Justification and Monocausalism

The cartoon above by John Dearstyne can be found in Michael Horton's Putting Amazing Back Into Grace (1991), and it represents the [popular] Reformed conception of justification. According to this conception of justification, God, on account of Christ, treats us as though we are righteous, even though in actuality we remain unrighteous. The "good news" according to this conception, is that because of Christ's work on the cross, we are going to heaven, in spite of our remaining unrighteous, if we trust in Christ's work to get us to heaven. (I discussed the problem with this position in greater detail here.)

The common question that arises is this: If Christ's work was sufficient, then what room is left for us to contribute anything to our final justification? The dilemma looks like this: Either part of our final justification is from ourselves, in which case Christ's work was not sufficient for our final justification, or Christ's work was sufficient for our final justification, in which case there is no room or space left for us to contribute to our final justification. Or again: Either all our righteousness is Christ's, in which case we contributed nothing, or our righteousness is some fraction of Christ's righteousness and our own righteousness (e.g. 50/50, or 70/30, etc.).

I want to point out here that this is a false dilemma, because it implicitly assumes the truth of monocausalism. (See my previous post titled "Monocausalism, Salvation and Reconciliation".) How so? Implicit within the dilemma is the notion that if our doing a good work is a righteous act, then the righteousness of that righteous act is not merely "our own" but also "our own and not Christ's". (Notice the monocaualism.) Or, putting it the other way around, since, given monocausalism, a righteous act done by us would be done "only by us and not also by Christ", then since all our righteousness comes from and through Christ, it follows that we cannot do a righteous act. Hence, one of the errors of Martin Luther condemned in the Papal Bull "Exsurge Domine" (June 15, 1520) is this: "In every good work the just man sins." John Calvin similarly claimed that "all human works, if judged according to their own worth, are nothing but filth [iniquinamenta] and defilement [sordes]." (Institutes 3.12.4)

Monocausalism is the philosophical assumption in play behind the treatment of our justification [initial and final] as a mere imputation, and not an infusion. It makes righteousness out to be a quantifiable entity, like a pie composed of, say, eight pieces. If n pieces of the pie were contributed by me, then God could only contribute (8-n) pieces. The more I contribute, the more it detracts from God's contribution, and hence the more I contribute, the more it detracts from God's glory and from my dependence on God for my salvation. That account is based on the mistaken notion that righteousness and glory are quantifiable entities, comparable to something like a pie, and that God's contribution and my contribution are made at the same ontological level. That is why from the point of view of the monocausalist there is no causal room for mutual contribution without competition [e.g. if the whole is 8, and my contribution is n, then God's contribution can be no more than (8-n)].

But righteousness and glory and love are not like that. They are, ultimately, divine attributes; they do not compete for space in God. God is not part love, part righteousness, part glory, etc. Similarly, when God gives love, He does not lose any love. When God gives glory, He does not lose glory. When God gives righteousness, He does not lose righteousness. Similarly, when we love, we do so because He first loved us. Our love is genuine, even though it has its ultimate source in God. To think of love as either only from us, or only from God, is to fail to understand the relation between the Creator and the creature, between first and second causes. It fails to conceive of or imagine the possibility of concurrence.

Everything we have, save sin, is from God. And yet God has given us real powers, real freedom and choice, so that our actions are truly our own. We are actual agents, not robots. For that reason, even though all our righteousness is from God through Christ, nevertheless that righteousness is also (by grace) truly ours, on the inside, by infusion. Our hearts are transformed; we are truly and actually made righteous. That's the good news! We (as real agents, not robots or zombies) actually love God and are made truly righteous, by the grace of God, through faith in Christ, and this grace, faith, righteousness and love are all His gifts to us. They are all 100% divine gift, and yet they are truly and actually ours.

Consider this paragraph from the sixth session of the Council of Trent:

Thus, neither is our own justice established as our own from ourselves, nor is the justice of God ignored or repudiated, for that justice which is called ours, because we are justified by its inherence in us, that same is [the justice] of God, because it is infused into us by God through the merit of Christ. (chapter 16)

Notice here that the justice (i.e. righteousness) of Christ is also actually and truly ours. It is truly Christ's, and truly ours, without contradiction and without confusion or admixture. It is not part Christ's and part ours. It is 100% Christ's, and 100% ours, just as Jesus Himself is 100% God and 100% human, without contradiction or confusion or admixture.

The "mere imputation" view depicted in the cartoon above does not truly *unite* Christ's righteousness to us. It treats Christ's righteousness as remaining extrinsic to us. (That's why the guy in the cartoon is hiding; he is using Christ as his fig leaf, rather than having, as St. Paul said, "Christ in you". Col 1:27). That is because given monocausalism, the only two alternatives for us to be righteous are: (1) for Christ Himself (and Christ alone) to act in us, taking over our will and making our choices for us and in that way turning us into puppets or "possessed" beings, having no genuine causal agency of our own, or (2) we act apart from Christ, in which case if our deeds were righteous then some sort of Pelagianism would be true. To avoid both of those possibilities, monocausalism must settle for "mere imputation", an extrinsic union wherein on account of Christ's righteousness, God the Father treats us as if we were righteous even though we are actually unrighteous, and the problem of our actual unrighteousness is not addressed until we die. (According to Reformed theology we do in theory grow in sanctification over the course of our life after we come to believe the gospel, but nevertheless, even up to and including the last moment of our life, we are still like the guy in the cartoon above: simul iustus et peccator (simultaneously justified and sinner); we are still unrighteous, and all our 'righteousness' is as worthless as filthy rags.

To understand the gospel as something by which we are made actually and truly righteous (and not merely declared to be righteous while remaining in fact unrighteous), we need to consider what exactly the fall did to man, and then in light of that, reflect on what it means to be saved. See my "Prolegomena to the gospel". But my purpose in this post is only to point out the philosophical assumption (of monocausalism) that is at work in the background of the more commonly known Reformed conception of justification, particularly in the claim that if we contribute to our final justification, then Christ's work was not sufficient, and *part* of our righteousness is then coming from [ourselves and not from Christ].

Feast day of St. Augustine

Saint Augustin et sa Mere Monique
Ary Scheffer (1795-1858)

You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, consecrated by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what the chalice holds, consecrated by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ. Through those accidents the Lord wished to entrust to us His Body and the Blood which He poured out for the remission of sins. If you have received worthily, you are what you have received, for the Apostle says: 'The bread is one; we though many, are one body' (1 Cor. 10:17). Thus he explained the Sacrament of the Lord's table: 'The bread is one; we though many, are one body.' So, by bread you are instructed as to how you ought to cherish unity. Was that bread made of one grain of wheat? Were there not, rather, many grains? However, before they became bread, these grains were separate; they were joined together in water after a certain amount of crushing. (St. Augustine, Sermons, No. 227)

Peace through the Cross

"Crucifixion"
Simone Martini (1333)

The Cross cannot possibly fail.
Do we not adore it?
It too is a cause of our salvation.
God with woman's permission joined divinity to flesh.
Men with God's permission joined this flesh to wood,
That this tree would bear as fruit life eternal.

Where does this divine flesh draw men to Himself?
Precisely where flesh and wood remain joined together,
Men and women with the divine Life,
Extending arms and feet.

I lay myself down, embracing this my tree,
Our tree, His tree,
In total self-gift -- for you for Him, from me from Him,
My dear brother, my dear sister,
That we may be truly one,
And make glad His sacred heart once wounded for our peace.

When His heart was pierced, so was hers,
For they were joined in love.
And for that same love,
So too does His Bride expose her side.
Here, on this tree,
This divine flesh draws men into one.

Did not this tree bear the Prince of Peace?
All those who seek peace, will find Him on this tree,
Extending arms and feet in union with our Lord.
He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He did not open His mouth.
Like a lamb that is led to slaughter,
And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers,
So He did not open His mouth.

On this Cross the world was overcome.
On this Cross the world will be overcome.
On this Cross God joined to man triumphed.
On this Cross man joined to God triumphs.
Man joined to wood is man joined to God.
Do we not adore this wood?

Here is the burning bush that could not be consumed,
Around which the ground was sacred.
Why could it not be consumed?
Because Love alone, in giving Himself up for consumption
Cannot be consumed.
Love is the endless font of self-giving.
Wood attached to Love cannot be consumed,
Even while it blazes.
This Cross cannot possibly fail.

Come Cross of Christ, hallowed tree,
And curse made blessing.
Graciously allow us to follow Him.
Bear His Body as you did then.
That we with Him may overcome the world,
In union with His passion and death,
Drawing all men fully unto Himself,
Into His precious Body, His Bride
With the glorious and most perfect unity
Of the Blessed Trinity.
Amen.

Giving lip-service to teaching authority

I intend to continue the series on the fathers on the Church. But I was prompted to write this after reading the ongoing discussion over at De Regnis Duobus.

To place one's own interpretation of Scripture above that of all the bishops in plenary council is performatively to deny that Christ established any enduring teaching office or teaching authority in the Church. For such a person, the only remaining 'teaching authority' possible is by definition that of "those who agree with me and my interpretation". And that is no authority at all, but only a self-deceiving pretense at being under authority, as St. Paul describes in 2 Timothy 4:3. Such a person may give lip-service to the notion of 'secondary' authority, but in principle his position is still individualistic, because the authority of the 'secondary authority' always remains subject to the individual's own approval and agreement.

Individualism always leads to fragmentation and disintegration (i.e. loss of unity), for agere sequitur esse, i.e. a thing acts according to what it is, and there is no being where there is no unity. But Christ set up His Church to endure (i.e. remain in being) until He returns, and therefore He did not leave it without an enduring teaching authority. And therefore it follows that the individual and his own interpretation of Scripture are subject to the teaching authority of the bishops in plenary council.

To accept the teaching authority of the Church for the determination of the canon of Scripture, while rejecting the teaching authority of the Church for the interpretation of Scripture, is a deep tension internal to all Protestant ecclesiologies. Either the determination of the canon is subject to each individual, or the determination of the interpretation of Scripture is subject to the teaching authority of the Church. Anything else is ad hoc.

The Protestant reply is to appeal to the perspicuity of Scripture, meaning that the nature of the gospel as recorded in Scripture is self-evident to any competent reader. So there doesn't need to be any "teaching authority", because any competent reader can determine for himself from Scripture what is the nature of the gospel. Any competent reader can therefore go against all the bishops in plenary council (or any other group of persons for that matter) when that reader determines for himself that what they are teaching is contrary to what is self-evident from Scripture concerning the gospel. But which is more self-evident from the available evidence: that the nature of the gospel is self-evident to any competent reader, or that over the course of Church history, many competent readers have deeply disagreed with each other about the nature of the gospel to the point of schism and even violence? The claim that the nature of the gospel is self-evident to any competent reader is a presupposition that is imported (by Protestants) to the interpretive process. It is not derived from Scripture. (Even the attempt to derive the notion of perspicuity from Scripture in a certain sense presupposes it.) It has its origin not in the fathers, but with the invention of the printing press and the surge of confidence in the power of human reason accompanying Renaissance humanism. It assumes that the nature of the gospel as recorded in Scripture is such that no competent reader will come to a determination about it that is contrary to one's own, all other things being equal. It assumes that the effort that was necessary for a Protestant to come to his present determination of the nature of the gospel is all the effort necessary for him to have understood fully and truly what is the nature of the gospel.

If this claim [i.e. that the nature of the gospel is self-evident to any competent reader] is false, then the person claiming to have derived it from Scripture is deeply mistaken, not only by importing a false presupposition to the interpretive process, but also in falsely deriving that false presupposition from Scripture. But the claim is not only a presupposition; it is also an empirical claim that is in principle falsifiable. So, if history has not falsified it, what would history have to look like in order to falsify it? How much more divided over the nature of the gospel would Christians have to be (and have been) before the perspicuity claim would be falsified?

St. Hegesippus on the Church

Fragment of a manuscript of St. Hegesippus's Historiae

St. Hegesippus (c. AD 110 - c. 180), according to Eusebius, was from the east. He was most likely a Hellenistic Jew. He is quoted by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History. First Eusebius says the following about St. Hegesippus.

Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.

St. Hegesippus had come to Rome apparently because of the rise of gnostic heresies. It is possible that he either wanted to determine what the church at Rome was teaching about these things, or that he was concerned that these things might influence the church at Rome. Notice that according to St. Hegesippus, during his travels to Rome he met a great many bishops and received the same doctrine from them all. This testifies that the faith that had been handed down by the Apostles had been preserved throughout Asia, Greece and Italy well into the latter part of the second century. Otherwise there would have been various accounts of the faith between the various bishops.

Eusebius then quotes from St. Hegisippus:

And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine. And when I had come to Rome I remained there until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.

St. Hegesippus describes his visit with the Corinthian church in a way that indicates that the problems with Primus were already in the past. He was able to be mutually refreshed with them in "the true doctrine". St. Anicetus became bishop of Rome around AD 155, so St. Hegesippus stayed in Rome from around that time until the time that St. Eleutherus became bishop of Rome. But the fact that he is writing about St. Eleutherus as bishop of the church at Rome shows that he was writing this no earlier than AD 175, because St. Eleutherus was the bishop of Rome from AD 175 - 189. St. Hegesippus is reporting (writing no earlier than AD 175) that what is believed in every city is what is "preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord". But St. Hegesippus tells us the following about the rise of the gnostic false teachers:

And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account, Symeon, the son of the Lord's uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord. Therefore, they called the Church a virgin, for it was not yet corrupted by vain discourses. But Thebuthis, because he was not made bishop, began to corrupt it. He also was sprung from the seven sects among the people, like Simon, from whom came the Simonians, and Cleobius, from whom came the Cleobians, and Dositheus, from whom came the Dositheans, and Gorthæus, from whom came the Goratheni, and Masbotheus, from whom came the Masbothæans. From them sprang the Menandrianists, and Marcionists, and Carpocratians, and Valentinians, and Basilidians, and Saturnilians. Each introduced privately and separately his own peculiar opinion. From them came false Christs, false prophets, false apostles, who divided the unity of the Church by corrupt doctrines uttered against God and against his Christ.(E.H. 4.22.4)

What exactly does St. Hegesippus mean when he says that the Church began to be corrupted? He means that certain false teachers began to make their way into the Church, and lead some people astray, and cause divisions. But he does not mean that the Church as a whole fell away. He is speaking as someone who has retained the "true faith", and has found the true faith present in every church where he has traveled. So this corruption about which he is speaking was apparently caused by sects arising almost parasitically in certain particular churches. The Church had to struggle against these various false teachers in a more pronounced way, because the Apostles had passed away, and even those persons who had known the Apostles were, after St. Polycarp's martyrdom, also gone.

So St. Hegesippus indicates to us that while there was a rise of false teachers, there was at the same time a struggle on the part of the Church to preserve orthodoxy, which it did. St. Hegesippus is testifying to the continuation of orthodoxy throughout the Catholic Church well into the latter part of the second century. He gives us testimonial evidence of a continuum of orthodoxy, with lapses here and there by individual bishops and presbyters, but an overall uniformity in the faith into the latter part of the second century.

The Shepherd of Hermas on the Church

"The Shepherd" is an important early second century work by a writer known as Hermas. He is said to have been a brother of St. Pius I who was the bishop of the church at Rome from 140 to 155 AD.

The work is divided into three books. The first book is composed of five visions. The second book of twelve commandments. And the third book is composed of ten similitudes. The parts that say something about the Church are found in books one and three.

In the first book Hermas says that God "by His own wisdom and providence has created His holy Church, which He has blessed" (1.1.3) Further on he writes that he was told in a vision, "You will tell, therefore, those who preside over the Church, to direct their ways in righteousness, that they may receive in full the promises with great glory." (1.2.2)

But in this vision he provides a metaphorical vision of the Church:

Now a revelation was given to me, my brethren, while I slept, by a young man of comely appearance, who said to me, Who do you think that old woman is from whom you received the book? And I said, The Sibyl. You are in a mistake, says he; it is not the Sibyl. Who is it then? say I. And he said, It is the Church. And I said to him, Why then is she an old woman? Because, said he, she was created first of all. On this account is she old. And for her sake was the world made. After that I saw a vision in my house, and that old woman came and asked me, if I had yet given the book to the presbyters. And I said that I had not. And then she said, You have done well, for I have some words to add. But when I finish all the words, all the elect will then become acquainted with them through you. You will write therefore two books, and you will send the one to Clemens and the other to Grapte. And Clemens will send his to foreign countries, for permission has been granted to him to do so. And Grapte will admonish the widows and the orphans. But you will read the words in this city, along with the presbyters who preside over the Church. (1.2.4)

Notice that the Church is old, because it was created by God first. In what sense? Presumably, the Church, as the "household of faith" is God's purpose in creating angels and men. The end is present in the beginning, so to speak. See also that Hermas refers to "Clemens" as one who sends his book to foreign countries. This may be a reference to St. Clement, bishop of Rome (91 - 100 AD). We know that he sent out a letter to the church at Corinth; I already discussed that letter here.

In the third vision, Hermas provides a different metaphorical vision of the Church:

The tower which you see building is myself, the Church, who have appeared to you now and on the former occasion. Ask, then, whatever you like in regard to the tower, and I will reveal it to you, that you may rejoice with the saints. I said unto her, Lady, since you have vouchsafed to reveal all to me this once, reveal it. She said to me, Whatsoever ought to be revealed, will be revealed; only let your heart be with God, and doubt not whatsoever you shall see. I asked her, Why was the tower built upon the waters, O Lady? She answered, I told you before, and you still inquire carefully: therefore inquiring you shall find the truth. Hear then why the tower is built upon the waters. It is because your life has been, and will be, saved through water. (1.3.3)

Here the Church is depicted as a tower built on water, to show that we enter the Church through baptism, by which our life is saved. Then Hermas discusses the various stones in the tower.

Hear now with regard to the stones which are in the building. Those square white stones which fitted exactly into each other, are apostles, bishops, teachers, and deacons, who have lived in godly purity, and have acted as bishops and teachers and deacons chastely and reverently to the elect of God. Some of them have fallen asleep, and some still remain alive. And they have always agreed with each other, and been at peace among themselves, and listened to each other. On account of this, they join exactly into the building of the tower. (1.3.5)

Here we have a description of apostles, bishops, teachers and deacons. Apostle seems to be title limited to the first generation of persons, for the other three are also functions that apostles performed. But bishop, teacher and deacon are offices that continue, while that of apostle does not. The term 'teacher' here seems to be used to refer to the activity of the office described elsewhere (e.g. in St. Ignatius) as [mere] presbyter, though that is not definitive.

In the third book we find other references to the Church:

Listen, he said: they whose branches were found withered and moth-eaten are the apostates and traitors of the Church, who have blasphemed the Lord in their sins, and have, moreover, been ashamed of the name of the Lord by which they were called. (3.8.6)

If the Church were "the number of the [decretally] elect", they could not be "traitors of the Church". The very idea of "traitors of the Church" shows that Hermas is using a concept of the Church as the visible Church. He continues:

In this way, then, will the Church of God be purified. For as you saw the stones rejected from the tower, and delivered to the evil spirits, and cast out thence, so [they also shall be cast out, and] there shall be one body of the purified; as the tower also became, as it were, of one stone after its purification. In like manner also shall it be with the Church of God, after it has been purified, and has rejected the wicked, and the hypocrites, and the blasphemers, and the waverers, and those who commit wickedness of different kinds. After these have been cast away, the Church of God shall be one body, of one mind, of one understanding, of one faith, of one love. And then the Son of God will be exceeding glad, and shall rejoice over them, because He has received His people pure. (3.9.18)

This passage seems to be speaking of the purification of the Church that must take place at the Judgment and perhaps also in the end times. The point to note here is that clearly for Hermas, at the time he is writing, the Church contains tares along with the wheat. When he says "Church", what he is talking about is the visible Church. Toward the end of this third book Hermas writes:

And from the tenth mountain, where were trees which overshadowed certain sheep, they who believed were the following: bishops given to hospitality, who always gladly received into their houses the servants of God, without dissimulation. And the bishops never failed to protect, by their service, the widows, and those who were in want, and always maintained a holy conversation. All these, accordingly, shall be protected by the Lord for ever. (3.9.27)

Here we see him describe good bishops of the Church, those given to hospitality and care for widows, and preserving holiness in their conversation.

Overall, while Hermas does not provide us with a substantive or complete ecclesiology, he shows a conceptual continuity with what was said before him with regard to his understanding of the universal nature of Church, as well as its present mixed composition (e.g. sinners and saints). He clearly recognizes an hierarchical authority structure in the Church. And shows (implicitly) an awareness of apostolic succession in his description of the continuity between the apostles on the one hand and the bishops, teachers, and deacons who continue the apostles's work.

The Church and the Second Century Gnostics

Marcion displaying his canon

We saw already in our discussion of St. Polycarp how the Apostle John, around the age of ninety (between 97 and 101 AD), had fled from the bath-house in Ephesus when he learned that Cerinthus was inside it, saying, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." (Adv haer. 3.3.4) We have also seen St. Polycarp's opposition to Marcion, when in about the year 154 AD they happened to meet in Rome. Marcion asked St. Polycarp, "Do you know me?" (Notice that Marcion's focus is on himself, and his own fame.) St. Polycarp, not one to mince words at the age of eighty-five, and not having attended Dale Carnegie, replied, "I do know you, the first-born of Satan."

Who were these persons: Cerinthus, Marcion, Valentinus, Cerdo, etc.? They were gnostics who were trying to infiltrate the Church. We know little about Cerinthus. He was a contemporary of the Apostle John, and was said to have come to Ephesus from Egypt, and if not a Jew then at least circumcised. Cerdo and Valentinus arrived in Rome during the time that St. Hyginus was bishop of Rome (136 - 140 AD). Marcion arrived in Rome around 140 AD. Valentinus was from Egypt. Cerdo was from Syria. Marcion was from Pontus. Why did they come to Rome? Because they understood (as Simon the Sorcerer had understood) that this was the place most efficiently to spread their beliefs. All three of these who came to Rome sought to become the bishop of Rome, in order to take control of the Church.

Cerdo at one point confessed his errors to the church at Rome, and was readmitted into the Church. But, at some point later (we don't know when) he was excommunicated by the church at Rome.

We know more about the case of Marcion. Marcion's father was a bishop of Sinope in Pontus. Marcion was born around 110 AD, and was made a bishop (but not the diocesan bishop) in his home town. He was eventually expelled from his own church by his father, when he committed a grave sin with a virgin. He traveled to Rome, arriving sometime around 140 AD, probably to attempt to ascend to the bishop's seat when St. Hyginus vacated it. In 140 AD, however, St. Pius I (said to be the brother of Hermas who wrote "Shepherd of Hermas") was elected to take St. Hyginus's place as bishop of the church at Rome; he served as bishop until about 155 AD. In 144 AD Marcion was excommunicated from the church at Rome by St. Pius I. Marcion then started his own 'church', with its own bishops, priests, and deacons. This 'church' spread far and wide and endured, apparently, even into the Middle Ages. (cf. C.E. 'Marcionites') Marcion died around 160 AD. St. Justin Martyr, who died around 165 AD, refers in at least one place to Marcion as still living. Tertullian's work "Against Marcion" explains and refutes Marcion's teachings.

When it was time to elect a successor to St. Pius I (about 155 AD), it seems that Valentinus tried to win this election. Tertullian tells us this:

[BOQ] Valentinus had expected to become a bishop, because he was an able man both in genius and eloquence. Being indignant, however, that another obtained the dignity by reason of a claim which confessorship had given him, he broke with the church of the true faith. Just like those (restless) spirits which, when roused by ambition, are usually inflamed with the desire of revenge, he applied himself with all his might to exterminate the truth; and finding the clue of a certain old opinion, he marked out a path for himself with the subtlety of a serpent.[EOQ] (Against the Valentinians, 4)

Valentinus failed to attain the episcopal chair at Rome, and instead St. Anicetus was selected as bishop of Rome. It seems that about this time Valentinus was excommunicated by the church at Rome, whereupon he went to Cyprus and died around 160-161.

What did the gnostics teach? Among other things, they taught that Christ did not have a real body, and did not suffer. (They were, in this respect, docetic.) We can already see in the epistles of St. John the direct rejection of gnosticism. (1 John 4:2; 2 John 1:7) Cerinthus's Christology was as follows:

[BOQ] Cerinthus distinguished between Jesus and Christ. Jesus was mere man, though eminent in holiness. He suffered and died and was raised from the dead, or, as some say Cerinthus taught, He will be raised from the dead at the Last Day and all men will rise with Him. At the moment of baptism, Christ or the Holy Ghost was sent by the Highest God, and dwelt in Jesus teaching Him, what not even the angels knew, the Unknown God. This union between Jesus and Christ continues till the Passion, when Jesus suffers alone and Christ returns to heaven.[EOQ] ('Cerinthus' in the Catholic Encylopedia)

Gnosticism separates matter and spirit, human and divine. In this way, it denies the *incarnation*. That is significant for multiple reasons, about which I have written in "The Gnostic Roots of Heresy". We saw already in St. Ignatius (Ep. ad. Smyrnaeans, 7) that the docetists abstained from (or only minimally received) the Eucharist, precisely because for them, as docetists, the Eucharist could not truly be the Body and Blood of Christ. But here I want to point out one very important *ecclesial* implication of gnosticism.

One Ecclesial Implication

If Christ did not have an actual material body, then the Church per se, i.e. the Body of Christ, cannot be visible. If the gnostics were right, then the Church per se is only spiritual and invisible, and that visible thing that is falsely called the Church is merely an earthly, human-made political body, just as the physical body of Jesus the son of Mary was (according to the gnostics who admitted that there was a human Jesus) *merely* human. The dualism implicit in the gnostic denial of the true incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ has as an implication a two-fold denial: it denies the divine character of the one visible Church, and it denies the visible character of the [one and very same] divine Church. Without the hypostatic union of the human and the divine, there is no visible divine body, and thus no visible divine Mystical Body, i.e. no visible Church. And if there is no visible Church, then there is no Church discipline. Marcion can start his own 'church', and make his own canon. If there is no visible Church, then the true knowledge is known 'spiritually', not by means of matter or a physical succession of bishops, not through the visible Church. If there is no visible Church, then how do we know which books are inspired? Spiritually, by a burning in our bosom, an internal witness with our spirit. If there is no visible Church, then how do we know who has the true interpretation of these books? Again, by an internal spiritual witness that this is their true and self-evident meaning. How do we know that we have salvation? Again, by an internal spiritual witness. The ecclesial implication of gnosticism's denial of the hypostatic union is the individualism of some form of Montanism.

To take on flesh in a true union (not just in appearance or in an extrinsic manner) is to bind oneself to the particular, to the here and now, in space and time. But the particular is known in a different way than is that which is spiritual, invisible, and universal. What is entirely spiritual cannot be known by the senses. It must be known apart from the senses. Hence gnosticism entails that Christ is known internally in the subjectivity of one's own heart, not through matter, and thus not through one's senses, and definitely not through a material and temporal succession of sweaty, smelly, sinful men. But the incarnation entails something altogether different. Because of the incarnation, Christ is known to us through His material body, through His physical acts in particular places and times. "He who has seen Me has seen the Father." (St. John 14:9) We come to God through His Body and Blood, not bypassing them. (St. John 6) Since Christ is embodied and visible in His particularity in space and time, so too the Church, as His Body, is visible in its particularity in space and time. As we come to Christ through union with that *matter* which flowed from the side of His physical body on the cross, so likewise we come to Christ through sacramental union with that same matter that pours forth daily from the side of His Body, the Church, in the Eucharist. The Church per se must be particular and visible in space and time because it is the Body of Christ, and because in taking on a body in His incarnation Christ was truly and permanently united with matter in all its particularity and visibility.

The Didache on the Church

Selection from the Didache
H/T Taylor Marshall

The Didache is an important early Christian document. Its title means '[The] Teaching', though its full title is "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles". It was held by some early fathers to be close to canonical. The date of its composition is not easy to determine. It has been dated anywhere from 70 AD up to 160 AD. What it says about apostles and prophets and fasting (viz-a-viz the Jews) indicates that it is probably a late first century - early second century composition.

What does the Didache teach us about the early conception of the Church? In chapter 9 we read:

[BOQ] Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom; for Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever. But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs.[EOQ]

Here we see a conception of the Church as universal (i.e. catholic). Christ has one Church that is being gathered together from the ends of the earth into His kingdom. In chapter 10 we see a similar conception of the Church:

[BOQ] Remember, Lord, Your Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in Your love, and gather it from the four winds, sanctified for Your kingdom which You have prepared for it [EOQ]

The "Church" here needs to be delivered from evil and made perfect. So it cannot merely refer to those who are perfect. The Church is being sanctified, and being gathered together from the four winds. This idea of "gathering" implies a unification. The Church is not a mere collection, a disunited plurality. The Church is a unity into which men from the ends of the earth are being gathered and united.

In chapter 11 we find the following:

[BOQ] Whosoever, therefore, comes and teaches you all these things that have been said before, receive him. But if the teacher himself turn and teach another doctrine to the destruction of this, hear him not; but if he teach so as to increase righteousness and the knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord. But concerning the apostles and prophets, according to the decree of the Gospel, thus do. Let every apostle that comes to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain except one day; but if there be need, also the next; but if he remain three days, he is a false prophet. And when the apostle goes away, let him take nothing but bread until he lodges; but if he ask money, he is a false prophet. And every prophet that speaks in the Spirit you shall neither try nor judge; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven. But not every one that speaks in the Spirit is a prophet; but only if he hold the ways of the Lord. Therefore from their ways shall the false prophet and the prophet be known. And every prophet who orders a meal in the Spirit eats not from it, except indeed he be a false prophet; and every prophet who teaches the truth, if he do not what he teaches, is a false prophet. And every prophet, proved true, working unto the mystery of the Church in the world, yet not teaching others to do what he himself does, shall not be judged among you, for with God he has his judgment; for so did also the ancient prophets. But whoever says in the Spirit, Give me money, or something else, you shall not listen to him; but if he says to you to give for others' sake who are in need, let no one judge him.[EOQ]

We see here something important about testing itinerant teachers. They have to teach in agreement with what came before. Similarly, those who claim to be prophets but do not live in the way of the Lord, are false prophets. But those true prophets who are "working unto the mystery of the Church in the world" are not to be judged. The meaning of the phrase "mystery of the Church in the world" is not entirely clear. But the Church is here treated as a mystery, i.e. a sacrament that is in the world. The idea of a mystery or a sacrament, in this context, is that there is more to it than meets the eye. There is more there than we can see. Implicit in this sacramental conception of the Church is thus the idea that the Church has both a visible and an invisible aspect, as Christ Himself had both a visible and an invisible aspect. He was mysterious in the sense that there was much more to Him (that's quite the understatement) than met the eye. The Church imitates Christ in this very manner. Her saints are quiet, hidden, and mostly unknown. They are, in that respect, like Jesus Himself, for Isaiah tells us, "He has no stately form or majesty that we should look upon Him, nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him. He was despised and forsaken of men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and like one from whom men hide their face, He was despised, and we did not esteem Him." (Isaiah 53:2-3) The Church, which is the Body of Christ, imitates Christ in this very way. The Church is so human that you can just walk right past it, not even recognizing it for what it is. This is the mystery of the Church in the world.

In chapter 15 we read the following:

[BOQ] Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, (1 Timothy 3:4) and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers. Despise them not therefore, for they are your honoured ones, together with the prophets and teachers. And reprove one another, not in anger, but in peace, as you have it in the Gospel; Matthew 18:15-17 but to every one that acts amiss against another, let no one speak, nor let him hear anything from you until he repent. But your prayers and alms and all your deeds so do, as you have it in the Gospel of our Lord.[EOQ]

Here the believers are told to appoint for themselves "bishops and deacons" who are "worthy of the Lord". These men will render to the laity the service corresponding to that of the "prophets and teachers". This, we may suppose, was at the time when the apostolic era was coming to a close, and there would no longer be traveling apostles, prophets, and teachers to feed the infant churches. So the people would need to select from themselves those who were to be bishops and deacons to oversee their churches. Some have interpreted the first line here "Appoint, therefore, for yourselves bishops and deacons" to mean that the Didache is endorsing congregationalism. But if we read the Didache in the context of the other early Church fathers, we see that this isn't a congregationalism in which ordination is conferred by the laity. Rather, the laity were to select worthy men from among themselves, and put them forward as candidates for ordination by the apostles.

To read the Didache in its entirety, go here.

St. Polycarp on the Church

The Martyrdom of St. Polycarp

From the Church of St. Polycarp, in Smyrna (modern day Izmir, Turkey)

St. Polycarp (AD c. 69 - c. 155) was the bishop of the church at Smyrna. He was a friend and contemporary of St. Ignatius (AD c. 30 - c. 107). He was also an auditor (i.e. hearer) of the Apostle John. We have St. Ignatius's letter to St. Polycarp. We also have St. Polycarp's letter to the Philippians, which appears to have been written around AD 107.

St. Irenaeus (AD c. 130 – c. 200), had been a disciple of St. Polycarp in Smyrna. In his letter to Florinus (who had fallen into heresy), St. Irenaeus writes the following:
 

For I distinctly remember the incidents of that time better than events of recent occurrence ... I can describe the very place in which the Blessed Polycarp used to sit when he discoursed ... his personal appearance ... and how he would describe his intercourse with John and with the rest who had seen the Lord, and how he would relate their words ... I can testify in the sight of God, that if the blessed and apostolic elder had heard anything of this kind, he would have cried out, and stopped his ears, and said after his wont, 'O good God, for what times hast thou kept me that I should endure such things?' ... This can be shown from the letters which he wrote to the neighbouring Churches for their confirmation...

We also have a letter from St. Irenaeus to St. Victor, who was the bishop of the Church at Rome from AD 189 - 199. In this letter St. Irenaeus describes the visit that St. Polycarp made to Rome at the very end of his life (probably in the summer of AD 154) to talk with St. Anicetus, bishop of Rome, regarding the differences between the Asiatics and the Romans in their determination of the date for the celebration of Easter.

St. Irenaeus also refers to St. Polycarp in Ad haer 3.3.4, where he writes:

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,— a man who was of much greater weight, and a more steadfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles — that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within. And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, Do you know me? I do know you, the first-born of Satan. Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sins, being condemned of himself. (Titus 3:10) There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.

The most glorious and inspiring part of the tradition that we have regarding St. Polycarp is the account of his martyrdom, which took place in AD 155 or 156, when he was 86 years old. On trial before the proconsul, St. Polycarp says, "Eighty-six years have I served Him and He has done me no wrong. How can I blaspheme my King Who has saved me?" The account of his martyrdom was written by Smyrnaean Christians who were eyewitnesses of the event.

What does St. Polycarp tell us about the Church? His very life tells us first that a faithful disciple of the Apostle John was active in the Church until the year AD 155. If St. Polycarp reacted so strongly to the heresy of Florinus, saying that if the Apostle John had heard what Florinus was saying, he [John] would have cried out and stopped his ears, then St. Polycarp would likewise have refused to be the bishop of Smyrna, if that is not what the Apostles had ordered and prescribed. And yet we know that he was the bishop of Smyrna, appointed to that office by the Apostle John, according to St. Irenaeus. Those who claim that the Church was corrupted in doctrine and ecclesiology by the early second century have some responsibility to explain why persons of the character and virtue of the likes of St. Polycarp would raise no protest to these alleged corruptions.

St. Polycarp opens his letter to the Philippians with the following line: "Polycarp, and the presbyters with him, to the Church of God sojourning at Philippi ...". He writes as a bishop in union with his presbyters. In chapter five of his letter he speaks of the duties of deacons. Then he writes to the laity, "Wherefore, it is needful to abstain from all these things, being subject to the presbyters and deacons, as unto God and Christ." In chapter six he describes the way presbyters should behave:
 

And let the presbyters be compassionate and merciful to all, bringing back those that wander, visiting all the sick, and not neglecting the widow, the orphan, or the poor, but always providing for that which is becoming in the sight of God and man; (Romans 12:17; 2 Corinthians 8:31) abstaining from all wrath, respect of persons, and unjust judgment; keeping far off from all covetousness, not quickly crediting [an evil report] against any one, not severe in judgment, as knowing that we are all under a debt of sin.

St. Polycarp then speaks in chapter eleven about a man named Valens who was once a presbyter in the church at Philippi, but who has in some sense fallen, apparently because of sin. He writes:

I am greatly grieved for Valens, who was once a presbyter among you, because he so little understands the place that was given him [in the Church]. I exhort you, therefore, that you abstain from covetousness, and that you be chaste and truthful.... I am deeply grieved, therefore, brethren, for him (Valens) and his wife; to whom may the Lord grant true repentance! And be then moderate in regard to this matter, and do not count such as enemies, 2 Thessalonians 3:15 but call them back as suffering and straying members, that you may save your whole body. For by so acting you shall edify yourselves.

We see here that this presbyter was married, and also that through his sin he had in some sense been removed from his office.

The account of the martyrdom of St. Polycarp, written by eyewitnesses of this event, opens with an explicit reference to the "Catholic Church":

The Church of God which sojourns at Smyrna, to the Church of God sojourning in Philomelium, and to all the congregations of the Holy and Catholic Church in every place: Mercy, peace, and love from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, be multiplied.

Each particular Church is conceived as part of the "Holy and Catholic Church". The Holy and Catholic Church is made up of congregations in all the various cities. This of course would not include the 'congregations' of the heretics (e.g. Marcionites, gnostics, Valentinians, etc.) This conception of the Catholic Church can be seen again in chapter eight of the account of St. Polycarp's martyrdom:

Now, as soon as he had ceased praying, having made mention of all that had at any time come in contact with him, both small and great, illustrious and obscure, as well as the whole Catholic Church throughout the world ....

And again in chapter sixteen:

And on his doing this, there came forth a dove, and a great quantity of blood, so that the fire was extinguished; and all the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna.

In chapter nineteen, Jesus Christ is described as the Shepherd of the Catholic Church:

For, having through patience overcome the unjust governor, and thus acquired the crown of immortality, he now, with the apostles and all the righteous [in heaven], rejoicingly glorifies God, even the Father, and blesses our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour of our souls, the Governor of our bodies, and the Shepherd of the Catholic Church throughout the world.

Here we see the conception that the Catholic Church throughout the world needs and has a Shepherd, in Jesus Christ. This Catholic Church is not provincial; it is the one Church that Christ founded, and which extends to the ends of the world. It is this one Church to which all followers of Christ (as His sheep) should seek to be joined.

The Episcopal Seat in the first century Church in Jerusalem

St. James the Righteous

The historian and bishop Eusebius (249 - 340 AD) quotes St. Clement of Alexandria (d. 215) concerning St. James the Righteous, one of the Twelve Apostles. Eusebius quotes St. Clement as having written the following:

"Peter, James and John, after the Ascension of the Savior, did not strive after honor, because the Savior had specially honored them, but chose James the Righteous as Bishop of Jerusalem." (E.H. 2.1)

This is the James about whom St. Paul writes in Galatians 1:19. He is the author of the book of James in the New Testament. And his position as bishop of Jerusalem explains his prominence in Luke's account of the Jerusalem Council (c. 49-50 AD) in Acts 15. St. Clement of Alexandria relates that this James was "thrown down from a parapet and beaten to death with a fuller's club". (E.H. 2.1) Eusebius provides a fuller account (E.H. 2.23) of the martyrdom of this James by drawing from Hegesippus (c. 110-180 AD), whom Eusebius tells us "belonged to the first generation after the apostles". This is where we learn that St. James's "knees grew hard like a camel's from his continually bending them in worship of God and beseeching forgiveness for the people."

According to Eusebius, St. James the Righteous had been "the first after our Saviour's Ascension to be raised to the bishop's throne there [in Jerusalem]". (E.H. 3.5)

Eusebius then tells us the following:

[BOQ] After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, there is a firm tradition that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those who, humanly speaking, were kinsmen of the Lord (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that see. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.[EOQ] (E.H. 3.11)

Eusebius again draws from Hegesippus to recount the martyrdom of Symeon under the emperor Trajan in the year 106 or 107 AD. (cf. E.H. 3.32) Apparently Symeon, as an old man, was tortured for days and then crucified. According to Eusebius, "When Symeon had found fulfilment in the manner described, his successor on the throne of the Jerusalem bishopric was a Jew named Justus, one of the vast number of the circumcision who by then believed in Christ." (E.H. 3.35)