"According to the grace of God which was given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder I laid a foundation; and another buildeth thereon. But let each man take heed how he buildeth thereon." (I Cor. 3:10.)
"He saith unto them, But who say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter [Petros], and upon this rock [petra] I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." (Matt. 16:15-18.)
CHANGES IN POLITY AND DOCTRINE.
When we cross the boundary line of the first century we soon become aware of certain changes which have taken place or which are in the process of taking place in the Church. One of these relates to church government. In the New Testament there are two classes of officers spoken of in the local church, elders or bishops and deacons. Now we find that in each board of elders there is one to whom the term "bishop" is specially applied. He is still, however, only the president of the board of elders and bishop of the local church, but there is now a three fold ministry, instead of a two fold. It is not our purpose here, however, to deal with the question of "the historic episcopate" except in so far as it bears on our general subject of Christian union.
There is no question but that the occasion of this increased emphasis upon ecclesiastical authority, which is so noticeable in the second and succeeding centuries, is the supposed necessity of having such authority in order to resist the rising heresies and preserve the unity of the Church. Jerome, the great scholar of the fourth century, says: "With the ancients, presbyters were the same as bishops; but gradually all the responsibility was deferred to a single person, that the thickets of heresy might be rooted out." Perhaps the persecutions to which the Church was subjected in the latter part of the first century, and, with varying degrees of intensity, on down to the conversion of Constantine, and his elevation to supreme power and his edict of toleration in the year 312, had the effect of consolidating the Church and concentrating its authority But whatever may have been the causes producing this increase of external authority in the Church and reliance upon such authority to preserve its unity, the fact is unquestionable, and that is our concern at present.
Along with this gradual change in church government, in which authority is concentrated in the hands of bishops, and later in the hands of metropolitan or city bishops, of whom the bishop of Rome was at first only primus inter pares, or chief among equals, because he was bishop of the chief city, there was another change going on destined to have a no less lasting effect on the fortunes of the Church. This related to doctrine. The philosophic bent of the Greek mind found congenial employment in seeking to harmonize the simple but sublime facts and truths of the Gospel with their philosophy. "For a considerable time," as Professor Fisher tells us, "all Christian writings were in the Greek language. The services of the Church, even at Rome, were at first held in that tongue. So far did the Greek influence prevail that not until the beginning of the third century did Latin writings of any importance appear, and even then it is not in Rome, but in one of the provinces in North Africa, that theological works are first composed in this language." The group of writers of this period, known as the Apostolic Fathers, because they were supposed to have known personally some one or more of the apostles, were not thinkers of a high grade. Much of their writings is highly speculative and allegorical. "The ablest writers of this period," says Professor Fisher, "were the Alexandrian teachers. Alexandria was the seat of a great university, with its large libraries, its learned professors and its throng of inquisitive and active-minded youth. There, in the Jewish philosophy of Philo, Plato's teaching had been blended with the doctrine of Moses and the prophets, and by means of allegory the Old Testament had been made to re-echo with a modified sound the teachings of the Greek schools of thought. In such a community, as Christians multiplied, the instruction of catechumens often required doctrinal explanations much more advanced than were requisite in ordinary churches. Thus the catechetical school developed itself into a theological seminary, where abstruse points of divinity were handled and young men were trained for the clerical office. The Alexandrian theology was the first serious attempt, among those who adhered to the great facts and truths of the Gospel, to adjust the relations of Christian doctrine to reason and philosophy. It was the first attempt to build a bridge between Christianity and the wisdom of the Gentiles."[10]
Thus in Alexandria began that philosophic handling of "abstruse points of divinity" which gave rise to the Arian controversy and resulted in the formation of the Nicene creed at the council of Nice in the year 325. This adoption of an authoritative creed, other than the simple one of the Apostolic Age, had for its object also, as did the increase of ecclesiastical authority, the refutation of heresies and the preservation of the unity of the Church. The two chief heresies of that time were Ebionitism and Gnosticism, both of which had their beginnings in the Apostolic Age. The Ebionites were descendants of the Judaizing Christians of Paul's day, who continued to hold on to the observances of the Jewish law. Like all narrow sects, they had subdivided among themselves. It is in the very nature of narrowness and bigotry to divide and subdivide, as it is the nature of catholicity and charity to unite and cement together. The whole history of religious thought shows that just as any religious movement anchors itself to the past by holding on to that which has passed away, division sets in, because a part of it, refusing to be bound by the dead past, and sharing in the living thought and growing life of those who seek to keep in touch with the living Christ, move on in the stream of progress, leaving their fellows behind; and this process repeats itself as long as the sect has vitality enough to beget those who refuse to be shackled.
The Gnostics denied that Christ had come in the flesh; they claimed to be possessed of a gnosis or kind of knowledge not accorded to ordinary Christians. With an Oriental dualism they identified evil with matter, much as our "Christian Science" of to-day, and held that between God and man there was a chain of existences called eons, which emanated from him and filled up the intervening distance. This sect, too, was divided into several kinds, the differences between which do not concern us in this study. They are mentioned here as showing what the Church of that period had to contend with, and as furnishing the occasion for the increase of ecclesiastical authority and the formation of a doctrinal creed, both of which were deemed necessary to preserve the unity of the Church. But this involves a fundamental change in the very conception of unity, which no longer consists in allegiance to a common Savior and Lord, but in doctrinal uniformity, or the acceptance of a common creed, and submission to ecclesiastical authority, instead of submission to Christ through faith and to each other through love. The bond of union has become, or is becoming, external instead of internal.
The change which we have just mentioned involved the substitution of an authoritative human creed for the personal Christ as the center of unity, and the Church became credo-centric instead of Christo-centric. The faith of the heart in a personal Savior was subordinated to, if not replaced by, the assent of the intellect to certain doctrinal speculations, in the matter of unity. This change was revolutionary in its effects which unfortunately remain with us to this day. To return to the Christo-centric view of Christianity which prevailed in the Apostolic Age is the task of our time.
RISE OF THE "CATHOLIC" CHURCH.
We have spoken of the change in doctrine and polity which occurred during the second century. But there was another change, which, in its far-reaching consequences, was not less important than that which pertained to the government of the Church. It was the introduction of the idea and function of the priesthood into the Christian ministry. This idea, suggested it may be by the custom of heathen religions, was supported by examples from the Jewish religion with which Christianity was supposed to have a close affinity. This idea naturally tended to exalt the ministry, and to introduce for the first time the distinction between the "clergy" and the "laity." The idea spread rapidly, increased the power of the bishops and prepared the way for the rise of the "Catholic" church,
Professor Fisher says: "The Church stood forth after the middle of the second century as a distinct body. It claimed to be, in opposition to heretical and schismatical parties, the 'Catholic' church. Membership in this visible church was believed to be necessary to salvation. Within the Church, and not beyond it, the Holy Spirit had his abode. The unity of the Church was secured and cemented by the episcopate--by the bishops viewed as the successors to the apostles. The episcopate, like the apostolate, in which Peter was the center of unity, was a unit. This idea is developed and insisted on by Cyprian, who was involved in hard contests with dissenting sects."[11]
It is pertinent to remark, in this connection, that the overture of union based on the "historic episcopate," which was received from the Protestant Episcopal Church, a few years ago, presented a theory of union which does not reach any further back in the history of the church than the second century. It is clear that the union which existed in the apostolic age was not "secured and cemented by the episcopate," but, as we have found in these studies, was secured by faith in, and allegiance to, the Lord Jesus, and was cemented by the mutual love of the members. Being united to Christ by their mutual faith, they found themselves united by a common life and the bond of mutual love. In that age there was "one faith," but there was no attempt at uniformity of opinions and theological deductions, through the formation of an authoritative doctrinal creed. The authority of Christ had not yielded to ecclesiastical authority, and the freedom which these early disciples had in Christ had not been surrendered for the sake of conformity to doctrinal standards and for the enhancement of the power of the bishops. Any union, therefore, based on the authority of bishops, considered as successors to the apostles, who have had no successors, and could not have, in their apostolic office, does not go back far enough, and does not rest upon the foundation on which Jesus said he would build his Church. It is, therefore, an impossible basis of union which our Episcopal brethren present, and, while we honor their zeal for the unity of Christ's Church, we never expect to see it accomplished on the basis which they propose, nor on any basis of ecclesiastical authority.
But there are sincere friends of Christian union, who long to see the divisions in the Church of Christ healed and who, while repudiating the idea of effecting such a union on the basis of ecclesiastical authority, cling to the view that there must be the acceptance of a common doctrinal creed in order to a real Christian union. Perhaps no one would venture to say that any such creed now in existence would serve as a basis on which all Christians could unite, but they are not without hope that such a creed can be formed. Nor can they see how we are going to keep heretics out of the Church without such a doctrinal statement. We might ask whether such statements have served the purpose of keeping heresies and heretics out of the Church or whether they have not rather had the effect of exciting un-profitable speculations, and producing schisms in the body of Christ. On this point what lesson does the post-apostolic age of the Church teach us?
Does not the student of church history recall the great doctrinal controversies which raged in that period? There was the Arian controversy, relating to the divinity of Christ, to settle which the Council of Nice was called; and following that there was the discussion about the numerical unity, or the identity of the three persons of the Trinity as to substance; the relation of the divine to the human nature of Jesus, concerning which one party was condemned as heretics; whether Christ really had two natures or only one, as the Monophysites contended; then there was the "Homoousian" and the "Homoiousian" views, the former that the Son is of the same essence as the Father, the latter that he is of like essence, etc., etc., to the end of the long and weary chapter. While the Greeks were thus philosophizing about the doctrine of the person of Christ, the Romans were equally busy speculating about the doctrine of sin. As one follows these heated discussions, notes the bitter feelings, the excommunications, the exiles and the schisms growing out of such controversies over purely speculative questions which do not belong to the substance of the faith, he can but marvel that those who professed to be followers of Jesus could have departed so far from the simplicity of his teaching and the meekness and gentleness of his spirit in so short a period of time.
Such was the result of an effort to secure uniformity of theological opinions, by the formulation of doctrinal statements which were to be binding on the consciences of all within the Church. "Now, these things were our examples to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted"--"evil," not in intention but in their results.
So far from being a means of union and fellowship among Christians, the formulation of authoritative doctrinal creeds, as bases of union and communion, has been the one prolific source of division and strife in the Church of God. The formation of such a creed was never left to human wisdom. When the only authoritative creed was confessed by Simon Peter, Jesus said, "Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven."[12] Having such a divinely revealed creed on which the Church was originally one, why should we assume to formulate another to serve as the basis of union? Against the publication of doctrinal statements for educational purposes, we say nothing, but against the introduction of new and unauthorized tests of fellowship.
We leave the study of the post-apostolic age, which we have looked into only for its lessons on the subject of Christian union, with these conclusions:
1. Distinguishing, as we must, between that natural and legitimate development in thought and adaptation to existing conditions, and a departure from essential and abiding principles, the Church of the post-apostolic age made a grievous mistake in forsaking the simplicity of the Gospel, both as relates to doctrine and to polity.
2. The plan of maintaining unity in the Church by increase of ecclesiastical authority, or the effort to compel doctrinal uniformity by the formulation of doctrinal creeds, was a departure from Christ's method and proved a failure.
NOTES:
10 History of the Christian Church, by Prof. Geo. P. Fisher, pp. 71, 72.
