CHAPTER 7

CHAPTER 7

CHAPTER 7

The Church in the Third Century

CHRISTOLOGY AND "THEOLOGY IN

THE THIRD CENTURY

Modalism (Modalistic Monarchianism) As I have already indicated, the Marcionites and Gnostics of the second century eventually migrated out of the Church, probably because of a combination of diverging beliefs and pressure from the orthodox bishops. These gnostic movements continued in various forms for centuries, but they cannot properly be called heresies because they were no longer within the Church. They eventually created their own gospels and other writings.' Continuing syncretism outside the Church would later result in a version of gnosticism known as Manichaeism.' Yet, anyone who leaned toward a hybrid or docetic Christology and who stayed within the Church would probably have migrated toward the group known as Modalists, sometimes called "Modalistic Monarchians."'

They are referred to as "Monarchians" because they were concerned for the monarchy, or oneness, of God. The Modalists attempted to preserve the oneness of God by an extreme unity between Father and Son that effectively diminished or denied a human nature in Christ. In other words, they rejected the idea of a plurality of persons, arguing instead that there was no distinction at all between the Father and Son. The Father was the Son and the Son was the Father. The Father became incarnate and the personhood of the Son was, in a sense, a "mask" worn by God to appear as Jesus. This Christology (like gnostic Christology before it) effectively negated the humanity of Jesus. The Modalists, however, were

Reading the Early Church Fathers not necessarily Docetics, in the sense of believing Jesus had no tangible body. Most probably they believed that he did have a body, but that it was simply God the Father who had put on a suit of flesh.* We have already met Noetus of Smyrna in the writings of Hippolytus. Heavily influenced by philosophical monism, he apparently reasoned that maintaining the oneness of God (monotheism) required the denial of all distinction between Father and Son. Therefore, Noetus taught that the Son was simply a temporary manifestation of the Father.' For him, Christ is the Father, who became his own Son in the incarnation.® Therefore, God can only truly be called the Father before the incarnation. After the incarnation, God must be called the Son, until the ascension and Pentecost, when God becomes the Holy Spirit. This is a chronology-based distinction between persons, which amounts to a distinction in name only and in which God can only be called by one of the three names at a time.

Therefore, for Noetus, the fact that God is one means that Jesus is not really human. The opponents of Noetus (including

Hippolytus) argued that this identification of the Son with the Father leaves God the Father dying on the cross, so they named this Christology Patripassionism, the suffering of the Father.'

Apparently, Noetus countered this accusation by saying that the passion was not real, which confirms the conclusion that modalism solves the problem of monotheism by denying the humanity of Christ'

Noetus was probably the teacher of the more famous Sabellius, who expanded Noetus's teaching in the 220s CE to the point where their opponents began to call the Modalists by the name Sabellians and modalism was called Sabellianism.? Like

Noetus, Sabellius taught that "Father," "Son," and "Holy Spirit" were simply three different names for the one God." These three names are only seen as relevant from the human perspective, as they are three manifestations of the Father, or three ways in which the one God reveals himself to humanity. The three names are not, however, true distinctions within God (as a Trinity), nor do they imply relationships within the Godhead. It is as if the one God wears three different masks based on what God is doing or when he

The Church in the Third Century is doing it.'' This means that the three "names" for God become associated with divine activity, such that the "Father" is the name of God when God is Creator, the "Son" is the name of God when

God is Savior, and the "Holy Spirit" is the name of God when God is Sanctifier. Therefore, the "threeness" of God only exists as artificial distinctions based on the mode of activity by which God is interacting with humanity at any given time." This distinction by labeling the "mode" of activity gave rise to the name modalism, or "modalistic" monarchianism. Therefore, the only distinction between Father and Son that is acceptable to modalism is a distinction of perception, from the human point of view, in which the perceived distinctions are described by function or activity.'' Also implied is a temporal distinction: that God can be described as Father in the time of the Oid Testament, as Son (or Jesus Christ) during the time of his earthly ministry, and as Holy Spirit in the age of the Church. The implication of this is that God can only be described by one name at a time."

The mainstream Church would argue that God must be all three persons at all times, always united in all activity. The most important critique of Modalism, however, was that it assumes a Christ who is not really one of us. In this scheme, Christ is fully divine, but not fully human, since he is one and the same with the immutable and utterly transcendent Father (see 'Table 4, Christology and Theology in the Third Century).

Adoptionism (Dynamic Monarchianism) The second-century Christology of the Ebionites that saw

Jesus as a mere human continued in the third century as a form of adoptionism that is sometimes called "dynamic monarchianism.""

It is so called because it assumes that divine power (dunamis in Greek) did not originally belong to Jesus but was received at his baptism—limiting true divine power to the Father alone. This means that Jesus is the recipient of divine power but not a source of divine power. In the early third century, an obscure teacher named

Artemon (or Artemas), who is said to have been a student of Theodotus, was the bridge between the Ebionites and the most famous third-century Adoptionist, Paul of Samosata.

Reading the Early Church Fathers Paul (ca. 200-75 CE) was the bishop of Antioch in Syria until he was deposed in 272. In spite of his condemnation, his

Christology would influence the Antiochene school of thought for centuries. Paul of Samosata taught that the Logos was the personification of God's will.'' In this, he was probably influenced by his predecessor in Antioch, Theophilus, and by the idea of the Logos as a thought in the mind of God. Therefore, Paul of Samosata reasoned that Jesus was a mere human who was indwelt by the Logos just as one might say the prophets were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Jesus conquered sin purely by resisting temptation and, as a result, he was rewarded by God with an anointing, which amounted to the "cementing" of a permanent relationship between Jesus the man and the Logos, or the will of God. In other words, by conforming his will to the will of God so perfectly and consistently, Jesus was granted an eternal union of wills. This union took place at his baptism, when the Father is heard to call him "son." Jesus was not the Son of God by nature, but as a reward and therefore only by adoption. Before his baptism, it would be inappropriate to call him the Son of God. After his adoption, he can be called the son, as long as it is understood that although he was inspired, indwelt, and anointed, he was not really divine.

Adoptionism does not have an incarnation in the sense of the descent of the divine Logos who becomes human. Rather, it is the ascent of a mere human who achieves an elevated status as the adopted son of God." His sonship is not ontological but volitional and vocational

(cf. Jer 1:1-10). The union between Jesus and God (divinity) is not a necessary union, but only a union of wills, which means it is a union that might not have been. Jesus was the first to be perfect, but anyone might have done it; in fact, Jesus might not have done it.

From the perspective of the mainstream Church, the idea that Jesus might have sinned meant that his status as Savior was tenuous. Thus for the orthodox the perfection of Jesus must be an essential element of his nature. But for the Adoptionist, the perfection of Jesus is an achievement of personal discipline and obedience. Therefore, the adoptionist Christ (as that of the Ebionites before) is fully human, but not divine. Divine power may be granted by virtue of his adoption, but it is really no more than the prophets had. Because of this,

The Church in the Third Century Paul of Samosata was outspoken against the worship of Christ, especially the singing of hymns in praise of Jesus."

Paul of Samosata seems to have made a concession to the mainstream in that he did accept the virgin birth. Apparently, the universal acceptance of the birth narratives in the gospels of Matthew and Luke forced him to account for a miraculous birth, which he did by attributing it to divine foreknowledge of Jesus' perfect obedience. In other words, because God knew that Jesus would be the one to achieve perfection, God granted him the gift of a miraculous birth. This gives the impression of a conundrum, precisely because it is an attempt to explain something that is not entirely consistent with adoptionist Christology. In fact, Paul would use the same argument of divine foreknowledge to explain the preexistence of the Logos in John 1:1. He said that by divine foreknowledge the Logos could be thought of as preexistent, since

God's will has always existed in the mind of God, though he was not actually (that is, substantially) preexistent. Paul would be the last of the Adoptionists to deny a real preexistence of the Logos.

Mainstream interpretation of John 1:1 (as well as Phil 2) would force the fourth-century Adoptionists to account for a preexistent

Logos that is more than just a personification of God's will."

Paul rejected the interpretation of the incarnation as a Christology of descent (as the orthodox interpreted "the Word became flesh," John 1:14)."° It was said that he refused to "acknowledge that the Son of God came down from heaven." In fact, this reveals that for the Adoptionists, Christ is not the product of an incarnation so much as an elevation through the indwelling of the Logos, whom Paul believed to be merely the personification of the will of God (as if to say, "The flesh earned the Word"). In other words, Jesus was filled with the Word of God, in much the same way that the prophets were filled with the Spirit of God. This is, then, a Christology of ascent, in which a mere human earns the adoption by God, resulting in an elevated status. Paul was eventually confronted by one of his own priests, a man named Malchion.

He was also accused of Nicolaitanism, that is, keeping a mistress while claiming to be celibate; however, this charge may have been invented to vilify him in the eyes of those who might not understand the intricacies of the theological debate."

Reading the Early Church Fathers A synod was held in Antioch in the late 260s at which both

Malchion and Gregory Thaumaturgus (Gregory the Wonderworker, a student of Origen) opposed Paul. The council declared Paul of Samosata a heretic, excommunicated him, and replaced him as bishop, but he refused to leave the church at Antioch." Apparently, the controversy caught the attention of the emperor Aurelian, who in 272 finally intervened to keep the peace. Aurelian, a pagan emperor, decreed that the church of Antioch belonged to whoever was in accord with the church of Rome.* This is significant because, although Christianity was not yet a legal religion, the emperor acknowledged that it existed throughout the empire and that there was some expectation of connection and consistency from one city to another. Also, the choice of Rome as the city with which others must agree (though for the emperor it was certainly only because Rome was the capital of the empire) contributed to the evolution of the primacy of the bishop of Rome.

From the perspective of his opponents, Paul's adoptionist Christology logically led to a soteriology that lacked sufficient divine intervention. In other words, if the Adoptionists were right, then Jesus first had to earn salvation (adoption) by being perfectly obedient to God's will. Therefore, as "savior," he is only a pioneer who presents us with an example to follow; yet, anyone else would still have to earn his or her adoption by achieving perfect obedience. The emphasis of adoptionist soteriology appeared to be on human effort, based on an optimism about human nature that assumes the possibility of human perfection. The majority of the bishops, by contrast, argued that salvation must be by divine initiative (through the divine nature of Christ), reasoning that if our adoption into the family of God depended on human righteousness we could not hope to have eternal life (see Table 4, Christology and Theology in the Third Century).

The Two Dionysii and the Orthodox Middle Dionysius of Alexandria was the student and successor of Origen." He took over the catechetical school at about the time that Origen was excommunicated in Alexandria, and he became the bishop there in 247 CE. He was exiled in 257 during the persecu-

The Church in the Third Century tion of the emperor Valerian but returned to Alexandria a few years later."" He died in 264 or 265 CE.

Dionysius of Alexandria saw Sabellian modalism as the Church's greatest threat and so he reacted against it, at first by going to the other extreme. In his attempt to refute modalism's overemphasis on the unity of God, he proposed a distinction of persons in the Trinity that crossed the line into adoptionism. He held that the Son of God was a created being and implied that there was a time when he did not exist.

Dionysius of Rome (bishop 260-68) intervened to correct his Alexandrian namesake. He wrote a document called Against the Sabellians, a title sure to catch the attention of Dionysius of Alexandria." However, the treatise is really a warning against going too far in refuting modalism and falling into adoptionism. It is addressed to the church of Alexandria, although it never mentions the Alexandrian Dionysius by name. It does, however, accuse unnamed theologians of opposing one extreme with the other and missing the middle way. Following Irenaeus, Tertullian, and especially Novatian, Dionysius of Rome defended the mainstream against the two extremes of modalism and adoptionism. He argued for the consubstantiality of the persons of the Trinity and the eternal generation of the Son." He clarified that the generation of the Son (that he is begotten) does not imply that he is created, and therefore there was no time when the Son of God did not exist.*

Dionysius of Alexandria wrote a response to Dionysius of Rome in which he admitted that he should not have said that the Son was created. He also accepted the orthodoxy of eternal generation and consubstantiality, though he was uncomfortable with the latter because the Greek term used to describe it, homoousios, was not to be found in scripture.'!

This exchange demonstrates that in some ways the concept of orthodoxy was still fluid. On the one hand, the orthodoxy of any given time in the history of the Church is defined as that which is consistent with the orthodoxy of the previous generations, so therefore it is appropriate to speak of orthodoxy at various stages in the development of doctrine. On the other hand, the orthodoxy of one generation cannot be held to the standards of later generations.

As we have seen, the early Church's understanding of progressive

Reading the Early Church Fathers revelation rejected any deliberate deviation from the conclusions of past generations, but this did not prevent teachers, and even bishops, from testing the boundaries of what the "mainstream" Church could abide. The major heresies, then, are those philosophical and christological extremes that emphasize one aspect of theology by diminishing another. As Hippolytus had complained, the heretics accept one group of biblical passages but reject another, based on their theological agenda." To be fair, scripture itself was a fluid concept, as we have seen; however, the heretics were even choosing between texts by the same author and within the same documents.

Ideally, the mainstream Church revered all scripture, accepting paradox and looking for a middle way between the extremes."

Novatian had said that the true Christ was to be found in the middle between the heresies, as if he was still being crucified by them,

"between two thieves."** Therefore, orthodoxy was, and was perceived as, the middle way between the extreme alternatives. While the Ebionites and Adoptionists emphasized the humanity of Christ but denied his divinity, and the Docetics, Gnostics, and to a certain extent the Modalists emphasized the divinity of Christ and denied his humanity, the mainstream Church refused to choose and accepted both the full humanity and full divinity of Christ (see Table 4, Christology and Theology in the Third Century). While adoptionism emphasized the distinction between persons of the Trinity and denied an ontological union between the Father and Son, and modalism emphasized the unity of the Trinity but denied any real distinction of persons beyond functional labels, the mainstream Church embraced the paradox and looked for a balance of unity and distinction (see Chart 2, Christological Options and Influences).

It could be said that the history of the Church is like a swinging pendulum. One teacher or group may test the boundaries on one extreme, causing the pendulum to swing wide to one side.

Another teacher or group will perceive that this is too far from what can be tolerated and reacts against it, but by going to the opposite extreme. Each generation produces its own version of the previous generation's extremes (and in some ways, this continues to this day). As the boundaries of acceptability are tested, the Church works to find its center of gravity, and so the pendulum swings back

The Church in the Third Century and forth across the decades and centuries, with each new generation supplying teachers and writers who are willing to react to heresy by going to the opposite extreme and crossing the boundaries of orthodoxy into a heresy of an opposite kind. We will see this trend continue in the fourth and fifth centuries. Yet in each generation, "gravity" keeps bringing the pendulum back to the center, as the mainstream Church gains more and more clarity, finds more precise language to describe its theology, and (with the guidance of the Holy Spirit) comes to the conclusion that orthodoxy embraces the paradox by finding the place of balance. In other words, the truth is in the middle.

'THE EPISCOPACY AND THE

EMERGING PRIMACY OF ROME

Monoepiscopacy We have already examined the development of the hierarchy and the role of the bishop in the second century. We have also seen how Ignatius of Antioch argued for the limitation of only one bishop per city (the term monoepiscopacy refers to the singular bishop). The force of Ignatius's argument begs the question, however, since before the third century it is not certain that every city had only one bishop.

In the early Church, the bishops emerged as the final authority over two main aspects of the Church: doctrine and discipline. As the primary teaching office of the Church, the bishop would normally be in charge of the school of catechesis, and even when there were lay teachers such as Origen, the bishop held the authority over the content of what was taught." Before the third century, there may have been more than one catechetical school in some cities, each having its own overseer. Justin Martyr had his own students in Rome in the mid-second century. This was not a faction in opposition to the bishop, though it was probably also not a formal school of catechesis.

Even in the early third century, Hippolytus may have been the leader of the Greek-speaking Christians in Rome, perhaps with their own school." But Hippolytus openly criticized the elected bishops of

Reading the Early Church Fathers Rome. Ironically, though, he recognized that more than one disciplinary authority within a city would lead to conflict over excommunication and reconciliation. Already a century before Hippolytus,

Ignatius had realized that having more than one teaching authority in a city would eventually lead to disagreement and schism. 'Therefore he had concluded that the unity of the Church depended on the authority of a single bishop. In other words, unity of doctrine and discipline required episcopal monarchy.

In reality, the development of the monoepiscopacy was not uniform, so we cannot say with any certainty when it happened. The bigger the city, and the larger the Christian community there, the longer it may have taken to consolidate the authority in a single bishop.* If the limit of one bishop per city was not already universally accepted by the middle of the third century, the question would be called by the schism of Novatian, which we will encounter below."

Cyprian of Carthage (bishop 249-58 CE) would follow Ignatius on two important and interdependent points. First, there must be only one bishop in a city." This is because multiple authorities would threaten unity. More than one bishop would ultimately mean more than one church. As soon as two bishops disagreed on matters of theology or church discipline, every Christian in that city would be forced to choose between them. Ultimately, unity is catholic, but the very definition of heresy is that it is a factioning, a separation from the majority. Thus, as Ignatius had said, nothing could be considered valid that was done without the authority of the elected bishop of the city."

The other point on which Cyprian agreed with Ignatius was that there could be no salvation outside the Church." These issues are related because the Church was defined in terms of the sacraments, and the sacraments were under the authority of the bishop.*

In any given city, to be zm the church meant to be in communion with the bishop.* Thus if there were more than one bishop, it would appear that there was more than one church. In practice, if one bishop was reconciling those excommunicated by another bishop, excommunication becomes meaningless (not to mention ineffective as a deterrent to sin). As we have seen, this was in fact happening in the time of Hippolytus.

'To be excommunicated meant to be excluded from commu-

The Church in the Third Century nion, barred from the table of the Eucharist. The Eucharist was, among other things, a symbol of the unity of the Church and the communion of the saints." There is only one Eucharist, and outside the Church there is no valid Eucharist, in fact no valid sacraments at all.** If one was not in communion with the bishop, one could not receive the Eucharist, let alone receive a blessing on a marriage or expect a Christian burial in the catacombs or cemeteries near the saints." Therefore, the unity of the Church depended on the unity of its sacraments, and the unity of the sacraments depended on the singular authority of the episcopacy.

By the third century, the bishops also controlled the ordination of priests and the election of their fellow bishops.** Whereas originally the priests chose from among the laity who would join their ranks and elected one of their own to represent them as chair of the council, now the bishops had the authority to decide who would be ordained, and they chose the new bishops from among the priests." Controlling ordination was the first line of defense in controlling the sacraments-and the teaching office of the Church. Thus the only valid sacraments were those performed by the ordained, and the only valid ordinations were those within the chain of apostolic succession."

By the end of the third century, certain cities were emerging as enjoying a level of authority above smaller surrounding cities."

These metropolitans would eventually have veto power even over ordinations in the other cities under their jurisdiction. The bishops of the metropolitans came to be called "popes." Stephen of Rome was called pope, and at the same time the Christians of North

Africa considered Cyprian of Carthage to be their pope.® In the fourth century, Eusebius of Caesarea referred to the bishop of Alexandria as pope." In the fifth and sixth centuries, in the West, the term came to be used exclusively for the bishop of Rome.

If the bishop in any given city was the successor of the apostle(s) who founded the church there, the bishop of Rome was considered the successor of Peter. Every bishop was perceived as having been invested with the authority to forgive sin, but Peter was the one with the keys (Matt 16:19).° It should come as no surprise, then, that Rome emerged as the primary metropolitan, especially in the West. By the third century, there was a growing

Reading the Early Church Fathers consensus that all churches should agree with Rome, at least on matters of doctrine." Tertullian accepted the primacy of Rome and so did Cyprian, although, as we will see, he did not want to submit to Stephen on matters related to the sacraments." While both

Stephen and Cyprian accepted the concept of apostolic succession, Cyprian held that it applied only to the teaching office of the Church (doctrine), not to Church discipline.* Eventually, however, the metropolitans, and especially Rome, would come to have authority over the other cities on all matters. As we have seen,

Dionysius of Rome followed the lead of his predecessor Clement, and took the initiative to write a letter of correction to a fellow bishop. And when Paul of Samosata refused to vacate his see, the emperor Aurelian enforced the authority of Rome and unknowingly increased the power of the episcopacy there." Eventually, the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325 CE would declare

Rome to be the primary metropolitan.

Thus the developing hierarchy, combined with an urgent concern for unity, led to the singular authority of the episcopacy, with the assumption that the authority of the bishop és the authority of the church." In fact, the three-level hierarchy of bishop, priest, and deacon was seen as somewhat analogous to the Trinity, with its primary authority, and therefore its unity, invested in and dependent upon the one at the top of the hierarchy, while at the same time maintaining a certain equality, at least between bishop and priest.°!

Therefore, an ontological equality between bishops and priests was understood, even while a hierarchy of authority was acknowledged." In the end, the need for consistency between cities (not just within cities) would drive the Church toward a hierarchy that included "bishops of bishops" (metropolitans) and one singular authority as the primary metropolitan, the bishop of Rome.

Apostolic versus Charismatic Authority:

The Case of the Montanists The concept of apostolic succession assumes that there will be a hierarchy in the Church. This hierarchy, with its developing levels of authority and structure of ordination, naturally leads to an episcopal polity, with the bishops at the top of the pyramid. The

The Church in the Third Century point is that it was generally accepted that there was a necessary relationship between hierarchy and unity. The Montanists, on the other hand, practiced a different structure altogether, in which authority is invested based on perceived gifts of the Holy Spirit rather than on the basis of a connection to (or authorization from) previous leaders. This is charismatic authority, as opposed to apostolic authority.

As we have noted briefly above, Montanus was a priest from Phrygia in Asia Minor, who claimed to be a prophet, able to speak with the voice of the Holy Spirit. His daughters, Prisc(ill)a and Maximilla, also claimed to be prophetesses. Together they began a movement characterized by charismatic gifts, ecstatic trances, and possibly speaking in tongues. They called themselves the "New

Prophecy," though the movement was also known as Montanism (after its founder) and Cataphrygianism (after its place of origin).

The Montanists were morally strict to the point of asceticism.

They encouraged celibacy but apparently did not require it, though they prohibited second marriages." Like Hippolytus, they criticized the bishops for forgiving adultery, though this probably means that some bishops were allowing the divorced to remarry and possibly blessing the cohabitation of mixed-class couples who could not legally be married. In fact, the Montanists took a morally superior posture with regard to rest of the Church, calling themselves "spiritual" and the other Christians "carnal." They advocated a dispensationalist/millennialist interpretation of the Book of Revelation, believing that their ability to prophesy was evidence that the second coming of Christ was immanent. They caught the attention of the wider Church in about the year 156 CE.®

Montanism is often portrayed as an egalitarian movement in opposition to the developing hierarchy of the mainstream Church.

The fact that there were at least two women in prominent leadership roles gives the impression that they rejected a male-only hierarchy. In reality, though, leadership within the New Prophecy was based on gifts of the Spirit, and while they certainly must have believed that the gifts of the Spirit were available to both sexes, only those who could prophesy could be leaders. In the end, it is more likely that having women in leadership of a rigorist group like the Montanists reinforced the development of a male-only clergy, iit

Reading the Early Church Fathers rather than existed as a reaction against it. Having clarified this, it is still true that the Montanist "hierarchy" was relatively flat compared to the mainstream Church. They must have believed that the immanent return of Christ made a developed hierarchy unnecessary.

Montanism is also usually characterized as a schismatic movement. As we have already seen, however, Tertullian could associate with the New Prophecy without leaving the Catholic Church. We should not assume that the movement-had its own congregations or separate meetings." It is more accurate to say that the Montanists were a rigorist, charismatic reform movement within the Church."

But inevitably, their emphasis on continuing revelation would come into conflict with both the episcopal structure and the assumption of a finite canon within the mainstream Church.

A synod was held in Rome in 177 to discuss what to do about the New Prophecy. As we have seen, Irenaeus was present at this synod and apparently was able to convince Bishop Eleutherius that the Montanists were not a threat. Eusebius tells us that similar synods had already been held in the East; there, however, the Montanists were declared heretics.® The successor of Eleutherius,

Bishop Victor, had at first accepted the Montanists until Tertullian's nemesis Praxeas convinced him to change his mind."

Accusations against the Montanists accumulated. Montanus was said to have claimed that he was the Holy Spirit, and although this is probably unfounded, a later Montanist leader named Miltiades apparently did claim that Montanus was the Holy Spirit."

The opponents of Montanism maintained that it was not the Holy Spirit who spoke through Montanus at all, but that the ecstatic trances of the New Prophecy were evidence of demonic possession.'' Montanists were accused of giving their own leaders more authority than the scriptures; however, this is not apparent in 'Tertullian's writings. They were also accused of enticing women to abandon their husbands and then call themselves virgins. They were criticized for wearing expensive jewelry and for prophesying for money." Finally, both Montanus and Maximilla were said to have committed suicide when predictions of Christ's immediate return proved untrue."

Hippolytus accused the Montanists of being Modalists, though this seems impossible (at least in the West) given Tertullian's accep-

The Church in the Third Century tance of the movement." The Eastern Montanists may have leaned toward modalism; this could explain why they were declared heretics by the Eastern councils when the Roman bishops were reluctant to condemn them." Hippolytus's Eastern connections may have given him information about the Eastern Montanists that he assumed was true of those in the West as well. Although

Irenaeus had defended the Montanists, by the time of Hippolytus the Eastern Montanists may have drifted into the modalist heresy.

If they did become schismatic in the East, it would have been because they were excommunicated as heretics."

The conflict between the Montanists and the mainstream Church was not really a conflict between an institutionalized, hierarchical, male-dominated organization and an anti-institutional, egalitarian resistance. It was the conflict between apostolic authority and charismatic authority. The Montanists were not antihierarchy per se, but they would have opposed any structure that appeared to suppress the Spirit. Tertullian said that Montanists were followers of the Holy Spirit, not of humans." The majority of the bishops would have argued, however, that anyone can claim to speak for the Holy Spirit, but without a centralized authority to oversee the Church's teaching, disagreements would soon lead to division.

Thus the primary issue became one of ongoing revelation versus tradition, and these were seen as potentially mutually exclusive since it was only a matter of time before some self-proclaimed prophet claimed the authority of the Holy Spirit to contradict the scriptures or the received tradition." For the mainstream Church, the tradition defined the boundaries of orthodoxy; therefore, any teaching outside the tradition (or outside the succession of bishops) was suspect and probably heresy. But the Montanists were claiming direct access to God without human mediators, and the power that such claims gave to those outside the hierarchy was perceived as dangerous to the unity of the Church.

Tertullian valiantly defended the New Prophecy. He tried to reassure the bishops that "the Paraclete introduces nothing new.""

The role of continuing revelation was to aid the Church in interpreting scripture, and so the Holy Spirit would never contradict the tradition." Prophecy was meant to fill in the gaps of scripture by providing answers to questions that the apostles never addressed.

Reading the Early Church Fathers In fact, the Montanists believed that one could not correctly interpret scripture without prophecy. And here is precisely the rub. For the Montanists, interpretation without ongoing prophecy would leave too many unanswered questions and would leave the interpreter too much room for speculation, thus leading to heresy. For the bishops, on the other hand, interpretation outside the authority of apostolic succession would lead to heresy, because it would be too easy for an interpreter to fool himself into thinking that his own agenda was endorsed by the Holy Spirit. The Montanists trusted their own discernment of spirits. The rest of the Church trusted the bishops.

In the third century, therefore, the mainstream (Catholic) Church was defined as the Church of the bishops. In order to safeguard the teaching office and the disciplinary authority of the episcopacy, and thereby preserve the unity of the Church, it was implicitly decided that true prophecy had ended with the apostolic age. Preaching took the place of prophecy in the life of the Church, and it was reserved for the ordained clergy.*' Along with the elimination of prophecy, two related changes took place in the Church: the separation of a professional clergy from the laity (with the exclusion of the laity from participation in certain aspects of ministry)," and the exclusion of women from leadership roles in the Church.

The Role of Women Several groups on the fringes of the Church had allowed women to occupy leadership roles. It was said that Marcion permitted women to baptize. Irenaeus complained that some Gnostics allowed women to participate in presiding over their eucharistic liturgy." As we have seen, Montanism also accepted the leadership of women, provided they had the gift of prophecy. Even Tertullian did not allow women to teach or administer the sacraments, however; he criticized the apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla, in which Thecla baptized herself when Paul refused to baptize her.** While the apocryphal acts of the second and third century had become popular with women because they often portrayed women as the protagonists who had a life, and even a ministry, apart from the authority of a male, they were the product of heterodox groups,

The Church in the Third Century written to promote their agenda of asceticism, rejection of marriage, and rejection of the authority of the bishops in succession from the apostles.

Because of this, the mainstream attitude toward women in leadership was that to allow women to teach, debate, or preside over sacraments is unacceptable, because this is what the heretics do."

While the early bishops admitted that Jesus had female disciples, they maintained that Jesus never sent women out as apostles."

Therefore, the clerical orders, which were defined by their role in liturgy, were not open to women. Bishops, priests, and deacons had to be men, and the role of women was to learn and pray.* In some places, women may possibly have been allowed to instruct the newly initiated, but this would have been limited to women teaching other women." While this was, of course, reinforced by cultural norms that gave authority to men, it was not made necessary by them. There were pagan cults with female priesthoods, and the Church was not afraid to be countercultural in other aspects. But the existence of female priesthoods in the mystery cults only reinforced the Church's aversion to the idea of a woman as presider. Therefore, this was not simply a case of excluding women in order to conform to a patriarchal culture; the issue was that the Church was differentiating itself from pagan culture and from heretical groups.

There were lay orders open to women, specifically that of virgin, widow, and deaconess, though they were not considered clergy because they had no role in liturgy. The one exception to this seems to be the deaconesses, whose responsibility it was to prepare women for baptism by anointing them." Since it would not be appropriate for a male bishop to anoint the body of a woman stripped for baptism, a deaconess would perform the prebaptismal anointing, though the bishop would still pronounce the baptism in the name of the Trinity and anoint the newly baptized woman's head afterward. A deaconess might also visit a sick woman if there were no men in the home to chaperone, or if the visit of a man would cause a scandal."!

Widows were supported by the Church from the offerings of those who could afford to give." In return, they made up a kind of order whose ministry it was to pray for the Church and especially for those who had given alms to pay for their support." With the

Reading the Early Church Fathers permission of the clergy they might also visit and pray over the sick

(probably only women). They were expected to communicate to the clergy when they became aware of any Christian in need and were especially charged with being discreet." The early documents say, however, that they are not to presume to teach others, and if their visitation becomes a distraction, it is better for them to stay at home and pray than become busybodies and gossips." It is unclear whether there was an actual initiation rite for the order of widows, but the stated ideal was that widows should be over fifty years old, so that they would not be tempted to remarry."

The order of virgins seems to be an early version of monasticism, before the emergence of the tradition of living apart from society. There may be some evidence that there were male virgins; however, for the most part, the order of virgins would have been made up of women who chose a celibate life to dedicate themselves fully to God." In doing so, they were a living witness to an eschatology that waited for the immanent return of Christ. They represented the pure bride of the Church waiting for her groom (Matt

25:1-13). There may have been an initiation ceremony that mirrored a wedding, in which the virgins pledged themselves to Christ.

The order of virgin provided a viable life alternative for a woman who did not want to marry. With the support of the Church, the virgins could have a sense of security without living under the direct authority of a man. Of course, they were expected to submit to the authority of the bishop, and they probably did not live alone.

Eventually, the development of monasticism all but replaced the order of virgin, and some women, such as Melania and Egeria, would have enough money and power to make pilgrimages to the Holy Land and establish whole monastic communities." In this way, some women were able to find their own version of charismatic authority apart from the hierarchy.

PERSECUTION IN THE THIRD CENTURY

By the end of the second century, Christians could be found at all levels of society, in every kind of job, including the military."

There had been Christians in some of the imperial households, and

The Church in the Third Century even the mistress of Commodus (emperor 180-92) was rumored to have been sympathetic to the Church. At the same time, accusations of antisocial behavior persisted. Pagan Romans feared that if enough people joined the Church and stopped worshiping the traditional gods, these gods would remove their protection, and this could bring about the downfall of the empire. Any natural disaster could be blamed on the Church, and any military defeat could be blamed on the presence of Christians in the legions. As is shown by the martyrs of Lyons and Viennes, at times an angry mob could form and take out their fears and frustrations on their "atheist" neighbors."

We have already seen how emperors such as Marcus Aurelius and Septimius Severus had set the precedent of requiring sacrifice as a sign of loyalty. Christians were now being forced to choose between the self-proclaimed gods of the empire and the Christian

God. In fact, the Church demanded loyalty even over family, if that family was not Christian. So the third century begins with a choice:

Caesar or Christ? Is the emperor the son of a god, or is Jesus the Son of God? Is the emperor the father (patron) of all, or is God the Father of all?

In the year 212, the emperor Caracalla (emperor 211-17) granted citizenship to all inhabitants of the empire. Until this time,

Roman citizenship was a privilege, but now it had become a burden, since taxation was extended and loyalty could be demanded across the empire.'" Later, Severus Alexander (emperor 222-35) would be tolerant of the Church, and it was his mother, Julia Mamea, who summoned Origen to Antioch to explain Christianity.' But this tolerance, along with the possibility of Christians in the imperial household, apparently caused Alexander's successor, Maximinus

Thrax (emperor 235-38), to renew persecution. According to Eusebius of Caesarea, Maximinus's hatred for his predecessor led him to order Church leaders put to death.'* These events set the stage for the persecutions of the mid-third century.

In the year 249 CE, a new emperor would come to the throne who would advocate a revival of traditional Roman religion. His name was Decius (emperor 249-51). Just two years before, Rome had celebrated its millennium.'" But the empire was plagued by an economic recession in which previous emperors had devalued the EW

Reading the Early Church Fathers coinage to supplement the imperial treasury. In addition, wars in the East had depleted resources and left the borders unstable. Decius himself, as a general, had left an eastern border undefended to come to Rome and claim the throne. The presence of the Christians only added insult to injury in the eyes of the emperor, and as far as he was concerned the Church stood in the way of Rome's return to its glory days. Like Maximinus, he hated the Christians, and he hated the fact that his predecessor was tolerant of the Church. In fact, there was a rumor (probably untrue) that Philip (emperor 244-49) may have even been a Christian.' Decius's solution was to call for renewed enthusiasm for the Roman gods, including sacrifices to Jupiter for the benefit of the empire and in honor of the emperor. With this he would kill two birds with one stone: he would bring back the blessing of the gods, and he would force the Christians to give up their superstition. Thus he initiated the first systematic, empire-wide persecution of the Church.

The Decian Persecution As soon as Decius took the throne, persecution began in the provinces.'" In late 249, Decius issued an edict commanding all inhabitants of the empire to make a sacrifice on a certain date. The edict was heard by some in the Church as a fulfillment of Jesus' warnings of tribulation in the gospels.'* Local councils were set up in each city to oversee the sacrifices. This was the first time that such an order was enforced systematically across the empire.

Everyone who complied would receive a receipt, called a Jibellus (Latin for "little book," or pamphlet—imagine a sheet of papyrus about the size of an 8.5x11 sheet of paper that would be folded in quarters). A person could be asked to show this /ibellus at any time as proof of compliance, and it could be required to participate in trade (cf. Rev 13:16-17).'" Failure to sacrifice would be considered an act of treason, punishable by death.

Exactly what was entailed in making a sacrifice depended on where one was in the empire, but it could be as simple as burning some incense on a pagan altar, pouring out a libation offering of wine, or throwing some grain on a fire. It could mean sacrificing an animal (and this may have been Decius's original intention), but

The Church in the Third Century with everyone having to sacrifice, it is unlikely that very many cities made their people go through a full animal sacrifice. If an animal was sacrificed, the person would most likely be expected to eat some of the sacrificial meat.

A person would also be expected to swear an oath of allegiance to the emperor, and if one was suspected of being a Christian, the Roman official could also require a curse against Christ (cf. 1 Cor 12:3). But even if one admitted to being a Christian, simply renouncing the faith and making the sacrifice would gain one's freedom.'" Refusal to make the sacrifice could mean imprisonment, torture, exile with confiscation of property (a favorite of those governors who got to keep the property), or execution by decapitation, crucifixion (sometimes upside down), drowning, burning at the stake, or mauling by wild animals in the arena.''! One could also be condemned to work in the mines, which was not much more than a prolonged death sentence since prisoners were literally forced to work until they dropped dead. Some

Romans even took delight in devising especially barbarous methods of execution, such as tying a person to two trees bent over and held by ropes, so that when the ropes were cut, the trees would spring back to their original position, tearing the person in two.'"

Presumably, these more horrific methods of execution were meant to encourage other Christians to decide to make the sacrifice.

The response to Decius's edict was that Christians "ran eagerly to the altars."''' Many refused to sacrifice on the basis that such a sacrifice was idolatry and, even worse, apostasy. But many others made the required sacrifices, reasoning that they knew in their hearts the pagan gods were not real and therefore it was acceptable to lie to the Romans and pretend to worship by going through the motions of a sacrifice. According to Cyprian, they were motivated as much by a concern to protect their property and businesses as they were concerned for their lives.''* Some denied they had ever been Christians (which was apparently not required).

Some fled the persecution, and of those captured, many sacrificed after imprisonment or torture. According to Eusebius, even women and children were tortured.'' Torture could mean starvation, racking, beating, reeds pushed under the fingernails, eyes gouged out or feet hobbled to brand one as a criminal, or slowly pouring boiling tar or molten lead over the delicate parts of a person's body.'"'

Reading the Early Church Fathers Christian women could expect to be raped as a matter of course."

The emperor's edict had endorsed the brutalization of Christians across the empire.' One can imagine that as more and more

Christians died or fled, it became harder and harder for those who remained to stand firm, especially in the absence of their leaders.

In spite of the fact that many people denied their faith to save their lives, many were also martyred, among them Bishop Fabian of Rome, who died in January of 250 CE."" Many more were imprisoned, so that the prisons were full of Christians. Even some who had denied their faith to save their lives were left to starve to death in prison. Far from destroying the Church, however, Decius had succeeded in giving the Church an opportunity for witness.

Across the empire pagans were converted, seeing that Christians would rather die than give up their faith. More documents like the early martyr acts made heroes of the martyrs, recounting their triumph over evil in the arenas. Just as before, these martyrologies contained embellishments, including stories of miraculous submission of the wild animals, which often refused to attack the Christians.

The reality of the situation was that many Christians did not deny their faith, or even hide, but in fact reached out to minister to their brothers and sisters in prison, even at the risk of their own lives.

This in itself was seen as a form of martyrdom.'" Between outbreaks of persecution, the Christians continued to minister to the sick and imprisoned, and Romans continued to be moved by this to come into the Church. Decius had to go back to the eastern borders of the empire in 251 CE to repel invading barbarians. He was killed in battle, which many interpreted as God's vindication, and the persecution of Christians briefly subsided.

Novatian, Cyprian, and the Problem of the Lapsed Thascius Caecilius Cyprianus (Cyprian) was bishop of Carthage in North Africa from 249 CE until his death in 258."' He had been ordained and elected bishop within only a few years after his conversion to Christianity. During the Decian persecution, he fled Carthage and attempted to care for his flock from a distance by writing letters, many of which are still extant." Returning to Carthage in the spring of 251, Cyprian came back to a Church that

The Church in the Third Century had been broken by the persecution in more ways than one. When

Cyprian realized that the very unity of the Church was threatened, he composed the treatise On the Unity of the Catholic Church.

In the aftermath of the persecution, two major problems arose. The first concerned the question of what to do about those who had denied the faith to save their lives, known as the J/apsed.

Should they be allowed to return to their churches, or would that be a slap in the face to those who endured torture or whose loved ones had been executed? Some held that mercy should be extended to the apostates. Others said they should be excommunicated. Still others looked for some middle ground between easy reentry and permanent expulsion. Three factions emerged in this debate. The "laxists" advocated allowing the lapsed to come back into the Church with no penalty. This faction was led by one Fortunatus, who also had fled during the persecution.' His followers were primarily the lapsed themselves. The "rigorists" advocated excommunication for the lapsed. This group was led by a priest named

Novatus in North Africa, and the theologian Novatian in Rome.'"* Cyprian had wanted to excommunicate Novatus, but Novatus fled to Rome to consolidate efforts with the rigorists there.''* The remaining group was simply everyone else, who couldn't be sure what to do about the problem.

From hiding, Cyprian had counseled patience, saying that as long as the persecution continued, there was still a chance that an apostate might undo his sin through martyrdom.'" But some priests back in his home see were already reconciling the lapsed and readmitting them to communion.'" In addition, there were those who had refused to deny the faith and were imprisoned and/or tortured, but who had not been executed. Many Christians attributed to these confessors (called this because they had confessed the faith at the risk of their lives) a charismatic authority on the basis of Jesus' words in Matthew 10:17-22. The lapsed were going to the confessors, even visiting them in prison, and begging for their forgiveness. The confessors, some of whom were laypeople, were granting reconciliation without the authority of any bishop.

- Apparently, lapsed Christians were returning to the churches with letters of reconciliation, or "/ibelli of peace," some of which were written to cover whole families.'* As with the Montanists, here was

Reading the Early Church Fathers a case of a confrontation between charismatic authority and apostolic authority, specifically over Church discipline.'" Cyprian tried to stop the confessors from granting reconciliation, but he could not directly refute their perceived charismatic authority." He tried to argue that the /ibel/i of peace would only be valid if the confessor who granted it was actually martyred, and it should only be honored after the end of the persecution. It should not be a general grant of reconciliation for a group of people, but should be for one person, named in the letter, who must be sincerely repentant."' In the end, however, Cyprian was unable to bring the situation under his control as long as he was personally absent from his see.

The second postpersecution problem concerned the episcopacy in Rome. When Fabian was martyred in January of 250, the Roman church was not able to elect a successor. Choosing a bishop at that point would have meant consigning that person to death, since it would not be possible to keep the identity of the bishop of Rome a secret for long. According to one story, the emperor

Decius had commented that he would rather encounter a rival for his throne than see a new bishop installed in Rome. When the persecution subsided and the church of Rome was able to hold an election for bishop, Novatian must have expected to be elected. He had been the acting bishop for over a year, and his treatise On the Trinity had no doubt earned him a reputation as a first-rate theologian and the spokesman for Roman orthodoxy. However, he was a rigorist.

To elect Novatian would have been to submit to the rigorist faction and endorse excommunication for all the lapsed. Therefore, the more pastoral Cornelius was elected instead of the theologian.

When Novatian lost the election, Novatus gathered three rigorist bishops from outside Rome and had them consecrate Novatian as bishop of Rome in opposition to Cornelius.' Thus Novatian became bishop of the rigorists, claiming to be bishop of Rome.

Unless one counts Hippolytus, Novatian is therefore the first true "antipope." A priest named Maximus would eventually become the leader of the rigorists in Carthage and claimed to be bishop there.

Fortunatus was set up by the laxist party as their bishop in Carthage. The Church was in schism.

Soon after Cyprian returned to Carthage, he convened a synod. The first Council of Carthage was gathered in April of 251

The Church in the Third Century to address the situation with the rival factions and their bishops.

The rigorist and laxist bishops were excommunicated, along with their followers. To counteract the uncontrollable nature of confessor reconciliation, Cyprian said that only God can forgive the sin of apostasy (which of course in this situation included the sin of idolatry)."*? As Cyprian reasoned, this is because no one can judge the servant of another; only that servant's master can judge (Rom

14:4).'* However, a bishop (and only a bishop) might reconcile the lapsed to the Church, in hopes that God will ratify that decision.'"

But even the reconciliation of a bishop might not be enough without penance, so any who might reconcile the lapsed too easily would not be doing them a favor—in fact might be consigning them to damnation if it meant they would relax their penance.'

Therefore, anyone who prematurely reconciled someone who had lapsed was threatened with excommunication.'" The only acceptable exception would be if death was immanent.'*

To determine a course of action regarding the lapsed, the council identified three categories of lapsed Christians. Apostates were those who made the required sacrifices. Any who paid or convinced a sympathetic neighbor to make the sacrifices on their behalf were still considered in this category, on the basis of Matthew 18:6 and parallels. Lzbellateci ("pamphleteers," for lack of a better English translation) were those who bought a /ibellus or bribed a Roman official to obtain a /ibellus without making the sacrifice. Traitors were those who surrendered scriptures to be burned or gave up church property to the authorities. Thus the lapsed had to be dealt with individually, on a case by case basis, since the gravity of the sin (and therefore the extent of the penance) depended upon the circumstances, including the intentions of the sinner.'"

The council decided that apostates could not be reconciled until the point of death. They would remain in a state of excommunication, expected to be in perpetual penance, until death was immanent, and only then would they be reconciled. They might be reconciled earlier if they had sacrificed after being tortured, but only if they actually suffered torture; simply the threat of torture was not enough." The /ibellateci and traitors could be reconciled with penance, but priests or bishops who had lapsed would not be restored to their ministry.'" No one would be reconciled unless sin-

Reading the Early Church Fathers cere repentance had been demonstrated through penance. Even someone who fell gravely ill and was on the brink of death would not be reconciled if he or she had not shown sufficient repentance before becoming sick."

A similar council was convened in the summer of 251 by Cornelius in Rome and was attended by sixty bishops and even more priests.'* The Roman synod basically agreed with the conclusions of Carthage. Thus in both Rome and Carthage, the lapsed were not all excommunicated out of hand, but the rigorists were.

The immediate result of this was that some of the Roman confessors became followers of Novatian.'** Apparently, these rigorist confessors were offended that any of the lapsed would be reconciled, and were further scandalized by the fact that Cornelius and the Roman council had reconciled an entire group of apostates, a whole city church and its bishop who had sacrificed together.'*

Cyprian responded by commenting that confessors who separate from the Church should lose that title, and that even martyrdom outside the Church is meaningless and ineffective for salvation.'

Novatian sent messengers to Carthage to try to establish himself as the legitimate bishop of Rome, but Cyprian rejected the messengers.'" He then sent messengers with letters to other bishops across the empire to try to gain support.'* Apparently he almost convinced Bishop Fabius of Antioch to side with him, until

Dionysius of Alexandria wrote to Fabius, who then held a synod in Antioch that excommunicated Novatian.'® When Cyprian officially took Cornelius's side, the Roman confessors realized they were outside the Church and returned to Cornelius.' With the loss of the Roman confessors, Novatus went back to North Africa, and some of Novatian's faction (including Maximus, the rigorist bishop of Carthage), returned to the Catholic Church.'! Even one of the bishops who had consecrated Novatian as the opposing bishop of Rome returned to the Church. Dionysius of Alexandria wrote to Novatian to try to convince him to come back to the Church and submit to Cornelius. The letter indicates that Novatian may have claimed that he was pushed to separate from the Church by the other rigorists, including Novatus. Dionysius wrote that by excommunicating the lapsed, Novatian "accuses our most compassionate Lord Jesus Christ of being without mercy."'"

The Church in the Third Century Cornelius sarcastically called Novatian "this master of doctrine," the "champion of the Church's discipline." He called his ordination as a priest into question by suggesting that his baptism was irregular. He further accused Novatian of having refused his duties as a priest to avoid the persecution, and said that now he made his followers swear an oath to him in order to receive the Eucharist.'> Most of this was probably invented to discredit

Novatian and prevent others from following him. Cyprian called Novatian "that wily and subtle man."'* In about 257, the anonymous Against Novatian was written. It compared Novatian to Cain and Judas and quoted to him the scripture, "Do not judge, and you will not be judged..." (Luke 6:37).'* The author argued that the Church should welcome the lapsed to reconciliation, just as Jesus had forgiven Peter. If Peter, who also denied the faith out of fear, can be reconciled to Christ, so can the lapsed.''

Nevertheless, Novatian became the figurehead of the first lasting schism of the Church. Called Novatianists in the West and Purists (katharot) in the-East, the sect grew and continued for centuries, with its own bishops and eventually even its own church buildings. At the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, a Novatianist bishop was present and signed the creed. The Novatianists were therefore recognized as orthodox in their theology, even while being schismatics. It would be the first time a group would be formally recognized as Christian, but not Catholic.'" The canons of the Council of Nicaea declared that Novatianist clergy could retain their ordained status if they returned to the Church.

After the persecutions had ended, the Christian emperors allowed the Novatianist churches to keep their property.'*

A second Council of Carthage was held in May of 252 CE, with a third in 253 and a fourth in 254.'" In the end, most of the Church followed the lead of Carthage and decided to err on the side of mercy.'" To excommunicate all the lapsed would decimate the Church and would risk that the excommunicated would give up the faith entirely rather than follow through on their penance. The rigorists were compared to those in the parable of the Good

Samaritan who walked by the man on the road and refused to offer him help and healing." In fact, because they were willing to consign the lapsed to possible damnation by denying them reconcilia-

Reading the Early Church Fathers tion, they were no better than the thugs who beat the man and left him for dead. As Jesus had said, a good shepherd will leave the ninety-nine safe sheep to find the one that is lost. In the same way, the shepherds (bishops) of the Church should seek out the lost (the lapsed) and bring them back into the fold.'" Also, since it was becoming clear that persecution would soon be renewed, all the lapsed who were willing to repent were offered amnesty to bring them into the Church to strengthen them for what was to come.'"

Still, this was not a guarantee of salvation. It was meant to prevent the lapsed from giving up hope and help them resist the temptation to sacrifice again, but the only guarantee of the forgiveness of the sin of apostasy was another chance at martyrdom.'*

Valerian, who became emperor in 253 CE, did not at first actively persecute the Church,'® but in 257 persecution was renewed and Cyprian was imprisoned. In July of that year Valerian was apparently persuaded to revisit Decius's agenda, and he issued a letter to the senate that, in addition to the usual, forbade

Christian assembly, specifically mentioning gatherings outside the city walls (that is, in the cemeteries).' Both Novatian and Cyprian were martyred during the persecution of Valerian, in 258 CE.

Valerian died in 260, his three-and-a-half-year persecution being compared to the forty-two months of blasphemy in Revelation

13:5.'" Valerian's successor, Gallienus, ended the persecution with rescripts of his own that discontinued the programs of Decius and Valerian and even restored the cemeteries to the churches.'®

Penance and Reconciliation The persecution of the third century, with its subsequent controversy over the lapsed, forced the development of a system of penance. Confession had been a part of the eucharistic liturgy from very early on. It was probably originally a corporate prayer of confession, but the assumption that one should not receive the Eucharist without first confessing one's sins was held from the beginning (cf. 1 Cor 11:27-32).'° In addition, the possibility of excommunication had always existed in the Church (cf. 1 Cor 5).

The bishops were invested with the authority to proclaim the forgiveness of sins based on apostolic succession (from Matt 16:19),

The Church in the Third Century and eventually they would confer that authority on the priests as well. But this still left the question of how one would be reconciled to communion after being excommunicated, or when one had in effect excommunicated oneself by sinful behavior. The discipline of penance emerged as a way to show the sincerity of one's repentance.'" Penance was seen as an "outward and visible sign" of an inward reality. By the third century, Christians in different areas were experimenting with penitential systems that would specify certain acts of penance for particular sins. Because of the assumption that not all sins are equal and therefore the penance must fit the level of sin, and because of the need for consistency to avoid priestly favoritism, Celtic priests had devised penitential books that actually set down a standardized list of sins and the corresponding penance.

To be clear, penance was not viewed as a way of earning salvation. Baptism was the sacrament that washed away the stain of original sin.' But sins committed after baptism were generally thought to be held against a person. Therefore, confession and penance became the way of dealing with postbaptismal sin.'" Since a person could lose one's salvation by committing serious sins after baptism, there was a sense in which regular confession and penance helped one retain one's salvation. In this way, confession did contribute to salvation and penance was seen as a kind of merit that made satisfaction for sin and participated in atonement.'" Penance usually meant fasting and prayer for a specified amount of time, though it could also include almsgiving (Tob 4:10).'* When the time of penance was complete, a public confession would be made to the assembly, after which a person was granted "peace," or reconciliation, with the laying on of hands by the bishop.'* The practice of private confession may go back to the confessors, who granted forgiveness on the basis of a visit from someone who had lapsed and who confessed the sin of apostasy to one who was seen as having the charismatic authority to absolve that sin, precisely because he or she had not committed it.

As applied to the lapsed, the Church devised stages of penance that led one from excommunication back into full communion.

The penitent began his or her penance as a weeper. Weepers were expected to remain outside the worship space, dressed in mourning

Reading the Early Church Fathers clothes and begging their brothers and sisters to pray for them.

After spending an appropriate amount of time as a weeper, the penitent became a hearer. Hearers were allowed to enter the worship space, but just inside the doors, not among the assembly. They may listen to the liturgy, but not participate. Next the penitent became a kneeler. Kneelers were admitted into the assembly among the people, but must remain kneeling while the rest would stand.

Finally, the last stage was to become a-co-stander. Co-standers were allowed to stand with the rest and participate in the liturgy, but could not receive communion.'" Eventually, the co-stander would make his or her public confession and be reconciled. The whole process could take anything from a few weeks to over a decade, depending on the nature of the sin.

Ultimately it was determined that apostasy could be forgiven (but only by a bishop), since all serious sin is a kind of idolatry of one form or another.'" And if adultery could be forgiven (though the rigorists would have argued it could not), then certainly the libellateci and traitors could hope for reconciliation.'* For the mainstream Church, the only truly unforgivable sin was schism, since by it the schismatic separates himself from the Church and from salvation.'" Therefore schism is worse than apostasy, and Jesus' words in Matthew 7:22-23 ("I never knew you...") were applied to the schismatics.'*°

'THE CONTROVERSY OVER

BAPTISM AND REBAPTISM

The persecution and the problem of the lapsed led inevitably to a controversy over the validity of baptism.'*! The issue was not infant baptism (that was universally being done), but the validity of baptisms done by clergy who had lapsed during the persecution or by schismatic clergy." The question was whether someone who had been baptized by a lapsed or schismatic bishop needed to be rebaptized. The standing tradition had been that those coming back into the Church from a heretical group did not need to be rebaptized but only needed reconciliation with the imposition of hands.'"* Cyprian, however, started rebaptizing people, based on a

The Church in the Third Century more recent North African practice." Councils held in North

Africa in 255 and 256 and presided over by Cyprian confirmed Cyprian's practice.'® Cyprian was opposed by Stephen of Rome (bishop 254-57), who wanted to keep the prior tradition of reconciling only.' In fact, Stephen wanted to excommunicate anyone who would rebaptize.'" Eventually, Stephen would even break off communication with Cyprian, which gave the impression that he considered

Cyprian excommunicated.'* In reality, both bishops would agree that it was inappropriate to repeat a valid baptism;'® they simply disagreed on what constituted a valid baptism.

The North African Understanding of Baptism At the councils of Carthage it was argued that since baptism affects the remission of sin, only those with the authority to forgive sins can perform a valid baptism.'" This would mean that any baptism performed by someone outside the succession of bishops, whether because of sin, heresy, or schism, could not be valid.'"' The principle at work here is that one cannot give what one does not have. The grace of forgiveness comes with the conferral of the Holy Spirit, but one who does not have the Holy Spirit cannot grant the Holy Spirit.'" In this view, the presider is regarded as a conduit of grace from God to the receiver. If the presider has lapsed in his faith by making a pagan sacrifice, or if the presider has broken from the Catholic Church, then he has cut the conduit, and no grace can flow to the one who hopes to be baptized. Therefore, those who had been baptized by Novatian, for example, were not really baptized, and if they wanted to come into the Catholic Church they would need to be baptized.' According to Cyprian, he did not in fact rebaptize, because the recipients were never baptized in the first place.'** For a baptism to be valid, the presider must be beyond reproach.'"

Cyprian would argue that in fact it would be a disservice not to (re)baptize, since he believed that anyone not baptized could not be saved.' Not even martyrdom could save one who died for the wrong Christ.' He made no distinction between heretics and schismatics on this point; all risked damnation by removing them-

Reading the Early Church Fathers selves from the true Church.'* Moreover, the unity of the Church required that there could be only one baptism.'" Therefore, to consider a schismatic baptism valid would be the equivalent of saying that the schismatics are also the Church, that they are already in the kingdom of God, and that they are not a schism at all." On the contrary, Cyprian believed that to reconcile without (re)baptism is to commune with the excommunicated, which for him would make a mockery of the discipline of the Church." And after all, he reasoned, didn't the apostles rebaptize those who had been baptized by John the Baptist?"

This North African understanding of baptism would continue in the Donatists, who in the fourth century would claim Cyprian as their precedent for the practice of rebaptism. Novatian apparently also shared this view of baptism, since he rebaptized Catholics who came over to his schism." Stephen of Rome would point to Novatian's practice and argue that the North Africans should not rebaptize, since that is what schismatics do.

The Roman Understanding of Baptism Stephen of Rome, along with the anonymous author of the treatise On Rebaptism, was the primary spokesman for the baptismal theology that would become the mainstream (Catholic) understanding. He argued that one should not ask who baptized, but only how the baptism was performed." The implication is that the spiritual state of the presider does not matter, because it is not the presider who baptizes, it is God who baptizes."® There is no conduit of grace from God that leads through the presider to the recipient. Grace flows directly from God to the one being baptized.

Apostolic succession notwithstanding, a baptism is valid no matter who performs it, as long as one is baptized into Christ. Therefore, to rebaptize is to presume to say that God's work was ineffective in the original baptism; thus, rebaptism is an offense against God.?"

On principle, Stephen also made no distinction between heretics and schismatics when it came to the validity of baptism.""

Any baptism was valid as long as it was validly performed. Correct belief was not a requirement, since the disciples themselves had imperfect faith." Even the method of baptism (immersion versus

The Church in the Third Century pouring or sprinkling) did not matter; what mattered was that a person was baptized in the name of Christ."" Eventually, the North

Africans pressed the point, asking whether a person baptized by Marcion would in fact be baptized. In other words, what if someone were baptized into the wrong Christ? Stephen would later clarify that the baptism must be performed in the name of the Trinity

(Matt 28:19).?° Thus even a baptism performed by a heretical bishop would be valid (that is, salvific) as long as the baptism was done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.*"' Of course, this principle applied only if one was within the true Church, so that a schismatic or heretical baptism could not save one if one remained outside the Church. The orthodoxy of the presider did not matter because the recipient of the baptism could not be held responsible for the presider's faith; however, the recipient was responsible to remain in the true Church for the baptism to be effective.'" The point at issue, however, was that if someone were to come over to the Catholic Church from a schism or heresy, that person did not need to be rebaptized, because of the conviction that God was faithful, even when church leaders were not. This Roman understanding of baptism was confirmed at a synod in Rome.

Cyprian admitted that those who come from a heresy and are admitted without rebaptism are not necessarily damned, because it is not their fault if they were converted from paganism into a heretical sect or schism.*"* Potens est Dominus misericordia sua indulgentiam dare

(It is the Lord's prerogative to grant his mercy). But he did criticize Stephen, who he thought should have known better, for preferring to excommunicate rebaptizers rather than heretics.' The more important problem for Cyprian, however, was that he reasoned that by considering a heretical or schismatic baptism valid, the Church would be validating the heresy or schism.' Thus by not (re)baptizing, he accused Stephen of creating two baptisms (schismatic and Catholic) where there should be only one (Eph 4:5).

From Stephen's perspective, it appeared as if Cyprian were turning one baptism into two (two consecutive baptisms). For him, rebaptism violates the principle of "one faith, one baptism." But for Cyprian, to validate a heretical or schismatic baptism violates that same principle. Both would argue that the other's baptismal theology actually cheapens Catholic baptism.

LAl

Reading the Early Church Fathers For the North Africans, one baptism means only one. All other baptisms are excluded because the unity of the Church depends on its purity. The Church is seen as more or less identical with the kingdom (the visible Church is the invisible Church), and so it is the duty of the Church to keep itself pure by excluding those who are not also in the kingdom.' This is an ecclesiology of unity through purity. For the Romans, on the other hand, one baptism means all is one. All baptisms are included, as long as they are performed in the name of the Trinity—that is all that is needed to mark them as Christian. For the Romans, the Church on earth is not identical to the kingdom (the visible Church includes the invisible Church). This is an ecclesiology of unity through inclusion. Thus heretics and schismatics may not be destined for salvation, but this does not prevent God's saving grace from being at work in their baptism, should they later join the true Church. Of course, after the baptism, the believer has a responsibility to remain in the true

Church if he or she would hope for salvation, since continuing in a heresy or schism would be to separate oneself from the Church

(and God), regardless of the validity of one's baptism.'"" Stephen did admit that although he believed schismatic baptism to be (theoretically) valid based on the operation of God, schismatic confirmation of the baptism could not be valid since the bishop performing the confirmation was outside the succession.' Thus the principle that one cannot give what one does not have, which Cyprian applied to baptism, Stephen applied to confirmation."

WHAT, THEN, IS THE CHURCH?

The church of Rome in the middle of the third century had forty-six priests, with seven deacons and seven subdeacons (perhaps based on the fourteen regions of the city, as divided by Augustus— one deacon covered two regions, with a subdeacon as his assistant)."" There were also forty-two acolytes and fifty-two exorcists, along with other lay offices and over 1,500 widows and others supported by the church."! This implies a city church of almost fifty house churches and about ten thousand members. But this begs the question, What constitutes Church membership? Indeed, what

The Church in the Third Century makes one a Christian? It is easy enough to begin by saying that baptism defines the boundaries of Church membership, but we now know that this does not really answer the question. On the one hand, some who were not yet baptized could consider themselves

Christians (for example, Perpetua and other confessor catechumens)."" On the other hand, some who were baptized might not be considered within the true Church." As it was evolving in the third century, patristic ecclesiology developed along two definable lines.

The question became, Is the Church an enclave of the saved in a world of the damned, or is it a hospital for the soul? The persecution of the third century caused a certain amount of circling of the wagons, and the rigorists emerged from that time determined to honor the martyrs by excommunicating the lapsed. The persecution also caused some to speculate that a presider's status within the Church could affect the validity of the sacraments. Thus there is some affinity between the rigorists and North African baptismal theology, evidenced by the fact that both opposed Rome and its bishops. Hippolytus, 'Tertullian, and Novatian were some of the best theologians the early Church produced, and yet they were all rigorists. They had very high moral expectations for the baptized, and their followers maintained ever lengthening lists of the sins that could not be forgiven. It seems that for the Montanists, the Novatianists, and the Donatists after them the primary task of the Church is to keep herself chaste, as the bride-to-be of Christ.'

This would be done by identifying and excluding the unworthy, ultimately protecting the table of the Eucharist, but also ostensibly protecting those who might take the Eucharist unworthily." At the risk of an oversimplification for the sake of convenient categories, we will call this a North African ecclesiology.

For the North African ecclesiology, the Church must be holy (that is, perfect) to be effective. Diluting the purity of the Church might render it unable to save. Tolerance of heresy would inevitably lead to the ordination of heretical priests and the election of heretical bishops, and consequently to invalid sacraments that could not offer salvation. Thus the rigorist ecclesiology is consistent with a sacramental theology that assumes that the faith of the presider affects the validity of the sacrament. This has implications especially for the reliability of not only baptism and the Eucharist,

Reading the Early Church Fathers but also penance and reconciliation. How could the average

Christian know if the clergy who granted absolution really had the power to grant it, if the Church was not pure? Thus to reconcile the lapsed could ruin the Church for the faithful, so that the only way to help the lapsed was to excommunicate them.

A Roman ecclesiology, on the other hand, believes that the Church is holy because Christ made her holy (Eph 5:25-27). The Church is like the ark of Noah: to be saved from the flood one must be in it, but it contained both clean and unclean animals (cf. 1 Pet

3:20-21)."° Jesus' parable of the wheat and the weeds (Matt 13) provided an analogy of the Church. The Church on earth (the visible Church) included both true Christians (the wheat) and false ones (the weeds). But it was meant to be that way until the judgment, when the weeds would be pulled up and thrown into the fire.

To be fair, even Tertullian and Cyprian used this image for the Church, Cyprian saying it would be prideful to presume to separate the weeds while the Church sojourned on earth."' But Tertullian's

Montanism and Cyprian's rebaptism reveal the direction in which their ecclesiology leans. Hippolytus had actually criticized Callistus for using this parable to describe the Church.'

Roman ecclesiology affirmed that the Church did not have to be perfect to be effective; it only had to be inclusive. The Church was not a cloister of the perfect but a school for the imperfect who hoped to move toward perfection, in which catechesis and liturgy were the lessons. It was understood as a hospital for the soul, in which penance and reconciliation were the medicine." Thus the Church was not identical with the kingdom. The Church on earth

(the visible Church) included the Church in heaven (the invisible Church) but was not to be equated with it. The heavenly Church is the perfect one, the earthly Church only had to refrain from premature judgment. Therefore, Church membership makes salvation possible, but does not guarantee it. Baptism grants forgiveness, but does not guarantee perseverance. For those who held a Roman ecclesiology, the Church was exemplified by the statement,

"...whoever is not against you is for you" (Luke 9:50). For the proponents of North African ecclesiology, the Church was exemplified by the statement, "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters" (Luke 11:23).2° Roman

The Church in the Third Century ecclesiology is based on the assumption that purity might purify impurity. North African ecclesiology is based on the assumption that impurity defiles purity. In the end, Roman ecclesiology (and indeed Roman sacramental theology) would become the standard in the Church; however, the North African version would continue as long as Christianity itself continued in North Africa. In the controversy between Augustine and the Donatists, Augustine would be the proponent of the Roman ecclesiology.

Both lines of ecclesiological trajectory spring from the conviction that there is no salvation outside the Church. Cyprian famously said that one cannot hope to have God for a Father if one does not have the Church for a mother."*! Thus true Christianity, and therefore salvation, was limited to those within the bounds of the Church.

But it was precisely those bounds which were at issue. In the end, schism was perceived as worse than both heresy and apostasy, and the only truly unforgivable sin was to separate oneself from the Church."" To join a schism was to excommunicate oneself, because it was to step out of communication with the bishops in succession from the apostles (Matt 18:17, 2 John 10-11). Eventually, the Catholic Church decided not to permanently excommunicate the lapsed, but it did excommunicate the schismatics."?

Therefore, the patristic definition of the Church ultimately rests on the foundation of apostolic succession. Apostolic succession drives both doctrine and discipline. True Christians are those who are connected to the apostles via the succession.** They believe the doctrines most consistent with the oldest tradition and accept the authoritative apostolic documents." They receive the sacraments from bishops (and the priests to whom they give authority) in direct line from the apostles.' They accept the discipline of their bishops and listen to them as though they are listening to the apostles themselves. Heresy, apostasy, and schism are all divisive, but unity is found in the succession, and the succession is embodied in the bishops.'" Thus the very unity of the Church was seen to be centered in, and dependent upon, the authority of the bishops. By the middle of the third century, this also meant that there could be only one bishop in each city.'*

↑ Back to top