THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY 239 • C63r ■msssm' Return this book on or before the Latest Date stamped below. A charge is made on all overdue books. University of Illinois Library jijov j 8 p':. M32—30715 THE RULE OF FAITH IN THE ECCLESIASTICAL WRITINGS OF THE FIRST TWO CENTURIES AN HISTORICO-APOLOGETICAL INVESTIGATION aDififflfertation SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE SACRED SCIENCES AT THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR IN SACRED THEOLOGY BY THE REV. ALPHONSE JOHN COAN, O. F. M., S. T. L., OF THE PROVINCE OF THE SACRED HEART, ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI THE UBKAHr OF THE JUL ■§ — WPi UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA WASHINGTON, D. C. 1924 V Nihil Obstat. CoNRADiNUS Wallbraux, 0. F. M., Lector G’lis. Leo Oboleyer, 0. F. M., S. T. D. Censores Deputati. Imprimi Potest. Martinus Strub, 0. F. M. Minister Provincialis. Sti. Ludovici, Mo., die 17. Aprilis^ 1924. Nihil Obstat. J. Bruaeau, S. S., S. T. D. Censor Deputatus. Imprimatur. Michael J. Curled;, D. D. Archiepiscopus Baltimorensis. Baltimorae, Md., die 18. Aprilis, 1924. 5 . 3^1 C- UO n. TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE . V INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 1 1. The Catholic Rule of Faith. 2 2. The Protestant Rule of Faith. 4 3. The Point of Controversy. 0 CHAPTER L ST. CLEMENT OF ROME. 8 1. St. Clement, an Important Witness.. . 8 2. Letter to the Corinthians . 9 3. Objection of Protestant Critics. 11 4. Rule of Faith in Clement’s Letter. 16 a) The Letter, an Authoritative Message. 16 b) The Letter, an Excellent Proof for the Divine Authority of the Bishops. 21 e) An Argument for the Apostolic Succession. 24 d) No Argument for Congregational Government. 25 e) The Teaching Authority of the Bishops. 29 CHAPTER II. THE DIDACHE. 30 1. As A Testimony. 30 2. Rule of Faith in the Did ache... 34 a) The Bishops and Deacons not Community Officials. 38 b) The Bishops and Deacons not primarily Administrative Officials . 39 c) The Bishops and Deacons not Dependent upon the Apos¬ tles, Prophets and Teachers of the Did ache for their Teaching Authority. 41 CHAPTER III. ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH. 45 1. As A Witness to the Rule of Faith . 45 2. The Ignatian Question. 47 3. Authenticity . 49 4. The Rule of Faith in the Ignatian Letters . 50 ^ a) Heresy Denounced. 50 b) Submission to the Bishops. 54 tr a. CHAPTER IV. ST. POLYCARP OF SMYRNA 1. As A Witness for the Rule of Faith. 2. Letter to the Philippians.. 3. Rule of Faith in Polycarp’s Letter. 62 62 65 66 551554 111 IV COXTENTS PAGE CHAPTER V. ST. IRENAEUS OF LYONS . 69 1. As A Witness to the Rule of Faith. 69 2, Rule of Faith in the Work Adversus Haereses . 75 CHAPTER VI. TERTULLIAN . 94 1. As A Witness for the Rule of Faith. 94 2. De Praescriptione Haereticorum . 95 3. Rule of Faith According to Tertullian. 96 SUMMARY. 108 BIBLIOGRAPHY 111 PEEFACE. The following study on the Enle of Faith centers around the principal ecclesiastical writings of the first two centuries. The writer purposely omits the argu¬ ments, so frequently advanced from Scripture on this subject, and confines himself to the evidence found in the works of St. Clement of Eome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Polycarp of Smyrna, St. Irenaens of Gaul and Ter- tullian of Carthage, those great champions of the heroic age of the Church. At the present time when doubt and perplexity is aris¬ ing in the minds of many, regarding even the very funda¬ mental truths of Christianity, it may be of interest to some earnest seekers of truth to know what the heirs and successors of the Apostles held and taught on that all- important question. Why do I believe*? The writer takes this occasion to acknowledge his indebtedness to the Very Eev. Charles F. Aiken, S. T. D., under whose guidance and encouragement this mono¬ graph was undertaken and completed. He is also grate¬ ful to the Very Eev. Daniel J. Kennedy, 0. P., S. T. M., and the Eev. Heinrich Schumacher, S. T. D., whose courses he attended at the Catholic University of America. He wishes to express at the same time his sincere thanks to his Very Eev. Provincial, Fr. Martin Strub, 0. F. M., for his kind interest and assistance. Mt. St. Sepulchre, Washington, D. C., Feast of St. Joseph, 1924. V INTRODUCTOEY CHAPTER. The Rule of Faith. Christians are divided into two great camps concern¬ ing the rule of faith. The one rallies round the Catholic standard, the other round the Protestant. The one insists on the authority of a divinely established Church, the other clings to private interpretation of the Bible. No little controversy has been carried on between the two parties down through the last three centuries. Catholics maintained that Protestants had broken away from the Apostolic faith and traditions; Protestants declared that the Catholic hierarchy had distorted Christ’s ideal, had robbed the Christians of that primitive spiritual freedom and established an autocracy incompatible with the mind of Christ and the Apostles. Until the last part of the nineteenth century Protestants carried on a continual warfare against the authority of the Church. For arguments they frequently resorted to ridicule and calumny. In recent times this procedure has been dropped. The Protestant critic today pursues an entirely different course. He goes back to the early writ¬ ings of the Church and seeks a vindication of his stand¬ point in the history of the primitive Church. This method is both enlightening and gratifying. It is the right course of procedure, for the early ecclesiastical writings, com¬ ing as they do, from men closely associated with the Apostles themselves, are invaluable guides in doctrinal disputes. Protestant critics, however, do not find the testimony of the early Church documents favorable to the Catholic position. They see in them rather an argument for Protestantism. 1 2 It is the purpose of the present work, therefore, to examine the early ecclesiastical literature and ascertain, whether it bears witness to Catholicism or Protestantism, in other words, whether it is an argument for the Cath¬ olic rule of faith or for the Protestant. The Catholic Rule of Faith. Before entering upon the problem, however, it is im¬ portant to know just what is meant by the rule of faith. At the same time it is necessary to have a clear notion of the Catholic rule of faith and of the Protestant, and to know wherein lies the real bone of contention. The word rule (Latin, regula, — Creek, fcavo)v) means a standard or measure, with which something can be tested. A rule of faith, therefore, signifies a standard for our faith, a norm by which we can know with certainty, what we must believe in order to be saved. It is something extrinsic to our faith. The Catholic rule of faith is expressed in one of the decrees of the Vatican Council: ‘‘ Forro fide divina et catholica ea omnia credenda sunt, quae in verho Dei scripto vel tradito continentur et ah Ecclesia sive solemni judicio sive ordinario et universali magisterio tamquam divinitus revelata credenda proponuntur.’’ ^ This definition contains two important elements. First, it indicates the sources of our belief, namely. Scripture and Tradition,— quae in verho Dei scripto vel tradito continentur.^^ This is called in the language of the theologians the remote rule of faith, regula fidei remota. Secondly, it gives the reason for our belief, namely, the teaching authority of the Church. The Church draws her doctrine from the teaching of the Apostles as manifested in the Scriptures and Tradition. These doctrines she proposes to the faithful either by a solemn decision or by the ordinary and universal magis- ^ Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion Symbolorum (1922 ), p. 476, no. 1792. % 3 teriiim,— ‘‘et ah Ecclesia sive solemni judicio sive ordi- nario et universali magisterio tamquam divinitus reve- lata credenda proponuntur.^^ This is known as the prox¬ imate rule of faith, the regula fidei proxima. The Apostles were commissioned by Christ not to write the Gospel, but to preach it. ‘‘Going therefore, teach ye all nations.’’ ^ “Go ye into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature.”^ That the Apos¬ tles obeyed this divine mandate is evident from numerous passages in the Acts of the Apostles ^ and from many instances in the Letters of St. Paul. The latter, for example, writes: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle”; ® “and the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also.” ® As Lightfoot remarks: “The Christian teachers in primitive ages were evangelists, not authors, preachers, not historians. The written literature was only the casual effilorescence of the spoken.”’^ The Apostles wrote only incidentally, and then for special grave reasons. They wrote not for the universal Church, but for individual communities. In some cases they wrote to individuals, as the Epistles of Sf. Paul to Timothy, Titus and Philemon testify. Besides only a few of the disciples wrote. Moreover, the doctrine of Christ was known before it was recorded by the evangelists, and the whole religion of Christ was active before one of them began to write. Hence Scripture alone cannot be the sole source of doctrine. It must be supplemented by Tradition. If the written Word were the sole rule of faith, then ^ Mt. xxviii, 19. ® Mark, xvi, 15. ^ Cfr. Acts, ii, iii, iv, v, viii, ix, xi, xiii, etc. ^ II Thess. ii, 14. ^ II Tim. ii, 2. Apostolio Fathers (1890), Part I, Vol. I, p. 1. 4 only those who can read would have a chance to be saved. A rule of faith, however, must be accessible to all. If Scripture alone were our only authority in doctrinal matters, then why are there so many difficulties in Holy Writ? Even St. Peter tells us that the Epistles of St. Paul contain ‘‘certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.’^^ But a rule of faith must be easy to ascertain. These are the arguments advanced by Catholics in defence of their standard of belief. And since the Church was the recipient of the apostolic teaching, since she has faithfully preserved and- zeal¬ ously guarded this doctrine down through the centuries, she is able to tell us what that teaching is. Since she has received the assurance of the special assistance of the Holy Ghost, she is able to give us the true interpre¬ tation of the apostolic doctrine. She is the authority. Hence it is on the authority of the Church that Catholics depend for their belief. Ask a Catholic why he believes in the Immaculate Conception, or why he holds the doc¬ trine of papal infallibility, and he will answer, “The Church teaches it.” The infallible, authoritative teach¬ ing voice of the Church is, therefore, the Catholic’s standard of belief, his rule of faith. The Protestant Rule of Faith. Very different, however, is the Protestant conception of the rule of faith. Protestants claim that the Bible, and the Bible only, interpreted by the judgment of the individual, is the rule of faith. The Augsburg Confes¬ sion, the first and most important Lutheran Symbol, does not mention the Bible principle, but it is nevertheless based upon it. The preface declares, that the Confession is “derived from the Holy Scriptures and pure Word of ® II Peter, iii, 16. 5 God/’^ The Form of Concord, however, is more ex¬ plicit. It begins: ^‘We believe, teach and confess that the only rule and norm, according to which all dogmas and all doctors ought to be esteemed and judged, is no other whatever than the prophetic and apostolic writings both of the Old and New Testaments.” That the Eeformed Churches make the Scripture their sole rule of faith is indicated in the First Helvetic Con¬ fession, composed in 1536 A. D. It expressly states, that the canonical Scripture alone perfectly contains the Word of God, the things handed down by the Holy Spirit, and proposed to the world by the prophets and Apostles, the most perfect and most ancient philosophy of all things, all piety, all reason of life. Its interpretation must be sought in itself, as it is the interpreter of itself, the guiding rule being charity and faith.And the Second Helvetic Confession adds, we endure no other judge in the cause of faith than God Himself, pronouncing through the Holy Scriptures, what is true, what is false, what must be done, what must be avoided.^^ The French Confession of Faith, prepared by Calvin and his pupil He Chandieu (1559 A. D.), also professes the same standard of belief. ^‘The Scriptures,” it says, ‘‘are the sure rule of faith and are known not so much by the common accord and consent of the Church as by the testimony and illumination of the Holy Spirit.” The same truth is expressed by the Westminster Con- ® S'chaff, P., Creeds of Christendom (1877), Vol. Ill, p. 4. Ihid., p. 931-94. ^^ Schaff, Op. cit., Vol. Ill, p. 211-212: ‘‘iScriptura canonica Verbum Dei, Spiritu Sancbo tradita, et per prophetas apostolosque mundo propo- sita, omnium perfectissima et antiquissima Philosophia, pietatem omnem, omnem vitae rationem sola perfecte continet. Hujus interpretatio ex ipsa sola petenda est, ut ipsa interpres sit sui, caritatis fideique regula moder- ante.” Idid., p. '239: Non alium sustinemus in causa fidei judicem, quam ipsum Deum, per Scripturas iSanctas pronunciantem, quid verum sit, quid falsum, quid sequendum, quidve fugiendum.” ^^Ihid., p. 361. 6 fession (1647 A. D.). ^^The authority of the Holy Scrip¬ ture for which it ought to he believed and obeyed, de- pendeth not upon the testimony of any man or Church, but wholly upon Grod (who is truth itself), the author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of Grod. Yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion « and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine author¬ ity thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts/’ Going down the centuries one finds that all the later and more modern sects base their doctrine on the same principle. In fact it can truly be said that they give even greater latitude to private interpretation. In defence of their rule of faith Protestants say, that the religion of Christ was preached by the Apostles and then committed to writing, and this writing has been handed down from one age to another. Now, they say, a rule of faith must be sufficiently plain and intelligible and certain. The Bible has these requisites. It is suffi¬ ciently clear, at least, on those points which are to be believed and practised. It is a sufficiently certain norm, for it contains the apostolic doctrine, and there is no reason to believe that the sacred books suffered any sub¬ stantial alteration. Since the Bible contains the whole preaching of the Apostles, it alone suffices. Tradition is not necessary. Nor is there any need of an authoritative teaching voice. Holy Scripture is the complete and sole rule of faith, both remote and proximate, both active and passive. The Point of Controversy. From the foregoing it is apparent that the controversy between the two religious elements centers round author¬ ity. The one rule of faith is based on the authority of the Church; the other, on the authority of the Bible, pri- Schaff, Op. cit., Vol. Ill, p. 602-603. 7 vately interpreted. The one is founded on the authori¬ tative teaching voice of the Church; the other, on what each individual thinks to be the voice of God contained in the Bible. Both sides find a vindication of their re¬ spective doctrine in the practice and teaching of the early Church. For that reason a study of the early ecclesias¬ tical writings may help clarify the problem. CHAPTER I. St. Clement of Rome. 1. St. element^ an Important Witness. An important witness for the rule of faith in the early Church is St. Clement of Rome. St. Clement, according to a very ancient list of popes made by Hegesippus at the time of Pope Anicetus (ca. 160), was the third suc¬ cessor of St. Peter to the See of Rome, i. e., the fourth pope. Eusebius reckons his pontificate from the twelfth year of Domitian’s reign to the third of Trajan’s (92- 101 A. D.).i Clement enjoyed peculiar prominence in the early Church, not only on account of his high position, but also on account of his relations to the Apostles Peter and Paul. St. Irenaeus tells us, that Clement ^saw the Apos¬ tles themselves, that he conversed with them, and that he had their preaching still ringing in his ears and had their tradition still present before his eyes, and that he was not the only one, but many others there were still who had been taught by the Apostles. ’ ^ Epiphanius also, probably on the testimony of Hegesippus, speaks of Clement as a contemporary of St. Peter and St. Paul.'"^ Besides, as Lightfoot remarks, ‘Hhe tradition that he was the disciple of one or both of these Apostles is early, constant and definite, and borne out by the character and contents of the epistle itself.”^ Being therefore, a dis¬ ciple of the two foremost Apostles and being conversant in their doctrine, he is an excellent witness to the teach- ^ Bistoria Ecclesiastica, III, 15, 34. 2 Adversus Eaereses, III, 3, 3. ® Eaereses, XXVII, 6. ^ Op. cit., Vol. I, p. 361. 8 9 ing of the Church of Rome in his day. As such he is looked upon hy contemporary and later writers. So highly, in fact, was he esteemed that he was believed by some ancient writers to have been the author of the Epis¬ tle to the Hebrews. The Clementine writings, evidently of a later period, were given out in his name. The posi¬ tion assigned to him in this romance ‘4s inexplicable,’’ says Lightfoot, “except on the supposition that he was known in the Church at large as an expositor of the apostolic doctrine, whether by authorship or by preach¬ ing or both. ’ ’ ^ 2. Letter to the Corinthians, St. Clement’s testimony regarding the rule of faith is to be found in his Epistle to the Corinthians. This work was occasioned by a disturbance in the Church of Cor¬ inth. A few ‘headstrong and self-willed’ men had arisen against their ecclesiastical superiors and driven them from office.® In consequence the community at Corinth was in great confusion (ch. 3), and those outside the Church had a pretext to ‘heap blasphemies on the name of the Lord’ (ch. 47). In order that peace be restored in the divided community, Clement wrote the Corinthians a long, fatherly letter, in which he inculcated the duties of meekness, humility and obedience and submission to law¬ ful, ecclesiastical authority. That Clement was the author of this letter there can be no doubt."^ The evidence in his favor is so strong, ® Op. cit., Vol. I, p. 3^61. ®Cfr. 1, 1, and 47. That the schism was due to a revolt of the office¬ bearers against the ecstatic ‘ spiritual ’ preachers rests on no satisfactory basis. There is no indication in the epistle that the preaching of the Word of God was carried on by the so-called pneumatici. Nor does the Letter give any reasons to suppose that the trouble was caused by disputes between a Pauline and an anti-Pauline party. Schwegler and Baur denied the authenticity as well as the integrity of the writing. They were ably refuted, however, by Bunsen and Ritschl. 10 that no fair-minded critic can reject it. There is in the first place the testimony of Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, who (ca. 170 A. D.) in his letter to Pope Soter (ca. 166- 170 A. D.) says: ‘‘Today we have celebrated the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your Letter. From it, whenever we read it, we shall always be able to draw advice, as also from the former Letter which was written to us by Clement: r^v Trporepav '^plv Sea KXrjpLevro^ ypa- 6laavj sc. i7rt(TTo\i]v.'^^^ This evidence is quite decisive. The letter comes from the Church of Corinth. It is sent to the Church of Rome. There is consequently the testimony of the two Churches concerned. Dionysius takes it as a matter of course that the epistle of Clement is well known in both communities. And the testimony is all the more important, since it mentions St. Clement’s letter inci¬ dentally. Then there is the testimony of St. Irenaeus (ca. 180 A. D.). St. Irenaeus associates Ihe letter with Clement’s name. In his work Adversus Haereses, III, 3, 3 we read: “In the time of this Clement, no small dissension, having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Cor¬ inthians (eVl TovTov ovv Tov KXyp,€Pro? . . . iireaTeCkev 17 ev *V(iypby eKKXrjala l/cavcoTari^v ypa^yp rot? exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles.” Clement of Alexandria (ca. 200 A. D.) is even more explicit;. He speaks of the letter as Clement’s at least four times.^ All later writers, as Origen, Eusebius, Cy¬ ril of Jerusalem, Basil of Alexandria and others, assign the epistle to Clement of Rome. Nor has the letter ever been assigned to anyone else. Clement, in view of his association with the Apostles and his prominent position ® Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., IV, 23, 11. The translation is taken from Bar- denhewer-Shahan’s Patrology (IQ-OS), p. 27. Literally dia KXrifxePTos means “ through ” Clement. ^Stromata, I, 7, 38; IV, 17-19; IV, 18, 113; VI, 8, 6.5. 11 in the Church, was certainly the logical man to write the work. Critics, therefore, are nnanimons at the present time in ascribing it to Clement of Rome. That the epistle is a faithful interpretation of the apos¬ tolic doctrine, is most reasonable to hold. Love for the Apostles would make Clement abhor any deviation from their teaching. Irenaeus assigns the greatest impor¬ tance to the letter.^^ And the reason is, as Lightfoot remarks, because it records ‘‘the traditional interpreta¬ tion of the apostolic teaching which prevailed in the great Church of Rome from the earliest times.’’ “In no sense does he regard it in itself as a primary source of truth.” “He describes not the source but the channel of the apostolic tradition, though the channel at the point where the stream issues from its sources.” The date commonly assigned to the letter is 95 or 96 A. D. Harnack says, that external and internal evidence place the epistle at the end of Domitian’s reign, namely, between the years 93 and 95, scarcely later.^^ The work has come down to us in two Greek codices, the Codex Alexandrinus and the Codex lerosolymitanus.^^ 3. Objection of Protestant Critics. While the great majority of Protestant critics admit the Clementine authorship, they declare at the same time that the letter is the work, not of an individual, but of the Roman community. They seek to justify their view by saying that Clement was merely ‘the spokesman,’ ‘the natural mouthpiece of the Church of Rome in its com¬ munication with a sister community. ’ Op. cit, III, 3, 3. “ Op. cit., Vol. I, p. 366. Geschichte der altcJiristlichen Literatur, II. Bd., Vol. I, p. 255. Cfr. Lightfoot’s Apostolic Fathers, Vol. I, p. 116 sq. Bardenhewer, Die Geschichte der altJcirchlichen Literatur (1913), Vol. I, p. 126; Gob- hardt-Harnack, Texte und Untersuchungen (1893), 11. Bd., p. 20 sq. Cfr. Lightfoot, Op. cit., Vol. I, p. 358 sq.; Marsh, Dictionary of the Apostolic Age (1916), Vol. I, p. 217., 2 12 The grounds for this hypothesis are, first, the letter nowhere claims to have been written by Clement. It is written in the name of the Roman community. ‘‘The Church of Grod, which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God which sojourned in Corinth^’ (ch. 1). Secondly, the plural form is used, ‘we consider,’ ‘re¬ ceive our counsel,’ ‘the words spoken by Him through us,’ ‘we shall be guiltless of this sin,’ etc. Thirdly, the early testimonies, e. g., of Hegesippus and Irenaeus are not explicit enough, and the words of Dio¬ nysius of Corinth (by, thru, by the hands of) is ambiguous, since it may mean anyone of three things, either the author or the amanuensis or the bearer of the letter. Clement of Alexandria (ca. 200 A. D.), they remind us, was the first to state expressly that Cle¬ ment of Rome was the author.^® Catholic and conservative Protestant critics, on the other hand, maintain that the letter is that of Clement, and not of the Church of Rome; the work of an individual, and not of a community. They refuse to reject an an¬ cient and time-honored tradition, for which there is so strong a body of evidence. “Many years before the earliest of the above-named writers flourished,” says Lightfoot, “Clement of Rome is regarded as an author; and the language used of him is only explained by the existence of such a letter commonly attributed to him.” Moreover, the objections raised against the Clemen¬ tine authorship can be readily solved. It is said that Clement nowhere mentions his name. It is true Cle¬ ment’s name does not occur. This omission, however, may have been a precautionary measure. The epistle was written just as the Domitian persecution was draw¬ ing to a close. There was still danger in the air. A man of Clement’s position would be a much-prized victim by Cfr. Lightfoot, Op. cit., Vol. I, p. 358. Op. cit., Vol. I, p. 359. 13 the governmeiit spies. By concealing his name in a letter of this kind, which must go all the way to Corinth and which might easily fall into the hands of government informers, Clement was only acting according to the rules of prudence. Nor was it necessary for him to sign his name. The letter was forwarded by messengers, through whom the Corinthians must have been told who was the author. It is true the epistle is written in the name of the Eo- man Church. Clement, however, was the chief authority in the Eoman Church, and when speaking officially, he might quite naturally say ^The Church of Rome,’ just as nowadays we sometimes speak of the Church of Rome meaning thereby the Pope. When a diocesan bishop makes a regulation for his diocese, we say the diocese has decreed this or that. The fact that the letter of Clement is 'written in the name of the Roman Church is by no means an argument, therefore, against Clementine authorship, but rather an argument in its favor; for no one, except the Bishop himself, would assume to write in the name of the Roman Church. According to Euse¬ bius some years later an epistle was written by Diony¬ sius, Bishop of Corinth, to the Romans and addressed to Pope Soter, Bishop of Rome at that time.^^ Pope Victor wrote to Polycrates, and from the answer of Polycrates, it seems most probable that Victor wrote in the name of the Roman Church. The remonstrance of Irenaeus makes it only too plain that the letter was that of Victor. It was for this very reason that Clement, writing an official letter in the name of the Roman Church, uses the plural form, as for example, ^we consider,’ ^receive our counsel,’ etc. The pluralis majestaticus was the appro¬ priate and customary form of an official letter. The third argument adduced against Clementine au¬ thorship rests on a few unwarranted conclusions. If the Hist. Eccles., IV, 23, 9. f 14 testimonies of Hegesippns, Dionysius of Corinth and Irenaeus are not sufficient to establish the Clementine authorship, it must at least be said that they are import¬ ant evidence in its favor. Eusebius, before citing some passages of Hegesippus tells us that Hegesippus ^ makes some remarks relating to the epistle of Clement fo the Corinthians,’ {^lerd nva irepl /jl€Vto<; tt / oo ? i7ricrTo\rj<; avrw elprj/jLeva}^ Eusebius does not quote the exact words, it is said, and one can not rely too much on Eusebius. There is no reason, however, to doubt Eusebius, especially since he does not contradict the evidence of other witnesses, but agrees with it. Dionysius of Corinth, it is argued, uses an ambiguous term Sta RXi^fievro^. Now it is unwarranted in this case to say that KXrJ/xez^ro? can have any other meaning than Clementine authorship. It cannot mean ‘the bearer of the letter,’ for the letter itself states, that Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito and Fortunatus were the ones entrusted with the letter. “Now send ye back speed¬ ily unto us our messengers Claudius Ephebus and Vale¬ rius Bito, together with Fortunatus also” (ch. 65, 1). Nor can it mean the amanuensis, because it was not cus¬ tomary to ascribe a work to the amanuensis. Caesar, Cicero and other writers of the time evidently employed amanuenses, but their books are not ascribed to the lat¬ ter. Clement, Bishop of Rome, was more than an amanu¬ ensis. The passage of Dionysius has only one satisfac¬ tory meaning, and that is, that Clement is the author. As to the testimony of Irenaeus to the effect that the Church of Rome sent a most sufficient letter to the Corinthians in the time of Clement, it should be read in conjunction with the evidence of Dionysius and Eusebius and Clement of Alexandria. Isolated from the context, this passage of Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. iii, 3, 3) may seem Op. cit., IV, 22, 11. 15 a weak argument, but read in connection with the whole context, it plainly bears witness to Clementine author¬ ship. If Clement is not taken to be the author of the work in the true sense of the word, how can one account for the fact that his name, and none other, has been asso¬ ciated with the letter? How can one account for the great mass of evidence and the constant tradition, which assigns the epistle to Clement? Moreover, the strong personal tone of the letter and the constant, uniform style of the whole, plainly show that the work is the composition not of a number of indi¬ viduals, but of one man. Paternal solicitude is evinced by the author throughout. In the very beginning he gives expression to his regret, because he is hindered from writing sooner. ‘^We consider that we have been some¬ what tardy in giving heed to the matters of dispute that have arisen among you, dearly beloved, . . (ch. 1). He grieves that the Corinthians, whose ‘‘name, once revered and renowned and lovely in the sight of all men, hath been greatly reviled’^ (ch. 1). It is with the loving memory of a father that he recounts their past goodness, their humility and obedience. “ Ye were sincere and sim¬ ple and free from malice one towards another. Every sedition and every schism was abominable to you’’ (ch. 2). He is continually exhorting and admonishing them. “These things, dearly beloved, we write, not only as ad¬ monishing you, but also as putting ourselves in remem¬ brance” (ch. 7). “Wherefore let us be obedient unto His excellent and glorious will,” (ch. 9) ; “Let us there¬ fore be lowly-minded, brethren, laying aside all arrogance and conceit and folly and anger, and let us do that which is written,” (ch. 13); “Therefore it is right and proper, brethren, that we should be obedient unto God,” (ch. 14); and thus he continues throughout the whole epistle. Clement identifies himself with the Corinthians. He is one of them. He is just as eager for their welfare as he is for his own. The paternal solicitude and fatherly atti- 16 tude would hardly be present, if the letter was the work of a number of individuals. Moreover the uniformity of istyle and form of expres¬ sion throughout excludes all thought of several authors. The same words, phrases and expressions are interwoven again and again throughout the letter, there is constant reference to the Old Testament, and Hebraisms abound in it. This uniformity of thought, tone and expression are arguments in favor of one individual author. 4. Rule of Faith in Clementes Letter. The Letter of Clement, then, is a good witness for the rule of faith. The work is not a doctrinal treatise. No mention is made of heretical tendencies. It deals with a disciplinary question. Hence the arguments for the sub¬ ject at issue are few and incidental, but for that very reason all the more convincing. a) The Letter, an Authoritative Message. A question, which confronts us at the very outset is, does the letter evince any trace of authority? This ques¬ tion is intimately connected with the subject in hand, and of importance for it. Catholic critics say, the epistle is an authoritative message. Non-Catholic writers maintain, that it is merely a letter of brotherly love, a letter of exhortation, written by a sister community. Thus Harnack writes: ^Ht (the Homan Church) felt bound, for conscience’ sake, to give a serious, brotherly admonition, conscious that God’s voice spoke through its words for peace, and that at the same time for the strict maintenance of respect towards the authority of the offi¬ cials. (Cp. xl. f.). Withal it never forgets that its place is merely to point out the right road to the Corinthians, not to lay commands upon them;^^ over and again it expresses most admirably its firm confidence that the Cp. esp. LVIII, 2, de^aade t^v avfx^ovX^v iifiwv — accept our counsel. 17 church knows the will of God and will bethink itself once more of what is the proper course (Cp. xl. 1, xlv. 2, liii. 3).”^^ Lange,Hatch,Lightfoot,^^ Pfleiderer, Rainy,^® Marsh,^"^ and others speak in similar strains. ^‘As a matter of principle, it was the business of any Christian community to step in and heal the breach,” but ^^as a matter of fact it was the Church of Rome which actually did so,” says Marsh.^® ‘‘Such an act,” he adds, “was characteristic of the early Roman Church. ’ ’ And Rainy remarks, ‘ ‘ that the Church of Rome from its position, the character of its membership, and the habits of thought and action naturally acquired in a great center of government, could interpose in such cases with advice which was likely to be wise, and felt entitled to deference.” Now, it is true the letter is for the most part one of exhortation. But at the same time it contains a marked tone of authority. This is evident from such passages as: “Ye therefore that laid the foundation of the sedi¬ tion, submit yourselves unto the presbyters {virord^T^Te Tot<: Trpeo-^vrepoL^) and receive chastisement unto repent¬ ance, bending the knees of your heart. Learn to submit yourselves {p^dOere vTrordaaeaOaL) ^ laying* aside the arro¬ gant and proud stubbornness of your tongue” (ch. 57). “Receive our counsel, and ye shall have no occasion of regret T^v crvp^ovX^v Kal earat dperapeXrjra vpiv),’^ (ch. 58). Indeed the phrases, ‘ submit yourselves to the presbyters,’ ‘receive chastisement,’ ‘receive our Expansion of Christianity (1904), translated by James Moffatt, Vol. I, p. 245. Geschichte der Kirche (1854), Vol. II, p. 479. Organization of the Early Christian Churches (1888), Lecture VII, p. 171. Op. cit., p. 1. Das Ur Christ entum (1902), Vol. II, p. 576. The Ancient Catholic Church (1902), p. 52. Op. cit., Vol. I, p. 244. 28 lUd. 29 Op. cit., p. 52. 18 counsel,’ may be taken in an exhortatory way, but taken in the context, it is plain that there is more than an exhorta¬ tion expressed. Clement bids the Corinthians submit to the presbyters and do penance, accept his counsel or suf¬ fer for their disobedience. In other words he plainly tells them, that they must obey or take the consequences. Clement, of course, is speaking ^with intense modera¬ tion.’ This expression indicates that he would be jus¬ tified in using stronger and more imperative language, if he chose to do so. He realizes that ‘self-willed and headstrong men,’ who refuse obedience t-o their local superiors, would at the least provocation spurn obedi¬ ence to higher authority. The situation was an extremely delicate one. Clement, however, is equal to the task. He shows himself a master of diplomacy and psychology. In order not to throw fuel on the burning flames and thus thwart his purpose, he skilfully veils his authority under the mask of exhortation. Finally after a beau¬ tiful discourse on harmony and order and an urgent ap¬ peal for humility and submission, he lets his authorita¬ tive power gently ooze forth from beneath the ‘let us’ disguise, and very firmly and decisively bids the refrac¬ tions element of the Corinthians follow out his counsel and exhortation or sutler for their disobedience. He reminds them too very beautifully and modestly that it is their duty to ‘accept’ his ‘counsel.’ “But if certain persons should be disobedient to the words spoken by Him through us, let them understand that they will en¬ tangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger; but we shall be guiltless of this sin” (ch. 59).* Cfr. Lightfoot, Op. cit., ip. 97. “ The third characteristic of the writer is moderation, the sobriety of temper and reasonableness of con¬ duct, which is expressed by the word iTrietKeia, . . . The words eineiK^s, iineUeLa, occur many times in his epistle. In two several passages the substantive is qualified by a striking epithet, which seems to be its con¬ tradiction, €KT€VT]s iirieiKeia, ‘ intense moderation/ The verbal paradox describes his own character. This gentleness and equability, this ‘ sweet resonableness,’ was a passion with him.” 19 If anyone dare disobey bis command, which he as God’s representative has given them,—note well, as God’s representative, as God’s month-piece, not as the mouth-piece of the Eoman community,—they will com¬ mit a grave sin and run the risk of losing their immortal souls; Clement, however, will be free from guilt. He has done his duty. He has laid down for them the proper course to pursue. He has made known to them the will of God. Such language necessarily bespeaks authority. Otherwise, why should it be a sin to disobey his com¬ mands? How could he call himself the representative of God? Such language from one who had no authority, especially from an outsider would be an insult to the Corinthians. And the refractory party would be the first to resent it. Yet we know of no resentment. On the contrary there is reason to believe that Clement’s letter had its desired effect, for from the epistle of Dio¬ nysius, Bishop of Corinth, to Pope Soter some years later we learn that the letter of St. Clement was highly prized by the Corinthians. Today,” Dionysius writes, ^Gve have celebrated the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your Letter. From it whenever we read it, we shall always be able to draw advice, as also from the former Letter which was wriiten to us by Clement.” Moreover, in a breach of discipline of this kind exhor¬ tation is not sufficient to restore order. Authority is needed, and there is no reason to believe that authority was not needed in this particular case. St. Paul had to intervene with an authoritative hand some years pre¬ vious, when party-strifes were rife in the Church of Corinth. If, as some affirm, any community had the right to interpose, how account for the fact that the Roman Church, and the Roman Church alone, really did inter¬ pose? There was, for instance, the Church at Ephesus. Eusebius, Hist. Eocles. IV, 23, 11. Translation from Bardenhewer- Sliahan, Patrology, p. 27. 20 It was an older community. It was close at hand. It was probably honored by St. John^s presence. If it had the right to intervene, why did it not do so? Why did it fail to come to the aid of a sister community, whose interests would necessarily be closely allied to those of the neighboring Church of Corinth? Why cause an un¬ necessary prolongation of the schism till an exhortation or intervention or letter of brotherly love should come from far-away Rome, then overburdened with troubles of its own? The old traditional view of Catholic schol¬ ars offers the only satisfactory solution; Clement, as Bishop of Rome, as successor to St. Peter and as Head of all Christendom, authoritatively interposed in the Cor- « inthian schism by writing the so-called First Epistle to the Corinthians. The authoritative tone of the letter has not escaped the notice of some non-Catholic critics. Thus Gore, for example, says: ‘‘If we could get behind the scenes, we should probably find that the chief authority really be¬ longed to him (Clement), and that he was one of those ‘men of reputation,’ one of those ‘rulers,’ who since the Apostles’ death had exercised that part of their ministry which was to become permanent in the Church.” Dr. Middleton goes even further. In his recent work on Unity and Eome, he accepts the viewpoint of Catholic critics. He acknowledges Clement’s jurisdiction, assert¬ ing that the epistle of Clement “was not in any sense gratuitous or intrusive.” “Even at that early day in the history of the Church,” he states, “the distracted Christians at Corinth turned naturally to the Apostolic See for guidance and help.” “What,” he exclaims, “would be the plain interpretation of this epistle of Clement of Rome, if the exigencies of Protestant Chris¬ tians to bolster up their doctrinal positions did not color their opinions? Reading these passages from Clement The Ministry of the Christian Church, (1889), p. 325. 21 with charity and justice their witness for the Unity of the Holy Catholic Church and paternal solicitude of the successor of St. Peter for all the Churches, given and accorded, seems very clear.” b) The Letter an Excellent Proof of the Divine Author¬ ity of the Bishops. Not only is the letter of 'St. Clement written with a tone of authority that commands obedience under pen¬ alty of divine punishment, but it also bears witness, that the lawful authorities in the local churches rule and teach by divine right. In chapter 42 there is a classical passage for the divine institution of the episcopate. Clement says: ^^The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order. Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come. So preaching everywhere in country and town, they ap¬ pointed their first-fruits when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe. And this they did in no new fashion; for indeed it had been written concerning bishops and deacons from very ancient times; for thus saith the scripture in a certain place, 1 will appoint their bishops in righteousness and their deacons in faith^^ (ch. 42). These words are a plain, straightforward testimony in favor of the divine authority of the bishops. The Apos- Unity and Rome, (1922), p. 99. The translations in this chapter from St. iClement’s epistle are taken from Lightfoot’s Apostolic Fathers-, also the translations from the Igna- tian letters and from the epistle of St. Polycarp, in the following chapters. 22 ties are from Christ, the bishops from the Apostles. ‘^Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order. ... So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their first-fruits (fcara ovv kuI TToXet? /cr)pV(TcrovT€<; KaOiaravov ra? aiTap')(a^ avroiv) when they had proved them to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe (et? eVto-zcoTrou? Ka\ hiaKovov^ ro)v fjieWov- Tcov TTLo-Teveiv).’’ According to Clement the Apostles were directly commissioned by Christ to preach the Gospel, the bishops indirectly in as far as they received their appointment from the Apostles, but notwithstanding they have the same divine authority. They have the same right to rule, the same right to teach, and therefore, in virtue of this divine prerogative they cannot be de¬ posed by the faithful. The words are in truth, as Moran remarks, ^ ‘ a fitting commentary of the words of St. Paul: ‘The Holy Ghost has placed you overseers to rule the Church of God.’ ” Pfleiderer, commenting on the words of Clement, says: “Clement’s idea (xlii. 4) that the Apostles, on their mis¬ sionary journeys, themselves appointed the first bishops and deacons (which is certainly not the fact), already shows the beginning of the tendency to make the bishop’s office, as the direct continuation of the apostolate, the depositary of tradition and to surround it with the nim¬ bus of higher authority. ’ ’ According to him Clement either must have been mis¬ taken, or he must have wanted to deceive the people. But Clement in view of his intimacy with the Apostles and his prominent position in the Church could hardly have been mistaken. He had associated with the Apos¬ tles themselves. One can hardly suppose, therefore, that he did not know their teaching and their mode of acting. Besides, as Bishop of Pome, the queen and mistress of The Government of the Church in the First Century (1913'), p. 102. Primitive Christianity (1906-1911), translated by Montgomery, Vol. IV, p. 358. 23 the world at that time, to which city people gathered from almost every quarter of the globe, Clement came into contact with Christians from every country. These would quite naturally inform him of the thing nearest and dearest to his heart, the growth and spread of Chris¬ tianity. Hence, he must have been well informed on all matters pertaining to the early Church. There is little probability, therefore, that Clement was mistaken; there is still less probability, that he wished to deceive the people. There is not the slightest reason to suspect that Clement was trying to foist something new upon the faithful. Deceit and imposture were for¬ eign to his noble character. He was a saintly, an humble and a modest man. The one characteristic resplendent throughout his letter is sincerity. He is convinced that every word, he utters, is true. Falsehood in this case would defeat his purpose. The Corinthians knew full well what the Apostles had taught and done. Their words and their deeds were household words on the lips of the early Christians. They could not be deceived so easily, especially regarding so import¬ ant a point, a point that involved a radical change in the very constitution of the Church. Had the Bishop of Eome tried to introduce something new, the Corinthians would have noticed it immediately, and would have re¬ sented it. The very thought of anything novel, or any¬ thing different from what they had learned from the Apostles, was repugnant to them. Besides, Clement would be the last person to introduce anything new. He was a conservative of conservatives. He was noted for his scrupulous tenacity for the apos¬ tolic doctrines and customs. Hence, when he expresses himself on things apostolic, he has every claim to cre¬ dence. And we have all the more reason to accept his words, as true, when we see that they agree exactly with the evidence of contemporary and later writers. 24 c) An Argument for the Apostolic Succession. In chapter 42 the apostolic succession is clearly indi¬ cated,—^Christ; the Apostles, and their successors, the bishops,—hut it is brought out more forcibly in chapter 44, where Clement says: /‘And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishop’s office. 'For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons {tcaria-TT^aav tou? Trpoeipr]- yLteVov?), and afterwards they provided a continuance (^Kal fiera^v iiripLov^v {e7rLv6p,r)v) BeSco/cacrLv), that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration. Those therefore who were apppoint- ed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the consent of the whole Church {rov^ ovv /caracrTa^eWa? vir’ eKeCvcov ^ puera^v vcf)^ erepcov eWo^lp^wv avhpoiv, avvevSofcijadcn]'^ iicic\r)a(a^ TraV?;?), and have ministered unblameably to the flock of Christ in lowliness of mind, peacefully and with all modesty, and for long time have borne a good report with all—these men we consider to be unjustly thrust out from their ministration. For it will be no light sin for us, if we thrust out those who have offered the gifts of the bishop’s office unblameably and holily” (ch. 44). The text is so clear that it needs no further comment. “They (namely, the Apostles) appointed the aforesaid persons (namely, the bishops) and afterwards they pro¬ vided a continuance that if these should fall asleep other approved men should succeed to their ministration.” The Apostles appointed the bishops as their successors and provided that these in turn appoint other approved men to succeed themselves. “Clearly,” says Marsh, “the writer has no doubt concerning the divine origin of the ministry or the necessity of preserving the apostolic suc¬ cession.” Op. cit., Vol. I, p. 219. 25 Banr, the most radical of critics, referring to this pas¬ sage of Clement says: ^‘It is merely a wish to give to the congregational constitution which existed in his time the sanction of apostolic authority which leads Clement to say, ch. 44, that the Apostles knew that there would be strife concerning the name of the eVto-zcoTr?}.’’ It is hard to see how anyone can read this meaning into the words. The context shows that Clement means the very opposite. He is admonishing the rebellions Corinthians who deposed their lawful superiors. He reminds them that these superiors have received a divine appointment, an appointment coming from Christ through the Apostles and their successors. He wishes to say. You have no right whatsoever to interfere with your ecclesiastical superiors or with their appointment. The Apostles pro¬ vided for that. They appointed their successors and commissioned these to appoint other men to succeed them and so on. And for you to depose these lawfully and divinely constituted officials is no light sin. Clement ^Hases his principle,’’ writes McGitfert, ^‘not upon cus¬ tom or expediency, or anything of the kind but upon the will of God. God sent forth Jesus Christ, Christ sent forth the Apostles, and they in turn appointed bishops and deacons, so that the bishops and deacons hold their office by divine right. ’ ’ d) No Argument for Congregational Government. Baur allows himself to be influenced by his congrega¬ tional theory. He says: Those who had been instituted at first by the Apostles or afterwards by other notable men, with the approval of the whole congregation, and had blamelessly performed their service to the Lord’s flock, could not, it is urged, be justly removed from their The Church History of the First Three Centuries, translated by Men- zies, (187:8-1879), Vol. II, p. 19. History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age (1905), p. 669-670. 26 ministry (their XeLTovpyLa or as it is called directly after¬ wards, the i'TTLO-KOTTTjj {. c., the office of the irpea^vrepOi). According to this, both the i\\6yLp.ot dvSpe^ and the Trdaa iKKXrjaia took part in the elections to the church offices. The more influential members of the congregation con¬ ducted the election and proposed the names which were accepted only if the congregation assented. Since those called ‘notables’ are not clerical persons, it is still the congregation with whom the right of election rests and the original conception to which these first beginnings of the whole future hierarchy lead us back is unquestion¬ ably congregational self-government.”^^ Baur says, the ‘notables’ were not clerical persons. The letter, however, does not state this. On the contrary from the whole context it is quite certain, that they ivere clerical persons, because they are placed in the same category as the Apostles and their successors. “Those therefore,” Clement writes, “who were appointed by them (namely, the Apostles or the successors of the Apostles), or afterwards by other men of repute with the consent of the whole Church.” Like the Apostles and their successors they had a right to appoint bishops. There is nothing said of the election of ecclesiastical officials. How, then, can Baur declare that “the more influential members of the congregation conducted the election and proposed the names which were accepted only if the congregation assented Clement plainly says in several places that the bishops were appointed. There can be no mistake about his words. “They (the Apostles) appointed their first fruits ... to be bishops and deacons to them that should believe” (ch. 42). “They (the Apostles) appointed the aforesaid persons. Those therefore who were appointed by them” (ch. 44). KaOiaravov” KarecrTTjo-av,’^ KaTaaraOevTa^j the expressions used in the respective passages, can only mean ‘appoint.’ Op. cit., Vol. II, p. 19. 27 The words ‘‘with the consent of the whole Church’^ are by no means an argument for community-govern¬ ment. For, in the first place, the several citations above show, that it was appointment by the Apostles or their legitimate successors that constituted an official of the Church. ^^With the consent of the whole Church^’ is, moreover, a vague, indefinite expression. It means, perhaps, that the people selected the candidates for ecclesiastical office. In the early days of the Church this privilege was ac¬ corded some communities. There is an instance of this procedure in the Acts vi, 2-6. “Then the twelve calling together the multitude of the disciples, said: It is not reason that we should leave the word of Grod and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. And the saying was liked by all the multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith, and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip,” etc. “These they set before the Apostles; and they praying, imposed hands upon them,— OV? ea-Trja-av ivcoinov TO)v airocTToXcov, koli Trpoaev^dfievot eTredrjKav avTol^; Ta<: The community at the bidding of the Apostles chose the candidates, the Apostles ordained them. It was not the selection by the community, but the appointment by the Apostles and the imposition of hands that constituted them officials of the Church. That appointment by ecclesiastical authority was the method of instituting hierarchs in the Church is evident from Acts xiv, 22: “And when they (namely, Paul and Barnabas) had ordained {x^tpoTovijo-avre^) to them priests in every church and had prayed with fasting, they com¬ mended them to the Lord, in whom they believed. ’ ^ He refers to this appointment again in chapter xx, 28, where he admonishes the Elders: “Take heed to yourselves 3 28 and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy G-host hath placed {eOero e7ri(7/co7rou?) yon Mshops, to rifle the Church of Godfl’ In the Pastoral Letters he brings out the same fact. "Writing to Timothy he says: ^‘Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood eVt^eVeo)? T03V Tov irpea^vreplov )‘‘Impose not hands lightly on any man,’’ he says in another place.^^ And again: “For which cause I admonish thee, that thou stir up the grace of Grod which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands.” To Titus he speaks in a similar strain: “For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting and shouldst ordain priests {fcarao-Trjcrr)^ . . . Trpecr^vrepov^;) in every city, as I also appointed thee ( 5 teTa|cr> 7 ;v) Besides no mention is made in the letters of community-govern¬ ment. If the community of Pome or of Corinth enjoyed self- government, it would be indicated in other parts of the letter. However, there are no indications of autonomy or complete authority of the community. The passage in chapter 54 where Clement exhorts the more noble-minded of the disturbers to give in and say: “I do that which is ordered by the people (ttolo) ra 'irpoaraacropLeva VTTO TOV ” can hardly be taken as an argument for com¬ munity-sovereignty. Amid the general disorder and revolt it is plain that not the presbyters threatened with deposition, but only the people as a whole would be able to judge the disturbers of peace. But out of this parti¬ cular concrete case, one would hardly construct a general law for the whole Church. I Tim. iv, 14. I Tim. V, 22. II Tim. i, 6. Tit. i, 5. 29 e) The Teaching Authority of the Bishops. It is obvious from the epistle of St. Clement, that it vras not the community that vras vested vrith authority, but the bishops, the divinely appointed successors of the Apostles. Xot only were they vested with the power to rule, but thev were also the divinelv established teachers 7 %r of the Word. St. Clement, of course, stresses their rul¬ ing power. He is dealing with a disciplinary question and it was but natural that he emphasize this point. But in bringing out their ruling authority, he also bears witness to their teaching power, for the two are inti¬ mately associated. The one is the safe^iard of the other. Moreover in chapter 42 their teaching authority is quite clearly indicated. ‘‘So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their first-fruits . . . to be bishops and deacons unto them that should be¬ lieve.’’ The Apostles were charged by Christ to preach the Gospel. They appointed bishops and deacons to assist them in this work, and to continue it after their death. Like the Apostles they too were ministers of the Word. Hence, it is wrong to say that the presbyter- bishops mentioned in the Clementine letter are only administrative officials. “Their position as spiritual guides (43, 1),” as Borkowski remarks, “and successors of the Apostles manifests clearly their authoritative office of administering the Word of God.” They were in every sense of the word the authorized teachers of the Church. **Loc. cit., Vol. VII, p. 337. CHAPTER II. The Didaohe. 1. As a Testimony. , The Didache is one of the oldest documents of Chris¬ tian antiquity. Dr. Schatf styles it the ‘^oldest Church Manual.’’^ The Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles was brought to light in 1883 A. D. by Bryennios, the Greek orthodox Metropolitan of Nicomedia. The work .was found together with other treatises in the Jeru¬ salem Codex. According to the subscription this codex was written in the year 1056 A. D. by the hand of Leo or Leon, a notary. The title of the treatise is AtSaxv rcov ScoSeKa 'Kiroaro- \(ov ^‘The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.” Barden- hewer, however, thinks that the original and complete title is the one given in the manuscript found by Bryen¬ nios : AiSaxv }^vp{ov hla to)v hdiheKa 'AiroaroXcov rot? edvecnv 42. ^ Opera Patrum Apostolicorum, (1887), Vol. I, p. xlv. 45 46 Eome under a guard of soldiers to be martyred in the amphitheatre. On the way they took him to Smyrna, where he was hospitably treated by Poly carp and the Christians of that community. During his sojourn there he was visited by delegates from the Christian Churches in the neighboring cities of Ephesus-, Magnesia and Tralles. In return for their kindness the holy bishop ad¬ dressed a letter to each of these Churches. At the same time he sent a letter to the Romans asking them, not to hinder him ‘‘from attaining unto Grod.’^ His next stop¬ ping place was Troas. Here Ignatius wrote three more letters,—to the Philadelphians, to the Smyrnians and to Polycarp. The holy Bishop’s one desire was to be “ground fine as wheat-flour for the sacrificial offering.”^ His wish was gratified on his arrival at Rome. He was torn to pieces by the wild beasts of the amphitheatre. His martyrdom, according to Eusebius, occurred sometime in the reign of Trajan (98-117).® The exact date cannot be given, but critics place it between the years 107 or 110 and 117. Harnack puts it later,—about the year 130 A. D. There is no evidence, however, for so late a date. Ignatius is a noteworthy witness for the discipline and doctrine of the early Church. From contact with some of the Apostles he had learned the apostolic doctrine at its very source, and thus was competent to bear witness to it. Moreover, he was one of the early bishops of the great Church of Antioch. Were he not an apostolic man, and a true exponent of the apostolic teaching, he could never have held so prominent a place and have been so revered and loved by the early Christians. He was like- Avise the friend of the faithful Polycarp. This fact alone speaks for him. Polycarp, the firm adherent of everything apostolic, who abhorred every contrary doctrine, would Ep. to the Rom., ch. 4. ® Chron. post. an. Ahr., 2123. 47 never have entered on such friendly relations with Ig¬ natius, were he not a teacher after his own heart and mind. The delegates from the neighboring Churches likewise testify to the apostolic spirit of Ignatius. They come to visit the Saint on his way to martyrdom, in order to re¬ ceive counsel and edification. They see in him the very embodiment of apostolic truth and courage. Finally his martyrdom itself is a beautiful tribute to his apostolic spirit. Ignatius will die rather than swerve in the least from the teaching he has learned from the Apostles. So convinced is he of its truth, so full of zeal for the glory of God, so eager to imitate the Apostles before him, that he accounts it an honor to die for the love of God and in defence of the truth. The glory of the martyr thus en¬ hances the more the teaching of the doctor. As Light- foot remarks: ^‘His teaching on matters of theological truth and ecclesiastical order was barbed and fledged by the fame of his constancy in that supreme trial of faith. 2. The Ignatian Question. The Ignatian Letters have come down to us in three groups, the Long, the Middle and the Short Group. The Long Group contains thirteen letters, namely: 1) Maria of Cassabola to Ignatius, 2) Ignatius to Maria, 3) to the Trallians, 4) to the Magnesians, 5) to the Tarsenians, 6) to the Philippians, 7) to the Philadelphians, 8) to the Smyrnians, 9) to Poly carp, 10) to the Antiochians, 11) to Hero, 12) to the Ephesians, 13) to the Eomans. Of these letters Eusebius ascribes only seven to Ignatius; namely, the letter to the Ephesians, to the Magnesians, to the Trallians, to the Eomans, to the Philadelphians, to the Smyrnians and to Polycarp.^^ This Long Group of let¬ ters was the first to be published. They appeared in ® Apostolic Fathers, Part II, Vol. I, p. 39. Hist. Eccles., Ill, 36, 4. 48 Latin in 1498 A. D., and shortly afterwards in Greek. Being a strong defence of the episcopacy, they were re¬ jected by Calvinistic Protestants, who saw in them a repudiation of their own congregational system. Scholars, too, soon noticed that they differed from the quotations cited by the Fathers. This gave rise to the opinion that the epistles were interpolated by a later hand. Scultetus, one of the Reformed theologians, maintained this view¬ point in his work Medulla theologiae Patrum, Am- berg£e (1598 A. D.). His claims were verified shortly after by the discovery of another group of Ignatian Let¬ ters in a shorter form, corresponding to the seven letters mentioned by Eusebius. These were recognized by the majority of scholars as the genuine Ignatian Epistles. The controversy, however, was not ended. In 1666 A. D. the Calvinist scholar, Daille, came out with a work in which he denied the Ignatian authorship, and branded the letters as an interpolation of a later period.^^ He was ably refuted by the Anglican Pearson in his Vindicice Ignatianoe}^ Pearson proved that the letters in the shorter form were the real, genuine works of Ignatius. In the nineteenth century the epistles were again called in question by Hr. Cureton, and the controversy was renewed. Cureton discovered another group of letters in the Syriac. This group contained three of the Ignatian Letters in a still shorter form,—the epistle to the Ephe¬ sians, to the Romans and to Polycarp. These were pub¬ lished by Cureton in 1845 A. D. He attempted to prove that these letters were the only genuine ones, but Zahn,^^ Funk,^^ and Lightfoot^^ have shown that his thesis is soriptis quae suh Dionysii Areop. et Ignatii Antioch, nommihus circumferimtur, 1666. 167i2 A. D. Ignatius von Antiochien, 1873. Die Echtheit der ignatianischen Briefe, 1883. Apostolic Fathers, Part II. untenable. They found the three Syriac Letters to be only an abridgment of the longer form. At the same time they have proven beyond doubt that the seven epistles of the Middle ^Recension are the real, genuine works of Ignatius.^® Now practically all critics, Harnack included, admit that these seven epistles are the authentic works of the Saint. Difficulties naturally exist, remarks Knopf, but they are not to be weighed against the uninventable form of these writings, the originality of the man which seems to speak forth from the pulsing lines, and the wealth of personal references which intersperse the let¬ ters. 3. Authenticity. That St. Ignatius was the author of the letters is established by the strongest testimony. Polycarp, the friend of Ignatius, expressly refers to them in his epistle to the Philippians. He informs the Philippians that in compliance with their request he forwards to them ‘Hhe letters of Ignatius, which were sent by him to us, to¬ gether with others, which we had in our possession (ra? eTTtcTToXa? l^yvaTiov ra? iTefx<^6eLcra^ rjixlv vtt’ avrov /cal aXXa? oo-a? eix^iiev Trap* 97 /xfcz^) These, Polycarp says, are sub¬ joined to his own letter; and he recommends them to the Philippians as a means of edification, ^Hor they comprise faith and endurance and every kind of edification which pertaineth unto our Lord^^ (ch. 13) These words are quite decisive; in fact so much so that the opponents of the Ignatian Epistles feel compelled to reject Polycarp’s Epistle as a forgery, or to reject this passage as an inter¬ polation. Cfr. also Kackl, Die Christologie des heiligen Ignatius von Antioohien, (1914). Das nachapostolische Zeitalter, (li9{)5), p. 37. Ch. 13: “The letters of Ignatius which were sent to us by him, and others as many as we had by us we send unto you, according as ye gave charge; the which are subjoined to this letter; from which ye will be able to gain great advantage.” Another direct witness to the letters is Irenaens. Writ¬ ing fifty to eighty years afterwards (ca. 175-190 A. D.) he cites the epistle to the Romans 4, Id^ ‘‘As one of our people said when condemned to wild beasts, I am the wheat of God, and am ground by the teeth of wild beasts, that I may be found pure breadd’ That this reference is taken from Ignatius no one can deny. Eusebius, as we have already seen, enumerates the seven epistles in order and expressly says, they were written by Ignatius on his way to martyrdom.^^ 4. The Rule of Faith in the Ignatian Letters. The valiant Bishop of Antioch is on his way to death. He has but a short time in which to give his last message to his fellow-Christians and to tell them what he deems of the utmost importance for them. His message centers around two points, the contagion of heresy and the proper safeguard against it. It is a scathing repudiation of heresy and a vehement appeal for union with and sub¬ mission to the bishops. Thus Ignatius bears witness to the teaching authority of the Church in a twofold way. He brands all doctrines outside of the apostolic doctrine as false and insists on obedience to the bishops as the means of preserving this doctrine. a) Heresy Denounced. Ignatius denounces heresy in the strongest terms. Any departure from the apostolic doctrine is hateful to him. In his epistle to the Ephesians he writes: “Now Onesi- mus of his own accord highly praiseth your orderly con¬ duct in God, for that ye all live according to truth, and that no heresy hath a home among you: nay ye do not so much as listen to any one if he speak of aught else save concerning Jesus Christ in truth.“For some are Adv. Eaer., V, 28, 4. Hist, eccles., Ill, 36. 51 wont of malicious guile to hawk about the Name, while they do certain other things unworthy of God. These men ye ought to shun, as wild beasts; for they are mad dogs, biting by stealth; against whom ye ought to be on your guard, for they are hard to heal. There is one only physi¬ cian of flesh and of spirit, generate and ingenerate, God in man, true Life in death. Son of Mary and Son of God, first passible and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord’^ (ch. 6-7). Ignatius praises the Ephesians because they live according to truth. Truth in the eyes of the holy Bishop is the apostolic doctrine. He rejoices that no heresy has a home among them. Yet he scents danger. He knoAvs that false teachers are going about teaching a doctrine different from the apostolic doctrine, a doctrine that is not true. Hence the warning: These men ye ought to shun as wild beasts for they are mad dogs.^’ Those, therefore, teaching a doctrine different from that of Christ and the Apostles, in other words, heretics, are in the eyes of Ignatius like mad dogs. They bite by stealth and their bite is poisonous. They sow their in¬ sidious doctrine by deceitful means. Ignatius addresses the Trallians in similar terms. Here heresy is a poisonous herbage. ‘H exhort you, therefore— yet not I, but the love of Jesus Christ — take ye only Christian food, and abstain from strange herbage, which is heresy: for these men do even mingle poison with Jesus Christ, imposing upon others by a show of honesty, like persons administering a deadly drug with honied wine, so that one who knoweth it not, fearing nothing, drinketh in death with a baneful delight^’ (ch. 6). We all know how carefully one avoids poisonous food of what¬ soever kind. With the same zeal, Ignatius tells the Tral¬ lians, they should avoid heretics, namely, those who mingle poison with Jesus Christ’’ and ^‘persons admin¬ istering a deadly drug with honied wine.” The true apostolic doctrine is good, wholesome Christian food; heresy, the private interpretations of false teachers, is 52 poisonous herbage. The conclusion is clear. The faithful should eat the one and beware of the other. In his epistle to the Philadelphians he uses the same figure of speech. ^‘Abstain from noxious herbs, which are not the hus¬ bandry of Jesus Christ, because they are not the planting of the Father’’ (ch. 3). Therefore, he exhorts the faith¬ ful to ^‘shun those vile offshoots that gender a deadly fruit, whereof if a man taste, forthwith he dieth.” ‘‘For these men,” he says, “are not of the Father’s planting: for if they had been, they would have been seen to be branches of the Cross, and their fruit imperishable—the Cross whereby He, through His passion, inviteth us, be¬ ing His members. Now it cannot be that a head should be found without members, seeing that God promiseth union, and this union is Himself” (Tral., ch. 11). Moreover, he tells the Philadelphians that he con¬ siders anyone who speaks not of Jesus Christ as little better than an empty sepulchre. “But if anyone pro¬ pound Judaism unto you, hear him not: for it is better to hear Christianity from a man who is circumcised than Judaism from one uncircumcised. But if either the one or the other speak not concerning Jesus Christ, I look on them as tombstones and graves of the dead, whereon are inscribed only the names of men. Shun ye, therefore, the wicked arts and plottings of the prince of this world, lest haply ye be crushed by his devices, and wax weak in your love. But assemble yourselves all together with un¬ divided heart” (ch. 6). Those, therefore, who do not preach Jesus Christ and His doctrine, but a contrary doctrine, are absolutely condemned. They are full of corruption. These the faithful must shun as minions of the Evil One. Against such men they must be constantly on their guard, lest they be deceived by the “wicked arts and plottings of the Prince of this world,” and thus be crushed by his devices and consequently robbed of their Christian heritage. In his letter to the Magnesians, Ignatius speaks of two 53 coinages, one of God, the other of the world. ^‘Each of them hath its proper stamp impressed upon it, the unbelievers the stamp of this world, but the faithful in love the stamp of God the Father through Jesus Christ, through whom unless of our own free choice we accept to die unto His passion, His life is not in us” (ch. 5). Hence according to Ignatius only those that believe in Jesus Christ and His doctrine have the stamp of God. ^‘Be not seduced by-strange doctrines,” he admonishes them, therefore, ^^nor by antiquated fables which are profitless” (ch. 8). The latter is the coinage of the world, the vain interpretations and speculations of indi¬ viduals. Writing to the Smyrnians, he calls the teachers of false doctrine the advocates of death. ‘‘But certain persons ignorantly deny Him, or rather have been denied by Him, being advocates of death rather than of truth” (ch. 5). The holy Bishop wishes to say that heretics by teaching their false doctrines are sowing the seeds of spiritual death, for heresy leads to everlasting death. So odious, in fact, are heretics in his eyes that he does not deem it fit even to mention their names. “But their names, being unbelievers, I have not thought fit to record in writing.” Nay, he even wishes he could forget them. “Far be it from me even to remember them, until they repent and return to the passion which is our resurrection” (ch. 5). How beautifully, too, he encourages Polycarp, “the immovable rock.” “Let not those that seem to be plaus¬ ible and yet teach strange doctrine dismay thee. Stand thou firm, as an anvil when it is smitten. It is the part of a great athlete to receive blows and be victorious. But especially must we for God^s sake endure all things, that He also may endure us” (ch. 3). Poly carp must not only be able to teach others the true doctrine and exhort them to salvation, but he must be willing to suffer for it. He must be an anvil that is smitten, a victorious athlete that can receive blows and still conquer. 54 In these and similar terms the Bishop of Antioch re¬ veals his abhorrence of heresy. In his mind the doctrine handed down by the Apostles is so sacred, so true and so necessary, that he can not brook the slightest deviation from it. To him advocates of other doctrines are wild beasts bent upon destruction, mad dogs whose bite is poisonous, noxious herbs whose drink is death, tomb¬ stones and graves of the dead whose breath is corruption. This hatred of heretics and this abhorrence of heresy brings out in bold relief the saintly martyr ^s love and zeal for the one true apostolic doctrine. It is, indeed, a repudiation and a refutation of the theory of private in¬ terpretation. Nothing is further from the mind of Igna¬ tius than private judgment in religious matters. It is this very private judgment which he abhors and de¬ nounces so vehemently. The heretics were interpreting the apostolic teaching according to their own whims and fancies. They were intermingling with it Judaistic er¬ rors. It was just this false teaching, the outcome of pri¬ vate interpretation, that elicited the trumpet note of warning from the pen of the holy Martyr. b) Submission to the Bishops. Ignatius is vehement in his denunciation of heresy, but he is equally insistent on the authority of the bishops. Submission to the bishops and clergy is the condition, without which they can not know the truth and persevere in the true doctrine. In the epistle to the Ephesians he writes: ‘Mt is, therefore, meet for you in every way to glorify Jesus Christ who glorified you; that being perfectly joined to¬ gether in one submission, submitting yourselves to your bishop and presbytery, ye may be sanctified in all things^’ (ch. 2). By submission to the bishop and presbytery, Ignatius says, they will be sanctified in all things. Note that he requires nothing else but obedience to the bishop and clergy, knowing that thereby the means of their 55 sanctification will be secured. In chapter 3 he says: ‘‘But, since love doth not suffer me to be silent concerning you, therefore, was I forward to exhort you, that ye run in harmony with the mind of God: for Jesus Christ also, our inseparable life, is the mind of the Father, even as the bishops that are settled in the farthest parts of the earth are in the mind of Jesus Christ.’’ Ignatius exhorts them to run in harmony with the mind of God. They will do this if they run in harmony with the mind of the bishops, that is, if they obey them, for the bishops are “in the mind of Jesus Christ.” In chapter 4 he continues: “So then it becometh you to run in harmony with the mind of the bishop; which thing also ye do. For your honorable presbytery, which is worthy of God, is attuned to the bishop, even as its strings to a lyre. Therefore, in your concord and harmo¬ nious love Jesus Christ is sung. And do ye, each and all, form yourselves into a chorus, that being harmonious in concord and taking the keynote of God, ye may in unison sing with one voice through Jesus Christ unto the Father, that He may both hear you and acknowledge you by your good deeds to be members of His Son. It is, therefore, profitable for you to be in blameless unity, that ye may also be partakers of God always.” The obedience of the faithful to the bishop must be of the most perfect har¬ mony. Ignatius shows this under the simile of a lyre. The bishop is the lyre, the presbyters the strings thereof, the faithful are the chorus. The strings must be attuned to the bishop, that is, the presbyters must be subject to him. The faithful must sing in harmony with the lyre through obedience to the bishop and presbyters. By this harmony with the episcopate we “sing with one voice through Jesus Christ unto the Father.” “Let us, there¬ fore,” he exhorts them, “be careful not to resist the bishop, that by our submission we may give ourselves to God” (ch. 5). Ignatius cannot impress too strongly the importance 56 of this obedience to the bishop and clergy. He refers to it again nnder the figure of a steward and his household. ‘‘For every one,’’ he writes in chapter 6, “whom the Master of the household sendeth to be steward over His own house, we ought so to receive as Him that sent him. Plainly, therefore, we ought to regard the bishop as the Lord Himself. Now Onesimus of his own accord highly praiseth your orderly conduct in Grod, for that ye all live according to truth, and that no heresy hath a home among you” ... A steward’s office is to govern the af¬ fairs of his master. He enjoys authority over the serv¬ ants and the household affairs. He makes known the master’s orders. He acts in the name of the master. The bishops, according to Ignatius, are the stewards of God. They have charge of His household here on earth, namely, of the Church. They govern the faithful; they make known God’s will to man. They act in God’s name. They are His representatives. Hence, by our submission to the bishop, God’s steward, we give ourselves to God. In similar strains the saintly Bishop speaks to the Magnesians. After praising the deacon, Zotion, for his obedience to the bishop, he says: “Yea, and it becometh you also not to presume upon the youth of your bishop, but according to the power of God the Father to render unto him all reverence, even as I have learned that the holy presbyters also have not taken advantage of his out¬ wardly youthful estate, but give place to him as to one prudent in God; yet not to him, but to the Father of Jesus Christ, even to the Bishop of all” (ch. 3). The faithful should see in their bishop, youthful though he be, the representative of God Himself. Obedience to the bishop is obedience to God Himself. Hence, he rebukes those who “have the bishop’s name on their lips, but in every¬ thing act apart from him” (ch. 4). “Such men,” he says, “appear to me not to keep a good conscience, forasmuch as they do not assemble themselves together lawfully ac¬ cording to commandment” (ch. 4). 57 In chapter 6 he continues: ^‘Seeing then that in the aforementioned persons I beheld your whole people in faith and embraced them, I advise you, be ye zealous to do all things in godly concord, the bishop presiding after the likeness of God and the presbyters after the likeness of the council of the Apostles, with the deacons also who are most dear to me, having been entrusted with the diaconate of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father be¬ fore the worlds and appeared at the end of time. There¬ fore, do ye all study conformity to God and pay reverence one to another; and let no man regard his neighbor after the flesh, but love ye one another in Jesus Christ always. Let there be nothing among you which shall have power to divide you, but be ye united with the bishop and with them that preside over you as an ensample and a lesson of incorruptibility.” Here is another striking reference to the divine authority of the bishops and clergy. The bishops preside after the likeness of God, and the presby¬ ters after the likeness of the Apostles. Hence, nothing should divide the people from the bishops. They should be united with the latter by the closest bonds of obedi¬ ence. How great this dependence on the bishops must be, is indicated in the following passage: ^‘Therefore, as the Lord did nothing without the Father, (being united with Him), either by Himself or by the Apostles, so neither do ye anything without the bishop and the presby¬ ters” (ch. 7). A greater union than that of the Father and the Son cannot be imagined. Yet it is just such a union that Ignatius wishes to have between the bishops and the faithful. The holy Martyr reveals the same sentiments in his epistle to the Trallians. He rejoices that the Trallians are imitators of God, and he says: ^‘For when ye are obedient to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, it is evident to me that ye are living not after men, but after Jesus Christ, who died for us, that believing on His death ye might escape death. It is, therefore, necessary, even as 58 your wont is, that ye should do nothing without the bishop; but be ye obedient also to the presbytery, as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ our hope; for if we live in Him, we shall also be found in Him. And those likewise who are deacons of the mysteries of Jesus Christ must please all men in all ways. For they are not deacons of meats and drinks, but servants of the Church of God. It is right, therefore, that they should beware of blame as of hre’’ (ch. 2). Obedience to the bishops is living accord¬ ing to Jesus Christ,—again an indication of the divine authority of the bishops. Obedience to the presbyters is obedience to the Apostles. ‘Hn like manner,’^ he con¬ tinues, ‘Get all men respect the deacons as Jesus Christ, even as they should respect the bishop as being a type of the Father and the presbyters as the council of God and as the college of Apostles. Apart from these there is not even the name of a church’’ (ch. 3). Surely Igna¬ tius could not be more explicit or more insistent on the divine authority of the hierarchy. Without the bishops, presbyters and deacons there cannot even be the name of a church. They are the conditio sine qua non, the foundation, as it were, upon which the faithful are founded. It is from these men that the faithful must re¬ ceive their doctrine. All other teachers they must avoid. Obedience to the bishops and clergy will preserve them from the poisonous fruit of heresy. More forcibly still does he insist on this obedience in chapter 7. After warn¬ ing the Trallians to be on their guard against heretics, he writes: “And this will surely be, if ye be not puffed up and if ye be inseparable from (God) Jesus Christ and from the bishop and from the ordinances of the Apostles. He that is within the sanctuary is clean; but he that is without the sanctuary is not clean, that is, he that doeth aught without the bishop and presbytery and deacons, this man is not clean in his conscience.” Here we have that same thought expressed so often by Igna¬ tius, namely, union with the bishop is union with Christ 59 Himself; and at the same time we have the express state¬ ment that ‘‘he that doeth aught without the bishop and presbytery and deacons ... is not clean in his con¬ science/’ in other words, is in sin. Thereby the Saint shows us that this submission to the hierarchy is an im¬ portant obligation binding under penalty of sin. The selfsame thoughts and often, too, the selfsame ex¬ pressions are re-echoed in the letter to the Philadelphians. The bishop of the Philadelphians Ignatius praises, be¬ cause he holds “the ministry which pertaineth to the common weal, not of himself or through men, nor yet for vain glory, but in the love of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ . . . He is attuned in harmony with the commandments, as a lyre with its strings” (ch. 1). Therefore, the faithful as children of truth must obey him,—“Where the shepherd is, there follow ye as sheep,” in order that “the specious wolves with baneful delights” may not “lead captive the runners in God’s race” (ch. 2). Those that, are “of God and of Jesus Christ,” he tells them, are “with the bishop” (ch. 3). That they might not be seduced by the false teachers, he reminds them how he warned them when he was among them. “I cried out, when I was among you; I spake with a loud voice, with God’s own voice. Give ye heed to the bishop and the presbytery and deacons . . . Ho noth¬ ing without the bishop” (ch. 7). Yet those who have been disobedient should not lose courage. “The Lord for- giveth all men when they repent, if repenting they return to the unity of God and to the council of the bishop” (ch. 8). In his letter to the Smyrnians Ignatius inculcates the same truths again. Submission to the bishop is the one and only means of protection against false doctrines. “Do ye all follow your bishop,” he writes, “as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and the presbytery as the Apostles; and to the deacons pay respect, as to God’s commandment. Let no man do aught of things pertaining 5 60 to the Church apart from the bishop. Let that be held a valid eucharist which is under the bishop or one to whom he shall have committed it. Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be; even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal Church. It is not lawful apart from the bishop either to baptize'or hold a love- feast; but whatsoever he shall approve, this is well¬ pleasing also to Grod; that everything which ye do may be sure and valid(ch. 8 ). ‘‘It is good to recognise God and the bishop. He that honoreth the bishop is honored of God; he that doeth aught without the knowledge of the bishop rendereth service to the deviP’ (ch. 9). In his epistle to Polycarp, he says: “Give ye heed to the bishop, that God also may give heed to you. I am devoted to those who are subject to the bishop, the presbyters, the deacons. May it be granted me to have my portion with them in the presence of God^^ (ch. 6). Thus, according to the mind of Ignatius the bishops are the representatives of God, the ambassadors of Christ, the stewards of His household. They are the divinely authorized teachers of Christendom, they are the successors of the Apostles, the custodians of the apostolic doctrine, and the only true exponents of that doctrine. For that reason the faithful must obey them and respect them. They must be united with them, they must live in harmony with them, they must submit to them. And this union with the bishops, this obedience and submission to them, is the safeguard and protection against heresy. The Ignatian Letters, therefore, atford a powerful argument in favor of the Catholic rule of faith. The bishops, as the divinely appointed teachers of the apos¬ tolic doctrine, are the teaching authority in the Church of God. The doctrine they propound is that received The ante-Nicene translation has “ catholic.” The Greek word is KadoXlKTI. 61 from the Apostles themselves, and preserved in the Church; hence the apostolic tradition. The Letters of Ignatius are, moreover, a strong refuta¬ tion of the Protestant rule of faith. For, in the first place, private interpretation is severely condemned. The teach¬ ing authority of the bishops is the only legitimate stand¬ ard. Secondly, there is nothing said of the Bible. The Bible is not the sole rule of faith in the mind of Ignatius. Evidently he regards the written Word as part of the apostolic teaching, but it is the apostolic tradition^ the doctrine that was deposited with the bishops, and of which they alone are the interpreters, that was upper¬ most in the mind of the Martyr. And this apostolic tra¬ dition together with the written word of the New Testa¬ ment, taught and interpreted by the bishops, is accord¬ ing to him the only true rule of faith. CHAPTER IV. St. Polycakp, Bishop of Smykna. 1. As a witness for the Rule of Faith. Closely associated with Ignatius is Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Polycarp was born probably about the year 69 or 70 A. D.^ Of his early history nothing is known with certainty. Irenaeus states that he was a disciple of the Apostles and was appointed to a bishopric in Asia by the Apostles themselves. ‘‘And (so it was with) Poly¬ carp also, who was not only taught by Apostles and lived in familiar intercourse with many that had seen Christ, but also received his appointment in Asia from Apostles, as bishop in the Church of Smyrna.’’^ Tertullian says he was named bishop of Smyrna by St. John.^ Intimately associated with Polycarp was his friend and disciple Irenaeus. It was from the devoted Bishop of Smyrna that Irenaeus learned to know and to love the Catholic faith, as he himself tells us in his letter to Florinus. Writing to his former friend and companion, he recalls the happy days, when together Florinus and he sat at the feet of the venerable Bishop and listened to the words of faith and fervor that fell from his lips. “For I saw thee,’^ he writes, “when I was still a boy in Lower Asia in company with Polycarp, while thou wast faring prosperously in the royal court and endeavoring to stand well with him. For I distinctly remember the incidents of that time better than the events of recent occurrence; for the lessons received from childhood growing with the growth of the soul, become identified with it; so that ^Lightfoot, op. cit., Part II, Vol. I, p. 422. ^ Adv. Haer., Ill, 3, 4. ® De Praesci'iptionibus, ch. 32. 62 63 I can tell the very place in which the blessed Polycarp nsed to sit when he discoursed, and his goings out and his comings in, and his manner of life, and his personal ap¬ pearance, and the discourses which he held before the people, and how he would describe his intercourse with John and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord, and how he would relate their words. And whatsoever things he had heard from them about the Lord and about his miracles and about his teaching. Poly carp, as having received them from eye-witnesses of the life of the Word, would relate altogether in accordance with the Scriptures. To these things I nsed to listen at the time with attention by God^s mercy which was bestowed upon me, noting them down not on paper, but in my heart; and constantly, by the grace of God, I ruminate upon them faithfully. In this touching description of his venerable master, Irenaens shows that it was the things that he had heard from the Apostles, their discourses and their teaching on the Lord and His works that Polycarp taught. Unflinch¬ ing fidelity to the apostolic teaching and tradition was the strong characteristic of the Saint. This fidelity shone forth in all his actions. He ‘ ‘ ever taught these very things which he had learnt from the Apostles, which the Church hands down and which alone are true. ’ He also, when on a visit to Rome in the days of Anicetus,” Irenaens says, ‘‘converted many to the Church of God from following the aforenamed heretics by preaching that he had re¬ ceived from the Apostles this doctrine, and this only which was handed down by the Church as the truth.”® When Pope Anicetus desired that he conform to the Western Church regarding the Easter celebration. Poly¬ carp refused on the ground that he could not give up a custom, which he had learned from St. John and the ^ Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., V, 20. 'Gfr. Lightfoot, op. cit., p. 429. ® Adv. Eaer., Ill, 3, 4. ® Op. cit., Ill, 3, 4. 64 Apostles.'^ Anicetus must have admired the faithfulness of the venerable Bishop, for we are told, he did not insist on the change, and both parted in peace. Polycarp is thus a powerful witness for the apostolic tradition. Of private interpretation of the Scriptures he has nothing favorable to say. His loyalty to the apostolic doctrine made him the avowed enemy of heretics and filled him with an abhor¬ rence for heresy. Like Ignatius he shunned false teach¬ ers as one would a wild beast. "When Marcion confronted him one day and asked if he recognized him. Polycarp ^s simple reply was: ‘‘Ay, ay, I recognize the first-born of Satan.’’® He had such horror for any doctrine contrary to that of the Apostles, that, as Irenaeus remarks, if he heard any false teaching, ‘‘he would have cried out and stopped his ears, and would have said after his wont, ‘ 0 good God, for what times hast thou kept me, that I should endure such things,’ and would have fled from the very place where he was sitting or standing. ’ It was this apostolic spirit that endeared the holy Bishop to Ignatius, the Martyr. To Ignatius PolyCarp is an ‘immovable rock,’ an ‘anvil,’ firm ‘under the ham¬ mer’s strokes,a most faithful copy of the Apostles and a firm adherent of their doctrines. False teaching can not swerve him from the truth. This loyalty to Apostolic teaching was the bond that drew Ignatius to him. Igna¬ tius with his horror of heresy and hatred of heretics w’ould never have been intimate with any one hut a lover of the apostolic tradition. Like Ignatius, too, he would die rather than deny his faith. When a persecution broke out in Smyrna, Poly¬ carp was apprehended. He could have escaped, had he chosen to do so, hut he preferred death to life. When ^ Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., V, 24. ® Adv. Eaer., Ill, 3, 4. ® Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., V, 20. Ep. to Polyc., 1 and 3. 65 urged by the proconsul to swear by the genius of Caesar and to revile Christ his God, the aged Bishop gave this memorable answer, so characteristic of his unswerving fidelity: ^‘Four score and six years have I served Him, and He hath done me no wrong. How then can I speak evil of my King, who saved meF’^^ The testimony of this saintly Bishop, the disciple of St. John, the master of Irenaeus, the friend of Ignatius and a martyr for the faith, is of the greatest value. 2. Letter to the Philippians. According to Irenaeus, Polycarp wrote several epistles ^Go neighboring communities to strenghten them in their faith and also to individual brethren to teach and admon¬ ish them. ’ ‘ ‘ There is also, ^ ’ he says, ‘ ‘ a very excellent letter of Polycarp to the Philippians from which those who are of good will and are intent upon their salvation can see the form of his faith and the preaching of truth. Eusebius^^ and Jerome^^ speak only of this one epistle. It is the only work of Polycarp that has come down to us. Merely fragments of the Greek original are extant, but the entire work is to be found in an old Latin translation. The letter was written shortly after Ignatius’ martyr¬ dom (ca. 117 A.D.) at the request of the Philippians. The work was highly prized by the early Christians and as late as the fourth century some communities were wont to read it at divine service.^® A few critics have denied the authenticity and integrity of the epistle, because it refers to the Ignatian Letters. But this view is discredited by the great run of modern Mart. S. Polyc., 9, 3. Ep. ad Flor., in Ens., Hist. Eccles., V, 20, 6. Iren., Adv. Haer., Ill, 3, 4. Hist. Eccles., Ill, 36. De Viris Illustribus, III, 17. St. Jerome, op. cit., Ill, 17: “ Scripsit ad PMlippenses valde utilem epistolam, quae usque hodie in Asiae conventu legitur.” 66 scholars. Its authenticity is guaranteed by Irenaeus, and the unity of the work is proof for its integrity. 3. The Rule of Faith in Poly carpus Letter. The Letter to the Philippians amply bears out the state¬ ment of Irenaeus that Poiycarp preached the things which he had heard from eye-witnesses of the Lord and which the Church hands down and which alone are true. In no uncertain terms the holy Bishop of Smyrna exhorts the Christians to be faithful to Christ’s teaching, which they have received through the Apostles, and he also warns them against heresy and insists on obedience to the pres¬ byters and deacons. Thus in chapter 1 we read C ‘I rejoiced with you greatly in our Lord Jesus Christ . . . that the stedfast root of your faith which was famed from primitive times abideth until now and beareth fruit unto our Lord Jesus Christ.” Polycarp praises the Philippians because they have kept the faith received from the Apostle St. Paul. In chapter 3 he says: ^‘For neither am I, nor is any other like unto me, able to follow the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul, who when he came among you taught face to face with the men of that day the word which concerneth truth carefully and surely; who also, when he was absent, wrote a letter unto you, into the which if ye look diligently, ye shall be able to be builded up unto the faith given to you, which is the mother of us all.^^ . . . Notice that it is the apostolic faith that the Philippians have preserved; and that it is for this fidelity to apostolic teaching that Poly- carp commends them. In chapter 6 he urges them to continue faithfully in this apostolic doctrine. ‘^Let us therefore so serve Him (God) with fear and all reverence, as He Himself gave commandment and the Apostles who preached the Gospel to us and the prophets who proclaimed beforehand the coming of our Lord; being zealous as touching that which is good, abstaining from offences and from the false 67 brethren and from them that bear the name of the Lord in hypocrisy, who lead foolish men astray/’ In this exhortation to serve God with fear and reverence as Christ Himself commanded and the Apostles preached, Polycarp condemns private interpretation and bears wit¬ ness to the authoritative teaching power of the Church. The faithful must be on their guard against those, who deviating from the apostolic doctrine, teach false things in the name of the Lord and lead the foolish astray. Those who disregard this teaching authority and allow themselves to be influenced by false teachers, the advo¬ cates of private judgment in religious affairs, are severe¬ ly condemned in chapter 7. ^‘Por every one,” we read, ^^wlio shall not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is antichrist; and whosoever shall not confess the testimony of the Cross is of the devil; and whosoever shall pervert the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts and say that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, that man is the first-born of Satan.” These are strong terms; Polycarp could hardly say anything worse. Any one who teaches a doctrine different from that received from the Apostles is antichrist, of the devil and the first-born of Satan. So odious is heresy to him, so contrary to the teaching of Christ and the Apostles is private interpre¬ tation in his mind, that he sees in false teachers and advo¬ cates of private opinions the very minions of Satan. Like Ignatius, Polycarp regards obedience to the bish¬ ops and deacons as the only safeguard against these false teachers. Wherefore,” he says in chapter 5, ^Gt is right to abstain from all these things (namely, sinful actions), submitting yourselves to the presbyters and deacons as to God and Christ.” And in chapter 7 he writes: ^‘Wherefore let us forsake the vain doing of the many and their false teachings, and turn unto the word which was delivered unto us from the beginning.” It is plain that he looks upon the presbyters and deacons as the representatives of God, as the stewards of Christ’s .68 household, the Church. As such they are to be obeyed. As the representatives of God they have divine authority, they are the custodians of the apostolic doctrine and they are the divinely appointed interpreters of this doctrine. Therefore, they, and they alone, have the one true doc¬ trine which leads to life eternal, the one'true rule of faith. Polycarp’s letter is thus an excellent testimony to the Catholic rule of faith. It condemns private interpreta¬ tion and insists on the authorative teaching power of the Church. Polycarp lays stress on the teaching handed down in the Church, the teaching preached by the Apos¬ tles, that is, the apostolic tradition. He does not disre¬ gard, however, the written Word. It also contains apostolic truth. Polycarp’s rule of faith, therefore, is the apostolic tradition, handed down by word of mouth and by the Scriptures, and interpreted by the authorita¬ tive teaching voice of the Church. CHAPTEK V. St. Ikekaeus, Bishop of Lyons. 1. As a Witness to the Rule of Faith. St. Clement, St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp furnish valu¬ able evidence for the rule of faith, but it remains for St. Irenaeus to give us invaluable testimony and irrefutable arguments in favor of the Catholic viewpoint. He is in all truth the outstanding authority of the period. Irenaeus was born in Asia Minor, possibly in or near Smyrna, where he seems to have spent his early years. The date of his birth is quite uncertain. Some scholars put it as early as 97 A. D.; others as late as 147 A. D. Thus Dodwell favors the year 97 Grabe assigns the year 108 f Zahn prefers the year 115 TillemonP and Light- foot^ favor the year 120; Swete also gives this date; Geb- hart prefers 126-130;^ Harvey puts it in the year 130;® Massuet,® Harnack,^^ Bardenhewer^^ argue in favor of the year 140, and Ziegler would have it in the year 147. Though there is the authority of Massuet, Harnack and Bardenhewer for the year 140, still a date as late as this ^ Dissert. Hi. in Iren, 6 sqq. ^ Prolegomena, sect, i., 1. ® Realencykl. f. prot. Theol. u. Kir., 9. Bd., p. 409. ^ Memoires, III, p. 79. ® The Churches of Gaul, in Cont. Rev., August, 1876, p. 415. ^Patristic Study (1902), p. 35. Die Zeitschrift fur die Historische Theologie, 1875, p, 369. ^ Proleg., Vol. I, p. civ. ” Dissert, ii. in Iren., p. 1. Gesch. der Altchr. Liter., 2, 1, 333. Op. cit., 1. Bd., p. 400. Irenaeus der Bischof von Lyon, p. 15. Note: The citations of Irenaeus in this chapter are taken from the English edition of the Ante-Nicene Fathers (1903), Vol. I. 69 70 hardly fits in with St. Polycarp-s lifespan. It mahes Irenaens fifteen years old at the time of Polycarp’s death. The letter to Florinns seems to indicate that it was a long time since Irenaens and Florinns sat at the feet of the saintly Bishop—^possibly more than 30 or 40 years. Hence the vear 130 seems to conform better with the evidence at hand. In order to appreciate better the testimony of this great champion of the Chnrch, it is necessary to know the posi¬ tion he held in the Chnrch. Irenaens was, in the first place, a disciple of the saintly Polycarp. It was from this holy Bishop that he learned the apostolic doctrine. It was from him, too, that he learned to love and cherish this teaching. Earlv intimacv had cemented the two together. Pnpil and master had become in a manner one. So great was the esteem of Irenaens for his old teacher C-. that years afterward we find him manifestmg his affec¬ tion for Polycarp in his letter to his former friend and companion Flormns. The latter had imbibed some of the heretic doctrines of the time to the great grief of Irenaens. Irenaens remonstrates with his friend and tries to lead him back from the darkness of error. He recalls the happy memories of the past when together they sat at the feet of Polycarp. “These opinions, Florinns,” he writes, “that I speak withont harshness, are not of sonnd jndgment; these opin¬ ions are not in harmony with the Chnrch, bnt involve those who adopt them in the greatest impiety; these opm- ions even the heretics ontside the pale of the Chnrch have never ventnred to broach; these opinions the elders be¬ fore ns, who also were disciples of the Apostles, did not hand down to thee. For I saw thee, when I was still a boy (Trot? €Ti b)v), in Lower Asia in company with Polycarp, while thon wast faring prosperonsly in the royal conrt and endeavoring to stand well with him. For I distinctly remember {BLafijnjfioveuco) the incidents of that time better than the events of recent occnrrence; 71 I for the lessons received from childhood {i^ 7raic