be sure, there is a class of figures in the attitude of prayer, the so-called oranti, that appear to Romish eyes to represent the Virgin in her office of intercession. But there is no proper ground for such an identification. Some of the praying figures are males, some in the garb of children and youths, -- facts strongly favoring the conclusion that they were designed simply as memorials of the pious dead. Moreover, if a different application were to be assigned any of them, it would be quite as probable that they were intended to serve as symbols of the Church, as that they were meant to image the Virgin. Kraus, writing from the Romish stand-point, says, "We see the Church or the Virgin in these oranti, and, indeed, in most cases the latter rather than the former." [Buch. IV., kap. v.] A principal ground alleged for this verdict is, that female figures in the same attitude appear upon gilt glasses in connection with inscriptions which identify them with the Virgin. But there is no certainty that these glasses originated before the age of Constantine; and if they originated after that era, which marked a powerful acceleration of every tendency to exalt the Virgin, they are explained by the new conditions, and help very little toward deciding the intent of the primitive oranti. In the opinion of Marriott, the gilt glasses which present Mary in the form of an orante were not earlier than the fifth century. [Schultze is pronounced for the same conclusion.] It might, however, be allowed that she was portrayed on this wise in the pre-Constantinian era, without thereby proving the existence within that era of the Romish theory and practice. To represent Mary under a form that was also applied to the commemoration of ordinary Christian women, is vastly different from portraying her as the crowned queen of heaven. There is nothing definite in the monuments in favor of mariolatry; and since the whole literature of the first three centuries is destitute of ally evidence on the side of this form of idolatry, no indefinite monumental representation is to be warped into an indication of such idolatry within those centuries.
6. The Catacombs witness rather against than for the doctrine of purgatory. There is no such catalogue of petitions for the departed as might be expected to have sprung from ally clear recognition of such a doctrine. The prayers recorded to have been sent after the dead, and in their behalf, are simply the spontaneous out-breathings of affection, such as might naturally be uttered apart from any theory of their special needfulness ; prayers of sweet confidence and joyful hope, rather than anxious supplications for the relief of friends from a torturing purgatory.
7. The Catacombs in no wise disagree with the evidence supplied by patristic literature, that the custom of addressing prayers to the saints was not in vogue before the fourth century. That some brief petitions or ascriptions to the departed should be found only accords with the fact that many of the inscriptions belong to a later period. One of these, pertaining to the year 380, contains the cry of an orphaned girl for parental remembrance. A few undated inscriptions of similar import are found; but it remaius to be proved that they were pre-Constantinian, and, if so, that they represent a custom. [Schultze says this class of inscriptions cannot be proved to be earlier than the fifth century. (Katakomben,p. 269.)] "Until the fourth century," says Pressensé, "no name of any creature, angel or saint, ever entered into the prayers of the Church." [Christian Life, Book II., chap, iv.]

Surely it is no small distance which separates the Church of the Catacombs from the Church whose central sanctuary now overlooks the site of these ancient cemeteries. The teaching which is gathered from their symbols and inscriptions is in many points vitally contrasted with that which is published from St. Peter's and the Vatican. No doubt the papal Church surpasses the primitive Christian communion in splendor and majesty of externals; but before the mirror of Christ's teaching the more excellent glory is with the humble Church of the primitive age.

Schisms Connected With Questions of Discipline -- Montanism

IV.--SCHISMS CONNECTED WITH QUESTIONS OF DISCIPLINE, -- MONTANISM.

The schism of Novatus and Felicissimus, which arose in Carthage in the time of Cyprian, was due mainly to the spirit of faction. There was no very deep conviction back of the plea put forth by the schismatics for a less rigid discipline. They seem to have maintained themselves but a short time. The Novatian schism at Rome, near the same time, was born of much more earnest sentiments; Novatian and his followers having a hearty attachment to a stringent discipline, and accusing the Catholic party of unchristian laxity. The Novatian sect showed great persistence. It spread in various regions, and traces of it appear as late as the sixth century. The Meletian schism, which arose in Egypt in the early part of the fourth century, was precipitated by a disagreement between Meletius, Bishop of Lycopolis, and his metropolitan, Peter of Alexandria. Meletius is said to have championed the cause of strict discipline in the spirit of aggression and insubordination. The schism lasted upwards of a century. The separatists affiliated with the Arians.

The most interesting and important of the parties which fell into a sectarian position on account of their views of church discipline were the Montanists. This party derived its name from Montanus, a native of Phrygia in Asia Minor, who assumed the rôle of a prophet and reformer in that region in the last half of the second century. Two female associates, Prisca (or Priscilla) and Maximilla, claimed likewise to be organs of the Divine Comforter promised of Christ.

Among the causes which contributed to the inauguration of Montanism, were the imaginative and enthusiastic temper characteristic of the Phrygians, the excitements of persecution, the memory of the glorious charisms of the apostolic age, and a reaction against the growing ecclesiasticism or exaltation of official rank. As these causes, with the exception of the first, were more or less operative in the Church at large, they gave to Montanism a degree of prevalence much in excess of the importance of its founders. It soon numbered adherents in widely separated regions. The Church became much agitated on its account, and, after treating it with varying degrees of severity, finally assumed an attitude of decisive hostility. In Asia Minor, Montanism resulted in a separate sect (Cataphrygians, Priscillianists, or Pepuzians). In Rome, it was repressed, though not with entire success, since some of its principles found harborage among the Novatian schismatics. In North Africa, it was temporarily a considerable power, and after its apparent decline re-asserted itself inlarge part under new names. It found here also its one illustrious theologian, Tertullian. That he espoused Montanism with great heartiness, is entirely certain; but how this affected his local church relations, is largely a matter for conjecture. Ritschl thinks there is insufficient ground for the conclusion that he became a schismatic, and favors rather the verdict that the contemporary church authorities in his region were so far favorable to Montanism that there was for the time being no need of a separation. [Die Entstehung der alt katholischen Kirche. Ritschl find evidence for this view in a paragraph of Cyprian, Epist., li. (lv.) 21.] Augustine, to be sure, found in his day a schismatic party bearing the name of Tertullianists; but, as Neander states, there is no adequate evidence that this party existed as a schismatic party in the days of Tertullian. They might very naturally claim him as their founder, had he given them simply their principles and not their separate organization. Whether he died a schismatic or not, Tertullian was certainly held in high honor in the Catholic Church shortly after his death.

Montanism has sometimes been classed among the heresies. Its divergence, however, from the Catholic theology of the first centuries was not extensive, and was more in the line of addition than of rejection. The exhibition of its animating spirit was quite as much in the department of discipline, morals, and life, as in that of dogmatics proper; though here, too, it differed from the Church at large more in a quantitative than in a qualitative respect. Its distinguishing features may briefly be described as an ultra super naturalism and an ascetic morality.

Montanism affirmed that a continuance of the charisms of the apostolic age was to be expected as the normal possession of the Church. "The fundamental error," says Pressensé " which marred this grand inspiration, was the failure to comprehend the operation of Christianity except under the form of permanent miracle." [Heresy and Christian Doctrine, Book I., chap. iv.] The Montanists laid great emphasis, not only upon the fact that they were living under the dispensation of the Spirit, but also upon the extraordinary workings of the Spirit. Especially did they regard prophesying as the means appointed by God for the edification and guidance of the Church; and the true condition for prophesying was in their view that form of ecstasy in which all self-control is lost, and the soul rendered utterly passive in the hands of God, --the condition of one in absolute trance. As regards the subject-matter of their prophesying, the Montanists claimed the right to enter every region, even to the rendering of decisions upon questions of speculative theology. Their claim was really an open door toward the unsettling of existing revelation in the name of additional and supplementary disclosures of divine truth. The prophetic theme relished among them, perhaps more than any other, was that of the coming judgments of God, and the introduction of the millennial reign of Christ upon earth. The first Montanists believed that title day was already at hand when the Redeemer would appear to set up his kingdom. Said Maximilla, "After me will be no prophet, but the end will follow." [Epiphanius, Hær., xlviii.] As the Montanists laid the chief stress upon the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, and considered these gifts equally open to all classes, they were opposed to priestly exclusiveness and hierarchical pretension. At the same time, in their exaggerated preference for their prophets and those who acknowledged their authority, they introduced class distinctions of a very formidable character. The Montanist prophet was made to take the place of the bishop as respects dignity and authority, and the Montanists were ranged around the prophet as a superior caste. Indeed, one is almost reminded of the Gnostic classification, when he finds Tertullian stigmatizing as "psychics" the great body of Christians who refused to accept Montanism, and reserving the name of "spirituals" for the adherents of that system. [See in particular his treatises on Monogamy, Modesty, and Fasting.]

In pursuance of its ascetic morality, Montanism urged an unsparing renunciation of the world, entire abstinence from public offices, and a rigid church discipline. It exalted the virtue of martyrdom, opposed all use of prudential means to escape the persecutor's rage; affirmed the obligation to fast till evening on every Wednesday and Friday, and to abstain from the eating of flesh and luxuries for two weeks in each year; denounced second marriages, and, while allowing the legitimacy of a first marriage, expressed more or less preference for celibacy, Regarding the Church as properly the assembly of the holy, the Montanists argued for a stern treatment of those who violated its sanctity. For lesser sins, committed after baptism and reception into the Church, there must be a show of radical repentance; while mortal sins, such as adultery and apostasy, committed by one in these holy relations, must be punished by irremediable excommunication. God may, perhaps, pardon one thus sundered from Christian fellowship; but the Church is not authorized to proclaim His pardon by restoring the culprit to its communion. In all this, great moral earnestness may be discerned, but also an excessive rigor and spirit of legality.

Through repelling Montanism, the Catholic Church reproduced some of its peculiarities. The infallibility claimed for the Montanist prophets came finally to be asserted of the episcopal hierarchy, and practically was credited in the latter, as much as ever it was in the former, with the power to add to the Scripture revelation. Again, the ascetic tendencies of Montanism found a parallel, or rather were transcended, in the wide-spread system of Monasticism, which came to be treated by the Catholic Church as a favored child.

Discipline

III. - DISCIPLINE.

Christ's deliverance of the keys to the apostles vested in them the full power of administering church discipline, from every thing connected with the reception of members to the extreme act of excommunicating from Christian fellowship. His assurance that whatsoever they should bind or loose on earth should be bound or loosed in heaven (Matt. xviii. 18), was based on the assumption that in their official acts they would be under the full guidance of the Holy Spirit. The power of the keys passed from the apostles to the Church. This power it is bound to exercise, as it is bound to give to its members the benefit of good government. The conditions of the right exercise of this power are the same as they were in its first bearers. A God-fearing, spiritual Church, earnestly intent upon ascertaining the mind of the Spirit, may hope to obtain the Divine approbation in its acts of administration and discipline; in other words, to have its binding and loosing upon earth confirmed in heaven. The promise of Christ supposes a competency which is no attachment of official position as such, no peculiar treasure of an ecclesiastical aristocracy which is passed along by the magical connection of one link with another, but an outgrowth of spiritual endowments. In the hands of a corrupt Church, the use of the keys is sure to be at the same time an abuse of them, —a binding and loosing in large part contrary to that which transpires in heaven. Even under the best conditions, an element of fallibility is likely to be mixed with the fulfillment of this serious responsibility.

As the Church of the first centuries was a purely religious organization, no penalty was thought of beyond that of excommunication. This was imposed for heresy, apostasy, crimes, and gross immoralities. The excommunicated was expected to give special tokens of repentance before restoration. Gradually a sort of established penitential discipline grew up for this class, and they were allowed only by successive stages to regain the full privileges of church fellowship. At the beginning of the fourth century, four stages appear to have been distinctly recognized; (1) that of the “weepers,” who bewailed their sins at the church-doors;
(2) that of the "hearers," who were allowed to hear the Scripture lessons and the sermon, but were to leave the sanctuary before the sacramental service; (3) that of the “kneelers,” who might attend the public prayers only in a kneeling posture; (4) that of the "standers," who were permitted to remain, in a standings posture, through the entire service, but were not yet privileged to partake of the communion.

The question of greater or less strictness in discipline was in itself a question of high importance, and its significance was greatly enhanced by the number of those who lapsed or apostatized in the great persecutions. Some would delay restoration longer than others. Some would deny restoration altogether to those who were guilty of certain grievous sins. The Church at large was never committed to this extreme, but there are indications that it early adopted a strict code in dealing with offenders against its own sanctity. Several writers speak as though it were an accepted maxim, that only a single fall after baptism can claim any indulgence. “If any one,” says Hermas, “is tempted by the devil, and sins after that great and holy calling in which the Lord has called his people to everlasting life, he has opportunity to repent but once.” [Command., iv. 3.] Tertullian in like manner observes that after baptism the door is opened but once to repentance. [De Pœnit., vii. Compare Clement ot Alexandria, Strom., ii. 13.] “In the graver kinds of crimes,” says Origen, “piece for repentance is granted only once.” [Hom. in Lev., xv. 2.] The usual practice of the Church he represents to have been as follows: “The Christians lament as dead those who have been vanquished by licentiousness or ally other sin, because they are lost and dead to God; and as being rises from the dead (if they manifest a becoming change) they receive them afterwards, at some future time, after a greater interval than in the case of those who were admitted at first, but not placing in any office or post of rank in the Church of God those who, after professing the gospel, lapsed and fell.” [Cont. Celsum, iii. 51.] A greater rigor was advocated by the Montanists, and found supporters in various quarters. As already stated, a canon of the Council of Elvira denied all hope of restoration to those who had sacrificed to idols. Tertullian, in the later, or Montanist, stage of his belief, affirmed that the Church is never authorized to restore those who have been expelled on account of such gross sins as adultery, fornication, murder, apostasy, and blasphemy. [De Pudicit., i., ii., xix.] On the other hand, the Roman bishops in the time of Tertullian began to distinguish themselves as the advocates of mildness. According to Hippolytus, who favored severity, mildness degenerated into laxity in the case of the Roman bishop Callistus; and he credits him with comparing the Church to the ark of Noah, in which were all manner of unclean animals as well as the clean. [Philos., ix. 7.] Not long after Callistus, opposition to the milder régime culminated at Rome in the Novatian schism. Cyprian, who was contemporary with these developments at the great capital, inclined to an intermediate position. While he advocated suitable delay in the restoration of the lapsed, he would deny to none the hope of being ultimately admitted to the fellowship of the Church.

Confession of sins was a matter of frequent injunction. But in most cases the injunction had reference only to a penitential acknowledgment of sins before the congregation. Where the clergy were designated as the proper recipients of confession, they were so designated on the twofold ground that they were the most competent spiritual advisers and the proper overseers of discipline. Auricular confession to a priest, as the common obligation of all Christians, and the essential condition of absolution, was a thing foreign to the thought of the early Church. By absolution, apart from baptism, was understood, in the main, simply a loosing from ecclesiastical censures. In this, to be sure, the bishop took a lending part, but he did not stand alone: the whole congregation joined in the prayer for the penitent, [Cons. Apost., ii. 41.] after which the bishop gave the benediction as a fitting pledge of restoration and as an invocation of divine grace. Even Cyprian, who wits perhaps more deeply tinged with sacerdotalism than any other prominent writer of the period, did not materially transcend this view of the episcopal, or priestly, absolution. He speaks only of those who had been cut off from the Church for known offenses as having occasion to come to the priestly tribunal; and the prerogative which he assigns to the priest in relation to such, so far as their standing with God is concerned, is that of an intercessor offering sacrifices, which, as being well-pleasing to God, may solicit remission from Him. Beyond this,the priest stands between the penitent and God, only as he is the doorkeeper of the Church, slid the Church is the way to God. No man, says Cyprian, can usurp the divine prerogative in the forgiveness of sins. “The Lord alone can have mercy. He alone can bestow pardon for sins which have been committed against Himself.” [De Lapsis, xvii.] Quite as remote from the theory of judicial absolution is the language of Firmilian. Among the occasions, he says, for the yearly assembling of prelates and priests is this, “that some remedy may be sought for by repentance for lapsed brethren, and for those wounded by the devil after the saving laver, not as though they obtained remission of sins from us, but that by our means they may be converted to the understanding of their sins, and may be compelled to give fuller satisfaction to the Lord.” [Epist., Ixxiv. 4 (or lxxv.), in works of Cyprian. Firmilian, it is true, in the same epistle speaks of the apostolic prerogative in the forgiveness of sins as having passed to the apostolic churches and their bishops. But, as the context shows, this is only another way of saying that the Catholic Church is the only true Church, the only one having a valid baptism, which is the rite of remission, the only one, therefore, which can give sure promise of remission. His words are no indication of an already existing sacrament of penance with its judicial sentence.] It is in the light of this statement that the office of penitentiary presbyter, which, as we learn from the historian Socrates, had place in some of the churches after the Decian persecution, is to be interpreted. [A further consideration of this will be found in the next period.] Origen, while he emphasized the principle that the priest should be consulted as a spiritual adviser, was far from conceding to him a power to absolve from sins in simple virtue of his office. [In Matt. Tom., xii. 14; Hom. in Lev., v. 4.] Still, it must be allowed that the third century supplied in no small measure a basis for the later doctrine of priestly absolution. Not to speak of the general growth of sacerdotal conceptions, the stress which Cyprian and others placed upon the catholic unity was of the nature of such a basis. In proportion as they made union with the Catholic Church an indispensable condition of salvation, end assigned to the priest the position of doorkeeper in that Church, they inculcated the notion of dependence upon priestly mediation.