As we have seen, theology in general took form in the struggle with heretical or divergent points of view. And so it was with the concept of the church; it developed, in part at least, as a result of opposition from Gnosticism and other foreign schools of thought.
The development which took place in this area during the first period of church history signified that a more distinct pattern of ecclesiastical organization was emerging and also that ideas designed to justify and support this external consolidation of congregational life were being brought to perfection. At the same time different conceptions of the church’s essence, its holiness, and its relation to the external organization were contending with one another.
Ignatius, who was put to death by the Romans early in the second century, emphasized the importance of the episcopal office as the rallying force within the church. The Gnostics, with their false teachings, threatened to destroy the faith and unity of the church. Therefore the faithful were called upon to close ranks around the bishops, who succeeded the apostles as the leaders of the congregations. The bishops assumed this position because they represented the apostolic tradition and thereby guaranteed purity of doctrine and an unbroken connection with the apostles. It is by divine ordinance that each congregation is united under a single head, as the apostles were united around Christ. The church is one, holy, and universal because it preserves the true apostolic tradition. And this unity is embodied in the bishops. Another idea attributed to Ignatius is that the unity of the church is explained by the fact that it is the one and only administrator of the means of grace. The sacraments constitute the church as well as the Word, the pure teaching, and these make it necessary for the faithful to hold together around the episcopal office. Other theologians expressed these same ideas, which represent the early Eastern tradition (e.g., Irenaeus).
The Roman concept of the church, on the other hand, was developed later and chiefly on Western soil. The question of the church assumed a central position in the West, too, but for a different reason than in the East. The development of the church concept in the West was conditioned by and joined together with a number of different problems relative to both ecclesiastical theory, and practice. The Roman concept took form as the result of long-standing discussions concerning such matters as penance, the holiness of the church, and the validity of heretical baptism.
The basic aspects of the theory and practice of penance which characterized the early church reappeared in the writings of Tertullian. It must be pointed out that this concept of penance is different from that which is held by Protestants. The older Protestant tradition described penance as the work of Law and Gospel, whereby man is crushed by the Law and raised up by the Gospel. Penance was thus defined in terms of contrition and faith. As Tertullian saw it, penance is the way for man to regain peace with God. God becomes angry with the sinner, and He punishes sin according to His norm of justice. But in His grace He has made it possible for man to receive forgiveness and to live again in a right relationship with God. This “way out” is the act of penance, which is looked upon, to a certain degree, as a work of merit, appeasing the wrath of God. It consists of contrition, confession, and satisfaction. The first penance is associated with Baptism, which is a confirmation of the forgiveness of sin. After they are baptized, Christians are to avoid obvious sins. If they should fall, however, they can be restored on the strength of a second act of penance. It was thought that there could be but one more act of penance subsequent to baptism. Originally Tertullian held that a second penance might be possible even for mortal sins, but when he became a Montanist he insisted that those who committed mortal sin after baptism could not perform an act of penance. In fact, it was the lax position of the church on this problem that prompted Tertullian to join the Montanists.
The thorniest problem related to the practice of penance had to do with the possibility of a second act of penance. Penance was compared by some to a plank in the water which Christians, after making shipwreck of their faith, could take hold of. But others adopted the stricter view of Tertullian and held that penance for such mortal sins as idolatry, murder, and adultery was excluded.
It was in this situation that Bishop Calixtus of Rome (217–22) issued an ordinance which permitted a second penance even in cases of mortal sin. In view of the fact that Christ had mercy on the adulteress, he felt that the clergy could continue to give absolution for grave sins (though not for murder and idolatry). Calixtus claimed that the bishops had the right to assume responsibility for the practice of penance and to make the necessary related decisions. Penance came to be looked upon, therefore, as something over which the church had jurisdiction, and it was placed in the hands of the bishops.
But Calixtus was opposed by Tertullian and Hippolytus, both of whom demanded a stricter interpretation. They said that only God could forgive sins, and they rejected the opinion that the bishops (as the successors of Peter) had such power. The older, original tradition is reflected in this criticism by those who opposed the embryonic hierarchical tendencies and sought at the same time to maintain a more rigorous concept of penance.
It was Cyprian, bishop of Carthage (d. 258), who continued to develop the doctrine of penance and to lay the foundation for the Roman concept of the church. The Decian persecution of the middle of the third century brought a serious problem to the fore in this connection: Could those who fell away under the pressure of persecution be received back into the church again? Those who were able to produce a statement from a fellow church member who remained firm in the faith and yet escaped death (the so-called “confessors”) were received back into congregational fellowship. The confessors were accorded a special place in the church at that time; it was thought that the Holy Spirit dwelt within them to an unusual degree. This custom threatened to degenerate, and Cyprian asserted that the bishops alone were in a position to render judgment in such matters. Arbitrary decisions, arrived at without episcopal consent, could do harm to the church. The authority of the law and ecclesiastical ordinances took precedence over the purely spiritual authority of the martyrs.
Prominent among those who opposed Cyprian was Novatian in Rome. He insisted on a stricter practice of penance and did not wish to receive back into the church those who had fallen away. As Novatian saw it, the church was to be composed of those who were, without question, holy. The holiness of the church was to be found not only in the sacraments but also in the holiness of its members. He finally broke away from the church, but the organization he founded never became very significant.
A synod of bishops in Carthage accepted Cyprian’s point of view as the correct one. It was agreed here that the bishops had the right to decide whether or not the lapsed should be readmitted into the church and be given absolution. It was in connection with this question that Cyprian developed his doctrine of the church. The new element in his thought is not to be found in what he said about penance; it is rather this, that he assigned a higher authority to the bishops than to the confessors and thereby contributed powerfully to the centralization of the church around the episcopal office. Cyprian could see no difference between the authority of this office and that of the Holy Spirit; to him, the bishops are the bearers of the Spirit. Spirit and office belong together, and those who are truly spiritual will subordinate themselves to those in the episcopal office. Cyprian looked upon this office as the basis of the church.
Cyprian also supported the hierarchical tendency which conceived of the Lords Supper as a sacrificial act, with the bishop offering the sacrifice to God in place of Christ.
The bishop, therefore, stands at the head of the congregation as Christ’s representative. Cyprian also believed, in consequence of the foregoing, that each congregation should have but one bishop, inasmuch as this office represents the unity of the church. “There is one man for the time priest in the church, and for the time judge in the stead of Christ” (Epistle 59 [54], 5). He did not mean by this that one bishop could dominate all of the others; he simply meant that each congregation was to be united under a single bishop. The whole of the church of Christ is to be found in each congregation. As it turned out, however, his ideas contributed to the assumption of “primacy” on the part of the bishops of Rome. This claim began to be made in Cyprian’s era, and it subsequently resulted in the papal doctrine—that the pope is the vicar of Christ on earth.
Cyprian looked upon Peter as the symbol of the church’s unity (cf. Matt. 16:18). But he also felt that the other apostles possessed the same degree of authority. And in opposing those who asserted the Roman primacy, he referred (among other things) to Gal. 2, where we are told that Paul stood up to Peter and rebuked him.
But one of Cyprian’s contemporaries, Bishop Stephen of Rome (254–57), concluded that the bishop of Rome, who was the successor of Peter, the chief apostle, thereby had supremacy over all of the other bishops. He assumed this power for himself and dramatized his claim by demanding obedience from the other bishops and by personally appointing bishops in Gaul and Spain. He claimed “the chair of Peter” on the ground of succession, and he spoke of the “primacy” of the bishop of Rome.
Cyprian and others opposed this claim, but Stephen won out. Cyprian believed that the bishop was supreme in the church; not, however, simply on the strength of an external succession but also as the bearer of the Spirit. The bishop represented the church, and all Christians were to subject themselves to this office. Those who were outside this fellowship could not be Christian, even if they were martyrs or otherwise renowned for their faith, “because there is no salvation outside of the church” (Epistle 73 [72], 21) and because “He who does not have the church as his mother cannot have God as his Father.” (De ecclesiae unitate, 6)
The validity of the baptism given by heretics was another question of significance in this connection. Were those baptized by heretics properly baptized, or should they be rebaptized if they returned to the fellowship of the church? Different opinions prevailed within Christendom. Cyprian concluded, on the basis of his concept of the church, that the baptism given by heretics was not valid and that persons so baptized should be rebaptized upon returning to the church. The spirit of regeneration, which Baptism confers, can be provided only by the bishop who possesses the gifts of the Spirit. A heretical baptism is not a work of the Spirit; it is a “sordid and profane dipping.” (Epistle 73 [72], 6)
Stephen of Rome, and others, held a contradictory point of view. They felt that baptism given by a heretic is valid, provided it is done in the name of the Triune God. The use of water and Christ's words of institution are the essentials of Baptism. Where Christ's name and water are used, the baptismal act is effective, regardless of the attitude of the one who performs the rite.
In the one case, the emphasis was placed on the Spirit - emphasized episcopacy as the church’s unifying element; in the other, on the institution and the office as such. This latter position was more agreeable to the concept of the church which gradually became dominant. The question of heretical baptism arose later on in a different context—in the struggle between Augustine and the Donatists.
The development which took place in this area during the first period of church history signified that a more distinct pattern of ecclesiastical organization was emerging and also that ideas designed to justify and support this external consolidation of congregational life were being brought to perfection. At the same time different conceptions of the church’s essence, its holiness, and its relation to the external organization were contending with one another.
Ignatius, who was put to death by the Romans early in the second century, emphasized the importance of the episcopal office as the rallying force within the church. The Gnostics, with their false teachings, threatened to destroy the faith and unity of the church. Therefore the faithful were called upon to close ranks around the bishops, who succeeded the apostles as the leaders of the congregations. The bishops assumed this position because they represented the apostolic tradition and thereby guaranteed purity of doctrine and an unbroken connection with the apostles. It is by divine ordinance that each congregation is united under a single head, as the apostles were united around Christ. The church is one, holy, and universal because it preserves the true apostolic tradition. And this unity is embodied in the bishops. Another idea attributed to Ignatius is that the unity of the church is explained by the fact that it is the one and only administrator of the means of grace. The sacraments constitute the church as well as the Word, the pure teaching, and these make it necessary for the faithful to hold together around the episcopal office. Other theologians expressed these same ideas, which represent the early Eastern tradition (e.g., Irenaeus).
The Roman concept of the church, on the other hand, was developed later and chiefly on Western soil. The question of the church assumed a central position in the West, too, but for a different reason than in the East. The development of the church concept in the West was conditioned by and joined together with a number of different problems relative to both ecclesiastical theory, and practice. The Roman concept took form as the result of long-standing discussions concerning such matters as penance, the holiness of the church, and the validity of heretical baptism.
The basic aspects of the theory and practice of penance which characterized the early church reappeared in the writings of Tertullian. It must be pointed out that this concept of penance is different from that which is held by Protestants. The older Protestant tradition described penance as the work of Law and Gospel, whereby man is crushed by the Law and raised up by the Gospel. Penance was thus defined in terms of contrition and faith. As Tertullian saw it, penance is the way for man to regain peace with God. God becomes angry with the sinner, and He punishes sin according to His norm of justice. But in His grace He has made it possible for man to receive forgiveness and to live again in a right relationship with God. This “way out” is the act of penance, which is looked upon, to a certain degree, as a work of merit, appeasing the wrath of God. It consists of contrition, confession, and satisfaction. The first penance is associated with Baptism, which is a confirmation of the forgiveness of sin. After they are baptized, Christians are to avoid obvious sins. If they should fall, however, they can be restored on the strength of a second act of penance. It was thought that there could be but one more act of penance subsequent to baptism. Originally Tertullian held that a second penance might be possible even for mortal sins, but when he became a Montanist he insisted that those who committed mortal sin after baptism could not perform an act of penance. In fact, it was the lax position of the church on this problem that prompted Tertullian to join the Montanists.
The thorniest problem related to the practice of penance had to do with the possibility of a second act of penance. Penance was compared by some to a plank in the water which Christians, after making shipwreck of their faith, could take hold of. But others adopted the stricter view of Tertullian and held that penance for such mortal sins as idolatry, murder, and adultery was excluded.
It was in this situation that Bishop Calixtus of Rome (217–22) issued an ordinance which permitted a second penance even in cases of mortal sin. In view of the fact that Christ had mercy on the adulteress, he felt that the clergy could continue to give absolution for grave sins (though not for murder and idolatry). Calixtus claimed that the bishops had the right to assume responsibility for the practice of penance and to make the necessary related decisions. Penance came to be looked upon, therefore, as something over which the church had jurisdiction, and it was placed in the hands of the bishops.
But Calixtus was opposed by Tertullian and Hippolytus, both of whom demanded a stricter interpretation. They said that only God could forgive sins, and they rejected the opinion that the bishops (as the successors of Peter) had such power. The older, original tradition is reflected in this criticism by those who opposed the embryonic hierarchical tendencies and sought at the same time to maintain a more rigorous concept of penance.
It was Cyprian, bishop of Carthage (d. 258), who continued to develop the doctrine of penance and to lay the foundation for the Roman concept of the church. The Decian persecution of the middle of the third century brought a serious problem to the fore in this connection: Could those who fell away under the pressure of persecution be received back into the church again? Those who were able to produce a statement from a fellow church member who remained firm in the faith and yet escaped death (the so-called “confessors”) were received back into congregational fellowship. The confessors were accorded a special place in the church at that time; it was thought that the Holy Spirit dwelt within them to an unusual degree. This custom threatened to degenerate, and Cyprian asserted that the bishops alone were in a position to render judgment in such matters. Arbitrary decisions, arrived at without episcopal consent, could do harm to the church. The authority of the law and ecclesiastical ordinances took precedence over the purely spiritual authority of the martyrs.
Prominent among those who opposed Cyprian was Novatian in Rome. He insisted on a stricter practice of penance and did not wish to receive back into the church those who had fallen away. As Novatian saw it, the church was to be composed of those who were, without question, holy. The holiness of the church was to be found not only in the sacraments but also in the holiness of its members. He finally broke away from the church, but the organization he founded never became very significant.
A synod of bishops in Carthage accepted Cyprian’s point of view as the correct one. It was agreed here that the bishops had the right to decide whether or not the lapsed should be readmitted into the church and be given absolution. It was in connection with this question that Cyprian developed his doctrine of the church. The new element in his thought is not to be found in what he said about penance; it is rather this, that he assigned a higher authority to the bishops than to the confessors and thereby contributed powerfully to the centralization of the church around the episcopal office. Cyprian could see no difference between the authority of this office and that of the Holy Spirit; to him, the bishops are the bearers of the Spirit. Spirit and office belong together, and those who are truly spiritual will subordinate themselves to those in the episcopal office. Cyprian looked upon this office as the basis of the church.
Cyprian also supported the hierarchical tendency which conceived of the Lords Supper as a sacrificial act, with the bishop offering the sacrifice to God in place of Christ.
The bishop, therefore, stands at the head of the congregation as Christ’s representative. Cyprian also believed, in consequence of the foregoing, that each congregation should have but one bishop, inasmuch as this office represents the unity of the church. “There is one man for the time priest in the church, and for the time judge in the stead of Christ” (Epistle 59 [54], 5). He did not mean by this that one bishop could dominate all of the others; he simply meant that each congregation was to be united under a single bishop. The whole of the church of Christ is to be found in each congregation. As it turned out, however, his ideas contributed to the assumption of “primacy” on the part of the bishops of Rome. This claim began to be made in Cyprian’s era, and it subsequently resulted in the papal doctrine—that the pope is the vicar of Christ on earth.
Cyprian looked upon Peter as the symbol of the church’s unity (cf. Matt. 16:18). But he also felt that the other apostles possessed the same degree of authority. And in opposing those who asserted the Roman primacy, he referred (among other things) to Gal. 2, where we are told that Paul stood up to Peter and rebuked him.
But one of Cyprian’s contemporaries, Bishop Stephen of Rome (254–57), concluded that the bishop of Rome, who was the successor of Peter, the chief apostle, thereby had supremacy over all of the other bishops. He assumed this power for himself and dramatized his claim by demanding obedience from the other bishops and by personally appointing bishops in Gaul and Spain. He claimed “the chair of Peter” on the ground of succession, and he spoke of the “primacy” of the bishop of Rome.
Cyprian and others opposed this claim, but Stephen won out. Cyprian believed that the bishop was supreme in the church; not, however, simply on the strength of an external succession but also as the bearer of the Spirit. The bishop represented the church, and all Christians were to subject themselves to this office. Those who were outside this fellowship could not be Christian, even if they were martyrs or otherwise renowned for their faith, “because there is no salvation outside of the church” (Epistle 73 [72], 21) and because “He who does not have the church as his mother cannot have God as his Father.” (De ecclesiae unitate, 6)
The validity of the baptism given by heretics was another question of significance in this connection. Were those baptized by heretics properly baptized, or should they be rebaptized if they returned to the fellowship of the church? Different opinions prevailed within Christendom. Cyprian concluded, on the basis of his concept of the church, that the baptism given by heretics was not valid and that persons so baptized should be rebaptized upon returning to the church. The spirit of regeneration, which Baptism confers, can be provided only by the bishop who possesses the gifts of the Spirit. A heretical baptism is not a work of the Spirit; it is a “sordid and profane dipping.” (Epistle 73 [72], 6)
Stephen of Rome, and others, held a contradictory point of view. They felt that baptism given by a heretic is valid, provided it is done in the name of the Triune God. The use of water and Christ's words of institution are the essentials of Baptism. Where Christ's name and water are used, the baptismal act is effective, regardless of the attitude of the one who performs the rite.
In the one case, the emphasis was placed on the Spirit - emphasized episcopacy as the church’s unifying element; in the other, on the institution and the office as such. This latter position was more agreeable to the concept of the church which gradually became dominant. The question of heretical baptism arose later on in a different context—in the struggle between Augustine and the Donatists.
No comments:
Post a Comment