A Global Church History: The Great Tradition through Cultures, Continents and Centuries 0567673065, 9780567673060

Citation preview

A Global Church History

ii

A Global Church History The Great Tradition through Cultures, Continents, and Centuries Robert F. Rea and Steven D. Cone

T&T CLARK Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA BLOOMSBURY, T&T CLARK and the T&T Clark logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2019 Copyright © Steven D. Cone and Robert F. Rea, 2019 Steven D. Cone and Robert F. Rea have asserted their rights under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Authors of this work. For legal purposes the Acknowledgments on p. xxviii constitute an extension of this copyright page. Cover design: Terry Woodley Cover image © Melkite icon, doctors of the Church (Photo by Godong/Universal Images Group via Getty Images) All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Cone, Steven D., author. | Rea, Robert F., 1953- author. Title: A global church history : the great tradition through cultures, continents, and centuries / Steven D. Cone and Robert F. Rea. Description: New York : T&T Clark, 2019. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2019007778 | ISBN 9780567673060 (hardback) | ISBN 9780567673046 (pbk.) | ISBN 9780567673053 (epub) | ISBN 9780567673077 (epdf) Subjects: LCSH: Church history. Classification: LCC BR145.3 .C65 2019 | DDC 270–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019007778 ISBN: HB: 978-0-5676-7306-0 PB: 978-0-5676-7304-6 ePDF: 978-0-5676-7307-7 ePUB: 978-0-5676-7305-3 Typeset by Deanta Global Publishing Services, Chennai, India To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

Bloomsbury T&T Clark A Global Church History: The Great Tradition through Cultures, Continents, and Centuries Copyright © 2019 by Robert F. Rea and Steven D. Cone Scripture quotations in English are taken from: New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright 1989, Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved. The New American Standard Bible® (NASB), Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation Used by permission. www.Lockman.org Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www.zondervan.com The “NIV” and “New International Version” are trademarks registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Biblica, Inc.™ Scripture quotations marked (ESV) are taken from the Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®) Copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. All rights reserved. ESV Text Edition: 2016 Scripture quotations in English that are not attributed (NRSV, NASB, or NIV) are by Robert F. Rea or Steven D. Cone. Greek Bible text from Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th revised edition, Edited by Barbara Aland and others, © 2012 Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart. Images and documents licensed as indicated.

vi

Dedicated to the glory of God seen in the Church across cultures, continents, and centuries

viii

Contents

Introduction xxiv Why do we study Christian history? xxv How to use this book xxvi Acknowledgments xxviii

Section I: Christianity through the Ages 1

The Early Church from Beginnings to 500 (by Robert F. Rea)

3

Introduction Christian beginnings Discussion question The Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists The Apostolic Fathers The Apologists Discussion questions Gnosticism Discussion questions Montanism Discussion questions Imperial crisis in the third century and Diocletian Discussion question Roman persecution of the Christians Discussion questions Events leading to Emperor Constantine Discussion questions Early Christian life and worship, baptismal controversies Life and worship The Novatianist controversy The Donatist controversy

3 3 7 7 7 9 13 13 17 18 18 19 21 21 24 25 26 27 27 28 29

x

2

Contents

The Paschal controversy Discussion questions Scripture—authority, canon, translation, and schools of exegesis The canon of Scripture Translations of Scripture Schools of exegesis—Alexandria and Antioch Discussion questions Early Christian asceticism Early Christian monasticism in Egypt Other forms of Early Christian monasticism Discussion questions Controversies over the Trinity—“Theological” controversies Theological terminology Monarchianism Arianism and the Council of Nicea (325) Between the Councils of Nicea (325) and Constantinople (381) The Council of Constantinople (381) and the Nicene Creed Discussion questions Developments in the relationship between church and state Discussion questions Controversies over the natures of Christ—“Christological” controversies Events leading to the Council of Ephesus (431) The Council of Ephesus (431) Monophysitism and the Council of Chalcedon (451) Discussion questions Controversy over grace theology Discussion questions Christianity outside the Roman Empire in the early centuries Discussion question Chapter summary Chapter bibliography

30

The Church from 500 to 1500 (by Steven D. Cone)

74

Introduction The Eastern Roman Church and Empire

74

31 31 31 32 34 39 39 39 41 43 43 43 44 45 48 53 55 56 59 59 59 63 65 67 67 71 71 72 72 73

74

Contents

The beginnings of Byzantium Monasticism Eastern worship Justinian I Islam The Sixth Ecumenical Council The Iconoclast controversy Missions to Central Europe Photius of Constantinople The tenth-century height of culture Mount Athos The conversion of Russia Symeon the New Theologian The Great Schism Difference between the East and the West Mutual excommunication The Fourth Crusade Development and consolidation The Palaiologian dynasty Gregory Palamas and the Hesychast controversy The rise of Moscow The fall of Constantinople Discussion questions Central, Southern, and Eastern Asia Syria Persia Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan China India Discussion questions Africa Northern Africa Egypt Nubia Ethiopia Discussion questions

xi

77 77 77 79 80 81 83 85 86 87 88 89 90 90 92 93 94 94 96 98 100 102 103 104 106 110 115 119 126 129 129 129 130 133 134 138

xii

Contents

Western Europe The changing of the times From Roman Empire to tribal kingdoms The beginning of the Middle Ages Merovingians and Carolingians Stabilizing influences in the West Monasticism The papacy The Irish and British The Holy Roman Empire Charlemagne Restoration of the Church Restoration of education Restoration of Empire Restoration of theology Invasion and Corruption Invasion The Dismal Papacy Reform Cluny Hildebrand (Pope Gregory VII) The Investiture controversy The Crusades The background of the First Crusade The call for Crusade The offer of indulgences The First Crusade The Second Crusade The fall of Jerusalem to Saladin The Third Crusade The Fourth Crusade Military Orders The influences of the Crusades The High Middle Ages Monastic reform

138 138 139 141 142 143 143 146 150 154 154 155 155 156 156 161 162 164 164 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 172 173 174 175 175 176 177 179 180

Contents

xiii

Church and state Pope Innocent III Political rule Combating heresy The Fourth Crusade The Mendicant orders The background context The Franciscans The Dominicans The seven sacraments The Church calendar Scholasticism and the rise of universities Intellectual growth Social framework for intellectual growth Educational institutions Bec and Anselm The rise of universities Rediscovery of Aristotle The rise of experimental science The Late Middle Ages The beginnings of Nationalism The Black Death Decline in the Church The papacy The Conciliar Movement Scholasticism Mystics and reformers Mystics Hildegard of Bingen Julian of Norwich Catherine of Sienna Thomas à Kempis Savonarola A multitude of voices

181 183 184 184 185 185 186 186 186 188 190 191 191 192 193 193 194 197 203 205 205 206 208 208 210 211 215 215 217 218 219 221 221 223

xiv

Contents

Reformers John Wycliffe Jan Hus Discussion questions Chapter summary Chapter bibliography 3

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650 (by Robert F. Rea) Introduction Discussion question The German Reformation Discussion questions The Reformation in Switzerland Discussion questions The Radical Reformation Discussion questions The English Reformation Discussion questions The Catholic Reformation Leaders in the Catholic Reformation The Jesuits The Council of Trent Discussion questions Later Western European conflicts during the Reformation period Discussion questions Missionary expansion in Europe and the Americas during the Reformation period Discussion questions Missionary Expansion in Africa and Asia in the Reformation period Discussion questions Chapter summary Chapter bibliography

224 224 225 225 226 228

230 230 231 231 248 248 257 257 267 268 285 286 286 295 297 303 304 309 309 316 316 323 323 324

Contents

4

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries (by Robert F. Rea) Introduction Rationalism, Enlightenment, and Religious Awakening The rise of modern science Deism Alternative approaches to Christianity Spiritual movements in Great Britain and beyond Discussion questions Orthodox Churches in the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries Discussion question Roman Catholicism in the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries Discussion questions Seventeenth- to nineteenth-century Christianity in North America and beyond Christianity among French colonists Christianity among British colonists The First Great Awakening and responses Christianity in North America between the First and Second Great Awakenings The impact of the Second Great Awakening Late nineteenth-century developments in England and North America Discussion questions Nineteenth-century Protestant Christianity in continental Europe Discussion questions Nineteenth-century Protestants in Great Britain Discussion question Nineteenth-century developments in Protestant missionary expansion Latin American Christianity in the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries Christianity in Oceania and other Pacific Islands in the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries Christianity in Africa in the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries Christianity in Asia in the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries Discussion questions Chapter summary Chapter bibliography

xv

326 326 327 327 329 331 336 340 341 345 345 354 354 354 355 359 364 367 381 385 385 394 394 399 399 400 404 407 415 426 427 427

xvi

5

Contents

Christianity in the Twentieth Century and Beyond (by Robert F. Rea) Introduction European Christianity before, during, and after World War II Discussion questions Orthodox Churches in the twentieth century and beyond Discussion questions Roman Catholicism in the twentieth century and beyond Discussion questions Twentieth-century Christianity in North America and beyond Discussion questions The ecumenical movement Discussion questions Growth and expansion in global outreach in the twentieth century and beyond Discussion question Latin American Christianity in the twentieth century and beyond Discussion question Christianity in Oceania and other Pacific Islands in the twentieth century and beyond Discussion question Christianity in Africa in the twentieth century and beyond Discussion questions Christianity in Asia in the twentieth century and beyond Discussion questions Final thoughts Discussion questions Chapter bibliography

428 428 429 435 435 440 440 450 450 465 466 470 470 471 471 475 475 480 480 490 490 501 501 501 502

Section II:  Documents of Christianity through the Ages (Edited by Steven D. Cone) 1 Ancient 1.1 1.2

The Didache on Sacraments and Church Order Pliny the Younger, “Christians in Bithynia”

507 507 509

Contents

1.3 Clement of Rome, 1 Clement on Humility and Church Order 1.4 Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans on Christ 1.5 Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans on Heresy and Church Leadership 1.6 Justin Martyr, First Apology on Christ and Christian Worship 1.7 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, On the Gnostic Heresies 1.8 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, On Salvation 1.9 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, On the Eucharist 1.10 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, On Scripture and Tradition 1.11 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, On Salvation 1.12 Irenaeus, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching on the Rule of Faith 1.13 The Martyrdom of Polycarp 1.14 The Muratorian Canon 1.15 Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus on Human Nature 1.16 Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata on Philosophy 1.17 Tertullian, Prescription against Heretics, on Philosophy 1.18 Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, On Creation 1.19 Tertullian, Against Praxeas, On Christ 1.20 Origen, On First Principles, On Creation 1.21 Papias, The Traditions of the Elders 1.22 Cyprian of Carthage, On the Unity of the Catholic Church 1.23 Cyprian of Carthage, To the Lapsed 1.24 Lactantius, Diocletian’s Persecution and the Edict of Milan 1.25 The Creed of the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) 1.26 Eusebius, Church History, On the Unity of the Church 1.27 Ephrem the Syrian, Hymns on the Nativity, The Virgin Mother to Her Child 1.28 Athanasius, Discourse 3 Against the Arians on the Unity of Human and Divine in Christ 1.29 Athanasius, Discourse 3 Against the Arians on Salvation in Christ 1.30 Athanasius, Life of Anthony 1.31 Cyril of Jerusalem, First Address on the Mysteries on Baptism 1.32 Julius I, Letter to the Eusebians at Antioch on the Arians 1.33 Basil of Caesarea, The Holy Spirit 1.34 Gregory of Nyssa, To Ablabius, On “Not Three Gods” 1.35 Gregory of Nyssa, Commentary on the Beatitudes 3 on True Mourning 1.36 The Nicene Creed, First Council of Constantinople (AD 381)

xvii

510 511 512 513 516 518 520 521 521 522 524 525 526 527 527 528 528 529 531 531 532 533 535 535 536 537 538 539 540 542 543 545 547 548

xviii

Contents

1.37 Jerome, Letter 53 on Reading Scripture 1.38 Augustine, On Christian Teaching on Christianity and Philosophy 1.39 Augustine, On the Profit of Believing on Reading Scripture 1.40 Augustine, On the Trinity First Psychological Analogy 1.41 Augustine, On the Trinity on the Holy Spirit and Loving 1.42 Augustine, City of God, On the Nature of Evil 1.43 Augustine, On Nature and Grace, On the Fall and Redemption 1.44 Augustine, City of God, On Death 1.45 Pelagius Letter to Demetrias on Grace and Free Will 1.46 John Cassian, Conferences, On Grace and Free Will 1.47 Cyril of Alexandria, Second Tome against Nestorius On the Union of Natures in Christ 1.48 Cyril of Alexandria Gospel According to John, On the Unity of the Church 1.49 Council of Carthage (AD 417), The Canon of Scripture 1.50 The Athanasian Creed 1.51 Arius’ Letter to Paulinus on Christ 1.52 The Dated Creed 1.53 Leo the Great, Tome on the Christ 1.54 Cyril of Alexandria, Cum salvator noster on the Christ 1.55 The Definition of Chalcedon 1.56 Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium on Knowing the True Faith 1.57 Rufinus, The Ecclesiastical History, Christianity in Ethiopia 1.58 Cosmas Indicopleustes, Topographia Christiana on Christianity in Central and South Asia 1.59 The Nestorian Stele, On Christianity in China 1.60 Council of Constantinople II 1.61 The Council of Constantinople III 1.62 The Council of Nicaea II 2

548 550 550 551 553 555 556 557 557 558 559 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 566 567 568 569 569 570 570

The Medieval, Byzantine, and Oriental Church

572

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

572

Emperor Zeno, Henoticon on the Orthodox Faith Benedict Of Nursia, Rule Dorotheos of Gaza, Discourses and Sayings on Humility Maximus of Constantinople, Quaestiones ad Thalassium 22 on the Order of Creation

573 574 575

Contents

2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10

Venerable Bede, Life of Cuthbert Isaac the Syrian, Ascetical Homilies on Christian Excellence Eleventh Council of Toledo, Symbol of the Faith Syrian Orthodox Divine Liturgy of St. James, Anaphora Roman Missal, The Canon of the Mass, c. 400-600 Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, Eucharistic Prayers 2.11 Coptic Orthodox Liturgy of St. Basil the Great, Eucharistic Prayers 2.12 Armenian Orthodox Liturgy, The Badarak, Eucharistic Prayers 2.13 Venerable Bede on St. Ninian, (360–432) and St. Columba, (521–97) 2.14 The Conversion of Boris, King of Bulgaria, 864 2.15 Bernard of Clairvaux, De consideratione on the Papacy 2.16 Anselm of Canterbury, Proslogion, On Knowing God Exists 2.17 Anselm of Canterbury, Proslogion, On Divine Compassion and Impassibility 2.18 Anselm of Canterbury, Cur Deus Homo on the Atonement 2.19 Urban II, Speech at Council of Clermont, 1095, Call for Crusade 2.20 Innocent III, Sicut universitalis conditor on Papal Authority 2.21 Peter Abelard, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, on the Atonement 2.22 York Cycle (Mystery Play) 2.23 Hildegard of Bingen, Book of Divine Works on Man and Woman 2.24 Francis of Assisi, Rule 2.25 Mechthild of Magdeburg, Flowing Light of the Godhead on the Soul’s Desire 2.26 Fourth Lateran Council on Transubstantiation 2.27 Magna Carta, 1215, The Clauses for the English Church 2.28 Theodore Metochites, Poems To Himself on His Misfortunes 2.29 Hymn of the Transfiguration (Nestorian Church, China) 2.30 Bonaventure, Breviloquium, On the Origin of Evil 2.31 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, On the Need for Theology 2.32 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, On Knowing that God Exists 2.33 Life of Constantine on the Missions of Cyril and Methodius 2.34 John Scotus Eriugena, The Division of Nature on Paradise  2.35 Dante Alighieri, Divine Comedy 2.36 Kebra Negast, The Glory of Kings (Ethiopian Orthodox Church)

xix

575 578 579 582 591 592 594 596 597 598 599 599 600 601 606 607 607 608 610 610 611 612 612 613 614 615 616 617 619 620 621 623

xx

3

Contents

2.37 Bull of Pope Gregory XI, Against John Wycliffe 2.38 The Council of Constance on Conciliarism 2.39 Concordat of Worms on Papal Privilege

626

Reformation/Renaissance/Early Modern

630

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17 3.18 3.19 3.20 3.21 3.22 3.23 3.24 3.25

Pope Alexander VI, Inter cetera, addressed to King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain on the New World Sixtus IV, Salvator noster on Indulgences for Those in Purgatory Petrarch, “The Ascent of Mt. Ventoux” Liturgy from The Book of Common Prayer, Eucharistic Prayers Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Oration on Human Dignity on Human Nature John Smith, The Cambridge Platonists on Mystical Knowledge of God Desiderius Erasmus, In Praise of Folly on Corruption in the Church Martin Luther, 95 Theses Diet of Worms, Luther’s Statement as Published Martin Luther, Appeal to the German Nobility on Reforming the Church Martin Luther, Babylonian Captivity of the Church on the Sacraments Martin Luther, Lesser Catechism on Baptism Martin Luther, “Preface to the Latin Works” on the Righteousness of God Martin Luther, On the Councils and the Church Philip Melanchthon, The Defense of the Augsburg Confession, on Justification Menno Simons, “Sincere and True Repentance,” “A Supplication to the Magistracy,” and “Concerning Baptism”  The Supremacy Act, 1534, on the English Monarch and the English Church John Calvin, Institutes I.1.1 on True Wisdom John Calvin, Institutes III.ii.29, 30 on Salvation by Grace Ignatius Loyola, Spiritual Exercises, “Rules for Thinking with the Church” The Peace of Augsburg The Belgic Confession on Scripture and Nature The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, Statement on Holy Scripture The Council of Trent, Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures The Synod of Jassy (Orthodox Church), Statement on Scripture and Tradition

628 628

630 630 631 632 634 635 636 637 642 643 645 647 648 649 649 651 653 653 655 656 658 659 659 661 662

Contents

xxi

3.26 Patriarch Jeremias Tranos, Answers to the Tubingen Theologians on the Eastern Orthodox response to the Augsburg Confession 3.27 The Edict of Nantes 3.28 Roberto de Nobili, Treatises on Christian Teaching for India 3.29 The Five Articles of the Remonstrants on Grace and Free Will 3.30 The Humble Petition and Advice on Freedom of Religion 3.31 The Church of Scotland, The First Book of Discipline on Ordination 3.32 Jeremy Taylor, The Rule and Exercises of Holy Dying on Heaven 3.33 Russian Orthodox Hymn of Passiontide 3.34 The Synod of Jerusalem, 1672, Declaration on Holy Scripture and Predestination 3.35 Nicholas Bulgaris, A Holy Catechism (1681) on the Holy Mysteries 4 Modern 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18

Blaise Pascal, Pensées on the Wager Blaise Pascal, Pensées on Proofs of God’s Existence The First Confession (Baptist – London 1644) The Westminster Confession of Faith on Scripture The Russian Orthodox Church, Catechism of Platon, Primer for Children, and Longer Catechism John Wesley, “Sermon 5” on Justification Friedrich Schleiermacher, “Sermon XV, Christ’s Resurrection an Image of Our New Life.” Søren Kierkegaard, Preparation for a Christian Life on Following Christ Vatican I. The Dogmatic Decrees on Papal Infallibility A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology on Scripture Richard Watson, Theological Institutes on Justification and Sanctification James Orr, The Christian View of God and the World as Centring in the Incarnation on Revelation Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, 2.2 (Chapter VII) on Election Godfrey E. Phillips, “Naturalizing Christianity in India” The Barmen Declaration Reinhold Niebuhr, The Nature and Destiny of Man on Sin C. S. Lewis, “The Weight of Glory” and “Is Theology Poetry” C. S. Song, Third-Eye Theology on Christian Theology in Asia

663 664 666 668 669 670 671 671 672 673

676 676 678 679 680 681 684 685 686 688 688 690 692 694 695 696 698 700 703

xxii

Contents

4.19 Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption on Human Nature 4.20 Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from the Birmingham Jail 4.21 Vatican II, Gaudium et spes (1965) on Human Nature 4.22 Vatican II Lumen Gentium (1965) on the Church 4.23 Vatican II Nostra Aetate (1965) on Non-Christian Religions 4.24 Leslie Newbigin, Unfinished Agenda on the Inauguration of the Church of South India 4.25 Gustavo Gutiérrez, A Theology of Liberation on the Nature of Theology 4.26 Vladimir Lossky on Redemption and Deification 4.27 Michael Green, I Believe in the Holy Spirit on the Holy Spirit 4.28 James Cone, God of the Oppressed on the Nature of Theology 4.29 Donald Bloesch, “A Christological Hermeneutic: Crisis and Conflict in Hermeneutics” on Scripture 4.30 Stanley Hauerwas, A Community of Character on the Church and Christian Ethics 4.31 World Council of Churches, “Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry” on Baptism 4.32 John Hick, The Second Christianity on Religious Pluralism  4.33 John Zizioulas, Being as Communion (1985) on the Church 4.34 M. R. A. Kanyoro, “A Story—Difference: Cultural Christianity or Syncretism?” on Christianity in Africa 4.35 Mary Hayter, The New Eve in Christ (1987) on Human Nature 4.36 Alexander Schmemann, The Eucharist (1988) on the Eucharist 4.37 Leonardo Boff, Trinity and Society on the Trinity and Society 4.38 T. F. Torrance, The Trinitarian Faith on Christ 4.39 Leslie Newbingin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (1989) on Religious Pluralism 4.40 Clark Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy (1992) on Religious Pluralism 4.41 John Paul II, “Evangelium Vitae” on Christ’s Sacrifice and the Sacredness of Life 4.42 John Paul II, Spirit is Source of New and Eternal Life 4.43 Rowan Williams, On Christian Theology on the Sacraments 4.44 Kathryn Tanner, Jesus, Humanity and the Trinity on Death 4.45 Brother Roger, No Greater Love on Christian Worship and Community 4.46 Letty M. Russell, “Authority and the Challenge of Feminist Interpretation” on Biblical Interpretation

704 707 712 715 718 720 721 723 724 726 726 730 732 734 736 737 739 742 744 745 746 750 753 755 757 758 760 761

Contents

4.47 Benedict XVI, “Regensburg Address” on Faith and Reason 4.48 Sarah Coakley, God, Sexuality, and the Self on Human Nature and the Trinity

Sources for the Reader Licenses for Figures Index

xxiii

762 764

765 777 814

Introduction

Today the followers of Christianity represent about one-third of the earth’s population. These followers are certainly not the same in every place and in every culture. The ways they practice Christianity are similar yet very distinct. This has been true in every century of Christian history. What Christians emphasize most differs in various times, places, cultures, and sub-cultures. Yet they seek to follow Jesus, as they and their tradition understand Him. How did a small band of disciples of Jesus in first-century Palestine become a global spiritual presence with such great diversity across cultures, continents, and centuries? How did the Church begin? How did the Church come to exist in the ways it does in the present day? What major doctrines and distinctives developed when, where, and why? The answers to these questions form a tapestry of history and theology and reaches from first-century Palestine to the ends of the earth. A balanced theological education contains at least four important areas of study. Biblical theology studies the Bible—Old Testament and New Testament writings and languages, backgrounds, archaeology, and more. Historical theology studies the history of the Church—persons, events, documents, movements, creeds, prayers, sociological developments, environments, and more. Systematic theology shows how the important teachings of the Church relate to one another in a unified way. Ethical or moral theology teaches about not only ethics and morality, but also practical methods for implementing Christian truth in real life through preaching, teaching, pastoral care, compassion, and more. The Church’s history and theology are inseparable, woven as a single expression of God’s people. People across the Christian centuries from all continents and many cultures have made decisions and developed teachings to meet their particular circumstances and developing issues. Yet together this global community of believers in Christ has taught Christian truth. We may approach this single story from various perspectives, or we may examine particular emphases. We call these approaches or perspectives by differing names, such as Church history, historical theology, philosophical theology, systematic theology, and more. Each approach or perspective tells the story in its own way, but they are telling the same story. They comprise the Christian story. A Global Church History tells Christianity’s story from the historical perspective—historical theology. The approach is ecumenical, drawing on both Eastern and Western historic sources and including the diversity of today’s Christian voices. This story includes significant persons, events, documents, movements, and controversies in the Church’s history, placing them in their geographical and historical and political contexts and explaining their major contributions or significance to the Church. Embracing the singular Christian community comprised of both historic and contemporary Christianity, we study

Introduction

xxv

these significant, historic persons and resources to help us understand who we are and how those who have gone before us understood and transmitted their—our—faith. The companion volume, Theology from the Great Tradition, examines the Church’s teachings from a systematic perspective, explaining the relationship of those teachings to one another, differentiating between various understandings of those teachings, and clarifying how the teachings on particular subjects fit into a unified body of truth.1 Both volumes point the readers to key historic sources— contained in this volume—for understanding the Church’s history and theology. Both A Global Church History and Theology from the Great Tradition are designed for upper-division undergraduates, beginning graduate students, and interested laymen, while approaching the subject with a seasoned scholarly perspective. The goal is to make the Church’s story and documents accessible to readers in both the academy and the church. A Global Church History combines in a single textbook the most significant historical narratives and the most important resource documents necessary for teaching a course in Church history across the Christian centuries. Combined with Theology from the Great Tradition, the two volumes can be used together in a theological program of education which examines Church history, historical theology, and systematic theology—not as independent fields of study, but as important threads woven into the single tapestry telling the larger Christian story.

Why do we study Christian history?2 Christian history is the study of the Church’s past in order to understand the Church’s present and to improve the Church’s future. Christian historians analyze artifacts—physical remains—to reconstruct the past. They analyze persons, events, documents, and decisions to understand the Christian story. They also look at movements, developments, and teachings. All of this is to help contemporary individuals know who they are, where they came from, and how their communities developed. This illuminates the when and why of their key values, including the foundations for their assumptions and presuppositions. This impacts each individual’s, and each community’s, identity, purpose, emphases, and values. Understanding Christian history, therefore, has great impact on Christian identity, community, and accountability. The Church is one community of believers, though diverse. The Church has believed and grown and worshipped and expanded across cultures, continents, and centuries. When we realize this and study the lives and teachings of historic believers and historic communities, our own personal identity and the identity of our Christian community are affirmed or altered. We experience a sense of oneness with all the believers, past and present. We find ourselves critiquing their decisions, and we find ourselves critiquing our own decisions by their teachings and decisions. We discover important areas of life, community, and theology that we never realized existed, expanding our own horizons. We

 teven D. Cone, Theology from the Great Tradition (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2018). S Consider more extensive discussion in Robert F. Rea, Why Church History Matters: An Invitation to Love and Learn from Our Past (Grand Rapids: InterVarsity, 2014). 1 2

xxvi

Introduction

see shortfalls in our own theology and begin to emphasize areas which we previously did not even realize were missing from our understanding. Because we are finite and limited human beings, we need each other to expand our understanding. Believers from across cultures, continents, and centuries can together see important teachings of history, Scripture, and theology that individuals can never see alone. Our objectivity is always limited, for we are finite human beings with perspectives both enlightened and limited by our unique intellects, cultures, sub-cultures, and experiences. But including the perspectives of those very different than ourselves—past and present—can diminish the margin of error in our own study and experience. As we find consensus, we grow in our degree of certainty that we have embraced the truth. This inevitably impacts our self-understanding and our ministries. As we include the conclusions and methods of historic believers in our Bible study, we make more informed decisions about the meaning of the texts themselves. We are more open to listening to voices of the past, especially when they have provided us with insights we might never have discovered alone or with contemporaries with similar cultural and theological points of view. Our ministries improve as we let the great preachers, teachers, theologians, spiritual masters, worship leaders, evangelists, missionaries, and compassionate servants of the past instruct us in their concerns, methods, and values. Understanding theology accurately, in turn, protects the Church from false teachings and points the Church toward the living God—the reason for the Church’s existence. Christian history, therefore, provides for us a way to understand Christians across the spectrum of Christian expressions in our world today. We are able to compare and contrast our own beliefs and background with those of others. We minister more effectively because we understand better those whom we hope to serve. We not only avoid repeating doctrinal problems of the past, but also learn how to articulate Christian truth carefully. At the same time, we capitalize on the successes of the past, not reinventing methods and approaches previously established.

How to use this book Historians have always divided larger blocks of time into smaller time units. This provides writers and readers with smaller, more manageable units to help them in their understanding. This volume divides Christianity through the ages into an early Church period (Chapter 1), a middle period (Chapter 2), a Reformation period (Chapter 3), and a modern period (Chapters 4–5). The early period examines the Church’s founding and development through the patristic period—for the West, this is the first five centuries; for the East, this is the first six centuries. The middle period then examines Christian history during the sixth through the fifteenth centuries. Midway through this period the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the West separate; Crusades drive the wedge deeper, while external threats move them to seek reunion. The Reformation period gives particular attention to various aspects of the movements which changed the Western understanding of Christianity from one political-spiritual hegemony of Christendom under the pope to multiple expressions of Christianity in separated ecclesial bodies. Here we consider German, Swiss, Roman Catholic, English, Scottish, and Radical reform movements and their personalities, interactions, and teachings. We see the colonization and mission work of Spanish

Introduction

xxvii

and Portuguese missionaries in the New World. The modern period surveys Christian development after the Reformation to the present day. This includes historic events and personalities, with attention to key thinkers who shaped theology. Here we see the continued spread of Christianity through missionary efforts to nearly every corner of the globe. This book is divided into two halves: the Church history and a document reader. The documents provide the living voice of many of those who made the history, and the history chapters contain many references to the documents. Each history chapter also has discussion questions and chapter bibliographies. The bibliographies both provide the resources used to write the chapters (except in cases of direct quotation, the chapter bibliographies serve as the notation of sources) and guide students to resources for further study.

Acknowledgments

This book would not exist without the help and kind consideration of many people. Robert F. Rea: Thanks to my coauthor, Steve Cone, for conceiving the dream of a two-volume set which would showcase systematic theology and historical theology as two ways to consider the great tradition of the Church, and for asking me to partner with him in this volume. I am grateful for the many influences in my life—professors, authors, missionaries, mission trips, and students—who have formulated the concepts which are foundational in my life and in this work. This includes gratitude to my spiritual mentor, John Cassian, whose writings continue to provide spiritual direction. Lincoln Christian University has encouraged and supported us throughout the work. Thanks to my brother-in-law, Robert Idell, for his help finding pictures for the Reformation period chapter. Special thanks to Andrew Nichols, my teaching assistant, for hours of help in many ways. Most encouraging has been the steady support of my wife, Mary Ann, who has sacrificed much to make the entire enterprise possible, and who prayed for me throughout. Greatest thanks and praise to God—to God be the glory! Steven D. Cone: I would like first of all to thank my coauthor, Robert Rea, who has been a teacher, mentor, friend, and colleague to me over many years. I am deeply grateful to him for taking on with me the challenge of writing this text. I would also like to thank the other teachers who have trained me to see the Church as God’s work in history through real people: John Castelein, Frederick Lawrence, Fr. Matthew Lamb, Stephen Brown, Fr. Louis Roy, Fr. Francis Clooney, and Charles Hefling. My portions of this text (Chapter 2, “The Church from 500 to 1500,” and Section II, “Documents of Christianity through the Ages”) would not be possible without gracious support from my university, Lincoln Christian University. Especially I would like to thank Peter Verkruyse, Barney Wells, Sarah Farwell, Jonathan Toddy, and Adam Clotier. I would also like to thank my friends, especially Jamie Beasley, Chaz Waterman, Stoyan “Johnny” Asenov and Svetla Nestorova, Dimo and Sylvia Vasilevi, Fr. Nikolai Neshkov, and Christopher Ben Simpson. That this book has come to publication also reflects the confidence and understanding of our editor, Anna Turton. The many hours spent on this work were given to me by my family, and I thank them for their kindness and love. Finally, I thank God, in whom we live and breathe and are, and the community of saints, by whose help we run the race.

Section I Christianity through the Ages



2

Chapter 1 The Early Church from Beginnings to 500 Robert F. Rea

Introduction Imagine the Church as a giant tree with hundreds of branches and thousands of leaves—the roots provide nourishment to the rest of the tree through the trunk. The early period is the mighty trunk of this Christian tree. Though Christianity was expressed differently in times and places from the start, this early period trunk begins to develop larger sub-trunks in the medieval period and spreads into multiple branches during the Reformation period, leading to the fuller global tree we see today. For this reason, every Christian faith group looks to the early period of Christianity as their beginning. In the early period we see Christian leaders and thinkers develop practices and define teachings that become paradigmatic for the centuries that follow. Practices include church leadership, evangelism, asceticism, worship, and much more. These become foundational to subsequent ecclesiology, monasticism, and liturgy. Foundational teachings range from the canon, authority, and interpretation of Scripture to the best vocabulary for explaining the doctrines of God (Trinity) and Christ (Christology). The Church struggled to discover the best ways to express these teachings while endeavoring to include persons they believed were orthodox and to exclude as dangerous those they believed were not. In other controversies and discussions, the Church dealt with movements from outside the Church and doctrinal variations from inside the Church. Here begins the Christian story.

Christian beginnings The gospel accounts trace the life of Jesus from His unique conception to His birth at Bethlehem, often dated at 6–4 BC. From the beginning He was understood by many to be the Son of God, the longawaited Messiah who would deliver Israel from bondage. We know only a few events from His life before He announced His public ministry at the Nazareth synagogue when He was about thirty years old. Soon He had gathered twelve primary followers, known as His disciples or apostles. Over the next three plus years of ministry, hundreds of others came to be disciples as well, including many who had come to Him to find physical healing, spiritual healing, and forgiveness. After His death and resurrection, thousands more embraced faith in Him as the Messiah. Eventually Gentiles were also included. After converting to Christianity, Saul of Tarsus (called Paul not long after his conversion to Christianity) wrote that Jesus appeared to over five hundred persons, implying a much broader following. That Saul

4

A Global Church History

traveled to Damascus and other cities to find and arrest followers of Jesus confirms the breadth of Jesus’s influence and the close community of disciples that followed. The earliest records of the Church’s spread come from the New Testament. Jesus’s many disciples were already followers. The Jerusalem community was meeting immediately. Acts 2 told of 3,000 converts on the Day of Pentecost, clarifying that many present came from remote parts of the Empire, and by Acts 4:4 the number had grown to 5,000. The dispersion in Acts 8 led to the founding of the Antioch Church, which commissioned Paul and Barnabas to spread the faith. In Acts 13–14 they planted churches in the major cities of the Eastern Roman Empire, confirming elders as leaders in each of those churches. They began preaching in synagogues, but they saw their primary work to convince Gentiles to follow Jesus. Later on similar journeys with the same purpose of expanding Jesus’s followers, Barnabas took John Mark to Cyprus and probably Egypt, while Paul took Silas to Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Greece. Many others worked with Paul as churches continued to be planted and to grow. After Paul was arrested for preaching in Jerusalem (Acts 21), he used his Roman citizenship to appeal to Caesar (Acts 25) so that he could preach the gospel in Rome, which already had a strong Christian community. At the same time Christianity was spreading throughout the Empire wherever there were Roman roads, ships, or commerce. Soon there were Christian communities in nearly every larger city, including cities in the East (Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, Damascus, Antioch of Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, Ephesus, Philippi, Thessalonica, Corinth, Cenchrea, Rome, Carthage, and many more). Very early the congregations followed a Jewish synagogue model of elders leading local congregations (Acts 14:23). This was true in both Jewish churches and Gentile churches. Elder and bishop were synonyms for the same office (1 Tim. 3, Tit. 1, 1 Clem. 52-54). As Christianity spread, newer churches naturally looked to their planting churches for leadership. The church in a major city sent presbyters to outlying areas to start churches, still overseen by the planting church. Gradually in the second century there developed a difference in terminology between bishop and presbyter—the leader of the presbyters came to be known as the bishop. By the latter half of the second century, the common situation was that a major city had a monarchical bishop, or ruling bishop, over that city’s Christians and their presbyters (whether the city had one or multiple congregations). Ignatius of Antioch writes as a monarchical bishop early in the second century. Rome was still developing the monarchical bishop concept in the middle of the second century, but by the end of the second century the bishop of Rome was the broadly recognized leader of the churches in Rome. Christians looked to the bishops of churches in major population centers (which were generally the oldest and had apostolic roots) as a higher bishop over surrounding bishops. He came to be known as metropolitan, or as archbishop. Eventually archbishop was seen as a higher office than metropolitan. Multiple factors contributed to this leadership development. Churches founded in major cities, often by apostles, sent evangelists to plant other congregations in smaller towns—naturally they would tend to look to their founders for authority. With the New Testament canon still undefined, people needed somewhere to look for authority in the face of teachings which threatened the faith. Historically speaking, indigenous churches have always tended to adopt patterns for organization and leadership which match those they know in the culture. An imperial leadership-structure which looked to a single leader at most levels would be the natural tendency in the Roman Empire.

The Early Church from Beginnings to 500

5

Figure 1.1  Multiformity of Early Christianity.

Wherever believers became Jesus’s disciples, they expressed their faith in light of their particular settings and backgrounds. We may assume that much of this was unintentional. So from its very beginning, Christianity was both similar and diverse. Though differences were constantly arising, it is remarkable that the core teachings of Christianity remained generally consistent across the Empire. But depending upon location, societal characteristics, cultural emphases, and philosophical commitments, the major expressions of Christian life and teaching were sometimes notably different. The Church quickly became multiform. We find in the earliest centuries at least three culturally correlated expressions of Christianity, linked to key locations and regional or ethnic emphases. Many of these characteristics continued in subsequent centuries, following in their own development, expansion, and crises of culture. Consequently, we find some of the same emphases among larger sectors of the Church today who grew out of these early developments and emphases. Latin, or Western, Christianity, developed in the Western Mediterranean as Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire and beyond. As the imperial capital city, and the place of Peter’s, Paul’s, and many others’ martyrdoms, the most important city was Rome. Other key cities included Carthage, Milan, Lyons, Ravenna, and Marseilles. Because Latin was spoken in these regions, Latin became the primary vehicle of expression. This form of Christianity emphasized the genius of Western Roman

6

A Global Church History

culture—law. Its approach often treated Christianity as a body of law—practices and principles to be followed. Jesus was most often described as a legal figure, such as lawgiver, judge, or legal advocate. The primary human problem was sin—humanity’s violation of God’s will. Theological controversies in the early period often focused on proper status, proper authority, and proper practice (e.g., Novatianism and Donatism). Because in the Latin language Father, Son, and Spirit are all masculine gender, they almost exclusively spoke of God in male terms. When they spoke of the atonement, they emphasized the legal analogies of the Scriptures—ransom or substitutionary sacrifice to pay the penalty or cost for human salvation. Today we can identify many of these characteristics or tendencies in the churches that grew out of Western Christianity, such as the Roman Catholic Church, the Protestant churches, and groups that developed from these. Greek, or Eastern, Christianity, developed in the eastern Mediterranean, still within the Empire. Key cities included Jerusalem, then Antioch, then Ephesus, Corinth, and Alexandria, among others. Because Greek was spoken in these regions, Greek became the primary language. Here Christians naturally tended to emphasize the genius of Greek culture—philosophy. So Christianity was often considered as a body of truth, a philosophy or metaphysics, an explanation of reality. Jesus was seen as a great giver of truth, the teacher, the Logos, the font of wisdom, the giver of Life. The Eastern Christians considered sin a critical human problem, but they tended to focus more on what God had done in the incarnation. In theological controversies, they most often considered the foundational elements of truth about God and Christ (e.g., how the persons of God relate to one another and how Christ could be human and divine). In Greek, Father and Son are masculine gender, so they spoke of Father and Son almost exclusively in male terms. But Spirit in Greek is neuter gender, and nearly all of the writers therefore speak of the Holy Spirit using neuter pronouns and descriptors (the exception is the Johannine New Testament books, which use male pronouns in reference to the Holy Spirit). When they spoke of the atonement, they emphasized the incarnation—they focused on Christ as victor or as second Adam—by His incarnation lifting humanity to a new level. Once again, today we observe these and similar emphases in the churches that grew out of Eastern Christianity, most especially in the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and similar churches. Syriac Christianity, sometimes called Jewish Christianity, developed within the Eastern Roman Empire, but mostly east of the Empire. Representative locations included Edessa, Syria, Mesopotamia, northern Egyptian deserts, and eventually along the lower and upper Nile River, perhaps reaching India and even China. Syriac, the central language of many of these regions, became the primary language, though we also see expressions in Greek and Latin. Syriac-speaking Christians, most often nomadic peoples, tended to emphasize the genius of their culture—contemplation in practical and poetic life. They considered Christianity to be primarily an ascetic way of life, incorporating spiritual disciplines in a regimented life of seeking God. Jesus was seen as the great model or exemplar that Christians should imitate, especially in the way He lived. The holiest persons sought to imitate Jesus in three of His most important characteristics—He was poor, unmarried or celibate, and an itinerate or a wanderer. The primary problem for humanity was that fallen persons were not like God, in character and virtue—so the Christian life was about becoming more and more like God, not in the divine nature, but in the virtues exhibited by the divine nature. With a few exceptions, this focus often left them uninterested in the Roman Empire’s theological controversies. Instead, they emphasized the experience of holiness

The Early Church from Beginnings to 500

7

through disciplined ascetic practices. In Syriac language, Father and Son are male gender, but Spirit is female, so the Syriac Christians spoke of the Holy Spirit in female terms, referring to the Spirit as queen or mother of the Church, among other terms. For them, salvation was a process of becoming more and more like God—a process which begins on earth but continues in heaven. Most Syriac Christian regions were later dominated by Islam, but Syriac Christian characteristics continued in Christian spirituality— monasticism, spiritual disciplines, and much more. These characteristics were later transplanted to the regions of Western and Eastern Christianity and from there throughout the world. None of these characteristics was exclusive to the three forms of Christianity described. They were emphases which help later students to clarify the primary cultural, sociological, and theological concerns of various regions, cultures, and sub-cultures. The three forms described shared analogies and characteristics, but each region emphasized the areas of theology and Christian living that most effectively addressed their own cultures and concerns. The Eastern Christians, for example, occasionally used legal vocabulary in explaining the atonement, but incarnational and second Adam and victorious terminology was their overwhelming choice. The Western Christians saw Christ as the Logos, but they most often turned to legal figures when describing His work.

Discussion question 1 What distinctive and geographical locations characterize Christianity as it arose in the Western half of the Roman Empire—that is, Latin Christianity? In the eastern half of the Roman Empire—that is, Greek Christianity? In Syriac-speaking lands in, near, and beyond the eastern borders of the Roman Empire—that is, Syriac Christianity? What contemporary emphases extend or continue those earlier legacies?

The Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists The Apostolic Fathers The Apostolic Fathers are first- and second-century Christian writers who had either been in personal contact with the apostles or had received instructions from their direct disciples. Their teachings are considered the closest to the apostles themselves. Generally speaking, their writing style resembles the New Testament writings, especially the apostolic letters. Authors came from all over the Empire, so they are important witnesses to the growth of the early Christian tradition and teaching. They share a unified Christian worldview with a fairly consistent, though simple, Christian doctrine. The writings may be described as pastoral and eschatological, longing for the return of Christ. Though they are not doctrinal definitions, they reflect a unified Christology—Christ is the Son of God, existed before His incarnation, participated in the creation, and more. Though not all collections of the Apostolic Fathers have contained the same books, current collections are fairly consistent. Clement of Rome’s (c. 35–99 or 101) Letter to the Corinthians (c. AD 96) is considered the first post-New Testament attested document (see Doc. 1.3). A Second Letter to the Corinthians was once considered also to be by Clement, but scholars today think it is spurious (c. 150).

8

A Global Church History

Figure 1.2  Clement of Rome’s Letter to Corinthians (from Codex Alexandrinus).

Ignatius of Antioch (35–108) wrote seven letters (see Docs. 1.4 and 1.5 for the letter to Smyrnaea) on his way to martyrdom in Rome under Trajan (53–117, emp. 98–117). His letters to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, and Romans were written from Smyrna, while letters to the Philadelphians, Smyrnaeans, and Polycarp were written from Troas. Polycarp’s (69–156) Letter to the Philippians (c. 110–30), often considered two letters joined together, used Clement as a source. The anonymous Martyrdom of Polycarp (156) is the oldest detailed account of martyrdom (see Doc. 1.13). The Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (final form c. 120), is also anonymous and is the oldest church order manual (see Doc. 1.1). The Letter of Barnabas (c. 138) is also considered to be anonymous, though it

The Early Church from Beginnings to 500

9

APOSTOLIC FATHERS Apostolic Father

Writing(s)

Date

Place(s)

Rome

Helpful Information

Clement of Rome

Letter to the Corinthians

c. 96

Considered the earliest non-NT attested document, Clement is considered the forth bishop of Rome.

unknown

Pseudo-Clement: 2nd Letter to Corinthians

c. 150

Ignatius of Antioch

Letter to the Ephesians Letter to the Magnesians Letter to the Trallians Letter to the Romans Letter to the Philadelphians Letter to the Smyrnaeans Letter to Polycarp

d. 107–108

Polycarp

Letter to the Philippians

c. 110–130

unknown

Martyrdom of Polycarp

156–160

Smyrna

Oldest detailed account of martyrdom.

unknown

Didache or Teaching of the 12 Apostles

c. 120, final form

probably in Syria

Rediscovered in 1883. Oldest church order manual.

unknown

Letter of Barnabas

c.138

probably Alexandria

Familiar with allegory. Used similarly to Scripture by Clement and Origen; included in Sinaiticus MS.

Hermas

Shepherd of Hermas

In parts, c. 90-c.150

near Rome

Apocalyptic visions, written by a rural Jewish Christian, a former slave.

Papias

Explanation of the Sayings of the Lord

c. 130

Asia Minor?

Attests a Hebrew original of Matthew’s gospel. Says Mark’s gospel is Mark’s writing of Peter’s memories.

unknown

Epistle to Diognetus

Second century

More properly belongs to the Apologists: See The Apologists chart.

Falsely attributed to Clement. 1–4 from Smyrna 5–7 from Troas

Letters were written on road to Rome where he was later martyred under Trajan. Highly developed church leadership structure: bishops, elders, and deacons. Opposed Docetism.

Uses Clement of Rome as a source. Generally considered two letters joined.

Figure 1.3  The Apostolic Fathers.

bears an apostolic name; it was likely written in Alexandria and was used as part of the canon by some early writers. The Shepherd of Hermas, written by rural Jewish-Christian and former slave Hermas sometime in the first half of the second century, differs from the other Apostolic Fathers’ writings because it consists of reports of apocalyptic visions. Finally, Papias’s Explanation of the Sayings of the Lord (second century) attests to a Hebrew original of the Gospel of Matthew and claims that the Gospel of Mark is Mark’s writing of Peter’s memories; we have only fragments quoted in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260–339/340) (see Doc. 1.21). The Letter to Diognetus, once included in some collections, more properly belongs to the apologists. See Figure 1.3.

The Apologists In the Church’s earliest years, many Romans thought of the Christians as simply a new sect of Judaism. Most Jews and Christians apparently objected, each group distinguishing themselves from the other. Roman society generally had a low opinion of the earliest Christians. Not only were they gathered from the lower classes—the poor, the slaves, and the laborers—they were also seen as rejecting the foundations of Roman society. As Christianity became increasingly distinct from Judaism in the minds of the Romans, accusations began to be made against the Christians, especially as regards their lower station in life and their alleged notorious evil practices.

10

A Global Church History

Figure 1.4  Ignatius of Antioch.

Opposition came from several sectors of society. Philosophers defended the pagan religion against Christian encroachments. Pagans saw the Christians as countercultural, undermining the pillars of Roman society. They accused Christians of atheism because they did not believe in the Roman gods. Rumors circulated about the Christians practicing incest because of their secret meetings at night and their “love feasts”—people suspected the worst. Misunderstandings of the Lord’s Supper brought accusations of cannibalism, even killing and eating babies, in these secret meetings. Otherworldly statements were often misunderstood. Many Christians also refused to participate in pagan sacrifices or to make the pledges necessary to join the army—their refusal was taken as blatantly unpatriotic and disloyal to the Empire. Ascetic practices kept many out of public service and marriage—both considered to be pillars of Roman society. Polycarp was martyred, for example, when a patriotic assembly called for Polycarp to be brought to the arena. Some Christians who were philosophically educated and capable writers began to answer these accusations in their own writings in the late second and then in the third centuries. Their written defenses or apologies (from apologia, Greek for “defense”) were later collected into a body of authors and writings called the Apologists. Quadratus (d. 129) addressed his Apology (written 123–29) to Emperor Hadrian (76–138, emp. 117–38); the only surviving fragment is found in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History. Aristides of Athens (c. 130–50) wrote his Apology; a seventh-century Greek fragment was found in 1878, and a Syriac translation was discovered in 1889. Aristo of Pella’s (c. 100–c. 160) Discussion between Jason and Papiscus concerning Christ (c. 140), written at Alexandria, is lost; using allegorical exegesis, it is the first written defense against attacks from Judaism. Justin (100–165), known as

The Early Church from Beginnings to 500

11

Figure 1.5  Polycarp of Smyrna.

Justin Martyr, was born of pagan parents in Samaria and tried other philosophies before converting to Christianity c. 130—he was beheaded as a martyr at Rome c. 165. He wrote Dialogue with Trypho the Jew c. 135. He also wrote First Apology (148) (see Doc. 1.6), Second Apology (161), and at least eight other lost writings. His student Tatian (c. 120–c. 180) wrote c. 160 Discourse to the Greeks and the famous Diatessaron before Eusebius says he founded the Encratite sect (very ascetic, no marriage, no eating meat) in Syria in 172. Apologists Miltiades and Apollinaris (bishop of Hierapolis) wrote against pagans, Jews, and heretics during the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161–80).

12

A Global Church History

THE APOLOGISTS Date

Place(s)

Quadratus

Apologist Apology

Writing(s)

c. 123–129

Athens?

Only surviving fragment in Eusebius. Addressed to Emperor Hadrian.

Helpful Information

Aristides of Athens

Apology

c. 130–150

Athens

Armenian fragment (c. 630) rediscovered in 1878. Syriac version (c. 350) rediscovered in 1889, Greek version identified shortly after.

Aristo of Pella

Discussion between Jason and Papiscus concerning Christ

c. 140

Alexandria

Lost. First written defense against Judaism. Allegorical exegesis.

St. Justin

First Apology Second Apology Dialogue with Trypho the Jew At least 8 others lost

148 161 c. 135

Rome

Born of pagan parents in Samaria; tried Stoics, Peripatetics, and Pythagoreans; converted to Christianity c. 130; beheaded in Rome c. 165. Rabbi Tarphon probably respondent in Dialogue.

Tatian

Discourse to the Greeks Diatessaron Other lost writings

c. 160 prior to 172

Rome Syria

Of pagan parents, pupil of Justin Martyr. Founded Gnostic sect of Encratites in Syria c. 172.

Miltiades

All writings lost

c. 161–180

Rome

Probably a pupil of Justin. Opposed pagans, Jews, and heretics.

Apollinaris of Hierapolis

All writings lost

177

Hierapolis

Bishop of Hierapolis, opposed pagans, Jews, heretics, and quartodeciman date of Easter.

Athenagorus of Athens

Supplication for the Christians On the Resurrection of the Dead

177

Athens

Most eloquent of early apologists. Refuted pagan claims of Christian atheism, cannibalism, and Oedipal incest. Praised virginity, was pro-life (in modern sense).

Theophilus of Antioch

To Autolycus Other lost writings

c. 180

Antioch of Syria

Of pagan parents, converted to Christianity late in life, became sixth bishop of Antioch in Syria.

Melito of Sardis

Homily on the Pasch Other lost writings

c. 170–180

Sardis of Lydia

Bishop of Sardis, held quartodeciman views. Addressed an Apology to Emperor Marcus Aurelius.

Hegesippus

Memorials

c. second century

Rome Greece

Fragments preserved in Eusebius.

unknown

Letter to Diognetus

c. second century

Attack on paganism, only copy destroyed by fire in FrancoPrussian War in 1870, but previously published in 1592.

Hermias

Satire on the Profane Philosophers

Third century

Satirical attack on pagan philosophies.

unknown

Preaching of Peter

Second century

Popular in early church, it survives only in a few fragments. Clement of Alexandria knew the entire document.

Figure 1.6  The Apologists.

Athenagoras of Athens (c. 133–c. 190) wrote c. 177 Supplication for the Christians and On the Resurrection of the Dead. He is considered the most eloquent of the early Christian apologists, refuting pagan accusations of atheism, cannibalism, and incest. He also praised virginity and the protection of the lives of unwanted babies. Theophilus (d. 183–85) was an older convert to Christianity, later the bishop of Antioch in Syria (see Doc. 1.15). He wrote c. 180 To Autolycus; his other writings are lost. Melito (d. 180), bishop of Sardis in Lydia, wrote an apology to Emperor Marcus Aurelius which is no longer extant; he also wrote Homily on the Pasch (c. 170–80). Fragments of Hegesippus’s (110–80) Memorials (late second century) can be found in Eusebius. The anonymous Letter to Diognetus (late second century) attacks paganism—though the text was already printed, the only actual manuscript was destroyed by fire in the Franco-Prussian War in 1870. Hermias wrote c. 200 a satirical attack on pagan philosophies called Satire on the Profane Philosophers. Finally, the anonymous Preaching of Peter (late second century), which was very popular in the early Church, survives only in a few fragments in the writings of Clement of Alexandria, who knew the entire document. See Figure 1.6.

The Early Church from Beginnings to 500

13

Discussion questions 1 How do the Apostolic Fathers contribute to our understanding of the ongoing development and defense of early Christianity? 2 How do the apologists extend that legacy and defend against specific accusations of outsiders?

Gnosticism Gnosticism was a complex religious movement which rose to prominence in the second century. It competed with Christianity, appealing to the hearts and minds of those of all classes, who could connect with one of the forms of Gnosticism that they could understand best. Gnostic systems, though differing in their appeal and explanations, had much in common with one another. Gnosis (from the Greek word gnosis), or knowledge, was gained only by those who were connected to the particular cult. Gnosis referred not to objections of reason, but to objects of faith. So gnosis is gained by inner illumination, not by rational argument. The gnosis is itself salvific or redemptive. Irenaeus in Against Heresies 1 wrote that Gnosticism originated with Simon Magus, a wonder worker who used magical arts in Samaria to gain great attention, who embraced Christian preaching and hoped to buy from the apostles the power to grant the Holy Spirit by laying on of hands (Acts 8). In this story, Simon supposedly redeemed Helena from slavery in Tyre, and then with her conceived all of the angels and archangels and powers, after which she was confined to a human body. She then moved from body to body doing great works in history but eventually becoming a prostitute. Simon then conferred salvation to men by revealing himself and claiming that humans are saved through Simon’s

IRENAEUS (c. 115/130–c. 202, bp. 178–c. 202), Bishop of Lyons Irenaeus made the first attempt to write a theology, so he has often been called the first great theologian of the Church. Irenaeus was well educated, had studied at Rome, had heard Polycarp as a boy, and had met elders who saw the apostle John. After going to Gaul as a missionary, he settled in Lyons and served under Bishop Pothinus there. Pothinus was martyred in 177 while Irenaeus was representing him at Rome on behalf of Montanists of Asia Minor. Upon his return, Irenaeus was consecrated bishop in 178. In 190 he wrote to Rome’s bishop Victor (189–99) asking toleration for Asia Minor Christians who practiced Christ’s passion and resurrection on the day of the Jewish Passover. Though Irenaeus also wrote Proof of the Apostolic Preaching (see Doc. 1.12), his most famous work is Against Heresies. In opposing Gnosticism, Irenaeus appeals to bishops, especially those in churches founded by apostles, as the keepers of the truth. He says the best representative is the bishop of Rome, and he lists bishops going all the way back to Peter and Paul. He emphasized there were four gospels only. Irenaeus developed the doctrine of recapitulation—Christ restored fallen humanity to God by His incarnation and obedience. As the second Adam, Christ was therefore the beginning of the restoration of the human race. He develops this teaching extensively. His description of the various Gnostic systems is extensive and accurate, making Against Heresies a primary resource for understanding second-century Gnosticism.

14

A Global Church History

Figure 1.7  Irenaeus of Lyons.

grace. Irenaeus said that the Gnostic priests used exorcisms, incantations, love potions, charms, and other magical arts, and that they worshipped images of Simon and Helena (resembling the Roman pagan gods Jupiter and Minerva) that they had fashioned. Irenaeus further claimed that when Menander succeeded Simon, he claimed that he himself had been sent to be savior and to reveal the still unknown primary Power. Irenaeus said Menander taught that his own disciples would obtain resurrection by being baptized into Menander, after which they could die no more, keeping their immortal youth. These teachings of Irenaeus were seriously doubted until study of Gnostic documents discovered at Nag Hammadi showed that Irenaeus had an accurate, detailed understanding of the various Gnostic systems. More recent scholars therefore projected that his explanation of Simon and Menander has much higher probability of being true. At the heart of Gnostic expressions is the Gnostic myth. Each Gnostic system embraced its own expressions in myth, though one system ignored myth altogether. It helps us to see how each system connects to this myth or abandons it. Irenaeus made this claim, and also told the variations of that myth. In general, Gnostics believed that there was the Father, or great Power, who existed with his thought or wisdom, called Sophia (from the Greek word for wisdom, sophia). A tragic split occurred,

The Early Church from Beginnings to 500

15

and the Father became separated from his Sophia. She fell lower and lower through the number of aeons or angels or ennoea that had been generated from the Father but were vastly and increasingly inferior. This lowest aeon had various names in the Gnostic systems, but some believed he was the Old Testament God. Sophia was seduced by this lowest aeon, and gave birth to the known created universe. As a result, seen as punishment, Sophia ended up confined to a human body. Irenaeus said Simon Magus claimed to be the Father, now unknown, and that he found Helena in Tyre and was reunited with his wisdom. Scholars have suggested a host of factors leading to the rise of Gnosticism, including the Hellenization of Christianity, Persian and Babylonian influences, reinterpretation to compensate for the decline of earliest Christianity’s eschatological expectations, and mystic Jewish origins. Certainly this was the environment in which Gnosticism arose and prospered—the various systems could adopt nearly any “spiritual” element of the culture, including Jewish heterodoxy, Greek philosophy, astrology, and much more. Gnosticism also had psychological appeal—those who had gnosis were in touch with reality in ways that the rest of humanity was not. Gnosticism also sought to answer several central human questions in complex ways that argued from myth and personal experiences. Who is God, and why is there evil in the world? God is the eternal power, who because of a tragic split becomes divided, then reunited. He is not the creator of the world. Where does matter fit in the divine purpose? Matter is evil, created by the lowest aeon, or Demiurge. The material world is antagonistic to the spiritual world, so the Gnostic purposes to escape it. So what are human beings really like now? There are three kinds of human beings, and each human being has been predestined to be one of these: (a) pneumatikoi (Greek for “spiritual ones”) are spiritual, have a spark of the divine, and are enlightened and thus saved; (b) psychikoi (Greek for “soulish ones”), sometimes called “animal,” are unenlightened members of the cult or religious outsiders who know and value parts of the teaching; (c) sarkikoi (Greek for “fleshly ones”) or hylikoi (Greek for “material ones”) are outside the cult and lack any understanding of the cult’s truths. What about salvation, determination, and free will? Each human being is predestined. The pneumatikoi, having the divine spark, become illumined to the divine reunion and are thus saved. The apostles or the cult’s founder received this as direct revelation. Gnostic rites assure the pneumatikoi’s escape. How is divine justice accomplished? The predestined get the divine spark through illumination and thus escape the results of the tragic split in god. This restores all to the “right” state. How do we live? Most Gnostic groups were disciplined and ascetic, rejecting fleshly indulgence; there were also those who believed they could engage their flesh in fleshly things with no impact on the spiritual, and so indulged their base desires. Irenaeus describes several Gnostic systems. The three best known are attributed to Saturninus, Basilides, and Valentinus (c. 100–c. 160). Valentinus’s disciples taught that Bythus (the invisible, incomprehensible, eternal, unbegotten aeon) deposited his production into female aeon Sige, who became pregnant and birthed Nous (also called Monogenes, or Father, or Beginning) and Aletheia. Bythus sent forth Logos and Zoe, beginning the rest of the Pleroma (all of the thirty aeons, grouped into eight, ten, and twelve, who proceeded by emanating from those already produced). Only Nous knows the unknown god, or Propator, who is unknown to all others. Eventually material substance stems from her attempt to know the unknown power—so material substance began from ignorance

16

A Global Church History

and grief and fear and punishment. The Father restored Sophia’s spiritual nature, though she remained among the aeons. Two others (named Christ and Holy Spirit) taught the aeons that the unknown Father can only be known by Nous. Then the whole Pleroma contributed their best to produce the perfect one, Jesus. The numbers 30, 8, 12, and so forth relate to events’ times, or ages, in Jesus’s earthly life by means of extensive allegory. The Demiurge was constituted as father and god of all outside the Pleroma, including spiritual humans, though without his knowledge of their true identity. In Syria, Saturninus (or Satornil) taught that the unknown father made the lesser powers, or angels. The world, including humanity, was created by seven. After death the spark of the divine returns to its source and the body decomposes to its original elements. He said the Savior had no birth or body, but simply appeared to be physical. The angels formed two types of men: one good and the other wicked. The Jews’ God was one of these seven, and Christ came to destroy him and the wicked humans and to save those who had the spark of the divine. Saturninus himself is an angel but an enemy of the world’s creators, especially the Jews’ God. Basilides (taught in the early second century) developed these doctrines further (see Doc. 1.7). The unborn father bore Nous, who bore Logos, who bore Phonesis, who bore Sophia and Dynamis, who bore the powers and principalities and angels (called first); they made heaven. Then other powers, who emanated from these, created another heaven. This is repeated until there are 365 heavens with related principalities and angels. Angels in the lowest heaven formed the created world and the nations; their chief is the God of the Jews. The unborn father sent his Nous as Christ to deliver those who believe in him from the power of the world’s creator. Simon of Cyrene was actually crucified in Christ’s place. Those who know these things are free from the principalities of the world. Humans are to confess not the crucified, but the one who came to destroy the world’s creators. Adherents to this form of Gnosticism practiced magical arts extensively. At times it became difficult to discern what teachers meant by terms that had Christian meanings, but were also used by Gnostics. Both Gnostics and Christians spoke of Jesus, Christ, Holy Spirit, Truth, Only Begotten, Wisdom, Father, Mind, Beginning, Love, Faith, Hope, Will, Logos, Zoe, and much more. But their meanings for these terms were vastly different. Christian teachers had to clarify Christian teaching, against the teachings of the various Gnostic groups. Complicating this problem was the growth of Gnostic teachings from among the members of the Church itself. Marcionites are the most famous of these “Christian” gnostics. They are Gnostic in their dualism, disdain for matter, ascetic rigor, and rejection of the Old Testament Scriptures and Old Testament God. The founder, Marcion (c. 85–c. 160), was the son of a Christian bishop, and became a wealthy merchant in Pontus. In 139 or 140 he went to Rome, where he worked out his religious system and organized it separately from the churches, leading to his excommunication in 144. He claimed in his Antitheses that the Jewish God, creator of the world, is not the Father of Jesus, who was unknown until Jesus preached him. Jesus could not have been born of a woman, because all flesh is evil. Soon Marcionite communities had sprung up over much of the Roman Empire. They taught that the Christian gospel is wholly love, excluding law. The creator, or Demiurge, is the Old Testament God, and has nothing in common with Jesus’s God. They rejected all of the Old Testament and only accepted an edited Luke and edited Pauline epistles from the New Testament. They allowed

The Early Church from Beginnings to 500

17

no marriage, since children would help the Demiurge. The first Christians, they said, simply misunderstood Jesus. Manichaeans are also considered among the “Christian” gnostics. Their founder, Mani (c. 216–77) was a Babylonian born into the Elkesaites, a sect who taught there were two primary natures—one male and one female—to which all of creation is related (e.g., vegetables are male, weeds are female). He claimed two conversions. The first, at the age of twelve, directed him to separate from the Elkesaites in spirit but to remain with them. The second, at the age of twenty-four, directed him to reject the sect. He began preaching a new religion blending elements of others—particularly Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Judaism, and “Christian” Gnosticism. Mani taught that purity concerned only the soul and came from gnosis. There are two primary natures in the universe—two Principles or Roots—light and darkness. There are also three “moments”—the past, the present, and the future. Light and darkness were separate in the beginning, but in the past moment the darkness invaded the light and became mingled with it in the present moment. In the future moment, light and darkness will be separate again and the original equilibrium will be restored. The purpose of all existence is to refine light from darkness and to prevent further molestation of the light by the darkness. “Christ,” not the person Jesus but a spirit from the light, was incarnate in Adam, in the prophets, in Jesus, and in fact in all creation. Salvation had been proclaimed by many prophets in different times and in different ways for different peoples—including Plato, Hermes, Moses, Buddha, Zoroaster, Jesus, Paul, and many others. There was light in all creatures, not just in humans. So killing animals meant killing the light particles in them. The elect, or spiritual ones, predestined to eternal salvation, should eat light-bearing vegetables like melons, radishes, and so forth. How did the Christians respond to the rise and growth of Gnosticism? Irenaeus is the most famous and most complete second-century Christian teacher to respond to Gnosticism. He and other Christian writers responded with orthodox Christian truth in contrast to these very different teachings. They appealed for truth to trusted Christian leaders, most especially to their bishops, particularly those from churches established by an apostle, believing that the real truth had been handed down to them from the apostles. Christians, who had been using Scriptures for years, responded to Gnostic claims with lists and affirmations of what they said were the true Scriptures—a move toward a more defined biblical canon. They were more careful in defining what one really believed in their baptismal creeds and other faith statements.

Discussion questions 1 Describe the Gnostic myth. 2 Why did early Christian leaders go to great lengths to clarify differences between their beliefs and the teachings of the Gnostic systems? What did the Christian leaders emphasize in contrast to Gnosticism? 3 Explain how this contributed to the development of the biblical canon, enhanced the authority of bishoprics founded by apostles, and attracted the use of more specific creedal statements. 4 How should contemporary Christians respond to seemingly similar developments today?

18

A Global Church History

Montanism During the middle of the second century a movement arose which emphasized direct empowerment by the Holy Spirit through prophecy. Apparently the earliest powers of apostles and others had diminished, because the reemergence of this emphasis caused significant controversy. Christians from across a fairly wide spectrum asserted that God was still working in extraordinary ways. Many traced this movement to Montanus, who was “seized by the Spirit” in 172 (said Eusebius) or 156–57 (said Epiphanius). He and two women companions, Prisca and Maximilla, claimed to be prophet and prophetesses inspired by the Paraclete (the Holy Spirit); they spoke in ecstasy, and their prophecy, like the prophets of the Old Testament, was in first person. They insisted on a literal resurrection of the flesh and that the end was near—the Lord would shortly reign on earth for one thousand years, after the New Jerusalem descended in Phrygia near the small towns of Pepuza and Tymion (near Philadelphia). Refusal to acknowledge their prophecies was blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Others called their utterances the New Prophecy. Adherents of the movement were often very enthusiastic, emphasizing ecstasy and gifts of the Holy Spirit. Many desired martyrdom. They lived rigorous, ascetic lives—they allowed no second marriages, practiced strict fasting, and prohibited flight during persecution. They lived with extremely high morality and ethics. In fact, a “capital sin” meant one could not be reconciled to the Church. Church leaders found themselves in a difficult position. Most did not want to deny that the Holy Spirit was active and gave prophecy. None wanted to be called “slayer of the prophet,” as the enthusiasts sometimes labeled them. Yet they resisted the divisiveness of ecstatic excesses and the spiritual superiority they perceived. Several church leaders wrote against the Montanists, most notably Miltiades, Apollinaris, Melito, and Hippolytus (170–235). Hippolytus argued that Montanism was divisive, that all Christians had gifts of the Spirit because the supreme miracle was conversion, and that the supernatural could be best discerned in the ministry of word and sacrament. Irenaeus, on the other hand, wrote to the bishop of Rome Eleutherius (d. 189, bp. 175–89) asking for toleration for Montanists because Christian unity was more important. Most who were eventually labeled “Montanists” were never followers of Montanus. The term became generic for those who believed that the charismata (charismatic gifts) so evident in the earliest Church were still active, who emphasized the immanent second coming of Christ, and who called believers to holy living. Others who never left the Church were assigned the term nonetheless (e.g., Tertullian). Still, a number of churches in Asia Minor divided. Eventually the Church generally embraced the conviction that revelation ended with the apostolic age, later enhancing the need to define more carefully the New Testament canon.

Discussion questions 1 Why did some Christian leaders consider Montanism a threat? 2 Why were some early Christians labeled as Montanists when they did not accept many of the teachings of Montanus? 3 How should contemporary Christians respond to seemingly similar developments today?

The Early Church from Beginnings to 500

19

Imperial crisis in the third century and Diocletian The Roman Empire faced several crises in the third century. Under the Severan dynasty (193–235) religions grew significantly—especially Christianity, Gnosticism, mystery cults, local deities, and traditional paganism. Christian writers responded to these groups, pointing out how others differed from Christianity. More and more people from the privileged classes were embracing Christianity, with a number committing themselves to church leadership. Military failures contributed to the crisis. There seemed to be a constant succession of emperors, or armies claiming their general was the real emperor (from 235 to 284 at least twenty-six generals were proclaimed emperor by their armies). Huge areas were conquered, accelerating economic collapse. Silver content of coins diminished. Public building and maintenance (including aqueducts, fountains, baths, etc.) nearly ceased. Cities declined, so the upper classes fled urban centers for rural estates to avoid the conflicts and the obligation of administering the cities. The state became rapidly militarized, with the military rising to be the new privileged class, in many ways supplanting the aristocracy. Increased taxes on landowners meant the aristocracy had less power but paid more. Power became centralized to the emperor, who accrued nearly absolute authority, wearing a diadem and dressing in the imperial purple. Society therefore became polarized into two classes—those with great wealth and

Figure 1.8 Diocletian.

20

A Global Church History

those who increasingly placed themselves under the wealthy to have protection. At the same time, government bureaucracy increased. Something had to be done, but not until Diocletian (Dioclos, c. 244–311, emp. 284–305), was there an emperor wise enough and strong enough to bring adequate reform. Diocletian realized that Rome had multiple problems which must be corrected. He reorganized the Empire’s forty-three provinces into twelve dioceses—six in the East and six in the West. Each diocese had ten provinces—each too small to provide for a powerful military ruler to overthrow the emperor in the future. He developed a system designed for peaceful imperial succession. He divided the Empire into East and West. First he appointed Maximian (Maximianus) as his caesar over the West, but then as Western augustus (representing Hercules), with Diocletian as Eastern augustus (representing Jupiter, over the Western augustus). Each augustus appointed a caesar—Constantius Chlorus (c. 250–306) in the West and Galerius (c. 250–311) in the East. Each augustus ruled directly over three dioceses, as did each caesar. Each caesar was under his augustus, and the Western augustus was under the Eastern augustus. This came to be called the Tetrarchy—the four rulers of the world. At the end of twenty years, the augusti were to retire, their caesars would become the new augusti, and new caesars would be appointed. Diocletian also took action to deal with Rome’s other major problems. He greatly increased both the army and the government. He built massive fortifications on the Empire’s borders for defense. He exalted the military. He invested imperial money in restoration of the Empire’s cities, restoring or repairing public buildings, pagan temples, aqueducts, fountains, baths, and much more. Other

Figure 1.9  Roman Dioceses of the Tetrarchy under Diocletian.

The Early Church from Beginnings to 500

21

Figure 1.10  The Four Tetrarchs (Diocletian, Maximianus, Galerius, and Constantius).

buildings and improvements reflect his extremely regimented society to the glory of Rome. Diocletian also initiated economic reforms. He made taxation and currency uniform throughout the Empire. Local mints were closed. New Roman coins bore images of Roman gods, silver coins of military virtues, and bronze coins the inscription “To the genius of the Roman people” (Genio populi Romani). Increase in the number of provincial leaders, tax gatherers, construction agreements, and soldiers increased employment significantly. Restoring Rome’s greatness by restoring Rome’s historic values became a primary goal of his administration. This meant restoring the pagan religion and the worship of the Roman gods, and it also meant the restoring ethical morality among the Roman people. The persecutions which followed will be covered in the next section.

Discussion question 1 Explain how Empire developments in the third century contributed to the rise of Diocletian and his reorganization of the Roman Empire. In what ways did this move persecution of Christians from local and sporadic to universal? What was at stake for Christians who resisted?

Roman persecution of the Christians When the Church began, Jewish dissenters who objected to Christianity began persecuting the Christians. Persecution led to the dispersion of Christians from Jerusalem in Acts 8. Saul of Tarsus was persecuting the Christians at the time of his vision on the road to Damascus in Acts 9. When Saul (now Paul) and Barnabas planted churches in Asia Minor in Acts 13–14, opposing Jews in the major cities

22

A Global Church History

objected, fearing that Christians were polluting their religion, and drove them from their cities, and even followed them to other cities. The Roman persecutions of Christians were varied, depending upon ruler, location, and time. Generally the Roman population was suspicious of the Christians, who at first tended to be from the lower classes. The Christians had practices which were considered contrary to the benefit of the Empire. For example, private property ownership was a foundational value in the Empire, but many of the Christians espoused poverty, dispensed of their property, or worked as Christian leaders rather than as “productive” citizens. Another Roman foundation was marriage, but many Christians practiced celibacy. Christians often refused to join the army, which guaranteed the Empire’s safety by protecting its borders. The Romans believed the pagan gods protected and provided for the Empire, but the Christians were not religious because they refused to recognize the Roman gods. The persecutions were more often a city rather than rural phenomenon. They were much more common in the East. Until the middle of the third century outbreaks occurred sporadically in the Empire, though the prejudices against and maltreatment of Christians were more widespread than have been recently recognized. Christians never knew when a persecution would break out in their territory, so they lived with a certain constant awareness of potential risk. Jewish-Christian conflict in Rome over “Chrestus” led Claudius (10 BC–54 CE, emp. 41–51) to expel the Jews from Rome. Nero (37–68, emp. 54–68) was suspected of burning Rome and blamed Christians, who were subsequently convicted of the crime of “hatred of the human race” (odium humani generis). The persecution took various forms (crucifixion, death before wild beasts, burning as torches, among others). Under Domitian (51–96, emp. 81–96) several Christians in Asia Minor were martyred, and the apostle John was exiled to Patmos. Trajan (53–117, emp. 98–117) wrote to Pliny

Figure 1.11  Emperor Nero.

The Early Church from Beginnings to 500

23

(61–c. 113) disallowing anonymous accusations and limiting actions against Christians (see Doc. 1.2), but under his reign Jesus’s brother Simeon was crucified, and Ignatius of Antioch was thrown to wild beasts at Rome. Hadrian (76–138, emp. 117–38) continued Trajan’s policies, but they were enforced unevenly depending upon the governor of the region. Hadrian required that accusations against Christians must be based on charges and brought before a court. Some Jews persecuted the Christians in the last revolt of the Jews in 132–35 because the Christians would not support the claims that Simon Bar Kokhba was the Messiah. Marcus Aurelius (121–80, emp. 161–80) enforced Trajan’s policies but added no new laws. During his reign Christians were blamed for the Empire’s problems, and so many notable bishops were killed. Septimus Severus (Valerius Severus) (145–211, emp. 193–211) decided to take action to preserve recognition of the Roman gods. In 201 he made conversion to Judaism illegal, and did the same for Christianity in 202. Open persecution of Christians followed in Alexandria in 202–203. Many catechumens (those studying to become Christians) in Egypt and North Africa were martyred. Maximinus (c. 173– 238, emp. 235–38) reversed the favor for Christians of his predecessor Severus Alexander (c. 207–35, emp. 222–35) by venting great passion against the Christians. With much of their world seeming to fall apart in the third century, Romans began calling for restoration to Rome’s greatness. This could only come with the restoration of Rome’s historic values. At the heart of those values was Roman religion, the recognition and worship of the Roman gods. Decius (c. 201–51, emp. 249–51) was convinced that the Roman Empire must experience a renewed commitment to Rome’s gods. Others were considered the most dangerous enemies of the Empire—this focused especially on the Christians. In late 249 or early 250 Decius commanded all in the Empire to sacrifice to the gods. He prescribed prison, confiscation of property, exile, slave labor in the mines, the rack, and death to coerce Christians and others to sacrifice to the gods. Christian bishops were especially targeted. Though many Christians sacrificed, the thousands who would not sacrifice endured horrible suffering and loss. Trebonianus Gallus (206–53, emp. 251–53), to avert a plague, ordered that all sacrifice to Apollo— many Christians suffered when they refused. Valerian (c. 200–64, emp. 253–60) in 257 ordered Christian clergy either to sacrifice or to be banished, then in 258 to sacrifice or be executed. He ordered execution for Christians who visited the cemeteries or attended other assemblies for worship. Other Christian men were to lose their positions, property, or lives. Christian women were to be exiled. Carthage bishop Cyprian died under Valerian in 258. Gallienus (c. 218–68, co-emp. with father Valerian 253–60, emp. 260–68) in 261 issued a rescript of toleration giving pause to the persecutions. There was a brief persecution under Aurelian (214/215–75, emp. 270–75). Toward the end of his reign, Diocletian (c. 244–311, emp. 284–305) instituted the most severe persecutions against those who would not sacrifice to the gods. Galerius (c. 250–311, emp. 305–11) convinced him that the restoration of Rome’s glory would never be complete unless the enemies of the state religion were suppressed (See Doc. 1.24 for Lactantius’s description). At first, soldiers must either sacrifice or lose rank, potentially suffering immediate death. Then Diocletian issued a series of four edicts, each more severe than the one before. The first (February 303) ordered that all Christian buildings be demolished and their sacred books be burned. The second and third required that all Christian clergymen be jailed until they would sacrifice, with increasing penalties. The fourth (spring 304) required every Christian to sacrifice. Those who refused would be induced to sacrifice by torture on the rack. If

24

A Global Church History

ROMAN PERSECUTIONS OF CHRISTIANS Emperor

Notable Martyrs

Claudius (41–54)

Helpful Information and Documents Expelled Jews from Rome, including Jewish Chrs., for fighting over “Chrestus.”

Nero (54–68)

Apostles Peter and Paul (d.c. 64)

Occurred in Rome and surrounding districts, 64–68. Nero used Chrs. as scapegoats for burning of Rome in July 64. Chrs. crucified, fed to wild beasts, burned as torches, and so forth, for crime of odium humani generis (“hatred of the human race”).

Domitian (81–96)

Clement of Rome (d. 96) Apostle John exiled to Patmos

Fostered the cult of the emperor; Christians would not comply. Sporadic persecution in Asia Minor and Rome from pagans.

Trajan (98–117)

Ignatius of Antioch (d. 108) Simeon, the Lord’s brother

Note Pliny’s Letter to Trajan, 112.

Antoninus Pius (138–61)

Polycarp (d. 156)

Persecutions were locally inspired. Martyrdom of Polycarp, 156.

Marcus Aurelius (161–80)

Justin Martyr (d. 165) Blandina (d. 177)

Acts of St. Justin & his Companions, 165; Acts of Martyrs of Scilli in Africa, 180. M. Aurelius was a Stoic philosopher & writer; so opposed Chrs.

Septimus Severus (193–211)

Perpetua (d. 202)

Persecution 202–11: Passion of Perpetua & Felicitas, 202. Conversion to Judaism forbidden 201; conversion to Christianity forbidden 202.

Maximinus I (235–38)

Hippolytus (170–235)

Vented great passion against the Chrs.

Decius (249–51)

Fabian of Rome (d. 250) Alexander of Jerusalem (d.c. 250)

First empire-wide persecution of Chrs. Universal decree to sacrifice (250) under penalty of death. Thousands of Chrs. tortured and martyred.

Trebonianus Gallus (251–53) Valerian (253–60)

Because of plague, ordered all to sacrifice to Apollo; refusing Christians suffered. Origen (d.c. 254) Cyprian (d. 258) Sixtus II (d. 258)

Aurelian (270–75) Diocletian (284–304)

The Proconsular Acts of St. Cyprian, 258. Clergy ordered to sacrifice or be banished 257. Clergy ordered to sacrifice or be executed 258. brief persecution

Hundreds of famous Chrs.

Harshest and most universal persecution. Sacred bks. burned, properties confiscated. Extreme persecution 303–11. Four edicts: 1. Feb. 303: demolish church buildings, burn Christian books, remove civil rights from Christians, make Christian imperial servants slaves 2. Incarcerate all clergy until they sacrifice 3. Further inducements to clergy to sacrifice 4. Spr. 304: all must sacrifice, induced by rack, then execution by worst cruelty Thousands of Chrs. tortured, martyred; Chr. property & books confiscated, and so forth.

Galerius (305–11)

Continued Diocletian persecutions; issued Edict of Toleration on deathbed (311).

Constantine (306/312/324–37) Licinius

So-called Edict of Milan, legalizes Christianity

Figure 1.12  Roman Persecutions of Christians.

they still refused, they would be killed with all the cruelty that could be invented. Some of the Christians did comply with the orders, but thousands once again suffered loss of property, loss of family, and loss of life for their faith. See Figure 1.12.

Discussion questions 1 In what ways did the third-century imperial crisis move persecution of Christians from local and sporadic to universal? 2 What was at stake for Christians who resisted?

The Early Church from Beginnings to 500

25

Events leading to Emperor Constantine In 305, Diocletian and Maximian (c. 250–310, co-emp. 286–305) abdicated as planned—Constantius Chlorus (c. 250–306, emp. 305–06) and Galerius were elevated to augusti. Their sons were passed over as caesars; Severus (Valerius Severus) was appointed in the West and Maximin in the East. In 306 Constantius Chlorus died; his army chose his son Constantine as his replacement, but Galerius appointed Severus (d. 307, co-emp. 306–07) as Augustus and Constantine as Caesar, which Constantine accepted. Maxentius (c. 278–312), who led a revolt in Rome, asked his father Maximian to come out of retirement to help him, and appealed to Constantine for help should Galerius attack. Constantine married Maxentius’s sister and accepted Maxentius as augustus in return for also being recognized as augustus. Maximian jointly ruled with Maxentius in 307, but fled to Constantine in 308 after unsuccessfully trying to usurp full authority. Galerius asked Diocletian to help, but he declined and got Maximian to do the same. Licinius (c. 263–325, West emp. 308–13, East emp. 313–24) replaced Severus as augustus in the West, with Constantine reassuming the title of Caesar. In 310 caesars were also recognized as augusti, making four augusti. When Maximian tried to persuade some of Constantine’s troops to follow him, he was either killed or allowed to commit suicide. Constantine claimed a vision of the god Sol Invictus (“Unconquered Sun,” equated with Apollo) and made him (rather than Hercules) his patron god. In 311 Galerius was near death and issues an Edict of Toleration (also called the Palinode of Galerius), meant to end persecutions of Christians and return everything to the situation before the 303 edict of Diocletian, but he died days later. Maximinus II (Maximinus Daia, c. 270–313, emp. 310–13) advanced into Asia Minor, took over Galerius’s territory, and continued the persecutions. Constantine and Licinius joined forces, leaving Maxentius to join with Maximinus II. Constantine attacked Maxentius in 312, defeating him at the Milvian Bridge just outside Rome. The day before the battle Constantine claimed that he asked his father’s god to help him. Suddenly at about noon he saw in the sky a cross of light, above the sun, with an inscription “Conquer by this.” He and his army were equally amazed, though he said he did not yet know the meaning. That night in a dream Christ appeared to him with the same sign, commanded him to make a likeness of the sign, and instructed him to use the likeness for protection against all future enemies. Constantine placed that sign on the labarum which led his army into battle against Maxentius. In February 313, Constantine and Licinius met together at Milan. They issued a number of edicts, which established religious toleration for Christianity within the Empire, and which together have been called the Edict of Milan, though the text of the edict is not extant (see Doc. 1.24 for Lactantius’s description). Constantine later took the Balkan provinces from Licinius, and then in 324 defeated Licinius at the Battle of Chrysopolis. This made Constantine the sole emperor of the Roman Empire. The authenticity of Constantine’s Christian vision has been debated. For many years historians believed that the vision was given by Christ in order to change the Roman Empire and answer the prayers of the persecuted Christians. Others have proposed that Constantine had no vision—he invented the account in order to manipulate the ever-increasing Christian population to support him. Still others have proposed that Constantine believed that the cult of Sol Invictus and Christianity, one

26

A Global Church History

Figure 1.13  Emperor Constantine.

being his father’s monotheism and the other the Christians’ monotheism, were really recognizing the same God—some scholars have proposed that this confusion was fairly widespread. After his conversion account, Constantine began favoring the Christians. While he still permitted Roman paganism, Christianity became the religion most favored by the emperor. Though unbaptized until he was near death, Constantine granted immense material benefits to the Church. He restored properties confiscated from churches and from Christians. Christian clergy were elevated to become a favored class. In 318 bishops were given jurisdiction basically equal to that of magistrates for several purposes—for example, performing marriages and granting official manumission of slaves. Government approval and blessing brought a number of changes to the Church. Imperial blessing brought imperial involvement and interference. Constantine almost immediately involved himself in church matters, such as the Donatist controversy and the Arian controversy, both to be covered later in this chapter. During the persecutions, only sincere believers would want to be part of the Church, since it could very well mean loss of property, family, safety, or life. After imperial blessing, many rushed to become part of the Church and to accrue the respect and heightened status which Christianity brought. It became increasingly difficult to discern the level of one’s sincerity. Many of the once persecuted Christians now approved of government persecutions against others, sometimes participating themselves.

Discussion questions 1 Do you believe Constantine’s conversion was sincere, feigned, or both? Why or why not? 2 How did Christianity in the Roman Empire change because of Constantine’s ending of persecutions of Christians and endorsing Christianity?

The Early Church from Beginnings to 500

27

Early Christian life and worship, baptismal controversies Life and worship From the Church’s beginning, baptism was the norm for initiation into Christ and into the Church. John the Baptist had practiced a baptism (from the Greek word baptisma, meaning “immersion”) of repentance for remission of sins in connection with his ministry. Jesus had His disciples baptize as well. When the Church was launched on the Day of Pentecost, they baptized new believers. The Church believed there were a number of blessings given by God connected to this action—forgiveness of sins, the indwelling Holy Spirit, putting on Christ, and more. Symbolically the convert was crucified with Christ, buried with Christ, resurrected with Christ to new life, and promised resurrection at the coming of Christ. In baptismal liturgies exorcism preceded the baptisms—the one being baptized renounced the devil and demon expulsion was pronounced. Anointing with oil, or chrism, was considered as an extension of the baptismal service itself and was performed immediately as a sign of receiving the Holy Spirit. Already in the second century, the Didache prescribes baptism by immersion in running water if available. If there was not enough water, water might be poured over the head to drench the one baptized. There is evidence of infant baptisms as early as the second century, though evidence indicates this may not have been common until the early third century. The belief by most that Adam’s sin transmitted death and sinful nature to his descendants, and the belief by some that infants bore the guilt of Adam’s sin, most likely led to this development. If infants were guilty, or needed grace of the Holy Spirit—and if infants were destined for hell without Christian baptism, as most believed—then they must be candidates for baptism. The faith of their sponsors would make their baptisms efficacious.

TERTULLIAN (c. 160–c. 220/225) Tertullian, the son of a proconsular centurion, became a lawyer before being consecrated a priest at Carthage. Tertullian was a prolific writer and defender of the faith. His style is witty, direct, and carefully reasoned. His list of works includes apologetic, theological, controversial, and ascetic writings. He refuted false accusations against the Christians and explained what the Christians believed. His theological works are didactic and confrontational. Against heretical claims, he, like Irenaeus, emphasized that only the one true Church has the authentic teaching from Christ and the apostles, and only the Church can interpret Scripture properly. He wrote various works on the trinity, the resurrection, the incarnation, baptism, and other key doctrines. Against Marcionites, he argued that that same eternal God is God of both Old and New Testaments. His exegesis prefers literal and historical interpretation. His teaching on baptism was foundational for Cyprian, contributing to the Novatian and Donatist controversies. While older sources say Tertullian later become a montanist, there is no evidence that he formally left the church or joined the actual sect. More likely montanist became a derisive term for anyone who expected Christ’s immediate return, practiced asceticism, and believed that God was still working through prophecy in the late second century. (See Docs. 1.17, 1.18, and 1.19)

28

A Global Church History

Immersions, we assume, occurred in a number of places, depending upon location. Eventually, church buildings provided a specific pool, a baptistery, for this purpose, whether the church building was a converted home or a separate building erected for that purpose. The oldest known baptistery was discovered as part of the remains of an ancient house at Dura-Europos, on the Euphrates River near the eastern border of modern Syria. The house was converted for worship sometime before 256. As infant baptism grew more common, and as baptism came to be defined through the Novatianist and Donatist controversies (covered below), chrism in the West was often separated from the act of baptism itself. In the case of infant baptism, chrism might occur at a later age, near the time of first communion, though practices differed between East and West. Anointing for the East continued to occur at baptism. The earliest church liturgies very much resembled synagogue worship, except that Jesus Christ and His gospel and the Eucharistic celebration become the focal points of the service. From the beginning the early Church celebrated the Eucharist or took the Lord’s Supper often—weekly and possibly more often. It seems that originally it was common for the church to meet for worship and a meal, often called the agape feast, with the Eucharistic celebrated during or after the meal. We see Paul addressing problems with this in Corinth in 1 Cor. 10–11. Soon meals were no longer part of the worship itself. By the beginning of the second century many considered the bread and wine to be the actual body and blood of Christ, with limited explanation as to how this occurred. Ignatius of Antioch calls the elements “the medicine of immortality.” Often forgiveness of sins and empowerment to conquer sin were connected with the taking of the bread and wine. By the end of the early period nearly all believed they ate Christ’s body and blood, were being blessed by God through their participation, and were receiving power and grace in their personal lives and in their church lives through the event itself. Some spoke of the elements as a sacrifice—not a new sacrifice—but an offering once again of Christ’s sacrifice (see Doc. 1.9 for Irenaeus on the Eucharist). Both West and East believed that God gave grace through these events. There was both sign (water in baptism, bread and wine in the Eucharist) and actual grace given in the actions of the events themselves. Just how this occurred could not be explained, for this was a “mystery” (Greek, mysterion) or “sacrament” (Latin, sacramentum). Later other events were added to these two. These continued to be called mysteries in the East and sacraments in the West.

The Novatianist controversy The first two major controversies for the Western Church combined problems with proper jurisdiction for those claiming to be bishops and with sacraments administered by them. Both of these controversies grew out of the universal persecutions—the Novatianist controversy from persecution under Decius and the Donatist controversy from persecution under Diocletian. The Novatianist controversy emerged during the persecutions initiated by Decius in 250. North Africa had a strong tradition from Tertullian that baptism by those outside the proper jurisdiction of the Church was not valid. This had been confirmed by a great council at Carthage of African and Numidian bishops under Bishop Agrippinus of Carthage. Cyprian (Carthage bishop c. 249–58) taught that the church was led by bishops who were successors to the apostles, deserving absolute obedience. They had been granted the authority to forgive sins. God is one, so the Church must be one, guaranteed by each

The Early Church from Beginnings to 500

29

CYPRIAN (210–58), Bishop of Carthage (c. 249–58) Cyprian was a pagan rhetorician who studied diligently after his conversion c. 246. By 249 he was the bishop of Carthage and fled the Decian persecution. He returned in 251 to find many had lapsed from the faith. He required considerable penance and delay in order to return to the Church. The question of rebaptism arose during the Novatianist controversy. Cyprian’s writings include short treatises and letters. His most important works address ecclesiology, ministry, and sacraments, the most famous work being On the Unity of the Church.

community having one leader, who was in unity with all the other bishops. The Church’s unity depended upon unity with Peter, represented by the bishop of Rome, but each bishop had full jurisdiction in his own diocese (see Doc. 1.22). During the Decian persecution, Bishop Fabian of Rome (c. 200–50, bp. 236–50) was martyred in January 250. For over a year no new bishop was selected—Novatian (c. 200–58) served as interim bishop with permission of the clergy at Rome. During the persecution, many Christians lapsed— meaning they sacrificed (or got a document saying they sacrificed), denied the faith, betrayed believers, gave up the Scriptures, or something similar. In March 251, sixteen bishops elected Cornelius (d. 253, bp. 251–53). The clergy at Rome subsequently elected Novatian, whom most of the Roman clergy followed. Cyprian (210–57, bp. c. 249–58) supported Cornelius, who was eventually recognized as having been properly ordained and therefore the proper bishop. The schism continued, however, with Novatian’s followers baptizing converts, celebrating Eucharist, and more. After Lucius’s (c. 200–54, bp. 253–54) brief tenure, Stephen (d. 257, bp. 254–57) became the bishop of Rome. In North Africa, Cyprian, with the support of several local synods, would not allow readmission of the lapsed to the Church, especially lapsed clergy. He also re-baptized anyone who had been baptized by those “outside the Church,” not under the jurisdiction of the proper bishop (see Doc. 1.23). He argued that baptism was given only to the Church, and that those outside the Church could not perform legitimate baptism, regardless of the way they did the rite. He claimed that “they cannot give what they do not have,” including the Holy Spirit. The authority of the minister (not his morality) determined validity. There is one baptism—in the Church. In Rome, Stephen held that even outside the Church baptism is valid, because of the divine name, though such a baptism should be completed by laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Spirit. There is one baptism—in water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Both sides claimed the support of tradition and practice—Alexandria agreed with Rome, Asia Minor with Cyprian. When Stephen threatened to excommunicate the North Africans, Cyprian replied that each bishop had authority over his own diocese. Stephen died in 257 before any apparent breach between Rome and Carthage.

The Donatist controversy The Donatist controversy emerged from the persecutions under Diocletian and Galerius, most severely initiated in 303–304. Once again a number of Christians lapsed, but many Christians would not

30

A Global Church History

compromise, suffering arrest and severe persecution—these were known as confessors. Mensurius, bishop of Carthage, agreed not to hold public worship and gave up a number of writings, which he said were heretical books. Many objected. When confessors denounced Mensurius from prison, his deacon Caecilian (Caecilianus) picketed the prison to prevent Christians from bringing food to the prisoners. Mensurius died in 311, and Caecilian hurriedly had himself consecrated bishop by three nearby bishops. Numidian bishops questioned this consecration, claiming that one of the consecrating bishops had himself lapsed. The Numidians consecrated Majorinus, who was shortly thereafter succeeded by Donatus. In 313 Constantine asked Bishop Miltiades of Rome (d. 314, bp. 311–14) to investigate. Miltiades decided that Caecilian’s consecration was valid. Donatus and his followers appealed, claiming that Miltiades’s own bishop of Rome, Marcellinus (c. 304, bp. 296–304), had sacrificed openly, and that even if Caecilian’s consecration was valid, he had subsequently been deposed by a church council. Constantine, seeing a potential crisis developing, called the Synod of Arles in 314. He invited all the bishops of Gaul, though three from Britain also came. They upheld the decision of Miltiades. They also called the bishop of Rome “most glorious father”; “most glorious” (Latin, gloriosissime) was a term previously reserved for the imperial family. Donatists rejected this decision as having no jurisdiction and continued to function separately. In 317 Constantine issued an edict against the Donatists, but most North Africans remained loyal to the teaching of Tertullian and Cyprian and thus ignored the edict. By 321 Constantine had dropped all coercion. The Donatist schism continued within the churches of North Africa for three centuries.

The Paschal controversy The Paschal controversy, also called the Quartodeciman controversy (from Latin quattuordecimanus, “fourteen”), had to do with the day for celebrating Christ’s passion and resurrection. In the second century these were commemorated together in a single celebration on a particular day. Separate practices developed in various places in the Empire. Asia Minor celebrated on Nisan 14, the date of the Jewish Passover, tracing their authority for this practice to the apostle John and Jesus’s mother Mary. Most of the rest of the Empire celebrated on the Sunday after Nisan 14, tracing their authority to Peter and Paul and other apostles. While they celebrated separately, there was no conflict. But when Christians in Asia Minor migrated to Rome, they continued their former practice. Sixtus I (or Xystus I, 42–125, bp. 115–25) thought this was a problem, but decided on mutual toleration. Problems again arose under Anicetus (d. c. 168, bp. c. 157–c. 168), but after Polycarp wrote asking for toleration for the Asia Minor Christians, Anicetus again decided both practices could continue. Victor I (d. 199, bp. 189–99) in 190 decided otherwise—he declared that those who celebrated on any day other than the first Sunday after Nisan 14 were not “Catholic” Christians, meaning they were not in the true Church. He expanded the controversy beyond Rome by calling for synods throughout the Empire to determine the question. Polycrates of Ephesus (d. 196) objected that their practice was followed by the apostle Philip, the apostle John, Polycarp of Smyrna and Melito of Sardis. Victor wrote to the bishops in 190 declaring the churches of Asia Minor excommunicated, but most bishops did not concur. Irenaeus asked Victor to follow his predecessors’ tolerance of both customs, but Victor did not. Though the crisis passed, the controversy continued. Firmilian of Cappadocia (d. c. 269, bp. c. 232–c. 269) in 256 wrote that the

The Early Church from Beginnings to 500

31

Roman dating was wrong. Asia Minor Christians continued to celebrate on Nisan 14 until the Council of Nicea in 325.

Discussion questions 1 Describe the interplay of the major factors in the baptismal controversies labeled Novatianism and Donatism—(a) How to determine who is the proper bishop when more than one claim to be the bishop? (b) What to do about sacraments administered by persons not considered to be the proper bishop, and by priests under him? (c) What to do with those who appear to have denied the faith under persecution’s duress? 2 Why did the early Church have controversy over the proper day to celebrate Christ’s passion, death, and resurrection? What factors led to the emergence, continuation, and resolution of the problem?

Scripture—authority, canon, translation, and schools of exegesis The canon of Scripture The earliest Christian Scriptures were the books of the Old Testament, quoted regularly by the New Testament writers and the earliest Christians to demonstrate that Jesus is the Messiah and to reinforce the teachings of the apostles. The Old Testament canon, however, was still in process of being defined in detail until the middle of the third century. The early Christian writers generally refer to the Septuagint (LXX), the most popular Greek translation of the Old Testament, completed in the third century BC. As apostles and others penned new documents, the Church received many of them as Scripture, often citing them as they cited other Scripture. In the New Testament, 2 Pet. 3:16 speaks of false teachers twisting Paul’s letters as they twist “the other scriptures.” For some writings, the authority seems to have been accepted from the beginning—the four gospels and letters believed to have come from apostles Paul, John, and Peter. The more widely these were known and used, the more widely they were accepted. Those used more locally took longer to be accepted widely. Some were never accepted. This use of New Testament writings as Scripture is already clear in the Apostolic Fathers. Irenaeus is first to differentiate between Old Testament Scriptures (Hebrew sacred writings) and New Testament Scriptures (Christian sacred writings). After Irenaeus, all of the Christian writers appealed to the New Testament writings as Scripture, evident in Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and many others. The need for defining the authoritative writings became more evident as new religious groups claimed special authority. Montanism claimed prophetic authority from God through direct revelation. Gnosticism claimed authority through enlightenment and special knowledge. Other groups claimed their own sources of authority. Irenaeus and other Christian leaders responded by tracing authority to the apostles, either through the Scriptures the apostles wrote or approved, or through the bishops of the churches they founded. Irenaeus appealed to this as the “rule of faith,” which became the norm for understanding orthodox truth (see Doc. 1.10). Vincent of Lérins wrote, “All possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all” (See Doc. 1.56). Appeal to bishops of sees founded by apostles meant tracing the line of bishops to the apostles, and appeal to

32

A Global Church History

the Scriptures meant that the Church must discern which books were really the Scriptures and which were not. Marcion may have drawn up the first list of canonical books—he recognized only ten of Paul’s letters and an edited Gospel of Luke; this list is highly influenced by his heresy, which sought to differentiate between the evil “god” of the Old Testament and the Father of Jesus. Christian writers responded by moving toward a more carefully defined New Testament canon. The first Christian writer from whom we have a canonical list of New Testament books is Origen (185–254), as Eusebius of Caesarea later points out. Diocletian’s first persecution edict in 303 required burning of the Christians’ sacred Scriptures. The fact that many Christians were willing to die rather than hand over their sacred books gives evidence that at least locally, they knew which books were sacred and which were not. After the persecutions had ended, Constantine asked Eusebius of Caesarea to produce fifty copies of the Scriptures for use in his new capital city, New Rome or Constantinople. Eusebius would have to know which books to include. He gives three categories: “accepted,” “questionable,” and “disputed.” His accepted books have four gospels, Acts, thirteen of Paul’s letters, 1 John, and 1 Peter. Questionable were James, 2 Peter, Jude, 2 and 3 John, possibly Hebrews and Revelation. “Spurious” books, rejected from the canon, included gospels attributed to Peter; Thomas and Matthias; “acts” of Andrew, Paul, and John; the Didache; and the Apocalypse of Peter. The Muratorian Canon is a much later Latin translation of a Greek canon thought by some to have originated in or near Rome in the late second century but by others to be a fourth-century document. It includes most of the traditional New Testament books, omitting 1 and 2 Peter and Hebrews but including Apocalypse of Peter and Wisdom of Solomon (see Doc. 1.14). Athanasius (c. 296/298–373, bp. 328–73), the bishop of Alexandria (discussed below), in his Festal Letter in 367 produced the first New Testament canonical list that corresponds to the twenty-seven books eventually accepted. But later lists vary from his, showing that his list was not yet universally accepted. Codices of New Testament manuscripts often contain additional books in their copies. So the broader parameters of canon were established by the fourth century, but there was not unanimity. Christian acceptance of Old Testament books roughly parallels that of the rabbis. Eusebius reports that Melito of Sardis knew of a Jewish biblical canon in Palestine which was equivalent to what became the traditional Christian and Jewish canon, except for Esther. Christians included books from the Apocrypha and Pseudipigrapha (intertestamental writings) in their canonical lists as late as the fifth century (see Doc. 1.49 for Carthage council in 417). Many church fathers from the early period quote from one or more of these books the same way they quote Scripture. This practice seems to have continued perhaps until the Reformation, despite the fact that Jewish rabbis limited their canon to the traditional thirty-nine books.

Translations of Scripture Very early the West produced Latin versions of parts of the Bible, especially in Italy and North Africa— scholars trace the Old Latin versions to the latter half of the second century. Generally these varied versions of translated Old Testament books were from Greek rather than Hebrew. Eventually Pope

The Early Church from Beginnings to 500

33

JEROME (c. 347–419/420) Jerome was born in Dalmatia (modern Croatia) and studied in Rome c. 360—66, where he was baptized in 366. At Aquileia in Gaul he and his friends became monks. He set out for Palestine c. 372, but stopped at Antioch, where he continued his study of Greek. From c. 375 to 377, Jerome lived as a hermit at Chalcis in the desert of Syria. There he learned Hebrew as well. During the Meletian schism at Antioch, Paulinus ordained him priest. In 381 he accompanied his bishop to the Council of Constantinople, where he met Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa. Shortly thereafter he moved to Constantinople, but was sent to Rome, where he served as secretary to Pope Damasus and gave spiritual leadership to several noble women (including Paula and her daughter Eustochium). After Damasus died, Jerome visited Antioch, Egypt, and Palestine. In 386, he and Paula founded a double monastery for men and women at Bethlehem. His spirituality calls for very strict asceticism. Jerome’s greatest contribution was the Latin Vulgate, his fresh translation of the entire Bible into Latin. This became the primary Bible of the Latin-speaking West throughout the Middle Ages and beyond. He was influential in the Church’s accepting of the thirty-nine books of the Jewish canon of Scripture, effectively excluding the apocryphal books. As a prolific writer, Jerome also produced numerous biblical commentaries, translated many works of Greek scholars into Latin, and wrote polemical works which very critical. His letters address a number of subjects, including Arianism, Pelagianism, and Origenism, among others. See Doc. 1.37

Damasus I (c. 305–84, pope 366–84) encouraged Jerome (c. 347–419/420) to produce a unified Latin version, using Hebrew wherever possible for the Old Testament. Jerome’s translation, finally completed c. 405, replaced the Old Latin versions and came to be known as the Latin Vulgate. Syriac-speaking Christians used the Peshitta version almost exclusively for their Old Testament study. This was probably translated by Jews in the early second century for the Jewish community at Edessa. The Old Syriac version of the New Testament (also called Gospel of the Separated), most likely translated in the third century, was the most popular Syriac version of the four gospels. The rest of the New Testament followed to complete the Old Syriac version, which became the basis of the New Testament Peshitta version. Christians also used a Syriac version of Tatian’s Diatessaron (known as the Gospel of the Mixed) and the Palestinian Syriac version. The Peshitta is today the authorized version for the Syriac-speaking churches. Copts, native Egyptians, also translated the Scriptures into the four dialects of the Coptic language, producing several versions. After Gregory the Illuminator (c. 257–331) returned to Armenia, he and others preached in numerous places, with Armenians translating the Bible in the fifth century into the Armenian version. Tradition credits a slave girl named Nino with introducing Christianity to Georgia in the middle of the fourth century. After a Georgian language alphabet was created, the gospels and much of the New Testament were translated by the middle of the fifth century. Various theories suggest the time of Christianity coming to Ethiopia, but Rufinus (c. 345–410) credits the preaching of Christianity to two captured boys c. 330 (see Doc. 1.57). Most modern scholars date the Ethiopic version to the fifth

34

A Global Church History

or sixth century. A Persian version likely was translated before the second half of the fifth century. Christianity had been introduced to the Goths before the Council of Nicea (325), but Ulfilas (311–81) created a Gothic alphabet and translated the Scriptures into Gothic language—this became the Gothic version.

Schools of exegesis—Alexandria and Antioch As the early Church searched the Old Testament, they expected to find Christ revealed throughout. This began with the apostles and is evident in the New Testament writings. The New Testament writers based their interpretation on the literal, but they also found other meanings. Paul used typology extensively (e.g., Rom. 5:14), and allegory (e.g., Gal. 4:21-31). The New Testament book of Hebrews is full of typology. Irenaeus emphasized the doctrine of “recapitulation,” comparing and contrasting the first Adam in Genesis with the second Adam, Jesus Christ—whose incarnation was the new beginning for humanity. Schools of exegesis developed, with different emphases, the two best known being the school of Alexandria and the school of Antioch. The Alexandrian school saw the necessity of literal exegesis, but valued “spiritual” meanings of the text even more—typology and allegory. The Antioch school primarily emphasized the literal meaning, with only occasional use of allegory. In other words, early Christian exegetes believed that the mystery of Scripture included meanings beyond the literal or historical meaning. The Alexandrian school, or “school of Alexandria,” was centered on the city of Alexandria, in northern Egypt. Alexandria was founded by Alexander the Great as a Greek city. It grew to have pagan schools, a renowned library, a famous museum, and much more. The Jewish scholar Philo (20 BC–AD 50) had great influence there. One of the foremost learning centers in the world, Alexandria had large Greek, Jewish, and Christian populations. The church at Alexandria claimed they were founded by Mark; the Clementine Recognitions say Barnabas brought Christianity there—perhaps Barnabas and Mark came there together in their journey after Barnabas and Paul separated in Acts 15:36–41. Except for the 202–03 persecution under Septimus Severus, Christians had relative peace there before the universal persecutions. They had church buildings. By the second century a college of twelve priests elected their patriarch, who assumed office for a time and then returned to the college of priests. In the early-thirdcentury patriarch Demetrius abolished the system, so the patriarch served until death, as in other bishoprics. Christians—men and women—studied the faith in informal schools. Three primary names are generally associated with the school of Alexandria. Pantaenus (d. c. 190) was a Stoic philosopher who converted to Christianity during a voyage to India. He was known as the Sicilian bee because he came from Greek Sicily and gathered knowledge (honey) from both Christian and pagan sources. Eusebius said Pantaenus was a learned scholar with a high reputation, headed a Christian school in Alexandria which continued long after, preached extensively—when he went to preach the gospel in India, he found Christians already there, with Matthew’s gospel (in Hebrew, probably meaning Aramaic) left behind when apostle Bartholomew had evangelized there. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–c. 215) followed Pantaenus as the leader. As a traveler he visited Egypt, met Pantaenus, and was converted to Christianity. He remained in Alexandria, and served as a priest, though he left Alexandria during the 202–03 persecution. His most famous works are called

The Early Church from Beginnings to 500

35

Figure 1.14 Pantaenus.

Exhortation to the Greeks (instruction for conversion and baptism), The Instructor or The Tutor (Christ as teacher) and Patchwork (Stromata, or Stromateis, his greatest and longest work, covering several subjects—[see Doc. 1.16]). Clement believed that the Logos illumined all of human history, including others besides the Hebrews and Christians (e.g., the great Greek philosophers), and that all human beings were created in the image of the Logos, who is Christ. Therefore Christians should study pagan philosophers as well as Christian literature, discerning the good from the bad. Origen is the greatest and most famous member of the school of Alexandria. He was an accomplished biblical critic, exegete, commentator, translator, and teacher. His extensive writings and his theological

36

A Global Church History

Figure 1.15  Clement of Alexandria.

Figure 1.16 Origen.

insights continue to challenge contemporary readers. He was a disciple of Clement, though unlike his teacher, Origin adopted a strict, ascetic life. He understood the differences between the Synoptic gospels, later called the Synoptic problem, very well. He memorized large portions of Scripture. He is best known as a master exegete of Scripture. Origen’s description of proper interpretation in On First Principles 4.1-3 epitomizes Alexandrian exegesis. Scripture meaning is threefold—just as human beings are flesh, soul, and spirit, Scripture has

The Early Church from Beginnings to 500

37

ORIGEN (c. 185–254), author, ascetic, priest, theologian, exegete Origen is the greatest third-century theologian of the Eastern Church. Born in Egypt, Origen received a thorough education from his Coptic Christian parents. When his father Leonidas was martyred in the 202 persecution, Origen also wanted to die for the faith, but his mother hid his clothes. He studied in the catechetical school of Alexandria, later being placed in charge of the school when he was eighteen. About this time Origen began his strict ascetic life. He traveled to Rome and to Arabia. In 212, Emperor Caracalla (198–217) ordered all Copts to leave Alexandria—friends in Caesarea and Jerusalem invited him to preach for them. Demetrius demanded his return, so Origen came c. 218 to teach for several years at Alexandria, where he also devoted himself to literary work. In 230 he visited Palestine to debate the famous Gnostic Candidus. Bishop Demetrius of Alexandria deposed him, so Origen in 231 settled in Caesarea, where he founded a famous school. In 250, during the Decian persecution, Origen was imprisoned and tortured, resulting in his death. Origen was a prolific writer. He employed a staff of seven stenographers and seven copyists. Each scribe would be writing a separate work; Origen would dictate one sentence at a time to each, thereby composing multiple works at the same time. His most famous work, Hexapla, or sixfold Bible, has six columns (Hebrew text, Greek pronunciation, and four translations). He produced exegetical works on all the books of the Old and New Testaments in three genre—scholia (brief explanations of difficult passages), homilies, and commentaries. He wrote apologetic works, the most famous being Against Celsus. He composed several dogmatic works, including On First Principles (the first Christian system of theology and first manual of doctrine), as well as others (see Doc. 1.20 excerpt on Creation). Practical writings included On Prayer, Exhortation to Martyrdom, On the Pasch and numerous letters.

flesh, soul, and spirit meanings. Simple believers see the obvious or literal meaning (flesh). Those more mature are edified by the soul meaning, and the more perfect sees the spirit meaning. The spiritual meanings include what later writers called typology (typological interpretation), anagogy or tropology (moral interpretation), and allegory (allegorical interpretation). The Antiochene (also spelled Antiochian) school, or “school of Antioch,” centered on the city of Antioch, in Syria. Antioch was founded near the end of the fourth century BC on the Orontes River by one of Alexander the Great’s generals. As an important crossroads for trade and for defense, Antioch rivaled Alexandria as the chief city of the Eastern Empire. Antioch was also a center of Hellenistic Judaism. Acts 11 says the gospel spread there among Jews when preachers came to Antioch after Stephen’s martyrdom, and that the disciples were first called “Christians” at Antioch (Acts 11:19–26). Later they commissioned Paul and Barnabas to travel to plant churches (Acts 13–14), and Paul’s second church-planting tour began and ended there (Acts 15:36–18:22). Three primary names are associated with the school of Antioch. Diodore of Tarsus (d. 390, bp. 378–90) was born in Antioch, studied at Athens (where he became a monk), then led a monastery near Antioch, with John Chrysostom (c. 347–407) as his disciple. Diodore became bishop of Tarsus in 378. He opposed both Arianism and Apollinarianism (to be covered later in this chapter), gaining great

38

A Global Church History

Figure 1.17  John Chrysostom.

JOHN CHRYSOSTOM (c. 347–407), patriarch of Constantinople, one of three orthodox hierarchs John’s eloquence as a preacher brought him the nickname Chrysostom, “Golden-Mouth.” He studied under famous rhetorician Libanius of Antioch and under Diodore of Tarsus. Taking care of his widow mother kept him from monasticism, but he practiced at home and later followed the Rule of Pachomius as a hermit. Flavian at Antioch ordained him deacon and later in 386 priest and directed him to preaching. From 386 to 398 he preached in Antioch, calling for repentance and commitment. In 398 he was appointed the bishop of Constantinople against his wishes. His immediate efforts to reform the city included denouncing the empress’s statue near St. Sophia Church. Theophilus of Alexandria opposed him as well because he received those exiled from Egypt for Origenism. He was condemned at the Synod of the Oak (403) and removed from his see. Emperor Arcadius recalled John, but soon exiled him for his frank moral preaching. Three years later, he was marched to death in 407. John is remembered primarily for his preaching. His sermons appeal to literal or historical meanings of Scripture as opposed to the allegorical. His literary works include exegetical, dogmatic, and polemical sermons, moral discourses, sermons for special occasions, treatises, and letters. Though he did not hesitate to confront his hearers about repentance and committed surrender to God, John generally stayed out of the theological controversies of his day, except as he addressed them in his preaching at Antioch and Constantinople. Many of his sermons could be preached today.

The Early Church from Beginnings to 500

39

respect for his suffering in defense of the Christian faith. Because opponents destroyed most of his writings, only fragments survive. Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350–428, bp. 392–428) studied rhetoric at Antioch under the famous rhetorician Libanius, then with friend John Chrysostom (c. 347–407) entered Diodore’s monastery school at Antioch. As the bishop of Mopsuestia from 392 to 428, he gained a wide reputation for both learning and orthodoxy. Later he was unfairly accused of heresy during the Christological controversies of the fourth century. Nestorius (c. 386–c. 451, bp. 428–31) came from the Euphrates region of eastern Syria, later entering a monastery near Antioch and probably studying under Theodore of Mopsuestia. Having gained a great reputation as a preacher, in 428 he was made patriarch of Constantinople by Emperor Theodosius II (401–50, emp. 408–50). His being credited with the doctrine of Nestorianism will be discussed later in the chapter. The exegetical method of the school of Antioch focused primarily on the literal meaning of the text. Their exegetes might use other senses of Scripture occasionally, but generally they taught their followers to seek the historical meaning of the text in trying to understand its impact on life and theology.

Discussion questions 1 What factors led to the eventual definition of the Christian canon of Scripture? How are these factors similar to reasons for the rise of episcopal leadership in the early Christian centuries? How are they different? 2 Compare and contrast the Antiochene and Alexandrian schools of exegesis of Scripture. How does this, or how should this, impact contemporary approaches to understanding Scripture?

Early Christian asceticism Early Christian monasticism in Egypt Asceticism is practice of rigorous self-denial and self-discipline for the purpose of spiritual growth. This can be alone, in smaller groups, or in large groups bound together by a common promise. Asceticism, therefore, is not unique to Christianity. Before the founding of Christianity, for example, there were already ascetic practices and ascetic communities among Jews seeking to know God through disciplined spirituality. Between 1946 and 1956, in eleven caves near Qumran, scholars discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls, a collection of 981 documents which reflect ascetic spirituality in community. Contents indicate a Jewish group that considered itself the righteous remnant of Israel, with superior knowledge of the Law. Differences in the documents has led some to believe that the documents are collected from several similar communities but stored in the Qumran caves. Sometimes identified with the Essenes, these documents reflect a Jewish practice in community preceding what Christians later called monasticism. Christian ascetics have historically traced their origins to the New Testament, particularly to the Jerusalem Christians in Acts 4:32–37, who are described as not claiming their possessions as their

40

A Global Church History

own, giving proceeds of sold property to the apostles to help the needy. Early Christian asceticism was seen as a continuation and restoration of that early practice. Spiritual disciplines such as fasting, reading Scripture, and prayer, among others, are present throughout the New Testament Scripture. Formal practice of ascetic monasticism grew in Syriac Christianity and was clearly evident by the end of the third century. It arose in two or three major forms in Egypt, which has the fertile Nile River delta and valley, with desert in every direction nearby. First were the hermits (from Greek eremos, “desert”), who went to the desert to live alone. Their primary activity was the battle against the devil in order to become like God by overcoming sin and embracing characteristics of God. They often memorized large portions of Scripture. Antony (251–356) is often considered the first hermit, though there were others before him—Antony himself described a hermit named Paul as “the first monk.” Born in lower Egypt to wealthy landowners who died when he was 18, Antony chose to obey Mt. 19:21 by giving away some of his land, giving proceeds from selling the rest of his land to the poor, and placing his sister with a group of Christian virgins. After learning as another hermit’s disciple, he went to the recesses of the desert. Athanasius in his Life of Antony described details of Antony’s battle with the devil (see Doc. 1.30). Eventually others who wanted spiritual direction sought out these hermits in order to learn from them. Most would allow one or two disciples to live nearby. Soon these “hermits” with disciples were called anchorites (from Greek anachorein, “to go to the country or desert” and anachoresis, “flight to the country or desert”). Many lived in the region called the Nitrium in the desert of Scete, located a few miles west and south of the Nile delta. The disciples would learn from their teacher over a period of time, either staying after their teacher died or leaving to practice anchoritism with their own disciples. It is difficult to make a clear differentiation between hermits and anchorites, and many describe them as the same kind of monk. Antony, for example, in 306 permitted disciples to erect cells near his—his ascetic rigor continued as before, though now he instructed these disciples as well. Each anchorite lived alone, except for his disciple or disciples. There they carefully practiced their faith, seeking to eradicate their “vices” (principle sins) and develop the “virtues” (godly character). They also worked—usually making a basket or two each day—which was sold to provide their meager food—the rest going as alms for the poor. Groups of anchorites gathered on Saturday and again on Sunday for worship together, for conferences to determine issues of spiritual truth, and for mutual accountability and encouragement. They considered this a community of anchorites, though they did not live together, with one of the older and more respected anchorites being ordained as priest to provide the Eucharist for the anchorites when they worshipped together. After these gatherings each carried his water back to his cell for the coming week. Eventually much wisdom was recorded from the desert fathers in such writers as Evagrius Ponticus (349–99), John Cassian (c. 360–c. 435), and others. Cenobites (or coenobites, from Greek koinos bios, meaning “common life”) were monks who lived together in a single place as a disciplined community. Their leader, the abba, exercised absolute authority within the monastery, or cenobium (or coenobium, from Greek kenobion). A community might also be called a mandra (from Greek mandra, “enclosed place” or “monastery”). Cenobites might be called mandrites or simply monk (from Greek monachos, “bachelor”). These communities practiced a disciplined spiritual rhythm, praying together at prescribed times each day. They learned obedience,

The Early Church from Beginnings to 500

41

battled the eight principle vices, worked diligently to advance spiritually. Younger monks were placed under older monks to teach them obedience and the progressive steps of spiritual advance. Pachomius or Pachum (d. 346) has often been called the founder of coenobitic monasticism, but he is certainly not the first. Monastic communities of Christians antedate him, particularly in Lower (northern) Egypt. Pachomius himself mentions other monasteries outside his own community. Other desert fathers claim an unbroken practice of cenobitic monasticism from the apostolic period. Pachomius founded his first cenobium at Tabennisi c. 320. His second was his most famous, at Pbou in the Island of the Palms area. In all, he founded nine of these monasteries for men and two for women. They had one superior over all the monasteries together. Eventually there were at least 360 monasteries along the Nile River in Upper (southern) and Lower (northern) Egypt, with thousands of monks living in cenobia. Some were very large, with hundreds of monks, while most had a much smaller number. It became common practice for those who became anchorites to spend a number of years in a cenobium to learn spiritual disciplines and maturity. Most stayed there, but some ventured out to become anchorites themselves. It was best to submit to the abbot and the elders when making such a decision. As others heard about the anchorites of Egypt, hundreds journeyed there to learn from the great spiritual teachers. They traveled from one anchorite to another, learning wisdom from each. Some anchorites noted that they became so burdened with making baskets to provide hospitality to the neverending flow of visitors that they were distracted by these worldly concerns from their heavenly focus. Some anchorites, after years of service in the desert, returned to a monastery and submitted to the abbot so that they could focus once again on becoming like God in the spiritual virtues.

Other forms of Early Christian monasticism Monasticism flourished in many places besides Egypt. Monasteries were established in the Eastern Roman Empire, particularly in Syria and Palestine, but also outside the Empire in Mesopotamia. John Cassian and his older friend Germanus, for example, first journeyed to Palestine and were part of a monastery there. Having learned that a “novice” assigned them was really Pinufius, one of the most famous abbas of Egypt who had escaped his monastery to seek humility in a new place, Cassian and Germanus grew excited to visit the famous spiritual masters of Egypt. This was common. The desert fathers considered other monasteries to be less rigorous and less capable of leading a monk to the higher levels of spirituality. Wherever monasteries developed, both geography and culture impacted some of their specific practices. One example is the emergence in Syria of the “stylites” (from stulos, Greek for “pillar”). A stylite climbed onto a pillar and remained there, exposed to the elements. He meditated and prayed. A monastery developed around the pillar to take care of the stylite’s food, drink, and other necessities— and to practice disciplined spirituality in the locus of the holy man. These stylites became effective leaders in Syria, with amazing ministries. Several cultural functions accrued to these holy men because of the great respect that communities had for them. People came to them to settle disputes, to set prices, or to hear a word from God’s holy man. Their pillar came to be considered a locus of divinity—a

42

A Global Church History

place to encounter God and divine wisdom. Political leaders, including Roman emperors, came to them for advice before major decisions, and for blessing before major battles. Two of the most famous stylites were Simeon (c. 390–459) and Daniel (c. 409–493). Simeon lived for thirty-seven years on pillars. He first climbed a nine-foot-high pillar that he had discovered in Telanissa (modern Taladah in Syria). He later moved to other pillars, each increasingly higher, to over fifty feet. Simeon made himself available to visitors each afternoon, attracting great crowds. Other stylites took his name. Daniel, after being blessed by Simeon, established his pillar north of Constantinople; he lived there thirty-three years. Thousands visited him for guidance and advice, including two emperors. In addition to these major forms of monasticism in the early Church, other monasteries were founded throughout the Empire. In Cappadocia, for example, Basil of Caesarea (c. 330–379), discussed further below, embraced monasticism in 357 and converted his family estate into a monastery. Sometimes leaders from the West journeyed to the East and established monasteries there. Jerome, for instance, spent three years training in a desert near Antioch, then later founded a community in Palestine with help of a rich widow. Rufinus also founded a community in Palestine with Christian widow support. A common practice in the West was for bishops to establish spiritual communities to help them in their work. The bishop’s community might be separate from the diocese clergy, might include the

Figure 1.18  Church of Saint Simeon Stylites.

The Early Church from Beginnings to 500

43

clergy, or might be composed only of the clergy. Examples are numerous, including Ambrose of Milan (c. 339–97, bp. 374–97), Augustine of Hippo (354–430, bp. 396–430), Martin of Tours (316/336–97, bp. 371–97), Eusebius of Vercelli (283–371, bp. 340s–71), and many others. A bishop intending to found such a monastery might seek advice from a trusted spiritual master (e.g., John Cassian’s Institutes is written in response to such a request from two bishops). Irish monasticism in the early Christian period developed outside the Roman Empire, but is surprisingly similar to the monasticism of Egypt and Syria. Wanderers were prominent, for example. The word for a monastery in Ireland was dysart (“desert”), though Ireland had no deserts. Irish high crosses are also reminiscent of Egypt. Men and women often lived together in chastity to provide mutual support. How did these similarities develop? Perhaps monks or their teachers had learned monasticism in Egypt and brought those practices to primitive Ireland, where these Irish monks were present long before Patrick. Irish Christians continued to hold monks in high esteem for centuries.

Discussion questions 1 Compare hermits, anchorites, and cenobites in Egyptian monasticism. What motivated them? How do you respond to their call for disciplined life leading to growth in spiritual maturity? Which early monastic impressed you most, and why? 2 How and for what reasons were stylites effective leaders in spirituality, business, and politics for their day?

Controversies over the Trinity—“Theological” controversies Theological terminology When systematic and historical theologians use technical language to talk about “theological” versus “Christological” teachings or controversies, the word “theological” refers to teachings having to do with the Godhead. What is the relationship between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit? Is the Son God? Is the Holy Spirit God? How? “Christological” refers to the relationship between the divine and the human in the incarnate Son, Jesus Christ. After the incarnation, what is the relationship of the divine Son to His humanity? Is Jesus truly God and truly human? How it is possible for the Son to become human? These and related questions dominated the theology of the fourth and fifth centuries, especially in the Eastern Empire. We first look at the theological controversies, proposed solutions, and the events and controversies related to the “theological” questions. The earliest Church gave insights into their understanding of these relationships, but they were dealing with what they considered to be more pressing issues. Not until the third and fourth centuries did the proposed “theological” solutions rise to be widely considered. Various possibilities were suggested. By that time, differences between the East and the West set the stage for developing controversies on these issues. No longer did most educated persons use both Latin and Greek— Westerners tended to know only Latin, and Easterners only Greek.

44

A Global Church History

Early Christians, especially in the East, thought of God in terms of whatness and whoness. Eventually, we will see that the Church concluded that God is one “what” (the divine nature) and three “whos” (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). They described Jesus Christ as two “whats” (divine nature and human nature) and one “who” (one human-divine person). They understood all other humans as one “what” (human nature) and one “who” (human person). The vocabulary they used for expressing these foundational issues contributed to ensuing confusion. For whatness, Latins used the word natura or substantia, while the Greeks used ousia. For whoness, Latins used persona, and Greeks used hypostasis. The confusion occurred in translation, or at least in understanding, between the words substantia and hypostasis. Substantia is composed of sub- (prefix for “under”) and stantia (a nominal form from the verb for “to stand”). Hypostasis is composed hypo(prefix for “under”) and stasis (a nominal form from the verb for “to stand”). So the Latins used “standing under” (substantia) for nature, while the Greeks used “standing under” (hypostasis) for person. The etymologies, or word histories and compositions, for these two words were virtually identical, but their intended meanings were nearly opposites. When they read one another, or heard one another, Greeks might think Latins were using substantia for person rather than nature (substituting it for hypostasis), and Latins might think Greeks were using hypostasis for nature (substituting it for substantia). So at times Western Christians misunderstood Eastern Christians to mean three gods when they meant three persons of God, and Eastern Christians misunderstood Western Christians to mean one person in the Godhead rather than one divine nature.

Monarchianism This contributed to problems in the second and third centuries when Christian thinkers were trying to explain God, particularly in the West. The resulting heresies later came to be called monarchianism because they emphasized the unity of the divine being. The first of two forms of monarchianism is modal monarchianism or modalism. Because Sabellius (fl. c. 215–c. 220) was accused of this teaching, it is also called Sabellianism. Another name was patripassianism, from Greek words meaning “the Father suffers”—that the Father died on the cross. In modalism, there is no personal difference between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. God is one person, who appears in different modes or forms at different times. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are merely words which describe these modes or roles. In modalism, just as a woman might be mother, daughter, and employee, filling various roles depending on the circumstances, so God is one person but assumes the roles of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in particular circumstances. The problem occurs when Father, Son, and/or Holy Spirit are present at the same time, or when one speaks to the other (Jesus’s baptism has all three present, descending, or speaking; Jesus prays to the Father throughout the gospels including on the cross; Jesus promises to send another Comforter, etc.). Noetus, a Smyrna native, said c. 200 that “Christ was the Father himself and the Father himself was born, suffered, and died.” Smyrna elders reprimanded him, so he went to Rome, where Polemon and Praxeus became his disciples. Sabellius proclaimed at Rome c. 220 that trinity was reality, but consisted of modes or aspects of one God. He said God acted as Father in creation, Son in redemption, Holy Spirit in prophecy and sanctification. He said God is one hypostasis but three activities (energeiai).

The Early Church from Beginnings to 500

45

Hippolytus alleged that the bishop of Rome Zephyrinus (d. 217, bp. 199–217) inclined to modalism and that the bishop of Rome Callixtus I (also spelled Callistus I, d. 222, bp. 217–22) was Sabellius’s friend and even affirmed one “person” (Greek, proso ¯pon) in the Godhead. Others who attacked modalism include Tertullian and Origen. Another third-century teaching, dynamic monarchianism, is considered a second form of monarchianism because Hippolytus, Origen, and other early opponents grouped it together with modalism. Dynamic monarchianism taught that Jesus was not some incarnate form of God, but rather simply a man who received divine “power” (Greek, dynamis) from the one God. God sent the Spirit to empower Jesus to work miracles. Perfect harmony between Jesus’s will and the divine will led to Jesus being “adopted” into the Godhead—hence the more popular name adoptionism. Christ was the last and greatest of the prophets. Hippolytus says Theodotus (the Tanner) was a proponent who came from Byzantium to Rome in 190 and taught that Jesus received divine power at His baptism (from Luke 1:35). Bishop Victor condemned this Theodotus. Another Theodotus (the Banker) portrayed Jesus as the new Melchizedek and mediator between God and humanity. Artemon later argued that adoptionism was the teaching of the apostles but that others later abandoned it. Some have linked Paul of Samosata to dynamic monarchianism as well. Monarchianism led theologians like Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Origen to develop a vocabulary to express the distinctions of the divine persons.

Arianism and the Council of Nicea (325) Arianism was the most widespread “theological” heresy in the early Church. Arius (256–336) was an older, popular preacher and priest with a great reputation for piety and learning. He had studied under Lucian of Antioch (c. 240–312), a highly respected exegete and teacher who was martyred in 312. Arius taught that the Son of God is ontologically inferior to the Father—that is, the Son’s nature is inferior to the Father’s nature. In other words, the Son is not God in the same way the Father is God. Since only the Father is “unbegotten,” the Father preceded the Son, though this preceding occurred before God created time. For Arius, only the Father is eternal, without beginning, and true God. Therefore the Son is a secondary God, because the Son had a beginning—the Son is not eternal, not co-eternal with the Father, not “unbegotten” like the Father. His teaching spread quickly and persuasively because he set his doctrine to the music of drinking establishments throughout the Empire. Soon people of nearly every class of society became aware of his teachings and therefore of the subsequent controversies. As the teachings of Arius became increasingly popular, some objected. They called upon Alexander (d. 326/328, bp. 313–26/28), the patriarch of Alexandria, to rebuke Arius, but Alexander instead held a discussion with some of his clergy to resolve the matter. Both sides claimed they had won the debate. Alexander called a second debate, which was later considered a synod, to investigate. Finally Alexander declared himself in favor of those who affirmed that the Son has the name nature and is co-eternal with the Father, and commanded Arius to receive this teaching. Church historian Socrates Scholasticus (c. 380–439) much later wrote that Arius replied, “If the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was when the Son was not. Therefore . . .

46

A Global Church History

he had his subsistence from nothing.” Alexander excommunicated Arius and several others, and wrote to other bishops. Arius also wrote to bishops favorable to his position, asking permission to assemble his followers into a church (see Doc. 1.51 to Paulinus). Several responded that he could do so, but must submit to Alexander and strive to be restored. Those who agreed with Alexander opposed Arius, as did the modalists who thought Father and Son to be the same divine person. A counsel of bishops at Bithynia asked other bishops to receive those in agreement with Arius. When Constantine heard about the dispute, he immediately sent a conciliatory letter to Arius and Alexander asking them to settle this “unimportant issue” in peace. Constantine’s chaplain Hosius of Córdoba (c. 256–359) carried the letter but was unable to reconcile them. Early in 325, when fifty-six bishops met at Antioch to elect a successor to Bishop Philogonius of Antioch (bp. 314–24), they also condemned Arianism and sent a letter provisionally excommunicating Theodotus of Laodicea, Narcissus of Neronias, and Eusebius of Caesarea but granting them the option to change their minds before the forthcoming “great and hieratic synod” to be held at Ancyra (modern Ankara in Turkey). Constantine decided to call the council to Nicea (or Nicaea, modern ˙Iznik in Turkey), to meet in his summer residence. He invited all of the Empire’s bishops, and offered use of the imperial roads and transportation. Each diocese could send six people (the bishop, two priests, and three servants), all at imperial expense. The exact number of bishops who gathered in Nicea is not known—reported numbers range from “more than 250” to the traditionally accepted number of 318. Nearly all of the bishops came from the Empire’s east, with perhaps only five or six representatives from the West. Bishop Silvester I of Rome (d. 335, bp. 314–35) did not attend, but sent two priests, Vito and Vicentius, as his representatives. As the many bishops arrived, they represented various positions. Some were extreme Arians, like Eusebius of Nicomedia (d. 341). Others tended to subordinationism and have been described as moderate Arians or semi-Arians—Eusebius of Caesarea and others. Many hoped to keep the peace and move past the problem, leaving others to decide for themselves. Still others openly opposed the Arians and wanted to end the problem by defining the nature of the Father and the Son as homousios (Greek, “same nature”)—Alexander of Alexandria (and his deacon Athanasius), Hosius of Córdoba. Finally, there were those suspected of modalism, who were accused of saying that the Father and Son were the same person and therefore had one nature—for example, Marcellus of Ancyra (d. c. 374). Before Constantine arrived, theologians debated various issues, but most especially the nature of the Son of God in comparison to the nature of the Father. When arguments grew heated, a lay confessor rebuked them, with the result that the council itself had a more moderate tone throughout. In meetings before the expected decision day, Arius spoke, and then others supported him or objected. Many able theologians gained a reputation during these debates, including Athanasius (c. 296/298–373). After Constantine arrived, the council officially convened in a large basilica in the center of Constantine’s summer palace. Constantine entered with friends, dressed in jeweled attire, walked through the basilica to take his seat the end of the hall. Constantine burned items he said were complaints against some assembled there, then asked them to give attention to the business at hand.

The Early Church from Beginnings to 500

ATHANASIUS (c. 296/298–373, bp. 328–73), patriarch of Alexandria Athanasius, well educated, became deacon and secretary to Alexander of Alexandria. He attended the Council of Nicea as Alexander’s assistant. When Alexander died in 328, Athanasius became bishop. As the most famous champion of Nicene orthodoxy against Arianism, Athanasius opposed several fourth-century emperors, who with the large majority of bishops sought to reverse Nicea. For this he was exiled five times. Athanasius’s most famous work, On the Incarnation, teaches that God the Logos, by uniting Himself to humanity in becoming Jesus, restored God’s image to fallen humanity. Jesus’s death and resurrection overcame death, the result of human sin. On this basis he led a synod at Alexandria in 362 to explain Trinitarian terminology, contributing to the later acceptance of Nicene orthodoxy at the Council of Constantinople in 381 (see also Docs. 1.28 and 1.29 for Discourse 3 against Arians). Athanasius made numerous other contributions. His Life of Antony helped advance the spirituality of the desert fathers by calling attention to the most famous of the third-century hermits (see Doc. 1.30). His is the first New Testament canon list to match entirely the eventually accepted New Testament books.

Figure 1.19 Athanasius.

47

48

A Global Church History

First they examined the teachings of Arius. Arius repeated his teachings and sang his songs— bishops protested loudly. Others with similar views stated their faith, but the statements were varied. Several bishops countered Arius. A letter from Eusebius of Nicomedia was submitted as a formal confession of Arius’s faith, but it was torn to shreds. Throughout the proceedings, Constantine regularly approved, praised, rebuked, or brought agreement. Eusebius of Caesarea then presented a simple creed, likely the Caesarea baptismal creed, but since those supporting and opposing Arius could sign the document, it would not decide the problem. Constantine approved the creed and suggested that they add the word homoousion to describe more precisely the nature of the Son in relation to the nature of the Father. Arius protested that this was not a biblical word and that its Latin equivalent had been used by false teachers in the West for years (see Doc. 1.25 for Creed of Nicea). Hosius of Córdoba drew up a document of faith for all present to sign. This document became the Creed of Nicea and would be modified in 381 to become the Nicene Creed. At first all but seventeen signed, then only five refused, and finally only Theonas and Secundus refused. Eusebius signed, but explained to his congregation that what he meant was not what many of the others meant. Arius and the two dissenting bishops were condemned and excommunicated. Arianism was not the only issue discussed at the council. The bishops also determined the proper date for celebrating Christ’s passion and resurrection, supposedly settling the Quartodeciman controversy. They also passed twenty canons. Canon 6 gives regional authority to the bishops of Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch—it was later used to support papal primacy. Several canons prescribed actions for restoration of those who had lapsed during the recent persecutions, including clergy, laymen, and catechumens.

Between the Councils of Nicea (325) and Constantinople (381) But the Arian controversy was not over. Three months after the council, Eusebius of Caesarea and three others withdrew their support. Apparently Constantine himself, possibly under the influence of his sister Constantia, became non-Nicene. Arius was accepted once again during the dedication of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. Non-Nicenes held at least three major positions. The “homoiousians” (from Greek homoiousios, “of like nature”), later called “semi-Arians,” taught that the Son is of like nature with the Father, but would not affirm same nature (homoousios). The majority believed it was best to return to the variety of positions allowable before Nicea. Among them were the “homoians” (from Greek homoios, “like”), who preferred to avoid importing philosophical terms to the discussion and to insist only that the Son is “like the Father in all things, according to the Scriptures.” A third group emerged later, the “anomoians” (from Greek anomoios, “dissimilar”), who said the Son was dissimilar with or different from the Father. In the East, those abandoning the Nicene position immediately diverted attention by accusing Marcellus of Ancyra and Eustathius of Antioch of teaching that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one person, connecting them to Sabellius and modalism (Eustathius was also accused of adultery and spreading rumors about the emperor’s mother). Because the Sabellians before Nicea had used homoousios when affirming the single personhood of God, many throughout the Empire were already suspicious of the term, and therefore of how the Creed of Nicea might be understood or explained. As a result the anti-Sabellian reaction soon spread to the West as well.

The Early Church from Beginnings to 500

49

Figure 1.20  Important Locations during the Trinitarian Controversies.

In the meantime, several of the main characters in the original controversy died—Arius in 335, Constantine in 337, Eusebius of Caesarea in 340, and Eusebius of Nicomedia in 341. Several dioceses had rival bishops, one Nicene and the other non-Nicene; one example is the partriarchate of Alexandria—Pope Julius I (d. 352, pope 337–52) supported Athanasius’s return (see Doc. 1.32). Non-Nicenes were very influential over the new emperor Constantius II (317–61, emp. 337–61), who wanted to settle the problem once and for all. This led to imperial support for councils and creeds which sought to replace the Creed of Nicea with more inclusive statements. Between 341 and 351 at least seven creedal formulas were proposed. These statements avoided defining the degree of similarity between the Father and the Son, while condemning Sabellianism. Constantius hoped to include those of various positions, ending the controversy and bringing theological peace to the Empire and the Church. Constantius II called several councils to impose the imperial will on the Church—Sardica (342–43), Arles (353), Milan (355), and Beziers (356). Many of the advocates of the Nicene formula refused to submit—they were deposed and exiled. Athanasius was condemned and exiled five times. Others included Lucifer of Cagliari (d. 370/371), Hilary of Poitiers (c. 310–c. 367, bp. 350/353–67), Dionysius of Milan (d. c. 360, bp. 349–55), Liberius of Rome (310–66, pope 352–66), Eusebius of Vercelli (283–371), and Hosius of Córdoba (c. 256–359).

50

A Global Church History

Anomoians Aetius and his disciple Eunomius (d. c. 393) began claiming that the Son is not only of the same nature as the Father but also of a totally different or totally dissimilar nature. This evoked real shock from the moderates and helped enhance the strength of the homoians, who began answering the anomoians, insisting that the Son is indeed like the Father. But the homoians were of several varied positions—all rejected anomoios, but they differed in the degree to which the similarity of the Father and the Son should be expressed. The most conservative homoians began using the term homoiousios, moving them closer to the Nicene position. Once again Constantius II moved to unite the Church through conciliar formulas. In successive years synods were held at the imperial residence on the Danube at Sirmium. The 357 council’s creed avoided the homoousios versus homoiousios question, saying only the Father and Son know—this creed was later called “The Blasphemy.” The 358 council produced a creed that Nicenes and non-Nicenes could sign. The 359 council concluded that no one knows the answer, forbade the use of ousia in the discussion, and affirmed only that the Son is “like” (homoios) the Father; their creed is called “The Dated Creed.” Finally Constantius II tried to call a universal council to meet at two places—at Rimini in Italy for the Western bishops and at Seleucia on the south coast of Asia Minor for the Eastern bishops. Rimini was decidedly anti-Arian, but under imperial pressure signed a creed affirming no more than homoios. Seleucia was led by anomoians but accepted the same creed. Jerome bemoaned that the whole world was Arian. Constantius II called a council at Constantinople in 360 to declare this to be the official faith of the Empire. When Julian (331/332–63, emp. 361–63) became emperor, he took several measures to revive paganism and assure its preservation in the Empire. His forsaking of Christianity led to his being called Julian the Apostate. His policies included toleration of religions other than paganism—this included all of the various groups in the Arian controversy. Often this led to fragmentation among the

THE CAPPADOCIAN FATHERS BASIL OF CAESAREA (329/330–79, bp. 370–79), Bishop of Caesarea, one of three Orthodox Hierarchs Basil was educated in Caesarea of Cappadocia by his father, and later at Athens, before he visited monasteries in Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine, and Egypt. He embraced the ascetic life, setline as a hermit in 358 near Caesarea. Later he founded a small ascetic community (including Gregory of Nazianzus) on his family estate at Annesi. Both his exemplary ascetic example and his Rule of Basil call for deeper spirituality in others. Basil was ordained priest c. 362 at Caesarea, and was later called to work alongside the bishop there to combat Arianism. His sacrificial gifts and raising other funds softened the effects of famine in 368. He became bishop in 370. His sensitive nature and organizational skills produced long-supported hospitals and hostels for the poor. He worked tirelessly to combat heresy. Basil died in 379. His writing style is exemplary. His most famous writings are On the Holy Spirit, which reflects great insight about the doctrine of the Trinity, and Against Eunomius. His sermons are models for others. See Doc. 1.33

The Early Church from Beginnings to 500

51

GREGORY OF NYSSA (c. 335–c. 395, bp. 372–c. 395), Bishop of Nyssa Gregory was the younger brother of Basil and the youngest of the three Cappadocian Fathers. He was educated by older siblings, including Basil, but not at the great academic centers. He was married and did not join the ascetic community of Basil. In 372 he became the bishop of Nyssa in Cappadocia. Oppositions by Arians resulted in his being deposed in 376, but he was reinstated in 378. After Basil’s death, Gregory of Nyssa became the leader in the struggle against the extreme form of Arianism led by Eunomius. He played an important role at the Council of Constantinople in 381. Gregory also made numerous visits to intervene in local controversies. Gregory writings are numerous, especially his letters. His more important writings follow the death of his brother Basil, the most important being Against Eunomius (written 381–84). Other contributions include On the Holy Spirit and Great Catechism. His theology was clear, excluding any subordinationism within the Trinity, and distinguishing carefully between the Son’s being begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit’s proceeding from the Father. Gregory’s writings on spirituality have been influential, focusing on the nature of Christian perfection as a continual process throughout life. These include On the Song of Songs, Life of Moses, and possibly On the Christian Mode of Life. See Docs. 1.34 and 1.35. GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS (329-90), Patriarch of Constantinople 381, one of three Orthodox Hierarchs Gregory’s father was a convert who became bishop of Nazianzus in Cappadocia. Gregory was well educated at Nazianzus, Caesarea of Cappadocia, Caesarea of Palestine, Alexandria, and Athens. While at Athens he became friends with Basil. In 361 his father insisted he be ordained; by the next year he was helping his father. Later he became part of Basil’s small ascetic circle. Both parents died in 374. He fled to a convent in Seleucia for four years, where he developed spiritually and theologically. In 379 he was called to preach for a small church in Constantinople, where his eloquent preaching argued strongly for the Nicene faith. During the Council of Constantinople in 381 he became the bishop of Constantinople, against his will, and presided over the council, but he resigned before year’s end. Gregory gained great respect for his theological acumen, earning him the title “the Theologian.” Eastern Orthodox Christians consider Gregory, Basil of Caesarea, and John Chrysostom as the three hierarchs of the faith. Gregory is most famous for his Orations, covering a number of subjects. The most complex of these are the five Theological Orations, which argue convincingly for the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. He wrote several important letters against heresies, including Apollinarianism. He also composed many poems with Christian themes.

Christians—for example, in 362 five rivals claimed to be the bishop of Antioch, each with a community loyal to him. Western emperor Valentinian I (321–75, emp. 364–75) was Nicene but tolerant toward the various Christian parties. Eastern emperor Valens (328–78, emp. 364–78), however, was a theologian and homoian as defined at Constantinople in 360. He intimidated, deposed, and exiled bishops who would not consent—including Athanasius’s fifth exile.

52

A Global Church History

Figure 1.21  Basil of Caesarea.

During the reign of Valens a new group moved closer to the Nicene position. There were several, but the three most influential were the Cappadocian Fathers—Basil of Caesarea (329/330–79, bp. 370–79), his brother Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335–c. 395, bp. 372–c. 395), and his friend Gregory of Nazianzus (329–90, patriarch of Constantinople 381). All were from wealthy aristocratic families and highly educated. Their greatest contribution is their providing vocabulary for expressing the doctrine of the Trinity in a way that expresses both the one nature of God and the three persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Cappadocians developed the theological system of the divine economy, which emphasizes the activity of God as creator in the Father, as redeemer in the Son, and as sanctifier in the Holy Spirit. They taught that God can be known better by what God does in the Bible than by speculating about God’s ousia, which is beyond finite comprehension. They taught that God is one nature (Greek, ousia), but three persons (Greek, hypostases). This provided the vocabulary for explaining the relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They were alike yet distinct—one nature, but no confusion of identities (see Doc. 1.34).

The Early Church from Beginnings to 500

53

Figure 1.22  Gregory of Nyssa.

In January 379 Theodosius I (347–95, emp. 379–95) became emperor. On February 28, 380, he issued an edict imposing Catholic orthodoxy on all his subjects as defined by Bishop Damasus I of Rome (Damasus I, pope 366–84) and his ally Peter II of Alexandria (d. 381, bp. 373–81). He called a council of all the bishops to meet at Constantinople in 381 to bring peace to the Church. He appointed Gregory of Nazianzus as patriarch of Constantinople, though Gregory resigned before the council ended.

The Council of Constantinople (381) and the Nicene Creed The Council of Constantinople met from May to July 381, with 150 bishops in attendance, almost all from the East. The bishop of Rome did not attend and did not send representatives. The council

54

A Global Church History

Figure 1.23  Gregory of Nazianzus.

approved the Creed of Nicea, with several changes. Following the teachings of the Cappadocian Fathers (see Doc. 1.33), the most significant additions were four phrases about the Holy Spirit, all in biblical terms—“the Lord and giver of life,” “who proceeds from the Father,” “who with the Father and the Son is jointly worshiped and jointly glorified,” “who spoke through the prophets.” They also dropped the anathemas of the Creed of Nicea. The creed has been called the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, but is more generally called the Nicene Creed (see Doc. 1.36). The council also adopted six canons. The first reaffirmed the faith of the 318 bishops at Nicea and condemned a number of heresies. Canon 3 granted the bishop of Constantinople primacy of honor after the bishop Rome, because Constantinople was New Rome—this was later cited in the West to support claims of Roman jurisdictional primacy. Debate continued after the council. Non-Nicene bishops and regions did not immediately change, but gradually, over the decades which followed, those regions became increasingly orthodox. The Athanasian Creed, cited by theologians in southern Gaul in the fifth century, was credited to Athanasius during the Early Middle Ages, though this has been disputed by modern scholars. The creed affirms Nicene orthodoxy, clarifying that Father is God, Son is God, and Spirit is God, but that neither Father nor Son nor Spirit is one of the other two divine persons (see Doc. 1.50). Still another early Christian creed, called the Apostles Creed, is mentioned as early as 390, but emerged much earlier, perhaps before the fourth-century controversy over the trinity. Apparently based on an earlier creed known as the old Roman Creed, many believed each of the twelve apostles contributed one of the twelve articles.

The Early Church from Beginnings to 500

55

Figure 1.24  Emperor Theodosius I.

Discussion questions 1 Who were the main characters in the Arian controversy? What was the solution for the Council of Nicea in 325 to the Arian question on the relationship between God the Father and God the Son (and later God the Holy Spirit)? 2 Describe creedal developments between the Council of Nicea 325 and the Council of Constantinople in 381. 3 How did ongoing struggle over defining the trinity get resolved? What part did the Cappadocian Fathers, then the Council of Constantinople in 381, play in developing the Nicene Creed?

Figure 1.25  Emperor Gratian.

56

A Global Church History

Figure 1.26  Senate Building in Rome.

Developments in the relationship between church and state Christianity’s rise to become the religion of Rome is remarkable. But the period between Constantine’s embracing of Christianity and Theodosius I’s making it the Empire’s official religion is marked by significant struggle between Christians and pagan leaders. One important series of events, focusing on the Senate house’s altar of the goddess Victory, illustrates the forces at work. Co-emperor Constans I (c. 323–50, emp. 337–50) forbade pagan sacrifices in 341, but retracted the next year under pressure from the aristocracy. In 356 co-emperor Constantius II (317–61, emp. 337–61) prohibited pagan sacrifices and ordered pagan temples closed, but did not follow through. During a visit to Rome in 357, Constantius II insisted that the altar of the goddess Victory be removed from the Senate building. As soon as Constantius II left Rome, the senators put the altar back. At Constantius II’s death, Julian (361–63) became the sole emperor. Julian decided that pagan religion must be advanced if Rome were to be great again. He restored pagan sacrifices, opened pagan temples, and reinstated the gifts and pensions to pagan priests. Other religions could worship openly, but pagan religion once again became the established religion of the Empire. Later generations referred to him as Julian the Apostate. When Gratian (359–83, emp. 375–83) became Western emperor, many expected him to be benign to paganism. He immediately broke tradition by refusing the title and the insignia of the Pontifex Maximus—he would neither be the high priest nor wear the sign of the high priest of paganism. Following

The Early Church from Beginnings to 500

57

AMBROSE (c. 339–397, bp. 374–97), Bishop of Milan, one of four Latin Doctors of the Church Ambrose came from a distinguished family. At his father’s death, his family went to Rome, where he studied law, advancing to judge. When the Arian bishop of Milan died in 374, the church named him bishop. After his baptism and consecration as bishop, he divested himself of property and devoted himself to ascetical life and intense theological study. He preached weekly and taught catechumens— Augustine was one of his students. Ambrose is famous for his influence on Augustine, his intense commitment to Nicene orthodoxy, his pastoral compassion, and his courage in the face of theological threat or jurisdictional impropriety. On several occasions Ambrose stood boldly against the emperor. In 374 or 375, shortly after becoming bishop, Ambrose confronted Valentinian I about his severe rules and abuses; Valentinian submitted. In 385, Ambrose refused to share basilicas, first of a nearby see and later of Milan, despite Valentinian II’s order, occupying the basilica until the soldiers left. In 386, Ambrose would not submit to a panel of judges to decide between him and the Arian bishop, despite Valentinian II’s order. In 388, Theodosius I required church funds to rebuild a synagogue Christians had destroyed; Ambrose took the opposing view. After Theodosius crushed a Thessalonica revolt in 390 by killing 7,000 with severity, Ambrose wrote requiring public penance or he would not receive the Eucharist when he came to church. Then after his reconciliation, Theodosius I entered the church chancel; Ambrose rebuked him, saying this area was for priests only, and Theodosius not only stepped away, but refused to enter the chancel later in Constantinople. Ambrose also intervened in the Altar of Victory events. Many of Ambrose’s literary works are exegetical sermons edited quickly into treatises. He used literal, moral, and allegorical interpretation. He knew Greek and the Eastern theological writers. He defended Nicene orthodoxy against Arian views. His On the Duties of the Clergy provides ethical teachings designed for his own clergy and others. He also wrote numerous letters.

the Council of Constantinople, Gratian turned his attention to paganism. In 382 he issued two edicts. The first removed the Altar of Victory (and possibly the statue of Victory) from the Senate building in Rome. The second disestablished the pagan religion once again, removing official economic support by the Empire—pagans could still follow paganism, but at their own expense. The pagan senators were quite disturbed and resolved to petition the emperor; Christian senators denied there was any official decision. They commissioned Symmachus (c. 345–402) to represent them before the emperor. Christian senators asked Pope Damasus (366–84) to have Ambrose to carry their counterprotest to the emperor. Gratian refused to see Symmachus. The next year Gratian was murdered. Valentinian II (371–92, emp. 375–92) ordered that pagan temples looted by Christians be restored. The pagan senators tried again, sending Symmachus to Valentinian II. His appeal, called Plea of Symmachus or Relatio III, asked that paganism be restored and argued that there are various ways to come to “the divine mind,” and closed with the statement: “We cannot arrive by one and the same path at so great a mystery.” Ambrose sent Valentinian II a letter (Letter 17) arguing otherwise. All other gods are devils, he said; this is not the Senate’s petition, for the Christian senators cannot sacrifice at a pagan altar; if you decide for them, the priest at church will resist

58

A Global Church History

Figure 1.27  Ambrose of Milan.

you, for “we cannot enter into fellowship with the errors of others.” Later Ambrose sent another letter (Letter 18) refuting Symmachus’s Plea, and pointing out that the majority of the Senate were Christians. The altar was not restored. Valentinian II was murdered in 392, and usurper Eugenius (d. 394, emp. 392–94) restored the statue of Victory and made payments to senators for pagan priests. Theodosius I defeated Eugenius in 394 and ended the controversy. Paganism was forced to go underground, criticizing the government after the sack of Rome in 410. The Origenist controversy also marked the late fourth century. Origenism is difficult to define, because the term became a general term of accusation to discredit others, often without specific

The Early Church from Beginnings to 500

59

content. Historians often focus discussion of Origenism on conflict between two church fathers, Jerome (c. 347–420) and Rufinus (c. 345–410). Both had used Origen’s theology and methodology. In the first phase of the controversy, the famous heretic hunter Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 315–403) accused Origen, now deceased for well over a century, of subordinationism. Jerome offered a list of Origen’s errors, but Rufinus refused to impugn Origen. Conflict between several bishops followed, subsiding only when Theodosius I asked for peace. In the second phase, Jerome and Rufinus attacked each other. Later a synod at Alexandria in 400 condemned Origen, but Origen’s supporters found refuge with the patriarch of Constantinople John Chrysostom. Much later, in 544, Emperor Justinian I (c. 482–565, emp. 527–65) condemned the “Three Chapters” of Origen and all who held them. This was confirmed at the ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 553 (see Doc. 1.60).

Discussion questions 1 Why is the Altar of Victory affair the symbolic event for the fourth-century transition of the Roman Empire’s established religion from paganism to Christianity? 2 Who were the key characters, and what did they contribute?

Controversies over the natures of Christ—“Christological” controversies Just as theological controversies concerning the trinity dominated the fourth-century debate, Christological controversies concerning Jesus Christ dominated the fifth century. Who is Jesus Christ? Is He divine and human? How? Church leaders and theologians worked to answer these and corollary questions so that they could express the truth of the relationship between the divine and the human in the incarnate Jesus. The theological controversies looked at the Son in relationship with the Father and the Spirit before the Son’s incarnation. The Christological controversies examined the relationship between the divine and the human after the incarnation—after the Son became Jesus.

Events leading to the Council of Ephesus (431) Proposals for this relationship had already been presented in the fourth century, though church leaders were more focused on the theological controversies. Arians, for example, had taught that human beings are physical body and soul (or soul/spirit). Applying Plato’s world of ideas, they taught that the soul “in-forms” the body as the form of a vase “in-forms” the vase itself. Jesus, they said, is a combination of the material principle (the human body) and the spiritual principle (a secondary god, inferior to the Father). In the incarnation, the created Son added a body. The problem, clarified so well by the Cappadocians, was that this leaves Jesus without a human soul, so Jesus is not completely human. This meant that for Arius and others, Jesus is neither human nor divine, but something else—what Tertullian had earlier said would be a “third thing.” Apollinaris (310–90, bp. 360–90) was credited with the teaching which became known as Apollinarianism—Jesus Christ had no human spirit. Apollinaris opposed Arian Christology—he hoped

60

A Global Church History

Figure 1.28  Important Locations during the Christological Controversies.

to teach the unity of the divine and the human in Jesus Christ. He wanted to teach Christ’s full deity but avoid moral development in Christ’s life. With the Apostle Paul, he taught that a human being is body, soul, and spirit—the body is the physical, the soul is the principle of life, and the spirit is the image of God, which distinguishes humans from the animals. Jesus Christ, he taught, was human body, human soul, and the Logos. In response, the Synod of Confessors, held in 362 at Alexandria by Athanasius, concluded that Apollinaris was wrong, though they could not articulate precise reasons. Epiphanius in 374, and several councils between 374 and 381, condemned the teaching of Apollinaris as heresy, pointing out that in his teaching Jesus had no human spirit. Writing later in 382, Gregory of Nazianzus pinpointed the problem: “For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved”—Jesus must be completely human for humanity to be saved. Those of the school of Antioch entered the discussion. Diodore of Tarsus (d. 390) differentiated between Son of God and Son of Mary, teaching that Jesus could not be completely human unless He were a human person, with human body, human soul, and human spirit. Diodore was misunderstood, however, to be saying that in Jesus Christ there are two natures and two persons, one person divine and one person human. Theodore of Mopsuestia was accused of teaching the same—that Jesus is two persons—despite the fact that he wrote that Jesus Christ was “a single person.” Theodore introduced the term sublime conjunction to describe the incarnation of the divine in the human. Upon his accession

The Early Church from Beginnings to 500

61

as patriarch of Constantinople in 428, Nestorius determined he would remove heretics from the Church. But he too was falsely accused of teaching two persons in Jesus Christ, one divine person and one human person. Soon the doctrine was called Nestorianism, though neither Nestorius nor any of the other school of Antioch theologians actually taught this doctrine. Nestorius’s chaplain Anastasius preached in 428 that Mary bore the man Jesus, but not the divine Word—God was not crucified, and Mary did not produce Jesus’s divinity. So one should not use theotokos (Greek for “God-bearer”), though doctrinally correct, because people might misunderstand and believe she had something to do with making the divine. Nestorius supported Anastasius, and said Christotokos (Greek for “Christ-bearer”) would be a preferred term. This brought great reaction from monks, bishops, and church members, because theologians had used theotokos for years, and the attack undermined popular piety. In 418 Cyril (c. 375–444, bp. 418–44) succeeded his uncle Theophilus (d. 412, bp. 384–12) as the patriarch of Alexandria. He immediately attacked anyone he perceived to be an enemy of him or of orthodoxy, including Novatianists, Neoplatonists, Jews, and others. Cyril was polemical and sought to exalt Alexandria over rival Constantinople. Like his uncle, he was suspected of several immoral acts, including bribes, deaths, and other intrigue. But Cyril is best known for his teachings about Jesus Christ. For Cyril, the flesh assumed by Jesus Christ was human, with soul and mind—the Logos, however, always remained constant. Cyril regarded Christ’s humanity as representative humanity, the second Adam, human only in the sense that it represented the whole human race. In the incarnation, the Logos, always continuing to be eternal God, assumed a human body, making the flesh His own by way of dispensation (Letter 1). So for Cyril, Christ is in every way unique. He really lived as a complete human

CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA (c. 375–444), patriarch of Alexandria Cyril was born to Christian parents and was the nephew of Theophilus, the patriarch of Alexandria, who likely prepared Cyril to be his successor. He accompanied Theophilus to the Synod of the Oak in 403. When Theophilus died in 412, Cyril succeeded him after a bloody, contested election. Cyril’s theological prominence came in his opposition to Nestorius, the patriarch of Constantinople, who was understood to teach that Jesus is two persons and that Christotokos is a better description for Mary than theotokos. As described below, letters exchanged, relational positioning occurred. Cyril’s letters to Nestorius and to Pope Celestine, along with his Twelve Anathemas, contributed to the schism that was resolved two years after the Council of Ephesus in 431. Cyril’s own character has been questioned, and many rejoiced at his death. He appears to have used whatever methods he could to accomplish his plans. At the same time, many consider him to be a pillar of Christological orthodoxy, because of his systematizing of eastern doctrines of God and of Christ. His insistence on Christ’s divine and human natures as one person and upon Mary as the Godbearer marks his orthodox theology. Though Cyril wrote exegetical commentaries and polemical works, he is most famous for his letters, especially his second and third letters to Nestorius, and his letter to John of Antioch, dealing with Christology.

62

A Global Church History

Figure 1.29  Cyril of Alexandria.

because He voluntarily came under the Law and submitted himself to suffering and death. Cyril’s focus on Christ’s self-emptying (from ekenosen, Greek for “He emptied Himself”), described in Phil. 2:7, allowed Cyril to assert Christ’s full humanity without articulating that Christ had a human nature distinct from the divine (see Docs. 1.47 and 1.48). In Easter 429 Cyril preached in his sermons that Mary is the theotokos and the Christ is one person, the second divine person whom Mary bore. He said theotokos refers primarily to Christ, not primarily to Mary. The term is meant to assert the deity of Jesus Christ. Cyril wrote to all of Egypt’s bishops condemning Nestorius. This brought support for Cyril from Egyptian bishops and monks. The Antiochenes disagreed with Cyril on how to express the natures of Christ. They distinguished between Son of God and Son of Mary (or Son of David) in Christ. Christ’s human nature was really human and would remain human. It could be joined to the divine nature, but it could never be fused to the divine nature to make it “one nature” as they believed Cyril affirmed. In June 429 Cyril sent his first letter to Nestorius, in no way conciliatory, but asking only that Nestorius accept the term theotokos for Mary. Nestorius would not consent. Cyril wrote to Pope Celestine I (d. 432, pope 422–32) to inform Celestine of what Cyril was doing. In the meantime Nestorius showed hospitality to Pelagian exiles, including Julian of Eclanum (c. 386–c. 455), which irritated Cyril and others. In February 430 Cyril sent his second letter to Nestorius (Letter 4) on the pretext that Alexandrian monks had complained against Nestorius. He described his own Christology in contrast to his

The Early Church from Beginnings to 500

63

understanding of Antiochene Christology. Cyril contended that the Logos’s and Jesus’s humanity were not joined together as two entities forming a union, suggesting that would infer two sons, or two persons. He sent a Latin translation of this letter to Celestine I, who received extracts of Nestorius’s sermons from his own informant before the letter of Cyril arrived. Nestorius in the meantime replied to Cyril’s second letter in June 430. Nestorius also wrote to Celestine, informing him of the theotokos controversy and asking for information to help him deal with the Pelagian exiles. The letter had no honorific titles, implying that it was a letter between equals. John Cassian was asked by Celestine’s archdeacon Leo (later pope Leo I) to answer Nestorius’s letter. Celestine took Cyril’s side, held a synod at Rome, and wrote to Cyril in August 430. His letter delegated Cyril to represent him in proceedings against Nestorius and threatened Nestorius with a breach of communion with Rome if Nestorius did not recant within ten days. Cyril first gained the support of Juvenal of Jerusalem (d. 458, bp. 422–58) and John of Antioch (d. 441, bp. 428–41) by shocking them with his description of Nestorius’s teaching. Cyril then held a synod at Alexandria in November 430. This synod officially sent Cyril’s third letter to Nestorius (Letter 17) along with Twelve Anathemas and Celestine’s letter (see Doc. 1.53 for Cyril’s third letter). He taught that the nature of the Word did not change and was not transformed into a complete human being—the Logos became flesh (not the Logos united Himself to a human person). The Logos—the Godhead—did not begin in Mary, but rather the Logos has a rationally animated body (body and soul) to which the Word is hypostatically (Greek, en hypostasei, “in person”) united. This is Cyril’s “hypostatic union” (Greek, henosis hypostatike), for which he became famous, and which became the standard term for expressing orthodox Christology. Cyril appended to this letter his Twelve Anathemas—a list of twelve statements which Nestorius must also anathematize. Cyril’s letter generated other opposition. John of Antioch rejected the expression “one incarnate hypostasis of the Logos” which had also been used by the Apollinarians and seemed to attack Antiochene Christology directly. The Antiochenes understood the Twelve Anathemas to be teaching Apollinarianism as well. Others pointed out that Ambrose had interpreted the gospels to refute Arianism in a way they thought Cyril was condemning. Finally the Antiochenes realized that Cyril was attacking their own Christology, and rallied to defend Nestorius. Theodoret of Cyrrhus (c. 393–c. 458, bp. 423–57) and Nestorius composed Twelve CounterAnathemas, clarifying that the human nature of Christ did not mean Christ’s human nature was a separate person, and affirming that Jesus Christ was a true man, not merely representative man, though inseparably united with the Word. But they also denied the term hypostatic union.

The Council of Ephesus (431) Eastern emperor Theodosius II (401–50, emp. 402–50) feared a schism between Rome and Alexandria on the one side, and Constantinople and Antioch on the other. Apparently Cyril had his sisters request the empress Pulcheria (older sister and former regent of Theodosius II) to ask Theodosius II to call an ecumenical council to settle the matter. He called for the council to meet at Ephesus by Pentecost of 431. The imperial bodyguard commander, Candidian, was to represent the emperor and to preside, maintaining order but not entering the debate.

64

A Global Church History

Many bishops did not arrive at Ephesus by Pentecost. On June 22, Cyril, with approval of Bishop Memnon of Ephesus, decided to open the council himself with 153 bishops present. Nestorius would not attend this council, since his supporters had not yet arrived. Cyril’s second letter to Nestorius was read and approved. Nestorius’s reply was condemned. Pope Celestine I was declared orthodox. Those present condemned Nestorius and deposed him as priest or patriarch. This all happened the first day! Cyril reported this to his church at Alexandria. Later Cyril’s third letter to Nestorius, though not voted upon, was added to the council’s official record. Within days John of Antioch arrived and opened a rival council of forty-three bishops and Candidian. This council deposed Memnon and Cyril unless they repudiated the Twelve Anathemas, and they excommunicated all others. They sent a letter informing the emperor. Nearly two weeks later the papal legates arrived and joined Cyril’s council. Theodosius II sent Count John to preside. He arrested Cyril, Nestorius, and Memnon, then met at Chalcedon with a small group from each party. He ordered that Maximian (Maximianus, d. 434, bp. 431–34) be named the new patriarch of Constantinople (Cyril had sent massive bribes to the imperial court). Cyril’s Twelve Anathemas were rejected. They declared that the bishops of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch would be known as “patriarchs.” They issued eight canons. Then Count John sent everyone home. After the council, the emperor forced ongoing negotiations between Cyril and John of Antioch. For Cyril, the bottom line was that Jesus Christ is one person, the Logos, the second divine person. For the Antiochenes, Jesus Christ must be two natures, one human and one divine. Cyril insisted on union—the divine and human were joined in the one person that Jesus is—the two natures must remain distinct. If

LEO I (400–61, pope from 440 to 461) Little is known of Leo’s early life before being selected as pope. He served as archdeacon for Popes Celestine I (422–32) and Sixtus III (432–40). Leo expanded papal influence significantly. He believed Roman supremacy was given by God and confirmed by the Scriptures. He claimed his see as head of the world, and Valentinian III recognized his jurisdiction over all the Western provinces of the Empire. These assertions became point of appeal in later claims of papal supremacy. His efforts to protect his people are impressive. Leo’s papacy showed great concern for the needs of his people. When the Huns invaded Italy, Leo met with Attila and persuaded him to withdraw. In 455 he persuaded Vandal leader Gaiseric outside Rome to be less violent. His sermons, which are polished and relevant, show great concern for the welfare of those under his care. Leo opposed heresy throughout the Empire. He wrote sermons and letters against Manichaeans, Nestorians, Pelagians, and others. Other sermons show great concern for his people. His opposition to Eutyches’s monophysitism led him to send his letter, later called the Tome, to Flavian of Constantinople, arguing that Christ is two natures in one person. He denounced the 449 council at Ephesus as a latrocinium, or robber synod, and called for a new council. The Tome was influential at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, where they affirmed his teaching.

The Early Church from Beginnings to 500

65

Figure 1.30  Pope Leo I.

John would affirm that Jesus is one person, Cyril would affirm Jesus is two natures, but Cyril would not say that Jesus is a human person. Both sides quoted Scripture and tradition to affirm this rule of faith. By April 433 they had reached agreement. Cyril sent a letter to John of Antioch (Letter 39) articulating the terms of their agreement. Many previous supporters of Cyril and John complained, but this “Formula of Reunion,” as it was called, became the ongoing standard for orthodoxy. After the Formula of Reunion, there was relative peace. In Rome, Pope Leo I (400–61, pope 440–61) succeeded Sixtus III (d. 440, pope 432–40). When Proclus (d. 446, bp. 434–46) died in 446, Flavian (d. 449, bp. 446–49) was named patriarch of Constantinople. In Alexandria, Cyril was followed by Dioscorus (d. 454, bp. 444–54). Domnus (442–49) succeeded his uncle John as patriarch of Antioch. In 446 Discorus began to move against Nestorians in the patriarchate of Antioch, outside his jurisdiction. This brought reaction, but a series of events left the clear impression that Theodosius II favored Dioscorus over all others.

Monophysitism and the Council of Chalcedon (451) Eutyches (c. 375?–c. 454?) was the abbot of a large monastery near Constantinople. Some, including Leo I, said he was obstinate and not theologically acute. He claimed that there was only one nature in the incarnate Christ—the divine nature. Eusebius of Dorylaeum charged him with heresy at a local synod

66

A Global Church History

under Flavian in November 448. Days later soldiers brought Eutyches to the synod, accompanied by many protective monks. Eutyches affirmed that Christ is a “union out of two natures,” but claimed Christ had only one nature after the incarnation. Flavian and the council deposed him, but Eutyches refused to accept the deposition. Instead, he appealed to councils at Rome, Jerusalem, and Alexandria, also sending a copy to bishops of Thessalonica and Ravenna. Flavian wrote to Leo I. Theodosius II once again saw potential schism. He blamed Flavian and called for a council to meet at Ephesus in August 449 to decide between Flavian and Eutyches. Dioscorus was to preside, and all patriarchs were to be represented, plus Juvenal of Jerusalem, and ten bishops from each metropolitan diocese. Leo I asked that the council be held in Italy, but Theodosius II declined. In June 449 Leo I sent his reply to Flavian’s letter (Letter 28), which became known as the Tome of Leo (see Doc. 1.53). In August 449 about 135 bishops met for the council in Ephesus. These included Leo’s papal legates, patriarchs Domnus of Antioch and Flavian of Constantinople, Juvenal of Jerusalem, with patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria presiding. Dioscorus had the imperial letters read but not Leo’s Tome, ignoring the papal legates’ request. He moved directly to Eutyches and Flavian. Eutyches gave a confession of faith which said Christ was made from the flesh of the Virgin and for our salvation was made human. Dioscorus affirmed, “Two natures before the union, one afterwards. Is this not what we all believe?” The bishops declared Eutyches orthodox and restored him to his position. Dioscorus called for Flavian and several others to be deposed. One of Leo’s legates, Hilary, protested in Latin. Dioscorus issued blank forms to the bishops, who either signed immediately or were beaten by the soldiers until they signed, resulting in a “unanimous” decision. Hilary reported to Leo I. Flavian died three days later. Others also appealed. Later the council also deposed Domnus of Antioch, declared Cyril’s Twelve Anathemas to be canonical, and raised Jerusalem to a patriarchate. Anatolius (d. 458, bp. 449–58), Dioscorus’s delegate at Constantinople, was consecrated as patriarch of Constantinople. Theodosius II was satisfied. Within a year, however, Theodosius II died. His elder sister and former regent Pulcheria (398/399– 453, emp. 414–53) took over the government as empress. She chose Marcian, a Western general, as her consort. Eutyches was exiled, and Flavian’s body was brought to Constantinople. This left a difficult situation. Pulcheria and Marcian were loyal to Leo I, whose Tome had not been condemned at Ephesus. The Ephesus council was generally accepted in the East. Anatolius was a strong leader and pushed for Leo I to accept canon 3 of the 381 Council of Constantinople making Constantinople second in honor only to Rome. Leo I refused. Leo wrote to Pulcheria, describing the Ephesus council as “not a synod, but a robber synod” (Latin, latrocinium). Marcian summoned an ecumenical council to meet at Nicea in September 451 for the purpose of ending disputations and settling the true faith clearly and perpetually. In October and November 451 the Council met at Chalcedon, a city directly across the Bosporus straight from Constantinople. Leo I’s legates presided over the 520 bishops. Dioscorus arrived with seventeen Egyptian bishops and promptly excommunicated Leo I; this made it even easier to make him the scapegoat for Ephesus 449. The assembled bishops wanted to settle the controversy—most had already concluded that Cyril and Leo taught alike, and that Flavian had concurred. Cyril’s teaching moved to the fore as the test of orthodoxy. The council condemned both the acts of the 449 Ephesus council and its leader Dioscorus. They read and approved the Creed of Nicea (325), the Creed of Constantinople (381, called the Nicene Creed), and Cyril’s letters to Nestorius and John of Antioch.

The Early Church from Beginnings to 500

67

They also read Leo’s Tome (in Greek translation). After consulting the fathers, they approved the Tome as the best exposition on the natures of Christ because, they said, it agreed with Cyril. The emperor pushed for a definitive statement of faith. The initial document spoke of Christ existing “from two natures.” Some objected that Leo’s Tome, already accepted as orthodox, taught “in two natures.” A committee was appointed to compose the document which was ultimately approved. Marcian and Pulcheria visited the council, with Marcian reading the statement of faith to the council himself. This statement became known as the Chalcedonian Definition of the Faith, and was eventually signed by 451 of the bishops (see Doc. 1.55). The Chalcedonian Definition set forth the doctrine of Christ which continued throughout the centuries. It defines the doctrine of the Trinity by reaffirming the Creeds of Nicea 325 and Constantinople 381. It accepts Cyril’s two synodical letters and adds to them Leo’s Tome, consistent with Peter the apostle. It clarifies the doctrine of Christ by guaranteeing He is fully God, co-essential with the Father. He is also fully human, co-essential with us, like us in all things except sin. He is begotten of the Father before creation as to the Godhead, later born of Mary the Virgin theotokos as to manhood. He is one Son. His two natures are united unconfusedly (unmixedly), unchangeably (immutably), indivisibly, and inseparably. His two natures and their properties remain distinct, but in one person, one hypostasis. A different faith or a different creed is forbidden. The council also passed thirty canons, the most noted being canon 28, which echoed canon 3 of Constantinople (381) and said that the patriarch of Constantinople is magnified alongside Rome, second after Rome in ecclesiastical matters. Leo I wrote to Pulcheria (Letter 105) that he would not accept this canon on the basis that it had not been proclaimed at Nicea. This overlooked the fact that when Nicea met in 325, Constantinople was under construction—there was no patriarch of Constantinople.

Discussion questions 1 Compare and contrast the key characters and their positions concerning the relationship between the divine and the human in Jesus Christ which eventually led to the Council of Constantinople— Apollinarianism? Monophysitism? Antiochenes versus Alexandrians? 2 For the early Christians, what was at stake in defining the natures of Christ and their relationship to each othmer?

Controversy over grace theology In the fifth century, debate over grace and free will laid foundations for discussion that would follow throughout the Christian history. The three primary characters were Augustine, Pelagius, and John Cassian. As chaplain of the senatorial house of the Anicii, Pelagius (c. 360–c. 425) had already provided spiritual direction to leading families in Rome for a long time when Visigoth king Alaric (c. 370–410, king 395–410) sacked the city in 410. Concerned to improve the moral lives of those in Rome and beyond, Pelagius taught that there is no original sin—neither guilt nor corrupt human nature—instead, human beings are corrupted only by wrong choices and external factors. Adam did not pass on sin

68

A Global Church History

Figure 1.31  Oldest Portrait of Augustine (Sixth Century).

or death—he and Eve would have died if they had never sinned. Though not a sinner, a baby still needs baptism and redemption in Christ, according to John 3:3-5. For Pelagius, grace is divine aid conveyed through past events and moral exhortation or example—these include creation, revelation, the Scriptures, the examples of believers in Scripture, Christ’s sacrifice, sermons, presentation of the gospel, and other means of “natural” grace. Spiritual advance or lapse depends on free choices of the will when confronted with decisions between right and wrong. Pelagius taught these doctrines in person and in several writings (see Doc. 1.45). When Rome fell in 410 he traveled to Carthage and then to Jerusalem. Celestius also taught in Carthage and then applied for ordination to Bishop Aurelius (d. c. 429, bp. c. 391–c. 429) in 411. Instead, Aurelius charged him with heresy and excommunicated him in 412. Augustine wrote several polemical works and letters against the Pelagians, and Pelagius responded. In the meantime, a December 415 synod at Diospolis in Palestine affirmed Pelagius—later Augustine explained that Pelagius’s expressions had sounded correct, but that his meaning for the words was different than the bishops understood. Eventually conflict at Rome led Emperor Honorius (384–423, emp. 393–423) to condemn the Pelagians. We hear no more of Pelagius, though others took up his cause.

The Early Church from Beginnings to 500

69

AUGUSTINE (354–430), Bishop of Hippo 396–430 Augustine was born in 354 in Thagaste to pagan father Patricius and devout Christian mother Monica. While Augustine was studying at Carthage (371–74), his father died (371); he and his partner fathered their son Adeodatus (372), and Augustine converted to Manichaeism (373). He taught rhetoric at Thagaste (375) and at Carthage (376–82). After a voyage to Rome he became further disillusioned with Manichaeism. In 384 Augustine went to teach rhetoric at Milan, where he met, studied with, and heard preaching by Ambrose. When he sent his mistress home, Monica came to Milan. His famous garden account occurred in August 386, leading to his April 387 baptism. Augustine returned to Thagaste in 388, where he was part of an ascetic community. Adeodatus died the next year. In 391 Augustine visited Hippo Rhegius, where the bishop Valerius persuaded him to be ordained. He founded a new ascetic community there. In 396 he was consecrated bishop with Valerius, who died the next year. Augustine remained bishop of this small diocese the rest of his life. Augustine’s works are too many to list here. His most famous work is his Confessions, a spiritual autobiography challenging the reader to live a life surrendered to God. His most famous apologetic work is City of God (see Doc. 1.42 excerpt), where he defends Christianity against attacks, contrasts God’s kingdom with earthly kingdoms, and locates Rome’s being sacked in 410 within the eternal plan of God. His principle dogmatic work, On the Trinity, had great impact on Western Trinitarian theology. Other works include treatises of various kinds: philosophical, polemical against heresies (particularly Manichaeism, Donatism, and Pelagianism, among others), exegetical (On Christian Doctrine, and commentaries or treatises on many Bible books), and moral or pastoral. He also composed spiritual works, sermons, and many letters. Augustine is the most influential Western theologian in the early Christian centuries. His influence touches every subsequent century. His theology of grace, discussed below, has been a part of the grace discussion in every century, and may be his greatest theological legacy. Monastic orders have used his spiritual instructions as a monastic rule, the Rule of Augustine. His Confessions continue to challenge Christians to love God. See also Docs. 1.38, 1.39, 1.40, 1.41, 1.43, and 1.44

In 420, John Cassian (c. 360–c. 435) wrote his first work, Institutes, to teach Egyptian monastic principles to the West. This includes repudiating Pelagianism (especially Inst. 12). He also wrote Conferences, reporting what he had learned from key desert fathers during his stays in Egypt. Conferences were written in three parts, from 425 to 429. The desert fathers, he reported, taught that fallen humanity has tendencies of both good and evil. The fallen will is corrupted and needs God’s help, but can still desire the good. God’s direct divine help is necessary at all times—nothing good could be accomplished apart from God. But he also taught that God expects human free choice in this process. Direct grace and free will, then, always cooperate, even if God does almost all of the work. Just how and when God gives His direct divine help differs with each individual. Sometimes God changes the will of a resistant person. Sometimes God waits to see a spark of good will before immediately flooding it with direct divine grace. In every case, it appears, God’s supervising the entire process is God’s grace— limiting demonic attack, sometimes changing the will, but always bringing the human will to opportunities

70

A Global Church History

JOHN CASSIAN (c. 360?–c. 435) John Cassian was most likely born in Scythia Minor and received an excellent education in both Greek and Latin literature. Little is known of his early life. Sometime before 385 he and an older friend Germanus entered a monastic community at Bethlehem. Later they traveled to Egypt to visit the desert fathers. After a brief return to Bethlehem, they visited famous desert fathers in Scete, Nitria, and Thebaid. When Theophilus ordered Origenists to leave, Cassian went to Constantinople, where John Chrysostom ordained him deacon; later he represented John in Rome. Sometime before 419 he moved to Marseilles and founded two monasteries, one for men and one for women. Cassian’s two spiritual works have been influential throughout the centuries. Institutes (c. 420) describes the dress, clothes, prayers, and practices of monks, then discusses the eight principal vices one by one. Conferences (written in three parts 425–29) recounts the spiritual teachings of various desert fathers he and Germanus visited in Egypt. Cassian’s influence extends throughout the centuries. His teaching is an important bridge for bringing desert spirituality to the West. Benedict credits Cassian’s teaching for much of his own spirituality, and recommends that Cassian be read aloud daily in Benedictine monasteries. He is often cited by Orthodox Christians to substantiate their grace theology, which has been called synergism.

Figure 1.32  Icon of John Cassian.

The Early Church from Beginnings to 500

71

to decide for God, aided throughout by direct divine grace. Therefore, God’s grace is for everyone and God calls everyone, though not all follow (see Doc. 1.46). This teaching grew, especially in Western monasteries, centered in Marseilles. By the twentieth century this teaching, in which God cooperates with the human will, was called semi-Pelagianism, or semi-Augustinianism, or Synergism. Augustine wrote decidedly against any teaching about Adam and Eve’s sin that left the human will capable of choosing God. Their sin left the human race dead in trespasses and sins, totally incapable of turning toward God (see Doc. 1.43). God, based on divine choice before creation, had chosen each person who would receive divine grace—these are the elect. This choice is not based on God foreknowing what these individuals would have chosen—they are predestined only by God’s will and plan. God acts with direct grace only on the elect, and makes sure that all of the elect receive baptism, without which even babies are lost. By the twentieth century this teaching was called Augustinianism, or determinism, or Calvinism. Augustine continued to influence most of the Western leaders. Synergism flourished among many of the monks. The Council of Orange in 529 upheld most of Augustine’s teachings on nature and grace. They denounced Pelagianism and many of the teachings of the synergists. But they also repudiated the doctrine that God predestines any human being to evil. Pope Boniface II (d. 532, pope 530–32) confirmed the council’s teachings in 531.

Discussion questions 1 Briefly compare the teachings of Pelagius, Augustine, and John Cassian on grace and free will. Condition of fallen humanity? God’s actions? Human actions? 2 How do the teachings of Pelagius, Augustine, and John Cassian compare to positions of Christians today in theological exchanges on grace and free will?

Christianity outside the Roman Empire in the early centuries Christian literature has many references to Christianity outside the Roman Empire in the early period. Often these are briefly mentioned, though sometimes there is more literature available. Christian history in these regions has been given more careful treatment in recent years, and much remains to be discovered and investigated. For example, when missionaries came from the Empire to Ireland, they found monastic Christianity already established there, often resembling the vocabulary and practices of the desert fathers, as mentioned above. Christianity was also present across the northern half of Africa by the first century, including Morocco, Sudan, Ethiopia, outside of the Roman Empire. Christianity may have entered Sudan in the first century; some have suggested that the Ethiopian eunuch of Acts 8 may have been from Sudan. Perhaps there were Christians in the Aksumite Empire (Ethiopia and regions beyond) before the fourth century, but we know that Frumentius (d. c. 383) and companion Edesius, captured by Red Sea pirates, became key figures for the Aksumite royal family. Frumentius tutored the crown prince Ezana (320s–c. 360), and Edesius was the king’s cupbearer. They introduced Christianity to Aksum. Ezana, when he was king, made Christianity Aksum’s state religion. Athanasius later made Frumentius bishop of Aksum.

72

A Global Church History

Christianity in Asia in the early period spanned most of southern Asia, including Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, India, Sri Lanka, China, and beyond. There is little doubt that the Apostle Thomas preached in India, and perhaps in China itself. His body is on display in Agra, India, where tradition claims that he died on his return from China. Syrian and Indian sources describe him as planting churches in India, performing wonders, and suffering martyrdom. As earlier described, Pantaenus preached in India in the second century, where he found Christians claiming to have traced their faith to the preaching of the apostle Bartholomew years before, and had a copy of the Gospel of Matthew. Reports of the growth of Christianity in central and southern Asia come from other sources as well (see Doc. 1.58). By the second century we find many Christians in modern Iran. When the Sassanids, or Sassanans, took over the Persian Empire in 224, there was a strong Christian community there. Constantine attests to Christians in Iran in the fourth century. The Sassanid shah Shapur II (309–79) at that time persecuted the Christians in his effort to reestablish Zoroastrianism—perhaps as many as 200,000 Christians were brutally martyred in the fourth century. This persecution nearly ceased under Shah Yazdegird I (d. 420, shah 399–420), who embraced Christian faith. He later called the Synod of Isaac in 410, which adopted the Nicene Creed and declared the Church of the East to be autocephalous. These Christians embraced the term “Christotokos” for Mary, but not “theotokos.” These eastern churches outside the Empire did not attend the first seven ecumenical councils.

Discussion question 1 In the first five Christian centuries, Christianity reached locations surprisingly distant from the Mediterranean basin. What are the principle places and is the impact of Christianity on east of Roman Empire extending to the Far East?

Chapter summary In this chapter we saw the beginning of Christians, from Jesus to the apostles, to the Mediterranean world and to remote places. Distinctive Christian emphases arose in the Latin-speaking, Greek-speaking, and Syriac-speaking regions of the Mediterranean and to the east—distinctives which continued throughout the Christian centuries and set the stage for theological foci. The Church faced its first major doctrinal threat from without—Gnosticism and its various forms. There were also threats from within—Judaizing, religious fervor, and more. They responded with emphasis on the rule of faith, turning for guidance to Scripture, tradition, apostolic bishops, and statements defining their faith. In a declining Roman Empire, Christians were misunderstood, suspected, accused, and persecuted. Apostolic Fathers, then Apologists and then others clarified what the Christians really believed and practiced, often quite different than outsiders understood. Empire leaders persecuted anyone who seemed to block return to Rome’s greatness, and this included the Christians, who were persecuted mercilessly from the middle of the third century until Constantine. These persecutions gave rise to controversy within the Church over baptism, proper jurisdiction of bishops, forgiveness for apostasy, and more. Scripture grew to be central to Christian teaching. The Church defined the canon, translated into numerous languages, and developed varied methods of exegesis. These became foundational for

The Early Church from Beginnings to 500

73

expressions of foundational doctrines. After Constantine claimed his vision and conversion, the Church generally had to learn how to live with their newfound imperial endorsement. In this context, Arianism moved the Church to define more carefully the doctrine of God, developing precise terms for clarification that God is three persons, one nature. Monophysitism and Nestorianism moved the Church to define the natures of Christ, fully divine and fully human, in one person. Truth depended on both faith and experience. Christian asceticism arose in Egypt and spread through the Mediterranean world and the Middle East. Committed Christians disagreed over how God’s grace worked in the lives of individual believers, setting the stage for ongoing discussion and varying points of view which have continued throughout the Christian centuries. The Church spread to the East, beyond the Mediterranean and Mesopotamia, to Ethiopia, India, as far as China.

Chapter bibliography The Apostolic Fathers. 2 vols. Edited and translated by Bart D. Ehrman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003. Cairns, Earle E. Christianity through the Centuries. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996. Chadwick, H. The Early Church. Pelikan History of the Church, no. 1. New York: Penguin Books, 1967. Cone, Steven D. Theology from the Great Tradition. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2018. Danielou, J., and Marrou, H. The First Six Hundred Years. Translated by V. Cronin. Vol. 1 of The Christian Centuries. Ed. J. L. Rogier, and others. New York: Paulist Press, 1964. Dowley, Tim, ed. Introduction to the History of Christianity. 2nd ed. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990. Frend, W. H. C. The Rise of Christianity. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1984. Janz, Denis R., ed. A People’s History of Christianity. Student ed. 2 vols. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2014. Latourette, Kenneth Scott. To 1500. Vol. 1 of A History of Christianity. 2nd ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1975. Latourette, Kenneth Scott. The First Five Centuries. Vol. 1 of A History of the Expansion of Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1937, 1965. McManners, John, ed. The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. Mursell, Gordon, gen. ed. The Story of Christian Spirituality: Two Thousand Years, from East to West. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2001. Roberts, Alexander, and Donaldson, James, eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. 10 vols. Revised by A. Cleveland Coxe. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980-1982. Stevenson, J., and Frend, W. H. C., eds. Creeds, Councils, and Controversies. 3d ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012 (ISBN 978-0-8010-3970-6, paper). Stevenson, J., and Frend, W. H. C., eds. A New Eusebius. 3d ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013 (ISBN 978-0-8010-3971-3, paper). Schaff, Philip, ed. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. 1st Series. 14 vols. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978–80. Schaff, Philip, and Wace, Henry, eds. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. 2nd Series. 14 vols. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978–82. Walker, Williston, Norris, Richard A., Lotz, David W., and Handy, Robert T. A History of the Christian Church. 4th ed. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1985. Wilken, Robert L. The Christians as the Romans Saw Them. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1984.

Chapter 2 The Church from 500 to 1500 Steven D. Cone

Introduction When recounting the history of “the Long Middle Ages,”1 it is important to remember that the name “the Middle Ages” did not come from the people who lived during this time; it came from the self-named “Rebirth” (the Renaissance) which desired to differentiate itself from, and thereby discard, a period it saw as a dark intermediary between the Classical period and itself. Also, if we are to tell the story of the Church during this age, it is a story that ranges across Europe, Asia, and Africa, which we will have a challenge telling as one coherent story at all. The people who lived in what we commonly call “the Middle Ages” did not see themselves as living in a period of darkness or as part of a period of history that came between other times, except insofar as all humanity came to be seen as traveling in the troubled time between Christ’s incarnation and his Second Coming. On the contrary, the people of these times saw themselves as carrying forward the heritage of the past into a new day. Additionally, whereas Westerners can often think of the Medieval Church as dwelling in the cathedrals of Western Europe, the fuller reality of the Church both included these and also stretched into the Byzantine East, into Russia, Armenia, Egypt, both Northern and subSaharan Africa, Syria, India, and China. In this chapter, then, we will try to give credit to the genius, diversity, and unique characteristics of the Church during the years from about 500 CE to 1500 CE. We will also, as best we can, seek the essential unity prayed for by Christ for his Church (Jn 17:20-23). And, we will do so recognizing that the various and varied aspects of the Church’s existence only have their proper significance as related to the greater whole.

The Eastern Roman Church and Empire The Roman Empire was the largest empire the world has ever seen in terms of the time of communication required to reach from one end to the other. By the third century CE it encompassed the entire Mediterranean basin, reaching from the British Isles and Spain, all across Northern Africa to Egypt, through modern

Jacques Le Goff, The Birth of Europe (Boston: Blackwell Publishers, 2005), 195.

1

The Church from 500 to 1500

75

France, down into Italy, the Balkans, and Greece, and into Asia Minor and parts of Western Asia as far as Persia. Besides this expansive geography, Rome also contained a great number of cultures, ethnicities, religions, and local histories. Latin was the basic trade language of the West and Northern Africa, while Greek was the trade language of the East; educated Western Romans would also likely speak (or at least read) some Greek. In that Rome was, in many ways, a great federation of world-class cities, there was never an attempt to homogenize the empire’s varying cultures; if cities paid their taxes, avoided rioting, and did not make alliances with Rome’s enemies, they could mostly do what they wanted. The third century was also marked by a series of civil wars in which rival claimants vied to be emperor. The eventual victor, Diocletian, took control of an empire that he recognized as too vast and complex for completely centralized administration. Diocletian therefore divided the empire into two major administrative units (eastern and western). Each of these major administrative units was also subdivided (northern and southern). Rome technically remained one empire under his rule from the eastern capital city of Byzantium. Diocletian’s administrative division reflected the societal differences already present in the empire. He also hoped that the strong rulers put in place in each administrative quarter would be satisfied with these large and mostly autonomous domains and therefore not start more civil wars in order to become emperor. The plan worked during Diocletian’s lifetime, but within a few decades of his death Rome was again embroiled in civil war for the imperial throne. The eventual victor, Constantine, also ruled from the eastern capital city of Byzantium. He changed its name to New Rome, but the city universally became

Figure 2.1  Roman Empire with Dioceses in AD 400.

76

A Global Church History

known as Constantine’s City (or Constantinople). Having come to power through war, Constantine wanted to prevent his sons from engaging in similar civil wars against each other. He therefore formally divided the empire in half, with Eastern Rome and Western Rome becoming separate empires, and appointed his sons to rule these different empires after his death. Constantine’s plan for a peaceful division of the empire did not work, either; his sons warred with each other and with other powerful Romans. Constantine’s second oldest son, Constantius, eventually came to rule the empire. However, the formal division, though temporary, further underscored the growing administrative and cultural difference between the East and the West. That generations of emperors chose to rule from the East also indicated the way that the East’s culture and economy had come to exceed the West’s. Starting in the fourth century, waves of militaristic tribes from modern-day Germany began assailing the Western Empire. These powerful tribes devastated the Roman areas of France and Spain, and they ventured from Spain down into Northern Africa. They also invaded Italy itself, sacking the city of Rome multiple times. As we will discuss in the section on “The Changing of the Times,” during the fifth century these militaristic tribes came to settle in and replace the Western Roman Empire with loosely organized tribal kingdoms of their own. By the beginning of the sixth century, the Western Roman Empire had largely ceased to exist as a significant governmental and administrative entity. The Eastern Roman Empire, however, continued largely unscathed. The main capital of the empire had been in the east for centuries already. While the east continued to have diplomatic relations with what was left of the Western Empire, the east was much less affected by the catastrophic losses, destabilization, and decline that beset the west. Modern historians have often labeled the Roman Empire that remained in the east as “the Byzantine Empire.” The purpose of this label has sometimes been to differentiate the culture and history of the later eastern period from that of the earlier empire that included both East and West. Sometimes, though, the label, “Byzantine” has been used to discredit the later Eastern Romans as authentically

Figure 2.2  Byzantine Empire in AD 555.

The Church from 500 to 1500

77

Roman. This is illegitimate. The Roman Empire continued unabated in Constantine’s City, with Roman emperors taking the throne and classical learning and culture continuing undiminished for centuries to follow (see Doc. 2.1). This is not to say that nothing changed; but Rome had often experienced great changes over the course of a history that led Italian townspeople from a small inland settlement to gain ascendancy over the Mediterranean and beyond. Not the least of these was the transition from republic to empire that took place in the first century after the birth of Christ. One can also consider Theodosius I’s proclamation of Christianity as Rome’s official religion in 380 CE, replacing the state religion of paganism that had been integrated with every aspect of its governmental identity and life. While this chapter will refer to the Byzantine Empire, or Byzantium, its intention is never to mean anything other than the later Roman Empire, with its center of gravity in the east.

The beginnings of Byzantium In what ways, then, did this later Roman Empire, centered in the east, both extend the trajectories set by the earlier Church and Empire and also come to have a distinct identity of its own?

Monasticism Monasticism had been a potent force in Eastern Christianity since its earliest times, spreading from the Egyptian desert and the cities and countryside of Syria. In the fifth through seventh centuries, it took on even wider societal importance. The Roman emperors of this time, with a notable exception, as we will discuss, were often not figures of great energy and strength. However, there were many zealous and committed monks who took the direction of Christianity and the Empire very seriously; and it is likely that many of them saw no great difference between Christianity and the Roman Empire. These monks often imitated the Fathers of the Egyptian desert or the Syrian Stylites. Many also lived in communities influenced by Basil the Great (c. 330–79), who wrote two monastic rules. Monks and nuns, by the strength of their ascetic witness, and by the teaching traditions that they shared with those who sought their wisdom, became important cultural and religious definers for the emerging Byzantine society. The goal of monastic life has always been to live the heavenly life now. The active monks of the Eastern Empire, therefore, set out evangelistically to Christianize the world. With lasting effect, they ventured especially to the north and west to bring the gospel, and sometimes Roman culture as well, to new societies. Some of these monks produced Bible translations, and translations of the liturgy, into the languages of the peoples they came to live among. For example, an Armenian monk translated the Scriptures and the liturgy into Armenian in the sixth century, giving both the nobles and the common people the ability to understand the message of the Christian faith. This practice differed from that of Western Christendom. In the West, the Latin Vulgate and Roman Missal came to be the de facto standard; a newly evangelized culture would be taught Latin in order to read the Bible and worship according to the liturgy.

Eastern worship The later Roman Empire also took on a distinct identity as the Church’s worship developed and solidified in characteristic practices. These forms of worship were in continuity with the worship

78

A Global Church History

Figure 2.3  Entrance Mosaic Hagia Sophia Cathedral.

traditions of the early Church period. They also regularized and regulated the liturgies and forms of worship received. Christian worship came to center on Holy Communion. The centrality of the Eucharist is preserved in all of the ancient forms of worship that we have received. In the Eastern Church, the practice of Christian worship became standardized during this time period, with the two main forms being The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and The Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great. These two liturgies likely drew on traditions reaching back to the fourth century, or before, and they are still the characteristic forms of worship for the Orthodox Church today. By at least the end of the seventh century the sacraments, or mysteries, of the Church had been standardized and received the characteristic forms that continue today in Orthodox worship. Baptism, generally performed as an infant ceremony, was practiced by a triple immersion in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Just as would be the case in the sacraments of the West, the holy mysteries of baptism, the Eucharist, chrismation, confession, matrimony, holy orders, and extreme unction came to enfold all of life, from the cradle to the grave, in the grace of God as ordered through the Church. Saints’ days came to be prominent celebrations. Relics, and the pilgrimages that people take to venerate them, also grew in importance. Under the continuing patronage of the empire, many church buildings were large and ornate, with the beauty of the architecture and the liturgies that took place in them seeking to imitate the splendor of heavenly worship.

The Church from 500 to 1500

79

The mysteries that the Eastern Orthodox Church recognizes include baptism, chrismation, confession, Holy Communion, matrimony, holy orders, and unction. Baptism is typically an infant ceremony practiced by a triple immersion in water. Chrismation immediately follows baptism and conveys the gift of the Holy Spirit by the anointing of oil. The Orthodox practice reception of Holy Communion as soon as a person is baptized, including spooning the elements of Communion into the mouths of babies. Confession begins when a person is old enough to understand sin and forgiveness. Matrimony (marriage) and holy orders (becoming a deacon, priest, or bishop) are major ceremonies of adult life. Unction is an anointing with oil to bless a person for healing and in preparation for death. This list is very similar to the seven sacraments practiced by the Roman Catholic Church. The main difference is that in Catholicism, chrismation came to be replaced with the adolescent rite of confirmation. Just as with the sacraments of the Western Church, the mysteries serve to draw all of a person’s life, from cradle to grave, into further union with Christ.

Justinian I If one were to pick a watershed figure to mark the transition from the Ancient Rome that was to the Byzantine Rome that would be, it would be an easy task to choose Emperor Justinian I (483–565, began rule in 527). Justinian clearly saw himself as a Roman emperor in the tradition of Augustus and Constantine, yet by the end of his long and eventful reign the empire he ruled had taken on most or all of the characteristics associated with Byzantium. The two Byzantine historians whose works survive were hostile to him and to his powerful and active wife, the empress Theodora; their depictions of his actions and character reflect that attitude. By contrast, the Eastern Church venerates Justinian as a saint whose imperial work shaped, and in some ways saved, the Church. Just as with Constantine, Justinian was a complex figure whose influence on the Church was and is unmistakable. From his capital in Constantinople, Justinian tried to reclaim much of the Western Roman Empire from the militaristic tribes that had destroyed it. He re-conquered much of North Africa, Sicily, Italy, and Dalmatia. He also inherited Rome’s traditional struggle with the Sassanid dynasty of Persia. Justinian’s more lasting contributions, though, were as a patron of the Church. Even more strongly than Constantine and his heirs, Justinian saw himself as the head of a united Church and Empire, both badly in need of bolstering and reform. He built Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, the greatest cathedral of Eastern Christendom. He was also instrumental in bringing about and enforcing the standardization of worship motioned above. He strongly supported the rights and roles of clergy and of monastics. In support of regulated Church unity he called the Fifth Ecumenical Council (the Second Council of Constantinople, in 553); Justinian also likely added, independently of the council’s work and approval, dozens of condemnations of people and viewpoints deemed heretical, and explicit recognition that the Church could not act contrary to the emperor’s laws (see Doc. 1.60). The reforms Justinian led for both Church and state became part of a uniform code of laws. Known as the Justinian Code, it embraced all aspects of life and became the basis of law for the emperors who followed. Through this lasting legal reform, in concert with his many programs of public works, his patronage of the arts and education, and his reforms of the Church, Justinian built the Byzantine Empire.

80

A Global Church History

Figure 2.4  Gold Tremissis of Emperor Justinian I.

Islam Not everyone of great importance for the history of medieval Europe and Roman Byzantium came from inside its borders. Muhammad (c. 570–632 CE) was born in Mecca, in modern Saudi Arabia. Having secluded himself in a nearby cave for several days, Muhammad returned to Mecca saying the angel Gabriel had spoken to him, telling him he was a prophet. He started preaching a strong kind of monotheism in Mecca. The response of the townspeople was not favorable, and he was forced to flee to the city of Medina in 622. Muhammad continued preaching in Medina and converted a large number of people. In 630, he returned to Mecca as the head of a large army. In Mecca, he then received another revelation that he should make jihad—holy war—on all unbelievers. Muhammad spent the rest of his life reciting the Koran (or Qur’an) to people, mostly in Mecca. Muhammad’s preaching was very successful with the various Arab tribes. They became a powerful and unified force under their new religious order. Following Muhammad’s direction, they set out from Arabia to spread his preaching by conquest. These explosive waves of Muslim expansion have become known as the Arab Conquest. Often they were extremely bloody, with those conquered being told to convert to Islam or die. After the initial waves, the Muslim conquerors often depended less on direct violence but were very coercive with social and economic measures directed toward non-Muslims: heavy taxation, limitation of societal opportunities and education, forbidding proselytizing (toward anything but Islam), and other social pressures. Violent persecution of non-Muslims continued to exist and was always a threat. By 632 CE, Muhammad had taken the Arabian Peninsula. Within fifty years, Muslim armies had taken Palestine, Syria, most of Asia Minor, and Egypt. By 732, they reached all the way from western China and northwest India through the Middle East, all the way across North Africa, through Spain and into Gaul. The Arab Conquest devastated much of the Eastern Roman Empire. Emperor Heraclius (ruled 610–41) was unable to prevent the Muslim armies from taking Syria or Northern Africa. Christianity, understandably, was deeply affected in these regions, and the character of Christianity in the Empire experienced significant changes due to the presence of Islam.

The Church from 500 to 1500

81

Figure 2.5  The first Sura Al-Fātiha from a Qur’an manuscript by Hattat Aziz Efendi.

The Sixth Ecumenical Council Maximus the Confessor (c. 580–662), also known as Maximus of Constantinople, entered monastic life after being a civil servant to the Roman emperor Heraclitus (ruled 610–41). He was highly educated and likely grew up in Constantinople, and he first entered a monastery near there. However, due to Persian military pressure, he moved to a monastery near Carthage in Northern Africa. Maximus wrote many works, producing a dazzling and moving vision of the way that all of reality centers on and flows from Jesus Christ. His most theologically developed works are the Ambigua, in which he interprets a long series of difficulties arising from the writings of Gregory of Nazianzus and Pseudo-Dionysius. Maximus worked to overcome the misinterpretations of Origen that were producing a distorted theology in the Church. He also thereby purified the neo-Platonic

82

A Global Church History

theology used by many theological authors, adapting it more fully to support the Christian faith (see Doc. 2.4). During Maximus’s life, the Christology that flows from the Council of Chalcedon (451) produced a debate about the psychological constitution of Jesus Christ. Against many prominent church leaders, and against the Roman emperor Constans II (ruled 641–68), Maximus argued that because Christ is complete in humanity and complete in divinity, he must possess both a human will and a divine will. By this argument, Maximus sought to support Chalcedon’s Christology and also thereby show the way that a fully mature, free, and purified human will is completely coherent with and submissive to the will of God. Maximus argued this point in Africa, back in Constantinople, and in Rome before Pope Martin I (pope from 590 to 600). Martin supported Maximus’s argument, but Constans—likely seeing the dispute as an unneeded source of disunity—had both Maximus and Martin arrested and hauled to Constantinople. Martin died in Constantinople; Constans had Maximus mutilated, removing his tongue and right hand. Maximus was then exiled to modern-day Georgia where he soon died, likely from complications from his injuries. The Sixth Ecumenical Council (the Third Council of Constantinople in 680–81) vindicated Pope Martin and Maximus (see Doc. 1.61). Orthodox and Catholic Christian theology since have affirmed that

Figure 2.6  Christ Icon from Mt. Sinai in sixth century.

The Church from 500 to 1500

83

Christ is completely human and completely divine, with all of the faculties and properties that pertain to both of those natures. Maximus soon was venerated as a saint, and John Scotus Eriugena translated his writings into Latin in the ninth century.

The Iconoclast controversy The use of images (icons) in Eastern Christian worship became pervasive and of great importance in the fourth through eighth centuries. Paintings and mosaics of Jesus, of the Virgin Mary, of the saints, or of members of the Trinity came to characterize Eastern church buildings, worship services, and

Figure 2.7  Late-fourteenth to early-fifth-century icon illustrating the “Triumph of Orthodoxy” under the Byzantine empress Theodora over iconoclasm. Patriarch Methodios I of Constantinople is on the top right, close to the Virgin.

84

A Global Church History

devotional practices. These icons were seen as windows into heaven, in which the representation of the holy person allowed one to understand and experience in a deeper way that the material world we experience is interpenetrated with the reality of God’s reign. Part of the radical monotheism Muhammad taught was forbidding all forms of representation of humans or animals. Such artistic expressions were held to be forms of idolatry. Jews, also, saw such images as idolatrous when used in worship. In order to foster better relations with Jews and Muslims, and potentially to evangelize them in a more effective way, Emperor Leo III (ruled 717–41) ordered all religious images in the Roman Empire to be destroyed (images of the emperor were still allowed, though). “Iconoclasm” means the destruction of images, and Leo ordered his soldiers to enter church buildings and monasteries to seize and destroy all the images within them. He also persecuted those who resisted his edict. There was a tremendous reaction to Leo’s actions, especially in Greece and Italy. Priests, monks, and lay people sometimes even took up arms to protect their icons from destruction. Popes Gregory II (pope from 715 to 731) and Gregory III (pope from 731 to 741) defended icon use. In Constantinople itself, the monks of the Monastery of Stoudios vigorously defended the traditional Orthodox understanding of icons. Perhaps the strongest defender of the icons, though, was John of Damascus (c. 675–745), living outside of Leo’s reign in a Muslim land. They insisted that icons are inspiration for prayer, not idols to be worshipped. Leo was successful in repelling the Second Arab siege of Constantinople in 717–18. However, the divisiveness of his iconoclasm prepared the way for a long series of divisions, civil wars, and revolts. His iconoclastic policies were continued by his heir, Emperor Constantine V (ruled 741–75). After Constantine’s death, the first stage of the Iconoclast Controversy was settled at the Second Council of Nicaea (called by Empress Irene of Athens and her son, Emperor Constantine VI, in 787; considered to be the Seventh Ecumenical Council; see Doc. 1.62). This council clarified that icons may be given the respect due to holy people, because of the subjects they represent, but neither the icons nor the saints should receive the worship due to God alone. It further argued that Christ’s incarnation shows that God uses the material world to communicate his grace. To this end, the council declared that the central altar of church buildings should contain a relic from a saint, a practice still followed by the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics.

The icons used by the Eastern Orthodox in worship are pictures, flat or with low relief, of Christ, the saints, and various scenes from Scripture. In a modern Orthodox church, following a practice that reaches back centuries, the part of the sanctuary where the congregation stands is separated from the altar by a wall that has a central opening. This wall, known as the iconstasis, is covered with icons: generally of Christ, the Virgin Mary with the Christ child, John the Baptist, the archangels Gabriel and Michael, and the congregation’s patron saint. Icons, in Orthodox understanding, are not mere pictures but serve as windows into heaven by which we may better come to realize the way that all of reality radiates from God’s will and work. The Orthodox will often kiss the icons during worship services or when visiting a spiritually important place. In the Orthodox use of icons, the worshippers do not worship icons or the saints depicted in them. Only God is worshipped. Yet the icons serve as aids to prayer and images that reshape our understanding of the world.

The Church from 500 to 1500

85

Perhaps spurred on by military defeats, Emperor Leo V revived iconoclasm in 814. He hoped thereby to repeat the military victories of Constantine V. Leo V’s iconoclasm was not as violent or pervasive as Leo III’s. However he did remove several important icons and pursued official policies of iconoclasm. His successor, Michael III, continued these policies and complained to the Holy Roman emperor about the use of images in churches. Icons were restored to use, however, by the empress Theodora in 843, and the Orthodox Church has not had a period of iconoclasm since. The first Sunday of Great Lent—the time of fasting that comes before Easter—is celebrated as the “Triumph of Orthodoxy,” a celebration that stems from Theodora’s validation of the venerations of icons. Icons remain prominent in Eastern worship today. Many Western churches have an important role for various kinds of images, too, although some Protestant churches are opposed to the use of images in worship.

Missions to Central Europe With routes east and south closed, the evangelistic focus of Byzantine Christianity turned north and west. In 863, King Rastislav of Moravia requested missionaries from Emperor Michael III; Moravia is the southeastern part of what is now the Czech Republic. Michael sent two brothers, Constantine (better known as Cyril) and Methodius. The brothers traveled to Rome to seek permission from the pope

Figure 2.8  Monastery Sveti Jovan Bigorski in Macedonia, painting of the Saints Cyril and Methodius at the outer walls of the Church.

86

A Global Church History

for their mission. With this received, they went to Moravia to evangelize. They set up a school and evangelized neighboring Bohemia, as well (see Doc. 2.33). For their work in Moravia, Cyril and Methodius devised a script now known as Glagolitic. And they translated the Bible and the Divine Liturgy into the Slavic languages. So great was their eventual influence that Pope John Paul II chose Cyril and Methodius as the co-patron saints of Europe, along with Benedict of Nursia, in 1980. Cyril and Methodius’s saint day is celebrated as a national holiday in countries across Central and Eastern Europe. During this time period, King Boris of Bulgaria (ruled 852–89) also requested missionaries (see Doc. 2.14). He wished for Bulgaria to become Christian, and he requested emissaries from both the Byzantine Church and the pope to seek the best political deal, as well. Competition over the form of Christianity in the Balkans (and the political alliance of Great Bulgaria) eventually led to conflict and a short schism between the Eastern and Western Church. By this time, Cyril had passed away, but his and Methodius’s students went to Bulgaria (perhaps expelled by religious strife in Moravia). These students, Clement of Ohrid and Naum of Preslav, simplified the Glagolitic alphabet and renamed it Cyrillic, after their master Cyril. They finalized translation of the Bible and the Divine Liturgy into Bulgarian. King Boris eventually chose Eastern Christianity, choosing Emperor Michael III as his godfather at his baptism; Boris later became a monk. Bulgaria was a center of power at that time, and it became the heart of Slavic Christianity. Cyrillic remains the alphabet of Bulgaria, Russia, and many other Slavic-language countries today.

Photius of Constantinople The ninth century was a time of internal and external strife in the Byzantine Empire. To the south and east, Islamic armies still threatened to make Byzantium subservient. To the north and west, the founding of the Holy Roman Empire in 800 (under Charlemagne) established a Western political power allied with the Roman pope that could vie with Constantinople. Internally, the iconoclast controversy was barely past, and relations were sometimes strained between the Roman emperor and the patriarch of Constantinople. In 858, Emperor Michael III deposed Ignatius, patriarch of Constantinople, for political reasons. Michael replaced Ignatius with a Constantinopolitan scholar and statesman named Photius (c. 810–93). Photius’s great uncle had been patriarch of Constantinople, but Photius himself was a layman at the time of Michael’s naming him to be patriarch. He was tonsured as a monastic and then ordained as lector, sub-deacon, deacon, priest, and patriarch of Constantinople on five successive days, the last being Christmas Day, 858. Ignatius (the son of Emperor Michael I and a supporter of Empress Theodora, whom Michael III had deposed to take the imperial throne) refused to accept being removed as patriarch; both he and Photius acted as patriarch for some time. Ignatius’s partisans then appealed to Western ecclesial and political authorities. Pope Nicholas I (pope from 858 to 867) eventually sought to adjudicate the matter. In 863, Nicolas ruled in favor of Ignatius—and against the Eastern emperor—in that Ignatius had been confined by the emperor and deprived of office without a church trial. Photius refused to accept Nicolas’s verdict, responding four years later by excommunicating Pope Nicolas for heresy. Photius’s charge was based on Nicolas’s acceptance of the filioque clause that the

The Church from 500 to 1500

87

Figure 2.9  The interrogation of patriarch Photios.

Western Church had added to the Nicene Creed in the seventh century (concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son). In his Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, Photius claimed that this Western theology introduced confusion, division, and subordination into the Godhead. He also complained that the Western Church had acted unilaterally in modifying the Nicene Creed. This excommunication produced a short schism between the churches. In addition to conflict over Rome’s right to legitimate the patriarch of Constantinople, there was also significant tension over the conversion of Bulgaria and its alliance with either Constantinople or Rome. Emperor Michael, unsurprisingly, also disapproved of the pope’s actions. In response to the pope’s claim that Rome had precedence and right to rule in the Church, both Michael and Photius declared that all five of the ancient patriarchies (Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem) are equal. Upon Ignatius’s death, Photius became the sole claimant to being the patriarch of Constantinople. Nicolas I’s successor, Pope John VIII, eventually approved this reinstatement. Photius’s actions were instrumental in the conversion of the Slavs to Christianity. His literary output was also of great importance for Byzantine Christianity. He made a systematic compilation of the Church law and teachings of the Eastern Church. He also wrote a Bibliotecha, a compilation of the writings of nearly three hundred classical and early Byzantine authors. And he produced the Amphilochia, a set of three hundred answers to difficulties questions from Scripture, as well as numerous other writings. In many ways, Photius’s theological works returned humane learning to Byzantine theology, restoring the place that philosophical, rhetorical, historical, and literary acumen had held in the great theologians of the early Church. Respected even by his opponents for his learning and literary productions, Photius began to be venerated as a saint in the East within a century of his death.

The tenth-century height of culture The two centuries following Photius saw one of the high points of Byzantine culture and civilization. From about 900 to 1100, the Eastern Church grew. Doctrinal disputes within the Eastern Church were at a minimum, monasticism was very strong and pious, and its missionary efforts were vigorous and

88

A Global Church History

effective. During these centuries, one can also see effective administration in the leaders of Church and state and concern in them for what is best for the people and the Church. Trade and the economy also flourished, with some land being gained back from Islam.

Mount Athos One aspect of the tenth century’s cultural and spiritual advance was the growing extent of monasticism on Mount Athos. A long, forested, and mountainous peninsula jutting into the Aegean Sea in northern

Figure 2.10  Mount Athos and the Monastery of Stavonikétes by Edward Lear.

Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (also known as Dionysius or Denys) wrote during the late fifth or early sixth century. This otherwise anonymous author took as his pen-name the member of the Areopagus (the Greek philosophical court in Athens) named by Acts 17 as having been a convert of the Apostle Paul. Pseudo-Dionysius may have been Syrian, and he was very familiar with the works of the neoPlatonic philosopher Proclus (d. 485) and the eastern patristic stream of Christian theology. His works were sometimes accepted as genuinely those of the first-century Athenian, which gave them notable authority. Dionysius formed a novel synthesis of neo-Platonic thought and Christian theology that came to be widely influential. His works are mystical, seeking union with God. They also describe an intricate hierarchy of angels and heavenly beings by which God providentially orders the world.

The Church from 500 to 1500

89

Greece, Mount Athos has been a home to monastics since the early Byzantine period. Monks from Mount Athos participated in the Seventh Ecumenical Council in 787. In 958, Athanasius the Athonite came to Mount Athos. A friend of Emperor Nicephorus Phocas, he built a large central church building in the peninsula’s capital and founded Great Lavra Monastery—still the largest of Mount Athos’s twenty monasteries today. Mount Athos enjoyed the favor and protection of the Byzantine emperors, and it grew in prominence as a place of spiritual guidance and importance. In many ways, the monasteries of Mount Athos and their spiritual traditions came to be of central importance for Orthodox spirituality.

The conversion of Russia In 954, Queen Olga of Kiev (c. 890–969) converted to Christianity; she was serving as regent for her son, Svyatoslav, following her husband’s assassination. Russia was then ruled from Kiev (now the capital of the Ukraine), and Olga was the first of the Kievan nobles to embrace Christianity. While Svatoslav resisted her efforts to make Russia Christian, her grandson Vladimir I the Great (c. 958–1015) converted from Slavic paganism to Christianity in 988. Vladimir came to rule the Kievan realm, including modern-day Belarussia, Russia, and the Ukraine to the Baltic Sea.

Figure 2.11  Olga of Kiev.

90

A Global Church History

When making a choice of religion, Vladimir sent representatives to centers of the four major religions known to him—Eastern Christianity, Western Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Upon celebrating the Divine Liturgy in Hagia Sophia Cathedral in Constantinople, they reported back to him, “We no longer knew whether we were in heaven or on earth, nor such beauty, and we know not how to tell of it.”2 Vladimir was impressed by his emissaries’ reports and chose the Eastern form of Christianity. After his baptism, Vladimir set up Christian schools to evangelize the Russian people and educate them. He also built many churches, engaged in social programs to feed the hungry, and lived in peace with most of the surrounding countries. By his death, most of formerly pagan Russia had become Christian. Russians soon sent monks to Mount Athos; Russia also developed a strong and important tradition of monasticism, itself, with Russian elders (startsi) forming monastic communities both in the cities of the Kievan Rus and in the wilderness. The Russian Orthodox Church today is numerically the largest of the Orthodox Churches; both Olga and Vladimir are venerated as saints by the Orthodox.

Symeon the New Theologian Symeon (949–1022) was the son of a Byzantine noble family. In 963, he was convinced by Symeon the Studite—one of the greatest monks of the Monastery of Studios in Constantinople—to become a monk under his guidance. The younger Symeon became the igoumen (abbot) of St. Mammas Monastery in Cyprus. The title traditionally given to him by the Orthodox—the New Theologian—connotes his contribution to defending the Orthodox doctrine of God. The only other individuals named “the Theologian” by Orthodox tradition are Gregory of Nazianzus and the Apostle John. Symeon became one of the most notable theological voices of the Byzantine Church. Symeon was a mystic devoted to contemplative prayer. He drew on the authority of the Fathers of the Egyptian desert. His writings share directly about his experiences of God and also emphasize the importance of mentoring and guidance in spiritual contemplation. Symeon often spoke of experiencing God as Divine Light, a spiritual focus now deeply embedded in Orthodox tradition. As Orthodox Christians received and developed Symeon’s theology, hesychasm became an important spiritual practice in Eastern monasticism. “Hesychasm” comes from the Greek word for “stillness.” Hesychasm indicates the ascetic and contemplative practice, quieting and purifying the intellect, to experience God. It became characteristic of the monks of Mount Athos and for the practice of Eastern worship; as we will see later, one of hesychasm’s greatest defenders was Gregory Palamas (1295–1359), a monk of Mount Athos and a bishop of Thessalonica. In many ways, it is connected with the way that Eastern Christianity states and defends that in worship and prayer we truly have contact with God.

The Great Schism In the middle of the eleventh century, both Eastern Orthodox and Western Christians still held to the concept of a visible, universal Church that both were equally part of. As we have noticed at a number

Robert Nisbet Bain, “Vladimir, St,” in Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th ed, vol. 28, ed. H. Chisholm (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911), 168. 2

Figure 2.12  The expansion of Christianity.

The Church from 500 to 1500 91

92

A Global Church History

of points, however, there were clear differences between Eastern and Western Christianity. And in the conversion of Bulgaria and Russia, the Photian Schism, and many other instances, there were also instances of conflict.

Difference between the East and the West By the year 1000 CE substantial differences had developed between Eastern and Western Christianity. zz

zz

zz

zz

zz

Linguistic: Western Christianity used Latin exclusively, whereas Eastern Christianity was practiced in a variety of local languages. Liturgy: Western Christianity commonly used the Roman Missal, while the East used the Divine Liturgy (see Docs. 2.9 and 2.10). Scope: Eastern Christianity tended to be nationalistic (with some attempt at imperial domination by the Roman emperor), while Western Christianity was primarily imperial and universal (under the pope and the Holy Roman emperor). Theology: Western Christianity accepted the filioque clause in saying the Nicene Creed and celebrated the Eucharist with unleavened bread, and Eastern Christianity rejected the filioque, had developed a characteristic practice of hesychasm, and celebrated the Eucharist with leavened bread. Clerical celibacy: Western priests and bishops were required to be celibate, while most eastern priests were married (eastern bishops, and of course monks and nuns, were required to be celibate).

In many ways, the Eastern Christianity centered on the (Byzantine) Roman emperor and the patriarch of Constantinople, and the Western Christianity of the Roman Pope and the Holy Roman emperor were losing the ability to coexist peacefully and make sense of each other. Starting in the middle of the eleventh century, these two forms of Christianity began to be formally separated from each other. The split, or schism, began with the mutual excommunication of the pope and the patriarch of

At the Eighth Council of Toledo (653), the bishops of Spain ruled that the Spanish church should begin saying the Nicene Creed in a different way (see Docs. 1.36 and 2.7). Instead of “We believe in the Holy Spirit . . . who proceeds from the Father,” they directed that the Creed should say, “We believe in the Holy Spirit . . . who proceeds from the Father and the Son.” Within a century, the change was widely adopted in the Latin-speaking church; Charlemagne made it mandatory for the churches in the Holy Roman Empire. In its Spanish context, the purpose of the change was to specify that the relations of the members of the Trinity were relationships of equality. The powerful Vandal tribe still threatened Spain; they supported the Arian heresy that stated that the Father alone was truly God, while the Son and the Holy Spirit were the Father’s products. The Latin tradition of theology (and much Greek theology) had long stated that the Holy Spirit was related to the Father through the Son. By specifying that the Holy Spirit also had direct relation to the Father, the new version of the Creed emphasized that the Holy Spirit, just as the Father and the Son, is truly God.

The Church from 500 to 1500

93

Constantinople. After the Fourth Crusade in the early 1200s, it became a separation that would last for centuries.

Mutual excommunication The two main players in the Great Schism were Pope Leo IX (pope from 1049 to 1054) and patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius (patriarch from 1043 to 1058). Both were very strong leaders with substantial political and ecclesial support. Both also inherited numerous conflicts between the East and the West over Church jurisdiction in southern Italy, Sicily, and the Balkans. One of the flashpoints of conflict was the worship practices of Western Christians moving into Eastern areas. Michael ordered that groups like the Normans, who lived either in Eastern areas or in areas of disputed jurisdiction, should follow Eastern worship practices. Leo protested about this demand, arguing that Rome had been appointed as supreme by Christ and that Constantinople must conform to it. Michael further complained to Leo about many of the differences between the East and the West, such as the Western use of the filioque clause in the Nicene Creed and the Western practice of using unleavened bread in Holy Communion. On July 16, 1054, the pope’s legates condemned Michael and excommunicated him, laying a papal bull (a formal papal letter) to that effect on the altar of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. In response, Michael then excommunicated Leo. These actions did not seem of monumental importance at the time; as we saw with Photius, there had been splits before. This schism, however, turned out to be a significant turning point. The mutual excommunications of the pope and the patriarch of Constantinople were not

Figure 2.13  Mosaic from Hagia Sophia Cathedral.

94

A Global Church History

lifted until 1965, by Pope Paul VI and patriarch Athenagoras I; and, the formal split has not yet been healed by a full restoration of communion.

The Fourth Crusade We will discuss the crusades at more length later. However, to understand the Great Schism, it is important to discuss the Fourth Crusade here. From a western point of view, the Great Schism is usually dated from the mutual excommunications of 1054. From an eastern point of view, however, the final straw was the Latin conquest of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade. The first three crusades evidenced growing tension between the East and the West. While the Byzantine Empire no doubt benefited from the way that the Western powers pushed the Islamic armies back from their borders, the western crusaders also tended to take Byzantine territories as their own princedoms. The Fourth Crusade was organized, as were the first three major crusades, to fight against Muslims in the east; in particular, it set out to attack Egypt. However, the Venetian ship-owners who were transporting the crusaders—ostensibly to Egypt—talked the crusade’s leadership into attacking Constantinople, instead. Constantinople was wealthy, and sacking it would allow the crusaders to pay their bills while making great profit themselves. The crusaders succeeded in taking the city in 1204, the first time Constantinople had ever been sacked. Constantinople had for years stood as a buttress defending the West from Muslim attack, yet it was now pillaged by Western knights—a deep sin of the Western Church against the East. The crusaders looted it and installed a Latin patriarch loyal to the pope. The Byzantine Empire succeeded in retaking Constantinople, but trust and good will between the East and the West were critically damaged.

Development and consolidation The time in between the mutual excommunications of 1054 and the Fourth Crusade saw growth in humane learning in the Byzantine Empire. After a time of decline, neo-Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, Greek history, rhetoric, and literature became influential in Byzantine theology again. Those in line with Orthodox teachings found openness and support from the emperors and the eastern bishops. Emperor Alexius I Comnenus (ruled 1081–1118), especially, pursued a deliberate policy of bringing the Church into unity under imperial headship. Those judged to be outside of Orthodox bounds, however, often were subject to persecution. Alexis had a manual against heresy compiled and published, the Dogmatike Panoplia, and he vigorously insisted on compliance with Orthodox teachings. For example, although the Council of Chalcedon had been accepted as the standard of orthodoxy in both East and West for centuries, the Byzantine Empire had tended to tolerate dissenting voices (known as Monophysites). This toleration ended under Alexius. He also tried John Italos and condemned him to confinement in a monastery; John was a philosopher judged to have taken neo-Platonic teachings too far. One of Alexius’s most severe persecutions, however, was of the Bogomils. The Bogomils were a dualistic sect reminiscent of the Gnostics that beset the Early Church. The Paulicians, a dualistic

The Church from 500 to 1500

95

Figure 2.14  The development of Bogomilism.

sect in Armenia, likely influenced them. Emphasizing asceticism, the Bogomils became popular with the populace in such areas as Bulgaria. They also stood in contrast to an increasingly wealthy and entitled Church. Alexius burned one of their leaders, Basil the Bogomil, and suppressed the Bogomils violently. Alexius’s son and heir, Emperor John II Comnenus (reign 1118–43), did not involve himself as actively in Church matters. John was a pious emperor, but he was mostly content to leave Church matters in the hands of the patriarch of Constantinople and the Church synods focused on preserving orthodoxy. John made an alliance with the Holy Roman emperor and was involved in almost constant warfare against Islam, the Vikings who had settled in Sicily (the Normans), and kingdoms in Serbia and Hungary. He was highly successful and left the Byzantine Empire more secure and well ordered. John’s son and heir, Emperor Manuel I Comnenus the Great (reign 1143–80) brought about the last and perhaps greatest flourishing of his dynasty’s renewal of culture and Byzantine civilization. Trade, economy, literature, and the arts prospered under his rule. He made alliances with the pope, successfully prevented the Second Crusade from annexing Byzantine lands (thereby incurring the enmity of the Holy Roman emperor Frederick Barbarossa), and in general pursued an even more aggressive military and diplomatic program than his father had. During his reign, Manuel took an active role in the governance and doctrine of the Church. He settled dogmatic disputes over the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, the interpretation of Scripture, and the

96

A Global Church History

Figure 2.15  Bogomil Tombstone.

ceremony for incorporating Muslims who converted into the Christian faith. Manuel’s decisions sometimes favored Western religious viewpoints even against those of the Eastern patriarchs; however, his attempts to reunite the Church failed due to the pope’s insistence on papal religious supremacy over all Christians everywhere. Despite Manuel’s great successes, the Byzantine Empire declined in strength sharply after his death. Like Charlemagne, Manuel was a dynamic leader, but he did not leave behind a viable succession plan. His heir—a minor at his father’s death—was overthrown, and the empire did not regain the virility and unity needed to repulse a resurgent Islam and the Fourth Crusade.

The Palaiologian dynasty Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologus (ruled 1261–82) founded the last great Byzantine dynasty—that is, the last great dynasty of the Roman Empire—following his usurpation of the Byzantine throne and his reconquest of Constantinople from the Latin princes in 1261. Michael was able to reunify the Byzantine Empire, which had split into numerous states. He also rebuilt Constantinople, which had been looted and ruined under Latin rule. During this time, many of the Islamic states near Constantinople were themselves under threat from Mongol invaders, and Michael used the breathing space provided to restore and consolidate rule. He also entered into a long series of intrigues with Western powers, sometimes appealing to the pope and sometimes setting Western rulers against each other, to prevent another Western assault on Constantinople. He further drove Latin incursions out of the Balkans.

The Church from 500 to 1500

97

Figure 2.16  Gold Hyperpyron of Andronikos II, kneeling before Christ.

In 1274, Pope Gregory X (pope from 1271 to 1276) convened the Second Council of Lyons. Emperor Michael had pledged to use the council to reunify the Eastern and Western Church, hoping that this unity would lend security from Western attack to Byzantium. This council was attended by a huge number of Western and many Eastern clergy, as well as representatives of Emperor Michael and ambassadors of the Mongol Empire. Thomas Aquinas died en route to the council, and Bonaventure died after its fourth session. The council produced a declaration of union of the Church, along with dealing with a large number of other matters. Despite Michael’s attempts, the council was widely rejected by the Eastern patriarchs and people, and it was repudiated by his successor, Andronicus II (ruled from 1282 to 1328). Following Michael’s death, the Byzantine Empire entered into a long period of decline under pressure from the Ottoman Turks. By the time of John V Palaeologus (ruled 1354–91), the Byzantine Empire was reduced to a small principality on the western side of Constantinople plus the Greek city of Thessalonica. The Turks pushed through to harry Greece and the Balkans. John appealed to the West for aid, but to no avail. To make matters worse, his son rebelled against him and a period of civil war ensued. During John’s reign and in subsequent periods, the formerly mighty Byzantine Empire was reduced to vassalage to the Turkish sultans. When relations became strained, the Turks would besiege Constantinople. The beginning of the fifteenth century, however, saw the Byzantine armies gain numerous victories over the Turks, break the Ottoman siege of Constantinople, and restore several lands to the Empire. Mount Athos was restored to Byzantine rule, captured from the Turks, as well as several other lands and Aegean islands. Under Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus (ruled 1391–1421) and Ottoman Sultan Mehmed I (ruled 1413–21), relations between Byzantium and the Ottomans were handled with diplomacy, not war. This time of relative peace and restoration allowed a Renaissance to take place in the Eastern Empire, nearly a century before the Western European Renaissance. There was a restoration of Eastern religion, in which the clergy and monastics—who had often come to be seen as state officials—became more devoted to piety, asceticism, and holiness. There was also a restoration of culture and human

98

A Global Church History

Figure 2.17  Macedonian Art: Scene from the Paris Psalter.

learning, in which many of the glories of the Classical age were regained. The best scholars in the world were in Constantinople, and the finest artists in the World were there, as well. In many ways, the Italian Renaissance grew out of this one, from people who went there to study, or from scholars and artists who fled Constantinople when it fell.

Gregory Palamas and the Hesychast controversy Gregory Palamas (1296–1359), born to a noble family in Constantinople, became a monk on Mount Athos around 1318. As a monastic leader on Mount Athos, as the bishop of Thessalonica, and as a religious author and disputant, he would become one of Eastern Orthodoxy’s most influential theologians and spiritual leaders. In his most notable conflict, Palamas defended the spirituality that was by then traditional among the monks of Mount Athos—hesychasm—against charges of heresy lodged by a Greek monk named Barlaam. Barlaam based his charges on the influential theology of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite.

The Church from 500 to 1500

99

Figure 2.18  Gregory Palamas: An early copy (Pushkin Museum, Moscow) of the original icon painted for St. Gregory’s canonization in 1368.

While Dionysius’s writings taught a negative, or apophatic, theology that emphasizes that God is beyond us and essentially unknowable, Barlaam interpreted this to mean that there is absolutely no knowledge or experience of God possible for humans. As a result, Barlaam believed that only rationalistic philosophy was valid, that contemplative prayer was an unfruitful waste, and that the experiences described by hesychast monks must be fraudulent. Gregory’s forceful answer to Barlaam’s charges was a book entitled Triads in Defense of the Holy Hesychasts. In this work, Gregory argued that although God is unknowable with respect to his essence (his being), God is truly experienced through his energies (his characteristics and activities). As the paradigmatic instance of this, Gregory pointed to the light that the disciples saw during Christ’s Transfiguration (see Mt. 17:1-13 and parallels), which Gregory argued was the Uncreated Light of God himself. Gregory’s fellow Athonite monks also produced a set of writings in support of hesychasm. The dispute between Gregory and Barlaam led to four councils convened to adjudicate the matter in Constantinople (in 1341, 1344, 1347, and 1351). Three of these councils excommunicated Barlaam and affirmed Gregory’s theology; the one in 1344 supported Barlaam and condemned Gregory, but it was overturned by the last two.

100

A Global Church History

Figure 2.19  Saint Basil’s Cathedral, Moscow, Russia.

The rise of Moscow Christianity in far northeastern Europe began with the conversion of Queen Olga in Kiev in the 900s. For centuries beyond this, Christianity in this region centered on Kiev. At this time, Moscow was at best an outpost on the upper Volga trade route where the indigenous peoples met with scouts and traders from Old Great Bulgaria, Scandinavia, and other Slavic peoples. Starting in the twelfth century, however, the village of Moscow began to be fortified and enlarged. It eventually became the capital of Grand Duke Daniel I (1261–1303), who founded its first monastery. Moscow soon became large and prosperous. Initially a capital for the Mongol taxation of that region of Russia (Genghis Khan’s forces attacked and conquered Russia in the early thirteenth century), Moscow eventually became a center for freeing Russia from Mongol and Tatar rule. By the fifteenth century, freed of foreign domination, Moscow became the capitol of an emergent Russian Empire.

The Church from 500 to 1500

101

Nil Sorsky (c. 1433–1508), also known as Nilus of Sora, was one of the most important early Russian monastic leaders. Born Nikolai Maikov, probably to peasant parents, he became a monk at the KirilloBelozersky Monastery (St. Cyril’s Monastery in present-day Vologda Oblast). After a time at St. Cyril’s, he traveled to Mt. Athos to learn from the monks there. Returning to Russia, Nil founded a skete (a small monastery, as opposed to large coenobitic communities like St. Cyril’s) in the wilderness along the Sora River, near Belozersk. As with many monks who sought seclusion, Nil came to be highly influential in his society. Monks gathered around him, he wrote a monastic rule (the Ustav), and other monks soon founded sketes. They sought the spiritual focus of the smaller-scale monasticism of the Russian wilderness. In addition to his monastic witness, Nil was important in the Russian Church for opposing church ownership of property, serving to moderate the course of the Russian Church in the pursuit of land and wealth.

Figure 2.20  Nil Sorsky.

102

A Global Church History

During this time, the Russian Church began to develop distinctive features of theology, spirituality, and liturgy, leading Russian Christianity to have a distinct identity. The original Kremlin of Moscow was built in the fourteenth century, and it came to include not just the ruler’s palace but also a number of important cathedrals. While the church in Kiev had officially been founded and operated under the jurisdiction of the patriarch of Constantinople, the Russian Church in Moscow came to have greater autonomy. The Russian Church effectively became independent of Constantinople in 1448. St. Basil’s Cathedral in Moscow, one of the most distinctive Christian structures in the world, was founded in 1505. Russian monasticism also became a vigorous and powerful source of spiritual leadership, sometimes looking to Mount Athos and Greek monasticism for training and guidance, but at other times forming and leading a religious culture that was specifically Russian. The most important Russian monastery came to be the Monastery of the Holy Trinity in Sergiev Posad, near Moscow. However, many of the great Russian elders looked to imitate the ancient monastics of the Egyptian desert, going out not into a desert (for Russia had none) but into the Siberian wilderness. The decline of the Byzantine Empire left a leadership vacuum in the Eastern Church. After the fall of Constantinople in 1453, Moscow became a leading force in Eastern Christianity. Russians came to see the increasing power and prominence of Russia as something ordained by God. Especially as Constantinople was reduced to a Muslim vassal, and eventually sacked by the Turks, the Russian Church came to see Moscow as the new center of the world’s Christianity. Their logic was that the First Rome (the city of Rome itself) had fallen to the heretics; that is, the original Rome lost its position of leadership due to its “captivity” to the papacy and the Roman Catholic Church deemed by the east to be heretical. The Second Rome (New Rome, or Constantinople) had fallen to the infidels (the Muslims). Russians came to see Moscow, then, as the Third Rome, the new capital of empire and Christendom that would, they held, never fall. The Russian political leaders encouraged this rationale, coming to take the title Tsar (the Russian way to say “Caesar”).

The fall of Constantinople As the situation of Constantinople deteriorated, the Roman emperor made one last attempt to reunite the Eastern and Western Church, thereby securing Western military support to save what was left of his empire. Pope Martin V convoked a council in 1431, in Basel, just before his death. In 1438 and 1439, Pope Eugenius IV held successive council sessions in Ferrara and Florence that he considered to continue Martin’s original council. The council was called at the behest of Emperor Manuel II, and Emperor John VIII Palaeologus attended the sessions in Ferrara and Florence. The summary of the council is that the Easterners capitulated completely to all Western demands, including papal supremacy and the inclusion of the filioque clause in the Nicene Creed. Indeed, given the desperate straits that the Eastern Roman Empire was in, and the secure position of Western Europe and the Western Church, there could be little other result. The reception of the council back in Constantinople was also, predictably, disastrous. The people repudiated the council, choosing essentially to live faithfully (as they understood it) under the coming Muslim rule rather than submit to a form of Christianity they found heretical. The Ottoman Turks besieged Constantinople again in the spring of 1453. The patriarch of Constantinople (Athanasius II), the Latin bishop (probably Francesco Condulmer), and the Roman

The Church from 500 to 1500

103

Smaller

Eastern Mediterranean

States

1450 AD

Sm

all

er

St

ate

s

Kingdom of Cyprus

Venetian Territories Genoese Territories Duchy of Naxos Knights of St John 200

Byzantine Empire

Figure 2.21  Eastern Mediterranean, first half of fifteenth century.

emperor (Constantine XI Dragases Palaeologus) had worshipped together in Hagia Sophia Cathedral for the last time the night and morning of May 28–29, 1453. The emperor left the worship service and was killed in battle. Constantinople fell, and the Muslims made Hagia Sophia, once the greatest church in Christendom, into a mosque. This is the end of the Roman Empire, which once encircled the Mediterranean world, whose history stretched back to the mysts and myths of ancient Italy, and that fell irretrievably on the shore of the Bosporus in the fifteenth century after Christ’s advent.

Discussion questions 1 How did the Eastern Roman Empire differ from the Western Roman Empire’s experience of the fall of Rome? And, what does this chapter mean by “Byzantine Empire”? 2 How did Eastern monasticism and liturgy contribute to the distinctive character of the Byzantine Empire?

104

A Global Church History

3 Why is the Roman emperor Justinian I a watershed figure for the transition from the ancient Roman Empire to the Byzantine Empire? 4 What are three ways that the rise of Islam affected the Byzantine Church? 5 What distinctive teaching did the Sixth Ecumenical Council affirm about Christ? How is this affirmation connected to the work of Maximus the Confessor? 6 Why did the iconoclast Roman emperors oppose the use of icons in worship? 7 How was the iconoclast controversy resolved? Look for the resolution of both the first and second stages of the controversy. 8 Why are Cyril and Methodius celebrated as saints across eastern and southeastern Europe? 9 What are two areas of controversy and two areas of contribution related to Photius of Constantinople? 10 What are three reasons why the tenth century is considered a high point of the Byzantine Church and Empire? 11 What is hesychasm, and how is it connected to Symeon the New Theologian? 12 What are five ways that the Eastern and Western churches had become different from each other in theology and practice by the eleventh century? 13 What was the conflict between Patriarch Michael Celularius and Pope Leo IX that led to mutual excommunication? 14 Why does the Eastern Church date the schism between the East and the West to the Fourth Crusade? 15 How did the twelfth century form an era of growth and consolidation for the Eastern Church? 16 How did the renaissance of the Palaiologian dynasty anticipate and contribute to the Italian Renaissance? 17 Explain the arguments of both Barlaam and Gregory Palamas in the Hesychast Controversy. 18 How did Moscow become the center of Russian controversy? What is meant by the phrase, “Third Rome”? 19 How did Constantinople fall, and why is this the end of the Roman Empire?

Central, Southern, and Eastern Asia Christianity began in Asia among repressed and marginalized subjects of the Roman Empire. It eventually came to be the official religion of Rome, but by that time Rome itself had shifted to have its most important capital in Asia. And by the medieval or Byzantine period, Christianity had spread far beyond the Roman Empire’s borders. Christian expansion into Asia followed two main routes. First, Christians traveled to and through the Syrian city of Edessa on the far eastern edge of Rome’s domains. Edessa had trade routes to nearby Persia, east to China, and south to the Indian subcontinent. The second route leading from the Roman

Figure 2.22  The Church of the East and its largest extent during the Middle Ages.

The Church from 500 to 1500 105

106

A Global Church History

Empire was by sea, south through the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf to eastern Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, and India.

Syria Edessa became an important Christian center during the Early Church period. Numerous Christians lived there by the end of the second century, a regional Church council was held there in 197, and a bishop of Edessa participated in the Council of Nicaea in 325. Because of the Jewish diaspora resulting from the Babylonian Exile, Edessa was also an important center of Jewish life. Edessa claims connection to the presence and work there of the Apostle Thaddeus. In terms of Church government, Edessa was part of the jurisdiction of the patriarch of Antioch. Both its language and its form of Christianity were Syrian. The Peshitta (a Syriac translation of the Scriptures) probably originated there. Tatian’s Diatessaron (the first known gospel harmony, also written in Syriac) was in common use there until the bishop of Edessa deemed it heretical in the fifth century. When the Third Ecumenical Council (the Council of Ephesus, held in 431) deposed and condemned Nestorius, many of the Christians of Edessa retained sympathies with him. Some of them left to restore a Christian school in Nisibis, a city of the Persian Empire where the Roman emperor did not have the ability to enforce conformity with the council’s decree. Nestorius, the deposed patriarch of Constantinople, was from Syria, and many believed that Cyril, the patriarch of Alexandria, had illegitimately discredited Nestorius’s theology for political reasons (see Doc. 1.47). Christianity in central, southern, and eastern Asia—that is, in the areas affected by Edessa—often was and is designated as the Nestorian Church. As much as indicating any theological distinctives, this term should be taken to indicate that the Christianity that came to exist in these areas was Syrian in character. Nestorius’s theology is difficult to characterize, and he spent his life in exile, after being deposed, bitterly complaining that he had been misrepresented as at variance with orthodox Christian faith. The churches influenced by Edessa also tended to reject the authority of the Council of Chalcedon (453 CE), which reaffirmed the Council of Ephesus and whose great Christological definition flows from the theology of both Alexandria and the Roman West. It is again a question as to whether the theology of Chalcedon was or is rejected by the so-called miaphysite Church that rejects Chalcedon’s authority, or whether the deeper issues were its linkage to Alexandria and/or the Roman imperium. Syrian Christianity is monastic in character. Syria, along with Egypt, was the birthplace of monasticism, and the Christianity influenced by Edessa emphasized asceticism, contemplative prayer, and following the commandments. Sometimes its emphasis on asceticism could be extreme. Tatian described marriage as the invention of the devil, and in some cases only those committed to be celibate were allowed to be baptized. While monasticism was centrally important for all of the ancient and medieval forms of Christianity, the Syrian Christianity of the East sometimes seemed to take the monastic life as a requirement for all Christians, not as a special gifting and calling. Also, Syriac-speaking Christians tend to use the Divine Liturgy of St. James in worship (see Doc. 2.8). This ancient liturgy probably received its current form in the fourth century, and it draws on the liturgical traditions of the Church in Jerusalem. Its name refers to James the Just, the stepbrother of Jesus. This liturgy was adopted by the patriarch of Antioch and thereby became characteristic of the Syrian Church.

The Church from 500 to 1500

107

Akhlat

Qalinqala Kharput

Caesarea

Arabissus

Amid

Melitene

Mayyafarqin

Tella T ella d'Mauzalath d'Mauzalat d'Mauzala lath aatt Hada Had Hadath H adath aad daath th th Germanicea G Germ Germani Germanic Germa erma er cea ea

Sis Anazarbus Anaza An A naazar zaarbu zarbu rrbbus us Irenopolis

Tarsus T arsus

Aleppo

Seel Seleucia eleucia lleucia eeucia uci ccia ia

Hisn Kayfa Hisn Kayf K Kay aay ayfa yyfa ffaa

Middya Midyat dyyyaat Mardi Mardin ddi iD Dara Dar ara rAbd abd Tur T unraar ur A Abdi Abdin bddiiin n Tella T eellla ella laa d'Mauzala dd'Mauzalath d'M d'Mau 'Mauza Mauzala Mauzalath M aauzalat Orrhai O Orhai rha rhhai ai Nisibis Zeugma uggm gma ma Dol D Do Dolikh olik likhZeugma li Tel T el Bas el Bash B Bashir Baashhir iirr Serug Harran Mabug

Cyrrhus Cy Cyrrhu C yrrhus yrrhu rrhus u

Adana

Samosata

Marga Marga ga Beth Nuhadra

Shingar

Beth Balesh

Mar Mattai

Callinicu Callinicus Ca allinicu lllinicus inicus n Laaodicea Laodicea

Apamea

Shahrazur

Sergiopolis Sergiopolis Circesium

Cyprus Emes Emesa Hama H ama aam maE Palmyra Tripoli T ripo ripoli

Tagrit T agrit

Sada Sadad Sada adad adadd

Baalbeq B aalbeq aal albbeq eq

Mar Mushe

Balad

Baghdad Paneas Panea aaneas anea nea

Damascus Damascus

A kkoo Ak Akk Akko

Hauran Hauran

Jerusalem erusalem u

Figure 2.23  Dioceses of the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch during the Middle Ages.

The church traditions of Eastern Christianity have come to be named by a set of related terms. The Eastern Orthodox Church designates those churches traditionally in communion with the patriarch of Constantinople, such as the Greek Orthodox Church and the Bulgarian Orthodox Church; the Eastern Orthodox Church accepts the first seven ecumenical councils as valid (Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Constantinople II, Constantinople III, and Nicaea II). The Oriental Orthodox Churches are the Coptic, Syrian, Armenian, Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Indian Malankara Orthodox Churches; these churches are in communion with each other and accept only the first three ecumenical councils as valid (Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus; historically, the breaking point was over the acceptance of Chalcedon). The Church of the East, sometimes known as the Nestorian Church, is the church of the Persian Empire and those churches across Asia who looked to the top Persian bishop, the patriarch, or Catholicos, of the East. These churches are Syrian in liturgy and tradition, and they accept only the first two ecumenical councils as valid (Nicaea and Constantinople); as their name indicates, they rejected the Council of Ephesus’s condemnation of Nestorius. However, their doctrine often has little, if any, relation to the positions for which Nestorius was condemned.

108

A Global Church History

Figure 2.24  Mor Hananyo Monastery.

Edessa came under Muslim control in 638. Because of strictures placed on evangelism, Edessa’s Christians could no longer carry out a significant role in evangelizing southern and eastern Asia. Nor could it give governmental or educational support to Christians in those areas to the extent that it had before. The Syrian city of Arbela, another Christian center through which much of northern Mesopotamia had been evangelized, also fell under Muslim control and was renamed “Irbid.” The Muslim conquest of Syria reduced Christianity’s status there but did not end its existence. In fact, two of Syrian Christianity’s greatest voices lived and wrote during the first century of Muslim rule: Isaac of Nineveh (c. 613–c. 700) and John of Damascus (c. 675–749). Both were monks. Isaac was first a monk at Bet-Qatraje in modern Kurdistan. After a short period as bishop of Nineveh, he became an anchorite in the wilderness of Mount Matout (also in modern Kurdistan). John became a monk at the Holy Lavra of Saint Sabbas in Palestine. Isaac’s writings are mystical and ascetical in character. They speak movingly of God’s love (see Doc. 2.6). In some of them, he argues that eternal punishment of sinners in hell is incompatible with God’s love, maintaining that even in judgment God does not forsake his love. Although the Syrian Church of his day was considered Nestorian, Isaac’s theology is clearly in line with the orthodox Christology developed in the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon; and one can again wonder whether the theology of the Church of the East deserves the term “Nestorian” (although its politics no doubt did).

The Church from 500 to 1500

109

Figure 2.25  Syriac New Testament Lectionary.

During John’s later life, the Byzantine Empire entered its first and most destructive period of iconoclasm. Protected from the Byzantine emperor by living in a Muslim-controlled area, John wrote vigorously against iconoclasm. These writings contained some elements that were philosophically literate and others that targeted popular understanding. His three treatises against iconoclasm were highly successful and influenced the Second Council of Nicaea. He also defended the Orthodox teaching of the Assumption of Mary (the teaching that the Virgin Mary, after her death, was bodily resurrected and taken into heaven) and produced one of the earliest Christian apologetic works against Islam. Among numerous other works—he had interests in theology, philosophy, music, and law—he

110

A Global Church History

Figure 2.26  St. Isaac the Syrian Icon.

wrote An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith. In this work, he synthesized and summarized the Eastern theology of the Early Church, and it is for this work that he is best known today. Venerated as a saint, John has been named a Doctor of the Church by the Roman Catholic Church. The history of Christianity in Syria after the seventh century is one of increasing persecution and marginalization. Christians were dismissed from public service and forced to wear distinctive dress. While Syria remained largely Christian in the eighth century, social discrimination, heavy taxation, waves of persecution, and forced conversion to Islam led to Christians being a small minority by the fourteenth century—a change from over 90 percent Christian to 10 percent of the total population.

Persia According to the Book of Acts, Jews from the Persian Empire were present for the birth of the Church at the Feast of Pentecost in Jerusalem (Acts 2:5-12). Whether or not significant Christian presence in Persia resulted from Pentecost, Christians soon made their way into this Eastern Empire following the Central Asian caravan routes. Its Zoroastrian monarchs sometimes tolerated Christianity, but there were also some severe persecutions.

The Church from 500 to 1500

111

Zoroastrianism is ascribed to the teachings of Zoroaster (also known as Zarathustra) in the second millennium BC. It is a mix of monotheism and dualism; it believes in one God, Ahura Mazda, who has both orderly and chaotic aspects. Zoroaster spoke Old Iranian, and Zorastrianism became the official religion of the Persian Empire. Zoroastrianism believes in free will and emphasizes practicing good deeds. It rejects monasticism.

Persia was at war with Rome for centuries. When Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire in the late fourth century, Christians in Persia were accused of being spies and traitors. In this context, it became important for Persian Christians that they could testify that they did not accept the Council of Ephesus, which was linked to the Roman Empire’s patriarchs and emperor. The city of Nisibis was originally part of Roman Syria. As early as the second century, a school was founded there by Christians. Influenced by the Christian school of Diodore of Tarsus in Antioch, the School of Nisibis came to teach theology, philosophy, and medicine. Some of Syrian Christianity’s greatest teachers were connected with the School of Nisibis—Jacob of Nisibis (died c. 338, known as the Moses of Mesopotamia), Narsai of Nisibis (399–502, known as the Harp of the Holy Spirit), Babai the Great (c. 551–c. 628), and especially Ephrem the Syrian (c. 306–73). Known as the Sun of the Syrians, the Harp of the Holy Spirit, and the Deacon of Edessa, Ephrem was born in Nisibis and became a disciple of Jacob of Nisibis. As is characteristic of many Christian authors who wrote in Syriac, his works are poetic, weaving a beautiful and varied tapestry of symbols and metaphors for Christ and the Christian life; he also wrote many hymns. All of his writings were in Syriac. When Nisibis was surrendered to the Persian Empire in 363, and all Christians forced to flee the city, Ephrem went to Edessa and came to head the school there. Both Edessa and Nisibis, being on trade routes leading from east to west, were home to a great variety of religions, including many heretical forms of Christianity. Ephrem was a strong educator and defender of Nicene orthodoxy, even setting his theological hymns to the music of Syrian folk tunes. In addition to hundreds of hymns and doctrinal poems, he wrote commentaries on the Diatessaron and on a number of biblical books. He died from a plague that beset Edessa, catching the disease by ministering to those suffering from it. He was venerated as a saint soon after his death. After the Third Ecumenical Council, and the Roman emperor’s suppression of Nestorian Christianity, many leaders of the School of Edessa fled to Nisibis. They reestablished the school there and again made Nisibis a center of Christian learning. One of its later leaders, Babai the Great, wrote what is still the Church of the East’s most influential work on Christology, The Book of Union. This work teaches that Christ has two natures united in one personality, a theological position scarce differentiable from that of the Council of Chalcedon (while carefully avoiding the council’s exact language). That The Book of Union had and has such influence again shows the often political and cultural, not theological, way that Syrian and Persian Christianity was “Nestorian” and “non-Chalcedonian.” In the schools of Edessa and Nisibis, the Syrian and Persian monks and clergy were trained in theological tradition of Nestorius (who had been condemned by the Council of Ephesus in 431) and the literal biblical exegesis of Theodore of Mopsuestia. However, it does not seem that the theology that Edessa and Nisibis taught from these sources included the theological meanings that Nestorius and Theodore

Figure 2.27  Byzantine and Sassanid empires in 600 CE.

112 A Global Church History

The Church from 500 to 1500

113

Figure 2.28  Fourteenth-century fresco of Ephrem the Syrian (detail), Church of the Assumption in Protation Monastery, Athos.

The Council of Chalcedon teaches that Christ has two natures united in one person (see Doc. 1.55). In other words, it teaches that we can rightly understand Christ as fully human and as fully God; both of these together form Christ’s unique identity, his person, and they both are completely true about him. Chalcedon opposed a serious doctrinal error called “monophysitism.” Monophysitism teaches that Jesus is technically fully human and fully God, but that his finite human aspect has effectively been rendered irrelevant by his divinity. The churches that refused to accept the Council of Chalcedon have often been called monophysite. However, the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the remaining representatives of the Church of the East steadfastly declare that they should be called miaphysite. The reason is that they reject monophysitism as a heresy, and they believe that Jesus is fully human and fully divine, not just technically but really and in all relevant ways. They maintain that this position agrees with the theology of Cyril of Alexandria, and follows his theological language; Chalcedon also explicitly affirmed Cyril’s theology, and it is difficult to find a difference between miaphysite and Chalcedonian theology that goes beyond some varying understandings of historical figures and the terminology one chooses to use.

were condemned for in the west. This is not to say that there were no theological differences with the west; there were, and they were substantial. But revering Nestorius and Theodore does not necessarily mean replicating the serious errors they were castigated for—perhaps unjustly—in the west. Although there continued to be clear links between the Syrian and Persian Churches, Persian Christianity began to take on more of an identity of its own. One issue in which it strongly differed from Syria was clerical celibacy. While Syrian Christianity held celibacy in such high esteem that in some cases only the celibate could fully be Christians at all, Persian Church councils in the late fifth century declared that not only priests but even bishops could marry if they chose.

114

A Global Church History

The early Byzantine period was a time of identity formation and consolidation for the Church of the East, and in particular for the Persian Church. Much of its independence and distinctive character formed under the labors of Mar Aba I the Great (died in 552). Aba was Patriarch and Catholicos of the Church of the East in Seleucia-Ctesiphon. “Catholicos” is a term used by the Church of the East for the leader of a self-governing church, and the administrative center of Persian Christianity had moved by this time to the Persian capital city of Ctesiphon and nearly Seleucia. Councils held in Persia during the fifth century had confirmed the supreme status of the Catholicos of Seleucia-Ctesiphon among the Christians of the East and the Catholicos’s freedom from rule by the Western patriarchs; these councils were approved by the Zoroastrian kings, giving Christians a legal status in Persian society under the governance of the Catholicos (who was himself legally responsible to the king). Aba inherited a church caught between Persia’s often-suspicious Zoroastrian rulers and the resurgent Eastern Roman Empire of Justinian I. Justinian, in fact, called Aba to meet with him in hopes of persuading him to accept the authority of the Council of Chalcedon. Submitting to the declaration of a Roman emperor would have been politically untenable for Aba, the leader of a church under the rule of Rome’s traditional eastern enemy. In response, Aba introduced selected writings of Nestorius (who had been condemned by the Council of Ephesus in 431) and Theodore of Mopsuestia (whom Justinian was soon to have condemned by his unilateral additions to the Second Council of Constantinople in 553) into the Persian Church. The writings of Theodore and Nestorius that Aba selected do not seem to be those that created the greatest theological controversy in the West; however, by including them in the services and schools of the Persian Church, Aba marked a clear independence of Persian Christians from Rome. The Persian Empire fell to Islam in the seventh century, just as Syria had, and the Arab Conquest brought about a serious new situation for Christians in Persia. Initially, Christians were protected, granted official toleration by the Muslim rulers as a People of the Book. However, waves of persecution against Christians, often severe, started in the tenth century. The situation of Christians in Persia was made even more tenuous when the western crusaders renewed Persia’s political enmity with powerful and militant Christian states. Christianity dwindled to a small minority, and Christians often came to live in small insular communities, hoping just to live and let live.

Figure 2.29  Nestorians (from Modern Kazakhstan).

The Church from 500 to 1500

115

Figure 2.30  Abbasid Caliphate and Umayyad Emirate in 755 CE.

While Persia had for generations seen itself as opposing the imperial powers of the West, in the thirteenth century it was overrun by a new and vastly powerful empire emerging from the East. Persia looks across Asia to Mongolia and China, and along with India and Russia it came under the brutal rule of the Mongol emperor Genghis Khan (1162–1227). Initially Mongol rule benefited Christians in Persia. Genghis Khan and subsequent generations of Mongol rulers, such as Kublai Khan (reigned from 1260 to 1294), officially tolerated Christians, and they were again a protected group. However, the Mongol emperor Amir Timur (1336–1405) adopted Islam, and he looked to reconquer the vast lands of the Mongol Empire and reassert absolute power over them. He ordered all Christians in his domain to be slaughtered, and there were huge massacres throughout Persia, Syria, Armenia, and India (Russia was miraculously saved).

Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan The Georgian Orthodox Church claims its apostolic descent from the work there of the Apostle Andrew. What is now central Georgia (then the kingdom of Iberia) became Christian in 319 CE. The Georgian Church was first under the jurisdiction of the patriarch of Antioch but gained a greater degree of independence after the fifth century. Georgia developed a unique alphabet in the third or fourth century. It was likely created to translate the Bible and the liturgy into the Georgian language. Georgia became a unified kingdom in the 900s. Politically, it was sometimes independent and sometimes subject to the Byzantine Empire. After the advent of Islam, Georgia often found itself caught between Muslim and Byzantine forces. King David IV of Georgia appointed a Georgian Catholicos in 1103, formally establishing the Georgian Church as self-governing.

116

A Global Church History

The Georgian Orthodox Church is doctrinally and liturgically Eastern Orthodox and maintains communion with the patriarch of Constantinople. When the Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople (in 1204), Georgia and Bulgaria were for a time the most powerful Eastern Orthodox states. Under the leadership of Queen Tamar the Great (ruled 1184–1203), Georgia enjoyed a golden age of political power and cultural development. Georgia suffered great losses under the Mongol invasions in the late twelfth and thirteenth centuries, however, and the eventual ascendancy in the region of the Ottoman Empire left it an isolated Christian kingdom by the fifteenth century. Christians in Armenia claim their apostolic descent from the work there of the Apostles Bartholomew and Thaddeus. The remaining Christians of the neighboring country of Azerbaijan also claim descent from Bartholomew and Thaddeus. Some Christians remain in Azerbaijan; however, the nation became dominantly Muslim following the Muslim conquest. Armenia became a Christian nation in 301, perhaps the first officially Christian state on earth. Gregory the Illuminator (c. 257–c. 331) was a noble Armenian of Parthian descent. The son of one of Armenian king Tiridates III’s enemies, Gregory was summoned from his prison cell to cure the king from madness induced by Armenia’s catastrophic military losses to the Roman emperor Diocletian. Upon return to sanity, Tiridates (250–330) converted from Armenian paganism to Christianity, and the country of Armenia followed with him. The king made Gregory the Catholicos of Armenia, and the independent history of the Armenian Church dates from this time. The Armenian Church was represented by its Catholicos at the Council of Nicaea (325) and the Council of Constantinople (381). The Armenian Catholicos also sent a letter agreeing with the decisions of the Council of Ephesus (431).

Figure 2.31  Jvari Monastery, Mtskheta, Georgia.

The Church from 500 to 1500

117

In the fifth century, Mesrop Mashtots, a native Armenian monk, invented an Armenian alphabet and translated the Bible and the Divine Liturgy into Armenian. Having the Scriptures and the liturgy in their own script and native language greatly contributed to the stability, popularity, and particular character of Armenian Christianity. Having a mode of expression for the Armenian language contributed to high point of Armenian cultural development in the years that followed. The Badarak—the Armenian name for the Divine Liturgy—remains a centerpiece of Armenian spirituality, national identity, and culture to this day (see Doc. 2.12).

Figure 2.32  Armenian Manuscript Bible, 1121 CE.

118

A Global Church History

The Armenian Church officially split with the church of the Roman Empire after the Council of Chalcedon (451). While the Armenian Church and other Oriental Orthodox Churches have sometimes been labeled as monophysite because of their rejection of Chalcedon, these churches reject this label and the theology it implies. Rather, they insist that they condemn the same errors that Chalcedon condemns and intend to carry forward the theology of Cyril of Alexandria (which the Council of Chalcedon specifically approves, as well). Without disparaging the importance of the theological language and the convictions of the people on both sides of this council, it remains clear that Chalcedon was promulgated by the Roman imperium, that the groups that initially accepted it were part of the Roman Empire, and that the groups that dissented were either political enemies of the Roman Empire (as in Armenia) or members of oppressed people groups within Rome’s bounds. The Armenian Church rejected Chalcedon at the First Council of Dvin in 506. This council included the leaders of the Armenian, Georgian, and Caucasian Albanian churches. The Third Council of Dvin (609–10) reinforced Armenia’s rejection of Chalcedon but highlighted Armenia’s division from the Georgian Church, which accepted Chalcedon. The Armenian Church split into two competing dioceses in the eleventh century: the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin and the Catholicosate of the Great House of Cilicia. The split was the result of the

Figure 2.33  Armenian Church in Yeghipatrush.

The Church from 500 to 1500

119

political and military upheaval following the fall of the capital city of Ani and the Bagradits Kingdom in 1045. The division was formally ended in 1441; both Etchmiadzin and Cilicia retain their presiding bishops (Catholicoi) but are part of one Church. Armenia was subject to Mongol conquest from the 1230s to the 1330s. In some cases, Christian Armenians cooperated with the Mongols to oppose the Islamic armies. Armenia had friendly relations with many of the crusader states during this time, especially the Christian Kingdom of Antioch. However, Armenia suffered greatly from the Mongol emperor Timur’s conquests and his massacres of Christians. Following the decline of the Mongol Empire in the area in the late thirteenth century, Armenia was forced to pay tribute to the Egyptian Mamluks; it was invaded by the Mamluks in the 1300s. Armenia was taken by the Ottoman Empire in the 1500s. Though subject to severe persecution, including Ottoman genocide of Armenians during World War I, Armenia managed to retain its distinctive identity, language, religion, and culture.

China The Persian Empire had land trade routes with China. While some of the traders would no doubt have been Christian, the first evidence we have for Christianity in China points to Syrian and/or Persian monks presenting Christianity to the Chinese imperial court in the seventh century. The Nestorian Stele, unearthed in the seventeenth century, is a monument erected in 781 CE. It is inscribed in Chinese and Syriac and speaks of a Persian missionary named Alopen who in 631—the same year that, far to the west, Aidan of Lindisfarne came to evangelize Northumbria—received approval from the Tang dynasty to establish a Christian presence in China. The Tang dynasty (ruled c. 618–c. 907) was a golden age of Chinese culture, and it was intentionally open and pluralistic with respect to religion. The heading of the Nestorian Stele reads, “Memorial of the Propagation in China of the Luminous Religion from Daqin.” This title reveals several important things about early Christianity in China. First, “Daqin” was the Chinese name for the Roman Empire; that Christianity was named as a “Daqin” religion emphasizes the way the Chinese continued to see it as foreign. Second, “Luminous Religion” reminds one of the religious vocabularies of both Confucianism and Buddhism; as a number of other texts show, the Christians who evangelized the Chinese used and adapted many of the existing Chinese religious categories to explain Christianity. Third, that Christian evangelistic effort was recorded as “propagation” indicates that Christianity received imperial support; and in fact, while imperial support benefited Christianity in China for many years, it brought about extreme difficulties when the governmental regime changed. Christianity in medieval China is described as Nestorian. This descriptor, as throughout the Church of the East, indicates that its Christianity had a Syrian character; and perhaps “Church of the East” would be a better name than “Nestorian,” in that the nature of this Chinese Christian theology shows little connection to the positions for which Nestorius was condemned in the West. Although much of this theology was adapted to Chinese religious forms—even downplaying elements the Chinese found troubling, such as Christ’s death—it kept the strongly ascetic and monastic focus for which

120

A Global Church History

Figure 2.34  Rubbing of the text from the Nestorian Stele.

Syrian Christianity is notable. While this focus provided a stable spiritual base for Chinese Christianity, it may have also limited the extent that Christianity would become a popular religion of the Chinese people. The monks in China of the Tang dynasty produced a distinctive and extensive Christian literature (see Doc. 2.29). In some cases, these documents seem to have been composed in Chinese. In other cases, though, the monks obtained support from the imperial court to translate Syriac or Persian documents

The Church from 500 to 1500

121

Figure 2.35  T’ang dynasty Nestorian image of Jesus Christ.

into Chinese. These texts included the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, biblical narratives, hymns, liturgical texts, texts in theology, historical works, devotional texts, and several other writings intended to support education. Many of the texts focused on the life of Jesus and on the ethical teachings of Christianity. Chinese Christianity under the Tang dynasty had a well-developed Church government. The Nestorian Stele (see Doc. 1.59) testifies to the presence of bishops in both of China’s northern capitals (Chang’an and Luoyang), and to a number of other priests, deacons, and archdeacons. In line with Chinese Christianity’s Syrian character, there were also a number of monasteries.

122

A Global Church History

Figure 2.36  Palm Sunday (probably), Khocho, Nestorian Temple, 683–AD 770, Wall Painting.

The Chinese Church looked to the overall leadership of the patriarch of the East in Persia. Papash Adam, the author of the Nestorian Stele’s text, was likely the metropolitan of Beth Sinaye (the Persian term for China). A metropolitan is the bishop of a major city who has leadership over the other bishops nearby, and Adam was likely appointed by Timothy I (patriarch of the East from 780 to 823) to lead all of China. The King of Persia also sent successful emissaries to the Chinese emperor headed by further bishops for the Chinese Church. When the Tang dynasty collapsed, however, giving way to a time of political chaos during the tenth century, the Chinese Church’s long alliance with the Tang emperors likely made it a target for elimination. Some of the emperors in this period of instability persecuted all foreign faiths, including Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, and Christianity. By the end of the tenth century, Nestorian monks and traders returning from China described Chinese Christianity as extinct. The Nestorian Stele was buried, and China’s churches, which had existed for over three hundred years, were abandoned and destroyed. Christianity returned to China during the early period of the Mongol Empire, some four centuries later. Genghis Khan practiced significant religious tolerance, and he sanctioned Christianity’s existence within their empire. In the years before the Mongol conquest of China, Eastern missionaries had evangelized many of the Mongol tribes. Christians, in fact, had a significant presence in the Mongol court. When Genghis Khan formed his great alliance to rule the Mongol tribes, several Christians were

The Church from 500 to 1500

123

Figure 2.37  Da Qin Pogoda.

The Mongol Empire of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries was one of the largest governmental units ever to exist. Beginning as the head of nomadic tribesman in Mongolia, Genghis Khan (1162–1227) conquered the Xia and Jin dynasties of China. His armies then swept west, conquering lands as far away as Eastern Europe, including Persia, Russia, and India. After Genghis’s death, the empire eventually broke into four large sections; these sometimes extended Mongol rule to new lands and sometimes warred with each other. The first generations of the Mongol Empire practiced broad religious tolerance toward Buddhists, Taoists, and Christians. However, they refused Jews and Muslims the ability to follow their respective dietary laws in full; they also sometimes forbade circumcision. The greatest Mongol ruler, after Genghis, was his grandson Kublai Khan (1215–94).

124

A Global Church History

Figure 2.38  Tului with Queen Sorgaqtani.

present as chieftains acknowledging him. And his daughter-in-law, Sorghoghtani (c. 1190–1252, also spelled Sorgaqtani), was a Christian. Sorghoghtani was married to Genghis Khan’s youngest son, Tolui, and her four sons (Hulagu Khan, Möngke Khan, Ariq Böke, and Kublai Khan) came to inherit and rule different sections of the vast empire their grandfather had conquered. Sorghoghtani encouraged openness to foreign trade, religious tolerance, and free intellectual exchange. The historians of ancient China and Persia praised her intelligence and ability, attributing her sons’ meteoric rise to power to her influence. During the Mongol Yuan Empire (1259–1368), Chinese bishops were again appointed, and monks and priests returned to evangelize and lead congregations. By the fourteenth century there were again Christian communities in many Chinese cities, and the Chinese monasteries were able to produce indigenous leaders for their church. Numerous artifacts, such as tombstones, testify to the spread of Christianity in Yuan China. Some Roman Catholic missionaries, mostly Franciscans and Dominicans, also came to China during this time, and there was sometimes conflict between Catholic and Nestorian Christianity. There were also a number of emissaries sent from the pope and from Western kings to the Chinese court. They asked for China to embrace Catholic Christianity and to attack Islam. Mostly, these missions

The Church from 500 to 1500

125

Figure 2.39  Hulagu Khan and his Christian wife Doquz Khatun depicted as the new “Constantine and Helen” in a Syrian Bible.

During the twelfth century—the era of the great crusades—Western Europeans came to believe that a Christian monarch ruled a mighty kingdom somewhere in the East. Prester John (probably a corruption of “presbyter,” the Greek word for elder or priest), in popular imagination, ruled an Oriental kingdom filled with wonders and mythical creatures. He was thought to be a descendant of the work of the apostles throughout India or Asia, perhaps as described in the Acts of Thomas (which relates the Apostle Thomas’s journey to India). When the Mongols swept into the west—some of whose leaders were in fact Christian—the eastern generals and rulers would sometimes play on the west’s fascination with this myth. Prester John’s hoped-for role (by the west) was to supply military salvation from the Islamic and Mongol forces.

served to annoy the Chinese emperors, who generally responded that the Western powers should submit to Chinese rule and pay them tribute. Governmental and religious change again led to disaster for the Chinese Church. Islam came to have a popular presence in China during this time, and Christians were sometimes subject to persecution and forcible conversion to Islam. When the nationalist Ming dynasty replaced the Yuan dynasty in 1368, all foreign Christians were forced to leave China. There is little evidence that Chinese Christianity long survived.

126

A Global Church History

India Christianity in India traces its roots to the evangelistic work there of the Apostle Thomas. Some accounts state that he journeyed to India over land, traveling through the Persian Empire; more, however, depict him as arriving on the Malabar Coast by sea from Arabia. Numerous contemporary Christian Indian families trace their conversion to Thomas’s efforts, and several of them possess stone crosses and other artifacts of great antiquity to support their claims. Many Indian bishops trace their apostolic succession in unbroken line to Thomas, as well. Accounts depict Thomas as being martyred in India after a long and effective ministry, with his relics interred on St. Thomas Mountain (this high hill bore his name for centuries before the Portuguese entered India in the 1500s) near Chennai. The most ancient Christians and Christian communities in India are known as “Thomas Christians.” Besides those resulting from the apostle’s personal efforts, numerous Christian communities formed along India’s western coast as traders, migrants, and refugees came from Christian areas to the north. The wealth and natural resources of the Indian subcontinent attracted interest from the Romans, and Roman artisans came to work in the great building projects of India’s rulers. The brilliant Alexandrian Christian teacher Pantaenus (c. 120–c. 216; the teacher of Clement of Alexandria and founder of the Catechetical School of Alexandria) journeyed from Alexandria to evangelize India’s Brahmins and philosophers.

Figure 2.40  Nasrani cross at Kadamattom Church, Ernakulam district, Kerala, India.

The Church from 500 to 1500

127

Figure 2.41  The Tomb of Saint Thomas, Chennai, India.

When Cosmas Indicopleustes (died 550), a Greek merchant and traveler, visited India, he found numerous Christian communities along the Indian coast and in Sri Lanka (see Doc. 1.58). As his travelogue, Christian Topography, depicts, the bishops of these communities looked to the authority of the patriarch of the East in Persia; their liturgy was in Syriac. Though part of the Church of the East, India also had its own traditions and practices stemming from apostolic times. The rise of Islam in the sixth and seventh centuries sent many Christian refugees to India. The pluralistic Indian rulers often received these kindly, allotting them land and allowing them to live according to their own traditions. Sometimes having skilled merchants and artisans within them, many of these communities became prosperous. The Christian communities of India came to consist mainly of the merchants and traders of Indian society. They followed the liturgy and doctrine of the Church of the East while practicing many culturally Indian practices (such as wearing the bindi, the characteristic south Asian forehead dot, and following many indigenous marriage customs). No record remains of any Christians among the dalits (or untouchables), although the modern Indian Church has made significant efforts to include these marginalized members of Indian society. The Mongols attacked and conquered northern India in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. As with other areas of the Mongol Empire, the first century of rule was tolerant of many different religions. However, the conquests of Timur in the late 1300s killed thousands of Christians and Muslims alike, and his genocidal persecution of Christians within his empire led to horrible slaughter of Christians in northern India.

128

A Global Church History

The Acts of Thomas is an apocryphal account of the Apostle Thomas’s mission to evangelize India; it circulated in the fourth century and has no connection to the earlier Gospel of Thomas. According to the account, Thomas was initially reluctant to travel to India. God, though, overcame his reluctance by sending him as a stone wright (or carpenter) commissioned to build a palace for the Indian king Gondophares. Thomas took the money the king gave him for the palace and distributed it to the poor. Initially in a rage, Gondophares was convinced by a dream that justified Thomas. Thomas then embarked on a long evangelistic work in India, eventually resulting in his martyrdom. There was a historical king named Gondophares in India who may have ruled during Thomas’s lifetime. Indian Christians, moreover, are steadfast in tracing their lineage from Thomas’s work. Some known disruptions of ancient Indian religion—such as the refusal by Brahmins to drink from a cistern used by the apostle for baptisms—are also attributed to Thomas’s presence in India.

Figure 2.42  Interior of the Palayur Church, the oldest Christian church in India and one of the seven churches founded by St Thomas the Apostle in AD 52.

Despite such persecutions and the passage of time, numerous indigenous Christian communities— and even a Christian kingdom—still existed when the Portuguese entered India in the 1500s. These Christians carried forward many of the traditions of the Thomas Christians. Several Indian churches, such as the Orthodox Syrian Church, the Mar Thoma Church, and the Church of South India, still today trace their Christian lineage to the work of the Apostle Thomas.

The Church from 500 to 1500

129

Discussion questions 1 How was the city of Edessa important for the development and spread of Christianity in Asia? 2 What is meant by the term “The Nestorian Church”? 3 What are three distinctive characteristics of Syrian Christianity? 4 How was the city of Nisbis important for the development and spread of Christianity in the Persian Empire? 5 What is Catholicos, and what is meant by the term “The Catholicos of the East?” How was the Catholicos of the East important for Christians in Asia? 6 How did Armenian Christianity become distinct from the Christianity of the Byzantine Empire, and from Georgian Christianity? 7 What is the Nestorian Stele? What are three important things one may learn from it about Chinese Christianity? 8 How did Christianity in China both benefit and suffer due to its support by the Tang dynasty? 9 How did Christianity return to China under the Mongol Empire? 10 Why do Christians in India consider the Apostle Thomas especially important for their church? 11 What are three ways that Christianity came to exist in India?

Africa Northern Africa Northern Africa under the Roman Empire was once one of the most highly Christian regions on Earth. It produced the Father of Latin Theology—Tertullian (160–220 CE)—the great churchman, bishop, and martyr Cyprian (c. 200–58), and one of the greatest theological voices of the Church throughout the ages—Augustine (354–430). After generations of Roman settlement, Northern Africa was an area of mixed Latin (Roman) and native Berber population. As opposed to Egypt, though, where the rural Copt population embraced Christianity, the Christians of North Africa mainly resided in its cities. Christianity was not widely accepted by the Berbers of the countryside, villages, and towns, despite the fact that Tertullian, Cyprian, three popes (Gelasius I, Militades, and Victor I), and perhaps Augustine were of Berber origin. North African Christianity also experienced one of the longest and most bitter schisms of the Early Church period. Starting in the early fourth century, the so-called Donatist Church became separated from the Catholic Church that was in communion with the rest of the Empire. This schism continued until the Roman Empire violently suppressed the Donatists in 409; many remaining Donatists fled the cities into the African towns. Soon after, the Vandals, a powerful and militant tribe from North-Central Europe, swept down from the Iberian Peninsula, conquering and ravaging North Africa. The Vandals were Arians and persecuted Nicene clergy (Catholic and Donatist both), introducing yet another divisive element into the already fractured North African religious situation.

130

A Global Church History

Figure 2.43  Tunisia Baptistery Basin.

This weakened and fragmented church was unable to thrive—or in most places, survive—under the Arab Conquest of the seventh century. Many of the Christians in the cities were killed during the conquest, and many who had fled to the countryside embraced Islam. Christianity did remain in a few areas of what are now Libya, Morocco, and Algeria. There is evidence of up to four remaining North African dioceses during the medieval or Byzantine era. Some of the native Berber Christians remained in Tunis up until the fifteenth century.

Egypt The Egyptian Church traces its apostolic foundation to the work there of Mark the Evangelist (and thereby to the Apostle Peter, of whom Mark was a disciple). Monasticism developed first in Egypt, and its desert fathers became renowned throughout the Christian world as spiritual examples. The cosmopolitan city of Alexandria was also home to several of the Church’s greatest theologians; especially of note are Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Athanasius, and Cyril of Alexandria. Until the founding of Constantinople, the patriarch of Alexandria was second only to Rome as an influential voice in the Church. The native Coptic Egyptians embraced Christianity, as did many of the Greeks, Romans, and Jews who lived there (see Doc. 2.11). The Coptic Orthodox Church became distinct from the Eastern (or Roman) Orthodox Church after the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Egypt’s Copts, following the lead of the patriarch of Alexandria,

The Church from 500 to 1500

131

Figure 2.44  Jesus and Saint Minas Coptic Icon, sixth or seventh century.

Dioscorus, refused to accept Chalcedon’s definition concerning the nature(s) of Christ. Pope Dioscorus (pope from 444 to 454; the patriarchs of Alexandria also claim the title “pope”) was deposed and exiled by the council, but the Coptic Church continued to venerate him. As with other so-called Oriental Orthodox Churches, Dioscorus and the Coptic Church agreed with condemning the heresies that Chalcedon condemned. Dioscorus’s contention was that it was best to follow the Christological language of his uncle, Cyril of Alexandria, who was venerated then and now by the Egyptian Church. The Council of Chalcedon also specifically approved of Cyril’s theology, though it found it clearer to express that theology in different language than had Cyril. The Coptic Church’s refusal to validate Chalcedon led to the condemnation of their leaders and the schism of the Copts from the (Roman) Orthodox Church. In modern times, Coptic Pope Shenouda III and Roman Catholic Pope Paul VI met in 1973 to declare unity on the doctrines of Christology, and a similar decree of theological agreement came from representatives of the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Eastern Orthodox Churches who met in Geneva in 1990. It seems unlikely that these leaders betrayed the theological teachings their churches had maintained for so long, and one must therefore look to factors in addition to theology to understand the fifth-century schism. Some Coptic authors have argued that the Coptic Church’s historic support of separation of Church and state conflicted with the Roman imperial agenda. Other scholars have noted that the Copts had become a marginalized ethnic group under the later Roman Empire, and that accepting the decree of

132

A Global Church History

Figure 2.45  Coptic Liturgical Codex.

the Roman emperors concerning their religious faith—especially when coupled with what they saw as the unjust removal of their patriarch—was not feasible for them. In any case, after Chalcedon there soon came to be two competing patriarchs of Alexandria—one Greek and one Coptic—as there still remain today. The Roman-supported patriarchs often violently persecuted the dissenting Copts, such as Samuel the Confessor (597–695). The patriarchs of the Coptic Church, however, came to exercise religious authority not just in Egypt but also for northeastern Africa. The Aksumite kingdom (in modern Ethiopia) and the Christian kingdoms of Nubia looked to the Alexandrian pope for apostolic succession and leadership, just as many Asian churches looked to the patriarch of the East in Persia. From the fifth to the seventh centuries, Coptic Christianity grew and prospered, despite the difficulties of being oppressed by Roman rule. Muslim armies conquered Egypt in 639. From the seventh through the tenth centuries, however, Egypt remained largely Christian and the Coptic Church continued to prosper. One of Muhammad’s wives was Coptic, and she requested special favor to be shown to the Copts. Despite official toleration, however, there were instances of violent persecution. Christians in Egypt were also subject to a special tax. Further strictures were placed on Coptic Christians under the Abbasid dynasties of the eighth and tenth centuries. During this time period, the Copts were able to retain their language, and Coptic remains today the official language of the Coptic Orthodox Church. In the centuries that followed, though, Arabic became the language of the government and the people, and the Coptic Church began to produce religious literature in Arabic. Increasingly severe social and religious discrimination eventually led to a decrease in the Coptic Church. Egypt became majority Muslim in the twelfth century.

The Church from 500 to 1500

133

Nubia The kingdoms of ancient Nubia, in the area of modern-day Sudan and South Sudan, may have received Christian preachers as early as the first century. However, church buildings dating from the early sixth century form the earliest archaeological evidence of extensive Christian presence in Nubia; it is likely that there was significant Christian presence some time before that. By the end of the sixth century, the kingdoms of Nubia had rejected polytheism for Christianity. Christianity in Nubia came both from Egypt and from the Byzantine Empire. The Roman emperor Justinian I paid special attention to establishing Christianity in Nubia. Nubians looked to the patriarch of Alexandria for spiritual leadership, and they eventually chose the Coptic patriarch—not the Byzantine one—as their overall spiritual head. During the Arab Conquest, the Nubians were able to beat back the invading Arab armies, and they forced a peace treaty that stipulated that Egypt would remain under Muslim control while Nubia would remain Christian. With this freedom in place, Nubia entered into a time of cultural development until the thirteenth century. Its central kingdoms consolidated into one political unit in the ninth century, and the Nubian Church developed a distinctive Church government and architecture. It also developed a religious literature in the Nubian language. Extensive Islamic migrations and continual military and political pressure from Egypt, however, eventually led to the ascendancy of Islam in Nubia. After the fifteenth century, Muslim rulers replaced the Christian kings. The Nubian Church declined and disappeared by the end of the sixteenth century.

Figure 2.46  A wall painting from a Nubian Church on display at the Khartoum Museum. It depicts the story from Daniel 3 of the three youths thrown into the furnace (tenth century).

134

A Global Church History

Ethiopia The evangelization of an Ethiopian treasurer by Philip the Evangelist receives prominent attention in the Book of Acts (8:26-40). How this official affected the religious life of first-century Ethiopia is unknown, but Christianity came to be established in Ethiopia by at least the fourth century. Early Church historians Rufinus and Socrates Scholasticus recount the conversion of the Aksumite king Ezana (ruled 330–56; the kingdom of Aksum was in modern-day Ethiopia on the Horn of Africa) by Frumentius, a shipwrecked youth from Tyre (see Doc. 1.57). Ezana’s conversion is also documented in the Ezana Stone, an inscribed stone monument (stele) from this ancient kingdom. Besides motivations of faith, converting Aksum to Christianity allowed Ezana to unify its ethnically and linguistically diverse population. It also improved his relations with the newly Christian Roman Empire. The Aksumite Church looked to the patriarch of Alexandria for spiritual leadership and apostolic succession; after the Chalcedonian schism, Aksum followed the Coptic patriarch. A number of priests were sent from Egypt to Aksum, and the Egyptian bishops donated funds to found Christian schools

Figure 2.47  Ezana Stone, Aksum.

The Church from 500 to 1500

135

there. Monasteries and numerous church buildings came to be built, and considerable attention was paid to evangelizing and educating the Aksumite population. Despite this connection to Egypt, Ethiopia developed its own liturgical and spiritual traditions. Although the rise of Islam sometimes led to the isolation of the Ethiopian Church from Alexandria, the spiritual and liturgical base established during these initial centuries—both connected to Egypt and uniquely Ethiopian—supported the Ethiopian Church both to endure and prosper during its times of separation. Whereas Nubia struggled to develop a self-sustaining indigenous clergy, Ethiopia was able to do so. Several of the Ethiopian languages, such as Amharic, are Semitic, and Ethiopia came to find special meaning in Christianity’s roots in Judaism. Ethiopian church buildings are often built on a simplified plan of Solomon’s temple, and they have a replica of the Ark of the Covenant at their front. Ethiopia’s distinctive religious literature emphasizes the connection of Ethiopia to the golden age of Israel. The Ethiopian Church developed the largest biblical canon of any Christian Church. Its New Testament has a thirty-five books, in contrast to the twenty-seven book New Testament acknowledged by other churches. While the canon of the Old Testament varies, with the Protestant canon being the smallest, the Ethiopian Church has seven more Old Testament books than the next largest canon. Some of these distinctive books—such as 1 Enoch—are drawn from wider Church tradition. Most, though, are unique to the Ethiopian Church (though in many cases drawing on the traditions of the Apostolic Fathers and the moral and liturgical traditions of the early Church era).

Figure 2.48  The Church of Saint George, a Monolithic Church in Lalibela.

136

A Global Church History

In addition to its Scriptures and liturgy, Ethiopia developed a devotional literature that both reflected and helped to form its national and religious identity. The twelfth century, for example, saw the composition of the Kebra Negast (The Glory of the Kings). This narrative text tells of the journey of the Queen of Sheba to visit Solomon, mentioned in the Hebrew Bible in 1 Kgs 10:2 and 2 Chron. 9:1-9. According to the Kebara Negast, she was the ruling queen of Ethiopia, and she returned from Jerusalem bearing Solomon’s child within her; Solomon’s son through Sheba then brought the Ark of the Covenant to Ethiopia, whose glory was prophesied to exceed that of Rome (see Doc. 2.36). This Solomonic lineage came to be claimed by Ethiopia’s kings, starting with Yekuno Amlak in the late thirteenth century. Under his reign, Ethiopia expanded and prospered. It was also able to reach out beyond its borders to engage in trade with Europe; the European powers of this time were themselves expanding and seeking access to the spice-fields of India that would bypass the Islamic trade routes. Royal Ethiopian church buildings came to contain elements of Byzantine and Italian architecture and artistry. In the fourteenth century the Ethiopian Church experienced destruction, renewal, schism, and reconciliation. Ethiopia in this time suffered from a destructive jihad by a neighboring Muslim kingdom; it was also further cut off from Egypt when the patriarch of Alexandria was prevented from sending new bishops to Ethiopia. The renewal came as the Ethiopian king was able decisively to defeat the foreign invading power and expand Ethiopia’s boundaries; this victory also enabled the patriarch of Alexandria to name a new head of the Ethiopian Church. However, some of the priests then sent from Egypt to Ethiopia—the Egyptians had sent them in large measure to get them out of Egypt—brought about a

Figure 2.49  The Ark of the Covenant arriving in Ethiopia with Menelik I. Axum, Ethiopia.

The Church from 500 to 1500

137

split in the Ethiopian Church through popular preaching that supported the separation of Church and state. These teachings did not fit with the royally ordered character of the Ethiopian Church, yet their fervent preacher, Abba Ewostatewos (c. 1273–1352), was highly pious, knowledgeable of the Scriptures, and attracted great support among the common people. This schism was eventually reconciled when the Ethiopian government ended the persecution of Ewostatewos’s followers, with both sides accepting conditions that promoted unity while honoring the disagreement. Ethiopian Christianity of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries established monasteries that became both places of spiritual guidance and centers of learning. They often produced illuminated manuscripts

Fre Seyon, who lived during the fifteenth century, was a monk in one of the monasteries of the Lake Tana region in Ethiopia. Fre Sayon’s artistic work includes a number of the most important icons of Ethiopian tradition. The Ethiopian ruler, Emperor Zar’a Ya‘eqob (ruled 1434–68) mandated that the Ethiopian Church should emphasize the miracles performed by the mediation of the Virgin Mary and that she should be further honored during the church’s liturgical feasts. Fre Sayon developed a distinctive form of iconography—both in his own work and in that of the many iconographers influenced by him—that supported the Ethiopian Church’s resulting increase in Marian devotion. His work was influenced by Italian and Byzantine art forms, but it has recently been recognized as employing these in a way that is unique to the icons of Ethiopian tradition.

Figure 2.50  Fre Seyon Diptych with Mary and Her Son flanked by archangels, apostles and a saint.

138

A Global Church History

from their elaborate scriptoria—rooms dedicated to the production of manuscripts. Many of the most prominent monasteries were in the region of Lake Tana. Further attacks by Ethiopia’s Muslim neighbors led to substantial loss of life, the destruction of much Church property, and periods of governmental instability in the sixteenth century. In some cases, the heritage of Ethiopia’s early Christian ages was preserved only in remote monasteries. However, these attacks were eventually repulsed, and Ethiopia has remained a Christian nation into the modern period.

Discussion questions 1 What was the situation of the North African Church at the time of the Arab Conquest? 2 How did the Coptic Orthodox Church become different from the Byzantine or Eastern Orthodox Church? 3 What important resolution did Pope Paul VI and Pope Shenouda III make in 1973? 4 How did the patriarch of Alexandria come to exercise leadership for Christianity in Africa? 5 How was Nubian Christianity able to flourish after the Arab Conquest? 6 How did Christianity become the majority religion in Ethiopia? 7 How was early Christianity in Ethiopia both connected to Egyptian Christianity and distinct from it? 8 How is the biblical canon of the Ethiopian Church distinct? 9 What special connection does the Ethiopian Church see between itself and the religion and kings of ancient Israel? 10 The sections on Christianity in Asia, India, and Africa often deal with the interaction of Christianity and Islam. What are three ways that Islam affected Christianity in these areas? 11 The sections on Christianity in Asia, India, and Africa have often dealt with significant persecutions faced by Christians. Choose one of these and describe its character and results.

Western Europe The changing of the times The story of the Western Church during the fifth and sixth centuries CE is deeply connected with the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in which much of it lived. The city of Rome was sacked three times during the fifth century CE: in 410, 454, and 476. At both a psychological and a practical level, it is hard to overstate the devastation brought about in the Western Roman Empire by having its historic capital city looted, burned, and pillaged. The most significant change, however, was not in the city of Rome’s devastation; it was that the powerful militaristic peoples who sacked Rome eventually decided to stay in these historically Roman areas and replace the Roman Empire with kingdoms of their own. In the great societal instability that followed the fall of the Western Empire, even the most basic supports of society were often lacking; the Church was both affected by this and responded to it. Also,

The Church from 500 to 1500

139

Figure 2.51  Invasions of the Roman Empire.

for many Christians living in the Roman Empire, “being Christian” and “being Roman” were deeply intertwined in their identities. With the destruction of the Western Empire, many of these Christians had to look to new sources for their religious, cultural, and personal identities.

From Roman Empire to tribal kingdoms The inhabitants of north and central Europe, such as the Ostrogoths and Vandals, were peoples whose cultures had not developed large cities. While these peoples have often been identified pejoratively as “barbarian tribes,” what this term indicates is that they had not developed the cultural marks often connected with civic life, such as educational systems, codes of laws, and governments interested in stability. During the late fifth and sixth centuries, these tribes (or nations, to use an anachronistic term) decided not merely to come and loot the Roman Empire, and then go home. Rather, they decided to replace the Roman Empire with kingdoms of their own. These peoples neighbored the Western Roman Empire, and the Eastern Roman Empire was not as significantly affected by their attacks. Italy, France, Spain, Britain, and Northern Africa, however, came under harsh and very successful attack. The Western Roman Empire had been the weaker and poorer of the two Roman empires for some time, anyway, and it simply lacked the resources to fight off these aggressive peoples. While the Roman Empire continued relatively unaffected in the East, in the West the Roman Empire ceased to exist as an effective entity of government and society by the end of the sixth century. As a result of the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, the five decades of Vicissitudes that followed it, and the victory of the Nicene party at the Council of Constantinople in 381, the Arians and semi-Arians had

Figure 2.52  Europe and the Near East at AD 476.

140 A Global Church History

The Church from 500 to 1500

141

been forced out of the Roman Empire during the fourth century. Some of the Arians and semi-Arians who had chosen not to convert to Nicene orthodoxy went north, and became missionaries to these tribes. Even more Christians went north during the fifth century, some of whom were Nicene and some of whom were lingering Arians who finally decided to get out. As a result, many of the tribes who sacked and eventually replaced the Western Roman Empire were evangelized and converted. Some of them became Nicene (or Catholic) Christians, and some became Arians. When the Arian tribes took control of portions of the Western Roman Empire, this caused even greater difficulties for the Nicene believers in these areas. Augustine, for example, died while the Vandals were sacking Hippo (in Northern Africa). The Vandals were Arians, and made a kingdom in most of Northern Africa west of Egypt. The Vandals persecuted both Catholic and Donatist Christians in these areas (both of whom were Nicene). As a result, the Church in Northern Africa was weakened, persecuted, and fractured when the Arab Conquest began. By the end of the sixth century, the Ostrogoths were in charge of Italy and of what today is Switzerland, Austria, part of Germany, Croatia, Slovenia, and Albania. To the north of these areas were the Lombards and Saxons, with the Gepidae in the East. The Visigoths came to control Spain and southern France, with the Sueves in modern Portugal. The Franks controlled the north of France, whereas the Burgundians were in the South competing with the Visigoths; the Bretons ruled a northwest peninsula of modern-day France. The Angles and the Saxons came to rule modern-day England, with number of even less citybased peoples in northern Britain and modern Scotland.

The beginning of the Middle Ages These tribal kingdoms used to be Rome. Some of them took on some of the trappings of Rome, and some of them were imitators of Roman culture. The governmental structure and most of the culture of Rome were heavily damaged, however, and eventually became only a memory. As we will see, it was a strong memory, but it did not persist as a stabilizing power in the West. City life was not an important reality for these tribes, whereas Roman culture had existed as—and needed the resources of—a federation of world-class cities. Some of the remaining “Roman” people did try to persist in city life, but with great difficulty. Cities were no longer safe havens; they could be seen as collections of wealth, targets there for the taking. Life in these kingdoms became more and more scattered. People in many cases moved out of the cities to gather around different old Roman villas (estates), leading to the formation of villages. Cities did remain, but less and less administrative means existed to govern them, and less and less infrastructure survived or was maintained in order to make them functional. Rule was mostly by warlord. Whoever was strongest, at the moment, ruled. In what had been the Western Roman Empire, one can see here the beginnings of the Middle Ages. In the West, one could call the period from about 500 to 800 CE the Dark Ages, due to the massive educational, social, governmental, economic, and cultural decline brought about by the end of Rome. A more neutral title would be the Early Middle Ages. One should again remember that in the Eastern Empire, with its capital in Constantinople, the Roman Empire persisted relatively unchanged. Even there, though, massive changes were nearing due to the impending arrival of Islam.

142

A Global Church History

Figure 2.53  Successive Defensive Banks at York, Roman, and Medieval.

Merovingians and Carolingians One can see in this time trends that will have enduring significance through the medieval period. For example, the Franks and the Burgundians (in modern France) came to embrace the Catholic faith. Some of them learned Latin. This development formed the basis of the connection between France and the Roman Church observable through the Medieval period. Two historic developments in these proto-French kingdoms are also of note. First, the Merovingian dynasty came to rule the Franks. They were able to bring a measure of unity to this unruly collection of tribes. By the beginning of the sixth century, their leaders were Christians, and most of the tribesmen followed suit. The Merovingians eventually conquered the weaker Burgundians, bringing most of modern France under their control. The Merovingians, however, did not stay a powerful dynasty, and they themselves were eventually supplanted by the Carolingian dynasty. The Carolingians had served as chamberlains, in a way as prime ministers, for the Merovingians. The Merovingians eventually became figureheads, while the Carolingians did the real work of governing the kingdom. Charles Martel (686–741 CE) was the last of these “chamberlains.” He is an important figure in his own right because his army stopped the Muslim invasion that was at that time pressing up from Northern Africa into Spain, threatening to engulf Europe. Charles Martel’s son, Pepin the Short (714–68), decided he could do without the Merovingian figurehead king Childeric III (also known as “Childeric the Stupid”). The Carolingians became the rulers of the Frankish kingdom, with Pepin being crowned king in

The Church from 500 to 1500

143

Figure 2.54  Charles Martel fighting the Saracens at Tours-Poitiers in 732.

Childeric’s castle, supported by Pope Zachary II. Pepin’s son was also named Charles, just like Pepin’s father, and this son eventually became known as Charles the Great, or Charlemagne.

Stabilizing influences in the West Given the ravages of these waves of invasion that became scattered and chaotic nations, during such a time of cultural upheaval and dissolution, how did the people of these early medieval societies survive at all? And how was any of the heritage and grandeur of Rome carried forward to impact both this age and later ages? The answer is complex, but one can point to three very significant factors that gave what had been the Western Empire stability, and that prevented the total loss of Roman education and cultural coherence despite their being governed by peoples who often did not value such things at all. Monasticism John Cassian, who we have already mentioned in the fifth-century controversies on grace, had brought monasticism in an intelligible way into the Western Empire. One may recall that Cassian was forced to leave Egypt, where he had been a monk, and had eventually ended up in the Western Empire. He started a monastery, at the people’s request, in the south of France and wrote a set of Institutes on what monasticism should be and on how a monk should live.

144

A Global Church History

Figure 2.55  St. Benedict of Nursia by Jean de Court II.

Monasticism in the west really got going, however, with Benedict of Nursia. Benedict was born in 480 CE, in the Italian city of Nursia. He tried to be a hermit, but people kept gathering around him. Eventually, Benedict moved his community of hangers-on to Monte Cassino, which was then a remote settlement that still had vestiges of paganism. Benedict founded a monastery there and was soon joined by his sister, Scholastica, who made a monastery for women. Benedict’s greatest significance was in writing a Rule for his community (see Doc. 2.2). It became the constitution of Western monasticism, the shaping document for the great majority of Western monasteries for centuries to come. The Rule seeks a strong but moderate ordering of monastic life. Cassian’s Institutes influenced Benedict in the writing of the Rule. According to the Rule, monastic life should be communal, and extreme asceticism is discouraged. The heart of the Rule is humility before God and one’s fellows. Because of this, Benedict wrote that monastic life should have two determining characteristics: permanence and obedience.

The Church from 500 to 1500

145

Benedictine Monasticism: The monasticism established by Benedict of Nursia became the dominant form in the Western Church throughout the Middle Ages. Growing from its roots on Monte Cassino, it came to spread throughout all the Christian regions of Western Europe. Its only early competitor was the Irish monasticism characteristic of the British Isles that often followed the Rule of St. Columbanus; however, after the Viking invasions, and the growing integration of European society in the High Middle Ages (the eleventh through thirteenth centuries), Irish monasticism tended to become Benedictine. Benedictine monasticism experienced many reform movements during its long history. Cistercian and Cluniac monks, for example, follow Benedict’s Rule but implement its practice in a distinctive way. And the needs of Western European society and church eventually did lead to significantly different monastic orders, such as the military and mendicant orders founded during the High Middle Ages.

Permanence means that monks should not move from one place to another. Once they have joined a community, they should stay where they are and follow God with the people there as best as they can. Permanence, as a monastic characteristic, brought stability to the community and to the monk. Once joined with a monastery, a monk would stay there for life, unless ordered to go to another place or released from monastic vows (thereby ceasing to be a monk). Obedience means that monks should first of all follow the Rule itself. Second, monks should obey their superiors, who in turn should obey God. Obedience was seen not just as something to give governmental stability to the group, but also as something that would and should shape the character of the monk to be able more fully to submit to the will of God. The Rule centered monastic life on regular times of prayer. The monks would gather eight times per day to “say the hours” (that is, to sing or chant a prescribed set of corporate prayers), including once in the middle of the night. Many of these prayers would recite the Psalms, and numerous other passages of Scripture would also be said as prayers. The Rule also insisted on physical labor. Every monk had a practical task. There was allowance made for the infirm, but no preference given to those from noble families. While Eastern forms of monasticism were often much more contemplative, and not involving practical labor, these forms of monasticism existed in functioning societies. In the West, the practical need for productive labor—in the fields and elsewhere—led Benedictine monasticism to balance the work of one’s hands with the work of prayer. Benedictine monks, additionally, became active in study. In order to follow the Rule and say the prescribed prayers, books were needed. The monks became adept at copying the Bible, and other books, for themselves and for future generations. Eastern forms of monasticism often did not include an emphasis on education, but again, Eastern monasticism still existed in a society with an effective educational system. In the West, the monasteries became the educational system because there was no other functioning widely in their societies. Because of their stability, education, and insistence on labor, Benedictine monasteries came to have a major impact on the agricultural economy and culture of the areas surrounding them. As Benedictine monasticism grew, it came to be a major stabilizing force for the society, culture, and economy of the West.

146

A Global Church History

The papacy The growth and status of the papacy is, of course, one of the most controversial aspects of the history of the Church. However, it is clear that the papacy came to have a very important function in Western Roman society. This significance was recognized long before the fall of the Western Roman Empire, and it grew considerably after the destruction of the other centers of governmental and cultural leadership in the West. As the Western Empire disintegrated, and eventually became completely nonfunctional, the popes often served to provide constructive societal, and even governmental, leadership that was otherwise lacking. Pope Leo I (the Great) was bishop of Rome from 440 CE until his death in 461. We have already studied his importance for the development of Christology through his Tome and his importance for the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon (see Doc. 1.53). While the papacy certainly existed long before Leo, his theological and governmental importance clearly increased the status of the papacy in the West. The imperial court of the Western Empire was no longer in the city of Rome at this time; during Leo’s lifetime it was in Ravenna, having been in Milan for over a century before that. In the face of the repeated and unstopped invasions from the northern and eastern tribal peoples, the imperial government lost prestige, and was in fact greatly weakened. The bishop of Rome was often, in fact, the most important leader remaining in the city of Rome. During the first half of Leo’s papacy, Attila the Hun staged a number of devastating invasions in both the Eastern and the Western Roman Empires. In 452, his armies were marching on the city of Rome, having defeated the last remaining Roman army that could stop him from sacking the city. The Western Roman emperor Valentinian III sent Pope Leo, along with two senators, to parlay with Attila and ask him

Figure 2.56  Pope Leo the Great and Attila the Hun by Raphael.

The Church from 500 to 1500

147

not to destroy the city. Due to a number of factors, Attila agreed to this request and turned his army north (he died the next year, and his empire fell apart). When the Vandals sacked Rome in 455, Leo led the negotiations with the Vandal warlords. He was not able to stop them from sacking the city. He did, however, get them not to burn the city of Rome. These incidents, and many like them, greatly increased his prestige within the city of Rome and the Western Empire. In fact, Leo was a very capable man, and a leader whose work benefited his people. With respect to the papacy, Leo argued that Jesus had made Peter his successor, and that Peter was the Rock the Church was built on. The bishop of Rome was Peter’s direct successor, and therefore head of the Church. The popes that followed Leo were not as capable, and they often became involved with schismatic arguments with the East. They were also not as successful in mitigating the presence and attacks of the militaristic northern tribes. For example, when Rome was conquered by the Ostrogoths, tension resulted between them and the papacy. The Ostrogoths were Arians, and they came not just to pillage but to stay—to keep control of northern and central Italy and make it their kingdom. The Ostrogoths even set up their own pope for a while, and there were violent conflicts between Catholic Christians and Arians. Eventually, the Eastern emperor Justinian I (482–565), a strong leader, attacked Italy and drove the Ostrogoths out. This was not entirely favorable for the papacy, though, because Justinian wanted the popes to be subordinate to the state, just as the patriarch of Constantinople was at that time. The Lombards, however, eventually invaded Italy and drove the Eastern Romans out. While the Lombards would later become strong supporters of the papacy, at this time (the mid-sixth century) they were a mix of pagans and Arians. Pope Gregory I (the Great) was born around 540 CE in Rome. He was the pope from 590 to 604 and was one of the most able administrators ever to hold the post of bishop of Rome. Gregory was from a noble family. His father was a senator, and Gregory became prefect of the city of Rome (essentially mayor of Rome) at the age of thirty. He was an effective leader, and his work helped the city recover from repeated invasions and long mismanagement. After his father passed away, Gregory became a monk. He converted his family’s estate to a monastery and led a monastic community there. His time as a contemplative was interrupted in 579, however, when Pope Pelagius II chose him to represent the papacy as an ambassador to the Eastern imperial court in Constantinople. Pelagius had, even before this move, ordained Gregory as a deacon and asked him to intervene in a schism in northern Italy. Gregory’s express purpose in Constantinople was to gain Eastern imperial military support against the Lombards. This embassy failed to accomplish that goal; but, during his six years in Constantinople, Gregory became a spiritual leader to many of the city’s aristocratic residents. He also defeated Eutychius, then patriarch of Constantinople, in a theological debate before the Eastern emperor. After his mission to the Eastern Empire was over, Gregory returned to monastic life. His life as a monk ended, however, when Pelagius died in 590. The city of Rome was being devastated by famine and plague, and Pelagius died after becoming ill from tending to the needs of the sick and dying. Gregory was then named pope by acclimation (popular demand from the Roman people). He did not want to accept the position, but the clergy and people of Rome insisted.

148

A Global Church History

Figure 2.57  Pope Gregory I.

Gregory was sometimes autocratic, but a good leader. Because there was no one else to do so, Gregory arranged the importation of food for Rome from Egypt. He thereby saved many people from starvation and death. In addition to importing food, Gregory was very active in administering aid to the poor. The pope, by this time, was the acting ruler of the city of Rome. In Gregory’s case, he had already been the city’s prefect, and his leadership came to embrace both governmental and religious roles. As pope, Gregory led reforms in the clergy, promoting clerical celibacy and reforming the liturgy of the Mass (the regular Church worship service culminating in the celebration of Holy Communion; in the West, the published and regularized liturgy was known as the Roman Missal). He promoted missionary activity, especially in Britain, and was instrumental in the conversion of the king of the Visigoths in modern Spain. Gregory also reorganized Church property, reforming its administration. Gregory was a prolific writer and is known as a Doctor of the Church (a teacher of special importance). He was especially influenced by Augustine and increased the prestige and official standing of Augustine’s writings in the Western Church. Gregory introduced the doctrine of purgatory as a formal

The Church from 500 to 1500

149

doctrine of the Church; he also formalized the sacramental system of confession and penance for the absolution of sins. Further, Gregory described the Mass as a sacrifice—not a repeated sacrifice but a participation in Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice on Calvary. Traditional piety in the Church, by Gregory’s time, had long included an important role for the heroes of the faith (the saints) and the physical remains, and other memorabilia, of the saints who had passed away (their relics). Augustine, for example, records miracles performed at the gravesites of holy Christians, and the practice can be seen as stretching back to the New Testament in the way that the Apostle Paul’s clothes would sometimes be taken to the sick to heal them (Acts 19:11-12). As pope, Gregory was intensely interested in relics and the saints as communicators and exemplars of God’s grace, and his interest increased the prominence of relics and saints in the life of the Church. The changes introduced by Gregory in liturgy, sacraments, clerical life, piety, aid to the poor, and many other aspects of Church practice and teaching, had and continue to have great significance in the life of the Church. Gregory also insisted on the doctrine of papal supremacy, seeing the bishop

Figure 2.58  Italy in AD 1000.

150

A Global Church History

of Rome as the preeminent and governing voice in the Church. His papacy had a dual effect: first, of stabilizing and reordering the formerly Roman society through good administration and strong political leadership, and second, of further ordering the reformed life of the Western Church around the papacy. The popes that succeeded Gregory, however, were not as strong, and the Eastern Roman Empire tried to assert rule over them. However, the East would soon have serious troubles of its own to deal with because of the growth and conquests of Islam. Due to highly able leaders such as Leo and Gregory, and due to the power vacuum of effective leadership that came to exist in the West, the leadership of the papacy became a highly significant stabilizing factor in keeping a functioning society in existence in Western Europe. In the mid-eighth century, the papacy took over formal political rule of central Italy. Popes Gregory II and Gregory III (pope from 715 to 731 and from 731 to 741, respectively) broke ties with the Eastern Roman emperor over a number of religious and political issues. Centering on the city of Rome, the Republic of St. Peter (better known as the Papal States) was established in 756 with the support of the Carolingian ruler Pepin the Short. The Lombard king Aistulf, who had been taking control of Italy, was compelled by Pepin to donate the land for the Papal States’ establishment. This development further cemented the strong ties between the papacy and the Carolingian dynasty; it also established the papacy as an even stronger political source of rule and cultural stability in the Early Middle Ages. The prestige of the Papal States was soon further enhanced by the “discovery” of The Donation of Constantine. This document, claiming to be from Constantine, the first Christian Roman emperor, ceded political control of the Western Empire to the papacy. While The Donation of Constantine was considered to be genuinely from Constantine during the Middle Ages, textual examination during the Renaissance proved that it was a forgery dating to the mid-eighth century (about the time of Pepin’s establishment of the Papal States). The Irish and British The focus of the militaristic northern tribes, such as the Ostrogoths, Vandals, and Visigoths, had been south from Central and Western Europe. Lying in the opposite direction, Ireland had stayed largely unharmed by these waves of invasion and were not subjected to the new kingdoms set up replacing Rome. During the long centuries of the Dark Ages, up until the Viking invasions of the tenth century, Ireland served as a Reliquary of Antiquity, a place where much of the culture and learning of Rome continued unabated. The Irish Church, since its earliest times, had centered on monasteries. During these times of trouble, the Irish began sending parties of monks as missionaries to Britain and mainland Europe. The Angles and Saxons of Britain were largely evangelized by Irish monks (as well as by missionaries sent from Rome, starting with Augustine of England, commissioned by Pope Gregory I). Columba (born in 521 in Ulster), for example, went to Scotland in the sixth century and founded the monastery at Iona. Columbanus (born in 543 in Leinster), with some companions, went to Scotland and then Burgandy and established several monasteries. Irish monastic missionary efforts such as these achieved what the Roman Empire had never been able to do—convert the ordinary people of Britain and Scotland, and their militaristic leaders, to the Christian faith.

The Church from 500 to 1500

151

Figure 2.59  Matthew the Evangelist from the Lindisfarne Gospels.

After the effective evangelization of a large portion of Britain and Scotland, monastic missionaries began to travel from there to the mainland of Europe. Willibrord (born in 658 in Northumbria), for example, went from Britain to the modern Netherlands and Luxemburg and evangelized there. He eventually became the bishop of Utrecht after enough people converted. Winfrid (who took the name Boniface and was born in 675 in Wessex) went from Britain down to modern Germany and was a very effective evangelist. He was made archbishop of Mainz by Pope Gregory III and was important for forming an alliance between the papacy and the Carolingian dynasty. These Irish and British missionaries, and many who went out like them, were monks and itinerant teachers. They would go to a place, establish a monastery, and use it as a base to evangelize. Often they found the most effective way to evangelize was directly to approach the king, who would then persuade the rest of the people. In this missionary effort, they faced great risks. Many missionaries died at the hands of the people they were seeking to evangelize, and there were many other dangers in these often unsettled areas (see Docs. 2.5 and 2.13). Due to the top-down nature of some of this evangelization, and to its relatively rapid pace, it was probably inevitable that some aspects of the people’s former religious practices were included in their

152

A Global Church History

Figure 2.60  Iona Abbey.

Far to the north in the Hebrides, islands in the Irish Sea off the coast of Scotland, Iona became home to Columba of Ireland in 563 after he was forced to leave Ireland due to his involvement in a rebellion. Columba (521–97) founded Iona Abby along with twelve of his friends and devoted his life to spreading the gospel among the pagan Picts; he is known as one of the Twelve Apostles of Ireland, students of Finnian of Clonard (470–549) who were instrumental in evangelizing the British Isles and Central Europe. Iona became a center of spirituality and learning, and its scriptorium may have produced the Book of Kells. The characteristic Celtic Cross, with a circle surrounding the intersection of the cross’ beams, may have also come from Iona.

new Christian identities. For example, while recent research indicates that celebrating Christmas on December 25 is an originally Christian practice—not originally pagan, as had often been assumed— some of the traditional trappings of Christmas, such as Christmas trees and Yule logs, probably do hearken back to the pagan practices of these tribes in their winter festivals. One could also look at the May Day celebrations and Mummers’ plays of England, as well as at many other traditions and practices spread over Central and Northern Europe. In some cases such practices point to the remnants of paganism mixed into the Christian identities of these societies. In other cases, though, one sees a practice that had been pagan regrounded and given new meaning by the message of Christ. Christianity and Judaism from the beginning, in fact, often took

The Church from 500 to 1500

153

Figure 2.61  A page from a copy of Bede’s Lives of St. Cuthbert, showing King Athelstan presenting the work to the saint. This manuscript was given to St. Cuthbert’s shrine in 934.

Bede (672–735), often known as the Venerable Bede, was an English Benedictine monk in the Kingdom of Northumbria. He was noted for his scholarship and teaching. His most famous work is the Ecclesiastical History of the English Peoples, the most important document by an English author of the Early Middle Ages (the sixth through tenth centuries). He also wrote numerous biblical commentaries and other theological works. He promoted calculating the years since Christ’s birth in order to name the current calendar year. Bede is buried next to Cuthbert of Lindisfarne in Durham Cathedral.

the rituals and practices of the existing world and transformed them, giving them new and different significance by drawing them into relationship with the God of Israel and Jesus Christ. As the centuries progressed, and as numerous medieval educational initiatives improved the level of understanding of Christian teaching among the popular classes, even practices that were once solidly pagan often came to take their enduring meanings from the new world preached by the Christian gospel.

154

A Global Church History

The Holy Roman Empire The Early Middle Ages in Western Europe saw the devastation of the Roman Empire and its replacement by tribal kingdoms. Through one of those kingdoms, though, the name and memory of Rome eventually came to be restored. With the establishment of the Holy Roman Empire in 800 CE, we see a turn toward restoration in Western Europe that began to undo the ravages of the Dark Ages and prepared the way for the great medieval society to come. We also see new challenges to this emerging civilization from further invasions by militaristic tribal peoples. As we will see, the Church both participated in and was affected by these developments.

Charlemagne In Charles the Great, also known as Charlemagne, we find one of history’s most effective and influential rulers. Charlemagne was born in 742 and died in 814. His father, Pepin the Short, was king of the Franks, and Charlemagne inherited this kingdom upon Pepin’s death in 768.

Figure 2.62  Emperor Charlemagne by Albrecht Dürer.

The Church from 500 to 1500

155

Filioque is Latin for “from the Son.” The Western Church of the Early Middle Ages came to say the Nicene Creed differently from its original formulation at the Council of Constantinople in 381. Starting in Spain during the seventh century, Western liturgies would specify that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, instead of simply stating that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. This change drew on earlier theology, such as the Athanasian Creed (see Doc. 1.50). The initial reason for this change was to oppose the Arian Vandals who still threatened Spain. The Vandals, and other Arians, saw the Holy Spirit as the product of the Son, who was himself the product of the Father; neither Son nor Spirit was, according to them, really God. By specifying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, and not from the Son only, the Spanish church affirmed that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all in eternal relationships in which each is fully God.

Upon coming to power, Charlemagne embarked on a vigorous military program and would spend much of his reign at war. He conquered the Lombards in northern Italy and stopped them from destroying the city of Rome. He also conquered the Frisians and Saxons in modern-day Germany and forced them to convert to Christianity. Charlemagne eventually came to rule most of Western Europe except for the British Isles and the part of Spain that the Arabs had conquered. He did, though, restore the Donation of Pepin, reestablishing the direct papal rule that his father had mandated in the areas of Italy surrounding Rome (the Papal States). Restoration of the Church Charlemagne was a vigorous ruler who involved himself in his subjects’ civil life and in the Church. He directly appointed bishops in the dioceses within his kingdom. He also legislated keeping of the Sabbath and required preaching to be done in the language of the people, instead of in Latin, for the moral and religious guidance of the people. Also, he collected tithes for the Church as if it were a tax. Under Charlemagne, the Church experienced significant reforms in life and discipline. Charlemagne ordered the monasteries to return to a stricter observance of St. Benedict’s Rule. He also reduced corruption and bad administration in Church affairs. During Charlemagne’s rule, clergy began to dress differently than ordinary people, with many clerical garments imitating the dress common among the nobility in the late Roman Empire. He required infants to be baptized, and pouring in a baptismal font came to replace immersion in a baptistery. Influenced by developments in Spanish Christianity, Charlemagne reaffirmed the filioque clause (stating that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son) and required the Nicene Creed to be said using this form. Restoration of education Education also experienced a restoration under Charlemagne. He sought out learning from the Eastern Empire (which was still a functioning political and cultural entity in direct continuity with Ancient Rome) for technical and educational matters that had been lost in the West. Charlemagne in general promoted learning in his empire, opening schools in church buildings that were open to rich and poor alike. Charlemagne himself spoke a number of languages and learned to read (a skill uncommon for nobles of his day).

156

A Global Church History

Figure 2.63  Friedrich Kaulbach (1822–1903), Coronation of Charlemagne.

Restoration of Empire On Christmas Day in 800 CE, Charlemagne worshipped in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. As he knelt to pray, Pope Leo III took a crown and placed it on Charlemagne’s head. The congregants then shouted in unison, in Latin, “To Charles Augustus—crowned by God, great and peaceful emperor of the Romans— long life and victory.” Leo likely meant establishing Charlemagne as the Holy Roman emperor to allow the West to compete on more equal footing with the Roman Empire of the east. As the Holy Roman emperor, Charlemagne attempted to restore the Roman Empire in the west. There is some question as to whether Charlemagne wanted the pope to crown him. By giving the crown, the papacy made a claim to establish legitimate political rule. People in the Middle Ages came to believe that the Church founded right rule and empire. Charlemagne continued the alliance of the Franks with the papacy that St. Boniface had helped form, an alliance that no doubt influenced Leo in his decision to strengthen Charlemagne’s rule by proclaiming him the Holy Roman emperor. However, the subsequent medieval and early modern periods were often marked by competing claims to societal dominance by pope and emperor. Restoration of theology Under Charlemagne, and in the period following him, theological development became a real and important reality once again in the West. The West had had monasticism and mission efforts,

The Church from 500 to 1500

157

but had had no theologians of note since the fall of Rome. Under Charlemagne, scholarship became revived. John Scotus Eriugena (c. 815–c. 877) was one of the most inventive theologians of the Middle Ages. He was from Ireland and moved around 850 to the court of one of Charlemagne’s grandsons. Eriugena lived in the times before the Vikings devastated Ireland, and he continued the development of Roman theology and culture that marked Ireland as a Reliquary of Antiquity. His main original work was his Perisephion, and he also produced a number of important translations into Latin of Eastern authors. Eriugena was highly educated in both Latin and Greek patristic sources. He translated PseudoDionysius the Areopagite, the Ambigua of Maximus the Confessor, and some of Gregory of Nyssa’s works into Latin at the request of the Holy Roman emperor. In addition to these authors, Eriugena also knew well the work of Augustine, the remaining Cappadocian Fathers (Gregory of Nazianzus and Basil the Great, in addition to Nyssa), and Origen. When reading Eriugena, one has a strong sense of looking both backward and forward. His thought is grounded and rooted in the complex and deep Latin and Greek traditions, and yet he lives in a new

Figure 2.64  John Scotus Eriugena, Periphyseon, in a manuscript which is believed to be partly an autograph.

158

A Global Church History

time, facing new challenges and working to come up with new—but faithful—solutions. His theological views brought him into conflict with some of his contemporaries. Influenced by the neo-Platonic tradition of thought, Eriugena saw reason as ultimately coming from and leading toward the completely transcendent God. Because of God’s transcendence, though, Eriugena was never rationalistic, claiming that human reason could know and solve all problems. Reason was grounded in God’s mystery and led back there, as well. The reason we have is a real participation in and imitation of God’s ultimate rationality, and the light of reason that we have mirrors— truly but incompletely—God’s infinite light (see Doc. 2.34). In Eriugena, we see a continuation of the struggle over grace and free will that would come to be characteristic of Western theology. While supporting our need for supernatural grace, he argued that humans possess free will and that free will is operative in salvation. Predestination, according to

Figure 2.65  Charles the Bald welcomes monks from Tours who bring the Vivian Bible which includes this miniature.

The Church from 500 to 1500

159

Eriugena, can be only to heaven; he did not believe that God ever predestines to hell. Eriugena may, in fact, have been a universalist, influenced by some of Origen’s and Gregory of Nyssa’s thought. Eriugena’s theology of the Eucharist (the Lord’s Supper) is probably best understood in the context of his possible universalism. He considered the universe itself to be a sacrament, in which God is manifesting himself and drawing all things back to himself. When Eriugena spoke of the Eucharist as a spiritual participation in Jesus by faith, he meant a true theophany (a sensorial appearance of God) through which God was using something in the universe to communicate his true reality and restore us to himself. Although this understanding of the Eucharist varies somewhat from the view common in his day—which held Christ’s body and blood to be physically present in the Eucharist—it would be a mistake to see his as a memorial or merely symbolic view. In the Eucharist, Eriugena held that we really receive Christ and participate in a sacramental reality that transforms our minds and hearts and contributes to our deification (that is, our transformation and salvation). Eriugena also had an interesting understanding of the Garden of Eden. As with most early and medieval exegetes, he read the Eden account allegorically—that is, he held that the Scripture was communicating true meanings to us through symbols. However, he believed that the depiction of Paradise told us of our future state in heaven, not a past state of human beginnings. In two other theologians of the Carolingian Renaissance, we see the continuation of issues—also present in Eriugena—that came to characterize much Western theological controversy. In the East, as we saw with John Cassian, theologians were generally content to say that God’s grace and human free will are both necessary for salvation, without specifying exactly how they relate to each other. Also, Eastern theology strongly supports the real bodily presence of Christ in Holy Communion, but it resists specifying exactly what that means and when and how it happens. Western theology, by contrast, has insisted in being much more precise on these issues. In some cases, this extra development arises from the further questions brought up by serious conflicts in the Western Church, which the East did not experience in a similar way, such as the controversy between Augustine and Pelagius. Paschasius Radbertus (785–865 CE) was a Frankish Benedictine and the abbot of the monastery of Corbie in Picardy. He wrote a book entitled Concerning the Body and Blood of the Lord in which he claimed that the real, physical body and blood of Christ are produced in the elements of the Eucharist and consumed by the faithful. He held that Christ’s body and blood are usually imperceptible but can sometimes be perceived by those given grace to do so. When Radbertus presented this work to the Holy Roman emperor Charles the Bald (823–877), Charles was suspicious of the work and asked Radbertus to clarify it. While the Gallic liturgies of Radbertus’s day taught the real presence of Christ in Communion—as we saw with Eriugena, above— the liturgical language does not specify what the presence of Christ in Communion exactly means. Radbertus responded that the “body and blood of Christ” are not the same as the historical body of Jesus, which is sitting at the right hand of God. Also, he held that the presence of Christ in Communion is not the same kind of presence as other physical presences. Some other monks and theologians opposed Radbertus’s theology in his day. The most noted was another Frankish monk from Radbertus’s own monastery, Ratramnus (died c. 870). However, some of the opposing views that held Christ’s presence in Communion to be merely a mystical or spiritual presence (as Ratramnus did) were later formally condemned. Radbertus’s theology laid the foundation

160

Figure 2.66  Holy Family Catholic Church (North Baltimore, Ohio)—Stained Glass, Eucharist.

Figure 2.67  Orbais Abbey Church.

A Global Church History

The Church from 500 to 1500

161

for the theology of transubstantiation that was formally approved and became a part of Catholic doctrine at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 (see Doc. 2.26). Gottschalk of Orbais (808–67) was a Saxon monk and poet. After studying Augustine’s later works, Gottschalk came to believe that the Church was not teaching rightly about the matter of predestination. Whereas the Catholic Church (and the Orthodox Church, throughout their histories, in Gottschalk’s day, and ever since) taught that human freedom is important for salvation and that God does not predestine anyone to hell, Gottschalk insisted that God deterministically predestines each individual person to an eternal destiny either in heaven or in hell. This teaching is known as double predestination. Many theologians, including Eriugena, vigorously opposed Gottschalk’s teachings. Gottschalk was tried and condemned multiple times, beaten and whipped, and confined to a monastery until he died. A few theologians, such as Ratramnus, defended him. One reason Gottschalk’s work was so opposed is because it denied any merit in good works. The church and state of Gottschalk’s day were trying to rebuild society. Aside from the important theological reasons put forward by Eriugena and others, at a practical level there was a societal need for every encouragement for good works. Yet if one’s eternal fate is already decided irrespective of one’s actions, many wondered how anyone could effectively be moved toward good works.

Invasion and Corruption Despite Charlemagne’s strong and effective rule, he was not entirely effective in restoring Western Europe’s devastated society. Reversing the decline that followed the collapse of Rome in the West was an effort that would take centuries. And significantly, Charlemagne had no plan for effective succession of power after he was gone. Like many powerful leaders, he did not develop powerful leaders around him. After his death, the Holy Roman Empire was divided up among his sons, who squabbled and fought with each other. It was not until 884 that Charlemagne’s grandson, Charles the Fat, succeeded in uniting the empire again; this reunification itself did not last long after Charles the Fat’s death. Rule once again became fragmented, with a feudal system of government developing to give stable control of land. In an agrarian society such as medieval Europe, land was the main source of wealth and power. With no stable empire, how could civilization develop to carry forward the reforms and advances of the Carolingians? Feudalism is an attempt to replace the rule of law with personal loyalties. In feudal society, every person is someone’s servant or someone’s master (and most commonly both). At the top of the society would be the different kings, who may or may not recognize the societal leadership of the emperor and the papacy. At the bottom were the landless serfs, laborers who had no right to own land themselves or leave the land on which they worked. The societal place of those in between was established by whom they owed loyalty to and who owed loyalty to them. Rulers offered protection to their vassals, who had sworn oaths of loyalty to the rulers. Feudalism is powerful governmental system—necessary and effective—only in situations in which the common rule of law is not trusted or effective. Despite the restoration brought by the Holy Roman Empire under Charlemagne and his successors, Western Europe remained in just that situation.

162

A Global Church History

Figure 2.68  Harold Godwinson swears fealty to William the conqueror.

In addition to the squabbling and division among Charlemagne’s heirs, the Carolingian reforms did not bring about the long-term reversal of the Dark Ages due to new waves of invasion from without and serious corruption within the developing European society. Invasion From the ninth century through the eleventh century, waves of militant, pagan, and destructive warrior tribes from the Scandinavian lands began invading and sacking Central and Western Europe. They became known as the Normans, or Vikings. As warriors and pirates they raided and then colonized wide areas of Europe. Starting with the British Isles and northern France, they soon swept over most of Western Europe, including Spain, deep into France, Sicily, and southern Italy. As with the militaristic tribes that destroyed the Western Roman Empire, at first the Vikings just came to pillage. Later they established Viking kingdoms in Sicily, southern Italy, Normandy in France, and on the British Isles. As with the earlier barbarians, eventually they became Christian: some by negotiation, some by good example, and some by force. At about the same time, the Magyars were pushing from central Asia into modern Hungary, pressuring the Holy Roman Empire from the southeast. They repeatedly raided Germany and even made it into Burgundy. As with the Vikings, the Magyars were extremely violent and destructive. They also eventually became Christian. In their case, missionaries converted the Magyar king, and a later king forced the conversion of his subjects.

The Church from 500 to 1500

Figure 2.69  Vikings exploration and territories.

Figure 2.70  Round tower of Glendalough.

163

164

A Global Church History

These waves of invasion brought incredible societal devastation and shaped the character of Christianity during these ages. For example, the tall round towers characteristic of medieval Irish monasticism developed as defense measures against the Vikings. City life—in which higher elements of culture and education could develop—again became perilous, because cities were targets for attack and plunder. The Dismal Papacy Contemporaneous with these invasions, the papacy descended to some of the lowest moral and spiritual levels in its history. The period from 882 to 964 is often called the Dismal papacy. In the eighteen-year span from 886 to 904 alone, there were ten popes. Many of the popes during the Dismal papacy openly had mistresses, and the papacy during this time became noted not for religious leadership but for vice and corruption. The pope had become a political ruler in European society. The papacy itself was bought and sold, and likely even killed for. The nadir of this debasement of the papacy was Pope John XII (pope from 955 to 964), who was said to openly wear a sword and make toasts to the devil. In addition, he was accused of being sexually immoral and of wantonly torturing and murdering the clergy around him. Whether or not the accusations against John XII are true, that people found them believable indicates the depth to which the papacy had sunk during this time. Rather than being a source of societal stability—as it had been under Leo I and Gregory I—it became a source of corruption in society.

Reform With so much going wrong, what turned the tide to keep Europe just from disintegrating? Cluny One of the major forces in turning the Middle Ages around was the monastery at Cluny, in France, founded in 909 CE. Cluny led a reform in terms of stricter adherence to the Benedictine Rule. The monastery had a strong emphasis on spirituality, prayer, and worship. Cluny formed many daughter-houses, coming to lead a federated league of monasteries. Besides these, it became extremely influential in monasticism, promoting reforms. Several of the abbots of Cluny became major statesmen on the international stage. The Cluniacs were also important in supporting the reforms of Pope Gregory VII (Hildebrand).

Cluny: Cluny Abbey was founded in 910 by William, Duke of Aquitaine, in Saône-et-Loire, France. The monastery from its foundation was dedicated to Sts. Peter and Paul and freed from loyalty to the local rulers; its only loyalty was to the pope. Part of William’s motivation was to establish the monastery’s independence, allowing it to initiate reforms. Cluny became Western Europe’s most prestigious monastery, and it was instrumental in influencing other monasteries and European society in general for reform. Its focus was not on extreme asceticism but on performing the liturgy and praying. Cluny’s influence eventually declined in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, with other orders taking up leadership in the Church to promote reform. The abbey was destroyed during the French Revolution.

The Church from 500 to 1500

165

Figure 2.71  Cluny Abbey (Reconstruction by Georg Dehio and Gustav von Bezold).

Hildebrand (Pope Gregory VII) Hildebrand (c. 1020–85) was born in northern Italy, near Florence, of Lombard noble descent. A notable political figure, he was instrumental in electing six popes, and was himself (unwillingly) made pope in 1073. Hildebrand conceived of the College of Cardinals to elect popes and was influential in bringing it into existence. At this point, people commonly knew that the papacy needed reform; Hildebrand was one of the most effective politicians working to bring that about. Because Hildebrand became Pope Gregory VII, his reforms are often referred to as the Gregorian Reforms. The Gregorian Reforms were in two main areas. First, he worked to get rid of incontinence and simony among the clergy. Incontinence, in this context, means sexual immorality. Priests in Western Europe by this time were supposed to be celibate, but many lived with more-or-less acknowledged mistresses. Simony is the buying and selling of Church offices. Simony is a practice directly forbidden by Scripture (as, of course, is sexual immorality), and it is named after Simon the Magician; Simon tried to buy the gift of the Holy Spirit from the apostles and was condemned for this by the Apostle Peter (Acts 8:4-25). Second, Gregory worked to release the Church from control by the political potentates by stopping the practice of lay investiture (which was also a form of simony). Lay investiture is the practice by which secular rulers would appoint people to Church offices, such as priest or bishop, usually for a price or with a demand for loyalty. Gregory insisted that the Church should appoint priests and bishops and that they should not have to pay their local prince, or the emperor, to take office.

166

A Global Church History

Figure 2.72  Pope Saint Gregory VII saying Mass.

The Investiture controversy While Gregory’s first reform initiative concerning incontinence was widely appreciated, his opposition to lay investiture brought about one of the most serious conflicts between the papacy and the empire for the whole Middle Ages. Gregory first tried to enact these reforms by a synod—a governing meeting of Church leaders—in 1074. The synod was widely ignored. Gregory then decided on a more forceful route and ordered the Holy Roman emperor Henry IV to stop lay investiture in 1075. To understand this controversy, one must remember that in this society, wealth was in the ownership of land. Those who joined monasteries and those who wished to make a gift to the Church often gave the monastery or the Church a gift of land. Because of the requirement for clerical celibacy, there were never any legal heirs that would require Church lands to be divided or disbursed, and by the eleventh century the Church was the largest landowner in Europe. By requiring bishops, especially, to pay for their offices, the secular leaders were able to tax the Church holdings; they could not tax the Church otherwise. Lay investiture was therefore a very significant part of these rulers’ income and very significant for the medieval economy. Additionally, bishops were very important in this society. They had considerable power, and the secular rulers liked to keep control of the bishops in their area by appointing their partisans. Hildebrand’s opposition to lay investiture threatened, therefore, both the income and the political control of the secular rulers. Henry refused to comply with Gregory’s order and challenged the legitimacy of Gregory’s papacy. In response, Gregory excommunicated Henry and placed Germany under interdict. Interdict, a practice Gregory began and the “nuclear option” in Church-state conflicts, meant that Henry’s vassals were

The Church from 500 to 1500

167

released from their oaths of fealty (loyalty) to him and that Germany—where Henry directly ruled—was not allowed to practice the sacraments, except for last rites to bury the dead. Because feudal society was held together by these oaths of loyalty, and because people had come to depend on the sacraments to structure and give meaning to their lives, Gregory’s actions were a serious threat to Henry’s ability to rule and to his status as emperor. They were, in fact, an open call for Henry’s vassals to rebel against him. To counter this threat, Henry stood barefoot in the snow for three days at Gregory’s estate, repenting and pleading with Gregory to forgive him (at Canossa in 1077). After three days, Gregory restored Henry to communion and removed the interdict. In 1080, though, Henry led an army into Rome and forced Gregory to flee. Gregory died in exile in 1085. Gregory’s attempts to end lay investiture were only successful to a small degree, but he is widely considered a hero for trying to purify the Church. Gregory VII is, in fact, often considered one of the greatest and most highly respected popes. Aside from his reform efforts, his teaching about the Eucharist (supporting the real, bodily presence of Christ in Communion) began a renewal of spirituality centering on the Eucharist in the century following his papacy. He was beatified by Pope Gregory XIII in 1584 and canonized by Pope Benedict XIII in 1728.

The Crusades Despite the cultural and political effects of the Viking invasions and the ongoing conflict of Church and state, the lingering effects of the chaos brought about by the Western Roman Empire’s fall eventually

Figure 2.73  Map to illustrate the Crusades, showing the principal routes of the first four crusades.

168

A Global Church History

began to resolve in a brighter day. The combined effects of feudalism and the Holy Roman Empire brought a measure of political stability to Western Europe, and the reformed papacy that followed Gregory VII was once again a source of moral and cultural leadership. Some of the new kingdoms, such as Normandy, resulted from the Viking invaders settling down and becoming feudal lords. Politically, educationally, economically, and culturally, Western Europe began the transition out of the Dark Ages into a newly energized set of European societies. Not all the sources and results of this new stability were peaceful. Beginning in the early twelfth century, the Western European church and kings launched a long series of wars, many of which were against the Islamic states of the East. The soldiers of these wars of conquest would “take up the cross,” often painting a cross on their shields or sewing a cross on their outer garments; the wars therefore took on the collective name of “the Crusades.”

The background of the First Crusade By the year 1000 CE, pilgrimages had become an important part of medieval piety. Pilgrimages usually involve travel to an important religious site in hope of some kind of spiritual gain. Many of the most

Figure 2.74  Pilgrims from Canterbury.

The Church from 500 to 1500

169

important sites for Christianity, due to their prominence in the Bible, are in Palestine; the city of Jerusalem was an especially important destination. Jerusalem, though, and all its surroundings, had been under Muslim control for more than three centuries. Beginning in the 600s, areas that had been part of the Roman and Persian empires were conquered and subjected to new rule as part of the huge military expansion of the Islamic armies. Pilgrims who went east from Western Europe for the pilgrimage often came back telling tales of high taxes they had to pay in order to pass through the Muslim lands. Security on the roads during these long travels was often poor, and bandits robbed many pilgrims. In support of these pilgrimages, Pope Gregory VII (Hildebrand) had wanted to lead a military expedition against the Muslim Turks. He had not been able to organize this expedition due to his conflict with the Holy Roman emperor. During this time, the Eastern Roman emperor had also often appealed to the Western leaders for aid against Muslim invaders. Additionally, part of the mentality of the Holy Roman Empire was that the dynasty of Charlemagne had stopped the Muslim invasion of France from Spain. Due to these prolonged and harsh military conflicts, Muslims came to be seen by many Western Europeans as enemies who were assailing them and keeping captive the holy places. This perception was not, of course, the whole story of Islam and the Muslim nations at this time. It was the case that Islamic armies had subjugated Palestine, Northern Africa, Spain, and much of Asia; they had thereby put Western and Eastern Europe under incredible military pressure. And, pilgrimages to Muslim lands were difficult and sometimes dangerous endeavors. However, extended travel anywhere was not easy in this time, and in many respects the Muslim areas were headed for an intellectual and cultural renaissance in the twelfth century. In many cases, the Muslim leaders showed themselves to be more enlightened and moderate than Western leaders during the Crusades. The call for Crusade After the Investiture crisis, in which the Holy Roman emperor Henry IV had invaded Rome and forced Pope Gregory VII to flee, Henry had set up his own pope, Clement III, to replace Gregory. Most of the Western Church considered Clement to be an antipope (an illegitimate pope), and Pope Urban II was elected (in 1088) to replace Gregory VII following Gregory’s death. Urban had been a loyal disciple to Gregory. However, Clement kept control of the city of Rome while Urban had to travel from place to place securing support for his position. In a move seen by some as an attempt to bolster his own prestige and stability in office, Urban called a Church council at Clermont (southern France) in 1095. The council dealt with a number of issues of Church reform and European politics. On November 27, 1095, Urban called for holy war against the Muslims who occupied the Holy Land (see Doc. 2.19). As we will discuss below, Urban’s call included major religious aspects of motivation. Also, Western Europe had come to a point of internal stability, and many of its rulers were open to spreading their dominions to points in the east. War can be a highly profitable business for the winners, especially if the wars do not take place in one’s homeland.

170

A Global Church History

Figure 2.75  Pope Urban II presiding over the Council of Clermont in 1095, and calling the Christian peoples to the First Crusade for the deliverance of the Holy Land.

The Council of Clermont lasted for ten days, from November 18 to November 28 in 1096. Pope Urban II convened it at Clermont in the Duchy of Aquitaine. About three hundred clerics and a number of lay observers attended. The council supported the Cluniac reforms and dealt with several other issues in ecclesial and secular politics. However, it is most remembered for Urban’s call, on November 27, for Europe’s princes to rise in crusade to retake Jerusalem (see Doc. 2.19). Five different versions of Urban’s speech exist, and it is difficult to say exactly what Urban’s words—or even his full intention—were. However, the call for crusade quickly spread by word of mouth, gaining momentum that would galvanize Western Europe for centuries.

The offer of indulgences After Pope Gregory I (pope from 590 to 604 CE), the doctrine of purgatory became an important part of the teaching and piety of the Western Church. Of central concern for any worshipper, of course, is the eternal destiny of themselves and the ones they love. As the teaching about purgatory developed, though, most in the Western Church came to believe that only a few especially holy individuals went directly to heaven after death. The rest of those who would be saved—that is, those not condemned to hell—needed to suffer in purgatory in order to be cleansed from the sins committed in this life (see Doc. 3.2).

The Church from 500 to 1500

171

While the Church taught the eternal security of everyone in purgatory—in other words, everyone who entered purgatory would eventually go to heaven—the sufferings of purgatory were emphasized by popular preaching to be close to that of hell itself. Importantly, though, purgatory was taught to be a temporal, not an eternal, state; unlike heaven and hell, purgatory has a specific duration and will end. The eternal destinies of heaven and hell were understood to be administered by God directly. But government of the temporal state of purgatory, like all other temporal spiritual states, came to be seen as part of the church’s jurisdiction. On the basis of good deeds done in the present life, then, the Church taught that it had authority to decrease the time or degree of suffering of someone in purgatory. These good deeds could include going on pilgrimages, veneration of relics (which was often the main point of the pilgrimages), and donating money to the Church. One could also pray for those in purgatory and arrange—often for a fee—to have prayers said for oneself or for departed loved ones. The remission of the sufferings of purgatory was called an indulgence. Pope Urban II, on his authority as head of the Church, said that anyone who would join this holy war and go to free Jerusalem would receive a plenary indulgence. “Plenary” means complete. Thus, Urban offered soldiers who would join this holy war to have all of their time and suffering in purgatory wiped away. They would

Figure 2.76  Peasant Girl Buying an Indulgence by François Marius Granet.

172

A Global Church History

therefore go straight to heaven upon death, with no horrible torments of purgatory to face after death (see Doc. 3.2).

The First Crusade The First Crusade started out with a feeling of invincibility, declared as the will of God. Walter the Penniless, a minor French noble, and Peter the Hermit, a French ascetic priest, enthusiastically gathered a rag-tag band of peasants and beggars in 1096 and traveled to Constantinople. They attacked the Turks in Asia Minor and were totally destroyed. However, the situation was different the next year when the professional soldiers came on the scene. The Crusader Princes—most notably Godfrey of Bouillon and his brother Baldwin—took the time to organize their forces and gather substantial armies. After a long fight, with the tide nearly turning against them several times, they succeeded in capturing the city of Jerusalem in 1099. The crusaders then slaughtered the entire Muslim and Jewish population of the city. It was a horrible travesty of Christian holiness. After this bloodbath, they knelt to sing a Te Deum (a common medieval hymn) in what they thought was the temple of Solomon (but which was actually the Dome of the Rock;

Figure 2.77  Map of the First Crusade, Roads of the Main Armies.

The Church from 500 to 1500

173

Solomon’s Temple was destroyed by the Babylonians in the sixth century BC, and Herod’s Temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE). Godfrey was named protector of the Holy Sepulchre, and Baldwin was named king of Jerusalem. Latin kingdoms were established in the formerly Muslim areas, and, importantly, in the some areas formerly controlled by the Eastern Roman Empire. The Crusader kingdoms thereby came to stretch from Asia Minor to Palestine.

The Second Crusade One of the key Latin Crusader kingdoms for the travel of pilgrims, trade, and troops to and from Jerusalem was the province of Edessa. It is on the corner where the Mediterranean seacoast turns from east to south toward Israel. In 1144, forty-five years after the Christian capture of Jerusalem, the Turks took Edessa. Upon Edessa’s capture, Pope Eugenius III (who also suffered from an antipope’s having control of the city of Rome) announced a crusade to save Edessa and strengthen Jerusalem. He asked the most prominent Western churchman of the day, Bernard of Clairvaux, to preach in favor of the crusade;

Figure 2.78  Crusaders besieging Damascus.

174

A Global Church History

Bernard did so on Easter Day in 1146. Kings Conrad III of Germany and Louis VII of France, especially, organized their soldiers and set out on this campaign. The Second Crusade was less successful than the First. In the First Crusade, the Eastern Roman Empire had allowed the Western princes free passage through their lands to fight the Muslim armies eastward. However, some of the Crusader kingdoms had been taken from the lands, not of the Muslim rulers, but of the Eastern Romans. In the Second Crusade, the crusaders were often hindered by the Eastern Roman Empire, which was afraid of losing even more territory, before they could fight the Turks. Because of these factors, the Second Crusade did not entirely achieve its goals—Edessa remained under Turkish control—but it did succeed in strengthening many of the Crusader kingdoms.

The fall of Jerusalem to Saladin The Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem lasted eighty-eight years, from 1099 to 1187. It ended when Balien of Ibelin surrendered the city to Saladin, the Sultan of Egypt (1138–93). Those who wished to leave Jerusalem were allowed by Saladin to pay a ransom and depart. One of the great advantages the crusaders had in fighting the Muslims was that the Muslim states were divided, sometimes at war with each other, and thus much easier to conquer. However, Saladin succeeded in uniting the Muslim forces and bringing their combined might to conquer Palestine. By this time, also, internal squabbling had significantly weakened the Latin forces. Saladin swept through Palestine capturing Acre, Nablis, Jaffa, and nearly every other significant Crusader city. He then besieged Jerusalem. Cut off from aid, there was eventually no choice for the Latin forces but to surrender the city.

Figure 2.79  Portrait of Saladin (before AD 1185).

The Church from 500 to 1500

175

Figure 2.80  Detail of a miniature of Philip Augustus arriving in Palestine.

The Third Crusade The fall of Jerusalem shook the Western European world. The Third Crusade was called for by the Pope Gregory VIII in 1188 to retake the Holy City. The Holy Roman emperor Frederick Barbarossa of Germany responded immediately, gathering a huge army. King Richard III (Lionheart) of England and King Philip II Augustus of France also set aside their hostilities and led their forces in the crusade. The Third Crusade succeeded in retaking several of the Crusader kingdoms, including the important cities of Acre and Jaffa. However, for a number of reasons, it was unable to retake Jerusalem. Frederick drowned crossing a river, and most of his army then went home. Philip Augustus also returned home early in order to take some of Richard’s lands. Richard won a number of victories and was eventually able to negotiate a treaty with Saladin for the safe passage of Christian pilgrims to Jerusalem; but though he saw Jerusalem from afar, he could not enter it. He was then captured and held for ransom in Austria while attempting to return to England.

The Fourth Crusade The Fourth Crusade was called for by Pope Innocent III in 1202 and, in many ways, marks the end of the major attempts by Western Europeans to retake Jerusalem and sustain a Christian Kingdom in Palestine. There were other crusades, some against the Islamic strongholds then in Spain, some against Western European groups identified as heretical, and some led and “soldiered” by fervent peasants and even some children (with predictably disastrous results). However, when we speak of “the Crusades,” the first four loom largest in our minds. The original intention of the Fourth Crusade was to attack the heart of Islamic power in Egypt, journeying there by sea, and then sweeping up into Palestine to retake Jerusalem. However, encouraged by the Venetian merchants who were funding the crusade, and by the heir of a deposed Byzantine

176

A Global Church History

Figure 2.81  The Conquest of Constantinople by the Crusaders.

(Eastern Roman) emperor, the crusaders changed the target of their assault to the wealthy Eastern Christian capital of Constantinople. Landing wave after wave of ships at Constantinople, the crusaders conquered Eastern Roman capital in 1204. They then plundered the city, set up a Latin Kingdom of Constantinople, and installed a Western bishop in Hagia Sophia Cathedral. As with many, many aspects of the crusades, it was again a horrible travesty of Christian holiness. Byzantine forces did eventually succeed in retaking the city, but the sack of Constantinople weakened the Eastern Empire and is one of the factors that eventually contributed to its decline. The Eastern Church reckons the Fourth Crusade as the definitive break between the Eastern and Western Church.

Military Orders Since its inception under Benedict of Nursia in the sixth century, and in many ways even before that under John Cassian, Western monasticism adapted its structure and form to serve the needs of its society and the pressing concerns of its age. During the crusades, a new form of monasticism came into existence in which those taking vows carried out their spiritual struggle not within the walls of a monastery but by taking up arms in crusade. The most prominent of these were the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon, also known as the Templars, who swore an oath to defend Jerusalem. The Order of Knights of the Hospital of St. John, or the Hospitallers, was another important military order. They were sworn to aid pilgrims and provide medical support for crusaders and took their name from a hospital dedicated to John the Baptist in Jerusalem.

The Church from 500 to 1500

177

Figure 2.82  Baldwin II ceding the Temple of Solomon to Hugues de Payens and Gaudefroy de Saint-Homer.

The Knights Templar were founded in 1119 and recognized by the papal bull Omne datum optimum in 1139. French knight Hugues de Payens founded the order with the approval of Baldwin II, the king of Jerusalem, and Warmund, Latin patriarch of Jerusalem. The Templars were initially housed in the captured Al-Aqsa Mosque. Dressed in their distinctive white livery with large red cross, the Templars became some of the most feared soldiers of the crusades. They also became incredibly wealthy, establishing a financial network that stretched across Europe into the Holy Land. With the decline of the crusades, however, the Templars lost the clear mission that had vitalized them. Their numbers began to decrease. Their immense wealth also attracted the jealousy of the secular powers. In 1307, King Philip IV of France, who was heavily indebted to the Templars, arrested Templar Grand Master Jacques de Molay. After securing papal support, Philip burned de Molay at the stake and executed dozens of other Templars. The Templars were made illegal throughout Europe by Pope Clement V’s order in 1312.

Both monks and knights, these warriors became some of the most fervent and prominent figures of the crusades. As monks, they swore to have the personal piety and devotion appropriate for monastic life; they took vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience as any other monk would. Instead of working the land or studying manuscripts, however, they entered the field of battle as soldiers. Both the Templars and Hospitallers eventually became very wealthy, and their leaders operated in the Crusader kingdoms as authorities parallel to the secular rulers.

The influences of the Crusades The last of the Crusader kingdoms on the mainland fell in 1261 (several Mediterranean island kingdoms endured far longer). However, it is difficult to overstate the importance and effects of

178

A Global Church History

Figure 2.83  The Near East in 1135, with the Crusader States.

the crusades, both in the Middle East and in Europe. Economically, they produced such significant wealth that they brought Western Europe out of the Dark Ages and funded a new European society. They also opened up Western Europe to the culture, trade, and learning of the Eastern Roman and the Muslim world. Further, the crusades opened the mindset of Western Europeans to realms and ways of life far beyond their borders. Relics taken from the Holy Land flooded Western Europe and became even more important in popular piety. Pilgrimages were, of course, bolstered in their possibility and importance, as well. Trade routes were established that reached as far as India; these introduced, among other things, the spice trade to Western Europe that would be so influential for its future. In ways we will discuss in the next chapter, having a common opponent allowed the Western European powers space to quit

The Church from 500 to 1500

179

fighting each other so much; Western Europe thereby achieved some needed rebuilding and reform. One could also argue that the Muslim Golden Age of the twelfth century also benefited from the unification brought about to face a common foe. The crusades also produced long-lasting animosity between Eastern and Western Christians and between Christians and Muslims. And, over hundreds of years of warfare, the cost in civilian and combatant lives was immense. Despite the eventual failure of the crusades’ primary aim—the establishment of a Christian Jerusalem—they established Western Europe as having might and vigor comparable to the Muslim and Byzantine states; while this prevented further encroachment on Western Europe by these powers, the alienation produced by the wars left scars that have still not completely healed.

The High Middle Ages In the Middle Ages, one can see in the West a long beginning age brought about by the destruction of the Western Roman Empire in the fifth and sixth centuries. This age—the Early Middle Ages or Dark Ages—set for Western Europe the basic question of whether it could survive as functioning societies at all, and if so on what terms. Beginning in the Carolingian Renaissance of the eighth and ninth centuries, with its uneasy alliance of Church and Empire, bolstered by monastic developments, and characterized

Figure 2.84  Single Combat to be decided by the judgment of God.—from a miniature in the “Conqêtes de Charlemagne,” a manuscript of the fifteenth century, in the National Library of Paris.

180

A Global Church History

by a great interlocking web of feudal oaths, Western Europe began to move toward a cultural and religious stability that was capable of sustaining a developed civilization. The culmination of this great series of advances and reversals was the formation of a Western European culture and identity that marks one of the high points in the history of Western culture. In the High Middle Ages, from the eleventh through the thirteenth centuries, we see the development of societies that, though quite variegated, shared the basic meanings, values, and cultural forms that allowed them to create a mutually understandable whole. This emerging set of reciprocally reinforcing cultures stretched up from Italy into Austria, Germany, and France, extended over to Spain and up through the Low Countries to parts of Scandinavia and the British Isles. As witnessed to by the great common efforts required by the crusades, within these societies merchants and clerics, scholars and students, warriors, nobles, and even some commoners enjoyed the freedom of movement, societal stability and prosperity, and effective collaboration that marked the formation of a greater whole. For better or worse—and there was much of both—the crusades both formed and funded great aspects of this emerging Western identity. They were far from alone, however, in shaping High Medieval culture. In this section and the next, we will explore the rest of the story that, in addition to the crusades, brought about what we know as the medieval European Church. This section especially deals with the way that the Church’s hierarchy and its monastics both took their characteristic medieval forms and also imprinted their character on the entirety of society. In the next section, we will explore the way that the intellectual life of the Middle Ages flourished with the growth of scholasticism and the rise of universities.

Monastic reform Benedictine monasticism played a major part in the survival of Western Europe after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, and the decline and recovery of Western medieval society was often tied to the way its many monasteries lived out (or failed to live out) the monastic ideal. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, seven new monastic orders were formed, often in search of a return to the purity of Benedict’s Rule. One of the most significant of these was a reform of the Benedictine Order by a monk named Bernard of Clairvaux (1090–1153 CE). The son of Burgundian nobility, well educated and poetic, Bernard joined the Cistercian Order in 1113, accompanied by about thirty of his friends and relatives who were moved by his example. In 1115, he led formed a monastery in northern France, naming it “Claire Vallée” (soon shortened to Clairvaux). Through his preaching, struggles for reform, political efforts, and spiritual example, Bernard became the most prominent voice in the Western Church of his day. Bernard was influential in seeing Pope Innocent II recognized as pope against a rival antipope; upon Innocent’s death, one of Bernard’s disciples became pope (see Doc. 2.15). Bernard also attended and was influential at two significant councils—the Council of Troyes (1128) that brought the Knights Templar into existence and thereby set the medieval ideal of Christian nobility, and the Second Lateran Council (1139) that both finally established Pope Innocent II as pope and also introduced important Church reforms. As mentioned in the chapter on the crusades, Bernard also was the most significant preacher calling for the Second Crusade.

The Church from 500 to 1500

181

Figure 2.85  Saint Bernard of Clairvaux with the Instruments of the Passion. Gouache painting.

As important as Bernard was politically, his significance was wider and even more long-lasting in Christian spirituality. Bernard taught a personal, heartfelt religion that sometimes brought him into conflict with the more speculative Christianity taught by the developing medieval scholastic theology; he openly denounced the important theologian Peter Abelard, for example, and eventually succeeded in having him imprisoned. Bernard’s spirituality centered on close communion with Christ through the intercession of the Virgin Mary. His most influential sermons were allegorical interpretations of the Song of Songs that proclaimed the truly Christian life as intimate union with God. The monastic reforms in which Bernard was prominent, but by no means alone, brought about a number of lasting achievements in Western European society. First, the hierarchy of the Church was strengthened; the bishops and pope, however, were also thereby held to higher standards of conduct and piety. Second, a more genuine practice of Christianity became more common among peoples who had often been subject to forcible conversion centuries before; the lingering worship of pagan gods was condemned and significantly decreased. Third, monks brought improvements to the temporal order and lives of common people through mercy initiatives and peace initiatives.

Church and state Despite the political influence of spiritual leaders such as Bernard, there was continued conflict between the Church hierarchy and the secular rulers over who had the final say in society. Some of these were further lay investiture conflicts, such as with the Holy Roman emperor Frederick Barbarossa. Others were more personal, in which particular leaders of Church and state became pitted against each other.

182

A Global Church History

Figure 2.86  Earliest known portrayal of Thomas Becket’s murder in Canterbury Cathedral.

The conflict between the archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Becket (c. 1119–70) and King Henry II of England was one that particularly shaped the consciousness of medieval England and, indeed, all of Europe. Henry and Becket had been in conflict ever since Henry’s coronation, with Beckett excommunicating Henry and Henry summoning Becket to trial. Both were forceful characters, and Becket was effective in opposing several of Henry’s policies. At dinner one evening, in one of his rages, Henry wondered aloud why his followers let Beckett treat him so; the exact words Henry used are disputed. Four of Henry’s knights who were present took this statement as an order to kill Beckett, and they brutally murdered him in Canterbury Cathedral. They then fled to Scotland. News of Beckett’s slaying shocked Christendom. Henry’s lands were placed under interdict by the pope; Henry’s forceful wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine, used the opportunity to turn his sons in revolt against him. Facing revolt in 1173–74, Henry humbled himself and performed public penance. Wearing sackcloth and ashes, he was flogged by Beckett’s monks before his tomb. Beckett’s assassins were ordered by the pope to serve as knights in the Holy Land for fourteen years.

The Church from 500 to 1500

183

Beckett was soon venerated as a martyr and saint throughout Western Europe. Canterbury Cathedral grew in prominence, and in magnificence, due to the pilgrims who came to Beckett’s shrine.

Pope Innocent III The Middle Ages was, in a way, a contest as to whether Western Europe would be ordered in two parallel ways, with the Church handling spiritual matters and the state rightly in charge of the rest, or whether either Church or state would become preeminent. As we saw with Beckett or with Gregory VII before him, the state was often ready to use its military might to enforce what it saw as its rights. In Pope Innocent III, by contrast, we find the papacy coming to the peak of its political power. Born Lotario dei Conti di Segni (c. 1160 CE) in the Papal States, Pope Innocent III was the most powerful pope of the Middle Ages. He was pope from 1198 to 1216 and reshaped the political and ecclesial landscape of Europe in ways that still are important today. Innocent’s mission in his papacy was to organize society, especially the Holy Roman Empire, around the policies of the Roman Church. Thereby, all of European society would come under the mandate of the bishop of Rome. While some earlier popes had insisted in the priority of the Church over secular

Figure 2.87  Painting of Innocent III at Sacro Speco, Subiaco (c. 1216).

184

A Global Church History

rulers, Innocent largely succeeded in bringing European politics, culture, and religion under his leadership (see Doc. 2.20). Political rule Innocent began by bringing the Papal States directly under his rule instead of their effectively being governed by local noble families. This placed most of Italy under his direct rule. By political negotiation and use of interdict, he was also successful in keeping the French and German kings under his control. Innocent also united the fragmented Christian kingdoms of Spain and led them in effective resistance against Islam. England became a direct vassal of the pope; the English monarch, Prince John, was also forced to cede important rights to his own nobles through the Magna Carta charter (see Doc. 2.27). Combating heresy Another important goal Innocent pursued was stamping out heretical teachings and groups. He thereby aligned Western European religious practice strongly with the teachings of the Roman Church. One of the most powerful ways that Innocent did this was through the Episcopal Inquisition (usually simply known as the Inquisition). Probably formally established by Pope Lucius III (pope from 1181 to 1185), the Inquisition was first put to wide use by Innocent. Its initial target was the Cathari of Spain—a dualistic group with resemblances to the Gnostics of the Early Church period; the Bulgarian Bogomils may have influenced the Cathari. The Inquisition was used by the Catholic Church against every group identified as heretical subsequently until the nineteenth century. The Inquisition was established by Innocent in every diocese of the Church, headed by the local bishop. It was empowered to examine those within each diocese for doctrinal purity. Those found guilty of heresy would often be ordered to renounce their heretical views and do penance, such as wearing a cross on one’s clothing or undertaking some other public act of contrition. Serious cases, though, would be handed over to the secular power for punishment (often imprisonment, torture, and execution). Innocent also used the military mechanism of crusade to enforce conformity in doctrine. Whereas the crusades before Innocent had been called against the Islamic powers who controlled Jerusalem, Innocent called two crusades against Western European groups he identified as heretical. The Albigensian Crusade (1209–29) turned into a twenty-year-long offensive against the Albigensians in southern France; their teachings resembled those of the Cathari. Innocent also ordered persecution of the Waldensians of northern Italy. The Waldensians had many similarities with the much later Protestant Reformation; holed up in the Italian Alps, they survived to modern times and eventually merged with the Methodist Evangelical Church. Innocent also called a crusade against the Muslim territories in Spain. Finally, Innocent called the most prominent council of the Western Church during the Middle Ages. The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) is remembered today mostly for making transubstantiation the official teaching of the Catholic Church concerning Holy Communion (see Doc. 2.26). In other words, this council officially ratified and required the explanation advanced by several important medieval theologians of the real bodily presence of Christ in the elements of Holy Communion: that during Holy Communion, what had been bread and wine is totally changed into the body and blood of Christ, although the appearances of bread and wine remain. In its own context, the council was equally

The Church from 500 to 1500

185

Figure 2.88  King John signs the Magna Carta.

important for condemning the Albigensians and bringing about a number of other important Church reforms. The Fourth Crusade Innocent also worked to unify Western Europe against Islam. In addition to opposing the Muslim presence in southern Spain, he called the Fourth Crusade to attack Jerusalem by way of Egypt (1204). As we saw in the chapter on the crusades, this intention went disastrously wrong and the crusade turned against the Eastern Church in Constantinople. Innocent originally opposed this move but later accepted it to, as he saw it, bring about God’s will to reunite the Eastern and Western Church. The tide eventually turned against Western control of Constantinople, and the Fourth Crusade increased animosity between the Eastern and Western Church in a serious and lasting way.

The Mendicant orders Perhaps the farthest-reaching of Pope Innocent’s actions, paradoxically, were not ones he planned. Urged by his confessor and a propitious dream, Innocent officially recognized Francis of Assisi as founder of a new religious order on April 16, 1210. Innocent thereby gave Francis’s fledgling group, the Friars Minor (or “Little Brothers”) the official endorsement of the Church. Innocent also officially recognized

186

A Global Church History

the Order of Preachers (or Dominicans), and their founder Dominic of Caleruega, on December 22, 1216. The Franciscans and Dominicans, together known as the mendicant orders, changed the shape of Western monasticism and became some of the most influential leaders of the Church. The background context A mendicant is a beggar: someone impoverished who lives by the generosity of others. By the beginning of the thirteenth century, the church in Western Europe had benefited from the economic expansion characteristic of the wider society. With Innocent III, a pope with as much wealth and power as an emperor, and with bishops who controlled much of the land and wealth of Europe, it would seem that things were going swimmingly. A few great spirits, however, saw that all was not well, believing that this immense dependence on wealth, force, and political intrigue was a temptation from the real business of Christianity. Dedicated to poverty—either for practical purposes or because of the message of the gospel itself—Francis’s and Dominic’s monastic orders embodied a new call to live an evangelical lifestyle that transforms this world by not being in love with it. The Franciscans Giovanni di Pietro di Bernardone, nicknamed Francesco due to his love for the music of the French troubadours, was born in the small northern Italian town of Assisi in 1181 or 1182. Born into a well-to-do merchant’s family, Francis felt the call of God to rebuild the Church. Against his family’s wishes, he left his confortable life, embraced a life of poverty, and began preaching. When followers gathered to this “little brother of Jesus,” he sought approval from the pope to have a monastic order and eventually received it. Francis embraced a strong asceticism, with many fasts and other harsh penances. He and his followers sought radical poverty because they saw this as the lifestyle of Jesus and the apostles (see Doc. 2.24). Francis had a strong missionary impulse and went to preach to the Sultan of Egypt. In some ways he was likely seeking martyrdom by this quest; the Sultan, however, listened to him and sent him home. Although no one in Europe would listen to Francis at first—he literally went and preached to the birds because no one else would hear his message of evangelical poverty and absolute trust in and devotion to Christ—Francis eventually became recognized as one of the great spiritual voices of his age. Francis’s Order of Friars Minor is often known as the Franciscans. Although they struggled with how to continue their commitment to evangelical poverty after Francis’s death, they and the Dominicans became highly influential. Most orders of monks practiced the discipline of stability, living in one place and having limited interaction with those not in their monastic community in order to devote themselves to worship and prayer. Conversely, the Franciscans and Dominicans felt called to make a spiritual difference by living and working among the people, meeting the needs of their society and carrying out the mission Christ called them to. The Dominicans A few years after Francis began his ministry in Italy, Spain was graced with its own reformer. Domingo Félix de Guzmán was a canon—that is, a priest that followed a monastic rule without formally being

The Church from 500 to 1500

187

Figure 2.89  Legend of the Dream of St. Francis by Giotto.

a monk—of the cathedral in Osma, a church that had adopted the Augustinian rule. He was well educated in the faith. While a student, he had sold almost all of his possessions to help feed the poor during a famine. In 1203, he and his bishop visited southern France, where he was very troubled by the success of the Albigensians. Dominic thought it would be more effective to preach and offer good examples to the heretics instead of only using force to try and make them repent. He received permission—as with Francis, from Pope Innocent III—to modify the Augustinian rule and effectively make a new order: the Order of Preachers, often known as the Dominicans. Dominic’s order was dedicated to asceticism and poverty. However, they were not as extreme in this regard as the Franciscans; additionally, the Dominicans embraced poverty for the purpose of more effective ministry, not for love of poverty itself. Their main focus was a combination of preaching and prayer. The Dominicans also devoted themselves to learning; careful study was required for the preaching, in order to offer the best arguments against the heretics, to promote their conversion, and to prevent their spread.

188

A Global Church History

Figure 2.90  The Perugia Altarpiece, side panel depicting St. Dominic by Fra Angelico.

The seven sacraments While the Church has practiced the sacraments, such as baptism and Holy Communion, since its earliest times, the number and meaning of the sacraments achieved a lasting stability in the West during the High Middle Ages. Peter Lombard (1100–60), bishop of Paris and a noted theologian, defined seven sacraments in his Four Books of Sentences. Largely a topically arranged anthology of quotations from the Bible and the Church Fathers, Lombard’s Sentences became the standard theology textbook for Western Church in the Middle Ages. According to traditional Church teaching, reaching at least back to Augustine, a sacrament is a rite or ritual that is, or brings about, what it symbolizes. For example, marriage came to be regarded as a sacrament; in a wedding ceremony—a highly symbolic ritual—two single adults become a married couple. Similarly, through baptism—a symbolic washing and covering with water—God gives cleansing from sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. The purpose of the system of the seven sacraments was to show—and help bring about—that all of a person’s life was enclosed in and permeated by God’s grace. The seven sacraments Lombard listed were baptism, Holy Communion (also known as the Lord’s Supper or the Eucharist), confirmation, penance, extreme unction, matrimony, and holy orders (or ordination). zz

Baptism is a symbolic washing with water in which a person receives forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit; it also marked entrance into the Church and was by then almost always an infant ritual.

The Church from 500 to 1500

189

Figure 2.91  The Seven Sacraments Altarpiece by Rogier van der Weyden.

zz

zz

zz

Confirmation marks the sealing of the gift of the Holy Spirit given in baptism. Initially performed in infancy immediately following baptism, by the twelfth century in the west, this rite was administered when the recipient attained the age of reason (at about seven years of age). Confirmation came, then, to mark coming of age as a Christian and making one’s baptism (performed for one in infancy) one’s own. Following the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), confirmation began to be delayed into adolescence (twelve or thirteen years old). Penance (also known as confession or reconciliation) works to heal the ongoing effects of sin in a baptized person’s life. By regularly confessing one’s sins to a priest, who came to be seen as standing in the place of Christ, one received forgiveness of the confessed sins and accountability to amend one’s life. Holy Communion is the ritual blessing and consumption of bread and wine by worshippers following Jesus’s command to his disciples to remember him this way; by the twelfth century the Church taught that the bread and wine were transubstantiated during the sacrament to become the body and blood of Christ. Traditional Church worship services culminate in celebration of Communion, for by receiving Christ’s body and blood Christians believe they are incorporated into his new life.

190

zz

zz

zz

A Global Church History

Extreme unction (also known as last rites) was an anointing with oil and blessing given to the dying to forgive their sins, provide spiritual comfort, and prepare them for their passage into the next life. Matrimony is marriage. Matrimony also has a legal aspect handled by the authority of the state; as a sacrament, matrimony indicates that the couple’s vows are made before God, and that God works by grace to unite the couple together. Holy orders (also known as ordination) set its recipient apart as clergy, typically as a deacon, priest, or bishop. While all Christians share the common priesthood of Christ, by ordination those called to lead in the Church have their vocation confirmed and are given the grace to perform the ministries assigned to them.

From cradle to grave, then, the seven sacraments came to indicate, and were understood to bring about, the work of God’s grace in the totality of life. Baptism marks the beginning of the life of grace in infancy; it also serves to bring the infant into the Church. Confirmation marks the beginning of one’s Christianity by one’s own choice; because it must be performed by a bishop (not just a priest), it also connects each believer to the teaching authority of the Church. Holy Communion and penance are lifelong rituals, beginning when one reaches the age of reason, in which the effects of sin are healed and Christ’s new life communicated to believers. Matrimony or holy orders (commonly not both) marked a major adult vocation that one could receive; ordained ministers in the Western Church by the High Middle Ages were required to be celibate, and there was no requirement for a Christian to receive either of these sacraments. Extreme unction marked the work of God’s grace at the end of the present life and the hope of resurrection to the life of the world to come.

The Church calendar Just as the Middle Ages came to understand every part of a person’s life as governed by God’s grace, it also came to understand the structure of the Church’s worship throughout each year to manifest how God graciously orders history. Christians have celebrated Christ’s resurrection every year since earliest times. Beginning in the fourth century, the Church also began to commemorate Christ’s birth. As the Church’s worship practices developed, Christians came to celebrate the other major events of Christ’s life (such as his baptism, crucifixion, and ascension) throughout the year, sometimes in formal liturgies and sometimes in popular celebrations (see Doc. 2.22). By the High Middle Ages, two interlocking sets of holy days structured the Church’s worship. One set centered on Christmas and was celebrated on the same date every year. The other set centered on Easter; because the date of Easter varies from year to year, the dates of these feasts would also vary. The Church’s liturgical year would began with Advent, a time of fasting and preparation for Christmas. It would reach its high point with Easter, the central and most important celebration of the Church. Throughout the remainder of the year, the various holy days reminded both clergy and worshippers that time is God’s creature and that he works to redeem in history. In addition to the holy days that structured the Church’s yearly worship and that gave it its basic liturgical calendar, Christians also commemorated numerous holy days dedicated to the saints of the Church. While some of these days were celebrated across Christendom (such as St. Stephen’s Day),

The Church from 500 to 1500

191

Figure 2.92  The Christian Liturgical Calendar.

many of them were local in character. Permeating the cycle of the seasons, and often interacting with the agricultural activities common to mostly agrarian societies, the saints’ days and the other Church holidays served to provide a particularly Christian understanding of time.

Scholasticism and the rise of universities The Middle Ages had its distinct character due to a characteristic way of thought. Beginning with Charlemagne’s reestablishment of education in Western Europe, and coming into its own in the High Medieval period, the intellectual life of medieval Europe became one of history’s most notable achievements. The scholarly development of the Middle Ages had conditions and precursors, and it had structures that allowed it to exist and flourish. Reaching back to the heritage of the Classical period, synthesizing the thought of the Early Church, and interacting with the lineage of Christian, Islamic, and Jewish thought that preceded it, the Middle Ages produced a powerful way of understanding the world Christianly. It therefore both transformed its own society and, in its late form, set the agenda for what would become the modern age.

Intellectual growth As we enter the High Medieval period of the eleventh through thirteenth centuries, Western Europe experienced conditions that were favorable for intellectual growth.

192

A Global Church History

Figure 2.93  A University Class, Bologna (1350s).

Social framework for intellectual growth Economically, there was the development of a monetary economy that both allowed for greater prosperity and reflected societal stability. Increased trade both bolstered this prosperity and provided vital links to intellectual worlds beyond Western Europe’s borders. And, whatever else one would say about the crusades (and there is much to say for good and ill), they made Western Europe a lot of money. Western Europe also experienced relative political stability. There were wars among the Western European states during this period, but no huge inter-European wars that devastated whole societies. Additionally, there was the establishment of basic law and order by the Holy Roman Empire and the development of feudalism. This political stability allowed increased freedom of movement and supported the redevelopment of extensive city life. The reforms in the Church also supported intellectual growth. Conditions in the Church were far from perfect, but the many reforms and movements for progress we have discussed eventually had an effect on the side of good. A number of the popes were strong leaders, and even the weaker popes tended to be beneficial rulers. The reforms and new movements in monasticism reshaped the lives and expectations of both nobility and common people.

The Church from 500 to 1500

193

Educational institutions The cathedral schools started by Charlemagne in the 800s, in many cases, continued in existence. Alongside the educational efforts of monasticism, these provided educational opportunities and development for society even during the later Dark Ages. Some of the Cathedral schools eventually became famous, and students who wished to pursue higher education would flock to these. During the late Dark Ages and into the High Middle Ages, some monks were also pursuing scholarship in a more-or-less professional setting. The structure of Benedictine monasticism allowed some monks to pursue study as their monastic duties, and they would do this as seriously as possible. Eventually several of these people would join together; or, one would see interested students join particular monasteries in order to study with a noted monastic leader. Clearly, societal stability and freedom of movement made a significant difference for the development of both the cathedral and the monastic schools. Many of the most notable students and teachers traveled across hundreds of miles to find the educational setting they sought. In this developing professional setting for scholarship, by the end of the eleventh century, one can begin to speak of the development of scholasticism. “Scholasticism” is the name regularly given to the theology and philosophy characteristic of the High and Late Middle Ages (the eleventh through fifteenth centuries). It developed to a peak in the thirteenth century, in the universities, but it started with monks in monastic schools and with diocesan clergy in the cathedral schools. Bec and Anselm One of the most famous and influential monastic schools was the monastery at Bec, in Normandy (northern France). During its most famous period, its prior was Lanfranc of Pavia (1005–89, born in northern Italy; a prior is the second in command of a monastery often charged with overseeing the monastery’s practical duties). Lanfranc had been a teacher in a cathedral school in northern France, and he was convinced by Bec’s abbot (the monastic leader) to join the abbey and become a teacher there. Bec was already a significant center of learning, and with Lanfranc’s leadership it became a central influence on the development of learning in Western Europe. One of Lanfranc’s students was a young monk, also from northern Italy, named Anselm (c. 1033– 1109; also known as Anselm of Canterbury). Drawn to Bec by Lanfranc’s reputation, Anselm eventually became prior of the monastery after Lanfranc became archbishop of Canterbury. Anselm is often named the father of scholasticism. While he was in some ways continuing a tradition of scholarship, his work marks the beginning of a new era of achievement in the intellectual life of the Western Church. He eventually came, also, to follow Lanfranc as archbishop of Canterbury. Anselm was strongly influenced by Augustine’s thought. Anselm’s motto—fides quaerens intellectum, Latin for “faith seeking understanding”—reflected Augustine’s attitude that the most rigorous and fruitful development of intelligence was within the framework of the Christian faith. While Anselm, as with every other notable medieval thinker, was open to the critique and questions of reason on even the most foundational teachings of Christian faith, Anselm’s greatest application of scholarship and learning was to understand better the Christian teachings he had come to accept by faith (see Doc. 2.17).

194

A Global Church History

Figure 2.94  Anselm made Archishop of Canterbury.

In his work at Bec Abbey, Anselm produced an influential argument for the existence of God. This so-called “ontological argument” occasions lively debate and voluminous scholarship even today (see Doc. 2.16). As archbishop of Canterbury, Anselm wrote his most significant work, entitled Cur Deus Homo (Why Did God Become a Human Being?). In this text, Anselm offered a theology of Christ’s incarnation, and his work on the cross to save us, that was highly influential for most subsequent theology of the cross in Western thought (see Doc. 2.18).

The rise of universities The first universities grew out of cathedral schools in urban areas. At first, they were not so much educational institutions as guilds of scholars. The first university to have an official charter was in Bologna, in 1088; however, the universities in Paris and Oxford had been functioning realities well before this. The first universities had programs of studies divided into undergraduate and graduate faculties. All students did the same undergraduate degree in arts and letters—what today we would call the classics, rhetoric, science, and philosophy. There were then three graduate programs that students who wished to could enter: medicine, law, and theology. Theological study took the form of commentary of Scripture, commentary on the works of influential theologians from the history of the Church, along with sermons and disputations (formal debates)

The Church from 500 to 1500

195

Figure 2.95  Meeting of doctors at the University of Paris. From a sixteenth-century miniature.

based on Scripture and these theologians. The first universities, having grown out of cathedral schools, were worshipping communities; across all faculties—but with a special emphasis for those studying or teaching theology—professors and students would regularly gather together for the reading of Scripture, worship, and prayer. By gathering together scholars and students in an institution devoted to learning, universities greatly enhanced intellectual achievement in Western Europe. Because universities could be separate from the monasteries, cathedrals, and wider culture, they could establish practices and norms that grew from the academic life they were fostering. While this growth could then set them at odds with the churches and societies they came from and lived among, having a clear space for learning is what, in many ways, allowed the genius of the Middle Ages to flourish. Peter Abelard (in French, Pierre Abelard) was one of the first great university scholars and typified both the achievements of the new scholarship and its potential for conflict with the surrounding Church and state. Abelard was born in 1079 CE, near Nantes, France, to a low-ranking noble family; he died in

196

A Global Church History

Figure 2.96  Peter Abelard.

1142. A stylish and forceful figure with a highly inventive mind, Abelard’s personal life and academic career were beset by controversy. Widely popular, Abelard criticized Anselm’s theology of the atonement (see Doc. 2.21). Whereas Anselm had argued that Christ’s death stood in our place to satisfy the Father and demonstrate his love, Abelard argued that Christ’s death serves to change us internally by motivating us to love. Abelard also argued that Anselm’s theology presented God as satisfied by violence, a charge that Anselm’s theology is not necessarily guilty of but which his writings do not adequately address. Abelard also came into conflict with several of Anselm’s students in terms of the basic philosophical orientation of Christianity. In this conflict, Abelard’s attitudes reflected the reintroduction of Aristotle’s writings into Western Europe. As we will discuss below, the rediscovery of Aristotle’s major works shook the Western intellectual world; Abelard promoted the new Aristotelian perspectives, leading to significant conflict with more conservative theology. Perhaps Abelard’s most significant contribution to scholasticism, however, was his work Sic et Non (Yes and No). The standard method of theological study during Abelard’s career was to present the teachings of Scripture about a subject, and then quote relevant passages from the most influential theologians of the Church (this is known as the catena method of study or commentary). In Sic et Non, Abelard lined up quotations from Scripture and the Church theologians on either side of a long list of

The Church from 500 to 1500

197

theological issues—on each topic, some quotations supported a given position and others refuted it. Abelard may have intended this text as a teaching tool to serve as a foundation for debates. However, in a very provoking way, the work was significant in that it showed the need in Christian theology for synthetic thought and not the mere restating of what had gone before. As scholastic theology developed, acknowledging and answering objections to one’s position, often from authoritative sources, became a required component of theological discourse. His speculative and original theology brought Abelard into sharp conflict with the more conservative elements of his society. Especially, Bernard of Clairvaux responded forcefully to Abelard’s work. Abelard insisted that the Christian faith required that theological topics be subject to reasonable discussion and study. Bernard, by contrast, believed that theology transcended reason, that Christianity was most essentially a matter of heartfelt devotion, and that Abelard’s application of reason to the teachings of the faith was improper and likely to lead to heresy. Bernard succeeded in having Abelard condemned and effectively imprisoned in a monastery. In the modern world, Abelard is most often known for his romance with one of his students, Héloïse d’Argenteuil. The romance had serious effects on both Abelard and Héloïse (who bore Abelard’s child and was forced to join a monastery). Its story occupies much of Abelard’s work, Historia Calamitatum (A History of Disasters); it is also the subject of a series of letters between Abelard and Héloïse. This aspect of Abelard’s life was widely unknown in the Middle Ages, with the Historia and the letters receiving widespread publication only in the seventeenth century.

Rediscovery of Aristotle Almost all of medieval theology and philosophy in Western Europe before the 1100s was Platonic in character. Little of Plato’s own writings survived in the West—Plato’s Timaeus was available, but little else—but the character of his thought marked medieval theology, especially as it was mediated through Augustine. The works of Aristotle were almost entirely lost; only part of his work on logic survived in the Latin tradition. As universities formed and grew, there was a saying that “one does not grow old in the arts.” This meant that there was simply not enough depth and substance in the philosophy, rhetoric, science, and literature that undergraduates studied to occupy one’s interest when one matured as a scholar. Again, Plato’s more substantial works, such as the Republic, were unknown, and little of the Greek literary heritage had survived. Aristotle’s works had survived in the Muslim world, however, and they were also known and studied in the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire. Especially in the Islamic states located in Northern Africa and the Near East, there was a strong tradition of commentary on Aristotle’s works, from authors such as Avicenna (980–1037) and Averroes (1126–98), which marked a highly developed philosophy. Jewish rabbis, such as Moses Maimonides (1135–1204), who lived in these areas, also developed a notable tradition of thought marked both by Aristotelian thought and the traditional sources of Judaism. One can argue that this Muslim and Jewish thought of the eleventh and twelfth centuries produced one of philosophy’s golden ages. The Byzantine Empire also experienced one of its most distinguished periods during this time in terms of philosophical education and development, again with an increase in interest in Aristotle (whose works had never been lost there, but who had previously been studied mainly for his logic).

198

A Global Church History

Figure 2.97  The School of Athens by Raphael.

Avicenna (c. 930–1037), also known as Ibn Sina, was one of the premier voices of the Islamic golden age, the flourishing of Islamic philosophy, science, medicine, and mathematics that occurred in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Avicenna was born in modern-day Uzbekistan, and he became a prominent scholar in the Persian Empire. Avicenna is said to have memorized the entire Koran by the age of ten. He had wide-ranging interests, and he published copious work in numerous fields—most notably in medicine, science, theology, and philosophy.

In the 1100s, due to the new trade routes and exposure to the Eastern world brought about by the Crusades, Aristotle’s works were translated from Arabic to Latin and introduced into the scholarly world of Western Europe. By the twelfth century, there were translations directly from the original Greek into Latin. Encounter with the wide-ranging Greek philosopher changed Western thought in monumental ways. While both Aristotle and Plato are extraordinarily deep and complex thinkers, a basic difference in their philosophical attitudes is that Plato’s interests centered on the transcendent realities that ground the universe of our experience; Aristotle began with the world of experience and moved from there to understand transcendent reality. So, a Platonic attitude in theology would expect that humans have innate knowledge of God, with the knowledge and reality of God being a basic, though perhaps tacit, aspect of human reality and experience. Aristotelians, by contrast, would expect that knowledge of God comes from examining and reasoning about God’s effects—namely, the character of the created world.

The Church from 500 to 1500

199

Figure 2.98  Aristotle Teaching, with Arabic Inscription, from c. 1220.

While Plato had little interest in empirical science, then, Aristotle wrote works in physics, biology, optics, and other sciences. Plato’s “politics” in the Republic proceeds from reasonable discussion alone and is really more an examination of the human soul than a work in political theory. Aristotle, by contrast, collected and analyzed the constitutions of about a hundred really existing city-states, and he considered ethics to be a subset of what one can learn about human political interaction. While Platonic thinkers such as Augustine and Anselm made great use of reason and philosophy in understanding the Christian faith, the basic character of Platonic thought, as it developed, was to take the beginning points and contents of the faith as transcendent matters given to human beings. Aristotelians, by contrast, tended to expect the religious teachings and practices themselves to be subject to rational analysis, and on that basis for it to be possible to affirm the transcendent and ultimate. In the conflict between Bernard and Abelard mentioned above, then, one can see two very sincere Christians insisting on different understandings of what it means to believe. Bernard’s traditional Platonic perspective emphasized the given-ness of Christian faith and the need to live in intimacy with the transcendent reality that grounds us. Abelard, influenced by the new Aristotelian thought, emphasized the rational nature of reality, created and redeemed by God, and our need to examine even the most basic teachings.

200

A Global Church History

Platonic thought does not have to result in fideism—that is, the attitude that one should “just believe” religious teachings without basis. Augustine and Anselm—both influenced by Platonism—show powerfully questing minds able and willing to engage the most basic subjects. Nor does Aristotelianism have to produce rationalism—that is, the attitude that one should believe only what one can oneself show to be reasonable. One can understand, however, how the traditional Platonic thinkers of Western Europe often thought that the advocates of the new learning were shaking the Christian faith in ways that were rationalistic and proud; one can also see why those who supported the new perspectives often saw the more traditional theologians as irrational dogmatists. In the universities, then, scholars began to grow old in the arts. In Aristotle, one finds a rich examination of the world that can fruitfully occupy one’s life. In his ethics, for instance, we find a moving explanation that one should lay down one’s life for one’s friend, not for anything one would gain but simply for the sake of the friend. He also had far-reaching examinations of metaphysics, rhetoric, drama, natural science, psychology, and a host of other philosophical topics. Apart from the way that these understandings were applied to the Christian faith, some voices wondered why one would even need the faith, given such a powerful and expansive rational philosophy. Several prominent thinkers, however, believed not only that the Christian faith provided the necessary and comprehensive way to understand reality, but also that it would emerge even stronger through the rational scrutiny and development made possible by the newly introduced Aristotelian thought. Scholars at the University of Paris spearheaded this movement. Most important among these was Albert the

Figure 2.99  Studying Philosophy at a Medieval University.

The Church from 500 to 1500

201

Great (1200–80 CE), who had both scientific and theological interests, and who paved the way for his great pupil, Thomas Aquinas. Thomas Aquinas was born in 1225, in Aquino, northern Italy, and died in 1274. His family was of German noble descent. When Thomas felt a vocation to become a monk at the age of thirteen or fourteen, his family arranged for him to enter a wealthy Benedictine monastery at which he might someday become abbot. Thomas, however, was attracted to the Dominicans, who were still a new order and dedicated to poverty. His family, firmly opposed to this then-disreputable course, held Thomas prisoner in one of their castles for a year. Eventually, though, they acquiesced to his choice and set him free to take monastic vows and begin studies. Beginning in Italy, at the University of Naples, Thomas became well educated in the new Aristotelian learning. He then went to study at the University of Paris with Albert the Great. Thomas was a quiet student whom his colleagues initially thought too stupid to speak more. Albert, though, saw the extent of Thomas’s talent and predicted he would someday shake the world. Thomas went on to teach at the University of Paris as well as in Italy.

Figure 2.100  Saint Thomas Aquinas, Protector of the University of Cusco.

202

A Global Church History

Bonaventure (1221–74), born Giovanni di Fidanza in Italy, was one of the greatest theologians of the Middle Ages. An exact contemporary of Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure also studied and taught at the University of Paris. He took his monastic name (Bonaventure) upon joining the Franciscans at the age of twenty-three, and he eventually came to be the minister general of the order. Bonaventure was a notable interpreter of Augustine’s work. While Bonaventure promoted and practiced extensive rational analysis of Christian teaching, he believed that knowledge of God must start by faith and be perfected by union with Christ (see Doc. 2.30).

Figure 2.101  Saint Bonaventure tenant l’arbre de la Rédemption by Vittore Crivelli.

Thomas produced written works in four categories: commentaries on Aristotle’s works, commentaries on the Bible, works in systematic theology, and topical works on disputed issues (these were edited versions of oral debates). His greatest work is the Summa Theologica, which he wrote as a textbook for his theology students. While Aquinas uses Aristotelian categories and thought throughout the Summa, its basic structure is Platonic; in many ways, Aquinas worked synthetically to reconcile the divergent

The Church from 500 to 1500

203

streams in the Christian theology he received, and to do so in a way that comes from the nature of the Christian faith itself. The theology Thomas produced is strongly optimistic, flowing from the confidence that God is infinite, that God is love, and that the universe reflects God’s character and nature. His theology was also highly realistic, seeing the way that sin and evil corrupt us apart from the mighty way that God works to redeem (see Doc. 2.31). He was conservative in the sense that he always sought to understand and conform himself to the central teachings of the Christian faith. He was progressive in that he was willing to follow the twin course of faith and reason wherever it would go, examining everything and using the best available understandings from any field of learning; he believed that faith and reason would never ultimately contradict, though the way that they could be resolved may be beyond our grasp in this life (see Doc. 2.32). Thomas’s thought—along with the rest of Western theology influenced by Aristotle—was controversial in his day. The bishop of Paris condemned a series of propositions connected with Thomas’s teaching in 1277, three years after Thomas’s death. However, Pope John XXII named Thomas a saint in 1323, and Dante depicted Thomas as the greatest of the heavenly theologians in The Divine Comedy (completed in 1320); in many ways, Dante’s epic poem is an artistic outworking of Thomas’s theological worldview (see Doc. 2.35). By the time of the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century, Catholics recognized Thomas as the Church’s greatest theologian. He is also often highly regarded by Protestants today, as well.

The rise of experimental science A further aspect of the Aristotelian revolution in Western Europe, and one that would have far-reaching consequences, was strong development in the study of natural science. In particular, scholars began to conduct careful experiments to test the viewpoints received from common sense and from the science of the past. Ironically, this new research would overturn many of the scientific findings that Aristotle himself had bequeathed to the Western world. Roger Bacon (c. 1214–92) was one of the most important leaders of the new empirical scientific method. Bacon was an English Franciscan monk and both studied and taught at Oxford University. He was important for defending the legitimacy of Aristotle’s influence in Christian Europe, writing a report to the pope defending the new learning. Bacon was both a theologian and a scientist; and, he argued that science, known as “natural philosophy,” should be included in the philosophical training of theologians. Having a somewhat abrasive personality, Bacon sought both to promote new scientific learning and to reform the beliefs and practices of the Church. He may have been imprisoned for a time, but whether this was on account of his scientific pursuits or because of his attraction to certain marginal religious movements (such as some then-contemporary prophetic movements) is uncertain. As a theologian, Bacon identified four causes of error in the Church: zz

Arguments from authority. An argument from authority credits a position as being true because an authority says it is true; Bacon did not refuse arguments from authority completely but did think they were overused;

204

A Global Church History

Figure 2.102  Roger Bacon conducting an Alchemical Experiment in a Vaulted Cloister.

zz

Untested customs or habits accepted as true;

zz

The common view of the populace, or untested popular opinion;

zz

Ignorant pretense, or pretending or assuming that one knows what one really does not know.

Bacon also believed that the Latin translation of the Scriptures universally used for centuries in the West (the Vulgate, translated by Jerome in the fifth century) contained many errors. He recommended study of ancient Greek and Hebrew to overcome this limitation, arguing that the source of the Church’s theology should be the Scriptures as they had been originally written. He also produced important works in grammar and linguistics. As a scientist, Bacon conducted many experiments to verify or disprove the scientific opinions he had received; and one can see him applying many of the same critiques that he leveled at the Church’s theology to the practices and beliefs of science. For example, popular opinion in Bacon’s day held that one could use goat’s blood to cut a diamond. Bacon said that this was untrue because he had tried it and failed. Bacon’s scientific works included research in optics, alchemy, and astrology, and he was the first European to record the formula for gunpowder. Many of the revolutions this section deals with reverberated mainly within university and monastery walls. They were the kinds of radical changes that transform societies over centuries and that renovate

The Church from 500 to 1500

205

the cultural landscape by working changes deep within it. The shape of both the medieval and modern world results from them, and from the history of scholasticism that followed.

The Late Middle Ages The distinctive character of the Middle Ages, and in many ways the identity of Western Europe, developed in the eleventh through the thirteenth centuries as the West was finally able to overcome the centuries of devastation that followed the fall of the Western Roman Empire. In the High Middle Ages, then, a Western European society emerged that was shaped by the expanded world of the Crusades, the balance of power between the Holy Roman Empire and the papacy, monastic renewal and reform, governmental stability brought by an effective feudalism, a growing and more stable economy, and the distinct intellectual formation and ordering of life brought by scholasticism and the new universities. This new European civilization was, by any account, one of the great cultural peaks of Western culture. As Western Europe moved into the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, however, it was tested and transformed in ways that came to set the agenda for the modern age. While still being distinctly medieval, the political, religious, and intellectual landscape of Europe moved away from the great synthesis achieved in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. This new Europe was in many ways defined by decadent leadership, devastating wars, and debilitating disease. The world of the European nationstates, the Renaissance, and the Protestant Reformation, however, grew out of the struggles of the Late Middle Ages.

The beginnings of Nationalism During the late Dark Ages and the High Middle Ages (the ninth through the thirteenth centuries), the political structures of Europe had been developing along two competing lines. One was the old tribal and ethnic kingships, such as with the Franks or Lombards. The second was the Holy Roman Empire, which was an attempt to bring all of these tribal states under one rule. The feudal oaths that bound Western European society together and gave it stability operated mainly within the tribal and ethnic kingdoms. The top level of nobility from these kingdoms would, in theory, owe fealty to the Holy Roman emperor. After the twelfth century, though, the Holy Roman Empire was never what Charlemagne would have wanted from it. Some of the emperors were powerful leaders, but the tribal kingdoms developed more and more autonomy as the Middle Ages progressed. As these feudal kings became more powerful, the areas under their control began to operate and have an identity as nations: autonomous political communities that see themselves as having a shared history and a common destiny. France, Spain, and England were becoming nations during this time. Significantly, Germany and Italy were not. Germany was the home of the Holy Roman emperors, while Italy was the home of the Papal States and the pope, and both areas were preoccupied with trying to gain sovereignty over each other. Neither Italy nor Germany became unified nations until the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Nationalism brought great devastation to Europe. In the thirteenth century, the newborn nations of France and England became engaged in a great war. Starting in 1337, it lasted until 1453 and eventually involved most of Western Europe. In hindsight, it was named the Hundred Years’ War. In this war, whose

206

A Global Church History

Figure 2.103  Depiction of the Siege of Orleans of 1429.

battles were storied by Shakespeare, Joan of Arc was martyred (she was condemned by the Church as a witch and heretic in 1431 and burned at the stake; she was named a saint by the Church in 1909). At the war’s end, England had lost most of its land on the French mainland; the disquiet of the English nobles with this result contributed to the long and devastating English civil war, the Wars of the Roses (1455–87). Along with the Black Death, which we will discuss next, the Hundred Years’ War brought great devastation to Europe. Famine and pestilence wrecked the French and English countryside. The war also firmly established French and English nationalism. Militarily, the war led to the first professional standing armies in Western Europe since the Roman Empire; it was also the first war in which artillery use was prominent. While the Black Death—as we will discuss—led to democratization of power in labor, the new tactics of the Hundred Years’ War led to democratization in military power. Heavy cavalry, the knights on horseback bound to the aristocracy, was no longer dominant due to the advent of foot soldiers armed with effective distance weapons (such as longbows and eventually firearms).

The Black Death One of the most significant events of the Late Middle Ages was a devastating plague that engulfed Europe. The first and worst wave of the Black Death (or, as the medievals called it, the Great Mortality) was from 1347 to 1350. It was probably the bubonic plague and the pneumonic plague, spread through fleas and airborne contamination (sneezes and coughs).

The Church from 500 to 1500

207

Figure 2.104  The plague of Florence in 1348, as described in Boccaccio’s Decameron. Etching by L. Sabatelli.

A deadly pandemic of historic proportions, the Black Death began in central Asia and spread through the new trade routes and by Genghis Khan’s Mongol invaders. For nearly a century, waves of plague swept across Europe. By 1450, the population of Western Europe had declined by 60 percent compared to what it had been at the plague’s start, due to both wars and plague. Some areas were completely depopulated. The Black Death left people feeling very afraid. People would often flee from rural areas and move to cities, thinking that they were safer. Of course, medieval Europe lacked modern understandings of the importance of basic sanitation and of the nature of communicable diseases. The stability and confidence of the High Middle Ages came to be replaced by the anxiety of facing a terrible disease that no one in their societies understood or could control; this was in addition to the horrific loss of life brought by the plague itself. What was left by the plague was often taken by war. Famine and economic collapse resulted. Even before the Black Death, there had been typhoid epidemics in many rural areas. Additionally, the move to the cities brought about by the plague, and by the emerging European wars, led to widespread depopulation in rural areas. Whole villages were wiped out. Previously the serfs—agricultural laborers who had restricted rights—could be taken for granted by their lords. For the first time, though, serfs and other commoners became important due to this restriction of the rural labor force in a largely agrarian society.

208

A Global Church History

Decline in the Church As we have seen with the rise of nationalism—and its attendant wars—and with the rampaging plague that devastated Europe, the move from the High Middle Ages to the Late Middle Ages was in many ways a move from an age of growth and stability to an age characterized by decline and anxiety. Sometimes, as with the Black Death, the source of degeneration and uncertainly swept over Europe from without. In other cases, such as with nationalism, the character of the decline was linked to the new societal dynamics. All of these societal changes affected the Church. To begin with, the papacy, established as a major European power by Innocent III, entered one of its more problematic eras. A long series of Church councils then sought order to redress the resulting issues and to institute other needed reforms in the Church. At a deeper level, the character of scholasticism changed, seeking to solve some of the issues inherent in Aquinas’s great synthesis and in the High Medieval conflict between Platonism and Aristotelianism, but thereby also turning away from much of the greatness inherent in those tensions. The papacy One reflection of the growing nationalism was an attempt by one of the new national powers to take over the papacy. From 1309 through 1377, the papacy moved from Rome to the city of Avignon. The pope was still considered to be the bishop of Rome during this time. However, beginning with Pope Clement V, he and all his court lived in a resort city in the south of France. The move to Avignon had three purposes. First, it allowed the pope to get away from the intransigent bureaucracy and countless minor Church officials that had emerged over the centuries in the city of Rome. Second, the city of Rome was not a pleasant or healthy place to live; its population had long ago overgrown the capacity of its infrastructure, and sanitary conditions in the city were bad. Third, it assured the French king and nobility that they would have the major say over who the pope was and what he did; this was a privilege they were willing to pay for.

Figure 2.105  The Papal Palace in Avignon, France.

The Church from 500 to 1500

209

Popular opinion outside of France strongly opposed this move. The importance of the city of Rome, the great imperial capital where both the Apostle Peter and the Apostle Paul had suffered martyrdom, was a major factor of establishing the pope’s prestige and apostolic mission. Should he not live there, where he claimed to be bishop? Also, those who were not French felt excluded by this move and did not like the papacy to be under the control of the French nobility. Under great popular pressure, and urged by important spiritual figures such as Catherine of Sienna, Pope Gregory XI moved the papacy back to the city of Rome after sixty-eight years in Avignon. Instead of solving the papacy’s problems, though, this move—in tandem with the nationalism that had provoked the move in the first place—brought about one of the papacy’s greatest crises. The pope elected after Gregory XI’s death (Pope Urban VI) was Italian, not French. Upon his election, the French nobility gathered a number of cardinals together and declared Urban’s election invalid. They appointed a rival pope, Clement VII, who presided from Avignon. This split in the papacy is known as the Great Papal Schism. Each of these two rival popes drew support from various areas of Europe, and each of them had successors. For the next forty years, two to four popes claimed primacy in the Church. The Great Papal Schism was eventually solved by the Conciliar Movement, which we will discuss below. However, once the papacy was freed from foreign national control, it increasingly came under the control of powerful Italian merchant families, such as the Medici’s in Florence and the Borgia’s in Venice. These wealthy families, and others like them, were the leading figures in Italian city-states that were beginning to act like small nations themselves.

Figure 2.106  Santi di Tito: Portrait of Niccolò Machiavelli.

210

A Global Church History

Dante Alighieri’s (1265–1321) epic poem, The Divine Comedy, ranks among the greatest literary works ever written. In it, Dante depicts himself as being guided through hell, purgatory, and heaven, led first by the Latin poet Virgil and then by Beatrice, a saintly woman Dante became devoted to in Florence before her untimely death. The Divine Comedy provides modern readers with not only a spiritual illumination but also a wide-ranging picture of the thought-world and politics of the Late Middle Ages (see Doc. 2.35). (“Comedy” in the terms of medieval literature, referred to a serious fictional work with a happy, not a tragic, ending.) Dante wrote the work while in exile, partially in hopes that it would gain him reentry to his native Florence. However, he died still in exile, in Ravenna.

Some of the resulting popes, such as Alexander VI (born in 1431 and died in 1503; he was a Borgia) were very Machiavellian figures. In fact, Niccolò Machiavelli wrote glowingly of Alexander and his son, Caesar Borgia, in The Prince. It now seems likely that Machiavelli intended this work to wake Europe up to the nature of such amoral despots, given the view from inside he had to Italian politics. For well over a century, then, the papacy was either displaced from the city of Rome or divided among rival claimants. And, the figures that became pope after these issues were solved fit no one’s idea of spiritual leadership. Both within and without Italy, then, the papacy came to be distrusted. The Conciliar Movement The Conciliar Movement (or Conciliarism) resulted from the need to end the Great Papal Schism. The Council of Pisa—the first of these reform-minded councils—was called in 1409 because rival claimants could not agree about who was really pope. The purpose of Conciliarism was to make Church councils, not the papacy, the normative organ of Church government, thereby bringing about needed Church reforms. The Council of Pisa declared the two existing popes to be deposed and invalid, and it named a pope to replace them. However, the sitting popes—one in Rome and the other in Avignon—refused to accept the council’s decision. As a result, three popes then claimed to be the real pope. The Council of Constance (1414–18) was better organized and supported than the Council of Pisa had been. It deposed the pope named by the Council of Pisa; the popes in Rome and Avignon either resigned under pressure or fled into exile (see Doc. 2.38). The council then elected Martin V as pope (he ruled from 1417 to 1431). Martin’s election was generally accepted, ending the Great Papal Schism. While the Conciliar Movement succeeded in solving the Great Papal Schism, it abysmally failed in introducing any other needed reforms. In some cases, it directly opposed reforms; in others it was merely impotent to bring them about. Conciliarism existed because of the need to reconstitute the papacy and reign in its power. But, the popes claimed that the results of Church councils were only valid given their own approval. Therefore, once a unified papacy had been reestablished, the popes simply declared invalid anything that encroached upon their power. Beyond the Conciliar Movement’s inability to govern and reform, it also worked to suppress voices calling for even deeper reforms in the Church. One of the Council of Constance’s final acts was to burn popular Bohemian reformer and pastor Jan Hus at the stake. As we will discuss below, Hus’s reforms anticipated Luther’s a century before the Protestant Reformation.

The Church from 500 to 1500

211

Figure 2.107  Jan Hus at the Council of Constance.

The Conciliar Movement ended in 1449 with the Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence. This council was held as a last-gasp effort by the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire to secure Western support against the invading Ottoman Turks. While the Eastern emperor and the patriarch of Constantinople agreed to it, the Byzantine populace rejected it because of the way it ceded both theological and political primacy to the West. Constantinople, the Eastern Roman capital, fell to the Turks in 1453. Scholasticism Despite the way that Thomas Aquinas’s brilliance came to be acknowledged a century after his death, in his immediate context people respected him but did not fully appreciate his work. Thomas’s work was controversial, as shown by the condemnations by the bishop of Paris in 1277. Thomas had a number of devoted students, but they tended to devote themselves to organizing and publishing their master’s work; none of them rose to become a theologian whose original work would impact later generations. Thomas’s Summa Theologica did not become used as a theology textbook, as he had hoped, until centuries later. Even his own order, the Dominicans, merely took the middle part of it to use as a practical manual for teaching ethics. The condemnations of 1277 attacked Aristotelianism as represented by Thomas and several other prominent theologians. They were not, however, able to turn back the tide of the new learning. The scholasticism that followed after Thomas had a strongly Aristotelian character. What it often lacked, though, was Thomas’s work of reconciling the questing and testing role of reason with the transcendent nature of God and his work, given through the Christian faith.

Figure 2.108  Europe in about AD 1500.

212 A Global Church History

The Church from 500 to 1500

213

Figure 2.109  John (Johannes) Duns Scotus.

John Duns Scotus (c. 1266–1308) was one of the Middle Ages’ most significant logicians. He was born in either Scotland or Ireland and studied at Cambridge University. A Franciscan, he taught at Paris, Cologne, Oxford, and Cambridge. He was named as “blessed” by Pope John Paul II in 1993, partially in recognition of Scotus’s defending the doctrine of the Virgin Mary’s Immaculate Conception (the teaching that Mary herself was born without the stain of original sin by the prevenient grace of Christ given to her by God). Scotus was in many ways influenced by Thomas. In his influential teaching, though, Scotus made two philosophical and theological moves in which he disagreed with Thomas. These came to set the character of much later medieval (and modern) thought. First, while Scotus agreed with Thomas that being (whether something exists or not) is the most basic category of thought, he insisted that being is a category univocal between God and us. In other words, either something is or it is not, and both God and created being satisfy the logical requirements to affirm existence. “Existence” then becomes something equally affirmed of both God and created reality. While Thomas agreed, of course, that God exists and that we exist, he believed that the word “exist” means something different in each case. God’s existence is necessary, from himself, eternal, and not capable of change. Our existence is contingent, depending on God, temporal, and always changing. Thomas thereby affirmed the reality both of God and of creation, but in the very fact of doing so he affirmed the absolute transcendence and mystery of God; he also thereby taught the way that created reality’s nature and validity depends on its relation to the completely transcendent being of God.

214

A Global Church History

The second trend of Scotus’s theology was to make theology’s central concern to be exactly explaining what God could do according to the completely unrestricted working of his power. In other words, logical possibility came to be the most basic category for theology. God was affirmed to be able to do anything that was not a logical contradiction. While Thomas agreed that God is omnipotent and completely free, he insisted that theology must primarily investigate what is according to God’s infinite wisdom and love. Because God has a deeply meaningful reason for anything he does, the work of his power results from the infinite nature of God’s wisdom and love. The nature of wisdom and love, then, becomes what proper theology rightly investigates, not anything we can think of to affirm as possibly logically coherent. Scotus’s point was to make theology more logically coherent and to affirm the complete freedom of God. However, it is arguable that by making our existence parallel to God’s existence, we end up conforming our understandings of God to our existence (only affirming, somehow, that God is infinitely far above us). While Scotus’s intention was also to defend God’s freedom, by emphasizing God’s power above anything else, it is arguable that he de-emphasized the way that God’s creative work flows from, and is not limited by, his infinite wisdom and love. The generation following Scotus was characterized by the thought of the English Franciscan, William of Ockham (1288–1347). Ockham studied at Oxford and worked in logic, physics, and theology. He served as a theologian and adviser both in the papal court at Avignon and (after he fled Avignon due to a conflict with the pope) in the court of the Holy Roman emperor.

Figure 2.110  Sketch labeled frater Occham iste (this is Brother Ockham) from a manuscript of Ockham’s Summa Logicae.

The Church from 500 to 1500

215

Ockham was a pioneer in the philosophical position known as nominalism. Nominalism is an extreme form of the Aristotelian emphasis on individual existing entities that have their own validity. Nominalism is opposed to the Platonic emphasis on transcendent reality that grounds, makes possible, and renders meaningful the existence of the individual things. While nominalist tendencies had been present in Western European thought as early as Peter Abelard, most of the theologians and philosophers before Ockham believed that such ideas as justice, beauty, wisdom, and goodness were real aspects of the infinite mind of God upon which the various individual acts and things in the world depended for their meaning and being. Ockham, however, argued that the existence of these supervening meanings was logically unnecessary and should therefore be denied (one can see here the application of his famous logical Razor). Rather, “justice,” “goodness,” “beauty,” and so forth were merely names that we apply to individual entities; they do not indicate those entities’ participation in a transcendent reality that gives them their essential character. Reality was, Ockham argued, simply established by God by the action of his will, and we can say nothing more about it. In Ockham’s ethics, for example, he emphasized divine commands by which God established right and wrong for the world. While Thomas, of course, recognized that God gives commands, he believed that the nature of these commands reflected and revealed God’s wisdom; following these commands cohered with and fulfilled the nature of the world God created. Ockham, however, deemed this connection to God’s nature and the world’s purpose to be superfluous. For him, God acted mysteriously in absolute freedom, and right and wrong in the created order reflected nothing beyond the divine commands themselves. While a highly adept logician, Ockham did not believe that human reason could give one any access to God’s being or nature. Especially after his conflict with Pope John XXII, Ockham was an important voice in promoting political and philosophical viewpoints that were highly significant for the modern age in such areas as separation of Church and state, the supremacy of the secular state over the Church, modern ideas of property rights, and a number of important viewpoints in logic and epistemology.

Mystics and reformers While scholastic theology became more technical and detached from worshipping communities of faith, the Late Middle Ages also experienced a significant growth in mystical or spiritual theology as well as numerous calls for reform in the Church. In both cases, theological growth was following emphases that have always been present in Christianity, worked out in the dark and changing times of the Late Middle Ages. Has there ever been a Christian generation that did not seek to know God intimately, and in which there was not a need for reform in the Church? Mystics Western mystical theology tends to follow three main tenets, all of which follow Augustine’s theology and spirituality. zz

Purification: deep renunciation of sin and the world, often through asceticism and monastic commitment;

216

A Global Church History

zz

Illumination: revelation of Christian truth and experience of the divine presence;

zz

Unification: becoming bonded with the divine self.

The lives of the mystics were often filled with controversy. In many cases, they felt called to bring about change in the Church and in their societies. Many of the mystical theologians were female, giving us some of the earliest Christian theological works written by women. Women could not enroll in the medieval universities, although they could receive private tutelage; a number of the male mystical authors had not received university education in theology, either. Hence, while many of the mystics (both male and female) were clearly well educated and philosophically literate, their work generally did not follow the highly technical forms and philosophical tendencies found in such scholastics as Scotus and Ockham. In the mystics, what we find instead is a strange and beautiful—though sometimes terrifying—world in which human beings grapple with being free and failing moral creatures in need of relation with their holy creator. The visions the mystics sometimes speak about, and the other experiences of God’s presence their lives often evidenced, displayed the frailty of human existence before God. They also,

Figure 2.111  Vision of the angelic hierarchy based on Hildegard of Bingen.

The Church from 500 to 1500

217

though, showed the grandeur and love of God, who moved in all things in both judgment and redemption. Hildegard of Bingen  One of the most important mystics of the High Medieval age was Hildegard of Bingen (1098–1179). She became one of the foremost voices for Christianity in her day and prefigured the prominent role of female mystical authors in the Late Middle Ages. She was named a saint and Doctor of the Church by the Roman Catholic Church in 2012 by Pope Benedict XVI. A “Doctor of the Church” is a title given to important theologians; although there are over ten thousand named Catholic saints, there are only thirty-five named Doctors of the Church, and only four of these (including Hildegard) are female. Hildegard was a writer, composer of music, playwright, preacher, mystic, visionary, healer, herbalist, poet, letter writer, illuminator of manuscripts, and reluctant politician. She was also the abbess of two Benedictine monasteries, both of which she founded. Her interests included ecological, botanical,

Figure 2.112  Hildegard of Bingen.

218

A Global Church History

and medicinal topics as well as a highly original, but orthodox, theology. Her music is still performed and recorded by artists today. Hildegard is also the only medieval woman known to have made a preaching tour. Bingen is in modern-day Germany, and Hildegard’s native language was German. Her writings, however, were in Latin, partially through the use of a secretary. She had little formal theological training, and the conventions of her writing have little in common with the formal scholastic theology being developed in her day. She did, as a Benedictine nun, pray the Divine Office every day and had a deep knowledge of the Scriptures. Her most important written work is probably Scivias, a work of visionary and mystical theology with a dramatic and poetic section at the end. To authenticate her writings, Hildegard appealed for counsel to the prominent churchman Bernard of Clairvaux, who enthusiastically supported her. Her writings were also examined and approved by the pope. Hildegard’s theology reveals an understanding of cosmic history centered on Christ. All of human history, and the very form of the created world, speak of him, wait for him, and rejoice in him. Her work declares the integrated nature of God’s work in creation with his work in salvation, with his very eternal being, shone forth in time. Here is a strongly positive view of creation, not one darkened beyond value by sin; it is also a strongly positive view of human nature, taken on and redeemed by Christ, and receptive of the word of God (see Doc. 2.23). Julian of Norwich  During the Late Middle Ages, Julian of Norwich (1342–1416) wrote the first Englishlanguage work known to be authored by a woman: Showings, or Revelations of Divine Love. In her life before taking monastic vows, Julian nearly died from the Black Death. When she was given Last Rites, she had visions of Christ, crucified and glorified, and also of the Virgin Mary. Julian recovered from her illness and wrote down the contents of her visions soon afterward. She later produced a much longer theological interpretation of the visions after years of monastic life. “Julian” may not, in fact, have been her name. She became an anchorite at St. Julian’s Church in Norwich, and it is possible the name comes from the church. Anchorites were monks and nuns who traditionally went out to practice solitude in the Egyptian desert. No part of England is more than 70 miles (113 kilometers) from the seacoast, and as this aspect of monasticism adapted itself to the British Isles, anchorites would practice solitude by being confined to a small room in a church building. Just as the Egyptian monastics became spiritual leaders in their societies as people sought out their wisdom and prayers, so also Julian’s warm and optimistic spirit provided comfort and guidance across England. She is venerated as a saint in the Anglican and Lutheran churches. “But all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.”3 This quote, attributed by Julian to Christ on the cross, shows the hopeful nature of Julian’s theology. It is no Pollyanna saying; its context is the deep brokenness of human sin and the reality of suffering. Julian lived in a world experiencing great anxiety and distress, and she herself may have lost her family to the plague that nearly killed her; she was also keenly aware of how our sinfulness sets us at enmity with God. But she believed that there is

Julian of Norwich, Revelations of Divine Love, trans. E. Spearing (New York: Penguin Books, 1999), 22.

3

The Church from 500 to 1500

219

Figure 2.113  Statue of Julian of Norwich by David Holgate, West front, Norwich Cathedral.

a deeper and truer world, hidden in Christ, which is continually breaking through and transforming the world of our experience. It is the work of God’s providence by which he creates us and brings us to perfection, through grace. God’s great work reveals the true nature of the world, and of our human selves, and his compassion will be victorious over evil in the end. Catherine of Sienna  During her thirty-three years in this life, Caterina di Giacomo di Benincasa, or Catherine of Sienna (1347–80), exerted such spiritual and societal influence that she has been named a Doctor of the Church and one of the patron saints for her native Italy and the continent of Europe. Experiencing mystical visions of Christ, Saint Dominic, and the Virgin Mary since her childhood, Catherine recounted a vision received at the age of twenty-one in which she received mystical marriage to Jesus. Catherine joined a tertiary order of the Dominicans, a level of monastic commitment that joined her to monastic devotion and vows but allowed her to continue living in her home. She began giving away her family’s clothes and food to the poor, visiting the sick in the hospitals, and living a life of quietness, asceticism, and prayer.

220

A Global Church History

Figure 2.114  The Miraculous Communion of Saint Catherine of Siena by Gionani di Paolo.

She soon felt called by Jesus to leave her near-seclusion at home, though, and become active in public life. Through travels throughout northern Italy and through many letters, she encouraged ethical reform among both clergy and laity through loving devotion to Christ. She also promoted reconciliation and peace among several warring Italian city-states. Many of her most notable efforts, though, were devoted to reforming and then supporting the papacy. Catherine met with Pope Gregory XI, then resident in Avignon, and entered into a correspondence with him that was influential in convincing him to return the papacy from France to Rome. Gregory also asked her to help mediate peace between the papacy and the city of Florence. Upon Gregory’s death, Catherine was active in supporting his successor, Urban VI, at the start of the Great Papal Schism. Catherine practiced great asceticism and was known for deep devotion to Jesus. Aside from her many letters, her main theological work is The Dialogue, in which she recounts mystical visions of Christ

The Church from 500 to 1500

221

Figure 2.115  Thomas à Kempis.

and gives an account of God the Father’s providence that encompasses heaven, purgatory, and hell. As with Hildegard and Julian, Catherine offers a hope-filled vision of a world that so often seems dominated by suffering and futility. Her focus is on spiritual advance, in which we turn away from selfserving interests and grow in virtue, through loving commitment to Christ. Thomas à Kempis  Not all of the spiritual literature in the Middle Ages was mystical or visionary in character. In The Imitation of Christ, Thomas Hemerken—also known as Thomas à Kempis—produced a spiritual masterpiece of enduring value. Thomas (1380–1471) was born in Kempen, in the Rhineland of Germany. He was educated by the Brothers of the Common Life, a movement whose communities emphasized simplicity, piety, and service, and he became a canon regular (a priest who follows monastic vows but who lives and ministers in the community). The world that Thomas entered was marked by plague, by long and devastating wars, and by the Great Papal Schism. His writings reflect a search for peace and stability that flows from the core monastic conviction that humility is the source of all the other virtues. Thomas thereby exhorted people to live lives of simplicity, laying aside their pride to follow Christ. He emphasized submitting to Christ’s teaching and being devoted to him in worship, particularly through Holy Communion, yielding to God’s wisdom in every aspect to life. Savonarola  Not all of the mystical voices of the Late Middle Ages were peaceful. Girolamo Savonarola (1452–98), an Italian mystic and preacher, briefly became moral dictator of the city-state of Florence, having driven the ruling Medici family from the city. He was born to a notable family in Ferrara and earned an undergraduate degree in arts at the university there. He joined the Dominicans at the Convent of San Dominico, wanting to become a knight for Christ.

222

A Global Church History

By the end of the fifteenth century, many of the currents that would shape the modern world were already strongly flowing. The Renaissance (literally, “the rebirth”) was a cultural and intellectual movement broadly present in Western Europe from the fifteenth through the seventeenth centuries (see Docs. 3.2 and 3.5). It was anticipated by a comparable Renaissance in the Byzantine East a century earlier and accelerated when many Byzantine scholars and artists fled the Eastern Empire when it fell to the Turks in 1453. Although the Renaissance carried forward many tendencies from the Late Middle Ages, its selfperception was a rejection of the Middle Ages, looking for a return to the scholarship and values of the ancient Romans and Greeks. One of the key tenets of the Renaissance was ad fontes, to the source! This dictum reflected a humanism that realigned European intellectual life with the Greek and Latin classical literature that was again becoming available in Western Europe. It also reflected the growth in historical and literary studies that looked beyond and discounted the common scholastic viewpoints. The reintroduction of Aristotle two centuries before, on the one hand, engendered a strong rejection from conservative scholarship and piety and also, on the other hand, called some to question the totalizing claims of Christianity to interpret all of reality. So also, reintroduction of the great Greek and Latin literature led to a culture-wide reevaluation of the meanings and values by which Western Europe had known and lived. It also provoked a substantial backlash from those who felt that the virtues and true voices of the past were being subverted and left behind.

Figure 2.116  Florence Duomo as seen from Michaelangelo Hill.

The Church from 500 to 1500

223

While Savonarola received a humanist university education, he came to turn against it. Savonarola’s poetry and preaching became increasingly anti-humanist and apocalyptic. He eventually left his life in the Benedictine convents to become an itinerant preacher of repentance before the coming judgment. Claiming divine inspiration, he turned his preaching harshly against the ruling Italian families and the clergy that led the Italian Church. Savonarola’s preaching attracted huge crowds, and he found his greatest success in Florence. Preaching that God would send a “new Cyrus from the north,” Savonarola called for the populace to overthrow the city’s ruling families. The “Cyrus”—a reference to the biblical depiction of the pagan king Cyrus as a messianic figure in Isaiah 45:1—to whom Savonarola referred was King Charles VIII of France, then invading Northern Italy with a large army. Encouraged by Savonarola’s preaching, the Florentines drove the Medici’s out and instituted the Free Republic of Florence, which Savonarola assured them would soon be followed by God’s founding there the New Jerusalem (the apocalyptic heavenly city of Revelation 21–22). Savonarola’s support of Charles put him in conflict with Pope Alexander VI, who was opposing Charles’s invasion. After Florence refused to join the pope in fighting Charles, Alexander excommunicated Savonarola. Florence was never a very united city, and it was also by this time in a near-frenzy of popular excitement. Machiavelli, in The Prince, uses Savonarola as an example of the fate of those who depend on the fickle crowd. Under pressure of the excommunication, and after an ill-advised attempt brought on by Savonarola’s followers to prove his validity by a trial by fire, a Florentine mob dragged Savonarola out of his residence and had him imprisoned. Under torture, Savonarola recanted of his prophecies, and he and several followers were executed by the Florentine state. A multitude of voices  The flowering of mysticism and spiritual theology present in the Late Middle Ages had many voices beyond these few representative figures. Among them were the following: zz

zz

zz

zz

zz

Mechthild of Magdeburg (1210–85), a Beguine and a Cistercian nun. Probably of noble Saxon descent, she joined a monastery near Eisleben in northern Germany. She wrote The Flowing Light of the Godhead based on visions she had (see Doc. 2.25). It was a passionate depiction of heaven and hell, possibly influential for Dante. Meister Eckhart (c. 1260–1327), a German Dominican mystic who wrote numerous works on the unity of the saved one with God and of becoming lost in God. “Meister” is a title, meaning teacher. Eckhart was tried for heresy based on his writings and silenced, but a number of modern theologians have defended his work as orthodox. John Ruysbroeck (1293–1381), a Dutch author who wrote The Spiritual Espousals and The Seven Steps of the Ladder of Spiritual Love. Gerhard de Groote (1340–84), a Dutch deacon and popular preacher who founded the Brothers of the Common Life. This mostly lay group was semi-monastic and emphasized simplicity, asceticism, humility, and service. The Cloud of Unknowing, an anonymous mystical work from England, written in the latter half of the fourteenth century, probably by a Carthusian monk. It is a book on advancing in prayer toward unity

224

A Global Church History

with God, and of the mystifying nature of that. Its companion work, The Book of Privy Counseling, speaks of the lifelong nature of dying to self and knowing God. Both works draw on the neo-Platonic theology of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. None of the genuine mystical works of this time period made the experiences had by some mystics their main point. The focus was always on union with God as mediated by Jesus Christ.

Reformers While much of this chapter has dealt with decline and need for reform in the Church, the fourteenth century witnessed numerous efforts at healing the Church’s wounds that anticipated the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century. Just as with the Protestant Reformers, these efforts were often vigorously resisted by the Church (and by elements of society invested in the Church’s hierarchy). John Wycliffe John Wycliffe (c. 1325–84), born in Hipsfield, England, was a scholastic theologian and philosopher and an important early voice calling for reform. Wycliffe both studied and taught at Oxford University. He taught that Scripture, not the pope, was the greatest authority on the Church. Wycliffe also opposed the Church’s practice of granting indulgences, calling for crusades, and venerating relics; he also questioned the Church’s teachings on transubstantiation. Some of Wycliffe’s most biting criticisms were against the pursuit of wealth by some priests and bishops. He also sponsored the first English translation of the Bible.

Figure 2.117  John Wycliffe.

The Church from 500 to 1500

225

Wycliffe was very popular in England, and he was protected from persecution by the king and the parliament. The Church condemned his teachings, but he was not excommunicated during his lifetime and died of natural causes (see Doc. 2.37). As pressure for reform in the Church grew in later decades, however, the Church condemned him personally. His body was exhumed and burned. Jan Hus We have already mentioned Jan Hus (c. 1369–1415) in our discussion of the Conciliar Movement. A Czech (Bohemian), Hus studied at Charles University in Prague. He was a priest and well-known preacher. Hus also spoke out against indulgences (one of the main fundraising techniques of the papacy), and he condemned one of the later crusades (one of the ways the papacy exerted political control). Just as with Wycliffe, he defended the supremacy of Scripture against the authority of the Church. Hus was ordered to appear at the Council of Constance to defend his teachings, and he was promised safe conduct to appear at the council and return to Prague. However, once Hus was at the council and in custody, the council decided that promises to heretics did not need to be kept by the Church. Hus was condemned by the council—which supposedly was seeking reform in the Church— and executed. His death sparked a religious revolt in Bohemia that the Church and Holy Roman Empire brutally suppressed.

Discussion questions 1 What events led to the collapse of Roman society in Western Europe, leading Western Europe to enter the Middle Ages? 2 How did monasticism become a stabilizing force in Western Europe? 3 How did the papacy become a stabilizing force in Western Europe? 4 What role did Irish and British monks play in evangelizing Western Europe? 5 What are three ways in which Charlemagne worked to restore functioning civilization to Western Europe? 6 Why did Charlemagne’s efforts not result in the end of the Dark Ages? 7 What were two theological issues that were important in Western Europe between 800 and 1000. What was at stake in each controversy (what were the different sides), and who was one important theologian on each side? 8 What reforms did Pope Gregory VII attempt to bring about in the Church? Which of them succeeded, and which failed? 9 What were three factors that contributed to the Western European powers’ commencing the crusades? 10 Why was the First Crusade considered the most successful of the crusades? 11 What were the military orders, and how could they be both monks and soldiers?

226

A Global Church History

12 Why did the Second and Third Crusades fail to achieve their goals? 13 What were three important results of the crusades? 14 What aspects of monastic reform supported the formation of the High Middle Ages? How did they do so? 15 How did the martyrdom of Thomas Becket shape the forming consciousness of the High Middle Ages? 16 In what ways did the papacy reach its height of secular power and influence in Pope Innocent III? 17 How did the mendicant orders work to reform Western Europe? 18 How does the system of the seven sacraments show all of life to be within God’s grace? 19 How does the Church calendar explain a uniquely Christian understanding of time? 20 What societal factors led to the establishment of universities in Western Europe? 21 What complementary contributions did Anselm and Abelard make to the character of scholastic theology? 22 Name and explain three ways that the reintroduction of Aristotle’s major works change Western Europe? 23 What was Roger Bacon’s contribution to the development of experimental science in Western Europe? 24 What effect did the growth of nationalism have on medieval society? 25 What are three effects of the Black Death that were significant for medieval society? 26 Pick an element this chapter identifies as “Decline in the Church.” How is this factor connected to other changes in late medieval society? How did this factor reshape the world of the Late Middle Ages? 27 How did Catherine of Sienna and Julian of Norwich work to redress serious problems besetting their societies? 28 What were three reforms that John Wycliffe proposed for the Church?

Chapter summary Within all of this diversity, across three continents and a thousand years, is there any unity to be found? While many of these Christian communities would not have recognized each other as Christian—and in fact, some defined themselves by separation from a politically dominant Church tradition—it is worth pointing out a number of common factors. All of the Christian groups depicted in this chapter acknowledged the truth of the Nicene Creed, thus agreeing on the doctrinal core of Christianity (see Doc. 1.36). All of them worshipped according to liturgies that shared much in common and centered on the Eucharist. All of them practiced baptism in the name of the Father, the

The Church from 500 to 1500

227

Figure 2.118  Madonna of Chancellor Rolin, Jan van Eyck, Burgundy, c. 1435.

Son, and the Holy Spirit. All of them were governed by bishops and traced an apostolic succession to the apostles of the New Testament. Monasticism—though often varied in form, especially in the west—was highly important for all of these communities. They all read the Christian Scriptures; though their biblical canons could somewhat differ, they all included at least the twenty-seven books of the New Testament and the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament that would come to compose the usual Protestant canon.44 All of them—some much more than others, but all of them in identifiable ways—bore the marks of persecution. Most centrally, all of them worshipped Jesus Christ and sought to live in union with him. The church that we see stretched across the history of “the long Middle Ages” was composed of people, sometimes saintly, sometimes highly imperfect, who lived within horizons of expectation shaped by their cultures and their times. The same is true of any era of the church. As we see the story of the

For a discussion of the net effects of the various church canons, see Cone, Theology from the Great Tradition, 57–69.

4

228

A Global Church History

church move forward into the modern world, we observe the legacy—the greatness and the failures—of these Christians, received in and transformed by a new age.

Chapter bibliography Andrade, Nathaniel. The Journey of Christianity to India in Late Antiquity: Networks and the Movement of Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018. Bain, Robert Nisbet. “Vladimir, St.” In Encyclopædia Britannica. 11th ed. Vol. 28. Ed. by H. Chisholm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911. Baum, Wilhelm. The Church of the East: A Concise History. New York: Routledge, 2010. Baumer, Christoph. Church of the East: An Illustrated History of Assyrian Christianity. London: I. B. Taurus, 2016. Bornstein, Daniel. Medieval Christianity. A People’s History of Christianity. Vol. 2. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2007. Cairns, Earle. Christianity through the Centuries. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996. Cantor, Norman. The Civilization of the Middle Ages. Rev. ed. New York: Harper Collins, 1994. Chadwick, Henry. The Early Church. The Pelican History of the Church, 1. New York: Penguin, 1967. Cone, Steven. Theology from the Great Tradition. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2018. Cross, F. L., and Livingstone, E., eds. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Dowley, Tim, ed. The Baker Atlas of Christian History. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001. Frend, W. H. C. The Rise of Christianity. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1984. Frykenberg, Robert. Christianity in India: From Beginnings to the Present. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Gonzalez, Justo. The Story of Christianity. 2 vols. New York: HarperOne, 2010. Greer, Thomas. A Brief History of the Western World. 9th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth 2004. Gregory, Timothy. History of Byzantium: 306-1453. Blackwell History of the Ancient World. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2005. Hart, David B. The Story of Christianity: An Illustrated History of 2000 Years of the Christian Faith. New York: HarperOne, 2012. Hart, David B. “Saint Origen.” First Things (October 2015). Online at https​://ww​w.fir​stthi​ngs.c​om/ar​ticle​/2015​/10/ s​aint-​orige​n Hastings, Adrian, ed. A World History of Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999. Hinson, E. Glenn. The Early Church. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1996. Horsley, Richard, ed. Christian Origins. A People’s History of Christianity, 1. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2006. Hussey, J. M., and Louth, Andrew. The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Isichei, Elizabeth A. History of Christianity in Africa: From Antiquity to the Present. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995. Jenkins, Philip. The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia--and How It Died. New York: HarperOne, 2009. Julian of Norwich. Revelations of Divine Love. Translated by E. Spearing. New York: Penguin Books, 1999. Kalu, Ogbu, ed. African Christianity: An African Story. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press, 2007. Latourette, Kenneth Scott. A History of Christianity. 2 vols. Rev. ed. New York: Harper and Row, 1975. Le Goff, Jacques. The Birth of Europe. Boston, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2005. Marty, Martin. The Christian World: A Global History. New York: The Modern Library, 2007.

The Church from 500 to 1500

229

McGuckin, John. The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to Its History, Doctrine, and Spiritual Culture. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Meinardus, Otto. Two Thousand Years of Coptic Christianity. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press, 2002. Moffett, Samuel Hugh. A History of Christianity in Asia: Beginnings to 1500. 2nd ed. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1998. O’Brien, Patrick, ed. Atlas of World History. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Oden, Thomas. How Africa Shaped the Christian Mind: Rediscovering the African Seedbed of Western Christianity. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010. Placher, William, ed. Readings in the History of Christian Theology. 2 vols. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1988. Roberts, John Morris. A New History of the World. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. Russell, Jeffery. A History of Medieval Christianity. Wheeling, IL: Harlan Davidson, 1968. Schaff, P., ed. The Creeds of Christendom. 3 vols. Rev. ed. by D. Schaff. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1996 (reprint). Smith, Shawn. “The Insertion of the Filioque into the Nicene Creed and a Letter of Isidore of Seville”. Journal of Early Christian Studies 22(2), (2014): 261–86. Southern, Richard William. Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages. The Pelican History of the Church, 2. New York: Penguin, 1970. Spickard, Paul, and Cragg, Kevin. A Global Church History: How Everyday Believers Experienced Their World. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1994. Standaert, Nicolas, ed. Handbook of Christianity in China: 635 – 1800. Leiden: Brill Publishers, 2000. Starr, Chester. A History of the Ancient World. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. Stevenson, James, ed. A New Eusebius. Rev. ed. by W. Frend. London: SPCK, 1987. Stevenson, James, ed. Creeds, Councils and Controversies. Rev. ed. by W. Frend. London: SPCK, 1989. Tang, Li. A Study of the History of Nestorian Christianity in China and Its Literature in Chinese: Together with a New English Translation of the Dunhuang Nestorian Documents. 2nd ed. New York: Peter Lang, 2004. Tang, Li. East Syriac Christianity in Mongol-Yuan China. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2011. Tanner, Norman. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. 2 vols. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 1990. Thompson, Karl, ed. Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Reformation. 4th ed. Classics in Western Thought, 2. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth; New York: HarperCollins, 2000. Volz, Carl. The Medieval Church. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1997. Walker, Williston. A History of the Christian Church. 4th ed. Rev. by R. Norris, et al. New York: Scribners, 1985. Wilken, Robert. The First Thousand Years: A Global History of Christianity. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2012.

Chapter 3 Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650 Robert F. Rea

Introduction The Reformation period signaled broad transformations in Europe that brought tremendous change to the Church. As Spain and Portugal, then France, the Netherlands, and England explored and colonized the planet, the Reformation had global impact—in government, economics, education, and evangelism. In the centuries that followed, Protestant movements multiplied, divided, or emerged, until hundreds of denominations and Christian movements were part of the global Church. During the Reformation period, Christianity was taken to much of the world, and in the centuries which followed, nearly every part of the planet had a significant Christian presence. At the beginning of the sixteenth century, however, phrases such as “Reform in the head and the members!” and “Back to the apostolic Church!” could be heard from most sectors of society. Foundational medieval assumptions had come under question. People still connected the clergy with the sacraments, but when many thought of clergy they first imagined love of money, power, and pleasure in place of sincere shepherding of souls. Expansive desire for reform had arisen over an extended period for a number of reasons. Sparked by the rise of the universities and the Renaissance, not only were privileged classes better educated, but many from the middle class could access advanced education. Nearly seventy European universities provided advanced education for almost every region throughout Europe. Renaissance studies had drawn scholars to ancient literature, including the Bible and church fathers—areas of special attention particularly in the northern Renaissance in Northern Europe. The invention of the printing press around 1440 expanded the dissemination of information by speeding up the process and allowing coverage significantly more widespread. Increasing loyalty to one’s own nation or people group—nationalism— meant that more and more people considered their identity within their own region or people in contrast to considering themselves to be one integrated part of Christendom. In this environment, more and more writers were critical of the realities that they observed. There was plenty to critique. Ecclesiastical abuses were clearly evident. As a result, people generally had a low view of the clergy. Several practices were common though against canon law. With papal permission, one could break almost any church regulation, or canon law. These “exceptions” became increasingly “normal.” In absenteeism, for example, one held a church office, receive the income from that place, but not live in there—others were paid to do the actual work there. In pluralism, one person held several offices

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

231

at the same time, increasing his income considerably, again paying others to minister. Sometimes sons of nobility were appointed to church positions without ever being ordained. Nearly everything could be acquired for money—technically for gifts and offerings—but practically understood as the straightforward buying and selling of church positions—this was called simony (from Simon Magus in Acts 8:18-24). In fact, the Church collected fees and gifts for nearly every service they provided—pardons, masses, event-specific sacraments, and much more. Many priests, supposedly celibate, cohabitated with a female partner; priests were often seen in drunkenness, brawling, and so forth. Nearly every encumbrance could be removed for the right amount of money. These practices were not new. In fact many were directly against canon law, but for centuries clergy had either gotten papal permission or ignored the rules. What changed? Western leaders and people, in light of growing awareness of alternatives, increasingly saw the practices as abuses. Soon the cry for reform throughout the Church came from nearly every class of people. They had no desire to leave the Church—in fact, most expected the Church to discipline schismatics and heretics. They were seeking change in the moral lives of church leadership, from the local church to the global Church. They wanted freedom from papal and ecclesiastical suppression. They wanted the end of required annual payments to Rome. They wanted a just legal system where clergy were treated like others. They wanted their clergy to provide moral and spiritual examples for the Church. One cannot overestimate the importance of sea exploration by Spain and Portugal. In 1492, Cristobal Colón (Christopher Columbus, 1451–1506) sailed west in order to find a shorter shipping route to India for his sponsoring country, Spain. Columbus discovered America, landing first on Hispaniola. What followed was decades of exploration, mostly by Spanish, but also by Portuguese. Armies and missionaries accompanied these explorers. The armies were sent to subjugate the native peoples, and subjugate they did. The missionaries, the largest numbers being friars (Franciscans and Dominicans) were sent to Christianize them. New world civilizations were conquered. Nomadic people were enticed to establish settlements. Monastic clergy were to turn over these settlements to other clergy. This effectively incorporated the newly discovered territories into the larger Christendom. Despite clerical objections, the Spanish conquerors, or conquistadores, were generally very cruel, enslaving nearly all native people. Spain grew to have immense power—amassing untold riches, gaining uncontested mastery of the Atlantic and beyond, and exercising considerable ecclesiastical influence.

Discussion question 1 Why, before and at the beginning of the sixteenth century, were so many European Christians calling for Church reform?

The German Reformation The most famous Reformer, Martin Luther, was born as Eisleben, where he lived under his mother Margarethe Luther (1463–1531) and his copper miner father Hans Luther (1459–1530). Hans Luther’s godly, yet strict disciplinarian parenting had a great influence on Luther’s perception of God the Father.

232

A Global Church History

MARTIN LUTHER (1483–1546), German Reformer Martin Luther is the most famous of the Reformers. Born at Eisleben, educated nearby, Luther received his BA and MA degrees and prepared to study law at the University of Erfurt. Nearly struck by lightning on a return trip to Erfurt, Luther afterward became an Augustinian friar at Erfurt—this greatly displeased his father. Luther became professor of theology at the university at Wittenberg. On October 31, 1517, he posted his Ninety-Five Theses, effectively launching the Reformation. The next three decades saw major changes in political, social, and church life throughout Western Europe. Luther’s emphasis on “justification by faith alone” became foundational for much of Protestantism. Luther was a great churchman, author, preacher, Reformer, song-writer, father, and friend. Though he never profited from his writings, he was by far the best-selling author of his day. He and his wife hosted numerous orphans in their home, along with their family and several university students. His written works are extensive, including treatises, commentaries, sermons, letters, and much more. He translated the Bible into German, providing the Scriptures for German-speaking people but in the process forging a unified language from the various German dialects. The Lutheran German Reformation is often presented through the events of Luther’s own life. His lasting influence reaches to print media, free expression, help for the needy, politics, and much more.

Figure 3.1  Martin Luther.

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

233

Figure 3.2  Hans and Margarethe Luther.

Martin was educated in nearby towns Mansfeld, Magdeburg, and Eisenach before attending the University of Erfurt, where he received Bachelor of Arts (1502) and Master of Arts (1505) degrees. Luther intended to study for his doctorate in law, but during his return to Erfurt from a visit to his parents’ home, Luther was nearly struck with lightning. He promised St. Anne he would be become a monk if she helped him. Two weeks later he entered the Erfurt monastery, a very strict monastery, of the Austin Friars, or Augustinians. Martin Luther seems to have been more intense than many of his peers, in his mental anguish, his dedication to study and to God, and his desire to please God. During his first year at the Erfurt Augustinian monastery, his novitiate year, his dedication so impressed leaders that Luther was selected to become a priest. He faced great internal fear and wonder as he prepared for his first mass in 1507, given the magnitude attached to the priest’s power to work the changing of bread and wine into Christ’s actual body and blood. Afterward, Hans Luther made clear his disapproval of Luther’s choice to be a monk. Luther wanted desperately to be right with God, but he was troubled constantly by his sins, carrying guilt far beyond what most endure. Luther committed himself to far more stringent penance and other works than required, but still Luther did not find inner peace. In 1510 the Erfurt monastery sent Luther and another friar to Rome to represent them in a dispute. Luther spent all his free time visiting shrines, saying masses at holy places, and seeking to obtain merits for himself and his relatives, thinking this would shorten time in purgatory. Doubts emerged during this trip. Luther was disgusted by the flippant way priests lived immoral lives, some even mocking the mass itself. After climbing Pilate’s stairs and saying the Lord’s Prayer on each step, Luther expressed his doubt that the whole system was really true.

234

A Global Church History

Figure 3.3  Johann von Staupitz.

In 1511 Luther was called to Wittenberg to be professor at the young university there. Again, we see his intense sense of guilt. His spiritual guide and confessor was the Augustinian vicar there, Johann von Staupitz (c. 1460–1524). Luther confessed even his most minor sins, to the point that von Staupitz was troubled by the detail and wanted to help Luther. He thought that if Luther were busier he would be less troubled with lesser sins, so he assigned Luther to study for the Doctor of Theology degree, preach regularly, and fill the Bible chair at the university. Now Luther was extremely busy, but still deeply struggling with scruples. As professor of Bible, Luther lectured first on Psalms (1513–15), concluding from Ps. 22:1 that Christ felt abandoned by God also while on the cross—Luther began thinking of God as more merciful than angry. Next he lectured on Romans (1515–16). He struggled, finally culminating in Luther’s “tower experience”—his concluding that God’s righteousness is directly connected to Rom. 1:17—“the just shall live by faith” (see Doc. 3.13 for Luther’s description). Luther came to believe that God’s promises are always valid, but that faith makes them efficacious for the believer. His commitment to “justification by faith alone” grew as he lectured on Galatians the next year (1516–17). Frederick the Wise (1463–1525, elector of Saxony 1486–1525) was benefactor for Wittenberg’s university and church. He had spent a fortune to collect relics to make available for his subjects to reduce purgatory time for his subjects. In each year’s biggest event, these would be paraded through Wittenberg on All Saints’ Day (November 1). By 1515 Luther was opposing the idea that these works could help bring righteousness, based on “justification by faith alone.” He preached against these three times in 1516, the third on October 31. Luther’s objection was multiplied when Johann Tetzel (1465– 1519) began exchanging indulgences for money in a town near Wittenberg just over the Saxony border. Pope Leo X (1475–1521, pope 1513–21) needed money to complete St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, and Albrecht von Brandenburg (Albert of Brandenburg, 1514–45) wanted to be archbishop of Mainz (his third bishopric)—this pluralism required a papal dispensation—papal permission. Leo X allowed Albert to borrow 10,000 ducats from the Fugger banking family, then dispense indulgences (certificates

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

Figure 3.4  Frederick the Wise.

Figure 3.5  Johann Tetzel

235

236

Figure 3.6  Ninety-Five Theses.

A Global Church History

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

237

Figure 3.7  Current castle church door at Wittenberg.

of removal of time in purgatory for past or future sins) for eight years—half of the proceeds from the indulgences went to the pope, and the other half toward repaying the Fuggers. Johann Tetzel’s dispensing indulgences for money seemed to be selling forgiveness. All of this was too much for Luther. On October 31, 1517, the night before the Wittenberg relics parade, Luther issued his famous Ninety-Five Theses, challenging anyone in the Wittenberg university community to debate. Years later Luther’s friend Melanchthon said Luther nailed them to the church door—the functional bulletin board for the university. In the Ninety-Five Theses, Luther objected to the reason for raising the money, to the belief that the pope had power to remit sin or penalties beyond those he himself had imposed, and to the notion of works of supererogation (that some believers’ good works exceeded their own needed number and were available to others). Luther said indulgences impede salvation by taking money from the poor and giving false assurance of salvation (see Doc. 3.8). The theses were secretly translated by others and distributed throughout Germany. Luther sent a copy to Albert, who forwarded them to Leo X. In 1518 Luther served as vicar of the monastery in Wittenberg. In 1518 he was to report to the new general of the Augustinians and speak on the doctrine of human depravity. He traveled incognito, but was surprised to find himself received as a guest of honor. Older men were curious, younger men were excited—several later Reformation leaders were present. The Dominican response, on the other hand, was not so positive. Tetzel was made Doctor of Theology, publishing his own theses—Wittenberg

238

A Global Church History

Figure 3.8  Philip Melanchthon.

students burned them. Sylvester Prierias (1456/1457–1527) defended the pope by writing that the pope as always correct. Meanwhile, Philip Melanchthon (1497–1560) arrived as the newest professor in Wittenberg in August; he would grow to be Luther’s best friend. The same month Luther was summoned to appear in Rome within sixty days. Later that year the Holy Roman Empire’s Diet, the meeting of the six electors to set official policy for the empire, met at Augsburg. Luther turned to Frederick, who had his chaplain George Spalatin (1484–1545) arrange for a papal legate, Cardinal Thomas Cajetan (born Thomas de Vio, 1469–1534), to meet Luther at the Diet of Augsburg that year. Cajetan came with papal instructions to reconcile Luther on his recantation, without discussion. Luther refused to recant unless shown his errors; he asked to submit a written statement for evaluation by several universities. This led to Luther denying Unigenitus (Pope Clement VI’s 1343 declaration defining indulgences) and Cajetan declaring the pope as the true interpreter of Scripture. Luther replied that the pope did not stand above Scripture. For Luther’s safety, von Staupitz released Luther from the Augustinians. Friends sneaked Luther back to Wittenberg. Leo X within days issued Cum postquam, clarifying the teaching on indulgences, mitigating some but not all of Luther’s objections. In November Luther appealed to a general council, which he said was over the pope—the appeal became public. The next month Frederick wrote to the curia in Luther’s behalf.

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

239

Figure 3.9  Charles V.

In January 1519 Emperor Maximilian (1459–1519, emp. 1508–19) died. Though Leo X supported Frederick, the electors chose Charles V (1500–58, emp. 1519–56) of Spain as emperor. Soon Cajetan’s assistant Karl von Miltitz (1490–1529) came to ask Luther to subscribe to Cum postquam, believing that it had corrected Luther’s strongest objections. Luther would not, but agreed to the proposal that neither Luther nor his enemies debate or publish anything further. The Leipzig Debate in 1519 featured preeminent theologian Johann von Eck (1486–1543) and Wittenberg university dean Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt (1486–1541). After several days, Luther entered the debate, to discuss whether the Roman Church and pope were always supreme or their authority rested on only 400 years of tradition. During this time Eck accused Luther of Bohemianism (the teachings of John Huss), which Luther first flatly denied but later affirmed after reading further. Meanwhile Luther’s writings were published and read throughout Germany. German nationalists of all classes began to consider Luther their champion. Humanist knight Ulrich von Hutten (1488–1523), for example, taught that the first enemy to be repulsed was Rome. He convinced Franz von Sickingen (1481–1523), who maintained standing troops who fought for the oppressed and later harbored religious fugitives persecuted for opposing Rome. During most of 1520 Luther experienced relative peace, which allowed him to write several important works, including Sermon on Good Works, The Papacy at Rome, and his three famous treatises. Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation (see Doc. 3.10) argued that the Romanists had built three

240

A Global Church History

Figure 3.10  Johann von Eck.

walls around themselves to prevent reform from the three primary means to bring reform. The princes could bring reform, but they taught that the spiritual estate (clergy) stood above the temporal estate (princes). Scripture could produce change, but they taught that the pope is the sole authority for interpreting Scripture. An ecumenical council could reform, but they taught that only the pope can call a council. Luther proceeded to describe many injustices that councils and princes should address. The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (see Doc. 3.11) first claimed only three sacraments rather than seven—baptism, penance, and the bread. All three, Luther said, are held captive by the Roman curia. By the end of the document, Luther said only baptism and the bread are sacraments—penance is a way to return to the meaning of baptism. On the Freedom of the Christian Man, a letter to Pope Leo X, established two propositions—a Christian is a free lord of all, subject to none; and a Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant, subject to all. Faith alone brings complete salvation; faith brings forth good works, but good works do not help justify or save an unbeliever. So a Christian is free from all sins and works, but his freedom should lead to surrender like Christ in Phil. 2:5-11. Christians should disobey those who demand good works for justification, therefore, but should follow these rules before weaker Christians. Johann von Eck took forty-one condemnations from the universities at Louvain and Cologne to Rome. The curia agreed and demanded Luther to recant within sixty days in the papal bull Exsurge domine, which Luther received on October 10, 1520. Luther replied in Against the Execrable Bull of

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

Figure 3.11  Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt.

Figure 3.12  Ulrich von Hutten.

241

242

A Global Church History

Figure 3.13  Martin Luther as Knight George.

Antichrist. On December 10, he burned his copy along with students who were burning other papal documents. No immediate action was taken. The Diet of Worms in 1521 tried to deal with the situation. The presence of Charles V’s Spanish military, von Hutten’s men, von Sickingen’s men, and 100 knights added intensity. Papal legate Girolamo Aleandro (or Aleander, 1480–1542) attacked Luther’s teaching, though he did not reveal a papal bull which would have excommunicated Luther because it included von Hutten. He demanded that Luther be absolved or come under an imperial edict. The electors demanded time to consider the draft of the edict, which declared Luther a Bohemian heretic and revolutionary. The electors feared insurrection if Luther were not given a hearing. So Luther joined the Diet. Eventually he told the Diet that unless he was convinced by Scripture and reason he would not recant—his conscience was captive to the word of God. The earliest printed version included the famous words “Here I stand” (see Doc. 3.09). The edict declared Luther a heretic who would be prosecuted after his safe return. Only four of the six remained to sign the edict. Luther became a fugitive. Frederick arranged for others to hide Luther somewhere Frederick did not know, guaranteeing himself plausible deniability. Luther was spirited to Wartburg Castle, where he assumed a new identity as Knight George. Reformation advanced quickly in Wittenberg, generating enough disagreement that Luther felt he must go to Wittenberg. In 1522 the town council invited Luther to return. Luther first completed a book of sermons and his translation of the New Testament. Luther’s preaching and appeal for patience restored unity. In 1522 Frederick showed the relics for the last time—people no longer

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

Figure 3.14  Wartburg Castle.

Figure 3.15  Luther’s Wartburg Castle Room.

243

244

A Global Church History

believed that the relics could bring remedy for sins or purgatory. Endowed private masses were outlawed by the town council and the clergy. In 1524–25 Luther and Desiderius Erasmus (Erasmus of Rotterdam, 1466–1536) exchanged treatises on grace and free will. Erasmus in On the Freedom of the Will argued that fallen humanity could still make good choices, aided by divine grace. God alone acts first and completes salvation, but free will and God’s grace cooperate in the growth process. Luther in On the Enslaved Will countered that all things happen according to God’s will. The fallen human will cannot choose God until God first gives him faith—free choice is reserved for God and no one else. All things having to do with the Kingdom of God are pre-determined—God foreknows and predestines all things. God alone acts first in the initiation, progress, and accomplishment of salvation. Some Reformers were more radical than Luther. Karlstadt, for example, later attacked church music, Eucharistic Presence, infant baptism, clergy versus laity distinction, using images, Sabbath breaking, and more. When Thomas Müntzer argued for rebellion against the princes, Luther opposed him in Admonition to Peace and A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants of Swabia. As the peasants gathered in violence, Luther wrote Against the Murdering and Thievous Hordes of Peasants, blaming demons for inciting the peasants and claiming that the princes must offer terms and then use the sword. As the document was going to press, the princes slaughtered the peasants. Luther’s words “smite, slay, and stab” were never forgotten—peasants believed their champion had betrayed them.

Figure 3.16  Katie Luther (Katharina von Bora).

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

245

Luther regularly dealt with monks who came to Wittenberg after leaving their cloisters. In 1523 he received nine nuns at Wittenberg and sought to find each a home. Katharina von Bora (1499–1552) was the only remaining nun, and after much prayer and contemplation, Luther and “Katie” were married June 25, 1525. They eventually had three sons and three daughters. In addition, so many orphans came under their care that the elector gave them the former cloister of the Augustinians in Wittenberg as their home, where they lived with their family, orphan children, and a number of university students. Later students recorded their memories of dinner conversations with Luther in Table Talk. The 1520s saw the gradual development of what became known as the “territorial principle.” Beginning in 1521, the imperial Diets were forced to consider what to do about the “evangelicals” or “Lutherans.” For example, the Diet at Nurnberg in 1522–23 was equally divided in support or opposition to Lutherans. The next year the 1524 Diet, also at Nurnberg, declared that each prince should enforce the Edict of Worms insofar as circumstances allowed. In 1525, Frederick the Wise of Saxony died, succeeded by Johann the Steadfast (or John, 1468–1532), and the Peasants Revolt saw many Lutheran preachers hanged by Catholic princes. Philip of Hesse, strongly Lutheran, was unwilling to compel or be compelled to be Catholic, and even brought 200 horsemen and Lutheran preachers to preach during the Diet of Speyer in 1526. The Diet decided each prince should act as he would have to answer to God and to the emperor. By the time the Diet met again at Speyer in 1529, most of northern Germany was Lutheran, and several southern German cities had also embraced reform. The Diet reaffirmed the Edict of Worms but only for Catholic territories—until a general council, Lutheranism could continue under Lutheran princes, but they must tolerate Catholics. Catholic princes were not required to tolerate Lutherans. Lutherans and Zwinglians (from Switzerland) protested the decision—this is the source of the term Protestant. Because territorial loyalties were firmly established before an ecumenical council, the territorial principle became the recognized norm. Luther also participated in the 1529 Marburg Colloquy. Philip of Hesse sought a Protestant alliance and believed a common confession would help that to become a reality. Several leading reformers came together at Marburg to discuss doctrine, including Luther, Melanchthon, Zwingli, Oekalampadius, Bucer, and others (discussed below). Despite convergence on several important doctrine, the group could not agree about the Lord’s Supper. Though the Swiss moved for intercommunion without a common confession, Melanchthon persuaded Luther otherwise. Melanchthon settled for challenging them to unite to defend one another’s right to believe what they understood to be the truth. In 1529 Luther also wrote the Small Catechism (see Doc. 3.12) and the Large Catechism to provide a guide for Christian instruction in the Lutheran churches. When the Diet met at Augsburg in 1530, Charles V was finally able to come. Luther was six months in hiding at Feste Coburg castle. Protestant princes refused Charles V’s demands to prohibit Protestant preaching (especially polemical sermons) and to march in the procession of the body of Christ (a parade carrying Eucharistic bread throughout the town). Melanchthon was chosen to present the Protestants’ case. He presented the Augsburg Confession, publicly read on June 25, 1530. The Swiss submitted their own confession, as did the Strassburg reformers. Charles V allowed Protestants until April 1531 to submit to Catholicism or feel the edge of the sword. Afterward Melanchthon published the Apology of the Augsburg Confession (see Doc. 3.15). In response

246

A Global Church History

Figure 3.17  Feste Coburg Castle.

southern and northern Lutheran and Zwinglian Protestants formed the League of Schmalkalden in 1531 for mutual defense. In 1537 Luther provided them with a common doctrinal statement in the Schmalkaldic Articles. One of Luther’s most lasting contributions was his translation of the Bible, completed in 1534, which he continued to revise until his death. By using the court tongue of electoral Saxony, enhanced with words from other dialects, Luther was able to forge what became the common German language. Luther’s high profile brings attention to several problematic decisions and development in Luther’s life. First, we discussed his opposition to revolting peasants above. Second, Luther also took a hard stand against the Anabaptists, who after the Diet of Speyer in 1529 were persecuted and killed throughout the empire (this seemed to spark their rapid growth, however). Luther’s position was first pity (1527); then death for sedition and blasphemy (1530); then including rejection of the ministerial office as blasphemy (1531); then even pacifist actions as seditious (1536). Third, Luther gave permission for Philip of Hesse to take a second wife. Philip had great guilt over adultery in his arranged marriage, and told Luther he could be loyal to a wife for whom he had romantic love. Afterward Luther reversed his position, but his reputation was severely damaged. Fourth, Luther recommended persecution of the Jews. He first thought that the true gospel would bring speedy conversion, but later wrote Against the Jews (1543), recommending that all Jews be deported to Palestine, and if not, be required to work the

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

247

Figure 3.18  Augsburg Confession, 1530.

land without usury; their synagogues and books, he said, should be burned. These are significant issues, but must be weight in the balance of Luther’s life work and contributions. Luther’s mood swings included periods of lengthy depression. Luther also had an acute personal awareness of the spirit world, believing in the work and presence of demons and angels at every moment. At times he would speak directly to the devil, perhaps even taking actions to deceive the devil by pretending he was about to sin. This was an important part of his spirituality. Luther’s contribution cannot be overestimated. His bold courage brought attention once again to the doctrine of justification by faith, though some have noted that he seems to teach justification by faith in the doctrine of justification by faith alone. He promoted education, publication, theology, and salvation. He wrote extensively, producing nearly half of the literature sold during his lifetime. He translated the Scriptures into German, uniting various German dialects into a common German language. He elevated preaching and hymnology as important elements of Christian worship. He emboldened Germans to seek independence from dominance by Rome. He has been credited with the rise of Protestantism, which had tremendous global effect in the centuries which followed his life.

248

A Global Church History

Discussion questions 1 What changes and development in the life of Martin Luther drove him to call for changes in the Church, eventually initiating the Reformation? 2 Describe the development of the territorial principle in the Holy Roman Empire—that is, the principle that the prince of a territory determines the established religion of the territory. 3 How did Luther contribute to the development of German identity through publishing, translation, and other forms of leadership? 4 How do problematic decisions by Luther contribute to the historic perception of Luther?

The Reformation in Switzerland Ulrich Zwingli (1484–1531) is the key character in helping to initiate the Reformation in Switzerland. Zwingli was born at Wildhaus, the third of eleven children, to a religiously connected family. His father and grandfather were town administrators. His uncle Bartholomew was a town priest and an abbot. Two of his brothers were churchmen, and two of his sisters were nuns. Bartholomew educated young Ulrich, soon sending him to other schools at St. Theodore and Bern. He attended university at Vienna, then Basel, where he received Bachelor of Arts (1504) and Master of Arts (1506) degrees. He came to love the study of Scripture and pastoral work. Ulrich Zwingli accepted his first pastorate at Glarus, where he was ordained as priest in 1506. From 1513 he eagerly studied Greek, the Latin and Greek church fathers, and the New Testament. Twice he

Figure 3.19  Ulrich Zwingli.

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

249

ULRICH ZWINGLI (1484–1531), Swiss Reformer Ulrich Zwingli was a key leader of the Reformation in Switzerland, particularly in the canton of Zurich. His teachings had lasting impact in much of Protestantism. After serving in other pastorates, Zwingli went to Zurich, where his Scripture preaching changed church practices enough to bring much attention to the city. By 1522 he was one of Zurich’s strongest leaders. Over the next decade the city leaders embraced the Reformation, leading to much controversy. Some of his early followers founded the Anabaptist movement, which Zwingli openly opposed. This set the stage for conflict between Anabaptists and other Christians throughout the Reformation period and beyond. Zwingli died while fighting for his canton, Zurich. His most famous writings include the Sixty-Seven Articles and his Exposition and Basis of the Articles (1523). His doctrine of the Eucharist became an important reference point for later church groups who agreed.

served as chaplain to Swiss mercenaries fighting for the pope. In 1516 or 1517 Zwingli was assigned to a monastery church in Einsiedeln in Schwyz canton. There in 1522 he wrote of his desire, which began “six or seven years ago” to devote his life entirely to study of the Scriptures. In 1518 he admitted he had broken his pledge to celibacy. Though still a priest, he preached against indulgences and deferred pilgrims. In 1518, with his bishop’s approval, he denounced indulgences in favor of trusting only in Christ’s saving merits. Zurich’s leaders brought Zwingli to become pastor of the great church at Zurich in 1519. Zwingli immediately initiated his preaching about the life of Christ from Matthew (rather than liturgical texts), calling people to godly living from the Scriptures. When indulgence seller Bernardino Samson appealed to Zurich’s greater council to continue to sell indulgences, the council sent Samson away—this was supported by Bishop Hugo von Hohenlandenberg (1457–1532, bp. 1496–1532) of Constance. Zwingli’s controversial preaching brought opposition—he preached against monastic orders, praying to saints, and purgatory; he also preached against the town leaders’ immorality. Soon monks and leaders began to oppose him. When some ate meat during Lent in 1522, Zwingli’s preaching approved. Also in 1522 Zwingli and ten others asked Bishop Hugo for permission for priests to marry. That same year, in a secret ceremony, Zwingli married widow Anna Reinhard (1487–c. 1538), though they revealed it in 1524. They eventually had four children. Zurich’s Great Council and clergy were ready to follow the Bible in their faith and practice. Sometime during this period, Zwingli began a group for studying the Greek classics, including a focus on studying the Greek New Testament. The group included Conrad Grebel, Felix Manz, and several others, covered in more detail below. About 1522, Grebel experienced what he called a conversion, after which he focused nearly all of his effort on the Scriptures. He and others were deeply loyal to Zwingli. This loyalty continued until late 1523, when Grebel and Zwingli disagreed about the Lord’s Supper. Soon a group of young scholars, many from Zwingli’s former group, were meeting at the home of Felix Manz. They corresponded with other Reformers. Grebel emerged as the group’s spokesperson.

250

A Global Church History

At the same time, many stood opposed to Zwingli; fearing retribution, they asked the Great Council to call a public debate, or disputation, to consider the issues. This became known as the First Zurich Disputation, held in January 1523 with 600 present. Zwingli presented his Sixty-Seven Articles, contending that Christ alone is high priest and mediator, those in fellowship with Christ are the Church, and Christians are free to decide on works not commanded in Scripture. The document also rejected papal authority, cult of the saints, purgatory, fasts, pilgrimages, transubstantiation, and priests’ paying for dispensations to have concubines while not allowed to marry. This brought opposition—the bishop’s representatives said a coming church council at Nurnberg would decide. The Zurich Councils permitted Zwingli to continue to preach from the Scriptures—effectively declaring they would make their own decisions on doctrine for Zurich. When church icons—images used in worship—were destroyed, intense discussion followed, so the Council decided to call the Second Zurich Disputation in October 1523. They invited representatives from the cantons, universities, bishops, and more—900 came. Zwingli easily won the dispute, and the Council decided to abolish icons. Zwingli’s view that the mass is not a sacrifice but a remembrance of a sacrifice was also accepted. A commission was appointed to plan changes in worship and discipline. In 1524 images were removed from churches, processions discontinued, saints’ bones buried, church organs removed or silenced. The mass was suppressed in April 1525. In December 1527, singing in churches ceased. Zwingli (1527) and Luther (1528) exchanged treatises on the Lord’s Supper, contributing to the Marburg Colloquy (discussed above). By 1525 their study had led the young group of scholars from Zwingli’s study circle to question infant baptism, which was Zurich’s practice and Zwingli’s position. After a disputation, Grebel and the group were told to conform, leave Zurich, or go to prison. Several met at Felix Manz’s home, where George Blaurock asked Grebel to baptize him; then Blaurock baptized the others. For this reasons, others referred to them as Anabaptists, from the Greek for “re-baptizers.” Grebel and Manz began going house to house, promoting their faith. All who had received this baptism were arrested, imprisoned, and released. Grebel began preaching in surrounding cantons. Though sentenced to life imprisonment after preaching at Grüningen, Grebel escaped. Many others were executed, generally for treason, since they refused to conform to the decisions of political leadership in various cantons. At Zurich, this met with Zwingli’s approval. These and other individuals will be discussed further in the Radical Reformation section of this chapter. Soon monks and friars realized that their reason to exist was under attack. Some arranged for their own dissolution and extended care. Augustinians, Franciscans, and Dominicans would not. In December 1524 the Augustinians and Dominicans were suddenly taken to the Franciscan monastery. Their two monasteries were confiscated and became a hospital and school. Meanwhile, the rest of the Swiss Confederation was keeping watch on Zurich and the Reformation. The 1523 Swiss Diet at Baden condemned religious innovations. The Diet at Lucerne in 1525 condemned Lutherans and Zwinglians, as well as indulgences granted for money; they allowed the Scriptures to be circulated but suppressed Reformers’ books. Many of the cantons rejected these decisions. Johann von Eck wanted to debate Zwingli, but neither would travel to the other’s proposed city. Another Reformer, Oekalampadius, did debate von Eck; von Eck won the debate, discrediting Zwingli as well.

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

251

Figure 3.20  Heinrich Bullinger.

In 1527 Zurich and Constance formed the Christian Civic League against the emperor’s threats. Bern, the leading Swiss canton, was added in 1528. At the Bern Disputation in January 1528, Reformation representatives of several cantons declared together in favor of the reforms. In 1529 the opposing cantons allied with Austria in the Christian Union. By 1530 six other cantons had joined the Christian Civic League. The Swiss Confederation was aligned for conflict. They were brought to the brink of war when a Zurich preacher was burned at the stake at Schwyz—Zurich declared war, but a peaceful agreement prevented bloodshed. In 1531 five cantons attacked Zurich—Zwingli was struck, later slain, quartered, and burned to ashes. Heinrich Bullinger (1504–75) became the leading preacher in Zurich. Western Switzerland continued to be Protestant, while eastern Switzerland and southern Germany remained Roman Catholic. Throughout this period, other cities in Switzerland were also adopting reformation principles. These were not disciples of Zwingli, but bold reformers who came to many of his same conclusions, focusing on the Scriptures as the source of authority for Christian teaching and practice. In Basel, for example, Capito (Wolfgang Koepfel, 1478–1541) and Oekalampadius (Johann Hussgen, 1482–1531) helped introduce reforms after the Bern Disputation; they were later helped by Myconius (Oswald Geisshüsler, 1488–1552). The same occurred at Bern under the leadership of Berthold Haller (1492–1536). Vadianus (Joachim von Watt, 1484–1541) and John Kessler (d. 1572) led reforms at St. Gall. Pellicanus (Konrad

252

A Global Church History

JOHN CALVIN (1509–64), Swiss Reformer John Calvin was born at Noyon in northern France as the fourth of five sons. Since his father was well connected, John went to school with important people, and by the age of twenty-two had his doctorate in law. Sometime later (1533 or 1534?) he experienced what he calls his “sudden conversion”—he does not describe what he means, but the changes include focus on Scripture study and reforming the Church. Calvin’s work in bringing reformation covers multiple places with several aspects. His most significant and enduring work was at Geneva, where his influence transformed doctrine, church life, morality, accountability, education, government, and much more into a unified system of faith and life. Geneva became a model for Protestant cities to emulate in their education and morality. Calvin’s system covers every major area of Christian doctrine, but he is most famous for his teaching on grace, which became known as Calvinism, and which the Synod of Dort (1618–19) systematized under five major headings—total depravity, unconditional grace, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints. Calvin wrote extensively, including books, treatises, sermons, commentaries, and letters. He is best known for Institutes of the Christian Religion, first published in 1536, but expanded and edited in other editions until the final edition in 1559 (see Docs. 3.18 and 3.19).

Figure 3.21  John Calvin.

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

253

Kursherer, 1478–1566) assisted at Zurich. Thomas Wyttenback (1472–1526) promoted reformation at Biel, while Kaspar Hedio (1494–1552) did so at several places. John Calvin (1509–64) is best known and most influential Swiss Reformer. His father’s legal knowledge and relationships allowed Calvin to receive excellent education. By his early teens he was studying at the University of Paris, where he completed BA and MA degrees by 1528. Next he studied law at Orleans, where, after some time at other schools, he returned to receive his doctorate in law by 1531. In his Psalms commentary’s preface he speaks of an earlier “sudden conversion,” probably in 1533. Because of his relationship with Paris university rector Nicolas Cop (c. 1501–40), who was accused of heresy, Calvin had to escape Paris in 1533. Having come under the influence of several progressive reformation thinkers, Calvin became increasingly convinced that God was calling him to help free the world from false practices. For the next two years Calvin found himself avoiding those seeking him, as scrutiny of reformers became more common. Calvin was twice arrested and imprisoned for heresy. He left France for southern Germany just before reformers throughout France were arrested, imprisoned, tortured, and burned. Meanwhile, Frenchman Guillaume Farel (William Farel, 1489–1565) had pushed for reformation in Geneva. Farel had fled France in 1523, eventually settling in Paus de Vaud canton as schoolteacher and evangelist. He helped lead several individuals, including Waldensians, to become Reformation leaders.

Figure 3.22  Guillaume Farel.

254

A Global Church History

Farel entered Geneva briefly in 1532, but was forced to leave. Reformation preaching brought conflict, but some were sympathetic. Farel re-entered Geneva in December 1533. Eventually the preachers were effective in swaying the people to their position. Soon Geneva was reforming their worship and moral regulations. Geneva’s Councils embraced the Reformation in 1536. At this same time Calvin was living under an assumed name, about to publish his first edition of Institutes of the Christian Religion. He passed through Geneva, where Farel fervently challenged Calvin to join him in the Geneva work. Believing it was God’s call, Calvin soon moved to Geneva. Soon he was one of the town’s pastors. In January 1537 the Little Council accepted a new constitution for the church, which included a weekly Lord’s Supper, holy men to watch everyone’s life and morality, penalties and procedures for violations, examinations for orthodoxy, and more. Calvin and Farel worked on an educational system; this included a Confession of Faith which became mandatory for all inhabitants of Geneva, though some would not submit. Disagreements led to Calvin and Farel being sent away from the canton.

Figure 3.23  First edition of Calvin’s Institutes.

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

255

Figure 3.24  Idelette de Bure.

Calvin was ready to leave all church responsibility, but Bucer and Capito persuaded him to serve as pastor for French refugees in Strassburg, where the Reformation was already established. He remained from 1538 to 1541. Calvin helped prepare ministers, preaching or teaching daily. The French congregation was organized in 1538. Calvin published during this Strassburg period, including his Commentary on Romans (1539), Reply to Cardinal Sadoleto (1539), and Little Treatise on the Holy Supper of Our Lord (1540). In 1540 Calvin married a widow from his congregation, Idelette de Bure (1500–49). Back at Geneva, canton leaders were discussing the potential recall of Calvin and Farel to Geneva— in late 1540 they wrote inviting Calvin to return. Hesitant, Calvin agreed. He immediately proposed the church be reconstituted to reflect Scripture and the ancient Church. A commission’s proposal was revised and adopted in 1541. This established a new group, called the Consistory, to be composed of twelve elders (laymen) and all of the pastors (at the time there were six), who were to enforce church discipline. Weekly offenders were arrested, held until the Consistory heard their case on Thursday, and punished accordingly. Every class and rank came under the scrutiny of the Consistory. Many objected, especially among the more influential families in Geneva. So for nearly fifteen years there were struggles between the pastors and objectors who were influential among the Councils. For example, school rector Sebastian Castellio (1515–63) applied to be a pastor, but the other pastors objected to his doctrine. He falsely accused Calvin and others of immorality, and was expelled from Geneva in 1544. In 1546 Pierre Ameaux opposed Calvin, his supporters, and their teachings because Calvin would not support his divorce from his immoral wife. Also in 1546, the François Favre was barred from communion because of immorality, and soon his son Gaspard was also charged. His daughter Franchequine and her influential husband were imprisoned by the Council for dancing at a wedding.

256

A Global Church History

Figure 3.25  Michael Servetus.

Jean Favre was imprisoned for mocking his vows at his wedding. Jacques Gruet was beheaded in 1547 for blasphemy and more; Calvin consented. Others objected to this control over Geneva’s morality as well. In 1551, physician Jérôme Bolsec (d. c. 1584) was imprisoned and later banished from Geneva after objecting to teachings on limited atonement and unconditional election. When the plague struck Geneva from 1543 to 1545, there were multiple witch trials and witch burnings. Calvin’s opposers finally fled Geneva in 1555; the Council disallowed their return. During this period of struggle, the most memorable conflict was between Calvin and Michael Servetus (1511–53), a famous medical doctor also well educated in theology and law. Servetus rejected several orthodox teachings, including the Trinity and the divine and human natures of Christ. His 1531 On the Errors of the Trinity became well known, so he lived under assumed or alternative names. He and Calvin exchanged letters, but soon Calvin realized it was Servetus who was disputing Calvin’s Institutes. Traveling incognito, Servetus passed through Geneva—Calvin recognized him, had him arrested and imprisoned. Other cantons recommended death; Geneva agreed, and burned Servetus in 1553. Calvin’s 1554 Defense of the Orthodox Faith said God’s glory must be maintained regardless of human feelings. By 1555, therefore, Calvin was in control in Geneva. The canton’s Councils held him in extremely high regard, and as the lead pastor, he controlled the Consistory, which continued to have twelve elders from the Councils, but grew by 1560 to have eighteen pastors, who were consulted in selection of the elders. The Consistory had authority over doctrine, discipline, and worship, including who could take communion.

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

257

Geneva was increasingly praised by Protestants throughout Europe as a model for political and church government, education, and morality. Hundreds of religious refugees found their way to Geneva, especially French-speaking refugees. Adultery, prostitution, false prophecy, slandering the pastors, and so forth were severely punished, including the death penalty. Geneva’s system for education surpassed all others. One elementary school in each of the four parishes educated children. The Geneva Academy had seven grades, from the beginner class to the graduating class. Violations of rules were disciplined regularly. Students attended from early morning to late afternoon, including Saturdays. Upon graduation, students could continue in scholia publica (public schools) to prepare for ministry or to study law or medicine. One could therefore receive education from elementary school through the doctoral level. Calvin wrote extensively, publishing books, commentaries, treatises, sermons, and letters. His Institutes of the Christian Religion became the standard starting place, after the Scriptures, for articulating Calvinism, or deterministic grace theology. Calvin’s grace theology was eventually articulated in five major points, often referred to by English speakers by the acronym TULIP: (a) total depravity—Adam’s sin left the human race completely sinful, so affected that humans cannot think or conceive anything good; (b) unconditional election—God chose who will receive divine grace based on the divine will alone, unrelated to anything he sees or foreknows in the individual; (c) limited atonement—Christ died only for the elect—Jesus’s sacrifice was sufficient for all, but efficacious only for the elect, who were chosen before creation—Jesus only bore the sins of these elect; (d) irresistible grace—when God calls to salvation, one cannot resist—this internal call is offered only to the elect—after God thereby changes their will, they willingly respond; (e) perseverance of the saints—the elect are also given a gift of grace which guarantees they will persevere in the faith; therefore, they cannot fall from grace.

Discussion questions 1 What actions and teachings of Zwingli brought reformation in Zurich? 2 Why did Zwingli oppose his study group scholars when they embraced believer baptism (Anabaptism)? 3 How did Calvin eventually rise to have ascendancy in Geneva? 4 Explain Calvin’s theology, using the English acrostic TULIP. 5 What made Geneva, and Calvin’s theology, attractive to so many followers in Europe and beyond? 6 How do you assess Calvin’s treatment of those who dissented, like Michael Servetus?

The Radical Reformation “Radical Reformation” is a term used for sixteenth-century reforming movements which intentionally sought to go back to the root (from Latin radix) of Christianity, the ancient Church—or at least what they considered to be the most important elements of the ancient Church. Just what this included differed widely from group to group. All stressed the need for each individual to have authentic, personal faith after reaching an age of personal responsibility. Most promoted their theologies and communities through outreach programs. Some desired political change, even resorting to violence, though most

258

A Global Church History

were opposed to violence. All believed that the reforms led by Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin had not gone far enough and had missed elements essential to being the Church God designed. They believed that the Church should be a recognizable community living under disciplined morality and church accountability. In addition, all were generally persecuted and martyred by Protestant and Roman Catholic princes and Reformers. Many found themselves moving from place to place seeking a safe place to live. On the other hand, those classified in the Radical Reformation had great variety in their beliefs. Some emphasized inner inspiration, inner “spirit,” which they credited to the Holy Spirit. Depending on the group’s understanding, this inner “spirit” might be driving spirit, enlightening spirit, rational spirit, or spirit of the age. The Holy Spirit, they believed, was superior to any historic record of the Holy Spirit’s work, including Scripture, the Church, the clergy, and so forth—therefore their inner “spirit” took precedence over Scripture and tradition. Examples include Hans Denck, Louis Hätzer, and Adam Pastor. Others emphasized natural piety, often placing their intuitive reason alongside the Scriptures. For most, though there were many exceptions, this intuition resulted in their denial of the doctrine of the Trinity. This denial became their identifying mark. Among them the doctrine of soul-sleeping became popular—when people die their souls sleep with their bodies, without consciousness, until the resurrection. Examples here include Michael Servetus, Bernardino Ochino, Faustus Socino, and others.

Figure 3.26  Thomas Müntzer.

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

259

Still others pushed for political as well as spiritual change. Following Old Testament military precedents, and emphasizing prophecies in the Old Testament book of Daniel, they believed that God was leading them to arm themselves to overthrow the princes and false religion and to establish the theocratic Kingdom of God on earth. The most famous examples include Thomas Müntzer (c. 1489– 1525) and the peasants in the Peasants Revolt, along with the Münsterites (from the city named Münster), who were encouraged by signs in the stars and among their leaders which they believed were miracles showing God’s support. Others included the Zwickau prophets and Andreas Karlstadt after he left Wittenberg. They were opposed by nearly everyone else, including princes, Reformers, and other radicals. As discussed under the German Reformation, the princes slaughtered many, arrested others, and restored political order. Eventually the majority of those in the Radical Reformation were Anabaptists, who looked to the ancient church for their understanding of doctrine, morality, accountability, and church structure. They were confident that from the New Testament they could reproduce the life and structure of apostolic Christianity. They tended to distrust those who claimed prophecy or other direct revelation, trusting in the Scriptures for their understanding of Christ’s authority. Anabaptist groups were organized into disciplined communities of believers, stressing individual faith and witness. True faith in Christ sought to obey Christ’s commands completely, to grow increasingly holy, and to love others. Most communities practiced the ban—corporate denial of fellowship for those who refused to comply with community standards, which they believed they had been given by God. Most were pacifists, believing that violence and war were forbidden by Christ. Many examples will follow. Zurich Anabaptists were introduced in with the Swiss Reformation above. Conrad Grebel (c. 1498–1526), Felix Manz (1498–1527), George Blaurock (1491–1529), and others were part of Zwingli’s intense study group. Their rejection of infant baptism led to persecution, exile, and even execution for some. All were well educated and capable in the Greek classics, including the New Testament. Grebel became the primary spokesperson. The dramatic day of their baptisms in Manz’s home marks not only the founding of their church but also the beginning Anabaptist movement. Their arrests and persecutions, coupled with their holy lives, seemed only to fuel their commitment and growth. After Grebel’s August 1526 death, Manz assumed leadership, though he was executed by drowning in January 1527. Blaurock was beaten and banished, since he was not a Zurich citizen. He was later driven from Bern, Biel, Grisons, and Appenzell. He pastored an Anabaptist congregation in Tyrol—his evangelistic work throughout the region made secrecy difficult. In 1529 he and Hans Langegger (d. 1529) were arrested, tortured for information, and burned at the stake near Klausen. There were many other significant Swiss Anabaptists. Benedictine monk Michael Sattler (c. 1490– 1527) resigned as prior of his monastery after studying Scripture, embraced some Lutheran ideas, and later at Zurich became an Anabaptist. He led secret meetings of Anabaptists in the forest, but was forced to leave the canton. After efforts in other places, he worked at Horb, where he likely wrote the Schleitheim Confession explaining various aspects of Christian living. Sattler was arrested, tried, sentenced to death, tortured, and burned. His wife was drowned. Balthasar Hubmaier (c. 1480–1528) was a prolific writer and scholar among the Anabaptists. He had studied with Johann von Eck at Ingolstadt, where he earned his Doctor of Theology degree in

260

A Global Church History

Figure 3.27  Balthasar Hubmaier.

1512 and virtually ran the university from 1515. For the next few years he preached in several locations, and his Bible study led him to adopt Reformation ideas. By 1524, while preaching in Waldshut, he rejected infant baptism. On Easter 1525 he baptized over 300, with many more in the days which followed. He wrote Christian Baptism of Believers in answer to Zwingli’s position. When Emperor Charles V’s brother Ferdinand I (1503–64, later emp. 1558–64) attacked Waldshut, Hubmaier fled for Zurich, where he and his wife were imprisoned. Though pressured into writing a recantation, he publicly defended believer baptism when asked to read it. After imprisonment at Wellenberg, he preached and published at Nikolsburg in Moravia, baptizing thousands. When Hans Hut (see below) promoted violence to establish the Kingdom, Hubmaier wrote that only the state had the right to bear the sword. Ferdinand had Hubmaier and his wife arrested, then imprisoned at Vienna. After torture, he was burned in 1528. Anabaptists were also very influential in Germany. Hans Denck (c. 1495–27) had become Lutheran and then Anabaptist under Hubmaier. Exiled from Nurnberg, Denck in 1526 became an Anabaptist and led others in southern Germany. He was expelled from Strassburg in late 1526 and decided on a missionary journey down the Rhine River. At Worms they found sympathy among pastors, who were therefore dismissed by their congregations. After preaching in several cities, he died of the plague in Basel in 1527. Hans Hut (1490–1527) was forced to leave his home town Bibra for not baptizing his newborn child. After the Peasants’ War, at Augsburg, Denck convinced him of Anabaptist ideas. Hut was strongly chiliastic, or millenarian, meaning he emphasized the immanent reign of Christ on earth. He predicted

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

261

Figure 3.28  Hans Hut.

actual dates for Christ’s return and promoted revolution. He died from asphyxiation from a nearby fire while imprisoned at Augsburg—his dead body was subsequently tried and burned. William Reublin (1484–c. 1559), Zwingli’s disciple, became Anabaptist and influenced several other Anabaptist leaders, including Balthasar Hubmaier. His faith took him to numerous cities. Pilgram Marpeck (or Pilgrim, 1495–1556) in 1528 lost his position as city mining engineer and his possessions at Rattenburg when he became Anabaptist. At Strassburg he debated Bucer, was banished, and wandered twelve years. During his last eleven years he was city engineer of Augsburg. Marpeck’s teaching that the Old and New Covenants were distinct became very influential. Because of Hubmaier and the conversion of the barons of Lichtenstein, Moravia became the most important Anabaptist center in Europe. There the theology of Jacob Wiedemann (or Wideman/ Widman, d. 1535/1536) combined chiliasm, pacifism, and community of goods in order to bring revolutionary transformation to society. He led his followers to withdraw from other Anabaptists. Conflict with Reublin later led to another division. Jacob Hutter (1500–36) was an Anabaptist evangelist whose work among Moravian Anabaptists produced a group which practiced community of goods and brought several divisions. When Ferdinand demanded that Anabaptists be expelled from Moravia, the Anabaptists were forced to wander. Hutter was burned in 1536. His followers took his name, calling themselves Hutterites; many were influential missionaries, though most were martyred.

262

Figure 3.29  Jacob Hutter.

Figure 3.30  Melchior Hoffman.

A Global Church History

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

Figure 3.31  Jan Matthys.

Figure 3.32  Jan of Leyden.

263

264

A Global Church History

Figure 3.33  Dirk Philips.

The Dutch Anabaptists were among the most influential. Melchior Hofmann (1495–1543) became a Lutheran but by 1530 had become part of the Strassburg Anabaptists. After moving to Emden, he baptized people of all classes, causing his departure. Back as Strassburg, he stressed chiliasm and came to believe that he was the only one preaching the truth in Germany. He traveled, preached, and wrote pamphlets. In 1533, convinced that Christ would return very soon, he believed an Anabaptist who prophesied that Hofmann would be imprisoned for six months and then be like Elijah for Christ’s return; Strassburg would be the New Jerusalem. Hofmann instigated his own arrest and imprisonment. With the Peasants’ War developing, he was forgotten and died in prison ten years later. Many Dutch, with many Germans, were among the Münsterites. Jan Matthys (1500–34) and Jan of Leyden (or Leiden, 1509–36) claimed visions and prophecy; he convinced others that the millennium was a present reality and the New Jerusalem would be Münster. The Peasants Revolt brought about the death of many of these radical Anabaptists. Most Dutch Anabaptists would not embrace this violence. Obbe Philips (1500–68) and Dirk Philips (1504–68) were baptized by itinerate, pacifist Anabaptists. Obbe was ordained, followed by Dirk and Menno Simons, but later separated from the Anabaptists. Dirk, who was well educated in theology and who knew several languages, accused the violent Anabaptists of using the Old Testament to support what the New Testament did not condone. After the death of Menno Simons, Dirk became the leader of the Dutch Anabaptists. His works include Concerning Spiritual Restitution and Enchiridion (perhaps the most influential Anabaptist work of his day).

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

265

MENNO SIMONS (1496–1561), Dutch Anabaptist The most famous Anabaptist is Menno Simons. Having converted from being a Roman Catholic priest to become an Anabaptist, Menno served Anabaptist communities throughout Northern Europe. Despite the fact that he moved from house to house for long periods, Menno was a prolific writer—his works survived despite efforts to destroy them. His views included believer baptism, autonomous congregations connected to one another, and pacifism (including no violence and no participation in politics), among many other teachings. Menno’s most famous works include The Spiritual Resurrection (1536), The New Birth (1537), Christian Baptism (1539), Foundation of Christian Doctrine (1540, revised 1554), and True Christian Faith (1541). His greatest contribution is his leadership among northern Anabaptists during times of tremendous persecution from Roman Catholics and Protestants, including well-known Reformers. His spiritual heirs are often known as Mennonites. See Doc. 3.16

Figure 3.34  Menno Simons.

The most influential Anabaptist was Menno Simons (1496–1564). After becoming a priest in 1524, Menno struggled with the concept of transubstantiation, and soon his study of Scripture also led him to reject infant baptism. Though at first he stood against Anabaptists, their faith through martyrdom challenged him to consider his own faith. He soon realized that his insistence on believer baptism precluded his remaining a Roman Catholic priest. By 1536 Menno was baptized, began preaching for

266

A Global Church History

Anabaptists, and married his wife Gertrude. The next year Obbe Philips ordained him. To avoid arrest, Menno traveled freely among Anabaptists, despite threats and offers of reward from Emperor Charles V. Those whom he pastored were often executed. He ministered during his remaining years first near Amsterdam (1539–41), then around Cologne (1543–46), and finally in Holstein and the Baltic coastal region (1546–61). After his death, Anabaptists connected with Menno came to be known as Menists, or Mennonites. Menno defended traditional orthodox doctrines of God and Christ. For example, when Adam Pastor (d. 1560s) in 1542 began teaching that Christ did not exist before the incarnation and was not fully divine, Menno responded with Confession of the Triune God. He also insisted that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully human. Pastor was eventually banned. One place where Menno differed from the tradition was his understanding of a single direct source for the incarnation. Tradition taught that Mary provided at least part of Jesus’s human body, while Menno insisted that Jesus’s human body was a new creation of the Holy Spirit within Mary. This is called the doctrine of the celestial flesh of Christ.

Figure 3.35  Key Anabaptist Leaders.

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

267

Figure 3.36  Anabaptists by 1550.

Menno died in 1561. Dirk Philips assumed leadership of the Dutch Anabaptists. Dirk excommunicated several Anabaptist leaders, including Leenaert Bouwens (1515–82), who had been ordained by Menno in 1551 and whose evangelistic preaching had brought many into the Anabaptist community. After Dirk Philips died in 1568, Bouwens resumed leadership among many Dutch Anabaptists.

Discussion questions 1 What distinguishes Radical Reformers from the other Reformers during the Reformation period? 2 How did the Anabaptist emerge? What were their primary points of faith and emphasis? 3 Who is your favorite Anabaptist, and why? 4 Why did the Roman Catholics and their regions, and the Protestants and their regions, react so violently against the Anabaptists, particularly those who opposed violence?

268

A Global Church History

The English Reformation By 1520, England, like much of Europe, was also ready for Reformation. The established religion was Roman Catholicism, with the papal legate wielding nearly absolute theological authority in England, despite the fact that the archbishop of Canterbury held the highest official ecclesiastical position. People believed that bishops served the king more than the churches—this was most often the case. Other high-ranking clergy dominated church leadership under the bishop and consumed most of the church’s resources. Parish clergy were generally uneducated leaders, who farmed like others, with very limited income. People usually did not consider their priest to be holy—many priests participated in common vices such as gambling, drinking, hunting, and sexual promiscuity. Furthermore, monasticism no longer made major contributions to society. Few monks were university educated, and the monastic orders offered little education to the nation. Little was done to relieve poverty, ignorance, or illness, and very few became missionaries. So although the clergy in England maintained the appearance of influence, they actually contributed little, leaving a significant gap between the laity and the higher clergy. This led to an increasing anticlericalism among English authors who characterized church leaders as hypocrites who consumed the nation’s resources. Reformation teachings from the Continent had impacted a number of English leaders, especially among the educated. These included Luther’s understanding of justification by faith and Calvin’s doctrine of grace. Humanist leaders like John Colet and Sir Thomas More helped set the stage. Scholars at Cambridge gathered in regular meetings to discuss the Reformers’ ideas—many of these later became important leaders in the English Reformation. By the mid-1520s several London businessmen had embraced Lutheran ideas through their contacts with European Lutheran merchants. William Tyndale (c. 1495–1536) came under this influence, and sponsored an English translation of the New Testament, which was published in 1526, 1534, and 1535 editions—eventually the entire Bible was completed. English speakers could read the Scriptures or hear the Scripture read in their own language. We cannot understand the motives and reasons for the English Reformation apart from the political situation in England in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The last great English feudal war, called the Wars of the Roses (1455–85) saw the House of York (symbolized by a white rose) and the House of Lancaster (perhaps symbolized by a red rose) vying for supremacy in England. This was settled by King Henry VII (1457–1509, king 1485–1509) of Lancaster marrying Elizabeth (1466–03) of York in 1486, assuring that future heirs to the English throne would be direct descendants of both families, and beginning the Tudor line of English monarchs. Henry VII arranged for the crown prince Arthur (1486–1502) to marry Catalina de Aragón (Catherine of Aragón 1485–1536) in 1501, hoping to ally England with Spain. When Arthur died in 1502, Henry VII got papal permission for his next son Henry to marry Catherine. Shortly after their 1509 marriage, Henry VII died, and Henry VIII (1491–1547, king 1509–47) became king. Henry VIII was at first strongly Roman Catholic, having Luther’s writings burned and responding to Luther’s Babylonian Captivity of the Church with his own Assertion of the Seven Sacraments—Henry VIII was called “Defender of the Faith.” But the Lancaster-York alliance and the England-Spain alliance meant that England’s future depended on Henry and Catherine providing an heir to the English throne. Catherine bore six children, but one daughter, Mary, lived past early childhood. Meanwhile, Henry VIII

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

Figure 3.37  Catalina de Aragón.

Figure 3.38  Henry VIII.

269

270

A Global Church History

became passionately involved with Anne Boleyn (c. 1501/1507–36), who wanted to be recognized as queen. Henry hoped that his marriage to Catherine could be annulled on the basis that marrying his brother’s wife had violated canon law. But Catherine claimed her marriage to Arthur had never been consummated. Catherine’s nephew, Emperor Charles V (1519–56), also king of Spain (1516–56), had sacked Rome and was the most powerful person in Europe—the pope would not consent. With Catherine growing older, many wondered if Henry VIII could provide a male heir with Catherine—if not, England’s precarious alliances could fail. Papal legate Thomas Wolsey (1473–1530) had promoted Thomas Cromwell (c. 1485–1540) as one of his best assistants. In 1529 Wolsey was dismissed as papal legate, but Cromwell made peace with Henry VIII and continued to serve in Henry’s Council. The same year Thomas Cranmer (1489–1556) suggested that university theologians rather than canon lawyers should decide the annulment question. Many now believed that the marriage to Catherine could be annulled by removing Rome’s jurisdiction over England. In 1532 Cranmer was named the archbishop of Canterbury. Henry VIII and Parliament were ready to take action. A series of statutes stopped all payments to Rome (1534), demanded English clergy to submit to the king (1532), and required all legal settlements (including matrimony) to be settled in England (March 1533). Cranmer was licensed to consider the annulment of Henry VIII and Catherine—in May 1533 he declared the marriage null and void from its inception. Henry had already married Anne Boleyn, privately in November 1532 and publicly in January 1533. Parliament transferred royal succession to the heir of Henry and Anne Boleyn in early 1534 (this was later repealed in 1536). Later in 1534, in the Act of Supremacy, Parliament recognized the monarch

Figure 3.39  Thomas Wolsey.

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

Figure 3.40  Thomas Cromwell.

Figure 3.41  Thomas Cranmer.

271

272

A Global Church History

Figure 3.42  Anne Boleyn.

of England as the earthly head of the Church of England (see Doc. 3.17). Other 1539 Acts made it treason to speak against the royal family (1534), to refuse to renounce Rome’s jurisdiction (1536), or to flee to escape penalties. Meanwhile, between 1536 and 1540, Parliament systematically dissolved England’s monasteries. Former monks received pensions or stipends, nuns got tiny pensions but could not marry, and friars found other employments, often as priests. Assets came into possession of the crown, bringing extreme wealth. In 1539 Parliament passed the Six Articles Act, which preserved several key Roman Catholic doctrines for England’s Church, including transubstantiation, communion in one kind, clerical celibacy, vows of chastity and widowhood, private masses, and auricular confession. Denying these brought severe penalties, including death. Required changes in the liturgy soon followed, as did permission for noblemen, gentility, and merchants to read Scripture (common people were still forbidden). The “Henrician Revolution,” as it came to be called, was complete. The story of the English Reformation is related closely to Henry VIII’s successive marriages and the children birthed by his first three wives. After Henry began courting Jane Seymour (c. 1508–37), he had Anne Boleyn accused of adultery, incest, and plotting to kill the king; she was convicted and beheaded. Jane Seymour died twelve days after giving birth to son Edward. The marriage with Anne of Cleves (1515–57), a political marriage, was annulled on the grounds that the marriage had never been consummated—Anne outlived all of the other wives. Catherine Howard (c. 1523/1524–42) was beheaded after being accused of committing adultery while married to Henry and convicted of treason. Henry died while married to his sixth wife, Catherine Parr (1512–48). See Figure 3.43.

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

273

THE WIVES OF HENRY VIII Wife

Marriage Length

Children

&DWKHULQHRI$UDJRQ ದ

ವ 0DUULHG ವ $QQXOOHG

0DU\ %RUQ

$QQH%ROH\Q "ದ

ವ 0DUULHGSULYDWHO\SXEOLFO\GHFODUHGYDOLG

(OL]DEHWK %RUQ

-DQH6H\PRXU Fದ

ವ 0DUULHG ವ 'LHGWZHOYHGD\VDIWHUFKLOGELUWK

(GZDUG %RUQ

$QQHRI&OHYHV ದ

ವ 0DUULHG ವ $QQXOOHGGHFODUHGQHYHUFRQVXPPDWHG

&DWKHULQH+RZDUG Fದ

ವ 0DUULHG ವ %HKHDGHGIRUಯWUHDVRQರ

&DWKHULQH3DUU ದ

ವ 0DUULHG ವ +HQU\GLHG

 ವ %HKHDGHGIRUಯWUHDVRQರ

Figure 3.43  Wives of Henry VIII.

Figure 3.44  Edward Seymour, Duke of Somerset.

274

A Global Church History

Henry VIII and the nation rejoiced at the birth of Edward—finally there was a male heir. Mary and Elizabeth would be passed over in the line of succession. Henry had Protestant tutors for his crown prince. Then in 1547, Henry VIII died. His son was nine years old when he became King Edward VI. His uncle, Edward Seymour (1500–52), assumed the role of Protector until Edward was old enough to assume regal powers. He appointed himself Duke of Somerset and ruled in Edward’s name. Parliament in 1847 then removed Henry’s severe statues against Protestants and granted the properties of several religious organizations and ministries to the king. This prevented a Roman Catholic reemergence, but it also damaged the reputation of Protestant leaders. Some religious images were soon removed from churches. Cranmer produced the first Book of Common Prayer, which Parliament embraced in 1549 as the only legal form of worship (see Doc. 3.4). Meanwhile Protestants demanded more radical changes, and Roman Catholics opposed the current changes. Many were losing faith in Somerset. John Dudley (1504–53), Earl of Warwick and head of most of the armed forces, wanted to be Protector. Cranmer persuaded Somerset to surrender the Protectorate in October 1549. Warwick made himself Duke of Northumberland and ruled England. Somerset was imprisoned and later released; but his scheming to overthrow the Protector led to his beheading in January 1552. Though many expected Northumberland to lean toward Roman Catholicism, he led England in a decidedly Protestant direction. Several important Protestants came to England from other parts of Europe, including, among others, Bernardino Ochino, Martin Bucer, and John Knox. Anabaptists were persecuted. Clerical offices in 1550 were limited to bishops, priests, and deacons. Pro-Catholic bishops were often replaced with pro-Protestant bishops. In 1559 Parliament allowed priests to marry.

Figure 3.45  John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland.

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

275

Among the most important developments in Northumberland’s Protectorate were the acceptance of the second Book of Common Prayer in 1552 and of the Forty-Two Articles in 1553. Cranmer, with the bishop of London Nicholas Ridley (c. 1500–53, bp. 1550–53), worked for some time on revisions to the first Book of Common Prayer. Parliament accepted changes and required that the new Book of Common Prayer be implemented in November 1552. This second Book of Common Prayer modified the liturgy significantly, dropping the term “mass” altogether. Failure to comply was met with stiff penalties. In 1549 Cranmer had drawn up a document to be signed by those being licensed to preach. After further study, in June 1553 the committee’s expanded document, containing forty-two articles, received royal approval. Though Edward died later that year, these articles, revised under Queen Elizabeth I, became an enduring faith statement for the Church of England. Edward VI was ill much of his reign. Fearing he might not live to marry and have children, and realizing that heir apparent Mary was decidedly Roman Catholic, Northumberland persuaded Edward VI that the only way to preserve Protestantism for England was a change of succession. Their plan excluded Mary and Elizabeth, transferring the royal line to Northumberland’s grandchildren, the children of his daughter Frances Grey (1517–59) and Duke of Suffolk Charles Brandon (c. 1484–1545). Edward VI died in July 1553. Mary escaped to East Anglia, where she was recognized as queen. By July 1553, Brandon withdrew his claims that his daughter Jane Grey (1536/1537–54) was queen (she had assumed the role for nine days) and recognized Mary as Queen. Northumberland was imprisoned and then executed.

Figure 3.46  Queen Mary.

276

A Global Church History

Queen Mary (1516–58, queen 1553–58) immediately set about to restore England to Roman Catholic submission. Cranmer and Jane Grey were convicted of treason, and leading Protestant clergy were imprisoned. Former monks who were bishops but had married were removed. Protestants from the continental Europe were permitted to leave, but many English Protestants also escaped abroad. Elizabeth was imprisoned in the Tower. Parliament in 1553 repealed Edward VI legislation. In 1554 the queen married her cousin Philip II (Felipe II, 152–98, king of Spain 1556–98) of Spain, Charles V’s son—many English were appalled. Parliament’s approval of the marriage also disallowed Mary to disinherit Elizabeth and bequeath the crown by will. After papal legate Reginald Pole (1500–58) arrived in November 1554, Parliament petitioned for reunion with Rome, and Pole absolved England’s schism. Laws against papal submission were repealed. The burning of John Rogers (c. 1505–55) in February 1555 was the first of about three hundred heresy burnings of Protestants under Mary. Protestants functioned underground. On the Continent, English congregations were established, hoping for return to England after Mary’s reign. Mary’s counter-reform was not very efficient—she lacked a strong program, strong leaders, and monastic help, Philip II became the Spanish king in 1556; the next year Pope Paul IV (1476–1559, pope 1505–59) and France attacked Spain—this meant England was at war with France, without funding. Pole was recalled to Rome and tried for heresy. Meanwhile, Mary grew very ill, but refused to have Elizabeth executed, despite the advice of her Catholic advisers. In November 1558 Mary died.

Figure 3.47  Philip II (Felipe II), king of Spain.

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

Figure 3.48  Reginald Pole.

Figure 3.49  John Rogers.

277

278

Figure 3.50  Elizabeth I at Coronation.

Figure 3.51  Matthew Parker.

A Global Church History

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

279

Queen Elizabeth I (1533–1603, queen 1558–1603) inherited a nation at war with France and dependent upon Spain. Philip II considered marrying Elizabeth. The pope and the French claimed Mary Stuart (1542–87) was the rightful heir because Elizabeth was the illegitimate child of Henry VIII. Elizabeth wisely delayed her program to restore Protestantism until 1559. But that year became what historians have called the Elizabethan Revolution. Parliament in 1559 passed the second Act of Supremacy, recognizing the monarch as supreme governor of the English Church, as well as repealing Mary’s statutes and heresy laws, reviving ten of Henry VIII’s statutes, and granting further powers to the throne. The Act of Uniformity enforced a new prayer book. Matthew Parker (1504–75, abp. 1559–75) was chosen as Elizabeth’s religious leader and archbishop of Canterbury. The FortyArticles were revised to become the Thirty-Nine Articles, still a creed for the Church of England (see Doc. 3.23). Meanwhile, the stage was set for Reformation in Scotland. Scotland had been decidedly Roman Catholic, with the Church owning nearly half of Scotland’s lands. Upper nobility favored France—for example, King James V (1512–42, king 1513–42) married the French king’s daughter in 1537, and Queen Mary (Mary Stuart, 1542–87, queen 1542–67) married the French king in 1559. Lower nobility favored England. Scots resented mandatory tithing to the Church, dominated by higher nobility. By the 1520s, Luther’s writings began to reach Scotland, so in 1525 the Scottish Parliament banned them. Reformer Patrick Hamilton (1504–28) was burned for heresy in 1528. George Wishart (1513–46), Wittenberg educated, returned to preach in Scotland, gathering a number of disciples. Cardinal David Beaton (c. 1494–1546) pursued Wishart, who was burned in 1546. John Knox (c. 1505–72), one of Wishart’s disciples, assumed his ministry. In 1547 he condoned the murder of Beaton. When the French captured St. Andrews, Knox served nineteen months on a French galley ship, but the English interceded in 1549. Knox preached along the border, with Scots and English traveling to hear him. To avoid Queen Mary’s persecution, Knox moved to Frankfurt, then to Geneva, where he worked with Calvin. In 1559 he returned to Scotland to lead the Reformation there, encouraging lower clergy to look to England for support—in 1560 they made an alliance with Elizabeth. Assured of their support, in July 1560, Elizabeth sent her navy and army against the French in Scotland—the Treaty of Edinburgh meant French withdrawal and English control. In August 1560, Roman Catholicism was abolished in Scotland, and the Church was established much like the Reformed Church modeled for Knox in Geneva. Knox and others wrote a confession of faith and The First Book of Discipline, which prescribed Presbyterian church government (see Doc. 3.31). Their Book of Common Order prescribed proper worship. The Scottish queen, Mary Stuart (1542– 67), was reared in France. She tried to combat the Reformation in Scotland. After killing her husband, she was forced to abdicate the throne to her son James VI (1567–1625), and to flee to Elizabeth, who welcomed her. Soon opponents argued that Mary Stuart should be the English queen—Mary was imprisoned for eighteen years, then beheaded in 1587. James VI, raised as a Protestant, made Presbyterianism the state Church of Scotland. Back in England, Elizabeth faced opposition. Pope Pius V (1504–72, pope 1566–72) excommunicated her in 1570. There were plots to assassinate her. Roman Catholic loyalists tried to undermine her. At the same time, many Anglicans wanted more radical reform. Puritans wanted to reform while remaining in the Church of England—these included those later called Presbyterians, and Congregationalists (or Independents). This met with royal opposition. Presbyterian Thomas Cartwright (1535–1603), for

280

Figure 3.52  James VI of Scotland.

Figure 3.53  Thomas Cartwright.

A Global Church History

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

281

Figure 3.54  Elizabeth I in later years.

example, was imprisoned. Some Anglican congregations formed presbyteries. Congregationalists were Calvinists who advocated for transforming Anglican church government to include autonomy of local congregations. Others, known as Separatists, believed that purity could only come by leaving the Anglican Church. Robert Browne (1550–1633), for example, who held beliefs similar to Anabaptists, was a Separatist from 1579 to 1585, after which he rejoined the Church of England—many consider him the founder of Congregationalism in the English-speaking world. In Elizabeth’s later years England grew in power and influence. In 1588 Philip II sent his world dominant navy and army, together known as the Spanish Armada, to invade England. The English were victorious, bringing immediate change to the global balance of power, most immediately for Europe and North America. Ships could sail without the constant threat of Spanish capture and control. The English no longer had to live with the possibility of impending Spanish invasion. Other nations besides Spain and Portugal could explore the New World, the coasts of Africa, and the Far East. The Church of England would remain decidedly Protestant and independent of Rome. Elizabeth never married, so she produced no direct heir to the throne, and was known as the “virgin queen.” After serving as queen for over forty-four years, Elizabeth died in 1603. Elizabeth I’s death left King James VI of Scotland (1566–1625, king of Scotland 1567–1625, king of England 1503–1625) as the most immediate heir to the throne of England. See Figure 3.55. In England, James the VI of Scotland (king 1567–1625) was James I of England (king 1603–25). He continued the opposition to dissenters. James favored Roman Catholic teachings, so the common

282

Figure 3.55  English Reformation and Henrician family tree.

Figure 3.56  James I of England.

A Global Church History

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

283

people, who were Protestant, began to resent him. James I’s most famous contribution in England was his commissioning and authorizing of a fresh English translation of the Bible, which became known as the Authorized Version, or more popularly, the King James Version. This was published in 1611 and by king’s order replaced the other English translations. After some resistance to the change, the King James Version (KJV) became the standard Bible for the English-speaking world for over three centuries. King Charles I (1600–49, king 1625–49) tried to strengthen the king’s authority by dismissing Parliament, which did not meet from 1629 to 1640. He silenced Puritan ministers and persecuted others. In response, from 1630 to 1643 some 20,000 English—many Congregational Puritans—migrated to North America, especially to New England. Charles I also tried to unite the English and Scottish forms of church government by replacing Scottish Presbyterianism with an episcopacy, but the Scots rebelled. To get funding, Charles recalled Parliament, but dismissed them because they made demands. The Scots invaded England, so Charles again recalled Parliament, which met from 1640 to 1653. In 1643 Parliament abolished the episcopacy in England and called the Westminster Assembly, which met from 1643 to 1652, set up Presbyterian church government in England, and issued the very Calvinistic Westminster Confession of Faith in 1647 (see Doc. 4.4). Civil war broke out between Charles I and the Presbyterian-dominated Parliament. Congregationalists, however, controlled Parliament’s army, under Oliver Cromwell (1599–1658).

Figure 3.57  Charles I.

284

Figure 3.58  Oliver Cromwell.

Figure 3.59  Richard Cromwell.

A Global Church History

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

285

Figure 3.60  Charles II.

Charles I was defeated in 1645, but resumed the war in 1648 after he had recovered. In 1649 he was again defeated. This time he was beheaded. Parliament decided on a change in government. The crown was abolished, and Parliament ruled England directly—this was known as the Puritan Commonwealth (1649–60). An English constitution was passed, then replaced in 1657 with another constitution called Humble Petition and Advice (see Doc. 3.30). Oliver Cromwell was the primary leader, or Protector, from 1649 to 1658, then Richard Cromwell (1626–1712) from 1658 to 1660. Other Protestants had limited toleration, but Roman Catholics were persecuted. After years of frustration, the monarchy was reestablished in 1660 under King Charles II (1630–85, king 1660–85). He worked to restore religious conformity in England. The Book of Common Prayer once again became mandatory. The episcopacy was reinstated.

Discussion questions 1 Why is England’s political situation, both internally and externally, so important to understanding the events leading to the English Reformation? to Henry VIII have six wives? 2 Describe the major contributions to English Protestantism during the reign of English king Edward VI, under protectors Northumberland and Somerset. 3 What major reversals occurred during the reign of Mary as queen of England? 4 English queen Elizabeth I reigned for over forty-four years. What were the major developments for England during her reign, politically and religiously?

286

A Global Church History

5 Explain how the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 changed the course of global politics, expansion, evangelism, and more. 6 Why did the Puritan Commonwealth arise in 1649? What factors led its end and the restoration of the monarchy in 1660?

The Catholic Reformation While many have painted the Reformation period in broad strokes of Protestants versus Roman Catholics, the period needs a much more nuanced explanation. Nearly all of the great names among the reformers, whether in German, Swiss, Anabaptist, English, or others, began their reform work as Roman Catholics. Martin Luther, for example, has been described by Roman Catholics as the Roman Catholic Church’s greatest Reformer. Many who worked for reform in the Reformation period, however, committed their entire lives to creative service, redirection of priorities, and advancing spirituality without leaving the Roman Catholic Church. Often they were committed to the similar principles and to correcting the same abuses which ignited objections among the Protestant Reformers. Scholars refer to this reformation as the Counter-Reformation, or the Catholic Reformation. The term Counter-Reformation pictures the Roman Catholic Church responding to the Reformers, by either contradicting their teachings or embracing them. This includes the efforts of some to recover Catholic subjects and territories while persecuting others. The term Catholic Reformation pictures Catholics initiating changes to correct abuses, to recover lost values, and more. These reform efforts were evident in the Roman Catholic Church before Luther. Still, most of their calls for moral reform were ignored until the outcries of the Protestant Reformers spread so pervasively through oral and print media. The Catholic or Counter-Reformation, therefore, combines the Roman Catholic Church’s self-reformation, defense against attacks, and counter-attacks.

Leaders in the Catholic Reformation Late medieval efforts to reform the Church and papacy continued into the early sixteenth century. The curia at Rome was steeped in worldliness and resisted change. Conciliarists, still believing that the ecumenical council stood above the pope, continued to call for a general council to reform the papacy. Other reform efforts were also evident. The Fifth Lateran Council (1512–17), for example, called by Pope Julius II (1443–1513, pope 1503–13), considered missions to America, union with the Eastern Christians, educational reform for the clergy, Sunday lay instruction, limitations on exemptions for friars, and moral reform among clergy in Rome. They issued several decrees, but had little lasting effect. By the 1530s, despite claims to the contrary, papal power had diminished greatly. Reformation princes controlled much territory formerly under the Roman Church. Protestants in France were growing. French monarchs appointed many of the higher French ecclesiastical offices. Ferdinand II of Aragón (1452–1516, king 1479–1516) and Isabella I of Castile and León (1451–1504, queen 1474–1504) married in 1469 and later ruled as co-monarchs over their united kingdom of Spain. They exercised considerable authority over the Church in Spain. They allowed only those loyal to them as monarchs to become church leaders, used the Inquisition for political purposes, took over many church incomes, and persuaded Pope Alexander VI (1431–1503, pope 1492–1503) to approve the Treaty of Tordesillas (1494), which divided the New World between Spain and Portugal.

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

Figure 3.61  Pope Julius II.

Figure 3.62  Ferdinand II of Aragón.

287

288

Figure 3.63  Isabella I of Castile and León.

Figure 3.64  Cardinal Cajetan (Thomas de Vio).

A Global Church History

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

Figure 3.65  Luís de Granada.

Figure 3.66  Pedro de Alcántara.

289

290

A Global Church History

Figure 3.67  Luís de León.

Dominicans emphasized Thomism, the teachings of Thomas Aquinas. Especially influential was Thomas de Vio (1469–1534), known better as Cardinal Cajetan, general of the Dominicans. Franciscans stressed the teachings of Duns Scotus. Also very influential during the Catholic Reformation were Spanish church leaders, such as Luís de Granada (1504–88), Pedro de Alcántara (Peter, 1499–1562), and Luís de León (1527–91). Several spiritual masters contributed to contemplative Christianity during this period. Among the Spanish contemplative masters are Juan of Ávila (1499–1569), Teresa de Ávila (1515–82), Juan de la Cruz (John of the Cross, 1542–92), Luís de Granada, and others. Many humanists remained Roman Catholic while calling for major changes in the Church—most notable was Erasmus of Rotterdam (Desiderius Erasmus, 1466–1536). All of these influences, and more, brought great pressure for moral and ecclesiological consistency and real change (see Doc. 3.7). While Protestant Reformers drew the focus of much of the Church’s energy, their rise also accentuated these needs. Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros (or Ximenes, 1436–1517), better known as Cardinal Jiménez, led reform in Spain. Jiménez served as archbishop of Tolédo, reformed Spanish friars and nuns, and founded the University of Alcalá to educate priests. He served as Queen Isabella’s confessor (the priest to whom she confessed her sins) and helped bring the moors into Roman Catholicism. His humanist scholarship is exemplified in his Computensian Polyglot. He even administered the Kingdom of Castile after Isabella’s death, and led a crusade into Muslim North Africa.

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

Figure 3.68  Teresa de Ávila.

Figure 3.69  Juan de la Cruz (John of the Cross).

291

292

A Global Church History

Figure 3.70  Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam.

Other champions of the Catholic Reformation include Girolamo Savonarola (1452–98) and Gian Matteo Giberti (1495–1543) in Italy; Thomas Murner (1475–c. 1537), Johannes Cochlaeus (1479–1552), and Johann von Eck (1486–1543) in Germany; Jan Standonck (1453–1504) and Josse van Clichtove (d. 1543) in the Lowlands; Jan Laski (1499–1560) and Piotr Tomicki (Peter Tomicki, 1464–1535) in Poland; and John Colet (1467–1519), Thomas More (1478–1535), Reginald Pole (1500–58), and John Fisher (1469–1535) in England. Though many monastic orders had groups within them who strived for a more rigorous practice of their rules, often ranking nobility endowed a nearby monastery as a place for their own children and for others seeking a safe, secure place to spend their lives. Those in poverty could also find a means of living there, while contributing to the life of the Church. In addition to monastic reform, the Catholic Reformation included other organizations which worked toward holiness and service. For example, the Oratory of Divine Love was founded in 1497 in Genoa by Ettore Vernazza (d. 1524), then moved to Rome. From 1517 on groups were established throughout Italy. Philip Neri (1515–95) in 1548 began a brotherhood committed to prayer and to serving the poor and pilgrims; his Congregation of the Oratory worked at improving the priesthood and serving others.

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

Figure 3.71  Girolamo Savonarola.

Figure 3.72  Philip Neri.

293

294

A Global Church History

Other groups began with similar purposes, but grew to become orders later. In 1524, for example, Gaetano dei Conti di Thiene (1480–1547) and others, including Giavanni Pietro Carafa (1476–1559, later Pope Paul IV 1505–36), founded the Theatine Order—members were priests who maintained strict poverty while they called clergy to deeper spirituality and laity to deeper virtue. Similarly, in 1530 in Milan, Antonio Maria Zaccaria (1502–39) and two others founded the Barnabites, or Clerics Regular of St. Paul, to promote personal spiritual growth and ministry to others. Several other organizations included the Congregation of Regular Clerics, or Somascan Regular Clerics, founded by Gerolamo Emiliani (Jerome Emiliani, 1486–1537) in 1534 to care for orphans, poor, and sick. Other Catholic Reformation works were carried out directly by monastic orders. Franciscans, for example, were very involved in missions, especially in the New World. Sub-groups from among the Franciscans included the Capucines, a group of women founded by Maria Laurentia Longo (d. 1542), and the Order of Discalced Franciscans, founded by spiritual mystic Pedro de Alcántara (Peter, 1499– 1562). Dominicans, Augustinians, Jesuits, and others were also involved in missions. Later Teresa de Ávila followed by establishing the Order of Discalced Carmelitesses in 1562. In 1535 at Brescia, Angela Merici (1474–1540) founded the Ursulines to provide Christian education for girls. Pope Paul III (1468–1549, pope 1534–49) appointed a commission of cardinals to assess the Church’s needs. Their recommendations went far beyond what Paul III had anticipated—they criticized papal despotism and the Roman clergy, and they called for education reform, just administration of benefices, reform of monastic orders, and the end of simony and absenteeism. Paul III made no real changes among the curia except to order absentee bishops living in Rome to return to their dioceses.

Figure 3.73  Pope Paul III.

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

295

The Jesuits

IGNATIUS OF LOYOLA (1491–1556) Ignatius of Loyola, founder of Societas Jesu, or Society of Jesus, left his military life after an injury and his life of nobility for a beggar’s life as a soldier for Christ. He and six others vowed together in 1534 to live a life of poverty, chastity, and obedience to the pope if a missionary crusade to Jerusalem were not possible. From there the order grew significantly, engaging in educational, missionary, benevolent, and business ministries throughout the globe. Ignatius’s Spiritual Exercises combine reading and meditation on Scripture with personal contemplation and repentance. The work is designed as a spiritual contemplative retreat and is adaptable for use by individuals and groups, over time periods of various lengths (see Doc. 3.20).

Figure 3.74  Ignatius of Loyola.

296

A Global Church History

The most influential Roman Catholic order during the Reformation period was the Societas Jesu, or Society of Jesus, known as the Jesuits. The Jesuits began through the life and ministry of Ignatius of Loyola (1491–1556). Ignatius was born into Spanish nobility, but a 1521 military wound redirected his life. He began reading about the life of Christ and the saints. After recovery, he presented his sword to the Virgin Mary, exchanged clothes with a beggar, and decided to be a soldiers of Christ. He traveled to Rome and then Jerusalem, living on alms. Back in Spain, he studied Latin before attending the Universities of Alcalá and Salamanca (1524–28). He preached in the streets, twice leading to his arrest as a suspected heretic. From 1528 to 1535 he studied at the University of Paris. In August 1534 Ignatius and six companions climbed to the Chapel of Saint-Denis, on Montmartre in Paris, where they vowed poverty, chastity, and a missionary crusade to Jerusalem (if the crusade were impossible, they would instead give complete obedience to the pope). The group grew to nine, following spiritual disciplines which would later be included in Ignatius’s Spiritual Exercises. In 1535 they traveled separately to Italy, reassembling at Venice in 1537. War prevented their preaching pilgrimage to Jerusalem, so they moved to Rome—on the way Ignatius claimed a vision of Christ promising blessings at Rome. Though rejected at first, their work among the poor and sick in 1538–39 led Pope Paul III to grant them official sanction. Ignatius was elected as the first general of the order in 1541.

Figure 3.75  Francis Borgia.

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

297

Figure 3.76  Peter Canisius.

Tremendous growth followed. Within a decade there were over one thousand Jesuits, from all classes of society, in several countries. For example, in 1546, Francis Borgia (1510–72) joined the Jesuits after his wife died—he was Ferdinand II’s grandson, Pope Alexander VI’s great-grandson, Duke of Gandia, and later the third general of the Jesuits. They established colleges at several universities in Italy, Spain, France, Germany, and beyond. These colleges provided training for both Jesuits and nonJesuits and resulted in Jesuit influence among the upper classes. Ignatius often suffered illness in his later years. Still he continued to direct the rapidly growing order across several countries, organizing them into eleven “provinces” (Italy, Sicily, Castile, Aragon, Andalusia, Portugal, Upper Germany, Lower Germany, France, Brazil, and India). After Ignatius died in 1556, the Jesuits continued to work to advance Roman Catholicism. They excelled in education. Peter Canisius (1521–97), for example, founded Jesuit colleges at five universities; he also established schools which trained the children of nobility, advancing Catholicism among Europe’s future leaders. Jesuits went as missionaries with soldiers and merchants to the New World and to the Far East. Francis Xavier (1506–52) and his successors were very influential in the East Indies and Japan.

The Council of Trent The Council of Trent (1545–63) finalized the Protestant versus Roman Catholic separation. From the time of the Diet of Worms in 1521, those who hoped to reconcile the Protestants made temporary arrangements until an ecumenical council could deal with the issues—the most prominent figure was

298

A Global Church History

Figure 3.77  Council of Trent.

Emperor Charles V. Pope Paul III delayed calling the council because of political conflicts in Europe. By the 1530s, both Protestant leaders and the Roman curia opposed calling a council—Protestants argued that councils were not infallible and that only bishops would be permitted to vote on decisions, while the papacy feared that a council would limit papal powers in their reforms. In 1537 Paul III asked leaders and princes about a council where Paul III would preside, only bishops could vote, and Protestants could speak under safe conduct. Protestant princes replied that the German princes must decide the location (not in papal territory), that the pope could not preside because he would be called to account, and that laity could sit equally with bishops. Catholic princes replied favorably. Paul III called for a council to meet at Mantua in May 1537, but it never materialized. Venice offered, but non-Italians did not come, so the council did not meet. Paul III tried again, this time to meet at Trent in November 1542—Trent was in Germany, neutral and accessible. War between France and Charles V delayed the council until peace in December 1544. The council was called to meet at Trent in March 1545. Motives for wanting the council varied. Paul III hoped to regain control of Europe, to eliminate glaring abuses, and to clarify or restate doctrines. Charles V, a devout Roman Catholic, wanted to unite the empire and preserve order, which would strengthen both the Church and the empire and defend against invaders. He wanted the council to initiate church reform throughout Europe, since abuses had caused

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

299

the Reformation. That meant Protestants must be included, not coerced. Paul III, therefore, wanted doctrine first, then reforms; Charles wanted the opposite. The Council of Trent finally opened in November 1545, though only thirty-four prelates had arrived. In this first period of the Council of Trent, which met from 1545 to 1547, they decided that only bishops could vote, and that the prelates would pursue reform of abuses and doctrine at the same time, with separate groups drafting proposals for the whole council to consider. On February 4, 1546, news of Luther’s death was understood as God’s affirmation of the council. Doctrinal decisions during this first period included approving the Apostles Creed, affirming the Latin Vulgate as the only inspired Scripture translation, receiving tradition and church authority as equally inspired with the Scriptures (see Doc. 3.24), condemning justification by faith alone. Reform decisions required the end of bishops’ absenteeism and pluralism, the bishops providing diocese education and a regular preacher, friars to have the bishop’s permission to work in his see, and no more selling of indulgences. Shortly after a Protestant military force came near Trent, a pestilence was claimed, and most bishops left Trent. Paul III suggested they move to Bologna; most did, though the Spanish remained at Trent. Charles V defeated the Protestant force, but no one moved for two years. Meanwhile, Paul III died in November 1549. Charles V had a committee issue a creed to satisfy both Protestant and Roman Catholic Germans, called the Augsburg Interim. Both sides were dissatisfied with the result. Roman Catholics objected to communion in both kinds and to clerical marriage. Protestants objected to old worship and to the pope as the earthly head of the Church. Pope Julius III (1487–1555, pope 1550–55) realized Germany could be lost and called the council to Trent, so the Italian bishops rejoined the growing number of Spanish bishops. This began the second period of the Council of Trent, which met in 1551–52. Protestants asked that the council rescind previous decisions, since only sixty prelates had been present. Finally

Figure 3.78  Charles V in later years.

300

A Global Church History

Figure 3.79  Pope Pius IV.

adequate safe conduct was issued. But before Protestants could arrive, the council again came under danger of attack. Maurice of Saxony (1521–53, elector 1547–53) marched on Charles V, unprotected at Innsbruck, three days from Trent—Charles barely escaped. Julius III dismissed the council. Many suspected that Charles V plotted with Maurice and others to show their disgust. This end of this second period of the Council of Trent marks the break of significant efforts to reunite Protestants and Roman Catholics. The suspended Council of Trent did not reconvene for a decade (1552–62). During that period Europe greatly changed. Charles V resigned his crowns one by one and became a monk. Ferdinand I (1503–64, emp. 1556–64) became Holy Roman emperor. Philip II assumed the Spanish throne. England reunited with Rome under Queen Mary, but separated again under Elizabeth I. The Peace of Augsburg in September 1555 established religious toleration for Protestants in the empire, with a territory’s prince deciding the religion and policy of his territory (see Doc. 3.21). France and Spain settled their differences. Three popes died during this period; Pius IV (1499–1565, pope 1559–65) became pope. Pius IV recalled the council, initiating the third period of the Council of Trent (1562–63). Doctrine had been decided, but many matters of reform had yet to be considered. Protestants were invited, but declined. Over 200 prelates attended, three times the earlier sessions, with French bishops participating for the first time. Most of the prelates were Jesuits, voting according to their general’s will. The pope

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

301

THE POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT 1537

Pope

England

H. R. Emp.

Spain

France

Paul III (1534–50)

Henry VIII (1509–47)

Charles V (1519–56) (also ruled Spain as Charles I)

Charles I (1519–56) (also ruled H. R. E. as Charles V)

Francis I (1515–47)

1538 1539

(Act of Supremacy 1534)

1540

Events Affecting the Council May 1537 council suggested at Mantua May 1538 council suggested at Vicenza

1541

German Diet at Ratisbon

1542

War between Charles V and Francis I

1543 1544

War between Charles V and Francis I

Bull issued for a council to meet at Trent (May 22, 1542) War between Charles V and Francis I postpones council (1542–44)

1545 1546 Edward VI (1547–53)

1547

Henry II (1547–59)

1548 1549 1550

Paul III dies (November 1549) Julius III (1550–55)

(Protestant) Bull issued recalling council to Trent (November 1550) SECOND PERIOD OF COUNCIL Sessions 11–16 @ Trent May 2, 1551, to May 1552

1551 1552 Mary (1553–58)

1553

FIRST PERIOD OF COUNCIL Sessions 1–8 @ Trent December 13, 45 to 3–47 (Luther dies February 18, 1546) Sessions 9–10 @ Bologna 4–47 to 5–47 Charles V issues the Augsburg Interim (May 15, 1548)

Schmalkaldic War 1552–55

1554 1555 1556

Marcellus II (1555) Paul IV (1555–59)

(Roman Catholic)

Peace of Augsburg guarantees religious toleration in Empire (September 25, 1555) Ferdinand I (1556–64)

Phillip II (1556–98)

1557 Elizabeth I (1558–1603)

1558 1559 1560 1561

Pius IV (1559–65) (Act of Supremacy 1559)

1562 1563

Francis II (1559–60) Charles IX (1560–74)

THIRD PERIOD OF COUNCIL Sessions 17–25 @ Trent January 13, 1562, to December 4, 1563

Figure 3.80  Political environment of the Council of Trent.

ratified the Council’s decrees. The Council of Trent effectively ended the era of conciliar challenges to papal authority. After Trent, Catholic monarchs worked to hinder Protestantism and to recover lost territories for the Catholic Church. Philip II of Spain, for example, used the Inquisition to rid Spain of Protestants. Louis XIV (1638–1715, king 1643–1715) intensely persecuted Huguenots (French Protestants) during his

302

Figure 3.81  Louis XIV.

Figure 3.82  Ferdinand II.

A Global Church History

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

303

Figure 3.83  Pierre de Bérulle.

seventy-two-year reign. Emperor Ferdinand II (1578–1637, emp. 1629–37) later used the Thirty Years War (to be covered in the next chapter) and his Edict of Restitution (1629) to regain lost Catholic territories; he also required Roman Catholicism in Bohemia. By 1650, the Catholic Reformation in Europe had made strong progress. Spain’s sixteenth-century strength, aided by the influence of the Jesuits, grounded much of this growth. Some territories which had become Protestant had already reverted to their former Roman allegiance. At the same time, the Thirty Years War (1618–48) restricted Spain’s power, already weakened after Spain’s 1588 defeat. As the Jesuits involved themselves in other enterprises, their influence outside ecclesiastical circles declined. France became the primary place to attack Protestants. At the same time, French leader Pierre de Bérulle (1575–1629) in 1611 founded the Congregation of the Oratory of Jesus and Mary Immaculate (or Oratorians) with a superior-general over its centralized organization.

Discussion questions 1 Who is your favorite Roman Catholic reformer in the Catholic Reformation, and why? 2 Discuss the life and contributions of Ignatius of Loyola. Why were his followers so effective in advancing Roman Catholic education and evangelism? 3 What were the most important developments during the Council of Trent? Which major doctrines were affirmed there? 4 What impact did the Council of Trent have on lasting relationships between Roman Catholics, Protestants, and Anabaptists?

304

A Global Church History

Later Western European conflicts during the Reformation period We have looked at five geographical or ideological thrusts of the Reformation period in Europe—mostly Western Europe—leading up to the end of sixteenth-century efforts to reunite other groups with the Roman Catholic Church. This close attention is especially important because the Western European Reformation had enormous implications for global Christianity in the centuries which followed. The groups which emerged from the Reformation continued to define theology, expand or recover their influence, and explore additional ways to practice Christian faith. Catholic theologians worked to bring every understanding into conformity with Trent, which was almost immediately understood as the council which had defined Christian doctrine for both present and future. They appealed for careful explanation to the great theologians and teachers of the past— the most eminent was Thomas Aquinas, but there were scores of others. Many Roman Catholic leaders committed their lives to promoting social service through benevolent ministries and organizations. François de Sales (1581–1660), for example, founded multiple organizations—to serve the poor, to fund missionary projects, to found hospitals, to ransom galley slaves, and to serve in other ministries. When Martin Luther died, Lutherans lost their primary leader and the locus of their cohesive unity. Lutheran preachers and theologians assumed leadership. They often found themselves debating doctrine not only with Roman Catholics who opposed them, but also with fellow Lutherans on specific issues of theology and church practice. Some strictly followed Luther, while others were more moderate, led principally by Philip Melanchthon. Years later, in 1577, the Formula of Concord, the last of the Lutheran creeds, set forth Lutheran doctrine. The Book of Concord, published in 1580, contained all of the official Lutheran creeds—Apostles Creed, Athanasian Creed, Nicene Creed, Small Catechism, Large Catechism, Augsburg Confession, Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Schmalkaldic Articles, and Formula of Concord. Lutherans defended themselves against Roman Catholics, and defined carefully the differences between them and other Christian groups, particularly the Calvinists. Moderates who differed either merged with Reformed churches or joined other fellowships. Reformed churches, following the doctrines of Calvin, developed a number of creeds specific to particular church groups and locations. Calvinists were strong in Switzerland, Scotland, Hungary, France, Poland, and beyond. The Scots Confession, for example, was written in 1560 by six leaders of the Scottish Reformation, and carried importance alongside the Book of Discipline and the Book of Common Order. The Heidelberg Catechism, composed in 1563, posed questions and answers as a means of teaching Reformed doctrine. Because the Palatinate’s elector Frederick III (1515–76) commissioned the catechism, it also bears the name Palatinate Catechism. The Belgic Confession, more properly called the Confession of Faith, was written chiefly by Guido de Brès (1522–67) in the 1560s and revised several times over the following decades (see Doc. 3.22). The Helvetic Confession is a term for two confessions, more properly referred to as the First Helvetic Confession and the Second Helvetic Confession. The First was composed in 1536 by Bullinger, Bucer, and others. The Second, based on the first, was written in 1562, revised in 1564. It replaced the First because it was longer, more precise, and less Lutheran. The Westminster Confession, discussed earlier in the chapter, was composed by the Westminster Assembly, which met from 1643 to 1652, but issued the Confession in 1647. An extensive document, the Westminster Confession’s thirty-three chapters define the articles of Christian faith from creation to eternity from a decidedly Calvinist perspective.

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

Figure 3.84  Jacob Arminius.

Figure 3.85  Catarina de Medici.

305

306

A Global Church History

Figure 3.86  King Henry IV of France.

Against this Calvinistic backdrop we must consider the teachings of Jacob Arminius (1560–1609). Netherlands born, Arminius studied at the Geneva Academy, then taught as a professor at the University of Leiden. Arminius became curious about the philosophical priority (not the temporal priority) of God’s election in Calvinism. Supralapsarians believed that God’s choice had philosophical priority to Adam and Eve’s fall (philosophically, their fall depended upon God’s predestinating choice), while infralapsarians thought the sin had that philosophical priority. Arminius decided against both, rejected limited atonement, and believed salvation was offered to all, conditional upon human participation in the response. After Arminius died, followers organized themselves and were known as Remonstrants, from their document Remonstrance (1610) which sets forth their doctrines—God determined who would be saved based on foreknowledge, Christ died for all but only believers receive forgiveness, direct grace is necessary to do or think anything good, among others (see Doc. 3.29). When French king Henri II (Henry II, 1519–59, king 1547–59) of the Valois family died, his son François II (Francis II, 1544–60, king 1559–60) became king, but died in 1560. Henry II’s wife Catarina de Medici (Catherine, 1519–89) served as regent for their younger son Charles IX (1550–74, king 1560–74). Also vying for control were the Guise (Roman Catholic) and Bourbon (Protestant) families, resulting in civil

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

307

Figure 3.87  Edict of Nantes.

war from about 1559 to 1589. In the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre (August 23, 1572, and the two following days), nearly 10,000 Protestants were murdered—thousands more were killed throughout France in the following weeks. Bourbon heir and Protestant Henri IV (Henry IV, 1553–1610, king 1589– 1610) became king in 1589, but converted to Roman Catholicism in 1593, supposedly saying the famous words, “Paris is well worth a mass.” His Edict of Nantes in 1598 granted religious toleration to Protestants (see Doc. 3.27). The Thirty Years War (1618–48) brought devastation. With the Holy Roman Empire in decline and leaders disregarding the Peace of Augsburg, war broke out in 1618. In the first stage of the war Catholic League armies defeated the Bohemians, who had chosen Palatinate elector Frederick V (1596–1632) to rule them as King Frederick I (thus opposing the rule of Emperor Ferdinand II). Roman Catholics conquered Heidelberg and reinstated Roman Catholicism. From 1623 to 1630, Roman Catholics fought

308

A Global Church History

against Protestant king Christian IV (1577–1648, king 1588–1648) of Denmark; Swedes under Gustavus Adolphus (Gustav II, 1594–1632, king 1611–32) captured northern Germany in the next period, defeating Catholic armies but losing Adolphus. In 1635 the war expanded when France sided with Sweden. Finally the Peace of Westphalia was negotiated in 1648, ending the war. France grew in power. German population was reduced by one-third. Many point to this as the end of the Holy Roman Empire, which continued in name only. Eastern Orthodoxy continued to expand during the Reformation period, though they faced oppression, taxation, and persecution in territories controlled by Islamic governments. Orthodox believers recognized the five ancient patriarchates; with Rome excommunicated since 1054, four patriarchs were in fellowship—Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. In addition, the Orthodox came to recognize nine other autocephalous Churches—Russia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Cyprus, Greece, Poland, and Albania. By the early twenty-first century, other Churches were self-governing but not fully independent, and were considered “autonomous” but not “autocephalous”— Czech and Slovak, Sinai, Finland, Japan, and China. So the Orthodox Churches grew to be a family of churches, each self-governing, within parameters of a common set of orthodox doctrinal commitments. Lutherans tried to appeal to Orthodox Christians in Eastern Europe and beyond on the basis of not being Roman Catholics. In his reply, Patriarch of Constantinople Jeremias II (1574–84, pat. 1572–79, 1580–84, and 1587–95) in 1576 clearly demarcated differences in their teachings (see Doc. 3.26). Later, Patriarch of Constantinople Cyril Lucaris (1572–1638, pat. 1612, 1620–23, 1623–33, 1633–34), who

Figure 3.88  Cyril Lucaris.

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

309

worked to combat Roman Catholic influence within his jurisdiction, issued a Confession in 1629 which was markedly Calvinistic and condemned by six local councils in the period 1638–91. Other leaders issued confessions to counter Cyril’s Calvinistic teachings, often using Western concepts and terminology. In many places Orthodox and Catholics worshipped together, though this ended shortly after the Reformation period. Within the Turkish Empire, Orthodox Christians came under frequent oppression. Known as Rum Millet (Roman Nation), Christians, most of whom were Orthodox, experienced limited freedoms, but were considered a lower class than Muslims. In devshirme, a grievous practice which began in the fourteenth century but continued through the Reformation period into the modern period, Ottoman military leaders took boys aged eight to eighteen from Balkan homes, converted them under great pressure to Islam, and then used them as virtual slaves in government. Though this nearly ended by the end of the Reformation period, it was officially abolished much later, by Sultan Ahmed III (1673–1730, sultan 1703–30).

Discussion questions 1 Who is Jacob Arminius, what did he teach, and why are his teachings important? How are they distinctive from what is often called “Arminianism” in the West? 2 What events nearly led to the elimination of Protestants from France by the seventeenth century? 3 How did Eastern Orthodox Christians relate to others in this period? in growth? in resistance and resilience?

Missionary expansion in Europe and the Americas during the Reformation period The Reformation period begins the long period of European global exploration, with vast areas of the Western hemisphere, Africa, and the Far East being claimed for European nations. Suddenly Christianity was encountering multiple new lands, new cultures, and new peoples at nearly the same time. Roman Catholics, particularly Spanish and Portuguese, were most influential in spreading Christianity in this period. After the fall of the Spanish Armada in 1588, the English and others began to expand as well— this will be discussed in the next chapter. But the spread of Christianity also included missions and evangelism from Christians on other continents besides Europe. Because Christianity in most regions assumed a close link between society and faith, political power and evangelism were considered two aspects of a single expansion. With the explorers and their nations’ armies came missionaries to introduce Christianity among native peoples whom they discovered and conquered or otherwise engaged. In Europe, Christian missionaries worked to convert Jews and pagans. In 1512, for example, Spanish king Ferdinand conquered Navarre and ordered Jews to convert or leave. When European Jews did convert to Christianity, they often found themselves under suspicion. In Eastern Europe, as Russia expanded its borders, the Russian Othodox Church increased in land and wealth; missionaries worked among conquered Eastern European peoples, such as Chermis, Mordvins (or Mordvinians), and Votyaks (or Udmurts).

310

A Global Church History

The most important place for conversion of Muslims to Christianity was on the Iberian Peninsula. Muslims living in Iberia, Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, Malta, and North Africa who were often from Berber or Arab descent were negatively called moros (Spanish for “moors”). After Granada fell to the Spanish in 1492, efforts moved from preaching, to force, to suppression. By 1502 Queen Isabella expelled all moors from Castile and León, resulting in numerous conversions. King Ferdinand applied less pressure in his territories and saw fewer converts. Later, in 1524, King Charles I (1500–58, king 1516–56, also the Holy Roman emperor Charles V) ordered all Muslims to leave any area controlled by Spain; thousands of Muslims were baptized, many Muslims fled or died, and copies of the Quran were burned. Muslim converts to Christianity, known as moriscos, generally found themselves suspect or persecuted. From the time Christopher Columbus landed on Hispaniola in 1492, Spanish and Portuguese explorers and missionaries revolutionized the globe. The Spanish claimed most of the lands of the Western Hemisphere. Columbus brought missionaries on his second voyage in 1493. Pope Alexander VI (1431–1503, pope 1492–1503) approved conquering native people and bringing them into the Roman Catholic faith (see Doc. 3.1). Portugal protested to Pope Alexander VI, who gave Spain the right to possess lands they had already discovered that were not occupied by another Christian nation, and reaffirmed Portugal’s right to coasts of Africa; he drew a line from the north to the south 100 Spanish leagues west of the most western island of the Azores, granting Portugal all land east of the line and Spain all land west of the line—if both countries would spread Christianity among the native peoples. After Magellan (see below) sailed around the world, Portugal was granted the Molucca islands westward, and Spain the Philippines eastward.

Figure 3.89  Hernan Cortés.

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

311

Figure 3.90  Francisco Pizarro.

Spanish conquerors, called conquistadores, soon subdued huge territories. They explored all the Atlantic coastline of North and South America and the Pacific coastline from the Straits of Magellan to Oregon. Hernan Cortés (1485–1547) conquered the Aztecs in Mexico by 1521. Francisco Pizarro (d. 1541) conquered the Incas by 1535—their territory included Peru, Bolivia, Chile, Argentina, and Ecuador. Others explored, controlled, or founded settlements in most of South America, west of Brazil, in Central America, in the West Indies, and in what later became the southern United States. In Central America, for example, the first church building was erected on the isthmus of Panama in 1510. Missionaries arrived in Guatemala in 1526. Soon Nicaragua (1531) and Guatemala (1533) had their own bishops. Thousands were baptized. Several orders established settlements and missions throughout Central America. At first Franciscans and Dominicans did much of the honorable work in the New World. These were later followed by Augustinians, Jesuits, and many others. Their work included great risk—they were exposed to New World diseases, dangerous travel, and rejection or surface acceptance of their message. They often found themselves in conflict with soldiers and governors whose motives and actions seemed less than Christian. Franciscan missionaries arrived in Mexico in 1524. Soon others, including those of other orders, were flooding into Mexico. Thousands were baptized. By 1530, Juan de Zumárraga (1468–1548, bp. 1530–48) was bishop of the newly established Mexico City diocese. Mexican native Juan Diego (1474–1548), the first indigenous New World Roman Catholic saint, reported his 1531 vision of Mary, Our Lady of Guadalupe, which became an inspiration for Mexican Christians.

312

A Global Church History

Figure 3.91  Juan de Zumárraga.

Spanish missionaries poured into South America. Dominicans built South America’s first monastery in Venezuela in 1513, with a bishop at Coro in 1531. Franciscans did limited work in Spanish Guiana (modern Guyana), then part of Venezuela. Cruel conquest beginning in the 1520s led to Spanish control of New Granada (modern Colombia)—by 1540 the entire population had outwardly embraced the Christian religion. The center of Spanish power in South America was modern Peru, also the home of the highly developed Inca civilization. Smallpox spread from Central America to the Incas in the late 1520s, eventually killing over two-thirds of the Inca population. In 1533 Pizarro executed the Inca emperor Atahualpa (c. 1502–33, emp. 1532–33) after coercing his baptism. By 1600, most of the civilized populations of Ecuador and Peru practiced Christianity. Portuguese missionaries worked in modern Brazil. Like Spanish missionaries, they often worked to protect native peoples from Portuguese settlers. Because there were no indigenous civilizations in Portuguese lands, however, and because much of Brazil’s climate and geography made travel difficult, missionary work was quite different. With fewer workers, vast territory, and foreign interference, Portuguese control was tenuous. Jesuits under Manoel de Nóbrega (1517–70) established four mission centers and baptized 100,000. Other famous missionaries José de Anchieta (1534–97) and António Vieira (1608–97), among many others, sought human rights protections. In what would later be the southwestern United States, Franciscans worked around El Paso and Santa Fé. The first Spanish missionary effort in Florida was in 1526, though missions in Florida were unsuccessful until the Spanish occupied Florida in 1565. St. Augustine was founded in 1565. Because of the work of Jesuits, then Franciscans, by 1630 there were 30,000 Roman Catholics in Florida.

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

313

Figure 3.92  José de Anchieta.

Directly under the Spanish king, the viceroy ruled Spanish America with absolute authority. By 1541, he controlled all church and secular administration, and he made all civil and ecclesiastical appointments. By 1574 Spaniards in the New World had about 200 cities and towns, about 160,000 Spanish population, and ruled over about seven million native peoples, called indios (Spanish for “Indians”). The conversion of native peoples was a clearly articulated motive from the very first. Hundreds of missionaries poured into the New World. Most of the Indians embraced the Roman Catholic faith, at least nominally, though this often meant little more than minimal participation in the sacraments, with considerable syncretism. Suffering among the Indians was beyond description. Often whole tribes were forced into service, which amounted to slavery, with loss of life secondary to governmental purposes. At first, some Spaniards argued that the Indians were not really human beings, or at least not fully human, and were therefore incapable of conversion, but this was repudiated by missionaries, theologians, and popes. Many missionaries worked to protect the Indians. Europeans also brought with them European diseases, which spread among the Indians. How did the Spanish justify such pain in the name of Christ? Most Europeans understood their effort to civilize the Indians and to evangelize the Indians as one work. They were continuing the tradition of the Crusades—to conquer, civilize, and Christianize those not already part of Christendom, Christ’s rule on the earth. This crusader mindset seemed to allow unscrupulous theft, murder, and violence. Some defended the conquests as efforts to suppress human sacrifice, idolatry, and other

314

A Global Church History

BARTOLOMÉ DE LAS CASAS (c. 1484–1556) Though he came to the New World as a slave owner, Bartolomé de Las Casas joined the Dominican order. He became the best known advocate for justice for New World peoples being oppressed by the Spanish settlers. His tireless advocacy took him across the Atlantic fourteen times. He was able to gain the support of Cardinal Jiménez and Emperor Charles V, who was also king of Spain. His most famous works, History of the Indies and A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies, chronicle early Spanish colonization and colonial oppression.

Figure 3.93  Bartolomé de Las Casas.

native practices—the Indians, they argued, would see the advantages of Christian faith after the soldiers established peace and the preachers explained the faith. Denouncing harsh treatment of indigenous peoples came immediately. Antonio de Montesinos (c. 1475–1545), for example, in a 1511 sermon decried mistreatment. Dominican friar Francisco de Vitoria (c. 1483–1546) argued that New World crusades were not “just war,” since native peoples had not wronged the Spanish, the conversion motive did not justify military action, and the Aztec ruler was as sovereign as the Spanish monarchs. Bartolomé de las Casas (c. 1484–1556) came as a slave owning settler to the New World, but soon renounced this life to become a Dominican and to advocate for the oppressed for the next five decades, first in the New World, and later at the Spanish royal court. His most famous works, History of the Indies and A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies,

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

315

Figure 3.94  Destruction of the Indies, by Bartolomé de Las Casas.

chronicle early Spanish colonization and colonial oppression. José de Acosta (1539/1540–1600) wrote On the Preaching of the Gospel among the Indians, the first published systematic treatment of missionary theory by persuasion. Popes consistently condemned slavery for the Indians, but New World Spanish clergy generally did not. Toribio Alfonso de Mogrovejo (1538–1606) traveled alone, baptized 800,000, and built roads, schools, chapels, hospitals, and more. This work extended into northern Argentina, where bishops of Córdoba, Fernando Trexo y Senabria (1547–1614, bp. 1595–1614), and Tomás de Torres (1570–1630, bp. 1620–28) defended Indians and blacks against repression. French explorers helped to establish several French colonies in North America in the sixteenth century, but those colonies generally closed within a year. Their permanent colonies and missionary work came in the seventeenth century. Protestant missionary work outside of Europe was also fairly limited during the Reformation period. The British began to colonize the New World in the first half of the seventeenth century. Their work, and the work of French explorers, will be covered in the next chapter. Dutch Calvinists arrived in India in 1631, but their work and the work of other Protestants in India came primarily after the Reformation period.

316

A Global Church History

Discussion questions 1 What methods and practices were used by the Spanish and Portuguese to subjugate New World peoples and to incorporate them into Christendom? 2 From the perspective of the Spanish crown and explorers, explain the relationship of military conquering and evangelism in their understanding of Christian expansion. 3 Who among those who defended native peoples against Spanish slavery and oppression is your favorite, and why?

Missionary Expansion in Africa and Asia in the Reformation period The Portuguese journeyed more east than west. By the fifteenth century they had already colonized islands west of Africa. Cape Verde had a church by 1456. Portuguese Christian missionary expansion is evident by their founding of new dioceses on Madeira Island (1514), Cape Verde islands (1532), Goa (India west coast, 1533), Malacca (Malaysia, 1557), Macau (China coast, 1576), Japan (1585), Congo (1596), and Sofala and Tete (Mozambique, 1612). Portuguese explored up the Zambesi and Congo Rivers of Africa, though missionary work was limited. Franciscans worked on Ceylon (today Sri Lanka) in the early sixteenth century, resulting in thousands of nominal Roman Catholics. Western African Christianity found itself in constant conflict with Islam, which was long established in the region. When Portuguese arrived, the Muslim Songhai Empire ruled much of western Africa. Roman Catholic missionaries baptized thousands of Africans, who often syncretized Christian personalities with their indigenous cultures’ gods. Portuguese missionaries introduced Christianity to the Congo in 1491, when Congo ruler Nzinga a Nkuwu (d. 1509, ruled 1470–1509) was baptized under the Christian name João I. His son Mvemba Nzinga (or Nzinga Mbemba, European name Afonso I, c. 1456–1542/1543, ruled 1509–42/43) studied in Portugal and became king in 1506. He made Christianity the empire’s religion, renaming the capital São Salvador (modern M’banza-Kongo in northern Angola). His younger brother Henrique became bishop, though the Congo was not officially a diocese until 1596. The people followed their king into Christianity. The Portuguese slave traders, however, brought resistance to Christianity. In 1560, Portuguese Jesuit Gonçalo da Silveira (1526–61) traveled up the Zambezi river to modern Zimbabwe. Soon he converted Mutapa chief Negomo Chirisamhuru (d. 1589, chief 1560–89) with his mother and three hundred others. The next year Muslims convinced Negomo that Silveira was a spy, so Negomo had him killed. Christianity in eastern Africa was constantly in conflict with Islam. Portuguese had already taken control of Mozambique and Kenya before 1500. When the Portuguese arrived in Ethiopia they found many churches and monasteries, with a Christian tradition tracing to the fourth century. Ethiopia was primarily Christian, but surrounded by Muslim nations. Many of these churches were soon destroyed by jihadist Muslims, who also forced conversion to Islam and executed those who refused. Portuguese returned in 1541 and soon defeated Muslim opponents, saving the region for Christianity. Soon

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

317

Figure 3.95  Nzinga a Nkuwu (João I).

Portuguese Jesuits were pressing Ethiopian Christians into Roman Catholic practices. In 1603, another Jesuit mission came to Ethiopia and Eritrea; in 1624, Emperor Za Dengel (d.1604, emp. 1603–04) moved his people from Ethiopian Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism, and Susenyos I (1572–1632, emp. 1606–32) continued the policy. Susenyos I’s son Fasilides (1603–67, emp. 1632–37) expelled the Jesuits from Ethiopia in 1632, forced reconversion to Ethiopian Orthodoxy, and banned European missionaries. Dominicans worked on Mozambique, but with little success. Several early attempts for spreading Christianity on Madagascar and on Mozambique during the Reformation period were unsuccessful. Augustinian Hermits converted hundreds of Africans in Mombasa kingdom (in modern Kenya) and on Zanzibar island. This brought continued conflict with Muslim populations. Northern Africa also continued to be dominated by Islam during the Reformation period. In Egypt, the Coptic Orthodox Church claimed the authentic faith back to Mark in the first century, but by the beginning of the Reformation were a small minority (about 10 percent). As in other places, the Portuguese established a colony at Luanda (in modern Algeria) in 1575, and exported hundreds of slaves while

318

A Global Church History

Dominicans, Franciscans, and Jesuits tried to convert the population. They baptized thousands, but found themselves fighting African syncretism. Spanish and Portuguese missionaries found less success in Asia than in the New World. Here they confronted ancient, well-established religions, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Baha’i, Confucianism, Daoism, Jainism, and Sikhism, among others. This meant the Europeans could not impose paternalistic superiority. Peoples in Asia were often ignorant of Christianity’s rich Asian heritage. Much of their work first established mutual trading relationships—seen as necessary if well-established cultural values were to be questioned. The Near East saw many among Christians convert to Islam, partly because of governmental pressures and discrimination against non-Muslims. In 1520, patriarch of Constantinople Theoleptus I (d. 1522, pat. 1513–22) convinced Ottoman sultan Selim I (1470/1471–1520, sultan 1512–20) not to convert all Constantinople church buildings into mosques and force Christians to convert to Islam. In the early sixteenth century, Abyssinian Christians were pressured to become Muslims, though many returned to Christianity when Muslim rulers were overthrown. When Portuguese explorer Vasco da Gama (1460/69–1524) reached the southwest coast of India in 1498, he found a large body of Christians who traced their faith to the apostles. The Portuguese concentrated their efforts on Goa, on the central west coast; Jesuits reported thousands of baptisms in the 1560s and beyond. Conflicts between these Roman Catholics and the ancient St. Thomas Christians

Figure 3.96  Vasco da Gama.

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

319

Figure 3.97  Roberto de Nobili.

led to ecclesiastical division in India. One group of these Syrian Christians of Malabar, later called Chaldean Catholic Church or Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, united with Rome as a Uniate group. The Church of the East, long dominant in India, rejected both the Roman Catholicism and the Chaldean Catholic Church. Goa Roman Catholic archbishop Aleixo de Menezes (1559–1617, abp. 1595–1612) through the 1599 Synod of Dyamper tried to end the influence of the other two groups. Jesuits also worked among Moguls in northern India in the sixteenth century. In southern India, Jesuits headquartered at Madura, where Roberto de Nobili (Robert of Nobili, 1577–1656) arrived in 1605. Realizing that prior approaches had been counterproductive, Roberto lived, dressed, and ate like an Indian Brahman holy man (India’s highest caste), learning Tamil and Sanskrit languages, and refusing contact with anyone but Brahmans. From 1607 to 1611 he converted many, eventually claiming conversion of twenty-six Brahmans and 4,000 Christians (see Doc. 3.28). On Ceylon (modern Sri Lanka), Portuguese Roman Catholic missionaries converted thousands beginning in the early sixteenth century. Eventually work on the island was subdivided between Franciscans, Dominicans, Augustinians, and Jesuits. Kings were converted, and they led their people groups into the Church. In Southeast Asia, success of missionaries varied significantly. Frenchman Alexandre de Rhodes (1591–1660) arrived in 1619 and worked around Hanoi and then in other cities of Tonkin and Annam (modern Vietnam). He claimed about 6,000 converts, but was expelled when leader Trinh Tráng (1577– 1657, ruled 1623–57) grew concerned about the spread of Catholicism. He was later expelled again from

320

A Global Church History

Figure 3.98  Alexandre de Rhodes.

the region. Franciscans, Dominicans, and Jesuits, among others, worked in Siam (modern Thailand), Cambodia, Cochin-China, Annam, Laos, and Tongking—the chief territories of Indochina (modern Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam); the people received these Spanish and Portuguese missionaries in the late sixteenth century. The East Indies, composed primarily of the Malay Archipelago, were extremely diverse in race, language, and religion—animism, Hinduism, Buddhist, and Islam were entrenched before missionaries arrived. The people were drawn to Europeans beginning in the sixteenth century, because of rich trade, which was controlled by European powers—first the Portuguese, then Spanish, then Dutch and even English. Roman Catholics came from Malacca and from the Philippines. Jesuits followed Francis Xavier’s coming in 1546, and claimed thousands of conversions. The Philippine islands were the only territory in the region during the Reformation period where the population’s majority came to profess Christianity, particularly because of the work of Spanish missionaries. Expeditions by Fernão de Magalhães (Ferdinand Magellan, 1480–1521), killed there in 1521, and later in 1542 by Ruy López de Villalobos (1500–44) failed. Christianization of the Philippine islands began in earnest from 1565, when Miguel López de Legazpi (c. 1502–72) gained control of Cebu Island, which became the early missionary outreach center. Within three decades there were over 300,000 Roman Catholics. The encomienda system required Filipinos to pay tribute to Spaniards in exchange for Christian teaching and military protection. Five religious orders—Augustinians, Franciscans, Dominicans, Jesuits, and secular priests—converted the masses by working on separate islands and in separate communities. The Spanish crown gave financial support. Jesuit leader Francis Xavier and his missionary companions considered the conversion of China as a necessary prerequisite to converting Japan. Unable to enter China, Xavier died on São João Island

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

Figure 3.99  Matteo Ricci.

Figure 3.100  Xu Guangqi.

321

322

A Global Church History

(modern Shangchuan Island) off the Chinese coast in 1552. His method was to repeat the Nicene Creed, Lord’s Prayer, Ten Commandments, and Hail Mary until the crowd could say them. Then he would baptize the crowd. Italian Jesuit priest Matteo Ricci (Matthew Ricci, 1552–1610) arrived at Macau in 1582, where he learned Chinese language and customs. After living in several Chinese cities, in 1601 he was invited by the Wanli emperor (personal name Zhu Yijun, 1563–1620, emp. 1572–1620) into the Forbidden City of Beijing. Several prominent Beijing leaders became Roman Catholics, including Xu Guangqi (baptismal name Paul, 1562–1633), who became the leader of Chinese Christianity after Ricci’s death. Ricci taught that the Chinese had always known God, but that Christianity completed that earlier faith. Dominicans later accused Ricci of syncretism, contributing to Chinese leaders opposing Christianity as a foreign religion. Dutch lived on Formosa from 1624, producing hundreds of converts as well as many schools, generally among non-Chinese peoples; the Dutch were driven out in the 1660s. In 1624 Portuguese Jesuit priest António de Andrade (1580–1634) risked his life repeatedly crossing the Himalayas to introduce Christianity to Tibet; other Jesuits followed, until Capuchins assumed the work in 1721. Portuguese reached Japan in 1543 on the island of Kyushu. Japan was divided among feudal states, each governed by a daimyo, or war lord. This political turmoil represented a change of governing when Francis Xavier arrived in 1549, where he was assisted by Japanese convert Anjiro ¯ (or Yajiro ¯, baptismal

Figure 3.101  António de Andrade.

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

323

name Paulo, or Paul). Powerful daimyo Oda Nobunaga (1534–82) tried to unify Japan, and was friendly toward the Christians. Conversions began in the south and spread to the middle provinces. Jesuit missionaries served under Alessandro Valignano (1539–1606); in 1579 they founded Nagasaki as a home for Christian converts, who numbered about 100,000. It was hoped that Japan could be converted within a decade. Toyotomi Hideyoshi (1537–98) became the key daimyo in 1587, when there were over 150,000 Christians—he actively persecuted Christians, ordering missionaries to leave and Japanese Christians to recant, but he was inconsistent, and Christianity spread. His oppositions became focused and bloody in 1597—crucifixions, church destruction, missionary deportation, and more. Jesuit missionaries controlled trade through Macau and were thus protected by the daimyos. Tokugawa Ieyasu (1543–1616, shogun 1603–1605) seized power in 1600 and became the first Tokugawa shogun in 1603. At first he favored Christians, and thousands of conversions followed. In 1612, however, the Tokugawa family instituted persecutions. By 1614 the daimyos had established central authority, which Christian daimyos opposed, so in 1614 Ieyasu expelled missionaries. Thousands of Christians were martyred over the next thirty years. Christians were forced to go underground, known as Kakure Karishitan (hidden Christians). A decree in 1638 closed Japan to foreigners—Jesuits who tried to land secretly were tortured and killed. After the fall of Constantinople in 1453, Moscow became increasingly understood as the Third Rome, politically and ecclesiastically. Tsars replaced emperors as protectors of the Orthodox Churches. In 1589, the metropolitan of Moscow was raised to the title of patriarch, fifth in rank. Church and state were nearly inseparable. As the Russian empire expanded, the Russian Orthodox Church also grew in size, wealth, and power. As Russia began to expand its control across northern Asia in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, missionaries followed, with the Russian government lending full support to the Russian Orthodox Church. Controversy arose over monastic ownership of property. Possessors, as they were called, asserted that monasteries could own property, necessary to support their many mercy ministries (the Church, mostly monasteries, own nearly one-third of Russia’s land). Non-Possessors, mostly hermits, argued for the ancient practice of poverty. Different understandings of ministry, piety, and prayer compounded the differences.

Discussion questions 1 How did Portuguese expansion in Africa and Asia differ from Spanish and Portuguese expansion into the Western hemisphere? 2 Who was your favorite African tribal Christian leader, and why? 3 In what distinctive ways did Matteo Ricci approach to evangelism in China? What were the advantages? problems? Compare him to Roberto de Nobili in India.

Chapter summary The sixteenth century in Europe began with aging medieval structures under significant pressure from expanding communication, rising nationalism, and widespread distaste among many Christians for the actions of many clergy from local priest to pope. The call for reform was nearly universal. Regions and

324

A Global Church History

people groups were increasingly self-identifying as national units, not merely sectors of a monolithic Christendom. The printing press had made mass communication easier and affordable. In Germany, Luther’s discovery that “the just shall live by faith,” coupled with his disgust over indulgences, moved him to action. His posting of the Nine-Five Theses ignited a fire that grew out of the Rome’s control. Kings, hierarchy, and emperor were unable to quench its spread. Germans, then Swiss, and eventually nearly every part of Europe were affected. The once-assumed unity of Christendom under the hegemony of the pope was shattered. England and Scotland separated from Roman Catholicism. Much of Germany became Lutheran. Radical Reformers proposed even further reform, questioning widespread conventions such as church-state tie, infant baptism, and more. Roman Catholics, many of whom were already championing reform, also responded by defining doctrines more carefully, especially those being questioned by Protestants. For nearly a century Europe found itself in a series of successive politico-religious conflicts called the Hundred Years War, culminating in the Thirty Years War. Finally the Peace of Westphalia quelled the worst of the conflict. In the meantime, Spain and Portugal explored the New World, the coasts of Africa, India, and the Far East. Soon Roman Catholic missionaries were working with the explorers. The New World became almost entirely Roman Catholic, though the combination of conquest, slavery, and oppression shadows the often sacrificial work of many missionaries. After defeating the Spanish Armada in 1588, England explored and colonized as well. Eastern Europe remained Roman Catholic or Orthodox, depending upon the region and earlier affiliations with either Rome or Constantinople. Moscow continued to be the most influential seat of Orthodoxy, still considered the Third Rome. In short, the Reformation period rocked the Church and the world. In 1490, much of Europe believed that the world should be united under the leadership of the pope. Orthodox Christians did not, but they still labored under the notion of a united Christendom, though separated from the Western Church. There were Christians in Ethiopia, India, China, and other places, but few in number. By 1650, Europe’s hegemony had been shattered, with multiple Christian faith groups unconnected to Rome and to each other. Most were settled, so to speak, in their doctrinal understandings, supporting by their own documents and structures that defined them. Many had died from political fighting, often waged at least outwardly in the name of religion. The new order seemed to embrace multiform Christianity, expressed through a variety of convictions, practices, and preferences. Most of the Latino world was outwardly Christian, and Christianity was making further inroads in parts of Africa and Asia. The stage was set for worldwide Christian expansion in the coming centuries.

Chapter bibliography Althaus, Paul. The Theology of Martin Luther. Translated by Robert C. Schultz. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1966. Bainton, Roland H. Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1950. Bireley, Robert. The Refashioning of Catholicism, 1450–1700. Washington DC: CUA Press, 1999. Bouwsma, William J. John Calvin: A Sixteenth-Century Portrait. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. Cairns, Earle E. Christianity through the Centuries. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996. Chadwick, Owen. The Reformation. The Pelican History of the Church. 3rd ed. New York: Penguin, 1964. Cone, Steven D. Theology from the Great Tradition. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2018. Cottret, Bernard. Calvin: A Biography. Translated by M. Wallace McDonald. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000.

Christianity in the Reformation Period from 1500 to 1650

325

Daughrity, Dyron B. Martin Luther: A Biography for the People. Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 2017. Dickens, A. G. The Counter Reformation. New York: Norton, 1968. Dickens, A. G. The English Reformation. 2nd. ed. New York: Schocken, 1968. Dowley, Tim, ed. Introduction to the History of Christianity. 2nd ed. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990. Estep, William R. The Anabaptist Story. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996. Janz, Denis R., ed. A People’s History of Christianity. Student ed. 2 vols. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2014. Kittelson, James M. Luther: The Reformer. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1986. Latourette, Kenneth Scott. A. D. 1500-A. D. 1975. Vol. 2 of A History of Christianity. 2nd ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1975. Marius, Richard. Martin Luther: The Christian between God & Death. Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 1999. Marty, Martin. Martin Luther. New York: Lipper/Viking, 2004. McManners, John, ed. The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. McNeill, John T. The History & Character of Calvinism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1954. Parker, T. H. L. John Calvin. Batavia, IL: Lion Publishing Corporation, 1975. Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. Vol. 4: Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300-1700). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984. Selderhuis, Herman J. John Calvin: A Pilgrim’s Life. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2009. Spitz, Lewis W. The Protestant Reformation: 1517–1559. The Rise of Modern Europe. New York: Harper Torchbooks (Harper and Row, Publishers), 1987. Walker, Williston, Norris, Richard A., Lotz, David W., and Handy, Robert T. A History of the Christian Church. 4th ed. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1985. Williams, George Huntston. The Radical Reformation. 3rd ed. Vol. 15 of Sixteenth-Century Essays and Studies. Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1992.

Chapter 4 Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries Robert F. Rea

Introduction When the Peace of Westphalia ended the Hundred Years War and the Thirty Years War in 1648, Europe enjoyed a period of relative peace. Though there were national and regional exceptions, generally speaking the religious environment was comparatively settled in their theological and denominational loyalties. The Enlightenment brought sweeping changes to global thinking and to global Christianity. Enlightenment thinkers were European, but their influence extended nearly everywhere. Also called the Age of Reason, the period from about 1650 to 1815 represented a philosophical paradigm shift which embraced the scientific method and rationalist philosophy. Thinkers came to assume that truth could be verified by scientific investigation and by objective reason. Ideas were not innate, always in the mind until they emerged, but rather conclusions drawn from collecting information through sense perception and experimentation. Orthodox Churches grew considerably. Major change came to the Russian Church when Tsar Peter I the Great left the patriarch office vacant, resulting in Russian Church being led throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries by a group of leaders called the Holy Synod. Orthodox spirituality thrived. Orthodox leaders resisted missionary efforts by Western churches. Popes granted increased power to European monarchs—French and Spanish kings, for example, exercised nearly absolute authority over the Church. The Church lost significant power and influence during the French Revolution, which altered the course of European history. By the nineteenth century, many Roman Catholics recognized the pope as having absolute authority over the Church, culminating in Vatican I declaring the Dogma of the Infallibility of the Papacy. Thousands of European Roman Catholics migrated to other global locations, especially to the United States. In the New World, Roman Catholicism continued to dominate in Latin America, but Protestant countries were also colonizing the New World, especially what became the United States and Canada. England’s first permanent colony at Jamestown, Virginia, launched a steady flow of British settlers. Thousands of immigrants from multiple countries produced a rich ethnic and religious diversity. Awakenings on both sides of the Atlantic, characterized in America as the First and Second Great Awakenings, promoted a personally experienced faith. In Europe, nineteenth-century thinkers explored

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

327

new ways to understand theology, questioning traditional approaches and assumptions. At the same time, popular awakenings focused on more personal faith and experience of God. In the nineteenth century, Christianity became a truly global religion. Missionaries from multiple countries flooded the planet, preaching the gospel in new places and among hundreds of people groups. Missionary funding through missionary societies exploded. Revolutions in Latin America produced new nations who were more open to Protestant missions. Christian missionaries planted churches throughout Africa, India, Eastern Asia, Oceania, other Pacific Islands, and nearly every other corner of the world.

Rationalism, Enlightenment, and Religious Awakening The rise of modern science Preceding the Age of Reason was the rise of modern science. Copernicus (1473–1543) in his work Concerning the Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies in 1543 claimed the earth was round, rotated on an axis, revolved around the sun, and was the center of the heavenly bodies. Galileo (1564–1642) later agreed. The Church opposed this heliocentric theory, putting Copernicus’s work on the index of prohibited books and using inquisition to obtain Galileo’s renunciation. Francis Bacon (1561–1626), a scientist and Franciscan friar, promoted the scientific method, or inductive method, in a world that was widely committed to deduction. He taught that the way to ascertain truth was first to observe, then to propose an explanation for observed facts (hypothesis), then test the hypothesis through experimentation for its reliability, and finally to come to a conclusion of proof (a synthesis). If the experimentation showed the

Figure 4.1  Francis Bacon.

328

A Global Church History

hypothesis to be false or inadequate, a new hypothesis was to be proposed and tested. The process would continue until synthesis was reached. French philosopher René Descartes (1596–1650), called the father of modern philosophy, laid the foundation for advanced mathematics, including the Cartesian coordinate system, analytic geometry, and calculus. Descartes would not accept the authority of prior philosophers. Seeking to find the foundation for proof and existence, he famously asserted “I think, therefore I am.” Later continental rationalists followed in his thinking, such as Baruch Spinoza (1632–77) and Gottfried Leibniz (1646–1716). English philosopher Isaac Newton (1642–1727), in his Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (1687), proposed that the universe functions on certain natural laws, which can be discovered by scientific investigation. He cited gravity, among several others. John Locke (1632–1704), also an English philosopher, applied the scientific approach and natural law to society. In Two Treatises of Government (1690) he said that certain natural laws governed humanity—particularly life, liberty, and property ownership. In Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), he said ideas are not innate, already in the mind from the moment of life, but rather emerge from sense perception. In The Reasonableness of Christianity (1695), he contended that Christianity is reasonable, for God is a reasoning God—when humans cannot understand truths of Christianity, God, who knows everything, does. In A Letter Concerning Toleration (1690, fourth edition 1702) he taught that the true Church is tolerant of those who disagree, not persecuting them, and that church and state should be separate, since a church is a voluntary society of persons who worship as they believe. Locke spent the final years of his life studying primarily the Bible.

Figure 4.2  Isaac Newton.

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

329

Figure 4.3  John Locke.

Deism Deism proposed that natural law operated the universe with little or no intervention from the deity. Deists believed everything beyond reason is unprovable and superstitious, worthless, or even destructive. The creator set down operational principles, then withdrew as a spectator, though some maintained that on very rare occasions God might act on the creation once again. They believed that miracles, rather than confirming revelation, were generally unnecessary and an insult to the creator’s perfect workmanship. Edward Herbert of Cherbury (1583–1648) had earlier proposed this idea. John Toland (1670–1722) in Christianity Not Mysterious (1696) moved to a fully Deist position. Matthew Tindal (1657– 1733) in Christianity as Old as Creation (1730) argued that one should only accept religious truths that are rational, and that everything important in Christianity was already revealed to humanity through rational powers by creation—before the Bible. French deist philosopher Voltaire (François-Marie Arouet, 1694–1778) attacked organized religion, especially the Roman Catholic Church. Famous American deists include Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826) and Benjamin Franklin (1785–88)—both were benign to Christianity. On the other hand, American deists Ethan Allen (1737–89) in Reason the Only Oracle of Man (1784), Elihu Palmer (1764–1806), and Thomas Paine (1737–1809) in Age of Reason (1794–96) were aggressively anti-Christian. Those who saw Deism as a threat to traditional Orthodox Christianity responded. William Law (1686– 1761) in The Case of Reason (1732) credited reason with all passion disorders and corruptions of the heart, since God is beyond our comprehension and is good by nature; therefore, reason cannot be used apart from revelation in religion. George Berkeley (1685–1753) denied the reality of matter, claiming that only minds and ideas really exist. So he believed the deists’ mechanistic description of the world is false— instead, God is the great eternal mind, always active by giving ideas to human minds. Joseph Butler

330

Figure 4.4  Joseph Butler.

Figure 4.5  William Paley.

A Global Church History

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

331

Figure 4.6  David Hume.

(1692–1752) in Analogy of Religion (1736) taught that since nature and revelation result in similar difficulties and in similar positive resemblances, they have the same source, which is God. He claimed that limited knowledge of nature is not sufficient to preclude revelation, to which historic evidence of miracles and fulfillment of prophecy attest. William Paley (1743–1805) in View of the Evidences of Christianity (1794) and Natural Theology (1802) argued that the complexity of the human body infers an intelligent designer, proving the existence of God, who revealed the divine will to the world. Revelation, he said, proves future rewards and punishments, and Christ confirmed His revelation to His disciples by miracles. Philosophical skeptics joined in the attacks on Deism. Scottish philosopher and historian David Hume (1711–76), for example, in Philosophical Essays (1748) and Natural History of Religion (1757), taught that perceptions about causal or substantial connections between human experiences are baseless viewpoints of mental habit. So without cause and effect, the argument for God has no basis, and there are no miracles. Hume said humanity evolved from animism (spirits inhabit all natural things) to polytheism (many gods, separate from objects) to henotheism (many gods, one chief god) to monotheism (only one god)—this depreciated Deism’s one God assertion. English historian and skeptic Edward Gibbon (1737–94) rejected organized religion and claimed in History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776–88) that Rome fell because it embraced Christianity.

Alternative approaches to Christianity The Enlightenment, or Aufklãrung, had great effect in Germany. Christian Wolff (1679–1754) taught that truth is understood through reason and that the world is a great machine running on mechanical laws,

332

A Global Church History

Figure 4.7  Christian Wolff.

made by God. Perhaps God gave revelation, but it would have been reasonable, for truth must be deduced from innate contents of the mind—from “pure reason.” The soul is what is conscious of itself and other things, able to know and desire. The completeness of knowledge and desire is pleasure, while its incompleteness is pain. What aims to bring about that completeness is virtue. Miracles were possible but improbable and would have to come in pairs (the first interrupts, the second restores the system). Religion, therefore, is primarily about right morals. Johann von Mosheim (1694–1755), a highly admired preacher and scholar, contended that one must teach church history without any partisan bias. Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694–1768), like other deists, taught that a wise creator granted a primitive morality and immortality—all ascertainable by reason. The world itself is the only miracle and the only revelation—all others are impossible. Biblical writers were dishonest and motivated by fraud and selfishness. Applying rigid historiographical method of his day to Christ’s life, he rejected anything supernatural from the gospels as mythical and legendary. Gotthold Lessing (1729–81), in Education of the Human Race (1780), compared the history of human development to individual development—the Old Testament period was like childhood, with rewards for faith and punishments for unbelief; the New Testament period was like youth, with emphasis on sacrifice; the modern era (eighteenth century) was like adulthood, because the modern person would do what is right simply because it is right. This left many in educated Germany believing that historic Christianity belonged to a past and inferior stage of human development. In 1702, Thomas Emlyn (1663–1741) denied the doctrine of the Trinity in An Humble Inquiry into the Scripture Account of Jesus Christ. Samuel Clarke (1675–1729) in Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity used the New Testament to try to prove that Christ is not fully God. Others took a middle position between classic Arianism and orthodoxy. Soon those who denied the Trinity by emphasizing the single personality of God organized themselves separately. Anglican clergyman Theophilus Lindsey (1723–1808) in 1773 formed a Unitarian Church in London; chemist Joseph Priestley (1733–1804) associated closely with him.

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

333

Figure 4.8  Johann Albrecht Bengel.

Fueled by deep confidence in reason, scholars took a more critical look at the Bible, particularly its historical accuracy and textual reliability. Principles used in analyzing ancient secular classics were applied to the Scriptures. John Mill (1645–1707) and Johann Jakob Wettstein (1693–1754) worked on critical editions of the Greek New Testament. Jean le Clerc (1657–1736) approached the Bible not to find passages to quote to prove another point (proof texting), but to seek the meaning of the texts themselves. Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687–1752) first recognized that New Testament manuscripts can be grouped into “families” and that the more difficult reading is to be preferred. His Gnomon (1742), an index of the New Testament, contended that nothing should be included or omitted from the meanings of texts except what grammatical rules produce. French physician Jean Astruc (1684–1766) applied critical textual analysis to the Bible; his Conjectures (1753) first proposed what later was called the documentary hypothesis—he taught that the first Bible book, Genesis, was composed from manuscript traditions or several sources. Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (1752–1827) supported this theory. Johann August Ernesti (1707–81) applied classical literature canons to the New Testament, using the same grammatical and historical methods to ascertain meaning. Some assumed the impossibility of miracles, describing Jesus as a great moral teacher. Johann Salomo Semler (1725–91) differentiated between permanent truths in Scripture and cultural elements appropriate to the times books were written. He argued that revelation is found in Scripture, but not all Scripture is revelation. He also proposed conflict in the early Church between the Petrine (Judaizing) approach and the Pauline (anti-Judaizing) approach. Some found the rationalistic, mechanical, objective view to be a helpful but less than adequate construct for describing reality, especially spiritual reality. They complained that even sermons tended to be doctrinal presentations, with little application to Christian living. German Lutheran minister Philipp Jakob Spener (1635–1705) in 1670 began holding separate meetings for prayer, Bible study, and sermon discussion—these were called collegia pietatis (Latin for “colleges/associations of piety”)— giving rise to the term “Pietism.” In Pia Desideria (Pious Desires, 1675) he called for these small groups

334

Figure 4.9  Philipp Jakob Spener.

Figure 4.10  August Hermann Francke.

A Global Church History

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

335

within congregations. He insisted that sermons directed toward Christian living with integrity superseded doctrinal treatises. August Hermann Francke (1663–1727) tried to hold meetings for professors at the University of Leipzig and soon became a pietiest after spending time with Spener. Soon after the University of Halle was founded, Francke in 1698 taught there—the school not only became a center for Pietism but also trained missionaries who went primarily to the Far East and India. Pietism spread among German Reformed Churches in the Low Countries and Lutherans in Scandinavia, and beyond. Pietist Church historian Gottfried Armond (1666–1714) suggested that those rejected as heretics in their own age ought to be reassessed on their own merits. In 1607 or 1608, John Smyth (c. 1570–1612) led a group of Separatist exiles to Amsterdam, where the Church reorganized and began practicing believer baptism, though not by immersion. In 1611 Thomas Helwys (c. 1550–c. 1616) led some of this group back to London, where they established the first Baptist Church in England. The movement grew quickly—within four decades there were at least forty-seven of these churches in London alone. They came to be known as General Baptists because they rejected Calvinism, believing that anyone could come to Christ and that one could lose salvation. By 1616, Calvinist Henry Jacob (1563–1624) pastored a small congregation in London—eventually members of this congregation left to form another London congregation, which in the 1630s practiced believer baptism only, though not yet by immersion. More churches started, and in 1644 seven churches adopted a confession of faith which included these teachings—only the elect can be saved, believer immersion, and one cannot lose salvation (see Doc. 4.3). Baptist churches emphasized Bible study through lengthy worship services (at first four hours). Eventually singing was added, which caused some controversy, though eventually all adopted singing. Outsiders criticizing immersion first used the name “Baptist” in 1644; the term was not popularly used by the group itself until many years later. Regional “associations” of churches were formed. An unusual expression of Christian faith came through the impulse of George Fox (1624–91), an Englishman who proposed that God worked within the heart for true spiritual conversion, and that the Holy Spirit chose those intended for ministry (including women and children). Therefore, believers could follow their inner heart—rituals and other external religious expressions were not necessary. Beginning in 1647, his preaching attracted a number of followers, who eventually settled on the name “Friends.” His preaching emphasized strict morality, tithing, and simplicity; soon many talented preachers were promoting his teachings. Worship included quiet waiting until the Spirit moved within. The Moravians, or Unitas Fratrum (United Brethren), grew out of the Hussites of the sixteenth century. They migrated to Germany during the Thirty Years War, then resettled often over the next century. Nicholas Ludwig (Count Zinzendorf, 1700–60) had studied at Halle and Wittenberg. In 1722 he allowed some Moravians to establish Herrnhut on his property, which became a refuge for others migrating there. Zinzendorf became their leader in 1727, the traditional rebirth date for the United Brethren. Political opposition forced Zinzendorf’s departure in 1736; he worked in the West Indies, London, and New York before founding a Moravian community in Pennsylvania at Bethlehem, which became the US Moravian headquarters. The Moravians were known for their deep trust in God and for their missionary work—their first missionaries traveled to Greenland in 1732, but over the next 150 years they sent 2,170 missionaries to multiple global locations.

336

A Global Church History

About the same time as Pietism, an evangelical revival broke out in Great Britain. In Scotland the preaching of Ebenezer Erskine (1680–1754) and Ralph Erskine (1685–1752) brought so many that they moved outside the church buildings to accommodate the crowds. The anonymous The Marrow of Modern Divinity, written earlier but published in 1717 by Thomas Boston (1677–1732), inspired praying societies called Marrow Men. In the 1730s Howell Harris (1714–73) and Daniel Rowlands (1713–90) preached revival in Wales. These revivals, coupled with Scottish objections to government patronage of preachers, led to several separations from the Church of Scotland. Old Scottish Independents, led by John Glas (1695–1773), Robert Sandeman 1718–71), and brothers Robert Haldane (1764–1842) and James Haldane (1768–1851), called for church-state separation, congregational autonomy, rejection of creeds, and restoration of the Church of the New Testament. In 1733 Ebenezer Erskine and others, objecting to patronage of ministers by the state, seceded from the Church of Scotland to become the Seceder Presbyterian Church, which further divided later. Richard Cameron (c. 1648–80) led others objecting to the church-state tie to become the Reformed Presbyterian Church, also called Cameronians or Covenanters, in 1743. Later Thomas Gillespie (1708–74) in 1761 began the Relief Presbyterian Church, over patronage of ministers.

Spiritual movements in Great Britain and beyond For the next four decades, related revival flourished in Wesleyan Methodists, Lady Huntingdon’s Connection (Welsh Methodists), and Anglican Evangelicals (who remained in the Church of England).

Figure 4.11  John Wesley.

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

337

Figure 4.12  Charles Wesley.

In 1729 Charles Wesley (1707–88) with two other Oxford students began holding small meetings for Bible study and prayer. Soon John Wesley (1703–91) became the leader of this “Holy Club,” or “Methodists,” as they were labeled by opponents. George Whitefield (1714–70) joined them in early 1735. Whitefield’s preaching was powerful, emphasizing grace and peace by accepting Christ, leading to joyful service, as well as targeting sinfulness, judgment, and condemnation. While crossing the Atlantic, John Wesley was deeply moved by Moravians praying calmly during a death-threatening storm. He claimed conversion when he felt his “heart strangely warmed” on May 24, 1738, in Aldersgate Street in London. In 1739 John Wesley founded the first Methodist “society” and built the first chapel, later purchasing a foundry in London. Wesley and his associates began preaching openly in the streets, with hundreds of followers. Though Whitefield was a Calvinist, Wesley was not. Wesley organized his followers into small groups for personal accountability, Bible study, and prayer. He appointed itinerant evangelists to preach and to care for these groups, which remained part of the Church of England (until 1795). They opposed slavery, sought to reform prisons, and much more. Whitefield became the leader of the Calvinistic Welsh Methodists, which separated from the Church of England in 1779. In 1740–41 Whitefield and Wesley had sharp exchange of letters over Calvinism. Selina, Countess of Huntingdon (1707–91), a wealthy widow, founded separate societies and chapels; soon Whitefield had joined her work—they became known as Lady Huntingdon’s Connection, with Calvinist theology. They separated from the Church of England in 1779, becoming the Welsh Methodist Church. They continued

338

A Global Church History

JOHN WESLEY (1703–91), preacher and theologian John Wesley, with his brother Charles and George Whitefield, founded the Methodist movement. Oxford educated, John began teaching at Oxford in 1726 and was ordained an Anglican priest in 1728. Wesley traveled to Savannah in Georgia colony, but the minister there met little success. During his sea voyage, Wesley was impressed with Moravians, who showed deep calm during great threat. This began a deep search which resulted in his May 24, 1738, Aldersgate experience, where he felt his “heart strangely warmed.” The Methodist leaders preached in the open air. With John Wesley at the fore, they organized Christian groups throughout England and Ireland which focused on Scripture study and discipleship. The Movement included a large number of itinerant, lay evangelists, and engaged a number of social issues. John Wesley also taught that Christians could reach a level of maturity in which God’s love so ruled their hearts that they would exhibit outward holiness—as a result, he has often been misunderstood to teach that one could become perfectly holy in this life. In contrast with his Calvinist friend George Whitefield, John Wesley strongly rejected Calvinism, and is therefore associated with Arminianism. Later in life, Wesley recommended that Methodists in the United States form a separate denomination from the Anglicans, since the earthly head of the Church of England was the monarch of England. See an excerpt of Wesley’s preaching in Doc. 4.6.

CHARLES WESLEY (1707–88), preacher and songwriter Charles Wesley, younger brother of John Wesley, actually began the Holy Club in 1729 while attending Oxford. John Wesley and George Whitefield later joined the group, and John became its leader. He accompanied John to Georgia. Charles continued to preach on tours with brother John until 1765. When the Methodists eventually broke from the Church of England, Charles Wesley opposed the separation. Charles is most famous for his hymns—he wrote about 6500 hymns. He is noted for interpreting Scripture through his hymns. Some of his most famous hymns include “And Can It Be that I Should Gain?,” “Christ the Lord is Risen Today,” “Hark! The Herald Angels Sing,” “Love Divine, All Loves Excelling,” and “O For a Thousand Tongues to Sing.”

to work in parallel with the Wesleyans, who were Arminian. Wesleyans in Britain remained Anglicans until 1795. Anglican Evangelicals remained in the Church of England while emphasizing conversion and spiritual growth. One of the most famous was John Newton (1725–1807), a former slavery shipmaster who was converted and became a London preacher—he wrote the famous Christian hymn “Amazing Grace.” Another spiritual leader was Hannah More (1745–1833), who wrote popular tracts and stories calling for committed spirituality. The British evangelical revival, like many evangelistic and conservative movements, had lasting effect in several areas beyond public preaching. Humanitarian interests increased significantly among

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

Figure 4.13  George Whitefield.

Figure 4.14  Selina, Countess of Huntingdon.

339

340

A Global Church History

Figure 4.15  Hannah More.

Methodists and other evangelicals. John Howard (1726–90), called “father of prison reform,” led a movement for prison reform which had tremendous impact in England, Scotland, Ireland, and on the Continent. The Clapham Sect, a group of devoted Christians led by Henry Venn (1725–97) and John Venn (1759–1813), led a movement to eliminate slavery from Great Britain, which finally occurred in 1833 after efforts by Zachary Macaulay (1768–1838) and William Wilberforce (1759–1833). In 1780 Robert Raikes (1735–1811) founded Sunday schools where lay teachers provided basic education and Christian teachings to poor and working children in England’s major cities—by 1830 one-fourth of England’s children were educated in these schools. The revival also helped give rise to international missionary work beyond that already discussed. Baptist preacher William Carey (1761–1834) inspired Protestant missions through his Enquiry into the Obligation of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens (1792) and his founding the Baptist Missionary Society (1792). Other British Protestant missionaries societies followed.

Discussion questions 1 Explain the inductive method, or scientific method, and how it differs from the deductive method. 2 How did the idea of “natural laws” impact other areas of life beyond science, such as politics? Philosophy? Religion? Biblical studies? 3 Compare Deism with traditional Christian understandings on creation and divine involvement. 4 How did more traditional Christians respond to these emerging developments, such as Pietists? Methodists?

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

341

Orthodox Churches in the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries The seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries witnessed major changes among Orthodox Churches. Changes were widespread, but especially significant in Russia. Since 1586, Kiev had been a uniat church, under Roman jurisdiction, but under Kiev metropolitan Pyotr Mogila (Peter, 1596–1647) they returned to Orthodox communion. Mogila’s confession and catechism nevertheless showed Western influences, also evident in his Academy, where instruction was in Latin rather than Greek or Slavonic. Some Syrian Orthodox Christians, who united with Rome in the eighteenth century, became known as Melkites (or Melchites). The cover of this book is a Melchite depiction of Greek Church fathers. In Russia, the Romanov dynasty began in 1613 under Michael Romanov, or Michael I (1596–1645, tsar 1613–45). His father, Feodor Nikitich Romanov (c. 1553–1633, pat. 1619–33) was a monk who served as patriarch Filaret of Moscow. Alexis I (1629–76, tsar 1645–76), the next tsar, was impressed enough with Nikita Minin (1605–81, pat. 1652–81), to move him to a monastery near Moscow, then to appoint him Metropolitan of Novgorod in 1649. In 1652 he became patriarch of Moscow, became known as Nikon, and was recognized as the Russian Church’s “Great Sovereign.” Though he dealt with several problems, including translation of sacred books to conform to their Greek originals, he grew

Figure 4.16  Patriarch Nikon (Nikita Minin).

342

A Global Church History

increasingly unpopular because of enforced taxation and perceived unfairness with parish clergy. He was deposed by a synod in 1666, though the changes he had made were retained. The many who objected to these changes soon became known as Old Ritualists, or Old Believers, or Raskols (from raskol, Russian for “division” or “schism”). Composed mostly of parish priests, monks, and common people, they contended that first Rome was heretical, second Rome had become heretical before its fall, and third Rome, by adopting their errors, was also in error. The Russian emperor in 1685 decreed severe penalties for those who would not submit, including torture and burning alive. Those who recanted were sent to ecclesiastical prison for re-education. Raskol rebaptism meant execution for both the baptizer and the baptized. Thousands of Raskols were hanged or burned. Some starved themselves or burned themselves alive to escape the persecutors. Others survived, though they eventually divided into two groups—the Popovsty group had priests, but the Bezpopovsty group did not. The Khlysty, or Khlysts, also separated from the Russian Orthodox Church under Bezpopovsty leader Daniil Filippov (or Filippovich). It was reported that in 1645 God the Father took up residence in Daniil, who chose Ivan Suslov as his son, Christ; then Suslov chose twelve apostles. They believed in many incarnations, or Christs, Jesus being only one of them. They demanded a highly moral, ascetic lifestyle. They outwardly conformed to the Orthodox Church, but held secret meetings with dancing, tongue-speaking, and ecstasy. Tsar Pyotr I the Great (Peter I, 1672–1725, emp. 1682–1725) brought major changes to the Russian Church. Crowned in 1682, he assumed direct rule in 1689 at the age of seventeen. His study in the West resulted in his moving Russia more toward Western thinking and practices. He founded St. Petersburg as Russia’s new capital city. His wars resulted in Russian expansion. Insisting that the Russian Church be subordinate to the emperor brought considerable resistance, with actions taken against monasteries and monks. When the patriarch of Moscow died in 1700, the office was left vacant. In 1721 a substitute was inaugurated, later called the Holy Synod, to administer the Russian Church. After Peter I died, under several succeeding rulers, Russia and the Russian Church resisted almost anything Western, nearly isolating Russia from Western Europe. Theologically, this rejection can be seen in Russian Orthodox re-emphasis of historic doctrines and its corresponding rejection of several Roman Catholic, and Protestant doctrines. Moscow metropolitan Platon II (Platon Levshim, 1737–1812, metr. 1775–1812), for example, published Orthodox Doctrine: or, A Short Compend of Christian Theology (see Doc. 4.5). At the same time Russia’s monks found renewal in the holiness and spirituality of Mt. Athos, the seat of Orthodox monastic spirituality. Paisie Velichkovsky (1772–94), after living on Mt. Athos, helped reintroduce the practice of being under a monastery’s spiritual director (starets). The holy life and writings of Tikhon of Zadonsk (1724–83) were highly celebrated and helped inspire characters in nineteenth-century author Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821–81). During the nineteenth century, nationalism, modernity, and spirituality together had significant impact on Eastern Orthodox Churches. The Greek Revolution, for example, began at the monastery of Megaspelaion—though Gregory V (1746–1821), three times patriarch of Constantinople (1797–98, 1806–08, 1818–21), was hanged in 1821 after condemning the revolutionaries. After independence, the Greek Orthodox Church became autonomous, finally recognized as independent by the patriarch of

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

343

Figure 4.17  Tsar Peter I the Great.

Constantinople in 1851. Shortly thereafter, the Serbian, Romanian, and Bulgarian Orthodox Churches were also recognized. Arab Christians in Syria resisted the authority of Greek patriarchs; since 1898 they have recognized a Syrian patriarch of Antioch, who lives at Damascus. Nevertheless, the patriarchate of Jerusalem remains under the almost entirely Greek fraternity called Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulchre. Hesychasm continued, especially on Mt. Athos, the seat of Orthodox monastic spirituality. In the late eighteenth century a Mt. Athos spiritual renewal movement, eventually known as the Kollyvades, pressed the Orthodox to return to patristic theology and liturgy, including Eucharist-centered spirituality and Hesychast emphases. They pushed for frequent Eucharist, even daily. They also helped to produce the Philokalia, an anthology of spirituality texts from the fourth to the fifteenth centuries, edited by Makarios of Corinth (1731–1805) and Nikodimos of the Holy Mountain (1748–1809), first published in 1782. The texts focus on inner prayer. Kosmas the Aetolian (1714–79) engaged in missionary preaching, journeying through Greece and its islands, addressing huge crowds. The importance of ancient monastic practice continued to be an essential part of Eastern Orthodoxy. Though Mt. Athos remained both the real and symbolic epicenter, others also gave their lives to the life of contemplation and service. Seraphim of Sarov (1754–1833), for example, having lived in Sarov monastery for many years, became a hermit for twenty-five years. Nearly killed by thieves, he amazed others in sacrificial prayer and obedience—others believed God had given him gifts to heal and to prophesy. As the nineteenth century progressed, Western churches sent missionaries to regions generally dominated by Orthodox Churches. Roman Catholic missionaries, for example, came to the Near East, promoting Eastern rite Roman Catholicism. Protestant missionaries from a variety of faith groups

344

A Global Church History

Figure 4.18  Seraphim of Sarov.

worked to plant churches in many places—this included working among Greeks, Armenians, and Syrians—all traditionally Orthodox. Protestants had an even larger presence among Copts. In India, Anglican missionaries worked among Syrian Christians, so that eventually the more evangelical wing of the Mar Thoma Church separated. Often the presence of Western influences, whether Christian or secular, stirred Orthodox resistance. Some Orthodox leaders emphasized traditional Orthodox teachings in traditional forms. Others worked to preserve the same teachings in more modern forms. In the Balkans and in Russia, both Westernleaning and Orthodox thinkers sought increased influence. In Greece, Apostolos Makrakis (1831–1905) led a pietistic movement which criticized clerical wealth and honor. The resulting opposition by church leaders led to his eventual condemnation by the 1878 Council of Athens, with subsequent trial and imprisonment; he was absolved in 1880. In Russia, West resisters pressed for a return to Orthodox traditions. For example, church leader Aleksei Stepanovich Khomyakov (1804–1860) and philosopher Ivan Kireyevsky (1806–56) came to be considered co-founders of the Slavophile movement, which resisted Westernizing thought and practice. Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821–81) promoted Russian life and Orthodox spirituality through his novels and other literary works; the most popular is The Brothers Karamazov (1880). Philosopher Vladimir Solovyov (1853–1900), after abandoning nihilism, embraced Orthodox thinking, blaming Western philosophies from Aristotle for problematic patterns of thought in the East. Unlike his friend Dostoyevsky, however, he remained sympathetic with Roman Catholicism and hoped for full reconciliation between Orthodox and Roman Catholics. He also worked to reconcile Christianity and Judaism.

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

345

Figure 4.19  Fyodor Dostoyevsky.

Discussion question 1 Discuss the impact of Tsar Peter I the Great’s policies on the Russian Orthodox Church, including the development of Holy Synod leadership.

Roman Catholicism in the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries Popes during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were not highly memorable. Papal character improved, but papal influence had diminished. The Church’s influence seemed to be waning, especially in the face of powerful Roman Catholic kings and governments—none more evident than King Louis XIV (1643–1715, king 1648–1715), who was absolute monarch over France. His father died when he was four years old, so his reign began under the regency of his mother Anne of Austria (1601–66, regent 1643–51) and cardinal Jules Mazarin (1602–61), who aided her much as his recent predecessor cardinal Richelieu (Armand Jean du Plessis, 1585–1642) had aided Henry IV—with ruthless authoritarian power. In 1651 Louis XIV began ruling in his own name; by 1659 he was directing national affairs on his own. During the reign of his father Louis XIII (1601–43, king 1610–43), a Roman Catholic party emerged who insisted on doctrines very similar to those of Augustine and John Calvin. They were labeled Jansenists from Cornelius Jansen (1585–1638), though the party began under Jansen’s collaborator Jean du Vergier de Hauranne (1581–1643), abbot of Saint-Cyran monastery. Among them was scientist, mathematician, inventor, and theologian Blaise Pascal (1623–62) (see Docs. 4.1 and 4.2). Antoine

346

A Global Church History

Figure 4.20  Cornelius Jansen.

Arnauld (1612–94) became their primary leader after the death of du Vergier. Jesuits attacked their teaching, and Jansenists attacked the Jesuit practice of moral casuistry as lying (Jesuits had said one could mislead by telling part of the truth). In 1653 they were condemned by Pope Innocent X (1574– 1655, pope 1644–55). By 1660 they found themselves opposed by king, pope, and curia. Louis XIV’s authority was absolute—everyone must conform to the king’s will, including religious uniformity. The Edict of Nantes (1598), which had guaranteed Protestant religious toleration, was ignored. In 1678 Louis XIV began persecuting Jansenists and Huguenots, and in 1685 he revoked the Edict of Nantes, so Huguenots, as Protestants, lost nearly all privileges. Protestants were repressed 1666–98, but in 1699 those previously resistant to the papacy were allowed clemency if they submitted. Most did, so there was relative peace, called the “Peace of the Church,” for ten years. Pope Clement XI (1649–1721, pope 1700–21) in 1705 condemned the Jansenist practice of “respectful silence,” which they had requested, allowing them to disapprove privately about a regulation while keeping silent about it. In 1713 he condemned Jansenism in papal bull Unigenitus. Louis XIV’s absolutism also brought conflict with the pope. The 1616 Concordat of Bologna had been increasingly understood to grant the king nearly absolute authority over the Church in France. Called Gallicanism, this doctrine emphasized shared authority of the pope with bishops and under a general council, and said the pope has no right to interfere with temporal rights of sovereign rulers. Louis XIV appealed to these teachings in his conflicts with successive popes. In the 1680s it seemed that the French Church might withdraw from Rome, much like the English Church did over a century before, but after Louis XIV’s bitter rival Pope Innocent XI (1676–89) died, Louis XIV became less assertive toward the papacy.

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

Figure 4.21  Pope Clement XI.

Figure 4.22  Marquis of Pombal.

347

348

A Global Church History

Figure 4.23  Pope Clement XIV.

The Jesuits faced their greatest opposition in the second half of the eighteenth century. Their trade pursuits had accrued for them great power, bringing opposition from rationalists who wanted to curb their power. Sebastião José de Carvalho e Melo (1699–1782), known as Marquis of Pombal, was an Enlightenment rationalist who ran Portugal under King José I (Joseph I, 1714–77, king 1750–77). Angered by Jesuit resistance to his policies in Paraquay, he opposed Jesuit free trade. In 1759 he used great force to remove Jesuits from Portuguese territory. At the same time, French opposition to the Jesuits increased—this included most of the French clergy. Jesuits were suppressed in France in 1764. Opposition in Spain and in Naples led to Jesuits being expelled from both in 1767. Finally, in July 1773 Pope Clement XIV (c. 1731–74, pope 1769–74) abolished the Jesuit order. Jesuits continued in Russia and Prussia—territories which were not Roman Catholic. The French Revolution (1789–1815) removed many of the traditional structures and privileges of church leaders, kings, nobility, and other institutions. Economic crisis, food shortages, and the rise of public consciousness set the stage for rationalists who often considered churches to be like other private organizations, but with religious purpose. Fueled also by a more radicalized Freemasonry, great changes began in 1789. Church lands were nationalized, monasteries abolished, priests elected by community voters. The 1791 constitution promised religious liberty. When royalists led an uprising in 1793, hundreds of Church leaders were beheaded. Religious freedom was declared again in 1795, though the state could have no official religion and was in reality decidedly anti-Christian. This was extended to other territories, as the French invaded the Netherlands, northern Italy, and Switzerland. In

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

349

1798 Rome was made a republic; Pope Pius VI (1755–99, pope 1775–99) was taken as a prisoner to France, where he died. Napoléon Bonaparte (1769–1821, emp. 1804–14), an ingenious general and a French leader, agreed to an 1801 Concordat with Pope Pius VII (1742–1823, pope 1800–23)—former church lands now owned by the government were returned to the Church, the pope appointed bishops and archbishops (nominated by the state), bishops appointed lower clergy (the state could veto), the state would pay the clergy. This gave the government control of the Church, but it also left the French clergy looking to the pope as their only place of appeal against the state. In 1802 the Organic Articles required state permission to issue decrees or hold synods, and gave Protestants full religious rights, including their ministers also paid by the state. In 1804 Napoléon crowned himself emperor and expanded his power. In Germany, church territories were divided between the secular states. Francis II (1768–1835, emp. 1792–1806) resigned his title in 1806, virtually ending the Holy Roman Empire. Increased conflict with Pius VII led Napoléon to annex the Papal States in 1809. He held Pius VII prisoner from 1809 to 1814. Napoléon was defeated in 1814, but regained his army short after, being finally defeated at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. Napoléon’s defeat brought strong, nearly opposite reaction. Traditional practices were valued simply because of their age. Romanticism fueled appreciation for ancient and medieval documents, teachings, and practices. Many reacted against the rationalism that they credited with producing the French

Figure 4.24  Napoléon Bonaparte.

350

A Global Church History

Figure 4.25  Pope Pius VII.

Revolution. François-René de Chateubriand (1768–1848) helped to create a revival of Roman Catholicism, and soon the pope had more influence than before the Revolution. In 1814 Pius VII restored the Jesuits, who rose quickly to former church influence, though their political power never returned. Lay piety grew significantly within the Church. Several theologians were instrumental in this promotion, including three influential leaders, sometimes called “prophets of traditionalism”—Joseph de Maistre (1753–1821), Louis Gabriel Ambroise de Bonald (1754–1840), and Hugues Félicité (1782–1854). They, among others, promoted papal supremacy, which came to be called “ultramontanism,” a term envisioning those north of the Alps looking beyond the Alps to the pope. Jesuits helped the papacy significantly in reclaiming and advancing papal power. Popes Leo XII (1760–1829, pope 1823–29) and Gregory XVI (1765–1846, pope 1831–46) reacted against modern social and political ideals, embracing a more medieval perspective. The most important representative of ultramontanism was Pope Pius IX (1792–1878, pope 1846–78), who believed that the papacy was divinely appointed with authority to lead the Church through its worst problems. In 1854, Pius IX declared the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin, which asserted that Mary had no original sin or actual sin—that she had no original guilt and no fallen human nature, but also that she never actually sinned in any way. In 1864 he directed the publication of the Syllabus of Errors, which condemned many teachings the Roman Church opposed, including churchstate separation, non-religious schools, and religious toleration—all foundational elements of the emerging modern states. Pius IX surprised the world by calling Vatican I (1869–70), the twentieth Roman Catholic ecumenical council, and the first since Trent (1545–63). The Council’s most important decision was the Dogma of

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

Figure 4.26  Pope Pius IX.

Figure 4.27  Joseph Döllinger.

351

352

A Global Church History

the Infallibility of the Papacy, promulgated in 1870. The teaching says that when the pope speaks ex cathedra, in his official office as pastor of the Church, on faith and morals, indicating he is exercising this authority, whatever he declares is infallible and must be accepted (see Doc. 4.9). This declaration effectively ended any discussion of Conciliarism and sealed ultramontanism. Some would not accept papal infallibility. Munich historian Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger (1799–1890) objected that this was not the Church’s tradition; for this he was excommunicated, but he would not initiate schism. Others did, however, organizing what became the Old Catholics, who spread to several European and English-speaking countries. Vatican I’s declaration of papal infallibility must be understood in the context of secular events in the Italian Peninsula at the time. Sardinia, led by Vittorio Emanuele II (Victor Emmanuel II, 1820–78, king 1849–78), and France, led by Napoléon III (1808–73, emp./pres. 1848–70) were at war with Austria. Italian general Giuseppe Garibaldi (1807–82) helped. Victor Emmanuel II set up the kingdom of Italy in 1861, including most of the Papal States, though Rome and its vicinity were still under the pope. When French troops withdrew in 1870, Victor Emmanuel II captured Rome, which voted overwhelmingly to be annexed to Italy. The Italian government left the pope in sovereign possession of the Vatican, Lateran, and Castel Gandolfo. Pius IX excommunicated Victor Emmanuel II and declared himself prisoner of the Vatican. This situation remained until an agreement with Mussolini in 1929 granted the Vatican City rights as a separate, sovereign country. As a result, sympathetic global Roman Catholics sent tremendous contributions to the papacy. The pope’s secular jurisdiction became limited to a very small area. The pope could focus his attention on

Figure 4.28  Pope Leo XIII.

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

353

ecclesiastical pursuits and authority. Pius IX forbade Roman Catholics to participate in Italian politics, effectively leaving government to radicals and socialists. He led the Church to align against Germany’s new government, founded after the Franco-Prussian War in 1871, led by Otto von Bismarck (1815–98, chancellor 1871–90). Pope Leo XIII (1810–1903, pope 1878–1903) settled conflict with Germany, urged Roman Catholics to support the French republic, and worked to restore the Papal States to the papacy. He focused on education, opening the Vatican’s libraries, collections, and possessions to historical scholars and declaring Thomas Aquinas as the standard for proper Roman Catholic instruction. He also sought reunion of the Roman Church and the Orthodox Churches. In 1891 he issued Rerum novarum, calling for Catholics to give attention to social justice issues. In 1896 he declared Anglican orders invalid. Steady immigration in the late nineteenth century, which continued into the twentieth century, brought millions of Roman Catholics to the United States. American Catholicism continued do develop practices which seemed distinctive to the United States. One was “trusteeism,” where parishes believed they owned their own church property and could appoint and dismiss their priests. In 1899, confronted with emerging practices in the United States, Leo XIII issued Testem benevolentiae nostrae, rejecting practices which would make American Roman Catholicism “different than what is in the rest of the world,” also called “Americanism.”

Figure 4.29  Bishop James Gibbons.

354

A Global Church History

In many ways, Roman Catholicism in the latter half of the nineteenth century and the early twentieth century became an increasing part of the fiber of American life. Roman Catholics developed parochial schools, charitable organizations, and Roman Catholic networking. By 1852 Roman Catholics were the largest church group in the United States, numbering about two million. Baltimore archbishop James Gibbons (1834–1921, abp. 1877–1921) aided this naturalization, easing anti-Catholic sentiments by supporting church-state separation, defending rights of laborers, and more. In 1886 he was named cardinal. Roman Catholic expanded missionary work in the nineteenth century. Many orders and societies participated in this expansion, including Jesuits, Dominicans, Franciscans, Capuchins, oblates, Lazarists, Marists, White Fathers, Holy Spirit Fathers, and many, many others. France sent the most missionaries; other significant missionary-sending countries included Belgium, Germany, Austria, and Ireland. Older Roman Catholic missions continued, but many newer organizations were formed, increasing lay interest and participation in missions. Clergy and lay leaders also gave birth to a new kind of organization, created to raise funds for missionary work done by others. The Society for the Propagation of the Faith, for example, initiated at Lyons in 1822, encouraged lay people to pray for missionary work daily, and to contribute regularly. By the early twentieth century, Roman Catholics had founded nearly two hundred such organizations. Popes or their representatives supervised these organizations closely. Many missions concentrated on education and benevolence, but other organizations focused almost exclusively on the conversion of non-Christians. A chief objective of Roman Catholic missions in the nineteenth century was to recruit and educate indigenous church leaders in order to provide indigenous clergy and hierarchy throughout the world. Roman Catholics continued to seek Protestant lands and converts. In England and Scotland, growth was substantial—increasing from 120,000 in 1800 to over 2 million by 1900, due to a number of factors—immigration from Ireland, the Anglo-Catholic Movement, and concerted efforts throughout the country. Roman Catholics also grew significantly in the Netherlands.

Discussion questions 1 How did rising authority among Roman Catholic monarchs affect the Church? Why is Louis XIV representative of this? 2 What are the most important results of the French Revolution for Christianity? During the reign of Napoléon? After Napoléon’s defeat? 3 Describe the Dogma of the Infallibility of the Papacy declared by Vatican I in 1870.

Seventeenth- to nineteenth-century Christianity in North America and beyond Christianity among French colonists In most of the New World, Roman Catholicism continued to dominate throughout the modern period. Alternative forms of Christianity were generally unavailable in most places until Protestant missionary

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

355

Figure 4.30  Jacques Marquette.

work in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Many monastic orders participated, but most of the missionaries were Jesuits, Franciscans, or Dominicans. French Roman Catholic missionaries met with limited success in the early seventeenth century. When Samuel de Champlain (1567–1635) founded Quebec in 1608, missionaries preached to Indians from the start, but with limited numbers of conversions. From Montreal, secular priests were sent to carry Christianity to Indians and to work among the colonists. François-Xavier de Montmorency-Laval (1623–1708), generally referred to as Laval, established a seminary in Quebec in 1668—students and graduates worked in Acadia, as well as in the Mississippi River valley, including what would later be Illinois and Arkansas. About the same time, Jesuits worked among the Hurons and Algonquins. Jesuits also worked among the five “nations” of the Iroquois confederacy, but with little success. Despite an early Huguenot presence, the French in America were soon almost all Roman Catholic. In 1673 French Jesuit missionary Jacques Marquette (1637–75) came to North America. Marquette helped explore the Mississippi River, then died while working among the Illini. Soon there were mission stations following along the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. Many other missionaries were sent out from Quebec and New Orleans.

Christianity among British colonists After the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588, England began colonization. They planted a North American settlement in 1589, but it could not later be found. The first continuing settlement was Jamestown, in 1607, in Virginia colony. Over the following decades, thousands of English colonists

356

A Global Church History

came to America, including at least 20,000 from 1630 to 1643 alone. The Church of England was the established religion of Virginia, though they always experienced a shortage of clergy, and several other groups settled there. The College of William and Mary, the second colonial college, was founded in 1693, including a “perpetual school of divinity.” Five colonies were planted in New England. Plymouth Colony was founded in 1620 by immigrants who were formerly a part of a Separatist congregation at Scrooby in England which had moved to Amsterdam and then became Congregationalists at Leiden. Massachusetts Bay Colony began in 1630. These two became the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 1691. Connecticut (1636) and New Haven (1638) were consolidated as Connecticut in 1662. New Hampshire separated from Massachusetts in 1680. By 1631 Congregationalism was the established religion in New England. Ministers were paid by public funds, and Congregationalists were generally intolerant of other Christian forms—dissenters, including Baptists and Quakers, were persecuted and exiled. Four Quakers were hanged in 1659, for example, and in 1668 three Baptists were banished. Harvard College, the first colonial college, began in 1636 to train ministers; Yale College followed in 1701 when conservatives wanted alternative ministerial training because of the “liberals” at Harvard. One New England dissenter was Roger Williams (1603–83), who was removed from his Salem congregation and exiled from Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1636 after criticizing the church-state tie, among other accusations. He and several others from Salem settled on land they purchased from the Narragansett Indians. Williams called the settlement Providence, determined that it would be a haven of religious freedom and toleration. The first Baptist church in America began there in 1639. Other dissenters founded Portsmouth and Newport. Later in 1644 Parliament chartered “Providence Plantations.” These settlements united in 1647, eventually taking the name Rhode Island. Three English other colonies also practiced religious toleration—New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. New York began when Fort Nassau (present Albany) was built in 1614. Dutch settlers came in 1624, establishing the colony of New Netherlands. They founded New Amsterdam in 1625. By 1628 the first Dutch Reformed Church was on Manhattan Island. Soon Lutherans, Mennonites, English Puritans, Roman Catholics, and Quakers were present, but repressed. After England took control in 1664, New Amsterdam became New York, and the Church of England became the established religion, but religious toleration was generally practiced. New Jersey was founded in 1664 by George Carteret (c. 1610–80) and John Berkeley (1607–78). In 1665 they established freedom of religion for the colony. A group of Quakers bought Berkeley’s share, effectively splitting the colony. But by their reunion in 1702, Quakers had little leadership. Quaker William Penn (1644–1718) founded Pennsylvania in 1681. Religious freedom was guaranteed from the start, so believers of many denominations came intentionally to Pennsylvania to practice Christianity freely. Pennsylvania had more variety of Christian forms than anywhere else. Swedes founded Fort Christina on the Delaware River in 1638, beginning New Sweden. Swedish and Finnish Lutherans dominated the settlement. Sweden ceded the territory to England in 1674. Seeking a refuge for English Roman Catholics, In the 1630s George Calvert (1580–1632) sought a charter for Maryland, which shortly after his death was issued to his son Cecil Calvert (1605–75). The charter required religious freedom. Cecil established the colony in 1634 as a refuge for English Roman Catholics, though he remained in England. His younger brother Leonard Calvert (1606–47) lived in

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

Figure 4.31  William Penn.

Figure 4.32  George Calvert.

357

358

Figure 4.33  Cecil Calvert.

Figure 4.34  Leonard Calvert.

A Global Church History

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

359

Figure 4.35  Pierre-Jean De Smet.

Maryland as its governor. By 1702 the Church of England was the established religion, but Quakers, Presbyterians, Baptists, and Catholics were numerous. Three colonies adopted the Church of England as their established religion—North Carolina in 1702, South Carolina in 1715, and Georgia in 1758. The Church of England had helped found Georgia in 1733. All three colonies were generally tolerant of other denominations. South Carolina, for example, had many Huguenots, Scottish-Irish Presbyterians, Baptists, and Quakers. Several settlers worked to bring Christianity to the native peoples. Important individuals including Roger Williams in New England, the Mayhew family on the islands off Cape Cod, John Eliot (1604–90) in a number of locations, David Brainerd (1718–47) in upper New York and in New Jersey, and later French Jesuit Pierre-Jean De Smet (1801–73) along the Missouri River. In 1649 the first Protestant missionary society, Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in New England, began to support John Eliot. Others followed—for example, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (1699) and Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts (1701).

The First Great Awakening and responses Revival broke out in America in the 1730s. This was the American side of the evangelical revival movement already discussed in England. In the American colonies the movement is called the First Great Awakening. As earlier explained, rationalism had contributed to a decline in personal religious sentiment. Dutch Reformed leaders in New Jersey embraced deeper personal experience in Christian living—soon revival broke out under the preaching of Theodore Frelinghuysen (1787–1862) in 1733. In New England, Jonathan Edwards (1703–58) led the revival, preaching emotionally penetrating sermons

360

Figure 4.36  Theodore Frelinghuysen.

Figure 4.37  Jonathan Edwards.

A Global Church History

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

361

Figure 4.38  Samuel Davies.

designed to motivate hearers to make decisions and to experience God. Six were “converted” at his Southampton church in December 1734, with many more in 1735. The awakening spread quickly to other colonies, partly through Edwards’s A Faith Narrative of the Surprising Work of God in the Conversion of Many Hundred Souls (1737) and Treatise Concerning Religious Affections (1746). Several Presbyterian leaders were attracted to the First Great Awakening—William Tennent Sr. (1673–1745) and son Gilbert Tennent (1703–64), for example, adopted the revival approach. Edwards later worked among Native Americans at Stockbridge, Massachusetts, before serving as president of the College of New Jersey (later called Princeton University) in 1758. The movement spread south and west as well. Presbyterians expanded significantly in Virginia— Samuel Davies (1723–61) was especially influential in Virginia, but through his writings and presidency at Princeton, far beyond. Methodists seemed to grow everywhere. Revival preachers embraced preaching to the Indians, and some began openly to oppose slavery. Other great preachers preached in both Britain and the United States—George Whitefield preached extensively in America, making seven trips, some lengthy; John Wesley visited America at least twice. Despite widespread commitment to First Great Awakening emphases, some were uninterested and others openly opposed. Personal religious experience seemed to question the priority of Scripture and Christian doctrine, which advocates of revival believed they were actually promoting. In both England and America opposing sides came to be known as “old lights” (who opposed the revival) and “new lights” (who favored). Charles Chauncy (1705–87), among others, carried the old light torch in America. Anglicans and Lutherans tended to be old lights, though German pietist Henry Melchior Muhlenberg (1711–87) planted a number of German Lutheran churches, and organized a synod in 1748. By the 1750s the revival

362

Figure 4.39  Charles Chauncy.

Figure 4.40  Henry Melchior Muhlenberg.

A Global Church History

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

Figure 4.41  Timothy Dwight.

Figure 4.42  Lyman Beecher.

363

364

A Global Church History

fervor had ebbed—many date the First Great Awakening (1734–60). Popular concern turned to military, economic, and political issues, including the French and Indian War (1756–63, called the Seven Years War in Europe), US Declaration of Independence (1776), and the Revolutionary War (1775–83). Students and followers of Jonathan Edwards soon developed New Divinity theology, or New England theology, including Joseph Bellamy (1719–90), Samuel Hopkins (1721–1803), Jonathan Edwards Jr. (1745–1804), and Nathaniel Emmons (1745–1840), among others. They restated Calvinism in most extreme forms, insisting on sinners’ moral inability to repent and calling for rigorous moral living. Old Calvinists responded, emphasizing congregational nurture through preaching and sacraments rather than immediate crisis conversion. Among many were Moses Hemmenway (1735–1811), Timothy Dwight (1752–1817), Nathaniel W. Taylor (1786–1858), Lyman Beecher (1775–1863), and Jedidiah Morse (1761–1826).

Christianity in North America between the First and Second Great Awakenings By 1776, church membership in the colonies was limited—estimates are about 10 percent, though information is sparse, and many believers attended without becoming members. During the conflict, Anglican clergy were loyalists—many fled to England and Canada. Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and Baptists nearly all supported independence. Anabaptists and Quakers were generally pacifists and therefore distrusted by both sides. After the war, American Anglicans did not want England’s king to be their earthly head, so they established a separate Protestant Episcopal Church. William White (1748–1836) became bishop of

Figure 4.43  Francis Asbury.

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

Figure 4.44  John Carroll.

Figure 4.45  John Murray.

365

366

A Global Church History

Pennsylvania, Samuel Provoost (1742–1815) of New York, and Samuel Seabury (1729–96) of Connecticut. By 1789 they were united with a revised Book of Common Prayer adapted to the American situation. Methodists were in several colonies, and found themselves on both sides of the conflict. In 1784 at the Christmas Conference in Baltimore, they founded the Methodist Episcopal Church, embracing Wesley’s 25 Articles and Wesley’s appointment of Francis Asbury (1745–1816) and Thomas Coke (1747–1814) as superintendents (officially bishops after 1787). The Roman Catholic Church in America grew extensively after 1763, from 25,000 to 150,000 in 1800. In 1789, Baltimore was made a diocese, with Jesuit John Carroll (1735–1815, bp. 1790–1815) becoming the first US bishop in 1790. Dutch Reformed Churches (1792) and German Reformed Churches (1793) separated from the Netherlands. Departures from traditional Christian orthodoxy soon found growth in America as well. Among Universalists, George de Benneville (1703–93) migrated to America in the mid-eighteenth century and preached that hell is to purify, and that all human beings would be saved. John Murray (1741–1815) also believed in universal salvation, because everyone would come to believe; after he came to America in 1770, he later assisted with the first Universalist convention at Oxford, Massachusetts, in 1785 and served as pastor of the Universalist Society of Boston from 1793 to 1809. Unitarians believed Christ is not divine and therefore rejected the doctrine of the Trinity; they also denied original sin and the atonement. The first Unitarian congregation in America was King’s Chapel in Boston, under James Freeman (1759–1835) in 1782. Joseph Buckminster (1784–1812) contributed to the growth, and Henry Ware (1764–1845) shifted Harvard College to Unitarian theology when he became professor in 1805. Other influential Universalists included Elhanan Winchester (1751–97) of Philadelphia and Hosea Ballou (1771–1852) of Boston. Colonization had resulted in tremendous Christian diversity in America. Baptists, Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Quakers, Dutch Reformed, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and others all had a significant presence. Often multiple groups were strong in the same location. Except for New England, dominance by any particular church group was impossible, so Christians of varied backgrounds had learned to work together in business, in politics, and in war. The challenges of life on the frontier added to this cooperative sense. Several national leaders believed strongly in religious freedom on philosophical and/or religious grounds, and Pennsylvania and Rhode Island had proven that religious freedom could work effectively. This environment produced two major results: first, a new way for Christians to relate to one another in society, called “denominationalism,” wherein multiple faith groups lived together in mutual toleration and even support; second, an environment ready for the “lively experiment” of national religious freedom with no official national religion. This was sealed in the US Constitution (drafted 1787, ratified 1789), including the First Amendment (1791). Churches were also established in more remote places in the New World. British missionaries and Christian settlers also worked in other English possessions, such as Bermuda, the West Indies, Honduras, and the coast of Central America. British islands in the Caribbean included Anglican, Moravian, Anabaptist, and Methodist churches. Freed slave and Baptist preacher George Liele (1750– 1820) came to Jamaica in 1783. Moravians work on Greenland, on St. Thomas (1732), in Labrador, and in Dutch possessions of South America’s northern coast.

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

367

In Mexico, native teen Dominica López in 1711 reported that Mary appeared to her. Her arrest and 1712 trial, coupled with the Virgin’s reported appearance to MarÍa de la Candelaria (c. 1698–1716), sparked the Cancuc movement (or Tzendal rebellion), which established an indigenous priesthood under Sebastián Gómez de la Gloria, who also claimed a vision. Spanish soldiers defeated Cancuc soldiers.

The impact of the Second Great Awakening Like the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the Christian story in the United States and Canada during the first half of the nineteenth century parallels Europe’s. Expansion into new territories, combined with a strong emphasis on personal faith and other factor, produced great attention to evangelism. Much of this growth came during the Second Great Awakening, which broke out in 1792 and is generally dated to c. 1860. Congregationalists, Baptists, and Methodists grew considerably in New England. Important Congregationalists included Yale president Timothy Dwight (1752–1817), Yale Nathaniel W. Taylor (1786–1858); and Lyman Beecher (1775–1863). The revival also flourished in the coastal states; many of their leaders took their religious fervor to the frontier in Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, and beyond. The most significant outbreak of revival occurred on the frontier. Preachers gathered local and regional people into great spiritual-social events called camp meetings. At first these were small, but grew to tremendous numbers. People came with supplies, ready to stay several days to hear great preachers, often expecting God to do mighty signs and wonders. The greatest of the camp meetings met at Cane Ridge

Figure 4.46  Thomas Campbell.

368

Figure 4.47  Alexander Campbell.

Figure 4.48  Walter Scott.

A Global Church History

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

369

church in Kentucky, called by Barton W. Stone (1772–1844), with attendance estimates ranging from 10,000 to 35,000. Several preachers spoke passionately, outdoors, often in the rain, to scattered crowds. Responses included “exercises,” experiences of mind and body, described variously as falling, barking, dancing, laughing, singing, jerking, and more. Though some ridiculed, most believed that God was moving powerfully. Many hoped that a return to primitive Christianity, found in the New Testament, would be the foundation for a Christian unity which would spark great advances in world evangelism. Denominations committed to the revival pattern grew tremendously in the nineteenth century, especially on the frontier. Methodists and Baptists grew exponentially. Congregationalists and Presbyterians also grew, though internal strife over the revival brought limitations. New groups emerged as well, including Shakers, Cumberland Presbyterians, and especially Disciples of Christ (the StoneCampbell Movement). Groups led by Barton Stone (“Christians”) and by Thomas Campbell (1763– 1854), Alexander Campbell (1788–1866), and Walter Scott (1796–1861) (“Disciples”) merged, starting in 1832. By 1900 there were over one million Disciples in the United States. Powerful preaching, often coupled with great personal sacrifice, made great preachers very popular. Methodist preacher Peter Cartwright (1785–1872), for example, was in high demand on the frontier, as were many others. Most famous was Charles Grandison Finney (1792–1875), Presbyterian hell-fire preacher who used “protracted meetings,” colloquial language, direct reference to name of people present, the “anxious bench” for those awaiting conversion, and other unusual methods. Others soon copied his methods, promoted in his Lectures on Revivals of Religion (1835). In 1836 Finney was professor and later president of Oberlin College in Ohio, which became a center for social reform, accepting women and black students, and advocating abolition of slavery. His Lectures on Systematic Theology (1851) tested doctrines by their contribution to salvation.

Figure 4.49  Peter Cartwright.

370

A Global Church History

Figure 4.50  Charles Grandison Finney.

Second Great Awakening preachers and converts came to place great emphasis on evangelical causes through voluntary societies. These might be denominational, regional, or national. Missionary societies were among the first, including American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (1810). But soon there were societies for Bible translation and distribution (e.g., American Bible Society, 1816), Sunday schools (e.g., American Sunday School Union, 1817–24), and publication (e.g., American Tract Society, 1825). Wealthy laymen often supported these societies; among famous national supporters were brothers Arthur Tappan (1786–1865) and Lewis Tappan (1788–1873). Most denominations had key individuals who supported their societies. Societies also focused on campaigns for moral and humanitarian reform. American Society for the Promotion of Temperance (1826), for example, helped bring change in drinking habits among Americans. American Peace Society (1828) protested involvement in war. The most significant reform societies, particularly in the North, worked for the abolition of American slavery (e.g., American Anti-Slavery Society, 1833). Great leaders included William Lloyd Garrison (1805–79), Theodore Dwight Weld (1803–95), Sojourner Truth (Isabella Baumfree, c. 1797–1883), Lyman Beecher, Harriet Beecher Stowe (1811–96), and many others. Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin (1852) influenced many to take action. The Second Great Awakening also stimulated the founding of many new educational institutions. Hundreds of denominational colleges opened in the nineteenth century, with many existing only for a short time. Several denominations founded seminaries to prepare ministers for their respective groups. Well-known schools include Andover Theological Seminary (1808), Princeton Seminary (1812), Bangor Theological Seminary (1814), Harvard Divinity School (1819), and Yale Divinity School (1822). By 1850, there were about fifty graduate seminaries in the United States.

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

Figure 4.51  William Lloyd Garrison.

Figure 4.52  Sojourner Truth (Isabella Baumfree).

371

372

A Global Church History

Figure 4.53  Harriet Beecher Stowe.

Figure 4.54  William Ellery Channing.

As with the First Great Awakening, many were opposed to the revival. Those rejecting the doctrines of trinity, original sin, and predestination embraced the name Unitarian in 1815. Jonathan Mayhew (1720–66) was an important leader, though most influential was William Ellery Channing (1780–1842) of Federal Street Church in Boston. The American Unitarian Association was formed at Boston in 1825. In Connecticut, Horace Bushnell (1802–1876) in Christian Nurture (1847) contended that the normal

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

373

Figure 4.55  Ralph Waldo Emerson.

means of entry into Christianity were gradual growth in home and church, not the crisis conversion that Baptists and Methodists offered considered essential. Close to Unitarianism was Transcendentalism, which developed in the 1820s and 1830s, stressing the inherent goodness of people and nature, and looking to subjective intuition over pure reason. Personal freedom, personal experience, and self-expression supersede human institutions, since the “Over-soul,” the one spirit which unites all persons as one being. Several New England intellectuals began the Transcendental Club in 1836—among them George Putnam (1807–78), Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–82), and Frederic Henry Hedge (1805–90). Many leading Unitarians were Transcendentalists. Emerson delivered the 1838 “Divinity School Address,” which promoted equality of soul, saying Christianity erred by raising Jesus above other human persons and by emphasizing revelation as a past rather than immanent experience. Still others were divided in their attitudes toward revival methods. The Society of Friends (Quakers), for example, experienced the “Great Separation” in 1828–29. Those favoring revival methods followed Joseph John Gurney (1788–1846) and eventually became known as Orthodox; those opposed followed Elias Hicks (1748–1830) and became known as Hicksites. When Samuel Simon Schmucker (1799– 1873) led Lutherans in America toward mainstream evangelical Protestantism, including revival practices, confessional Lutherans objected. Eventually in 1867 ten synods formed the General Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in North America, stressing the Lutheran creeds and their influence on church life. Others weathered the tension over revivalism without division. Mercersburg theologian

374

Figure 4.56  Elias Hicks.

Figure 4.57  Philip Schaff.

A Global Church History

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

375

Figure 4.58  Phoebe Palmer.

John W. Nevin (1803–86) and church historian Philip Schaff (1819–93) contended for the “system of catechism” over the “system of revival.” Though there was little conflict within the Protestant Episcopal Church over revivalism, John Henry Hobart (1775–1830) and other high-church advocates resisted Alexander Viets Griswold (1766–1843) and low-church emphases. Theologians such as Princeton seminary principals Charles Hodge (1797–1878) and his son Archibald Alexander Hodge (1823–86) emphasized traditional elements of systematic theology (see Doc. 4.10). Tracing to early Methodism, the Holiness Movement developed in the camp meeting revival environment. Sarah Lankford began holding “Tuesday Meeting for the Promotion of Holiness,” which promoted “entire sanctification,” a second work of God’s grace, after salvation, which cleanses of the tendency to commit sin and empowers to live a holy life. Her sister Phoebe Palmer (1807–74) in 1837 experienced the Holy Spirit’s indwelling her with power. She spent the rest of her life as a key leader in the Holiness Movement, authoring books, leading revival meetings, and working in urban reform. Several denominations grew out of the Holiness Movement. Phineas F. Bresee (1838–1915) established a church in Los Angeles in 1895; his group and others merged to become the Church of the Nazarene, a name his church had first used. After Daniel Sidney Warner (1842–95) experienced entire sanctification in 1877, he and five others joined to found the Church of God (Anderson, IN) in 1881, calling for evangelism, entire sanctification, and Christian unity. The Church of God (Cleveland, TN) had similar values, but also embraced glossolalia, or tongue-speaking. Another Pentecostal denomination, the Church of God in Christ, the largest African American Pentecostal church in the

376

Figure 4.59  Phineas F. Bresee.

Figure 4.60  Daniel Sidney Warner.

A Global Church History

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

377

Figure 4.61  Charles H. Mason.

world, began under the leadership of Charles H. Mason (1866–1961) and Charles Price Jones (1865– 1949), though Jones later left to establish the Church of Christ (Holiness) after Mason embraced Pentecostalism in the early twentieth century. The most extensive nineteenth-century denominational schisms occurred over the question of slavery. Some in 1843 established the Wesley Methodist Church of American on the principle that no member could own slaves. In 1844 the Methodist Episcopal Church’s general conference decided that they should divide, so the Methodist Episcopal Church South began. When the Foreign Missionary Board in 1845 refused to comply with Alabama Baptists’ demand that slaveholders not be discriminated against in missionary appointments, southerners responded by forming the Southern Baptist Convention in 1845. New School Presbyterians split in 1857, Old School in 1861. In 1864 the two southern groups merged as the Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States of America (later the Presbyterian Church in the United States); in 1869–70, the two northern groups reunited as the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. After the US Civil War, the great majority of black Christians became members of independently organized churches, such as the National Baptist Convention (founded 1886), the African Methodist Episcopal Church (founded 1816), the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church (officially formed 1821), among others. Poor relationships between the US government and the Native American peoples often hindered Protestant missionary work among them. Tribes were widely scattered, spoke many languages, and together totaled under 300,000. The most active Christian groups to work among Native Americans were Quakers, Moravians, Presbyterians, Baptists, and Methodists, though there were others. One of the significant challenges for nineteenth-century America was related to immigration—about twenty million immigrated to the United States from other countries during the nineteenth century. In 1860,

378

Figure 4.62  Joseph Smith Jr.

Figure 4.63  Brigham Young.

A Global Church History

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

379

for example, four million of the thirty million population were foreign born. Most brought their religion, but what they found when they arrived was often different, even in their own denominations. Some joined denominations which were the same or similar to their European denominations—others were ready for change. Often immigrant people groups began congregations which worshipped in their source country’s language. This occurred often among Protestant immigrants, but was particularly evident among Eastern Orthodox, who not only worshipped in their former languages but also preserved cultural customs and at times resisted adaptation to American culture or to a united Orthodox identity in America. Several movements emerged in the early nineteenth century, during the revival, which were departures from historic orthodoxy. Joseph Smith Jr. (1805–44), for example, in 1827 claimed to have dug up gold plates, later asserting he translated them to become the Book of Mormon. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, or the Mormons, formed in 1830, and soon moved to Kirtland, OH, where Sidney Rigdon (1793–1876) was a preacher and Brigham Young (1801–77) became a member. The group moved to Independence, MO (1831), then in 1839 to Nauvoo, IL. Joseph Smith, while jailed in 1844, was murdered. Brigham Young was chosen as the new leader and led the group west, settling in Utah in 1847. William Miller (1782–1849) from 1831 preached that biblical calculations placed Christ’s second coming in 1843–44; after his prediction failed, followers held a conference of “Adventists,” eventually forming the Seventh-Day Adventists (1863). Charles Taze Russell (1852–1916), from Adventist roots, began a movement claiming that Jesus returned to earth in 1874 to prepare for the 1914 end. Some followers later formed the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, popularly called Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Figure 4.64  Charles Taze Russell.

380

Figure 4.65  Dwight L. Moody.

Figure 4.66  Ira Sankey.

A Global Church History

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

381

After the Civil War, large-scale evangelistic gatherings continued, led by preachers who organized meetings in major population centers. Dwight L. Moody (1837–99) tirelessly organized meetings, partnering with song evangelist Ira Sankey (1840–1908), across America and beyond.

Late nineteenth-century developments in England and North America By the end of the nineteenth century, critical biblical methodologies from Germany and England were present in American universities. Conservative Protestants in turn emphasized biblical infallibility. Bible conferences in various locations highlighted their views. The summary of their positions eventually became known as the five points of fundamentalism: verbal inerrancy of Scripture, the deity of Jesus, the virgin birth of Jesus, substitutionary atonement, and the physical resurrection and bodily return of Jesus. Bible schools and colleges were founded to promote these and other traditional doctrines. Conservative denominations removed those whom they considered liberal. Charles A Briggs (1841–1913), for example, was suspended from Union Theological Seminary in New York by his Presbyterian general assembly, leading to struggle and Union’s separation from the Presbyterians. In the twentieth century the broader conflict came to be known as the fundamentalist-modernist controversy, discussed in the next chapter. The late nineteenth century witnessed increasingly broader recognition of the work of women in Protestant churches. Women’s boards for missionary work were founded among Congregationalists (1868), Methodists (1869), Northern Presbyterians (1870), Episcopalians (1871), Disciples (1874), and many others. Some denominations who had not previously done so began to allow women as delegates to their official conventions. Several denominations began to ordain women to ministry, including some Baptists, Congregationalists, Disciples, Unitarians, Universalists, holiness groups, and others. Denominations showed increasing attention to specific work among young people. In 1881 Francis E. Clark (1852–1927) founded the non-denominational Christian Endeavor movement. Other examples

Figure 4.67  Francis E. Clark.

382

A Global Church History

Figure 4.68  Mary Baker Eddy.

include the Epworth League (1889) among Methodists, Baptist Young People’s Union (1891), and the Luther League (1895). Denominations who traditionally had stressed theological education increased that desire. New seminaries were founded; by 1900 there were over one hundred Protestant seminaries in the United States. Late-nineteenth-century emphasis on curing by the mind or harmonious thought led some leaders to the forming of new religious groups emphasizing spiritual healing and focusing on the good they believed was inherent in all people. The Church of Christ (Scientist), often called Christian Science, was founded by Mary Baker Eddy (1821–1910) after she believed she experienced a remarkable healing. In 1875 she published Science and Health with a Key to the Scriptures and organized the Christian Science Society, chartering the church in 1879. Unity School of Christianity began in 1889 in Kansas City, Missouri, led by Charles Fillmore (1854–1948) and Myrtle Fillmore (1845–1931). By the late nineteenth century some preachers and theologians suggested that the social mission of the Church was to build God’s “Kingdom”—God’s rule on earth—through benevolent human leaders and government. Leaders such as Washington Gladden (1836–1918) and Walter Rauschenbusch (1861–1918) advanced the “social gospel,” which focused on changing corporate aspects of modern life in order to bring about social justice for the oppressed, poor, and disenfranchised. This meant giving attention to labor relations, shortening the work day, fairer wages, safe workplace, feeding the hungry, and much more. This was particularly strong in the North, leading to social ethics courses, denominational social action agencies, and numerous ministries, particularly in industrial centers.

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

Figure 4.69  Washington Gladden.

Figure 4.70  Walter Rauschenbusch.

383

384

A Global Church History

Figure 4.71  John Stuart.

In Canada, Christian developments often paralleled those in the United States. Coupled with this was a popular emphasis on independence from the United States, which also helped to produce distinctive characteristics. Immigrants brought with them their religious commitments, but soon found that the Canadian setting, both urban and frontier, resulted in new ways to express their faith. Roman Catholics were numerous and influential, especially in Lower Canada (later Ontario and Quebec). John Stuart (1740– 1811), the first Anglican priest in Upper Canada, migrated from Virginia in 1781—Canadian Protestants have called him the father of the Church in Upper Canada. Besides Anglicans, prominent denominations in Upper and Lower Canada included Presbyterians, Methodists, Congregationalists, and Baptists. Newfoundland and Labrador had more limited presence, despite a notable revival among Eskimos in Labrador beginning in 1804. In contrast to the United States, a large majority of Indians in Canada embraced Christianity especially in the Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario, and the West. By the end of the nineteenth century, Protestant denominations were sending missionaries to western Canada and beyond. By 1900 nearly all Greenlanders professed Christianity. In the Dutch, Danish, and British West Indies, most of the population was black, descendants of slaves or brought as slaves, and ruled by whites. Christians on Dutch and Danish islands were mostly Roman Catholic. In 1833, Parliament ended slavery within British domains. Christians in Jamaica, Trinidad, and other British islands were almost entirely Protestant. British Honduras was mostly Roman Catholic. Though the Guianas are in South America, each is more connected to the nations who controlled the West Indies. Though they had a Christian diversity, the Church of England and the Church of Scotland were the established religions in British Guiana (today Guyana) until 1899. Dutch Guiana (today Suriname) was mostly Protestant. French Guiana (today a French possession) was decidedly Roman Catholic.

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

385

The island of Hispaniola was dominated by French in the west and by Spanish in the east. After 1844, the east was the Dominican Republic and the west was Haiti. French Roman Catholics faced much difficulty with Vodou (Haitian voodoo) and obeah. Protestant missionaries worked in Haiti from 1816. Black colonists from the United States were invited in the 1820s, with several coming in the years that followed.

Discussion questions 1 In what areas of American Christianity did the First Great Awakening have lasting impact? Responses by advocates of this awakening? By opponents? 2 How did the Second Great Awakening compare to the First Great Awakening? Consider evangelism, benevolent ministries, missionary work, education, and more. 3 What theologies or new theological emphases emerged in response to the Second Great Awakening? By those opposing the revival? By those extending its emphases, such as the Holiness Movement and Pentecostalism? By advocates of the social gospel?

Nineteenth-century Protestant Christianity in continental Europe In Germany, in the late eighteenth century Immanuel Kant (1702–1804) proposed a major shift in epistemology. Kant was a steadfast scholar with high moral character; he never married. At first devoted to the thinking of Leibniz and Wolff, his study shifted his focus to the human’s deep hidden nature. His Critique of Pure Reason (1781) refuted Wolff’s philosophy. A stimulus comes from without. The mind then uses transcendent intuitional qualities to condition and form these perceptions—these inner laws, or “categories.” So knowledge comes from perception from without, and the categories give those perceptions form. Pure reason, therefore, cannot demonstrate God, natural religion, or cosmology. In Critique of Practical Reason (1788), Kant taught that humans are conscious of an inner moral obligation, or “ought”—one feels a “categorical imperative,” an unconditional inner command—this inner moral law is the noblest human quality. The categorical imperative unites three inseparable thoughts: (a) persons ought to do their duty, so they have freedom to choose to do their duty; this freedom reflects a realm of moral purpose and order; (b) since only immortality gives humans the fuller opportunity to reach the highest good, they must be immortal; (c) since virtue should bring happiness, but on earth does not, a higher power must unite virtue and happiness—this is God. In pure reason, God is a hypothesis, but in practical reason God becomes a conviction. In Religion within the Bounds of Reason Only (1793), Kant explained that morality is practical reason’s primary content—evil and the categorical imperative struggle for human obedience. One guided by moral good (categorical imperative) pleases God as God’s child—Christ is the highest example. The invisible Church is comprised of those obedient to this moral law. The visible Church is meant to develop this obedience, whose fulfillment is delayed until the Kingdom of God. Romanticists developed this further. Johann Gottfried von Herder (1744–1803), for example, proposed that religion, especially Christian, is the embodiment of the deepest human feelings. The

386

Figure 4.72  Immanuel Kant.

Figure 4.73  Johann Gottfried von Herder.

A Global Church History

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

387

Figure 4.74  Friedrich Schleiermacher.

Bible must be understood in light of the perspectives of those in the times they were written—from this we must distinguish between permanent truth in Scripture and what is contextual to time and place. Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834) became the most influential German theologian of the early nineteenth century. Schleiermacher was educated by Moravians and at the University of Halle. His Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers (1799) set forth his early thoughts. When the University of Berlin began in 1810, he was dean of the faculty of theology. His views are best represented in Christian Faith according to the Principles of the Evangelical Church, second edition (1830). Experience contrasts the manifold and changes with the principle of unity and permanence—from these we reason the absolute, eternal God, who is immanent in his world. Unlike God, humans feel finite, limited, and temporary—dependent. This dependence leads to self-consciousness. Religions seek to unite the universal and finite, bringing humanity into harmony with God, and each religion’s value is determined by how adequately it accomplishes this—Christianity is the best so far. Christ is central to Christianity—His incarnation is the ultimate union of temporal and eternal, God and humanity, and He is mediator of this reconciliation to others. Doctrines, as expressed interpretations of religious experiences, develop and change, so doctrines are forms in which truth is expressed in particular times and places (see Doc. 4.7). Another influential German thinker was Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831). After other teaching positions, in 1818 he became professor of philosophy at Berlin—soon he was considered the top philosopher of his day. Hegel taught that the universe is a constant development of the Absolute, or Geist, through struggle and effort. Geist develops in both the dialectical and philosophical as varied ideas or forces produce new, integrated ideas or forces. In the simplest model, this would mean one movement (thesis) encounters its opposition or limitation in another movement (antithesis); the resulting tension is resolved by a higher union or direction (synthesis)—for example “idea” encounters “nature” and unite as “humanity,” the union of mind and matter. All is connected to the one Absolute. Human

388

A Global Church History

Figure 4.75  Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

thinking is a fragment of the Absolute, explaining why truth can be understood the same by all minds. The finite spirit’s prime duty is to realize its relation to the Absolute—human beings do this in religion. So religion begins in feeling, but moves to become real knowledge—Christianity is the most complete realization, so the most complete religion. The Absolute, or Geist, is revealed through these stages of development—Hegel uses this to explain Christian doctrines. Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792–1860), professor at Tübingen, applied this developmental theory to Christian history and to historical-critical theology. His 1831 description of parties in the first-century church at Corinth produced many disciples. Adapting Semler’s Petrine versus Pauline, Baur posited that the twelve apostles’ messianic Judaism (thesis) contrasted with Pauline Christianity (antithesis), struggling well into the second century, which produced a synthesis honoring both. For Baur, this meant redating New Testament books; he concluded that only Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians were actually written by Paul, since only those books show traces of the conflict. Other letters traditionally attributed to Paul, he said, came later. Matthew is the oldest gospel, showing Judaizing tendencies. Baur convinced many, therefore, that most of the New Testament was written in the second century— not by the apostolic community. So German theologians found themselves in three major groups—rationalists, confessional Lutherans, and those somewhere between the two. The most influential rationalist was Heinrich Eberhard Gottlob Paulus (1761–1851), who reinterpreted all supernatural events in Jesus’s life, explaining them as natural events. Confessional Lutherans sought to restore the Lutheran church to its early doctrine and order. Berlin professor Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg (1802–69), for example, emphasized classic Lutheran theories of biblical inspiration and authority. Mecklenburg professors Theor Kliefoth (1810–95) and F. A. Philippi (1809–92) taught that since the Lutheran confessions have full truth, the Lutheran church is therefore the true church.

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

389

Figure 4.76  Ferdinand Christian Baur.

Between these extremes were several mediating scholars, who accepted much from biblical higher criticism but insisted on traditional orthodoxy and personal devotion to Christ—this generated a significant following. Berlin church historian Johann August Wilhelm Neander (1789–1850), for example, used critical methods to emphasize church history as divine life gaining increasing control over human lives in deep personal faith. Halle professor Friedrich August Gottreu Tholuck (1799–1877) focused on doctrines of the fall and original sin, coupled with the Christian experience of sin and regeneration. Berlin professor Isaak August Dorner (Isaac, 1809–84) taught that both theology and philosophy show progressive historical development, but that Christian faith also recognizes the validity of the records of spiritual experience in the Scriptures, which is increasingly clarified in Christian history, focused on Christ’s incarnation. Erlangen professor Gottlieb Christoph Adolf von Harless (1806–79) and his successor Johann Christian Konrad von Hofmann (1810–77) integrated spiritual experience, Scripture, and confessionalism into a single Christian profession. Hofmann used both theological and historical approaches for understanding Heilsgeschichte (German for “salvation history”). David Friedrich Strauss (1808–74) applied similar principles to Christ’s life in The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined (1835). He said that data of Christ’s life must be seen as wholly human, that none of the gospel writers were eyewitnesses, and that miracles are inherently impossible. On the other hand, he also dismissed typical rationalistic explanations. Instead, the simple, natural facts of Christ’s life are covered over by “myth” (ideas expressed in the form of historical accounts)—New Testament writers imposed their presuppositions about the expected Messiah onto the life of Jesus. They personified

390

A Global Church History

Figure 4.77  David Friedrich Strauss.

more abstract ideas in Christ—for example, because humanity is partly human and partly divine and rises above death by uniting with God, they posited Christ’s two natures and resurrection. Though Jesus really lived, the Christ of the New Testament is a creation of myth. Strauss’s ideas met with great opposition. Albrecht Ritschl (1822–89) also sought to synthesize Christian faith with new scientific and historical scholarship. He questioned Baur’s Petrine versus Pauline explanation of early Christianity—rather than two primary perspectives, he said, there were many. The combination of religious, philosophical, and institutional ideas in the ancient world, especially among Gentiles, produced the theology and practices of the early Church. We apprehend by faith rather than reason, on the basis of value judgments rather than facts. Jesus deity, therefore, should be understood not as an historical statement of fact, but as the way the faith community trusts in Him as God. The gospel was committed to the community, not to individuals—the Church was the subject of revelation and redemption. Christ died for the community, so in the community of believers one acquires forgiveness and justification. Others promoted similar ideas and came to be known as the Ritschlian school. Most influential was Adolf von Harnack (1851– 1930), whose multivolume History of Dogma applied liberal principles to Christian theology. In the 1890s another influential school of thought, the history of religions school, proposed that the approach to Christian history should be contextualized in the environment of other ancient religions of the Near East—the most famous was Ernst Troeltsch (1865–1923). Important developments in the German church went beyond the German Enlightenment. An awakening began in Prussia in the early nineteenth century during the Napoleonic occupation. In the

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

Figure 4.78  Adolf von Harnack.

Figure 4.79  Ernst Troeltsch.

391

392

A Global Church History

1820s and 1830s, after the Prussian Union of 1817 had merged Lutheran and Reformed churches, an influential revival influenced the German church. The more pietistic believers focused on infallibility of the Bible, while others were highly confessional, insisting on the doctrines of the creeds. When traditional Lutherans, called “Old Lutherans,” refused to join with Calvinists, they were persecuted; finally they were allowed to emigrate, mostly to the United States, where they established conservative synods (e.g., Buffalo Synod and Missouri Synod). The more pietistic side, known as “New Lutherans,” stressed grace through church and clergy, especially in liturgical practices. These revivals produced a desire for increasingly numerous evangelistic and charitable efforts reminiscent of earlier revivals. Corporately, this rising emphasis in Germany became known as “Inner Mission.” Lay men and women often worked sacrificially alongside clergy to reach the masses, through inner city missions, homes for homeless, literature distribution, Sunday schools, and much more. Johann Hinrich Wichern (1808–81), for example, in 1833 founded a home for underprivileged boys; soon he had aided others in starting hundreds of groups and agencies to reach prisoners, neglected children, unemployed workers, seamen, and others in need. Among Lutherans orders of deaconesses were formed. Christianity also developed outside Germany. In the early nineteenth century, French-speaking Switzerland experienced an evangelical revival which began in Geneva in 1810 and by 1825 had spread to France and the Netherlands. Known as Le Réveil (French for “The Awakening”), this revival countered rationalistic and materialistic tendencies and therefore had great impact on Reformed churches and state churches wherever it spread. Some trace the Swiss revival to Old Scottish independent preacher Robert Haldane, whose convert H. A. César Malan (1787–1864) became a leading evangelist and

Figure 4.80  Abraham Kuyper.

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

393

hymn-writer. In the Netherlands, converted Jew Isaac da Costa (1798–1860) had great influence. Voluntary societies were formed for evangelistic, missionary, and benevolent work. Among Reformed churches, awakening leaders emphasized historic Reformed doctrines—particularly biblical authority, God’s sovereignty, human depravity, justification by faith in Christ, and personal conversion. By the end of the century the movement had brought renewal to hundreds of congregations. Le Réveil had its share of problems as well. Traditional church leaders often opposed the revival. In the Netherlands, young pastor Hendrik de Cock (1801–42) preached strict Calvinism; when he was deposed in 1834, several congregations left the state church to form the Christian Reformed Church. In 1846 Alexandre Vinet (1797–1847), at first an opponent but later a strong advocate of Le Réveil and church-state separation, led many ministers and professors to form the Free Church of Vaud. Years later in the Netherlands, Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920) led a strict Calvinist party which in 1886 left the state church to form the Free Reformed Church. Scandinavia experienced similar awakening. In Denmark, Lutherans embraced Inner Mission emphases, but there were also many who followed leading Continental thinkers. High-church believers were both confessional and liturgical—Nicolai Frederick Severin Grundtvig (1783–1872), for example, considered the Apostles Creed as foundational to the faith, with strong focus on the sacraments as well. In Norway, the awakening was particularly pietiest. Hans Nielsen Hauge (1771–1824) was imprisoned for attacking the state church’s coldness, while theology professor Gisle Johnson (1822–94) moved them to be more confessional. In Sweden, Henrik Scharau (1757–1825) led the awakening toward high church and sacramental theology, stressing Christian tradition and Eucharistic presence.

Figure 4.81  Søren Kierkegaard.

394

A Global Church History

The most influential Scandinavian scholar of the early nineteenth century was Søren Aaby Kierkegaard (1813–1855), often considered the founder of existentialism. Kierkegaard responded against the formal, doctrinal Christianity he had come to know, and rejected Hegel’s philosophy as pantheistic. His successive publications from 1843 to 1855 led him to be regarded as one of the great nineteenthcentury minds. His “existential” dialectics focused on human existence as it relates to God—we are subjects, and our concept of truth is therefore grounded in subjectivity. This is not mere individualism, but truth linked to the subject (the one considering truth) rather than to the object alone. Therefore, an objective system of doctrine is impossible (see Doc. 4.8).

Discussion questions 1 How did German philosophers Kant, Schleiermacher, and Hegel change the direction of European intellectual understanding? 2 What impact did this Enlightenment thinking have on Christian intellectuals? What new ideas or emphases appeared? 3 What were more popular responses to what many considered attacks on traditional Christian faith with Germany and beyond?

Nineteenth-century Protestants in Great Britain With the evangelical revival still strong in England at the turn of the nineteenth century, many churches were separating from the Church of England. Evangelicals within the Anglican Church, who shared in

Figure 4.82  Samuel Taylor Coleridge.

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

395

the revival fervor, continued to grow until they were the majority by 1850. Known as the “low-church” party, they contrasted with the also expanding “high-church” party, who emphasized creedal tradition. Soon a more liberal group emerged, a “broad-church” movement, interpreting traditional theology in a broader, more liberal sense. Broad-church theologians were never strong in number, but they were quite strong in influence. One of their leading thinkers, Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772–1834), distinguished between “reason” and “understanding.” Understanding came through intuitive perception—religious truths were received directly, he said, through an “inward beholding.” “Conscience” was an unconditional inner command, implying moral law, a divine lawgiver, and a future life. Because he taught that truth depends on religious consciousness, some called him “the English Schleiermacher.” Others followed Coleridge’s lead. Thomas Arnold (1795–1842) said we must understand the Bible in the context of its own time, but that rather than our searching the Bible for truth, the Bible’s divine truth finds us. John Frederick Denison Maurice (1805–72), who resisted being considered broad-church, taught that all are God’s children, and God curses no one. When one realizes that all humans need reconciliation, one recognizes God’s parenthood—the result will be love and service to God. So in the end, everyone will come home to God. Others broad-church scholars included Frederick William Robertson (1816–53), Alfred Tennyson (Lord Tennyson, 1809–92), Arthur Penrhyn Stanley (1815–81), Frederic William Farrar (1831–1903), Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901), Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828–1892), and Joseph B. Lightfoot (1828–89). By the 1830s, many English were asking whether the Church was a divine institution, or one that could be changed at the command of government. Several young theologians, sparked by romanticism’s

Figure 4.83  John Henry Newman.

396

A Global Church History

emphasis on ancient and medieval practices, began moving toward what became the Oxford Movement. Richard Hurrell Froude (1803–36) taught that the Church possesses the truth, given by God at its founding, and that the Reformation leaders, in their zeal to reform, repudiated some of these divinely given elements. Soon others, including John Henry Newman (1801–90), John Keble (1792–1866), Hugh James Rose (1795–1838), and Edward Bouverie Pusey (1800–82) had embraced the same ideas. The formal beginning of the movement dates to Keble’s July 1833 Oxford sermon, National Apostasy. Keble taught that the way to salvation is by receiving Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist, the Church’s treasure, which comes only through those in apostolic succession. Therefore, the Church must be fully restored to its primitive, undivided purity. Newman began publishing “Tracts for the Times,” with several authors writing tracts. Newman’s Remarks on Certain Passages in the Thirty-Nine Articles, generally referred to as Tract 90 (1841), aroused the most controversy—it said the Thirty-Nine Articles were intended to teach true Catholic faith, which was identical with Roman Catholic faith. In 1845 Newman became Roman Catholic. Several hundred followed. Newman became a cardinal in 1879. Newman’s defection ended the Oxford Movement, but the Anglo-Catholic party, under Pusey, continued to influence the Church of England, so that many practices which Protestants had removed were reinstated. Results included renewed Catholic emphasis in worship and theology, and greater devotion to the poor, the needy, and the unchurched. Early in the nineteenth century, practicing Christians among non-Anglican churches grew to outnumber practicing Anglicans. Methodists quadrupled in size from 1800 to 1860. Congregationalists

Figure 4.84  Edward Irving.

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

Figure 4.85  William Booth.

Figure 4.86  Catherine Booth.

397

398

A Global Church History

and Baptists continued to grow. Quakers and Unitarians maintained small but influential memberships. Migration from Scotland revived Presbyterianism in England. This also meant the end of many restrictions on those who were not Anglican. Nonconformist ministers were allowed to conduct marriages (1836) and conduct funerals at cemeteries (1880). In 1868 Nonconformists were no longer required to pay taxes to support the state church. By the end of the nineteenth century, the American emphasis on large evangelistic meetings was also influential in England, particularly through the work in England of American evangelist Dwight L. Moody. New church bodies emerged. Edward Irving (1792–1834), a Scottish Presbyterian minister in London, in 1828 believed that apostolic powers would be restored if faith were sufficient. He believed this came to be true by 1830. Prophecy resulted in six apostles, and by 1835 twelve apostles. Called the Catholic Apostolic Church, they spread to Germany and the United States, expecting Christ’s immanent return—but the last apostle died in 1901. In another movement, groups of “brethren” gathered in Ireland and western England, under the influence of John Nelson Darby (1800–82), who worked around Plymouth—they were known as Plymouth Brethren. These brethren spread to Switzerland, France, Germany, Canada, and the United States. They were non-creedal, had no official clergy, and rejected denominationalism, but soon found themselves in several distinct groups. They taught dispensational premillennialism, the doctrine that Christ will soon return to initiate the last time period (dispensation), or the millennium, secretly removing (the Rapture) the true believers either before, during, or after the great tribulation (a time of severe persecution). Still another movement was begun by William Booth (1829–1912) and Catherine Booth (1829–90), who began working among the

Figure 4.87  Thomas Chalmers.

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

399

homeless and needy of London in 1864. By 1878 fellow-workers were organized in a military form, preaching in the streets and serving Christ by serving the poor. In 1880 they took the name Salvation Army. The work grew significantly after William Booth published In Darkest England and the Way Out (1890). Soon there were Salvation Army workers in all English-speaking countries, plus France, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Scandinavia, the Far East, and more. Similarly, social action ministries of the Church of England increased significantly in the latter half of the nineteenth century, under AngloCatholic leaders such as B. F. Westcott, Henry Scott Holland (1847–1918), and Charles Gore (1853– 1932). This was also true of other churches—many leaders worked to change the political environment for the sake of social justice—for example, Robert William Dale (1829–95) in Birmingham and Hugh Price Hughes (1847–1902) in London. Christianity in Scotland, much like Christianity in England, began the nineteenth century with a spiritual awakening, which broke out north of Tweed. Leaders included John Glas (1695–1773), Robert Haldane (1764–1842), and James Haldane (1768–1851), active lay evangelists who used their wealth to promote Christian evangelism and other ministries. Thomas Chalmers (1780–1847), dubbed Scotland’s greatest nineteenth-century churchman, helped lead Scottish Christians to work to meet the needs of the growing Scottish population. In 1843 he led evangelicals (about one-third of the Church of Scotland) to secede— this came to be called the “Disruption.” They founded the Free Church of Scotland.

Discussion question 1 Compare broad-church, low-church, and high-church parties in Anglicanism. What was attractive about the Oxford Movement, or Anglo-Catholic Movement?

Nineteenth-century developments in Protestant missionary expansion Protestant missionary work exploded in growth during the nineteenth century. During the first half of the century, Great Britain was the leading missionary-sending country, though they were later eclipsed by the United States. European Protestants worked to evangelize nominal church members and the unchurched. They also tried to convert Jews, Muslims, and adherents of other religions. In Great Britain, most of the eighteenth-century missionary societies continued to work, but soon a number of others were being organized. In 1792, for example, Baptist minister William Carey (1761–1834) founded the Particular Baptist Society for Propagating the Gospel among the Heathen, which later became Baptist Missionary Society; Carey went to India as a missionary in 1793. Though not historically accurate, many have pointed to this date as the beginning of modern Protestant foreign missionary movement. Other major missionary organizations in Great Britain included the London Missionary Society, the Church Missionary Society, the British and Foreign Bible Society, the Hibernian Church Missionary Society, the Wesleyan Methodist Missionary Society, and others. The Scottish Missionary Society and the Glasgow Missionary Society were also very active; in 1831, the Church of Scotland sent Alexander Duff (1806–78) to India.

400

A Global Church History

During the latter half of the nineteenth century, the majority of missionaries, and over half of all missionary funds, came from the United States. In 1810, Samuel J. Mills (1783–1818) and Adoniram Judson (1788–1850) with other Andover students founded the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. After Baptists began the General Missionary Convention in 1814 to send Judson to Burma, and to support others, nearly every major denomination began missionary organizations at the local, regional, and national levels. Those with strong constituencies in both the North and the South disputed over whether agencies should discriminate against sending slave-holding missionaries, leading to splits in several denominations, as noted earlier. Protestants in continental Europe also formed societies to support missions. Dutch leader Johannes Theodorius Van der Kemp (1747–1811) helped form the Netherlands Missionary Society in 1797; they sent him to South Africa in 1801. In 1800, Johann Jänicke (1748–1827) began a school in Berlin to train missionaries for societies from several countries. German and Swiss missionary societies later worked together to form a missionary training school in 1815. In 1882, French Protestants started the Société des missions évangéliques de Paris (Paris Evangelical Missionary Society). Other organizations were started by Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, and Finnish Protestants. Several developments contributed to the success of nineteenth-century Protestant missions, flowing into the twentieth century. First, those converted by Protestant missionaries eventually began national mission-sending organizations in their own countries, who sent missionaries to other countries. In the United States, Dwight L. Moody challenged college students to become missionaries through the Student Volunteer Movement, founded in 1886—their “watchword” became “the evangelization of the world in this generation.” By 1936 over 13,000 had gone, with parallel movements having begun in several global nations. College students committed to global evangelism founded missionary societies in particular universities. Women in many US denominations began missionary groups led by women to raise funds to support global missionary work—these often grew to be regional and national missionary societies. Non-denominational societies were also formed—for example, China Inland Mission began in 1865. One of the most significant developments was the increase in cooperation between various societies and denominations, helping give rise to the twentieth-century Ecumenical Movement.

Latin American Christianity in the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries To follow current names and borders covered in this section, choose your favorite mapping program (e.g., Google Maps) and size the map accordingly.

Latin American saw tremendous change during the nineteenth century. One revolution followed another, so that by the end of the century, Spain and Portugal had relinquished their New World possessions. In nearly every case, the revolution was led by descendants of European immigrants, who then controlled the emerging country. Expanded trade, increased immigration from Europe, and population growth

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

401

resulted. Still, every former Spanish and Portuguese country in Latin American continued to have Roman Catholicism as their dominant form of Christianity. The resulting lack of clergy threatened the Roman Catholic Church, but monks came from other countries to lead the churches. New governments disallowed the Spanish crown to continue their ecclesiastical patronage. As royalist monks were deported, churches and missions replaced their former monk leaders with secular priests, often from Europe. Roman Catholic clergy worked to integrate European immigrants into the churches. Though excluded by some new governments, most tolerated Protestants. Protestant missionaries from the United States and Great Britain ministered among Native American peoples, in merchant communities, and among Roman Catholics. Protestants were much more present in the latter half of the nineteenth century. Mexico, after much conflict, was established as a republic in 1823. Roman Catholic leaders were opposed under Benito Juárez (1806–72, president 1861–63 and 1867–72) and Ferdinand Maximilian (1832–67, monarch 1863–67). But the Roman Catholic Church grew in power under José de la Cruz Porfirio Díaz Mori (1830–1915), commonly known as Porfirio Díaz, who was president seven times, finally serving 1884–1911. The first Protestant communion service in Mexico was in 1859. Soon multiple Protestant denominations had established Mexican missions. In Central America, Roman Catholic clergy generally supported revolution. After independence, governments tended to vacillate between opposing and supporting the Church. In Guatemala and Honduras, church-state separation brought religious liberty. Costa Rica guaranteed religious liberty, but established Roman Catholicism as the state religion. Northern Presbyterians from the United States

Figure 4.88  Simón Bolívar.

402

A Global Church History

began work in Central America in 1882. The Central American Mission arrived in 1891, and by 1902 had missionaries in all Central American countries. In South America, Simón Bolívar (1783–1830), also known as El Libertador (The Liberator), a creole (New World born descendant of white Europeans), initiated the campaign for independence in 1808 and established Venezuela as a separate country. They defeated a large Spanish expeditionary force in 1821, freeing Venezuela from Spanish control. Bolívar was president of Venezuela (1813–14, 1817–19) and later Gran Colombia (1819–1830, today Colombia, Venezuela, Panamá, Ecuador), also known as New Granada. He supported the Roman Catholic Church. He also served as president of Bolivia (August 1825 to December 1825) and Peru (1824–27). His second in command, Antonio José de Sucre (1795–1830), became president of Bolivia. Significant numbers of Protestant missionaries began work in the latter part of the nineteenth century, in every Latin American country. In Argentina, leading citizens in 1810 removed the viceroy and established the first local government, called La Primera Junta (The First Governing Council). Spanish forces were finally defeated by José de San Martín (1778–1850); in 1816 Argentina was established as a nation. To the west, Chilean leaders formed a junta in 1810 to rule until the Spanish monarch could be restored, but civil war developed between royalists and those seeking independence. Bernardo O’Higgins (1778–1842) led the war for independence and served as Supreme Director of Chile from 1817 to 1823. Paraguay became independent in 1811, and Uruguay, after years of war, in 1828.

Figure 4.89  José de San Martín.

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

Figure 4.90  Bernardo O’Higgins.

Figure 4.91  Dom Pedro I.

403

404

A Global Church History

The Dominican people declared independence in 1821, under José Núñez de Cáceres y Albor (1772–1846), though they were annexed by Haiti in 1822. War restored independence in 1844, but soon they were again under Spanish rule. Finally, the Dominican War of Restoration (1863–65) brought full independence. Cuba continued under Spanish rule for most of the nineteenth century. Their third war for independence (1895–98), which escalated into the Spanish-American War, finally brought independence. Protestant missionaries worked in Cuba and the Dominican Republic from the 1880s. After Spain ceded Puerto Rico to the United States in 1898, major denominations sent missionaries almost immediately. After several failed attempts at revolution, Brazil declared its independence as a separate empire in 1822, under Dom Pedro I (1798–1834, emp. 1822–31). An 1889 coup led to Brazil becoming a republic. Brazil is South America’s largest country. Protestant missionary work was present from the early nineteenth century, but did not become strong until the latter half.

Christianity in Oceania and other Pacific Islands in the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries To follow current names and borders covered in this section, choose your favorite mapping program (e.g., Google Maps) and size the map accordingly.

Oceania is the geographic region comprising Australia, New Zealand, Melanesia (northeast of Australia), Micronesia (north of Melanesia, east of Philippines), and Polynesia (South Pacific Islands east of the Melanesia). Other Pacific Islands covered in this section are the Malay Archipelago (East Indies) and the Philippine islands. Until the end of the nineteenth century, most Western contact with the islands of the Pacific—Christian contact and otherwise—was with Spain, the ruling power. Christianity came to the area in the late eighteenth century, but grew most significantly in the nineteenth century and beyond. British settlers first colonized Australia at New South Wales in 1788; soon other colonies followed, uniting in 1900 as the Commonwealth of Australia. Australia began as a penal colony—for over fifty years “undesirable” people were exiled from Britain to Australia. Increasingly others came by choice, leaving a mix of people disinterested in Christianity or deeply devoted to Christianity. In New South Wales, most of the population was Protestant. In nearly every other region—Victoria, Tasmania, southern Australia, and Queensland—the percentage of Christians was lower than in New South Wales, but nearly all of those who were Christians were Protestant. Northern Territory had only begun to be colonized by 1900. Anglicans sent many workers and much money—by 1836 here was an Anglican bishop. Scottish immigrants brought Presbyterianism, beginning in 1809. Methodists arrived in 1798, reached Sydney in 1812, and grew steadily throughout the century. Baptists, Congregationalists, Quakers, Disciples of Christ, and several others contributed to Protestant growth. Australian Protestants formed evangelistic and missionary agencies to spread Christianity throughout the continent. Roman Catholics also arrived in 1788 and increased throughout the nineteenth century—by 1900,

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

405

about one-fifth of Australian church members were Roman Catholic, primarily because of Irish immigration. By 1900 nearly all Australians professed some connection with a church. New Zealand’s colonists, like Australia’s, were mostly British. Before whites settled in New Zealand, Anglican priest Samuel Marsden (1765–1838) in 1814 worked among the Ma¯ori aborigines, baptizing a chief in 1825. Methodists and Roman Catholics also worked among Ma¯oris. By mid-century, most Ma¯oris had professed Christianity, though syncretistic cult groups also emerged (e.g., the Kı¯ngitanga and the Pai Ma¯rire or Hauhau movements). Rapid white colonization was planned by Edward Gibbon Wakefield (1796–1862), who founded the New Zealand Company to promote settlement by those of excellent character, despite protests by the Church Missionary Society that it would disrupt evangelism among the Ma¯oris. Representative groups— Protestant denominations and Roman Catholics—closely paralleled the work in Australia. By 1900, the overwhelming majority of New Zealand’s population professed Christianity. In the Philippine islands, conversions in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries continued in great numbers. In 1671, the island of Mindanão accepted missionaries. Work continued on Luzon. By 1750, the Philippines claimed over one million Christians, with most Filipinos professing Christianity; by 1800, some bishops were mestizos (persons mixed white and native ancestry) and native Filipinos. By 1900, the majority of Filipinos were Roman Catholic, with significant nineteenth-century growth, from about four million to about seven million. In 1898, when the Philippine islands were transferred to the United States,

Figure 4.92  Edward Gibbon Wakefield.

406

A Global Church History

NINETEENTH-CENTURY CHRISTIAN EXPANSION IN THE SOUTH PACIFIC ISLANDS Island or Island Group Tahiti

Who Brought Christianity and When

• Missionaries arrive 1796, had left island or work by 1790. • Chief Pomare II (1782–1821), driven from island in 1808, embraced Christianity on Eimeo island, regained Tahiti 1815. He was baptized 1819.

Gambier islands

Most the island was baptized by 1825.

Roman Catholic Picpus Fathers 1834 on, later Protestants came.

Majority Protestant, one-fourth Roman Catholic. Mostly Roman Catholic.

Paumotu islands

Mormons 1849, Picpus Fathers 1874.

Easter island

Picpus Fathers.

Pitcairn island

Bounty crew mutinied against William Bligh in 1789; several became a Christian community which converted to Seventh-Day Adventism following 1890.

Marquesas islands

Impact by 1900

• Anglican missionaries from 1797 well into the nineteenth century. • American missionaries from Hawaii in 1833, later joined by Hawaiian Christians. • Later Roman Catholics came.

Austral islands or Tuha’a Pae

Austral travelers brought missionaries there.

Cook islands or Hervey islands

Chief Aitutaki invited Anglican missionary John Williams (1796–1839) to bring missionaries, who found people already calling themselves Christians.

Penhryn islands

Natives driven by storm to Cook islands returned to convert Penhryn natives.

Christian Community. Four churches by 1870.

Majority became Christian.

Majority became Christian.

Savage or Selvagens Islands

• • 1849 a native returned from Samoa to preach.

Majority became Christian.

Tonga or Friendly Islands

• Failed mission 1797–1801. • Wesleyans 1822 on, 1830 Chief Taufa’ahau Tupou I (1797–1893) baptized under missionary

Majority became Christian.

John Thomas (1797–1881), followed by thousands coming into Christianity.

Uvea

• Converts from a Nuatobatabu island Chr. mass movement introduced Christianity to Wallis island. • Roman Catholics worked on Futuna island.

Samoa or Navigator islands

• 1830 Tonga Christians came. • Next Methodists and Anglicans came.

Majority became Christian.

Tokelau islands

• Roman Catholics in 1850s and 1860s from Wallis and Samoa. • Anglicans from London Missionary Society 1860s.

Majority became Christian.

Tuvalu or Ellice islands

• 1860s passing captain, 1870s Penhrn Christians brought faith.

Rotuma island

• 1839 two natives sent by John Williams (1796–1839) were martyred. • Tonga and Fiji Wesleyans came. • A few Roman Catholics.

Fiji islands

• 1830 Anglican missionaries, but without success. • Chief Thakombau (1817–83) believed 1854, was baptized 1857. • Anglicans, Presbyterians, Seventh-Day Adventists, Roman Catholics followed.

Vanuatu or New Hebrides islands

• 1839 John Williams (1796–1839) left Samoan preacher, martyred. • 1842 Anglicans came, then Presbyterians, other Protestants and Roman Catholics.

New Caledonia and Loyalty islands

• 1834 Tonga native brought Christianity to Loyalty islands. • 1890s Roman Catholics came. • Protestants and Roman Catholics from Loyalty Islands to New Caledonia—more Roman

Santa Cruz islands

• 1880 John Selwyn (1844–1898) brought in missionaries.

Some converts.

Solomon Islands

• Sixteenth-century Franciscans, no success; 1845–52, 1845–52 Roman Catholic Marists, little

Limited success until the twentieth century.

Bismarck Archipelago

• 1875 Australian Methodists came, with Fijians and Samoans.

Most became Christian.

Papua New Guinea islands (New Guinea or Papua)

• 1871 Anglicans to British section. • Methodists followed 1891, with missionary George Brown (1835–1917). • 1884 Roman Catholics Came.

Micronesia (Mariana Caroline, Marshall, and Gilbert islands)

• Jesuits had come before the nineteenth century, Capuchins to Caroline islands last half of

• Majority became Christian. • Fiji sent missionaries to other islands.

Majority became Christian.

Catholics than Protestants.

success; 1898 Marists returned, rapid growth after 1910. • Anglicans 1851–52, others followed.

nineteenth century.

Many conversions.

• 1852 Hawaiian Protestants to Caroline islands and Gilbert islands; mass movement on Kusaie 1902–03.

• 1857 to Marshall Islands. Hawaiian islands

• • • • •

1819, two chiefs had been baptized Roman Catholics 1828 Picpus Fathers. 1820 US Congregationalist missionaries, 1823 several chiefs became Chrs. 1836 mass movement into Christianity, with Second Great Awakening principles. Anglicans to Honolulu. 1850 Mormons, 1857 American Methodists, then several other groups.

Figure 4.93  Nineteenth-century Christian expansion in the South Pacific Islands.

About equal number of Protestants and Roman Catholics

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

407

Protestants of multiple denominations entered almost immediately, and grew rapidly in the years that followed. The East Indies, or Malay Archipelago, includes modern Papua New Guinea, Borneo, Sumatra, Java, and Celebes, among hundreds of other smaller islands. The established presence of Islam, Hinduism, and animism hindered Christian growth. Dutch influence became strong in the midseventeenth century—the Dutch East India Company encouraged Protestant preaching, though their paying bounties to chieftains produced a rather superficial following. By the end of the seventeenth century Roman Catholic communities had nearly disappeared. The Dutch relinquished control during the early nineteenth century, but steadily regained control in the second half of the nineteenth century. Though Roman Catholic missionaries arrived in 1847, there was no significant presence until the 1880s. The second half of the nineteenth century also saw limited growth in Protestant missionary work, reinforced in 1871, but flourishing nearer the twentieth century. Most significant growth came in the early twentieth century, for both Protestants and Roman Catholics. Portuguese possessions, such as the Timor island, continued to be served by Jesuits. Anglicans introduced Christianity to British Borneo in 1847; Methodists came in 1901. On Brunei, several Roman Catholic efforts failed until after 1881. Sea exploration and trade brought sailors, merchants, and missionaries to the islands of the South Pacific, especially following the explorations of Captain James Cook (1728–79). The British annexed most islands to their empire, but France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United States each controlled some islands. Peoples, languages, and cultures varied throughout the islands. Christianity introduced there was predominantly Protestant. On some islands, most of the population embraced Christianity, some sending their own missionaries to other islands. See Figure 4.93 for expansion into specific islands.

Christianity in Africa in the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries To follow current names and borders covered in this section, choose your favorite mapping program (e.g., Google Maps) and size the map accordingly.

From the time of Portuguese and Spanish exploration through the end of the eighteenth century, Christianity penetrated only the fringes of Africa. European powers had been interested primarily in establishing trade colonies along the coasts. This provided products for Europe and facilitated transportation to more distant places of trade reaching to India, China, Japan, and beyond. Roman Catholic missionaries continued their work, and new organizations joined the work, at first to service their colonists, but also to evangelize native peoples. When French, Dutch, and British forces gained control of these areas, they also sent clergy who, like Roman Catholics before, sometimes evangelized native peoples, but most often served colonists. Much of Africa south of the Sahara and the upper (southern) Nile valley were animistic, appeasing or appealing to spirits they believed made great impact on their daily lives. This changed dramatically in the nineteenth century—the story of Christianity’s growth in Africa after 1800 is striking. European nineteenth-century explorers annexed huge areas to their countries—especially

408

A Global Church History

Figure 4.94  David Livingstone.

DAVID LIVINGSTONE (1813–73), missionary and explorer A child factory worker converted at the age of fifteen, David Livingstone studied medicine in order to preach the gospel in China. Instead he worked in Africa, using guides he explored the interior of Africa—he mapped the Zambezi river and several tributaries, discovered Victoria Falls, and provided details about Lake Tanganyika, and Lake Mweru. He was the first European to journey successfully across the center of the African continent. Considered by many as Africa’s greatest missionary, Livingstone gave his all—he suffered with malaria and dysentery for decades; endured cholera, pneumonia, ulcers; lost his wife and three of his children to African diseases. At one point he lost contact for six years. He was severely ill his last four years, while continuing his work. Believing Western ideas and commerce could help end slavery, he openly introduced Western practices into indigenous cultures. His later journey to find the source of the Nile identified Lake Ngami, Lake Malawi, and Lake Bangweulu. Livingstone unswervingly insisted “I never made a sacrifice,” affirming that his service was a privilege and that sufferings, sickness, and danger were temporary inconveniences when compared to eternal glory. His body was returned to England, but natives buried his heart in Africa, near Lake Bangweulu in modern Zambia.

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

409

Great Britain, France, Portugal, Germany, and Belgium. Before the nineteenth century the chief contact with Europeans was through slave traffic, which diminished in the early nineteenth century and virtually ended in the 1830s. Christians penetrated deep into the interior of Africa. In the nineteenth century, Roman Catholicism was strongest in territories controlled by Portugal, France, and Belgium. Protestantism was strong in British territories. Both Protestants and Roman Catholics were highly present in German areas. The strongest Protestant missionary work before 1800 came in South Africa. Dutch settled in 1652— the first resident clergyman arrived in 1665. Over the next decades some native blacks were baptized—a church was established in Cape Town. Moravian missionary George Schmidt came to work among the Khoikhoi people (Hottentots) in 1737, though the Dutch forced him to leave in 1748. When the British seized the territory in 1795, there were seven Dutch Reformed congregations and a few Moravians. Great Britain seized South Africa in 1795 and again in 1806. The largest Christian group was Dutch Reformed, among Afrikaans (Dutch-speaking whites, also called Boers). Great Britain’s abolishing of the slave trade in 1807 and abolishing slavery in 1836 brought continuing conflict with Boers, many of whom also emigrated to nearby territories. British Protestant missionaries came with the London Missionary Society in 1795, the most famous being David Livingstone (1813–73), who explored the interior of Africa, discovered Victoria Falls, and much more—natives buried his heart near Lake Bangweulu in modern Zambia. Protestant missionaries soon followed. African chiefs often invited missionaries to live among their people—Methodists came in 1816, joined later by Presbyterians and

Figure 4.95  Robert Moffat.

410

A Global Church History

Anglicans. Scores of missionaries came from other European countries as well—France, Switzerland, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and others. There were also Roman Catholic missionaries. British Anglicans and Methodists from South Africa brought Christianity to Namibia in the first half of the nineteenth century, with significant growth in the 1870s. Just to the east, in modern Botswana, missionary work was extended from South Africa. To the northeast, the territory of Rhodesia, divided by the Zambezi river, became Southern Rhodesia (modern Zimbabwe) and Northern Rhodesia (modern Zambia). Anglican missionary Robert Moffat (1795–1883) came to work in 1854, but saw limited success. Other Protestants joined the work throughout the nineteenth century. British Anglicans arrived in Northern Rhodesia in the 1870s. Soon other denominations came as well, including Roman Catholics. The indigenous “Ethiopian movement” emerged in the late nineteenth century across the region. In 1888 Joseph Mathunye Kanyane Napo and others left the Anglicans to form the African Church in Pretoria. In 1892 Mangena M. Mokone (1851–1936) led a similar group from the Methodists. These two groups soon united as the Ethiopian Church. In 1896 they united with the African Methodist Episcopal Church (AMEC), but later Napo and his related churches left the AMEC and the Reformed African Church. The Ethiopia movement had a strong presence throughout eastern and southern Africa, from South Africa to Ethiopia and beyond—many native Africans were attracted by the call for a truly African Church, not led by those of European descent, but by native Africans. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Roman Catholic successes in Angola were enormous, but diminished in the eighteenth century—by 1900 there were still a quarter million Roman

Figure 4.96  Henry M. Stanley.

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

411

Figure 4.97  King Mutesa I.

Catholics. Protestants entered in 1878, with multiple denominations sending missionaries throughout the rest of the century. The territory today called Mozambique, on the east coast, saw parallel early Roman Catholic growth and decline; Protestants worked briefly in the 1820s, but significant Protestant growth began in 1879. Anglicans had come to Nyasaland (modern Malawi) earlier, but returned in 1876; Scottish missionaries arrived in 1875, followed by missionaries of several other denominations. Portuguese Roman Catholics apparently worked in modern Tanzania and Rwanda and Burundi in the sixteenth century, but by the time Anglicans came in the 1840s, there were no traces. Roman Catholics from the island of Réunion came in 1859, and German Protestants were active from 1887 into the twentieth century. Just to the north, in modern Kenya (formerly British East Africa), Anglican missionaries in the 1840s rescued African slaves, educated them in India, and established a Christian community. Other Protestants and Roman Catholics also worked there. Missionary Henry M. Stanley (1841–1904) first came to Uganda (formerly Buganda) in 1874, converted King Mutesa I (ruled 1856– 84), and received many missionaries; persecution followed Mutesa’s death, especially in 1885–86. By 1890 British troops established order, making Uganda a British colony. Protestants grew through persecution and more. Roman Catholics were also successful. The Congo was discovered by Portugal in the 1480s. The territory has been known by many names and is currently made up of several countries. In the nineteenth century, Europeans, including missionaries, explored the Congo River extensively. David Livingstone traced the river system, and Henry M. Stanley showed the river basin to Europeans. Roman Catholics worked in the lower river valley from the 1870s. Livingstone Inland Mission began work in the current Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Belgian Congo, Zaïre, etc.) in 1878, followed by many Protestant groups from the United

412

A Global Church History

States and Europe. The French Congo is today Gabon, Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, and part of southern Chad. Roman Catholics worked in Gabon from 1844. Congregationalists entered Equatorial Guinea in 1833, followed by others. Other Protestants arrived on Fernando Po island in 1841, and on the mainland in 1865; Roman Catholics came shortly thereafter. In 1913, Albert Schweizer (1875–1965) came. English Baptists visited Cameroon in 1845, returned in 1848; after German Protestants took over the mission, there was a Christian mass movement. Others followed. Anglicans reached Nigeria in 1841, expanding from Lagos throughout the territory, followed by many others came throughout the rest of the century. In the 1860s former slaves from Brazil came to Nigeria as Roman Catholics, joined later by Roman Catholic missionaries who made significant progress. Protestants and Roman Catholics also worked in the territory west of Nigeria—today the nations of Benin (formerly Dahomey), Togo (formerly Togoland), Ghana (formerly Gold Coast), and Ivory Coast. In 1752, Anglican missionary Thomas Thompson (c. 1708–73) came to Gold Coast; he objected to slave trade and sent three young men to England to prepare to be evangelists to their people—only one survived. Most of the missionary work in these countries came in the latter half of the nineteenth century. Roman Catholics returned to Benin in 1861 but tended to be weak throughout the region. Methodists and Anglicans were much stronger. In 1821 Baptists Lott Carey (1781–1828) and Colin Teague (c. 1780–1839) went to Liberia, a product of the American Colonization Society’s project, to provide emancipated American slaves the opportunity to colonize western Africa—many other missions and missionaries followed. Liberia became independent in 1847. Anglicans and Methodists worked in Sierra Leone from 1787, followed by many others—former slaves from Nova Scotia and Great Britain established the country, encouraged by

Figure 4.98  Lott Carey.

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

413

Figure 4.99  Samuel Ajayi Crowther.

efforts of Granville Sharp (1735–1813) to encourage free blacks to settle there. In 1864, Samuel Ajayi Crowther (1809–91) became the first black Anglican bishop in Africa. Protestants worked in Guinea (formerly French Guinea), with few Roman Catholics, but Guinea-Bissau (formerly Portuguese Guinea) was the opposite—Roman Catholic with few Protestants. French Roman Catholics entered Senegal before 1800, but developed significantly in the nineteenth century; French Protestants arrived in 1862. Gambia had a few Protestants by 1900—Anglicans and Methodists had worked there since 1821 with little success. Only a few Christians were in modern Mauritania before Roman Catholic missionaries came in the 1860s. In 1895, the French founded French West Africa from many of their African possessions, including modern Benin (formerly Dahomey), Togo (formerly Togoland), Guinea, Senegal, Ivory Coast, Mali, Mauritania, Burkina Faso, Niger, and Nigeria. Other French-controlled possessions were sometimes also considered part of French West Africa, including the modern nations of Gabon, Republic of Congo, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, and parts of Sudan. Algeria was considered part of France. This continued well into the twentieth century. Protestant and Roman Catholic missionaries worked extensively throughout French West Africa, as discussed above. Most of North Africa, extending into the Middle East, was under Muslim control, and conversions to Christianity were rare. In the nineteenth century, Roman Catholics encouraged Orthodox and Oriental Christians to convert to Roman Catholicism. Many did, resulting in uniat bodies. Protestants were also very active in North Africa. In Morocco and in modern Libya, Christianity made few converts in the nineteenth century, despite the work of many Protestant and Roman Catholic missionaries. Christianity was reintroduced to Algeria and Tunisia after nineteenth-century French conquest—Roman Catholics made significant impact, especially among Muslims. Protestants worked less successfully.

414

A Global Church History

Figure 4.100  Habib Girgis.

After the British left Egypt in 1807, Egypt was ruled by an Albanian family and fairly isolated, but in the second half of the century, the French began the Suez Canal (finished 1869), and the British built railways and other means for a robust economy. Ancient Christian presence continued, but nearly all of the population was Muslim, and Christianity made very limited impact, with the exception of Presbyterians, who came in 1854 and grew to be the largest Protestant denomination. Anglo-Egyptian Sudan (modern Sudan and part of Libya) was part of Egypt until 1881; they experienced little Christian growth in the nineteenth century and beyond. Egypt became a British protectorate in 1882. Soon Anglican missionaries were working in Egypt. Among Coptic Orthodox, Habib Girgis (1876–1951) stimulated growth by using Sunday schools to teach Coptic Orthodox of all ages. Nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century rulers of Abyssinia (modern Ethiopia and Eritrea) continued to trace their lineage to ancient Aksum kings and to King Solomon of ancient Israel and the Queen of Sheba. The population had been traditionally Christian. As in North Africa, Roman Catholics tried to convert those of ancient Christian groups, and Protestants made limited progress. After 1888 some unsuccessfully tried to lead the Abyssinian Church into the Russian Orthodox Church. Menelik II (1844– 1913, emperor 1889–1913) encouraged missionary work. Nineteenth-century Somalia (formerly British Somaliland and Italian Somaliland) and Djibouti (formerly French Somaliland) continued to have Coptic Christians, with a few Roman Catholics and Protestants.

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

415

Figure 4.101  Queen Ranavalona II.

Christianity also came to the islands near Africa. After failed efforts of Roman Catholics in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Christianity was reintroduced to Madagascar when Roman Catholics returned in 1829. After persecution, Christianity flourished, especially after Queen Ranavalona II (1829–83, queen 1868–83) was baptized in 1868 or 1869. Soon Protestant missionaries came, contributing to growth until the French dominated in 1895 and promoted only Roman Catholicism. The Christians of Mauritius, Rodriques, Réunion, the Comoro islands, and the Seychelles islands were primarily Roman Catholic—missionaries came in the middle of the nineteenth century. The Cape Verde islands, São Tomé island, and Príncipe island continued in their Roman Catholicism from the sixteenth century. Anglicans missionaries came in the middle of the nineteenth century to Tristan da Cunha, St. Helena island, and Ascension island. The Canary islands had been Spanish and mostly Roman Catholic since the late fifteenth century.

Christianity in Asia in the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries To follow current names and borders covered in this section, choose your favorite mapping program (e.g., Google Maps) and size the map accordingly.

416

A Global Church History

Christianity faced significant challenges in the Middle East during the nineteenth century. These countries, of course, had an ancient Christian presence, but a strong Muslim majority, with governments generally skeptical of Christians and the Christian faith. During much of the nineteenth century these territories were part of the Ottoman Empire, which included the modern Middle Eastern states of Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt, and more. Ancient Eastern churches were present in most of the region, including Greek Orthodox, Jacobites, Oriental Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, uniat Roman Catholics, and more. Palestine (modern Israel and most of Jordan) continued to have many Christians, and Jews, in the place they considered the birthplace of their religions. As part of the Ottoman Empire, Christians in Palestine lived under the practice of millet, which afforded non-Muslims some autonomy within their own communities. Orthodox members of the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulchre, and Roman Catholic Franciscans, cared for several holy sites visited by Christian pilgrims. In 1847 the Greek Orthodox patriarchate of Jerusalem was allowed by the Ottomans to return to Jerusalem. Protestants arrived in 1821, with scattered presence; in the latter half of the nineteenth century many Protestant missionaries arrived from the Britain, the United States, Germany, and other countries. In the 1880s Russian Orthodox missionaries founded a number of schools. In Syria, Roman Catholics grew significantly. Protestants arrived in the 1820s, but had greater presence and influence after 1850. Most of the Christians on Cyprus were Greek Orthodox, with some Roman Catholics and Armenian Orthodox, but almost no Protestants. Asia Minor (modern Turkey), Caucasus (modern Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan), and Persia (modern Iraq) were also under the Ottoman Turks in the nineteenth century, though their influence outside of Asia Minor diminished progressively. These territories were primarily Muslim, but the ancient Eastern churches mentioned above had strong minorities. In the nineteenth century, Roman Catholic uniat churches grew significantly, with Protestant missionaries present but less successful. To the east, Persia (or Mesopotamia, modern Iran) was primarily Muslim, with a few ancient Christian groups present. Roman Catholics and Russian Orthodox grew by converting others from among the traditionally Oriental Orthodox; Protestants were present, but with limited influence. Generally speaking, Arabia (modern Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Bahrain) was isolated from Western influence in the nineteenth century. Few Christians from ancient churches were present, and the limited work of both Protestants and Roman Catholics met with very little success. Afghanistan was intentionally isolationist and Muslim, with a few Oriental Orthodox, but virtually no Roman Catholics or Protestants present. In India (modern India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, parts of Tibet), European Christians in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries supplemented India’s long history of Christian presence. At first, these were small merchant communities. Portuguese Franciscans reached India in 1498, but merchants generally embarrassed the missionaries by their evil conduct. With the decline of Portugal’s power, Roman Catholic India missions declined significantly, opening the door for Protestant missions to follow. Though Dutch preacher Abraham Rogerius (1609–49) preceded them, German Lutheran pietists Bartholomäs Ziegenbalg (1682–1719) and Heinrich Plu˝tschau (1676–1752) came in 1706. New missionaries later arrived, most notably Lutheran missionary Christian Friedrich Schwarz (1726–98). By 1800 there were nearly 20,000 Protestants in this German-Danish-English mission, in several cities.

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

417

Several English missionaries came under the English East India Company. William Carey (1761–1834) came to Calcutta in 1793, later inspiring Protestant missions throughout the world. The growth of Christianity in the next century in India—the nineteenth century—was extraordinary. The Christian bodies established in the early, medieval, and Reformation periods and beyond continued to be, of course, strongest in southwest India, as well as present in east India. This included the Syrian or St. Thomas Christian groups, some Roman Catholics, and a few Armenian and Greek Orthodox. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, Portugal, France, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Great Britain had a presence on the coasts. Great Britain completed its military conquest of India in the 1850s, and soon brought railroads, schools, telegraph, manufacturing, and more to India. Hundreds of missionaries came to India in the nineteenth century, practicing a wide range of missionary methods. By 1800, Roman Catholics had become a closed caste; this happened because leaders feared that associating with lower castes would hinder the growth of Christianity. The nineteenth century brought great change, with strong growth and presence throughout the various regions of India. Work was done by a variety of religious orders from several European nations, and was particularly strong in the latter half of the nineteenth century—by 1870, India had over one million Roman Catholics. Many conversions came as a result of mass movements, especially in times of famine. Nearly everywhere, missionaries worked among people of a particular social caste. They used mission theaters, literature, education, benevolent institutions, and job creation. By 1900, there were nearly two million Roman Catholics in India. Protestant growth was more rapid, though by 1900 Roman Catholics nearly doubled Protestants. Chaplains following Second Great Awakening methods worked among Indians in the early nineteenth century, among others. In 1793 William Carey (1761–1834) came to Calcutta, learned Bengali and Sanskrit, and translated most of the Bible into Bengali. In 1799 he and other missionaries moved to Serampore, where they established their mission. Their first convert, a former Hindu named Krishna Pal

WILLIAM CAREY (1761–1834), missionary to India William Carey has been called the “father of modern missions.” His monumental essay, An Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens (1792), coupled with tireless work, led to the founding of what became the Baptist Missionary Society. The next year, 1793, Carey arrived in India as the agency’s first missionary. His wife Dorothy died in India in 1807, and he remarried in 1808 to Charlotte Rhumohr, who died in 1821. In 1823 he married widow Grace Hughes. Carey translated the Bible into several native languages, including Sanskrit, Hindi, Bengali, Oriya, Assamese, Marathi, and many others—he and his mission translated parts of the Bible into forty-four languages and dialects. They also published textbooks, dictionaries, and other helpful works for all ages. At Serampore he and other missionaries in 1818 established Serampore College to train indigenous ministers for the growing churches; two centuries later the college continued to serve the region. He initiated an education system that included girls in an era when girls were not generally allowed formal education. Carey was instrumental in Adoniram Judson’s decision to become a Baptist and in encouraging American Baptists to found the General Missionary Convention of the Baptist Denomination, which supported Judson.

418

Figure 4.102  William Carey.

Figure 4.103  Alexander Duff.

A Global Church History

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

419

Figure 4.104  Pandita Ramabai.

(1764–1822), was baptized in 1800. At Serampore the missionaries published translations and other works, and established Serampore College in 1818 to train an indigenous clergy. Carey’s life and achievements were extraordinary. Other Baptists joined the work in India over the rest of the century, working in Madras, Orissa, and Calcutta; they worked with all castes. Anglicans came in 1813, following an agreement forcing the English East India Company to allow missionaries in areas under their control—the work expanded significantly. Congregationalists worked in Bombay, Madura, and beyond. In 1830 Scottish Presbyterian missionary Alexander Duff (1806–78) arrived in India; soon there were Scottish Presbyterians in Bombay, Nagpur, and Madras. Other active denominations included Plymouth Brethren (1833 on), Lutherans (several groups, 1830s on), Moravians (1850s on). Hundreds of missionaries came to India from the United States, representing scores of denominations and using multiple methods to reach the people of India. After the British gained control of all of India in 1858, missionary work in India increased remarkably. Many organizations had come before 1858, but even more came after. Anglicans consolidated their administration and sent several new missions, as did Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and several other groups. Missionaries also came from Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and several European nations. Missionaries from the United Stated increased the most. Over half of these were women, who came as doctors, preachers, teachers, and church planters; most often missionary women worked with Indian women. Perhaps the most famous convert was Pandita Ramabai (1858–1922), a scholar and women’s rights advocate who served widows and orphans after being converted to Christianity. Protestants preached in villages and city markets, founded training schools, produced Christian

420

A Global Church History

literature, provided medical care, gave relief during famine, started farming colonies for outcastes, trained an indigenous clergy, and much more. Churches within India also organized missions—sometimes these were either fully or partly financed by Europeans, while others were primarily or entirely Indian. By the end of the century, for example, the Mar Thoma Syrian Church and the Jacobite Syrian Church were sending missionaries within their own country. The Dutch took control of Ceylon (modern Sri Lanka) in 1658. Dutch Protestants tried to convert the thousands of Roman Catholics there to Protestantism, and achieved limited success, using methods that included not only persuasion, but also oppression and compulsory education. Despite these efforts, Roman Catholics still outnumbered Protestants when Great Britain took control of Ceylon in 1796. Transition to English leadership took some time, but by the end of the nineteenth century Roman Catholic and Protestant churches had grown significantly. Most Protestant workers came from England. Neither Roman Catholics nor Protestants established themselves in the Maldive or Laccadive islands. In Southeast Asia, Christianity gained few adherents, and virtually no Protestants, before 1800. Great Britain conquered Burma (modern Myanmar) in three stages, resulting in control by 1886—British administered Burma as part of India until after World War I. Roman Catholics had converted some Burmese, but lost a significant presence by 1800. By 1892 and beyond, however, Roman Catholicism was growing. Nineteenth-century Protestants experienced more significant increase, especially among Baptists. British Baptist Adoniram Judson (1788–1850) arrived in Yangon (once spelled Rangoon) in

Figure 4.105  Adoniram Judson.

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

421

1813. Ko Tha Byu (c. 1778–1840), the first convert from among the Karen people, brought thousands of Karens to Christ. With additional work by Anglicans, Methodists, and especially American Baptists, by the end of the century, Christianity was growing among all major people groups in Burma. Moravians, Roman Catholics, and Anglicans were relatively unsuccessful, however, on the nearby Andaman and Nicobar islands. In Malaysia (formerly Malaya), Muslims exercised great influence, so early in the nineteenth century the only Christian center was Malacca. Roman Catholics, who had come in the sixteenth century, remained stable through the end of the nineteenth century; some Armenian Orthodox were also present. Dutch took the peninsula in 1641. British presence from 1786, and control or influence by 1826, brought prosperity and great missionary successes. Anglicans had the most significant growth among several Protestant groups. In Siam (modern Thailand) and in Indochina, French Roman Catholic missionaries from the Société de Mission Étrangères replaced earlier Jesuit missionaries and had much greater influence. Because Siam was the only country in Southeast Asia to remain fully independent of Western nations during the nineteenth century, they had a relatively small number of Christians. Roman Catholics struggled to grow until an 1856 treaty guaranteed missionary opportunities. Roman Catholics lived in separate communities from others in society. Protestants came to Bangkok in 1828, but the mission failed. The first Protestant church was organized in 1837. American Presbyterians were the leading Protestant missionary force, especially among Lao people in northern Thailand. France gained control of Indochina in the 1860s, which included modern Vietnam (formerly Tonkin, Annam, and Cochin-China), Cambodia, and Laos. During the nineteenth century Christianity was entirely Roman Catholic. Intense persecution in the middle decades produced many martyrs and great poverty for the Christians. After an 1874 treaty guaranteed toleration, whole villages became Christian. Another persecution in the 1880s martyred thousands, yet conversions increased. Protestant missionaries came in 1890, but had no impact until the twentieth century. In China, the Qing dynasty was established in 1636, driving the Mings from Beijing in 1644. Jesuits traveled with the fleeing Mings as well as remained with the Qings, so several important leaders in both groups became Christians. During their conflict, the Church grew considerably. Dominicans and Franciscans also came to China. Brief persecution came while the Kangxi emperor (Xuanye, 1654– 1722, emp. 1662–1722) was too young to reign directly, but when he assumed authority in 1669 many new missionaries entered China, and conversions increased again. In a unique case, Luó Wénza ˇo (1616–91, bp. 1685–91) became a Roman Catholic in 1633, then a priest in 1656, and in 1685 bishop of Nanking—some have said his leadership transformed China—he later was also known as Gregory Lopez. The Kangxi emperor’s 1692 Edict of Toleration brought prosperity to Roman Catholic missions. The Yongzheng emperor (Yinzhen, 1678–1735, emp. 1723–35) ordered that nearly all missionaries go to Macau (or Macao), all church buildings be confiscated, and all Christians renounce their faith. His son, the Qianlong emperor (Aisin-Gioro Hongli, 1711–99, emp. 1735–96), frequently persecuted Christians during his long reign. Still, by 1800 there remained well over 200,000 Christians in China. China in the nineteenth century resisted Christianity more than other regions. The earlier work by Christians had limited lasting impact, and Christianity was generally viewed as a foreign religion in an empire resistant to the West. Chinese people and their leaders resisted Christianity throughout China—

422

A Global Church History

for much of the century and beyond, propagating Christian faith was illegal, except in a few port cities. By 1900, less than two million of China’s over 400 million people were Christians—mostly Roman Catholics. After defeat by Great Britain in the 1840s and defeat by Great Britain and France in the 1860s, treaties progressively brought toleration of Chinese Christians and some missionaries. The 1899–1900 Boxer Rebellion resulted in several nations responding in force, and China opened even further—a treaty with the United States in 1903 permitted missionaries. By the early twentieth century, China was officially open to adopting Western culture. Roman Catholics were persecuted throughout the first half of the nineteenth century, but French protection brought change. After 1860, Roman Catholic missionaries of several major orders worked to convert unbelievers—ministries included education, medical care, orphanages, and more. Most Roman Catholic missionaries stayed in China for the rest of their lives, despite continued persecution. Roman Catholics grew from over 200,000 in the 1840s to official figures of over 1.3 million in 1901 and over 1.4 million in 1912. Russian Orthodox grew from under 200 in 1860 to 5000 in 1914. China had almost no Protestants in 1800. Presbyterian missionary Robert Morrison (1782–1834) arrived in Guangzhou (Canton) in 1807. Other missionaries from the United States and Great Britain followed, with limited early success. Missionaries were persecuted, since propagating Christianity was illegal. As the wars progressively opened China, thousands of American and British Protestant missionaries representing numerous agencies and denominations flooded into China, joined by missionaries from several other European countries. In the most famous example, James Hudson Taylor (1832–1905) entered China in 1854, and in 1865 helped to organize China Inland Mission, in which missionaries had no salary but trusted God to meet their needs. In 1843, Chinese leader Hong Xiuquan (1814–64), in response to a vision he had six years before, taught that a second savior was needed to completed Jesus’s ministry—he believed he was the actual son of God and younger brother of Jesus. He believed that God had called him to be the “heavenly king” of The Kingdom of Great Peace (Taiping tianguo); this resulted in an earthly kingdom from 1851 to 1864, which ended upon his defeat.

JAMES HUDSON TAYLOR (1832–1905), missionary Like David Livingstone, James Hudson Taylor as a teen felt called to China. At the age of seventeen, he became a Christian and committed himself to missionary work in China. In preparation, he lived an austere life, learned Mandarin, and studied medicine. In 1852 he accepted believer baptism. In 1853 Taylor sailed for China, entering Shanghai in 1854, where he wore Chinese clothing, learned to preach in several Chinese dialects, and prepared an edition of the New Testament in Ningbo dialect. Back in England 1860–66, Taylor recruited missionaries for China. His later years were spent recruiting missionaries in Europe and the United States. In 1905 he made his eleventh trip to China, where he died and was buried in Zhenjiang, but moved to another location in the twenty-first century. In 1865 Taylor helped organize the non-denominational missionary agency China Inland Mission. The mission eventually worked in several cities, mostly in inland China. China Inland Mission eventually brought over 800 missionaries to China, began 125 schools, and reported over 18,000 conversions.

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

Figure 4.106  James Hudson and Maria Taylor.

Figure 4.107  Robert Morrison.

423

424

A Global Church History

Figure 4.108  Hong Xiuquan.

Protestant missions continued to grow after 1895, with thousands of Protestant missionaries by World War I. Many Protestant missionaries were martyred in the Boxer Rebellion, but replacements soon followed. Protestant groups generally cooperated with one another, strategically and regionally. In 1907 the China Centenary Missionary Conference recommended forming a national federation, so in 1914 the National Christian Council was formed. With so many missionaries and denominations, Protestant methods differed widely, with evangelism, church planting, education, literature, benevolent ministries, medical work, and much more emerging throughout China. In Japan, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, Christianity was illegal and persecuted, so Christian presence and growth was extremely limited. Once Japan opened, beginning in 1850, Japanese leaders adopted Western culture quickly, but not Christianity. The first Japanese Protestant was converted in 1864. The first Orthodox missionary came in 1861, baptizing his first converts in 1868. Despite extensive efforts and huge investments, by World War I there were about 200,000 Japanese Christians, representing 0.5 percent of the population. Roman Catholic work was led primarily by French missionaries. From 1844 to 1848 a missionary worked on the Ryuku islands. Others worked on the mainland. After the 1860s dedication of the Church of the Twenty-Six Martyrs in Nagasaki, commemorating seventeenth-century Japanese Christian martyrs, Japanese from several nearby Christian villages emerged. They traced their roots directly to this earlier period—they were the Kakure Karishitan (“hidden Christians”) who had gone underground and practiced Christianity secretly since the 1630s. From 1867 to 1873 Christians were arrested, imprisoned, and tortured. After this, Roman Catholics grew steadily—over 66,000 by World War I.

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

425

Figure 4.109  Andrew Kim Taegon.

Conversions to Russian Orthodoxy came under the work of Ivan Kasatkin (1836–1912), known as Nikolai—by his death there were over 30,000 members in Japan. Protestant missionaries to Japan came primarily from the United States, beginning in 1857, with a few from Europe. Missionaries lived in ports that were open to foreigners. After the 1858 treaties, missionaries from four groups entered Yokohama on the main island in 1859–60. Still more groups came after 1869. In the 1880s Protestant Christianity experienced growth, as more and more denominations and organizations entered the work. Many missionaries worked toward ecumenical cooperation. Protestant growth in the 1890s slowed but continued, as Christianity became increasingly viewed as a foreign religion. Still comparatively few Japanese were Christians in 1900. Korea resisted foreign relations, especially with the West, even more than China and Japan. Evidence shows East Syrian Christians were in Korea by the ninth century, but the first traceable Christians in Korea came with Japanese ruler Toyotomi Hideyoshi’s invasions in the 1590s. After 1636 Korean crown prince Sohyeon (or So-hyun, 1612–45) was a hostage in China under the Qing dynasty; in 1644 he moved to Beijing, where he met Jesuit missionaries. He returned to Korea in 1645, but was soon killed for trying to bring Christianity and Western culture to Korea. No real progress was made until Yi SeungHun (1756–1801) accepted the challenge of Yi Byeok (1754–85) to be baptized while on a diplomatic

426

A Global Church History

mission with Yi Byeok’s father in Beijing. He returned to Korea, where he converted others, sparking government persecution. They functioned with a lay priesthood until the first priest arrived in 1795. Though Yi Seung-Hun denied the faith, the church continued to grow. By 1801, over 10,000 Christians were reported in Korea. A Roman Catholic missionary finally arrived in 1836, ministering secretly to Christians in Seoul. Martyrdoms followed in 1839. In 1846 the first native Korean priest, Andrew Kim Taegon (1821–46), was killed. More growth followed, but another violent persecution beginning in 1866 killed most missionaries and nearly onefourth of Korea’s Christians. Protestants missionaries from Manchuria labored on the northern border of Korea. Finally, after further resistance, the Korean government opened trade to the West in the 1880s. Roman Catholics grew in the 1880s and 1890s, so that by World War I there were nearly 80,000. After Presbyterian physician Horace Newton Allen (1858–1932) saved the court prince’s life in 1884, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Methodists, Salvation Army, and many others worked in Korea; churches were established in 1887. The strongest Protestant groups were Presbyterians and Methodists. Japan defeated China for control of Korea in 1894, and later defeated Russia in 1904–05, annexing Korea in 1910. By World War I, Protestants had grown from very few to nearly 90,000. Russian Orthodox also worked in Seoul. Russian expansion across northern Asia flourished in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries— Russia grew to control the largest area of Asia, from the Ural Mountains to the Arctic Ocean. A monastery at Selenginsk served as a missionary outpost for preaching to native people groups. Peter I the Great (see below) encouraged missionary work in Siberia, especially western Siberia. Filofei Leszczynski (1650–1727) was his primary missionary leader, sending missionaries but also serving as a missionary himself. As metropolitan of Siberia and Tobolsk he worked among local peoples. He worked among Ostyaks and Voguls in northwest Siberia on the Irtysh and Ob Rivers. His retirement to a monastery in 1721 saw the decline of new missionary work. In 1727 Irkutsk became a diocese; a seminary there sent graduates to convert native peoples in the surrounding area. The early 1700s saw active missions in Kamchatka—by 1750 most of the population were reportedly Christians. Missionaries followed explorers and traders to Alaska and the Aleutian islands. Grigory I. Shelekhov (1747–95) established colonies in Alaska and California, claiming personally to have brought many of the natives to the faith. In 1794 empress Catherine II (1729–96, emp. 1762–96) sent missionaries to Kodiak Island; though the missionaries were left there without supplies, they nonetheless baptized most inhabitants of the Aleutian islands with a few years. In the nineteenth century, Russian Orthodoxy continued this growth, spreading both by immigration and by missionary efforts. From 1886 to 1905 nearly five million Russians migrated to Siberia, either voluntarily or because of penal exile—most were Russian Orthodox. Roman Catholics also migrated to Siberia from Poland and Lithuania. Earlier Russian Orthodox work in Alaska and the Aleutian islands continued to grow. Other successful works were begun near Mongolia, in Irkutsk, and near Tobolsk.

Discussion questions 1 Explain the rise of new nations through the spread of revolutions in Latin America to free colonists from Spain and Portugal. What was the impact on Christianity? Who was your favorite leader and why?

Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

427

2 How did the demise of Spanish domination contribute to the spread of Christianity in Oceania? What majors countries worked there in the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries? 3 By the nineteenth century, Christianity in Africa spread beyond the fringes of the continent. Who was your favorite European missionary, and why? Who was your favorite indigenous Christian leader and why? 4 Christianity began in the Middle East—describe Christian presence there in the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries. 5 In the nineteenth century, Christianity grew significantly in Asia. Who was your favorite Western missionary in this growth, and why? Who was your favorite indigenous Christian leader and why? Consider India, Southeast Asia, China, Korea, and beyond.

Chapter summary By the end of the nineteenth century, Christians faced a number of challenges. Hundreds of people groups had never heard the gospel. Scholars and thinkers were challenging Christians to reconsider long-held traditions and beliefs. Sometimes denominations completed openly, often opposing one another, in a divided Christendom, with Roman Catholics and Protestants rarely considering one another to be part of the true Church. But Christianity was in every way global, and the earth’s largest world religion, with well over half a billion Christians. Christians could be found on every continent and in most nations of the world. Christianity had grown substantially in the nineteenth century, from just over 200 million in 1800 to well over 500 million in 1900. Christians, encouraged by Christian progress in evangelism, service to others, progress against social injustices, and hundreds of benevolent ministries, faced the twentieth century with tremendous hope. Denominations, interdenominational agencies, educational institutions, and individual congregations had set the stage for tremendous growth in the twentieth century and beyond.

Chapter bibliography See the Bibliography for “Christianity in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries” and “Christianity in the Twentieth Century and Beyond” at the end of the next chapter.

Chapter 5 Christianity in the Twentieth Century and Beyond Robert F. Rea

Introduction The twentieth century began with widespread anticipation and hope. Science gave great promise of improvement. Much of the world seemed to live in peace. Philosophers and other thinkers of the nineteenth century had brought expectation to the brink of a golden age. Religious leaders taught that the Church’s work in the world would end the world’s worst problems, ushering in a new period, or millennium, of goodness. When the twentieth century began, therefore, much of society believed that the evolving human race would make the twentieth century the century to solve the world’s problems and to produce the future utopia so long envisioned. Then 1914 brought World War I. The war’s terrible cruelties, including the use of chemical weapons, shattered utopian dreams. Yet after the war, hope revived, for many believed this was the last great conflict—“the war to end all wars.” But it also signaled the end of nineteenth-century global empires. The once powerful Ottoman Empire was little more than a weakening shadow. The rest of the world no longer looked to Europe as the great global leader. Other nations—most notably the United States, but soon to be joined by the Soviet Union—were assuming global leadership. Prosperity in the 1920s again brought hope. But economic collapse in 1929 left the world in the Great Depression, plunging the West into an economic and social despair having global impact. As nations slowly recovered, new systems and new powers developed. Activists proposed that socialism could resolve oppression of the masses by the rich—in Russia, Lenin established the Soviet state, which looked more like dictatorship than socialism. Nationalist totalitarian regimes arose in Hitler’s Nazi Germany and Mussolini’s Fascist Italy. Japan invaded China and prepared for expanded war. When Germany invaded Poland in 1939, European alliances found themselves at war in Europe, North Africa, and beyond. When Japan attacked the United States on December 7, 1941, the war was global, called World War II. By the time the Allied powers defeated the Axis powers, leaving the world at peace, the dream of human progress producing a better world had virtually disappeared. In China, Mao Zedong united China into a single atheistic communist state. The Cold War pitted Soviets and Soviet-aligned nations against the Western alliance. Nuclear weapons, used by the United States against Japan to end World War II, were stockpiled—an uneasy “peace” continued for decades. By the end of the twentieth century, many world leaders were not Christian; they were either

Christianity in the Twentieth Century and Beyond

429

non-religious or advocates of other religions. Political leaders in communist countries were decidedly atheists. Moral examples included not only great Christians such as Mother Teresa and many others, but also people like Mohandas Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, and more. Muslim leaders of primarily Islamic nations, enriched by oil revenues, assumed powerful global roles. The world’s economy became increasingly global, with European, American, and Pacific markets mutually interdependent. Throughout the twentieth century Christians employed various forms of emerging media. The first successful radio broadcast in 1906 was of Christian content. The first global radio network in 1931 was the Vatican Network. Christians used telephone extensively. Roman Catholic bishop Fulton Sheen became a celebrity in the 1950s through inspirational television, and in the 1970s several Christian networks and programs promoted Christianity, especially Pentecostal (or charismatic) Christianity. Christian filmmakers employed the big screen to promote the Christian faith. From the 1990s Christians embraced the internet as a key means of information and outreach for the spread of Christianity. Communication became virtually instantaneous. Earth became a technological globe, with every level of societies, from privileged Westerners to Pacific island bushmen, carrying a cell phone. Social media meant that news could spread widely within a few minutes. Millions of internet sites emerged representing and promoting Christian ministry. The internet raised significant questions about what being a church means. It became increasingly possible to have social interaction with global Christians without connecting directly to a local congregation. Virtual churches, or online communities, emerged. On the other hand, global prayer communities supplemented local church involvement for many. Theologies of incarnation and community were carefully examined. The global character of the internet, coupled with growing global awareness, encouraged thinking across nations, cultures, and continents

European Christianity before, during, and after World War II Europe had to recover, economically and spiritually, from the tragedies and suffering of World War I. The victors rebuilt and soon prospered. Germany, however, was left in shambles. Reparations contributed to a slower economy, and the Great Depression left Germany and much of Europe hopeless. Adolf Hitler (1889–1945, chancellor 1934–45), through his National Socialist (Nazi) Party, promoted himself as the strong leader who could restore national pride and prosperity. Like most totalitarian regimes, Nazi German and Fascist Italian leaders also tried to control the Church. Theology built on the thinkers who had come before, responding, revising, correcting, as generations grew—significant developments came during the period between World War I and World War II. Earlier theologians who accepted modern philosophy and developing scientific understandings had cast serious doubt on historic Christian teachings. In response, neo-orthodox theology, as it came to be called, defended traditional orthodoxy while generally embracing these emerging scientific and philosophical understandings. The foundational emphasis for neo-orthodox theologians was revelation from the transcendent triune God as the source of Christian doctrine—for them, natural theology was insufficient. Swiss-born professor Karl Barth (1886–1968) is considered neo-orthodoxy’s most prominent leader. His ten-volume Church Dogmatics (published in stages, 1932–67) reemphasized revelation

430

A Global Church History

Figure 5.1  Karl Barth.

from God, that Christ speaks through the Bible, historic Christology, and Christ’s atonement through His incarnation, death, resurrection, and second coming (see Doc. 4.13 for an excerpt on the doctrine of election). Emil Brunner (1889–1966) insisted that Jesus is God incarnate and essential to human salvation, though he also rejected miracles in the Bible and the traditional doctrine of biblical inspiration (see Doc. 4.19). Some neo-orthodox theologians embraced existentialism. New Testament scholar Rudolf Bultmann (1884–1976), for example, was highly influenced by German existentialist philosopher Martin Heidegger (1889–1976). Bultmann developed an exegetical method called form criticism, which examines the form in which the stories in the New Testament were passed on from the time of Jesus to their being written in the gospels. Bultmann emphasized the demythologizing of Scripture—that is, reconsidering the stories by removing elements of religious myth. Lutheran German and Harvard professor Paul Tillich (1886–1995) began with ontology—what does it mean to be a finite human being? This must be correlated to the truths known through divine revelation Before and during World War II, Churches often cooperated with totalitarian governments in their various programs. Much of this traces to the traditional understanding of the link between church and state, with Christians of nearly every nation believing that God favored their country over others. Under fear and intimidation, church leaders often simply recognized the legitimacy of programs and submitted

Christianity in the Twentieth Century and Beyond

431

Figure 5.2  Rudolf Bultmann.

Figure 5.3  Martin Heidegger.

to policies. Pope Pius XII, as we shall see, has been highly criticized for not taking a stronger public stand against both Hitler and Mussolini. Most Lutherans in Germany supported the Third Reich, and many were part of the Nazi Party. At their same time, there were Christians who opposed the programs of government. Lutheran pastor and scholar Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906–45), for example, opposed the Hitler regime from its

432

Figure 5.4  Paul Tillich.

Figure 5.5  Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

A Global Church History

Christianity in the Twentieth Century and Beyond

433

Figure 5.6  Martin Niemöller.

beginning in 1933. He immediately called for the Church to take action to stop Hitler’s persecution of Jews. Soon after assuming power, Hitler organized previously federated Protestants into the German Evangelical Church, and manipulated Nazis into positions of power. Dissenters led by Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) formed the Emergency League. Further efforts to control the Church led Karl Barth and others in 1934 to make the Barmen Declaration, asserting church independence from government (see Doc. 4.15). This was foundational for those who formed the Confessing Church (Bekennende Kirche), in opposition to Nazi government control. Only about one-fifth of German pastors joined. They consistently opposed government anti-Semitism and government interference in church leadership. Bonhoeffer, after two years in Britain, returned to Germany as a key leader of the Confessing Church movement, leading an underground yet persecuted seminary. After teaching briefly in the United States, he again returned to Germany, perhaps even conspiring to assassinate Hitler. After arrest and imprisonment at Flossenbürg, he was hanged in 1945. After World War II the face of Europe changed. Germany was first divided into four parts, though three soon united, leaving East Germany under communism and West Germany as a republic. Berlin was also divided—the East Germans erected the Berlin Wall, a powerful symbol of Cold War separation. Eastern Europe came under Soviet domination, entering the Warsaw Pact—communist governments led nations east of the separating line, which British prime minister Winston Churchill (1874–1965, pr. min. 1940–45 and 1951–55) called the Iron Curtain. In addition to the Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact countries included Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Romania. This included the Balkans, whose eastern parts had long been dominated by the Ottoman Empire and

434

A Global Church History

the western parts by Austria-Hungary. The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes became Yugoslavia, dominated by dictator Josif Broz (1892–1980), better known as Tito. Religion in general and Christianity in particular were oppressed throughout the Soviet bloc, though the means and degree of persecution differed from place to place. In Russia, for example, many churches and monasteries were closed, and evangelism or public teaching of religion was illegal. Christians might be arrested, and afterward disappear. In other places, religious persons who supported the government might escape the worst persecutions. In Poland, Protestants and Roman Catholics continued despite severe opposition. Young people, forced to receive public education, were taught from an exclusively atheistic point of view. West Germany experienced a postwar revival, with young lay Christians gathering for weeks together of study, prayer, and worship. After a 1949 event called Evangelical Week in Hanover, Reinhold von Thadden (1891–1976) began the German Protestant Kirkentag (Deutsche Evangelische Kirchentag), an annual and later biennial gathering of Protestants in Germany to strengthen faith, prepare leadership, encourage witness, and fellowship with global Christians. This continued into the twenty-first century, with attendance generally well over 100,000. At the same time, many Germans simply rejected religion and focused on the secular, dreaming that human grit and ingenuity could lead to a better world. In 1989 the Berlin Wall came down, symbolically ending the Cold War. In the months that followed, several countries transferred power from communist leaders to pro-capitalist leaders—Poland (1989), Hungary (1989), East Germany (1989), Czechoslovakia (1989), Romania (1989), Bulgaria (1990), and Albania (1990–92). In 1990 Germany reunited into a single country. In 1991, the Soviet Union dissolved, the Baltic states (Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine) regained their independence, and the Russian Federation was formed. Except for Romania, where violent demonstrators overthrew their hated leader, these changes occurred through civil resistance by mass demonstrations. In 1993 Czechoslovakia, united since they declared independence as Czechoslovakia in 1918, peacefully divided into two countries—Czech Republic and Slovakia. Yugoslavia left communism after 1990, and by 1992 had separated into five successor states—Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Slovenia, and Yugoslavia (later called Serbia and Montenegro). The Serbian Orthodox Church remained the largest Christian group. Western faith groups almost immediately began to flood Eastern Europe with missionaries, each promoting their form of Christianity which they held to be more authentic than the rest. The more native Christian groups in those countries—Orthodox, Roman Catholic, or Protestant—often resented these efforts as opportunistic invasions. Others welcomed Western support, partnering with them to expand Christianity, especially in countries where systematic oppression of Christians and atheistic education had left the majority of younger generations without faith. In the early twenty-first century, for example, those claiming to be Christians were less than 13 percent in the Czech Republic and 20 percent in Slovakia. At the same time, traditionally strong denominations throughout Western Europe continued to decline in membership. West Germany became increasingly secular. By the early twenty-first century, just over 1 percent of Germans attended church regularly. In Great Britain, Pentecostal and charismatic groups grew, while Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Baptists, and Methodists declined. The growth of Pentecostal churches was most successful among immigrants to Western Europe.

Christianity in the Twentieth Century and Beyond

435

Discussion questions 1 What twentieth-century events shattered utopian hopes so prevalent at the beginning of the twentieth century? 2 How did Church leaders respond to efforts of totalitarian leaders to control the Church, including those compliant and those opposed? In Germany? In Italy? In the Soviet Union and Soviet bloc countries?

Orthodox Churches in the twentieth century and beyond During the nineteenth century, nationalism, modernity, and spirituality together had significant impact on Eastern Orthodox Churches. In 1912 Bulgaria, Greece, Montenegro, and Serbia—recently independent from the Ottoman Empire—formed the Balkan League. Two conflicts in 1912–13, known as the Balkan Wars, resulted in the Ottoman Empire losing most of its European territory. Serbia’s growing strength left Austria-Hungary weaker and helped set the stage for the eventual 1914 crisis which resulted in World War I. After the Balkan Wars, most Greek dioceses transferred jurisdiction from Constantinople to Athens. The post-World War I period brought further changes. In 1917 the Georgian Orthodox Church became autonomous under their catholicos-patriarch, though the Russian Orthodox Church did not recognize this until 1944. In 1920 the Serbian Orthodox Church was reestablished as autocephalous, or self-ruling. In 1922, the Albanian Orthodox Church declared its autocephaly. In 1925, the Romanian Orthodox Church’s primary leader, formerly a metropolitan, was recognized as patriarch. Though the patriarch of Constantinople’s honor as ecumenical patriarch continued to be recognized, his direct jurisdiction was limited to the small area around Istanbul (formerly Constantinople). Some, including Greeks, Syrians, and Romanians, adopted the Gregorian calendar for fixed festivals, though all continued to follow the Julian calendar for dating Easter. The most significant change after World War I came in Russia. In 1917, during the War, the Bolshevik Revolution transformed Russia from a Russian Orthodox empire to an atheistic communist state. The bishops in 1917 elected Moscow metropolitan Tikhon (Vasily Ivanovich Bellavin, 1865–1925, pat. 1917– 1925) as patriarch and subsequently reorganized church government for reform. Immediate Soviet persecution prevented significant reform, as nearly all the extensive church lands were nationalized. Officially allowing both religious profession and anti-religious propaganda, the Soviets in reality fought religion extensively, especially in the 1920s and 1930s. Churches could worship, but not evangelize; in fact, teaching religion to anyone under the age of eighteen was forbidden. Monasteries were dissolved. Churches could have no funds and no public activities. Tens of thousands of bishops and priests disappeared—executed, imprisoned, or exiled. Millions of lay Christians were also killed. Thousands left Russia. In 1923 Tikhon declared political loyalty to the government. After Tikhon’s death, election of a new patriarch was disallowed, so metropolitan Sergius (1867–1944, met. 1925–43, pat. 1943–44) assumed the role and led the Russian Orthodox Church. During World War II the Orthodox Christians showed remarkable loyalty to mother Russia, which seemed to have positive effects. The Soviets in 1943 allowed Sergius to be elected patriarch of

436

Figure 5.7  Metropolitan Tikhon (Vasily Ivanovich Bellavin).

Figure 5.8  Metropolitan Sergius.

A Global Church History

Christianity in the Twentieth Century and Beyond

437

Moscow (1943–44), and later Alexy I (1877–1970, pat. 1945–70), then Pimen (1910–90, pat. 1971–90). But soon after World War II the Soviets began their anti-religious campaigns in earnest once again. They required the Russian Orthodox Church to support communist positions within and outside Russia. Under Nikita Khrushchev (1894–1971, first sec. 1953–64), the Soviet government grew increasingly repressive; half of the remaining church buildings and five of eight seminaries were closed. Soviets used Russian Orthodox membership in the World Council of Churches to promote Russian interests. The late twentieth century brought the fall of the Soviet Empire and the dissolution of Sovietdominated communism in Eastern Europe. One country after another replaced their communist government and opened their borders to missionaries and Christian workers of other countries. Missionaries and short-term religious workers flooded into highly atheist countries. Historic Christian groups in Russia and other eastern European countries, primarily Eastern Orthodox Churches, were displeased—they had lived under severe repression and had survived. Now they faced other brands of Christianity who did not understand their spirituality, liturgy, history, or theological emphases. In Russia, Alexy II (1929–2008, pat. 1990–2008) became patriarch of Moscow, followed by Kirill (b. 1946, pat. 2009–). In addition to those inside Russia, Russian Orthodox believers outside fell into four major groups. First, many remained loyal to the patriarch of Moscow in ecclesiastical matters and were part of the Russian Orthodox Church, headquartered in Moscow. Second, many followed the bishops who had been exiled under Lenin, originally led by metropolitan of Kiev Anthony (Alexei Pavlovich Khrapovitsky, 1863–1936, met. 1918–36); they believed Tikhon and his successors were

Figure 5.9  Alexy II.

438

Figure 5.10 Kirill.

Figure 5.11  Anthony (Alexei Pavlovich Khrapovitsky).

A Global Church History

Christianity in the Twentieth Century and Beyond

439

Soviet puppets and not the true Russian Orthodox Church. In 1922 they established a synod for ecclesiastical matters at Karlovski, Yugoslavia. After World War II they moved their headquarters to Munich, then to New York City—they were the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. Third, many avoided political involvement by insisting on administrative autonomy, but practicing the traditions of historic Russian Orthodoxy. They constituted the larger body of Russian Orthodox in the United States, formerly called Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of North America, but since 1965 known as the Orthodox Church in America, with headquarters in Syosset, New York. Fourth, in Western Europe many Russian Orthodox formed the Patriarchal Exarchate for Orthodox Parishes of the Russian Tradition in Western Europe (popularly known as the Russian Orthodox Churches in Western Europe), headquartered in Paris and centered on the St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute there. Several important theologians helped both Orthodox and other Christians understand historic Orthodox doctrines and emphases in their twentieth-century contexts. These included theologian Vladimir Lossky (1903–58) (see Doc. 4.26), professor and ecumenist Georges Florovsky (1893–1979), St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary deans Dimitrievich Schmemann (Alexander Schmemann, 1921–83) (see Doc. 4.36) and John Meyendorff (1926–92), Bishop Kallistos Ware (Timothy Ware, b. 1934, bp. 1982-) and professor John Zizioulas (b. 1931) (see Doc. 4.33), among others. Another important development in the emergence of Orthodox brotherhoods is that each brotherhood generally focuses on or around the emphases of a particular individual, who with his followers seeks to recover or advance a specific Christian focus that they find lacking. These developed most clearly in Greece, Romania, Serbia, and eventually in the United States and beyond. The Congregation of

Figure 5.12  Iosif Trifa.

440

A Global Church History

Orthodox Christian People, for example, emerged in the Serbian Orthodox Church in the late nineteenth century as the Bogomoljac movement, or “God-Prayers” movement, and focused on reviving the church through prayer and other pietistic practices. The Brotherhood of Theologians Zoe, more commonly referred to as the Zoe Brotherhood, was begun with similar goals in 1907 in Greece by a priest named Eusebios, also called Matthopoulos. The Army of the Lord, founded in Romania in 1922 by Iosif Trifa (Joseph Trifa, 1888–1938), was semi-monastic, with members even taking vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. The Brotherhood of St. Symeon, the New Theologian, emphasized charismatic renewal among Orthodox believers—it began in the 1960s around the teachings of Archimandrite Eusebius A. Stephanou (1924–2016). By the early twenty-first century the Eastern Orthodox Churches existed in a number of independent bodies, united in theology and recognition of the patriarch of Constantinople as the respected leader of the Orthodox world. The ancient patriarchates included Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Later patriarchates were Russia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, and Georgia. In addition to these, there were autocephalous churches of Cyprus, of Greece, of Poland, of Finland, of Albania, and of Czech Lands and Slovakia. Russian Orthodox existed in the four main jurisdictions described above. Oriental Orthodox Churches were not technically among the Eastern Orthodox Churches. These churches had played an important role in the history and culture of east Africa, the Middle East, and India. This communion of six autocephalous churches included the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch, the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, the Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church, and the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. They considered themselves the true Church founded by Christ. They were almost entirely united theologically. Their separation traced to the Chaledonian Definition in 451, which they refused to accept. They have been accused of monophysitism, but they defined themselves as miaphysites, holding that Jesus Christ has one nature which is both divine and human. Since the middle of the twentieth century, Oriental Orthodox have dialogued with Eastern Orthodox and with Roman Catholics.

Discussion questions 1 How do Oriental Orthodox Churches differ from Eastern Orthodox Churches? 2 Compare miaphysites with monophysites.

Roman Catholicism in the twentieth century and beyond In the United States, Roman Catholics entered the twentieth century with other Americans still wondering if Roman Catholics Americans were true supporters of their country. Many in the mid-nineteenth century had suspected that Roman Catholics intended to gain control of the United States and turn the country over to their first loyalty, the pope. Mass immigration by European Roman Catholics did little to mitigate this feeling among those who believed it. Roman Catholics’ support of the United States during World War I, however, helped convince other Americans that Roman Catholic Americans were committed to

Christianity in the Twentieth Century and Beyond

Figure 5.13  Pope Pius X.

Figure 5.14  Pope Leo XIII.

441

442

A Global Church History

the United States. The National Catholic War Council, begun in 1917, helped the war effort considerably; after the war, it became the National Catholic Welfare Conference. Still, despite increasing acceptance, Roman Catholics often faced considerable opposition from others. In Europe, major changes were on the horizon. Pope Pius X (1835–1914, pope 1903–1914) contrasted significantly with his predecessor. Whereas Leo XIII (1810–1903, pope 1878–1903) was a nobleman and highly educated professor, Pius X was a monk and parish priest from humble beginnings. He immediately faced challenges. The French government in 1901 disallowed religious instruction by monks not under state control; when some continued to teach, their monasteries and convents were confiscated. The French government broke off diplomatic relations with the Vatican. In 1905, France decreed church-state separation—government religious aid to Protestants and Catholics ceased. Church buildings and other properties were declared state property—they could be rented by state-loyal local associations for worship, with those previously using the property given preference. Leo XIII had been a champion of Roman Catholics studying modern critical methodology, and as a result this study grew, producing several scholars who were reinterpreting Roman Catholic faith in more modern terms—for example, Hermann Schell (1850–1906) in Germany, Alfred Loisy (1857–1940) in France, George Tyrrell (1861–1909) in England, Giorgio LaPiana (1879–1971) in Italy, and others. Pius X

Figure 5.15  Pope Benedict XV.

Christianity in the Twentieth Century and Beyond

443

Figure 5.16  Pope Pius XI.

saw this as a threat and worked against the movement. In 1907 his decree Lamentabili sane and his encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis both condemned “modernism.” Scholars feared that they, like others (such as Loisy, Tyrrell, and LaPiana), would be disciplined or excommunicated. As a result, Roman Catholic critical scholarship took a step back for the next generation. Pope Benedict XV (1854–1922, pope 1914–22) improved the moral and spiritual prestige of the papacy, in part through the efforts of Roman Catholics to provide service to others during World War I. These benevolent actions continued after World War I under the name Catholic Action, raising respect for Roman Catholicism throughout the world. Scholar and Pope Pius XI (1857–1939, pope 1922–39) helped spark renewed interest in theological study, liturgy, and missions. He negotiated the Lateran pacts, through which the papacy recognized Italy’s control of former Papal States in exchange for a large payment and for Vatican City recognized as a separate country ruled by the pope. He also negotiated agreements with Fascist Italy (1929) and Nazi German (1933)—when both reneged, he issued encyclicals Non abbiamo bisogno (1931) and Mit brennender Sorge (1937). He advocated for Catholic Action. When Pius XII (1876–1958, pope 1939–58) became pope, the world was facing tremendous crisis. Months later Germany invaded Poland, launching World War II. During the war, Pius XII refrained from condemning the Holocaust, apparently to avoid worse treatment for Catholics and Jews, though he criticized race-based persecution and secretly worked with German resistance. His silence later brought

444

A Global Church History

extensive criticism. After the war he continued his predecessors’ legacy of strongly opposing communism. In 1950 he issued Munificentissimus Deus, which declared the dogma of the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven—the first exercise of papal infallibility since its declaration by Vatican I in 1870. The same year he condemned the new modernism in encyclical Humani generis, correcting what he considered errors in philosophy and theology. Targeted were scholars known as the Nouvelle Théologie (French for “new theology”), including many who became leading Roman Catholic scholars of the twentieth century—for example, Henri de Lubac (1896–1991), Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881–1955), Hans Urs von Balthasar (1905–88), Yves Congar (1904–95), Karl Rahner (1904–84), Hans Küng (b. 1928), Edward Schillebeeckx (1914–2009), Marie Dominique Chenu (1895–1990), Louis Bouyer (1913–2004), Jean Daniélou (1905–74), and even Joseph Ratzinger (born 1927, later Pope Benedict XVI from 2005 to 2013). Pope John XXIII (1881–1963, pope 1958–63) surprised the Roman Catholic Church by becoming a strong force for renewal and reform. He pointed the Church toward reconsidering its faith, life, and stance toward other followers of Christ. In 1959 he announced that he would convoke the twenty-first Ecumenical Council, Vatican II (1962–65). His 1963 encyclical Pacem in terris affirmed the equality of all, promoted nuclear disarmament, and called for Roman Catholics to work with other faiths. He died in June 1963. Pope Paul VI (1897–1978, pope 1963–78) completed the council and implemented its decisions. He worked for reconciliation with others. In 1964 he met with the patriarch of Constantinople, and the next year both issued identical statements regretting the 1054 schism and ending excommunication. He

Figure 5.17  Yves Congar.

Christianity in the Twentieth Century and Beyond

Figure 5.18  Karl Rahner.

Figure 5.19  Hans Küng.

445

446

A Global Church History

Figure 5.20  Edward Schillebeeckx.

wrote several documents clarifying Roman Catholic teaching during and after the council (see Docs. 4.21 and 4.23, for example). His 1968 encyclical Humanae vitae reaffirmed the traditional affirmation of the sanctity of human life and condemnation of all forms of artificial birth control. Vatican II brought a fresh understanding to Roman Catholic positions. The council deplored antiSemitism and any discrimination or harassment on the basis of race, color, life condition, or religion; they encouraged dialogue with non-Christian religions. They called for the Church to serve all of humanity through collaboration with others, particularly non-Roman Catholics. “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church” (Lumen gentium), considered to be the council’s masterpiece, stressed episcopal collegiality, affirmed titles for Mary, and opened dialogue with other faith groups (see Doc. 4.22). “Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation” (Dei Verbum) affirmed that God guaranteed revelation though apostles, bishops, and their successors—Scripture and tradition, it said, are two means of the one word of God, though its proper interpretation belongs solely to Roman Catholic leadership. The council reversed the prior opposition to ecumenism and placed Roman Catholicism within the ecumenical movement. They recognized non-Catholic believers as Christians, in separated churches and communities, though also suffering from defects of doctrine, discipline, and structure. Their declaration of freedom grounded freedom from coercion in the divinely given human dignity of every person—this seemed to counter previous decrees on the subject. Many other decisions are included in Vatican II’s seventeen official texts.

Christianity in the Twentieth Century and Beyond

Figure 5.21  Pope John XXIII.

Figure 5.22  Pope Paul VI.

447

448

A Global Church History

Following Vatican II came sweeping changes in church life. In most places, the mass was pronounced in vernacular languages rather than Latin. National hierarchies formed. Ecumenical relationships were formed and flourished at global, regional, and national levels. Others, however, were skeptical, considering the ecumenical zeal and theological developments to be excessive. Paul VI took an affirming yet cautious stance. Many saw this as an effort to centralize authority in the papacy. After John Paul I (1912–78, pope 1978) died being pope for thirty-three days, Karol Jósef Wojtyla, the metropolitan archbishop of Cracow, Poland, was elected as Pope John Paul II (1920–2005, pope 1978– 2005)—the first non-Italian pope since the sixteenth century and the longest reigning pope since Pius IX. John Paul II was credited with helping to end communist rule in his native Poland and later in all of Europe. He improved relations with Jews, Muslims, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglicans. He condemned apartheid, capital punishment, genocide, the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, organized crime, and some aspects of liberation theology. At the same time he championed religious liberty, accepted belief in evolution (though not of the human soul) affirmed traditional teachings on contraception and ordination of women, and championed Vatican II reforms (see examples of his teachings in Docs. 3.41 and 3.42). His extensive travel to developed and under-developed countries, including visits to all classes and races of people, coupled with his ability to communicate in multiple global languages, made him one of history’s most popular popes. In 1981, early in his papacy John Paul II appointed Joseph Ratzinger to lead one of the Roman Catholic Church’s most important positions, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Figure 5.23  Pope John Paul I.

Christianity in the Twentieth Century and Beyond

449

Figure 5.24  Pope John Paul II.

Figure 5.25  Pope Benedict XVI.

Ratzinger also led the College of Cardinals from 2002, making him a major Vatican figure. Ratzinger had moved from more liberal to quite conservative in defending traditional Catholic doctrine. When John Paul II died in 2005, Ratzinger was elected as Pope Benedict XVI (b. 1927, pope 2005–13). He revived a number of traditions, and sought to clarify Vatican II in areas many believed had been misunderstood. In 2007, for example, he described Protestant churches as “ecclesial communities” but not “Churches,”

450

A Global Church History

whose ministers and sacraments were not authentic; Orthodox, he said, have true sacraments and priesthood, but their failure to acknowledge papal authority leaves them defective. In 2013, Benedict resigned from the papacy—the first pope to step down since the Conciliar Movement in the fifteenth century. See Doc. 4.47. In 2013, Jorge Mario Bergoglio became Pope Francis (b. 1936, pope 2013–), the first Jesuit pope and the first pope from the Americas or the southern hemisphere. He had served as archbishop of Buenos Aires, weathering political conflict and championing the causes of the poor. As pope, Francis was described as less formal and more humble in his official capacity. He immediately chose to live in the papal guest apartment and served the poor personally and directly. He emphasized God’s mercy, concern for the poor, and love toward all. He called for interfaith dialogue, simple living, the end of capital punishment or life imprisonment, care for the environment, among other concerns. He maintained traditional Roman Catholic views about marriage, clerical celibacy, and abortion; yet theological conservatives often criticized his less stringent positions toward those violating the Church’s teachings, especially on moral issues.

Discussion questions 1 Thinkers on multiple fronts believed that modernism posed real threats to their beliefs and values. What threats did neo-orthodox see and how did they respond? Fundamentalists? Evangelicals? Roman Catholics? 2 What are the most important decisions and results of Vatican II? Why?

Twentieth-century Christianity in North America and beyond The rise of the Pentecostal movement in America from the expanding Holiness movement is perhaps the most important development in twentieth-century Christianity. Pentecostalism, in its various forms and called by various names, has spread throughout the globe. Though both opponents and advocates were often divisive, especially in local or settings or within denominations, the movement promoted broader Christian unity—as Pentecostal experiences and worship forms spread, the resulting sense of family among those of similar religious experiences transcended what appeared to be insurmountable social, geographical, and theological differences. Charles Fox Parham (1873–1929) and William J. Seymour (1870–1922) were the two most significant figures. Parham believed that God healed him and his son Claude in 1897, and began preaching divine healing and prayer for the sick. He concluded that Christians have another, personal blessing from God after their initial conversion. In 1900, Parham established Bethel Bible College at Topeka, Kansas. Soon the school was emphasizing speaking in tongues, or glossolalia, as evidence of being baptized in the Holy Spirit. After the school closed in 1901, Parham preached in southwest Missouri and southeast Kansas, with many claiming they were healed by God under Parham’s ministry. The first Pentecostal church building was in 1904 in Keelville, Kansas. Soon the movement had spread throughout Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas.

Christianity in the Twentieth Century and Beyond

451

Figure 5.26  Charles Fox Parham.

Figure 5.27  William J. Seymour.

Parham opened another Bible school in Houston in 1905. Several African Americans were influenced, including William J. Seymour. Parham sent Seymour to Los Angeles, where Seymour soon opened Apostolic Faith Gospel Mission on Azusa Street. There the Azusa Street Revival, often considered the birthplace of the Pentecostal movement, began in April 1906. Each night during the Revival, which lasted until 1909, huge crowds gathered in the streets to hear powerful preaching and to experience

452

A Global Church History

Figure 5.28  Apostolic Faith Gospel Mission.

God in intense ways, including healing, prayer, testifying, and speaking in tongues. People of all races, genders, and social standing participated fully. Thousands traveled to Azusa Street from around the world, taking what they saw and learned to every continent. As Azusa Street participants returned to their homes throughout the United States and the world, they shared their Pentecostal faith. Soon there were congregations and local revivals in nearly every US state. William H. Durham (1873–1912), for example, took the message back to his North Avenue Mission in Chicago, and from there it spread to those who later became the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada, with R. E. McAlister (1880–1953) as a founding member. Immediately, Pentecostals from Azusa Street preached as missionaries in other parts of the world—India (1906), Liberia (1906), Hong Kong (1907), and South Africa (1908). Norwegian Methodist T. B. Barratt (1862–1940) returned from Azusa Street to promote Pentecostalism in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, France, and England. Over the next century, there were thousands more—by the end of the twentieth century, Pentecostalism was strong throughout the world. Those who avoided more intense faith expressions among Pentecostals used the term “charismatic movement.” In the United States, Pentecostal denominations were soon formed. Charles H. Mason (1866–1961) was among those who experienced Holy Spirit baptism. Mason and Charles Price Jones (1865–1949) had organized the Church of God in Christ in Memphis in 1897, emphasizing Holiness. Mason’s Pentecostal experience led Jones, who rejected speaking in tongues, to form a separate church, Church of Christ (Holiness) USA. William Seymour associate Florence Crawford established the Apostolic Faith Church in 1908. One of the most influential Pentecostal denominations, the Assemblies

Christianity in the Twentieth Century and Beyond

Figure 5.29  T. B. Barratt.

Figure 5.30  Charles H. Mason.

453

454

A Global Church History

Figure 5.31  Aimee Semple McPherson.

of God, was formed in 1914, and soon there were thousands of these churches not only in the United States, but throughout the world. Other Pentecostal faith groups included Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee), Pentecostal Holiness Church, and Pentecostal Assemblies of the World. Evangelist Aimee Semple McPherson (1890–1944) used preaching and the media, making her the most publicized evangelist in America, resulting in the founding of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel in 1923; thousands claimed to be healed in her faith healing services. Mass evangelistic meetings under great evangelists continued to mold American religious life and understanding. Billy Sunday (1862–1935) was perhaps the most popular American evangelist of his day. After his 1886 or 1887 conversion, Sunday left major league baseball to become a preacher, working as assistant to evangelist J. Wilbur Chapman (1859–1918). Billy Sunday later became a national figure, holding major evangelistic meetings in America’s largest cities. Thousands responded to the invitations. Like many conservatives, Sunday was also involved in social issues of his day, including his opposition to alcoholic beverages. As theological liberalism became increasingly popular in leading American universities, theological conservatives in America took opposing positions. Liberals tended to embrace the social gospel movement, so that some regarded social action as the work of liberals. Conservatives believed that liberal theology and evolutionary science undermined Christian faith, and insisted on biblical infallibility. Between them were others who hoped to retain faith in historic Christian doctrines while accommodating explanations to emerging scientific and historical thinking. Conflict over these and similar issues in the

Christianity in the Twentieth Century and Beyond

Figure 5.32  Billy Sunday.

Figure 5.33  J. Wilbur Chapman.

455

456

A Global Church History

Figure 5.34  Harry Emerson Fosdick.

Figure 5.35  B. B. Warfield.

twentieth century came to be called the Modernist-Fundamental Controversy. Conservatives summarized their views under five major non-negotiable teachings, called fundamentals: verbal inerrancy of Scripture, Jesus’s deity, Jesus’s virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, and the bodily resurrection and return of Jesus. The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, ninety essays published 1910–15 and later gathered into four volumes, represented these conservatives, who were called Fundamentalists.

Christianity in the Twentieth Century and Beyond

Figure 5.36  J. Gresham Machen.

Figure 5.37  John T. Scopes.

457

458

A Global Church History

Figure 5.38  William Jennings Bryan.

Both sides held conferences to promote their positions. Conservatives founded Bible colleges and advanced their cause through preaching. Liberals were in many denominations. In some they were openly received, but in many the conservatives moved within their denominational structures to remove them from leadership. The conflict was bitter. In 1893, for example, Charles A. Briggs (1841–1913) was suspended from Union Theological Seminary and the Presbyterian general assembly. As a result, Union left the Presbyterian Church and championed a more liberal theology; professor Arthur Cushman McGiffert (1861–1933) is a representative. University of Chicago professor Shailer Mathews (1863–1941) in The Faith of Modernism (1924) tried to maintain but reinterpret Christian teaching. Liberal Baptist minister Harry Emerson Fosdick (1878–1969) emphasized God’s love in social action. Conservative Princeton professors B. B. Warfield (1851–1921) and J. Gresham Machen (1881–1937) contended that the Bible, understood properly, has no errors. Machen in Christianity and Liberalism argued that modernists’ theological changes in fact resulted in a new religion, not authentic Christianity. In 1925, John T. Scopes (1900–70) was tried for violating state law by teaching evolution in public high school. This drew national attention, and became the focal point of the Modernist-Fundamentalist Controversy, with three-time presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan (1860–1925) opposing famed defense attorney Clarence Darrow (1857–1938). Though Scopes lost the trial, public sentiment remained divided. By 1930, denominations were dividing over these issues. Many conservatives withdrew to form or to join independent churches or smaller denominations. At the popular level, each side continued to

Christianity in the Twentieth Century and Beyond

459

Figure 5.39  C. I. Scofield.

caricature the other. Fundamentalism became increasingly identified with dispensational premillennialism, the teaching that there would be a literal period of great tribulation, and Christ would return to remove the Christians secretly in what was called the Rapture. This was popularized through the Scofield Reference Bible, annotated by C. I. Scofield (1843–1921). Many conservatives believed that the Fundamentalists had gone too far, if not in doctrine, at least in attitude, particularly in the increasing demand that those loyal to the Bible embrace dispensational premillennialism. Some worked to keep their denominations together and to cooperate with others— they became known as mainline denominations, or mainstream denominations—they generally included modernists and non-modernists. Others called themselves Evangelicals, a term sometimes used for all non-modernist Protestants, but more often used for Protestants who maintain biblical authority, share their faith, and trust in Christ alone for salvation. Evangelicals remained theologically conservative, emphasizing the reliability and authority of Scripture, and shared their faith that salvation comes through Christ alone, but they were more inclusive of those who embraced critical biblical scholarship and emerging scientific understandings. During World War II, most American Christians and denominations, believing that the United States had been unjustifiably attacked, supported the United States and participated in conservation and distribution programs. Churches of nearly every theological profile prayed regularly for victory and the end of the war. After the war, American soldiers came home to re-enter society, to find jobs, to build homes and families. Many purposed to ground their families in Christianity. Churches experienced a revival—church

460

A Global Church History

Figure 5.40  Billy Graham.

attendance climbed and spiritual interest increased throughout the 1950s. Some whose military assignments had taken them to other countries became intensely interested in missionary work, either becoming missionaries or supporting others. Some promoted their own faith group’s understanding, while others worked to bring the gospel to previously unreached people groups. Growing European secularism, coupled with the threat of Cold War atheistic communism in Soviet and Maoist forms, gave a sense of urgency to their work. Billy Graham (William Franklin Graham, 1918–2018) became America’s great evangelist. From 1947 to 2005, Graham hosted huge audiences in major cities throughout the world. Billy Graham Crusades sometimes lasted for weeks. Graham preached the gospel to more people in person than anyone in Christian history. Graham was a master of print and broadcast media and reached across racial and denominational lines. He gave spiritual counsel to every US president from Harry S. Truman to Barack Obama. Another evangelist, Bill Bright (1921–2003), founded Campus Crusade for Christ in 1951 at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA). The next year he wrote The Four Spiritual Laws, which became the means for thousands to encourage college students and others to decide for Christ. American theologians sought to understand how the Church and the gospel related to these cultural changes. Reinhold Niebuhr (1892–1971), for example, was lauded as one of American’s greatest theologians. His neo-orthodoxy contributed to what became known as his Christian realism, which recognized the paradoxes in the relationships between religion, politics, and public policy. Once a pacifist, World War II’s atrocities led him to support American efforts to confront Soviet communism

Christianity in the Twentieth Century and Beyond

461

during the Cold War (see Doc. 4.16). His brother H. Richard Niebuhr (1894–1962), also neo-orthodox, emphasized God as Being-itself, the One, or the Ground of Being. Recognizing God as absolute and transcendent, he also said human beings are always part of the changing world, so the human understanding of God differs in various cultures across the centuries. His classic book, Christ and Culture (1951), describes five models in which Christianity has historically responded to culture. By the 1960s and 1970s the postwar revival had waned. Many young Americans began questioning the values of their parents’ generation. This was fueled by graphic pictures of suffering in Vietnam, where thousands of American troops were fighting. Mainline denominations gradually embraced more theologically and socially liberal positions; this coincided with diminishing memberships, as conservatives left for more conservative churches. But the 1970s also saw a resurgence among Evangelicals. In 1956 Carl F. H. Henry (1913–2003) was founding editor of Christianity Today, and in 1956 chaired the World Congress on Evangelism in Berlin, with 1,200 attending from over 100 nations. Billy Graham led in planning the International Congress on World Evangelism, held in 1974 at Lausanne, Switzerland, and attended by 2,700 global Evangelical leaders, half from third world countries. They clarified that Christianity’s center had moved from Europe and North America to Africa, Asia, and Latin America. They also issued the Lausanne Covenant, which stressed inspiration and authority of Scripture, repented for earlier triumphalistic and inflexible missionary work, linked evangelism with sociopolitical involvement, and reaffirmed salvation only through Christ. American theologians also welcomed emerging theologies. American Lutheran theologians Wolfhart Pannenberg (1928–2014) and Carl Braaten (b. 1929), for example, promoted “theology of hope,” popularized by Tu˝bingen theologian Ju˝rgen Moltmann (b. 1926). Hope theology valued God’s promise to act in the future over the fact that God has acted in the past, encouraged the Church to see beyond personal salvation to confront and transform society by actively participating in their world. Pannenberg and Braaten encouraged believers to rethink Christian doctrines from the perspective of the coming kingdom of Christ, since only then will they be finally understood.

Figure 5.41  Wolfhart Pannenberg.

462

Figure 5.42  Ju ˝rgen Moltmann.

Figure 5.43  James H. Cone.

A Global Church History

Christianity in the Twentieth Century and Beyond

Figure 5.44  Cornel West.

Figure 5.45  Alice Walker.

463

464

A Global Church History

Other Americans adapted liberation theology, to be discussed in the Latin American context below, to specific groups and contexts within the United States. Mary Daley (1928–2010), Rosemary Radford Ruether (b. 1936), and Elisabeth Schu˝ssler-Fiorenza (b. 1938) promoted feminist theology, calling for fair inclusion of women not only in roles but also in symbols and concepts; Phyllis Trible (b. 1932), African theologians M. R. A. Kanyoro and M. A. Oduyoye, Mary Hayter, and Letty M. Russell, among others, developed a Christian feminist methodology for biblical interpretation (see Docs 4.34, 4.35, and 4.46). James H. Cone (1936–2018), focusing on civil rights and African American Christianity, was the leading voice in black theology (see Doc. 4.28). Albert Cleage (1911–2000) and Cornel West (b. 1953) were also important contributors. Alice Walker (b. 1944) developed womanist theology in In Search of Our Mothers’ Gardens: Womanist Prose (1983), applying principles of liberation theology to black women; others include Jacquelyn Grant (b. 1948), Katie Cannon (b. 1950), and Delores S. Williams (b. 1937). Numerous other American theologians contributed to both scholarly and popular Christianity. Evangelicals included Calvinist J. I. Packer (b. 1926), Clark Pinnock (1937–2010) (see Doc. 4.40), Reformed Presbyterian Francis Schaeffer (1912–84), Thomas Oden (b. 1931), Mennonite John Howard Yoder (b. 1927), Quaker Elton Trueblood (1900–94), Nazarene H. Orton Wiley (1877–1961), Episcopalian Kathryn Tanner (b. 1957) (see Doc. 4.44), among many others, have worked to understand historic Christian confessions in ways compatible with thinkers of the twentieth century. Christians were extremely influential in the American civil rights movement. In 1954, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that public school segregation was unconstitutional. In 1955, Rosa Parks (1913–2005) refused to move to the back of a public transportation bus. Martin Luther King Jr. (1929–68) led the movement in the 1960s, calling on Christians and churches to support the effort; his 1963 letter to white churches and pastors from Birmingham jail is well known (see Doc. 4.20).

Figure 5.46  Martin Luther King Jr.

Christianity in the Twentieth Century and Beyond

465

Many conservatives in the United States were troubled by the U. S. Supreme Court’s 1962 decision banning school prayer in public schools, the 1973 decision legalizing abortion, and other issues. They began exercising influence through public demonstrations and by voting for sympathetic candidates. Baptist preacher Jerry Falwell (1933–2007), for example, in 1979 founded the Moral Majority, representing what came to be known as the Christian right, and lasting until 1989. Also in 1989, conservative preacher and religious television host “Pat” Robertson (Marion Gordon Robertson, b. 1930), following his unsuccessful presidential campaign in 1988, founded the conservative Christian Coalition of America to impact American politics. In Canada, Roman Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox grew through much of the twentieth century. In 1919–20, the Forward Movement sought to strengthen Christian spirituality in Canada, Great Britain, and the United States. In Canada, they also helped immigrants to integrate into Canadian society. Within the Forward Movement itself, Evangelicals and social gospel liberals often were at odds, though both sides agreed on prohibition of alcohol. In 1925, the Methodist Church, Canada; the Congregational Union of Canada, and most of the Presbyterian Church of Canada merged to form the United Church of Canada—by the early twenty-first century they were the largest Canadian Protestant denomination. Before World War II, Protestants and Catholics still dominated most social and political structures in Canada. When Newfoundland and Labrador became part of Canada in 1949, there were already many Protestants. From the 1960s on, Canada, like the United States, experienced significant secularization. Roman Catholic and Protestant churches saw significant losses. Roman Catholic parish attendance decreased considerably in Quebec. The United Church of Canada grew more theologically liberal, and membership decreased. At the same time, Evangelicalism grew significantly, especially in the Atlantic and Western provinces, but in other locations as well. Mainline denominations focused more on social justice. Greenland saw little change in the early twentieth century. Christianity in Haiti, however, saw much change. Most Christians in 1900 were Roman Catholic. By the early twenty-first century, over half of Haitians were Roman Catholic, and nearly one-third were Protestant, with many being Pentecostal, either officially or in practice. Christians on Dutch and Danish islands remained Roman Catholic, while the Christians of Jamaica, Trinidad, and other former British islands remained almost entirely Protestant, particularly Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and Baptists. In 1966 the British relinquished control of British Guiana, which became Guyana; by 2002, over half the population were Christian. Jim Jones (James Warren Jones, 1931–78) led his People’s Temple to colonize there and orchestrated mass suicide/ murder in 1978. Dutch Surinam, today Suriname, became independent from the Netherlands in 1975; in 2012, just under half of the people were Christians. British Honduras, a British colony planted in 1862, became Belize as a self-governing colony in 1973, then fully independent in 1981; in 2010, Roman Catholics were over half of the Christian population, which comprised nearly three-fourths of the population.

Discussion questions 1 Discuss the rise, spread, and influence of the Pentecostal movement in twentieth-century America, particularly the United States. Who is your favorite leader, and why? 2 Several social action movements and theologies had great impact on social theory and social change. Which do you consider most helpful and/or problematic? Why?

466

A Global Church History

The ecumenical movement Though there had been earlier efforts to see the unity of Christians within the Church, the twentieth century saw the growth of widespread interest and action. Much of this interest began through joint cooperation between Protestant denominations in missionary work, Christian education, and social action ministries. Missionary cooperation took the lead. Already in 1854, missionaries of many denominations met in New York to discuss missionary cooperation. In 1910, delegates of several missionary societies met for the first World Missionary Conference in Edinburgh, Scotland. In 1921, this group became the International Missionary Council; they joined the World Council of Churches in 1961. Reaching across denominational lines, George Williams (1821–1905) launched the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) in London in 1844. In 1855 Mary Jane Kinnaird (1816–88) founded a home in London which later merged with Emma Robarts’s (d. 1877) Prayer Union to become the Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA) in 1877. The World’s Sunday School Association began in 1907; in 1947 they became the World Council of Christian Education and Sunday School Association (sometimes called the World Sunday School Union), and in 1972 they joined the World Council of Churches (see below). In 1846, the World Evangelical Alliance spoke out against human injustices. The Universal Christian Council for Life and Work began in 1925 in Stockholm, Sweden. In the United States, some proposed an interdenominational organization which could encourage ecumenical work and ministry. In 1908 the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America was

Figure 5.47  Willem A. Visser’t Hooft.

Christianity in the Twentieth Century and Beyond

467

formed, with thirty denominations joining for greater national and global impact. In 1950, this group became part of a larger merger forming the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA, which also included Orthodox groups. Global ecumenical interest led to discussions of doctrine and church practice. In 1927, the first World Conference on Faith and Order met at Lausanne, Switzerland. In 1948, this group merged with the Universal Christian Council for Life and Work and other organizations to become the World Council of Churches (WCC), headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, uniting 147 member denominations from 44 countries. The first General Secretary was Dutch-born Willem A. Visser’t Hooft (1900–85). WCC assemblies met every six to eight years, with increasing numbers of membership churches (see Figure 5.48). The 1910 Edinburgh meeting of the World Missionary Conference stimulated the call for discussions on matters of faith and order, with a view toward unity of all Christians. Finally in 1927, after a series of preparatory gatherings, delegates from several groups met in Lausanne Switzerland, for the First World Conference on Faith and Order, which launched the Faith and Order movement. The Second World Conference on Faith and Order met in Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1937; there they approved the forming merger that became the World Council of Churches in 1948, after which they were the Faith and Order Commission of the WCC. Subsequent meetings were held in Lund, Sweden (1952); Montreal, Canada (1963); Louvain, Belgium (1971); Accra, Ghana (1974); Bangalore, India (1978); Lima, Peru (1982); Santiago de Compostela, Spain (1993); and beyond. Lima approved what came to be known as the Lima Text, published in 1982 as Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry (see Doc. 4.31). Parallel ecumenical discussions occurred in the Life and Work movement. Also growing out of missionary and social ministry cooperation, they sought cooperation between Christian denominations on how to relate to national governments, how to respond to human injustices, and how to meet the needs of the world. The First World Conference on Life and Work was held at Stockholm, Sweden, in 1925. The Second World Conference followed in 1937 in Oxford, England— there they also approved merging to be part of the WCC. Across the decades the Life and Work

ASSEMBLIES OF THE WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES Assembly

Location

Date

Theme

Member chs.

First

Amsterdam, the Netherlands

1948

Man’s Disorder and God’s Design

147

Second

Evanston, IL, United States

1954

Christ—the Hope of the World

161

Third

New Delhi, India

1961

Jesus Christ—the Light of the World

197

Fourth

Uppsala, Sweden

1968

Behold, I make all things new

235

Fifth

Nairobi, Kenya

1975

Jesus Christ Frees and Unites

285

Sixth

Vancouver, BC, Canada

1983

Jesus Christ—the Life of the World

301

Seventh

Canberra, Australia

1991

Come, Holy Spirit—Renew the Whole Creation

317

Eighth

Harare, Zimbabwe

1998

Turn to God—Rejoice in Hope

339

Ninth

Porto Alegre, Brazil

2006

God in your grace, transform the world

348

Tenth

Busan, Republic of Korea

2013

God of life, lead us to justice and peace

345

Figure 5.48  Assemblies of the World Council of Churches.

468

A Global Church History

Commission of the WCC has addressed key issues such as racism, economic inequity, third world needs, and social justice. Also noteworthy was the 1996 meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, of the WCC’s Church and Society Department, called Christians in the Technical and Social Revolutions of Our Time. There for the first time third world representatives outnumbered the others. They embraced God’s “preferential option for the poor,” called for Christians to side with the oppressed, and condemned segregation and racism. Though unable to be present, Martin Luther King Jr. preached the keynote sermon by video tape. In 1968 the Conference on World Cooperation for Development brought together experts on global politics and economy to propose a strategy for bringing about social justice. Ecumenical work went far beyond the World Council of Churches. Regional organizations worked for Christian cooperation and unity in several parts of the world—examples include the East Asia Christian Conference (founded 1959), All Africa Conferences of Churches (founded 1963), and the Conference of European Churches (founded 1964). Several mergers between theologically and historically related denominations occurred. In Canada, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Methodist formed the United Church of Canada in 1925. Among others were the United Church of Christ in the Philippines (1948), Kyo ¯dan in Japan (1924), and the Church of North India (1970). In 1929, the majority of the United Free Church of Scotland (formed by merger in 1900) united with the Church of Scotland. In the United States, most Lutheran groups merged in 1988 to form the Evangelical Lutheran Church of

Figure 5.49  Eugene Carson Blake.

Christianity in the Twentieth Century and Beyond

469

America. In 1939, three Methodist groups became The Methodist Church, which united with the Evangelical United Brethren in 1968 to form the United Methodist Church. In 1959 the Evangelical and Reformed Church and the Congregational Christian Church, both products of recent mergers, became the United Church of Christ. In addition to earlier national efforts, talks suggested by Eugene Carson Blake (1986–85) began in 1962 and culminated in the Consultation on Church Union (COCU), involving several US denominations. In 1970 COCU adopted a Plan of Union—when any two member churches merged, they would become the Church of Christ Uniting (also COCU), and then others when ready would become part of that church. After several issues kept them from their goal, Churches Uniting in Christ (CUIC) replaced COCU in 2002. By the early twenty-first century, ecumenical work focused more on cooperation between existing bodies than on their merger, which was the approach taken by Christian Churches Together, founded in 2001 to promote cooperation between Christians of very different denominational and theological positions. More focused meetings occurred between church bodies related by history, theological inclination, and/or regional proximity. Often two or three denominations explored potential merger or cooperation within their own country or between their two international denominations. The Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, for example, was established by the papacy and fourteen autocephalous Orthodox Churches. The first plenary session was held at Patmos and Rhodes, Greece, in 1980. In 2016, the fourteenth plenary session issued a joint statement of agreement describing past positions in “Primacy and Synodality in the Church,” hoping for future reunion. Another series of discussions began in the 1970s between the Roman Catholic Church and Oriental Orthodox Churches; in 2003, they established the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches. The Catholic-Lutheran dialogue, primarily between Lutheran World Federation representatives and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, began in 1964 and met in scores of sessions over the following decades. US discussions included Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, and Roman Catholics. Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches began dialogue in the late twentieth century; by 2014, representatives of churches from each major group agreed on several statements and proposals. After preliminary meetings, in 1967, the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission was formed; in subsequent years they produced a number of agreed statements, though differences on some key issues again surfaced. Notable among ecumenical work is Roger Schütz (Brother Roger, 1915–2005). Beginning in 1940, in Taizé, France, he helped Christians and Jews escape Nazi persecution, but had to leave the town in 1940. In 1944 he returned and established the small, male quasi-monastic Taizé Community, open to all Christians (see Doc. 4.45). Brother Roger dedicated his life to reconciling Christian denominations, working particularly among young believers. The most effective ecumenical development of the twentieth century and beyond was the global impact of the Pentecostal, or charismatic, movement. The common spiritual, prayer, and worship experiences of believers from across cultures, continents, and denominational loyalties created an atmosphere on every continent and in nearly every nation of common love for God. These experiences,

470

A Global Church History

combined with the common desire for world evangelism, continued to bring an unofficial, yet real sense of Christian unity to believers throughout the world.

Discussion questions 1 Why was the ecumenical movement’s dream of church bodies merging into one great Church unsuccessful? 2 Do you believe the change to emphasis on cooperation rather than on merger was helpful or harmful? Why?

Growth and expansion in global outreach in the twentieth century and beyond The global advance of Christianity continued to grow exponentially through the twentieth century and beyond. In regions where Christianity was long established the Church flourished, growing in most places while diminishing in some. Missionary work kept expanding throughout most of the planet. The advance slowed from 1914 to 1944, when much of the globe found itself involved first in World War I, then in brief prosperity, then in economic depression, and finally in World War II. But missions and evangelism were effective nevertheless. There was a significant drop in missionaries and missionary support from Germany and France during this period. Expansion after World II was astonishing, particularly among but not limited to Protestants. Thousands of missionaries from multiple countries covered the planet. The United States led in the number of missionaries sent. By the early twenty-first century, some Christians believed that by 2050 every people group would have heard the Christian message and would have at least read some part of the Bible in their own language. In 2010, the Pew Research Center reported over 31 percent of the world’s population claimed to be Christian, and that globally, Christianity continued to grow—this included Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, and other Christians. In contrast to nineteenth-century missionaries, who hurried to get the Christian message to as many places and as quickly as possible, twentieth-century missionaries generally focused more on developing indigenous leadership at national denominational, organizational, and congregational levels. This shift, coupled by other changes in missiology, meant the practice of Christianity grew to be less and less Western and more representative of the various cultures in which Christianity was expressed. One of the most important developments in global Christian growth was the spread of Pentecostalism, with shocking numbers of adherents in nearly every place on earth—this included Pentecostal denominations, as well as many in non-Pentecostal churches who experienced charismatic phenomena. Roman Catholic missions continued to depend primarily upon the organizations developed in the nineteenth century and before, though new organizations did emerge. Though France sent most Roman Catholic missionaries in 1900, the increase of Roman Catholic organizations from many other countries balanced the work. In the 1930s, Roman Catholic missions began using cinema for evangelism. Roman Catholic universities began emphasizing academic programs in missiology.

Christianity in the Twentieth Century and Beyond

471

Protestants from the West continued to send thousands of missionaries throughout the world— especially missionaries from the United States. Most worked in New World nations and emerging (often referred to as Third World) nations. Classic methods continued, with strong emphasis on either founding new churches or helping existing churches to become indigenous and autonomous. In other words, in a particular country, the native peoples, which missiologists came to call “nationals,” would lead churches which were self-supporting and self-perpetuating. As new means of communication arose (e.g., radio, television, cinema, internet, etc.), missionaries incorporated them into the work to enhance the growth of Christianity. By the end of the twentieth century, Christian teachers or preachers might be on one continent and students on another. In addition, many of the countries who had received missionaries from the West were sending missionaries to the West, seeking to convert an increasingly secular Western population to Christianity. Christian leaders noted that the Christianity they found in the Scriptures and history did not include some Western theological emphases. Pacific School of Religion professor and Methodist minister C. S. Song (Choan-Seng Song, b. 1929), for example, attacked the individualism of West-centered Christianity and called for Asians to articulate Asian theology (see Doc. 4.18). Very little Christian expansion occurred among Orthodox Churches during most of the twentieth century, though the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries showed reborn interest, especially among younger adults in the West, particularly the United States.

Discussion question 1 The twentieth century brought a change is missionary strategy. What advantages and/or problems resulted from the emphasis on indigenous churches led by native leaders?

Latin American Christianity in the twentieth century and beyond To follow current names and borders covered in this section, choose your favorite mapping program (e.g., Google Maps) and size the map accordingly.

In 1900, Roman Catholicism continued to dominant the religious landscape of Latin America. For the first half of the century, foreign priests and lay workers did most of the evangelistic and missionary work, with limited investment by Latin American Christians themselves, whose leaders often had vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Protestants, on the other hand, who numbered very few in 1900, grew steadily before World War II. Since World War II, the growth among Protestants was remarkable; most impressive was the growth of Pentecostalism. By 2014, Pew Research Center reported that 69 percent of Latin Americans were Roman Catholic and 19 percent Protestant. The 1917 Russian revolution triggered migration of thousands of Russian Orthodox Christians to South American, especially Brazil, Peru, Uruguay, Chile, and Argentina. A key development in Latin American Christianity, particularly in Latin American theology, was the emergence of liberation theology, which emphasized social justice for disenfranchised and people,

472

A Global Church History

Figure 5.50  Gustavo Gutiérrez.

including liberation from economic injustice, poverty, and political oppression, especially denial of human rights. In the 1950s and 1960s, Latin American theologians appealed to liberation theology as foundational to understanding God’s will on earth. Peruvian Dominican Roman Catholic priest and professor Gustavo Gutiérrez (b. 1928) was the best known advocate of liberation theology and helped to establish much of the vocabulary—he coined the popular phrase “preferential option for the poor,” characterizing God’s heart for the poor and oppressed. His 1971 book Teología de la Liberación: Perspectivas (published in English as A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation) was seminal to liberation theology (see Doc. 4.25). Other early liberation theologians included Brazilian priest Leonardo Boff (b. 1938) (see Doc. 4.37), Uruguayan Jesuit priest Juan Luís Segundo (1925–96), and Spanish Jesuit priest Jon Sobrino (b. 1938). Beginning in the 1970s, Evangelicals also promoted these principles, calling for mission work to integrate evangelism and social responsibility as a seamless whole called “integral mission.” Ecuadorian C. René Padilla (b. 1932), Peruvian Samuel Escobar, and Puerto Rican Orlando E. Costas (1942–87) were popular advocates. Meetings of the Consejo Episcopal Latinoamericano (Latin American Episcopal Council, better known by acronym CELAM) in Medellín, Colombia, in 1968 and in Puebla, Mexico, in 1979 had great impact on liberation theology. Critics described liberation theology as Marxist, impractical, and not evangelistic. In the twentieth century, Pentecostalism was the fastest growing form of Christianity in Latin America. From 1909, when the Methodist Church in Valparaíso, Chile, experienced Pentecostalism, Pentecostalism spread to most of Latin America and beyond. Popular in all social classes, like liberation theology it had

Christianity in the Twentieth Century and Beyond

473

Figure 5.51  Leonardo Boff.

its greatest appeal to the poor, who often saw God’s gifting and power as the great social equalizer, liberating the individual rather than directly transforming social structures. In the early twenty-first century, some of the world’s largest congregations were Latin American Pentecostal churches, including Catedral Evangélica de Chile Jotabeche in Santiago, Chile, and Congregação Cristã no Brasil in São Paolo, Brazil. Puerto Rico was overwhelmingly Roman Catholic when it became a US territory in 1898. Protestants missions and expansion in the twentieth century was significant. By the early twenty-first century over one-third of the population was Protestant, and over half Roman Catholic. Pentecostals have significant influence among both Roman Catholics and Protestants. Many Protestant missionaries came to primarily Roman Catholic Cuba in the first half of the twentieth century, mostly from the United States. After his forces won the Cuban Revolution (1953–59), leader Fidel Castro (1926–2016) declared Cuba an atheistic communist state, resulting in notable decline in the number of practicing Roman Catholics, with almost none attending Sunday mass. Protestants continued to preach; after Fidel Castro’s death they grew, especially among casas cultos (house churches); Pentecostal groups were most successful, but still numerically small. In 1998, John Paul II became the first pope to visit Cuba, and in 2012 Benedict XVI celebrated mass in Havana. By 2010, less than half of Cubans claimed to be Roman Catholic, and under 5 percent Protestant. The Dominican Republic, the east side of the island of Hispaniola, has been primarily Roman Catholic since the days of colonization. Protestant missionaries have made significant progress there. By 2010, Roman Catholics comprised just under two-thirds of the population (significant decrease from nearly 90 percent in 1990), and Protestants are one-fifth (more than double since 1990). Missionaries from a variety of denominations continued to work there in the early twenty-first century. Mexico remained primarily Roman Catholic throughout the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Huge Protestant investment helps Protestantism to grow significantly, from less than 1 percent of the population in 1900 to about 10 percent in 2010. Roman Catholics were well over three-fourths.

474

A Global Church History

Like much of Latin America, Central America countries also began the twentieth century as almost entirely Roman Catholic. Protestantism growing significantly after World War II, and increasingly after 1990, with the number of Roman Catholics diminishing. By the beginning of the twenty-first century, Protestants represented well over 30 percent of Central Americans. The reported approximate Protestant percentages of each country’s population in the early twenty-first century were as follows: Costa Rica (nearly 15 percent), El Salvador (nearly 30 percent), Guatemala (nearly 40 percent), Honduras (nearly 40 percent), Nicaragua (nearly 30 percent), and Panamá (nearly 20 percent). With a few exceptions, the same pattern occurred in nearly every Spanish-speaking country in South America. The size of the population claiming to be Christian diminished slightly, with more marked decline among Roman Catholics and an opposite growth among Protestants. Once again, the Protestant growth can be traced to a significant extent to the growth of Pentecostalism in Latin America. Approximate Roman Catholic and Protestant population percentages in the early twenty-first century in South American countries (Roman Catholic first, then Protestant) were as follows: Argentina (75 percent, over 10 percent); Bolivia (over 75 percent, nearly 20 percent); Chile (about 60 percent, over 15 percent); Colombia (over 75 percent, 15 percent); Ecuador (about 80 percent, well over 10 percent), Paraguay (nearly 75 percent, nearly 20 percent); Uruguay (about 40 percent, over 10 percent); Venezuela (over 70 percent, over 16 percent). At times this growth among Protestants occasioned conflict with Roman Catholic clergy and laity. Pentecostalism came to Brazil in 1910, but in the 1950s and 1960s Pentecostals experienced explosive growth. In 1977 Edir Macedo (b. 1945) and brother-in-law R. R. Soares (b. 1947) founded Igreja Universal do Reino de Deus (Universal Church of the Kingdom of God), which reached into many other countries. Soares left in 1980 to begin Igreja Internacional da Graça de Deus (International Church of God’s Grace). These are two of Brazil’s largest indigenous Pentecostal denominations. Roman Catholics remained strong, and hundreds of Protestant missionaries from a variety of denominations

Figure 5.52  Edir Macedo.

Christianity in the Twentieth Century and Beyond

475

Figure 5.53  R. R. Soares.

worked in Brazil. By the early twenty-first century, Roman Catholics represented over 60 percent, Protestants nearly 25 percent of Brazilians. Nearly 15 percent of Brazilians were Pentecostal.

Discussion question 1 What or who is your favorite Latin American church leader, ministry, or movement? Why?

Christianity in Oceania and other Pacific Islands in the twentieth century and beyond To follow current names and borders covered in this section, choose your favorite mapping program (e.g., Google Maps) and size the map accordingly.

After World War I, the political situation in the Pacific changed. The League of Nations transferred control of the islands formerly under Germany—to Japan if north of the equator, and to Australia and New Zealand if south of the equator. Early in the twentieth century, Christianity continued to grow in the islands of the South Pacific, generally grouped into categories called Polynesia, Melanesia, and Micronesia, and more. Australian Christians sent more missionaries than other countries. Growth was particularly evident among populations to whom Christianity was being first introduced. When

476

A Global Church History

Figure 5.54  Brian Houston.

Japan began its imperial expansion, they conquered the Philippines, the East Indies, and several groups of Pacific islands. Following World War II, missionaries came to work on the islands in large numbers. Australia allowed religious freedom in their 1901 Constitution. Australians claiming church membership declined after World War I. The 1920s saw increase in cooperation between denominations. In 1921, for example, Lutheran groups representing just over half of Australian Lutherans formed the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Australia; the others comprised the Evangelical Lutheran Synod in Australia. In 1927 the National Missionary Council of Australia began. Many hoped to unite all Australian Christians into one church body, and most Australian churches joined the World Council of Churches. Christianity became increasingly integrated into Australian life. Missionaries came from other Englishspeaking countries as well. Immigration from Eastern Europe after World War II brought many Orthodox to Australia. Pentecostal growth in the early twenty-first century was significant; Hillsong Church, founded in 1983 by Brian Houston (b. 1954) and wife Bobbie Houston (b. 1957), had great influence in Australia and in numerous other countries through branch churches and through worship music. By the early twenty-first century, Christians represented over half the population, with Protestants outnumbering Roman Catholics. In New Zealand, by 1900, nearly all Ma¯ oris considered themselves Christians, though few attended church, until they were organized separately from other Anglicans. Church membership and attendance declined significantly after the 1960s. By the early twenty-first century, nearly half of white

Christianity in the Twentieth Century and Beyond

477

New Zealanders were affiliated with Christianity, but far fewer attended church. Protestants represented about three-fourths of the Christian population. Populations of nearly all denominations continued in slow decline. Micronesia included islands east of Japan and north of the equator. When Japan was given jurisdiction, they therefore controlled the Mariana, Caroline, and Marshall islands. Japan immediately expelled Germans, but other Roman Catholic and Protestant missionaries remained. Christianity grew. Protestant missionaries from Japan came to the islands 1920. Missionaries were already working on the islands when Australia gained control of Melanesia, including the Solomon islands, New Guinea (modern Papua New Guinea), Fiji, and several others. On Fiji, immigrants from India had leased the better land, soon numbering with the native population. Most Indian immigrants were not Christians, though by the 1930s there was a significant representation among them. By the early twenty-first century, Christians represented more than half the population; Methodists represented over one-third of Fiji; other Protestants and Roman Catholics composed the rest. On the northeast coast of Papua New Guinea in 1905–06, mass conversions to Lutheran Christianity occurred under missionary Christian Keyser (1877–1961). Japanese invaders destroyed Christian missions and schools. After World War II, hundreds of missionaries from multiple denominations came to Papua New Guinea. By the 1960s over nine-tenths of the population professed Christianity. Though technically independent in 1949, real independence from Australia was recognized in 1975. In the early twenty-first century, fewer than 5 percent were not Christian; over one-fourth were Roman Catholic, and the rest were Protestants of various groups. The East Indies, or Malay archipelago, saw Christianity continue to progress after 1900. After World War I, the people of Java grew more nationalistic. Muslims hoped to advance their own religion by works of mercy very much like those of the Christians. Native Christians worked to become indigenous churches, accompanied by greater desire to advance Christian faith. Soon these indigenous churches were sending missionaries to other islands in the island group. World War II devastated the islands. Reflecting their European situation, Dutch missionaries imprisoned German missionaries. Then Japan conquered the islands—all Dutch, British, and American missionaries were considered enemies. Protestant work continued nonetheless. After the war, Indonesia became an independent nation in 1949; in 1954 they ordered all Indonesians to be either Muslim or Christian, but soon embraced “equality” (pancasila) for the five major religions (Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Protestantism, and Roman Catholicism). In the 1960s there was great movement into Roman Catholic and Protestant churches. Still, by the early twenty-first century, only 10 percent claimed to be Christian, mostly Protestant, and many in indigenous Indonesian churches. Polynesia, the island group east of Melanesia, includes Hawaii, Samoa, Tonga, the Cook islands, the Society islands, the Marquesas islands, Gambier islands, and many more. Christianity continued to grow on most of the islands, including Hawaii. In 1900, most of these islands were Christian by name. Steady growth among Christians was hindered when Japan imprisoned or killed many missionaries, but as Japan was forced to retreat, mission work resumed and advanced. In the Philippine islands, the United States gained jurisdiction in 1898, introducing the American form of government. Hundreds of Protestants came to work in a territory whose Christianity was primarily Roman Catholic. In 1902 Isabelo de los Reyes (1864–1938) and others led a separation from the

478

Figure 5.55  Isabelo de los Reyes.

Figure 5.56  Gregorio Agilpay.

A Global Church History

Christianity in the Twentieth Century and Beyond

479

Roman Catholic Church, establishing the Philippine Independent Church (Iglesia Filipina Independiente); Gregorio Agilpay (1860–1940) was named the supreme bishop. By World War II, over nine-tenths of Filipinos claimed to be Christian. Growth was particularly rapid among Protestants, though they represented a small minority of the Christians. Filipino Protestant denominations engaged in ecumenical work. In 1929, for example, the National Missionary Council formed, becoming the Philippine Federation of Evangelical Churches in 1939. Also in 1929, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and United Brethren united to become United Evangelical Church of the Philippines. In the Roman Catholic Church, priests were increasingly native Filipinos. Japan attacked the Philippines the same day they attacked the United States. Hoping for missionary support for the Japanese rule of the Philippines, Japan at first allowed Christians and missionaries to work as before, though later there were restrictions. Generally speaking, Christians in the Philippines did not suffer severe persecution under the Japanese. After the war, ecumenical work continued—in 1948, several Protestant denominations united to become the United Church of Christ in the Philippines. Methodists, Baptists, and other independent churches did not participate. In 1949, Gabriel M. Reyes (1892–1952, abp. 1949–52) became the first Filipino archbishop of Manila, the highest Roman Catholic office on the islands. Growth continued throughout the twentieth century. Manila archbishop and Roman Catholic cardinal Jaime Sin (1928–2005, apb. 1974–2003) was instrumental in leading Filipinos in 1986 to oust dictator Ferdinand Marcos (1917–89, pres. 1965–86). By the early twenty-first century, about 80 percent were Roman Catholic, and nearly 11 percent Protestant. Pentecostalism reached across denominational lines and was growing significantly.

Figure 5.57  Cardinal Jaime Sin.

480

A Global Church History

Discussion question 1 What person or movement in Oceania and the Pacific Islands do you believe has had the greatest global impact? Why?

Christianity in Africa in the twentieth century and beyond To follow current names and borders covered in this section, choose your favorite mapping program (e.g., Google Maps) and size the map accordingly.

The African continent faced great changes during the twentieth century and beyond. During World War I, many Africans, including Christians, fought in the Allied armies, where they were exposed to more advanced cultures. World War II brought even more exposure, as African troops fought elsewhere, and European armies fought in Africa. Between the wars, Christianity grew significantly. Roman Catholics increased in percentage more than Protestants. South of the Sahara alone, from 1911 to 1936 Protestants quadrupled in membership to over two million; Roman Catholics increased nearly seven times in number, to over 4.5 million. After World War II, Christianity experienced explosive growth. By the 1960s, those numbers had increased to over fifteen million Protestants and over twenty-two million Roman Catholics. How? Africans were ready to embrace Christianity and its cultures, and missionaries poured into Africa from multiple countries and from nearly every denomination. During the twentieth century, African governments changed often, sometimes through increased independence from Europeans, but often through coups d’etat by military forces within the countries themselves. This sometimes posed particular challenges to missionaries and to established churches, who were often assumed to support the previous regime. By the end of the twentieth century, most African states were under military or single-party rule. Many Christians worked toward ecumenical cooperation in Africa—for example, in 1958 Presbyterian medical missionary Akanu Ibiam (1906–95), also known as Francis Ibiam, initiated discussions which led to the founding of the All Africa Conference of Churches in 1963. The AACC worked toward decolonization and nation-building in Africa from its founding, addressing collectively Africa’s many issues. Indigenous African churches continued to grow, increasing by about 40 percent in the 1970s alone. In South Africa the twentieth century began in the middle of the Second Boer War (1899–1902), the continuation of conflict between the British and the Boers (Afrikaans). South Africa united in 1910, with leadership shared by British and Afrikaan whites, and real self-governance coming in 1931. Just before World War I, nonwhites outnumbered whites well over three to one, yet whites controlled government and all major social institutions. Nearly all whites were connected to a church; among nonwhites, Christianity was growing rapidly. Many separatist churches were formed by native peoples. This situation continued through and beyond World War II. Apartheid was imposed in 1948, which institutionalized the already present racial segregation and marginalized blacks, who were about 80 percent of the population, denying citizenship and other basic rights. Dutch Reformed churches supported apartheid,

Christianity in the Twentieth Century and Beyond

Figure 5.58  Nelson Mandela.

Figure 5.59  Desmond Tutu.

481

482

A Global Church History

though global Reformed churches condemned the practice. After much struggle, apartheid ended in the 1990s. In 1994, black South Africans received the right to vote; longtime activist and African National Congress leader Nelson Mandela (1918–2013, pres. 1994–99)—South Africa’s first black head of state, was elected president and guided South Africa through the transition in peace. Anglican priest Desmond Tutu (b. 1931, abp. 1986–96) served as archbishop of Cape Town, exercising tremendous influence in the battle to end apartheid, for which he received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984 This had great impact on Botswana and Swaziland as well. By the early twenty-first century, South Africa’s population was nearly three-fourths Protestant and over 7 percent Roman Catholic. The largest Protestant church, Zion Christian Church, was the largest denomination in South Africa, but also the largest denomination begun by Africans across all of southern Africa, with over 11 percent of the population. In Malawi (formerly Nyasaland), Christianity grew significantly after World War I, with Protestants and Roman Catholics nearly tripling in number before World War II. In 1924, several denominations and their missionary organizations combined to form the Church of Central Africa. By the early twenty-first century, nearly 90 percent of the population was Christian—nearly 20 percent were Roman Catholic, and 70 percent were Protestant. Northern and Southern Rhodesia together saw Protestants grow by more than five times between World War I and World War II, while Roman Catholics were very influential but grew more slowly. In Northern Rhodesia (modern Zambia), Roman Catholic missionaries worked from the 1890s. Anglicans established their first mission station in 1911, under Malawi priest Leonard Kamungu (1877–1913). By 1944, several missions and denominations formed the Christian Council of Northern Rhodesia. The early twentieth century saw the rise of many indigenous African churches.

Figure 5.60  Kenneth Kaunda.

Christianity in the Twentieth Century and Beyond

483

The Lumpa Church, for example, was established by Alice Lenshina (1920–78) in a northern Zambia province, and spread quickly, eventually dividing into several distinct groups. These indigenous churches generally supported the drive for free elections, contributing to independence from Great Britain in 1964 and the new name Zambia; the first president was liberal Protestant Kenneth Kaunda (b.1924, pres. 1964–91). The 1996 constitution declared Zambia a Christian nation. By the early twenty-first century, most Zambians had Christian affiliation, with over three-fourths of the population Protestant and over one-fifth Roman Catholic. Jehovah’s Witnesses have their strongest African presence in Zambia. In Southern Rhodesia (modern Zimbabwe), missionaries from Great Britain and the United States came in great numbers. Generally speaking, British missionaries worked with white settlers, and American missionaries worked with native Africans. Pentecostals arrived in the 1920s, growing tremendously in the decades to follow. In 1932, for example, Johane Maranke (1912–63) established the African Apostolic Church. By the early twenty-first century, nearly 90 percent of Zimbabweans claimed to be Christian, with nearly two-thirds of the population regularly attending church. Among long-established groups Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Baptists, Lutherans, and Methodists had significant numbers. A variety of indigenous denominations had also emerged. Pentecostal and charismatic churches grew more rapidly than others—the two largest Protestant groups were the Zion Christian Church and the African Apostolic Church. Dominated by whites for most of the twentieth century, after years of civil war, Zimbabwe embraced majority rule in 1978. In Angola, Christian expansion suffered during World War I, but by the 1930s churches were growing remarkably, with Roman Catholics increasing fourfold. Protestants grew significantly, despite Portuguese resistance, evidenced by a mass movement into Christianity through the work of Canadian and American missionaries. By the twenty-first century, Roman Catholics comprised half the population, and Protestants one-fourth. Pentecostal Churches were emerging, the most important being the Brazilian missionary work of Igreja Universal do Reino de Deus. In Mozambique (formerly Portuguese East Africa), Protestants in 1924 formed the Evangelical Missionary Association. Mozambique gained independence from Portugal in 1975. Early twenty-first century saw Christians comprising well over half the population, with both Roman Catholic and Protestant groups growing, most notably United Methodists. Tanzania (formerly German East Africa) was transferred to British oversight after World War I and became known as Tanganyika. The British ceded Rwanda and Burundi to Belgium. Thousands of Tanganyikans fought in World War II for the Allies. British rule ended in 1961; after incorporating Zanzibar, the new country was named Tanzania in 1964, with Roman Catholic Julius Nyerere (1922–99, pres. 1962–85) as the first president. The early twenty-first century saw more than three-fifths of the population claiming to be Christian, with large numbers of Lutherans, Moravians, Anglicans, Pentecostals, and Seventh-Day Adventists. In Rwanda (formerly Ruanda) and Burundi (formerly Urundi), established missions continued into the twentieth century, but missionary work advanced significantly in the early twentieth century, with the arrival of many missionaries from multiple denominations. Both countries gained independence from Belgium in 1962. Long tribal conflict between the Hutu and Tutsi came to a head when Rwanda president Juvénal Habyarimana (1937–94) and Burundi president Cyprien Ntaryamira (1955–94) were

484

A Global Church History

Figure 5.61  Julius Nyerere.

assassinated in 1994. Over the following weeks, 800,000 Rwandans died—mostly Tutsi. Rwanda churches were thought to have contributed to the problem through their earlier teachings. By early twenty-first century, Christians were about 90 percent of the Rwanda population and over three-fourths of the Burundi population, with more Roman Catholics than Protestants. Evangelicals continued to grow in both countries. In Kenya, Roman Catholics and Protestants experienced great growth in the early twentieth century. Earlier organizations in 1918 and 1924 led to the Christian Council of Kenya in 1943, which united several major missionary organizations and groups. Leaders claiming to be prophets called for separation from whites. After World War II, many missionaries came to Kenya, sparking significant growth among the churches. In 1952 Mariam Ragot (b. c. 1900/1910) claimed a vision of Mary calling her to denounce Roman Catholicism and whites, resulting in the founding of the Religion of Mary church. This was part of a larger movement resulting in the Legio Maria Church (Legion of Mary Church), formed in 1963. Kenya became independent from Great Britain in 1963. In the 1970s, Kenyan-born Anglican theologian John Mbiti (b.1931) argued that traditional African practices were not necessarily anti-Christian. Aylward Shorter (b.1932), also known as Muganwa Nsiku Jensi, wrote extensively on the Roman Catholic Church’s impact on east Africa. In the early twenty-first century, over 80 percent of Kenyans were Christians, with twice as many Protestants as Roman Catholics. Kenya’s 650,000 Christians numbered more than in any other African nation. Uganda began the twentieth century with spectacular Christian growth, with both Protestants and Roman Catholics more than tripling by World War II, representing about half of the population. By the 1930s, native Ugandan clergy were fully responsible for nearly all pastoral care and evangelism. In 1977, the world watched after Idi Amin (1923?–2003, president 1971–79) had Anglican archbishop

Christianity in the Twentieth Century and Beyond

485

Figure 5.62  Festo Kivengere.

Janani Luwum (1922–77) executed for questioning ongoing executions and missing persons. Anglican bishop Festo Kivengere (1920–88) and other prominent clergy continued to object. By 1980, Christians represented nearly 80 percent of Ugandans. By the early twenty-first century, nearly 85 percent of Ugandans were Christians, about half Roman Catholic and half Protestant, generally in long-established denominations. The largest Protestant body, the Church of Uganda, was Anglican, and represented nearly 40 percent of the population. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Belgian Congo), early twentieth-century Christian growth surpassed most of Africa. Roman Catholics, favored by the Belgian government, grew most, tripling in number, but Protestants also increased. In addition, indigenous movements arose, following leaders calling themselves prophets. The most significant was begun in 1921 by Simon Kimbangu (1887–1951) after many believed he resurrected a dead girl; using the name Church of Jesus Christ on Earth, the church later believed Kimbangu’s sons were the trinity. In the 1930s several missions and churches used the common name Église du Christ au Congo (Church of Christ in Congo). Missionary work increased significantly after World War II, despite internal conflicts producing much war and a succession of governments. Pentecostal growth was remarkable. By the early twenty-first century, Roman Catholic and Protestant Christians comprised 85 percent of the population. Nearly one-third of the population were members of Church of Christ in Congo, and about 10 percent were part of Church of Jesus Christ on Earth. In French Equatorial Africa (modern Republic of Congo, Gabon, Central African Republic, Chad, and part of Cameroon), missionary work continued. Protestants increased significantly throughout the region, perhaps as much as eight times, by World War II. In 1960, France granted independence to

486

A Global Church History

each of the five regions. From 1969 to 1977, Republic of Congo was a Marxist-Leninist state, though missionaries were generally allowed to continue their work. Friendly relations with Eastern bloc countries continued in the years that followed. By the early twenty-first century, Republic of Congo claimed over 85 percent of the population to be Christian, with over half the population Protestant and nearly a third Roman Catholic; numerous missionary groups from multiple denominations worked within the country. Central African Republic claimed 80 percent to be Christian—over half Protestant and nearly one-third Roman Catholic. In Gabon nearly three-fourths practiced Christianity, though this included the Bwiti, a syncretistic blend of animism, ancestor worship, drug use, and elements of Christianity. Modern Cameroon, the 1961 union of former French Cameroon and British Cameroon, was about 70 percent Christian—the former French territory was primarily Roman Catholic, and the former British territory was primarily Protestant. Equatorial Guinea, which became independent of Spain in 1968, continued to be mostly Christian into the twenty-first century. Nearly 90 percent of the population was Roman Catholic, with only 5 percent Protestant. In Nigeria, Protestant Christianity grew at least tenfold by World War II, and Roman Catholics more than doubled. British ruled through independent chieftains from 1914 to 1960, when Nigeria became fully independent. Civil war from 1967 to 1970 resulted in mass killings of Christians in the Muslim north. Christianity was found mainly in the south. During World War I, an Anglican named Garrick Sokari Braid (or Braide, d. 1918), calling himself Elijah, spoke prophetically with other signs. Many congregations left the Anglican Church to follow him, forming Christ Army Church of Nigeria. Ecumenical work among Anglicans, Methodists, and Presbyterians resulted in the formation of the Union Church of Nigeria in 1965. By the early twenty-first century, Nigeria ranked seventh in population among global nations, and first in Africa. Over half the population was Christian, mostly Protestant. West of Nigeria were Benin (formerly Dahomey), Togo (formerly Togoland), Ghana (formerly Gold Coast), Ivory Coast, and Burkina Faso. These countries saw Christian growth throughout the period before World War II. Benin was primarily Roman Catholic. After World War I, missionaries from Great Britain replaced German missionaries, especially Presbyterians and Methodists. In Togo, Africans dominated in leading the Ewe Presbyterian Church. In 1929, the Christian Council of the Gold Coast was formed to coordinate work among Protestant churches and missionaries. Ivory Coast had few Christians in 1900, but after 1920, many embraced Christianity. After World War II, these countries were granted their independence (Ghana from Great Britain in 1957; Benin, Togo, Burkina Faso, and Ivory Coast from France in 1960). More missionaries worked in the region, and churches continued to grow. By the early twenty-first century, Benin’s population was over two-fifths Christian, a majority of whom were Roman Catholic; 5 percent belonged to Celestial Church of Christ, an indigenous church movement. In Togo, nearly half were Christian, with more Roman Catholic than Protestant. In Ghana, over three-fourths were Christian; nearly half the population was Protestant, and with nearly three times as many Pentecostals as other Protestants. In Ivory Coast, one-third claimed to be Christian, mostly Roman Catholic. In Burkina Faso, 60 percent were Muslim, and just under onefourth were Christian (mostly Roman Catholic), though both Muslim and Christian practices sometimes reflect practices from indigenous religions.

Christianity in the Twentieth Century and Beyond

487

WILLIAM WADÉ HARRIS (c. 1865–1929), African evangelist and prophet Liberian by birth, William Wade Harris in 1913–14 prophesied in modern Liberia, Sierra Leone, Ghana, and Ivory Coast, converting over 100,000 Africans to Christianity. He employed prophecy, exorcism, healing, and other Pentecostal practices. Among his converts he established churches, appointed pastors, and sent missionaries into the interior. Harris also embraced polygamy and other African cultural practices. Though the French deported him from Ivory Coast to Liberia, his movement continued. By 1950 the movement produced two million Christians, many in independent churches.

Figure 5.63  William Wadé Harris.

In Liberia and Sierra Leone, Christianity flourished at the beginning of the 20th century. African evangelist William Wadé Harris (1860–1929) preached diligently in both countries, and also in Ghana and Ivory Coast, affirming orthodox theology but also embracing or transforming African culture. A 1980 military coup left Liberia a secular state, and civil war in Sierra Leone from 1991–2002 left the area unstable. By the early 21st century, Liberia was over three fourths Protestant and under ten percent Roman Catholic. Sierra Leone (independent from Great Britain in 1961), mostly Muslim, was only 20 percent Christian, mostly Protestant. Other countries in western and north central Africa—including Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Gambia, Senegal and Sudan—showed less Christian growth than other parts of Africa discussed above. In the early twenty-first century, only Guinea-Bissau (independent from Portugal in 1973) was majority

488

A Global Church History

Christian, representing three-fifths of the population, with noticeable syncretism among some. The other countries in the region were mostly Muslim—some almost entirely Muslim. After Guinea became independent from France in 1958, president Francisco Macías Nguema (1924–1979, pres. 1968–1979), a militant atheist, had many Christians killed. By the early twenty-first century, Guinea was 8 percent Christian, of several denominations. Mali (independent from France in 1960) was 5 percent Christian. Gambia (independent from Great Britain in 1965) was 4 percent Christian. Senegal (independent from France in 1960) was 7 percent Christian. The nineteenth situation in North Africa continued with little change into the twentieth century, until World War II. Roman Catholics continued to have a significant presence west of Egypt, but showed no growth. Protestants maintained a limited presence. During World War II, Allied and Axis powers battled across North Africa. Following the war, several North Africa nations became independent. Islamic states varied in their treatment of Christians within their borders. Mauritania became independent from France in 1960. Just to the north, Morocco (including Southern Provinces, formerly Western Sahara) had gained independence in 1956. Both Mauritania and Morocco were closed to Christianity. Tunisia gained independence from France in 1956, Algeria in 1962, and Tunisia in 1956. Libya became independent of Italy in 1947 and free of British and French oversight in 1951. By the early twenty-first century, Christians in all five countries represented less than 1 percent. In Egypt, which became independent of Great Britain in 1922, and again after World War II in 1952, nationalists pushed for Egypt to be the world leader among Islamic nations. Though there were some Coptic Church conversions to and from Islam, Protestant and Roman Catholic growth was small leading up to World War I and represented less than 10 percent of the population. After Great Britain withdrew from the Suez Canal in 1956, nationalistic Islamic leaders expelled British missionaries from Egypt. Tensions with Israel and supporting nations continued to heighten conflict between Islam and the West, with repeated efforts at Middle East peace bringing little peace. Wars with Israel in 1967 and 1973 heightened resentment. In 1977 mobs attacked Coptic churches, despite government efforts to the contrary, and persecutions continued after, stimulating emigration to other continents. In 1978 the Camp David Accords, negotiated by American president Jimmy Carter (b. 1924, pres. 1977–1981) between Egyptian president Anwar Sadat (1918–81, pres. 1970–81) and Israel prime minister Menachem Begin (1913–1992, pr. min. 1977–83), and a subsequent treaty with Israel in 1979, brought Arab opposition. Tensions continued into the twenty-first century. In the early twenty-first century, Coptic Christians continued to face discrimination, and Islam remained the state religion. Over 90 percent of Christians were Coptic, with Christians representing over 10 percent of Egypt’s population. In Sudan (formerly Anglo-Egyptian Sudan), early-twentieth-century Christian growth was primarily in the south—among both Roman Catholics and Protestant groups. After World War II, Sudan became independent in 1956; almost immediately non-Muslims in the south were subjected to Muslim control, resulting in rebellions in the 1960s and 1970s—many Christians were killed. Western missionaries were expelled, but churches continued under indigenous leadership. In 2011, the south seceded from Sudan, forming the new nation of South Sudan. By the early twenty-first century, Sudan remained almost entirely Muslim—Christians represented less than 2 percent of the population. In South Sudan, over 60 percent were reportedly Christians.

Christianity in the Twentieth Century and Beyond

489

Ethiopia (formerly Abyssinia) experienced Christian growth in the early twentieth century. After Italy invaded in 1935, the Vatican worked to bring Christians in the area into the Roman Catholic Church; Protestants and Oriental Orthodox, of course, were opposed. During World War II the British gained control and restored the empire to its independence. Protestant missionaries returned by 1944. The government was socialist from the 1970s into the 1990s—Christian relief organizations were most effective in relieving famine caused by draught and civil war. In 1995, Ethiopia adopted a parliamentary constitution. By the early twenty-first century, over 60 percent of Ethiopians affiliated with Christianity— the largest church, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, was Oriental Orthodox and represented 30 percent of the population. Nearly all others were Protestant. Eritrea (formerly Italian Eritrea) became independent of Italy in 1890; the territory was disputed for most of the twentieth century. By 1991, others recognized the reality of a separate jurisdiction, though not officially until 1993. By the early twenty-first century, over half of Eritreans were Christians, with some reporting higher numbers. Officially recognized churches are Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church, Eritrean Catholic Church, and Evangelical Lutheran Church. Several other Christian groups were also present. In Somalia, or Somaliland (formerly British Somaliland and Italian Somaliland), British Somaliland gained independence in 1960, and Italian Somaliland united with them later the same year. They became a de facto republic in 1991, though this was not internationally recognized. Nearly all Somalis were Muslims, with very few Christians. The tiny nation of Djibouti (formerly French Somaliland) became independent in 1977. By the early twenty-first century, about 6 percent were Christians. Christianity continued to thrive on the islands near Africa during the twentieth century. Many from Madagascar fought with Allied forces in World War I. By World War II about one-fourth of the population were Christians. Madagascar became independent from France in 1960. In 1980, the four largest denominations formed the Council of Christian Churches in Madagascar. By the early twenty-first century, over 90 percent of the Madagascar population were Christians; over half the population were Protestant, and nearly 40 percent Roman Catholic. East of Madagascar was Mauritius (independent from Great Britain 1968) and Réunion island (part of France). In the early twenty-first century, Mauritius was about one-third Christian, while Réunion was over 80 percent Christian (mostly Roman Catholic). Comoro, north of Madagascar (independent from France in 1975) was almost entirely Muslim, about 1 percent Roman Catholic. Seychelles (independent from Great Britain in 1976), to the east, was over 90 percent Christian, three-fourths Roman Catholic. In the early twenty-first century, Cabo Verde (independent from Portugal in 1975), west of Africa, remained primarily Christian—about 90 percent, mostly Roman Catholic, with several Protestant denominations represented. The island country of São Tomé and Príncipe (independent from Portugal in 1975), off the coast of Gabon, was mostly Christian as well—the majority were Roman Catholics. St. Helena, Ascension, and Tristan da Cunha was a British Overseas territory and remained mostly Anglican, with several other denominations present. The Canary Islands (or Islas Canarias) remained a territory of Spain and were over 80 percent Roman Catholic, with very few Protestants. In the early twenty-first century, African Christian scholars predicted that Christianity would continue to grow dramatically in Africa. They anticipated that this growth would embrace expanding Pentecostalism and incorporate some African customs while rejecting others.

490

A Global Church History

Discussion questions 1 Why do you believe Christianity has grown exponentially in sub-Saharan Africa during the twentieth century? 2 Who is your favorite African Christian leader and why?

Christianity in Asia in the twentieth century and beyond To follow current names and borders covered in this section, choose your favorite mapping program (e.g., Google Maps) and size the map accordingly.

Asian Christians in the twentieth century represented considerably smaller percentages of their populations than on other continents. Resistance to Christianity by adherents of other ancient Asian religions made missionary work difficult in many regions. Many Asian nations were dominated by Muslims who opposed Christian missions. Communist countries generally persecuted Christians and banned foreign missionaries. By 1985, only about 5 percent of Asians were Christians. But native Christians throughout Asia continued to expand their numbers. South Korea and the Philippines, unlike most of Asia, had large percentages of Christians. The Middle East also changed dramatically during the twentieth century. Several new nations arose among ancient peoples. The founding of Israel in 1948 upset the balance of power in the region, immediately evoking serious objections by the surrounding nations. For the rest of the century and beyond this resulted in regional conflicts with global ramifications. The Six-Day War in 1967 and the Yom Kippur War in 1973 established Israel as a capable nation in the region, but non-Jewish Palestinians and Muslim neighbors opposed Israel’s existence. By the early twenty-first century, organizations of extremist Muslims, primarily from the Middle East, were composed of radicals from across national boundaries. They used violent attacks upon civilian targets in the Middle East, Europe, and the United States. Examples include Al-Qaeda (established 1988) and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, established 1999). Early in the twentieth century the Middle East faced great suffering. American Protestant missions provided massive relief, sending food, clothing, medical supplies, agricultural training and supplies, industrial training, saving an estimated one million lives. After World War I, Roman Catholics and Protestants developed more comprehensive plans for the region. In 1914 Protestants had organized the Near East Christian Council to coordinate efforts by Protestant denominations, leading to the founding of the United Missionary Council of Syria and Palestine in 1919. Roman Catholics created the Congregation for Oriental Churches in 1917 to oversee their work. After World War I, Palestine became a British mandate. Zionists from Europe migrated to Palestine. This accelerated after World War II. Israel’s declaration as a nation in 1948 brought immediate war, resulting in Israel’s control over most of the former British mandate. Jerusalem remained a key city for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, with important sites for each. Anglicans established Jerusalem as an

Christianity in the Twentieth Century and Beyond

491

archdiocese in 1957. Although Christian organizations controlled many of the ancient Christian sites in Israel, there were a limited number of Christians in Israel—even fewer ethnic Jewish Christians. Emigration by Palestinian Christians, despite their ancestral connection to the region, diminished the Christian population significantly. By the early twenty-first century, about 2 percent of Israel’s population were Christians. Jordan (formerly Transjordan) became independent from Great Britain in 1946 and almost immediately found itself in conflict with Israel. During the 1948 war, Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1950, which Israel continued to claim. Emigration of Palestinian Christians lowered the Christian population as in Israel. After the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel controlled the disputed area into the twentyfirst century. The Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace in 1994 brought contempt from Arab nations and Muslim extremists. In 2005 Al-Qaeda, a Muslim extremist organization, coordinated explosions in three hotels in Amman. In the early twenty-first century, nearly all Jordanians were Muslim, with Christians representing about 4 percent of the population, many of whom were Orthodox. Syria became a French mandate after World War I. Many refugees arrived, and Christianity grew among them. Protestants more than doubled between World War I and World War II. Syria became independent in 1945 and was briefly a part of the United Arab Republic with Egypt from 1958 to 1961. The late twentieth century and early twenty-first century brought ongoing conflict, with extremist groups working in Syria and beyond, some emerging within Syria. Internal war displaced nearly eight million Syrians and killed nearly a half million. In the early twentieth century, about 10 percent of Syrians were Christians. The two largest denominations were the Eastern Orthodox Church of Antioch and the Melkite Catholic Church, followed by other Oriental Orthodox Churches, with few Protestants. In Lebanon, after World War I, Roman Catholics led Beirut University and a seminary for uniat churches. Lebanon declared its independence from the French in 1943. Over half of the population were Christians before World War II. Prosperity followed until civil war from 1975 to 1990, which included internal struggle for power, Syrian military occupation, and Israeli invasion to end Palestine Liberation Organization attacks on Israel from Lebanon. Political unrest left Lebanon ripe for other groups as well—for example, Hezbollah, a militant Shi’a Muslim organization, attacked Israel from Lebanon, leading to the Lebanon War in 2006. The religious situation in the early twenty-first century remained volatile, with over half the population Muslim (half Shi’a and half Sunni) and over 40 percent Christian (over half Maronite Catholic, and also including Greek Orthodox, Protestant, Melkite Catholic). In Turkey, the number of Christians diminished significantly after World War I. Nationalist revolutionaries controlled the government just before the war, opposing Islam, but also hoping to rid Turkey of Christians. During the war, scores of thousands of Greek and Armenian Christians were massacred or deported to Syria; other Christians were expelled. Roman Catholic and Protestant missionaries were therefore greatly reduced. Though partitioned after World War I, Turkey became a republic in 1923; the rest of the century was marked by internal conflict, military coups, and the struggle for control. By the early twentieth century, in this once-Christian country, Christians were about 2 percent of the population. Cyprus in 1900 was controlled by Great Britain, annexed in 1914, and made independent in 1960. Conflict between Greek and Turkish Cypriots continued—in 1974 Greeks attempted a coup, followed by invasion from Turkey, and thousands of Turks were displaced. The northern part of the island remained

492

A Global Church History

under dispute. In the early twenty-first century, nearly 80 percent of Cypriots were Orthodox, with virtually no other Christian groups present. In early nineteenth century Arabia, Christian missions remained very small, with some Protestant presence and even fewer Roman Catholics. By the early twenty-first century, Arabia was four nations, all primarily Muslim. The largest country, Saudi Arabia, was founded in 1932 by Abdulaziz bin Abdul Rahman (1875–1953, ruled 1932–53), known as Ibn Saud, who united four regions into a single kingdom. Yemen, the southwest part of Arabia, is the 1990 union of North Yemen (established 1962) and South Yemen (established 1967). Christianity traced to the fourth century, deterred severely by Islamic conquest in the seventh century. The early twenty-first century experienced unrest over poverty and unemployment, which led to civil war in 2017. In Oman, the southeast part of Arabia, the Omani Sultinate continued from the seventeenth century, and was reestablished in 1970. United Arab Emirates, on the Persia Gulf, became independent of British control in 1971. By the end of the twenty-first century, nearly no Saudis were Christian, though over a million foreign workers claimed to be Christian. Yemen had less than 1 percent Christians. Oman, however, was over 6 percent Christian, and United Arab Emirates nearly 13 percent. Iraq emerged as a British mandate after World War I; the kingdom was established in 1927 and made independent in 1932. After British re-occupation and withdrawal, revolution in 1958 produced a republic. The use of chemical weapons by Saddam Hussein (1937–2006, president 1979–2003) against Iran and later internal Iraqi foes, and his 1990 invasion of Kuwait, led to the First Gulf War in 1990 and the Second Gulf War 2003 by a United States led coalition. Internal conflicts followed, including land seizure by ISIL. By the early twenty-first century, just over one percent were Christians, nearly all from ancient Oriental Orthodox Churches. In Iran (formerly Persia), after World War I, many Christians were killed by Muslims, with Roman Catholicism being nearly wiped out. After World War I, Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, and Anglicans converted several from Islam. During World War II, Allied powers passed aid to Russia through Iran. British and American involvement in internal Iranian affairs brought increasing resentment toward the West. This culminated in the 1979 Revolution, which established Iran as an Islamic republic. In the early twenty-first century, Iran’s human rights record was exceptionally poor. Less than 1 percent were Christian. Afghanistan, just east of Iran, became a monarchy in 1919. A series of coups after the 1970s made Afghanistan a Soviet Union protected socialist state. Afghani tribal groups opposed foreign occupation, resulting in the Soviet-Afghan War in the 1980s. In the 1990s the fundamentalist Islamic group Taliban controlled most of the country, removed by a NATO-led coalition which remained until 2011. In the early twenty-first century, nearly all Afghanis were Muslim, with extremely few Christians. In India, the twentieth century saw slow growth among Christians in the early years. Over one million Indians served for Great Britain in World War I. After World War I, the non-violent movement of noncooperation sought to move India toward independence—Mohandas Gandhi (1869–1948), often called Mahatma Gandhi, grew to become the recognized leader. Between world wars, Roman Catholics doubled. Protestants tripled, primarily because Indian Christians increasingly led in evangelism and missions, and because depressed castes came in large numbers into Protestant churches. Russian Orthodox sent missionaries after World War I, with limited success. World War II reduced the number of Roman Catholics to less than half their prewar number.

Christianity in the Twentieth Century and Beyond

493

After World War II, India became an independent nation in 1947, with Pakistan as a separate nation. Less than 4 percent were Christians, but India remained open to missionary work. Previous ecumenical work among Protestants led to many mergers, including the Church of South India, which united several denominations in 1947 (see Doc. 4.24). By the late twentieth century, Protestant churches were growing rapidly, most often led by indigenous clergy. In addition to evangelism, church planting, outreach ministries included education at all levels, publishing, medical work, and efforts to improve life. Mother Teresa (1910–97), born Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu in Yugoslavia, became famous in Calcutta by working among lepers and others. In 1950 she founded the Missionaries of Charity, which spread to most countries of the world, working in multiple ministries to the “poorest of the poor,” sick, homeless, illiterate, unwed mothers, orphans, and others. She received a number of honors, including the 1979 Nobel Peace prize and 2016 canonization as a Roman Catholic saint. In the late twentieth century, indigenous churches continued their growth, and many missionaries came from other nations, especially the United States. Christianity expanded tremendously in northeast India, with rapid growth extending well into the early twenty-first century. Protestants embraced the lower castes and in some places grew rapidly, including Pentecostals. Though Christianity was India’s third largest religion by the early twenty-first century, Christians were just over 2 percent of the population. Christianity was strongest in the states of Kerala (in southwest India), Nagaland, Mizoram, and Meghalaya (in northeast India).

Figure 5.64  Mother Teresa.

494

A Global Church History

Pakistan became independent in 1947 under the leadership of Muhammad Ali Jinnah (1876–1948) as a nation for India’s Muslims, with West Pakistan northwest of India and East Pakistan northeast of India. The 1956 constitution made Pakistan an Islamic republic. Civil war in 1971 resulted in two countries, Pakistan (formerly West Pakistan) and Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan). By the early twenty-first century, the population of Pakistan was almost entirely Muslim, with less than 2 percent claiming to be Christians. In Bangladesh, Christians represented far fewer than 1 percent. Sri Lanka (formerly Ceylon) became independent of Great Britain in 1948. Between the world wars, Protestantism and Roman Catholicism grew modestly. In 1972, Buddhism was officially recognized as having the “foremost place,” which impacted other religions negatively. By the early twenty-first century, less than 10 percent of the population was Christian, mostly Roman Catholic. In Myanmar (formerly Burma) Roman Catholics and Protestants reported modest growth until World War II. When Japanese forces invaded in 1942, French and Italian missionaries were allowed to stay, but American and British missionaries left to avoid prison. Myanmar became independent in 1948; after a 1962 coup, the military controlled government. Because nationalism tended to focus on Buddhism, Christians often faced discrimination. In 1961, Buddhism became the state religion—others faced religious persecution, sometimes violent. By the early twenty-first century, about 7 percent were Christians. Malaysia became a nation in 1963, when territories united with the Federation of Malaya (independent 1957). Roman Catholics and Protestants grew significantly before World War II. Japanese forces invaded in 1942, virtually suspending missionary work. By the early twenty-first century, Christians represented nearly 10 percent of the population. Thailand (formerly Siam) continued to be primarily Buddhist, though Protestants and Roman Catholics experienced some growth after World War I. A 1932 coup made Siam a constitutional monarchy and changed the name to Thailand. Presbyterians and Baptists united in 1934 to form the Church of Christ in Siam. During World War II, Thailand sided with Japan—British and American missionaries were imprisoned, and missionary properties were confiscated. A 2014 coup left the government under control of the military. By the early twenty-first century, Christians were about 1 percent of the population. In French Indochina, Christianity experienced substantial growth after World War I, especially among Roman Catholics, who represented almost all of the Christians there. The Christian and Missionary Alliance arrived in 1911. Japan occupied Indochina during World War II. After the war, France granted independence to Laos (1949), Cambodia (1953) and Vietnam (1945). The following decades saw great military conflict between peoples and nations of the regions, and involving other nations. When northern Vietnam, long separate from southern Vietnam, embraced communism, the United States sent thousands of troops to support the government of South Vietnam. After nearly a decade of conflict, the United States withdrew in 1972; shortly thereafter Vietnam was reunited as a socialist republic. In 1975 the Lao monarchy was abolished and Laos became a socialist republic. Cambodia’s kingdom became a republic in 1970 and was soon overthrown by the communist group Khmer Rouge, whose ethnic cleansing under Pol Pot (1925–88, pr. min. 1976–79) killed two to three million Cambodians—during this period, religious institutions, including Christian churches, were violently persecuted. Vietnam invaded Cambodia in 1978, ending the genocide; Cambodia’s monarchy was restored in 1993.

Christianity in the Twentieth Century and Beyond

495

Christianity, already a small minority in the region, suffered throughout these conflicts. By the end of the twenty-first century, Christians were less than 1 percent in Cambodia, less than 2 percent in Laos, and over 8 percent in Vietnam (mostly Roman Catholic). China faced drastic change in the twentieth century and beyond. In 1911–12, the Xinhai Revolution ended the Qing dynasty, making China a republic, though in reality warlords controlled regions. In the late 1920s Chiang Kai-shek (1887–1975), whose wife Soong Mei-ling (1898–2003) was a Christian, gained control of China, though civil war with communists continued. His Vice Premier Feng Yuxiang (1882–1948) was a Christian warlord. Japanese aggression led to the Second SinoJapanese War (1937–45), part of World War II, in which about twenty million Chinese civilians died. China was on the winning side, but was devastated by World War II; civil war between the republic and the communists resumed. The Communist Party, under Mao Zedong (1893–1976), generally called Chairman Mao, gained control, beginning the People’s Republic of China in 1949. Still, opposing forces fought in western China in the 1950s. Chiang Kai-shek and his supporters fled to Taiwan, claiming to be the authentic Chinese government. Economic reforms produced famine. In 1966, Mao initiated the Cultural Revolution, in which many of the more educated Chinese were executed or intensely reeducated; this continued until Mao’s death in 1976. Economic reforms in the late twentieth century brought a mixed economy, with some open markets. In 1989, student protestors in Tiananmen Square were violently suppressed. By the early twenty-first century, China was thriving.

Figure 5.65  Chiang Kai-shek.

496

A Global Church History

Figure 5.66  Feng Yuxiang.

Between the world wars, Christianity grew in China. Russian Orthodox fleeing the Soviet regime came to Manchuria after 1917. Roman Catholics more than doubled between the world wars, though the Japanese invasion in 1937 brought much loss; as Japan took over China, many missionaries were imprisoned or repatriated. There were far fewer Protestants than Roman Catholics in this period. Protestant Christianity was increasingly considered a foreign religion—in 1922, persecution broke out against religion, primarily against British Protestant missions. But conversions continued, and Protestant adherents doubled, as authority was steadily transferred to indigenous Chinese leaders. Ecumenism led to denominational mergers—for example, in 1927 the Church of Christ in China, a merger of many Protestant churches, held its first general assembly. Many churches, however, did not participate in the mergers—conservatives in 1922, for example, formed the Bible Union of China. Communists forced missionaries out of areas they controlled. Japanese invasion resulted in imprisonment for missionaries after 1941. Nevertheless, Protestant churches grew during World War II, reaching four million (three million Roman Catholics, one million Protestants, fewer Orthodox). As Mao gained control of China, all foreign missionaries were expelled. In 1951 Christians willing to work with the government organized the Three-Self Patriotic Movement (self-propagation, selfgovernment, self-support—clearly rejecting foreign influence). Roman Catholics in turn formed the Catholic Patriotic Association, separate from non-Chinese Roman Catholics, including the Vatican. Teaching of religion was forbidden from 1964. Many Christian buildings were destroyed during the

Christianity in the Twentieth Century and Beyond

497

Cultural Revolution. Many fled to Hong Kong, where Christianity flourished. Still, China experienced rapid Christian growth, though many would not declare this openly. Churches not registered with the government, “house churches,” flourished throughout China, both urban and rural, including a number of indigenous Pentecostal churches. Many Chinese began to see Christianity as an authentically Chinese rather than a foreign religion. Well known because of his publications was Watchman Nee (Ni Tuosheng, 1903–72), who in 1922 founded the Assembly Hall, or Little Flock, movement. Emphasizing that they were Chinese Christians, not foreign, they focused on personal spirituality and piety, and embraced Pentecostal practices such as healing and glossolalia. Arrested in 1952 for refusing to cooperate with the communists, he spent twenty years in prison, where he converted guards who smuggled his writings for publication. He died in 1972 after his release. By the early twenty-first century, over three-fifths of Chinese self-identified as “convinced atheist.” Reported numbers of Christians vastly differed, depending on who reported, because many Christians chose not to identify themselves publicly. Government policy allowed membership only in governmentregistered churches, but the hundreds of “house churches” which refused to register were thought to represent the majority of Chinese Christians. The two largest registered churches claimed twenty-six million members. Several independent surveys reported that between 2 and 4 percent of the population were Christians, mostly Protestants. Pew Forum in 2010 estimated over 67 million Christians in China— 35 million independent Protestants, 23 million registered Protestants, 9 million Roman Catholics, and 20,000 Orthodox. Others reported well over 100 million Chinese Protestants, growing nearly 10 percent each year.

Figure 5.67  Watchman Nee (Ni Tuosheng).

498

A Global Church History

Hong Kong was a British territory throughout the twentieth century, until the transfer of sovereignty to China in 1997. By the early twenty-first century, Christians represented well over 10 percent of the population, with more Protestants than Roman Catholics. Taiwan (formerly Formosa), entered the nineteenth century as part of Japan, but was returned to China after World War II. During the war, British and Canadian missionaries were forced to leave. Christianity grew considerably after the arrival of Chiang Kai-shek and followers in 1949. Missionaries of several denominations worked on Taiwan. By the early twenty-first century, Taiwan remained under dispute—China claimed sovereignty under its one-China policy, yet the Taiwanese were unwilling to embrace that policy. Christians represented nearly 4 percent of the population. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, Tibet’s population was well under 1 percent Christian, and Nepal’s well over 1 percent. Japan was at war most of the first half of the twentieth century—World War I as part of the Allied forces, occupation forces after the war, invasion of Manchuria in 1931, conflict with China leading up to World War II, aggressive invasions in World War II as part of the Axis powers. In the 1930s, Japanese reaction against the West mounted. World War II ended shortly after the United States employed nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. After World War II, under protection of the United States, Japan’s economy flourished. After 1900, many Japanese converted to Protestant Christianity. Most successful methods were education, literature, benevolent work, and medical work. Between the world wars, both Roman Catholics and Protestants doubled, Protestants outnumbering Roman Catholics nearly two to one. In the 1930s, Japanese nationalists in the military wanted to drive Roman Catholics from Japan, but this

Figure 5.68  Peter Tatsuo Doi.

Christianity in the Twentieth Century and Beyond

499

Figure 5.69  Toyohiko Kagawa.

subsided as native Japanese became priests, bishops, and even archbishop—Peter Tatsuo Doi (1892– 1970, abp. 1937–70) became archbishop of Tokyo in 1937. Protestant missionaries also progressively transferred authority to Japanese leaders. Russian Orthodox were also present, but small in number. In 1928 the Kingdom of God Movement combined most Protestants under the leadership of Toyohiko Kagawa (1888–1960), a pacifist and evangelist who worked in several areas to help the poor. By 1940 nearly all Christian leadership positions in Japan were held by Japanese Christians. In 1941, most Protestant groups formed the ecumenical Nihon Kirisuto Kyo ¯dan (United Church of Christ in Japan), generally referred to simply as Kyo ¯dan. During World War II American and British missionaries were imprisoned or repatriated, but Japanese Christians continued to evangelize. The nuclear bombing of Nagasaki devastated Roman Catholics in the region, who later understood God to be answering their prayers for peace by making them a peace offering. After the war, multiple denominations sent missionaries to Japan, mostly from the United States. Many groups left Kyo ¯dan to reestablish denominational distinctives. Allied occupation ended in 1952. In 1967, Kyo ¯dan issued a confession sharing responsibility for World War II. By the early twenty-first century, Christians were more than 2 percent of Japan’s population, represented in size by Protestants, then Roman Catholics, then Orthodox. Over 5 percent of Japanese living in Nagasaki were Christians, and over 3 percent in Tokyo. Korea had been proclaimed an empire in 1897, lasting until 1910, when Japan annexed Korea by treaty. Japanese occupation was brutal. Christians refusing to participate in Shinto rituals were martyred. From 1939, Japanese drafted over five million Koreans into forced labor and tens of thousands into Japan’s military; many women were forced into sexual slavery for Japanese soldiers. After World War II, the northern half of Korea was administered by the Soviet Union, and the southern half by the United States—by 1948 there were two Korean governments. After the Korean War (1950–53), allied forces led by the United States and Chinese forces settled on the original thirty-eighth parallel line as the division between the two countries. Tensions between North and South Korea, and often their allies, continued into the twenty-first century.

500

A Global Church History

Figure 5.70  Gil Seon-ju.

The first half of the twentieth century saw rapid growth of Roman Catholics and Protestants (mostly Presbyterians and Methodists) in Korea, with some Orthodox growth as well. Christian grew extensively in Korea during the twentieth century and beyond. Russian Orthodox missionaries arrived in 1900. The Pyongyang Revival in 1907, also known as the Korean Awakening, led by Presbyterian minister Gil Seon-ju (1869–1935), also spelled Kil Sun-joo, sparked Protestant growth. The March 1st Movement for Korean independence in 1919 was closely connected with Protestantism—this contributed to Protestant growth. When Japan annexed Korea in 1910, they immediately persecuted Christians. This increased dramatically after 1937. All missionaries were ordered to leave in 1939, so by 1940 most Protestant missionaries had left the peninsula. Korean churches were forced into Kyo ¯dan. Roman Catholics, led primarily by Korean clergy, were not deeply affected in South Korea, and Russian Orthodox numbers were always small. Protestants, also led by Korean pastors, also grew, and were more numerous in the north. As Korean churches became self-supporting, Korean Christians gave generously, and ecumenism was strong. After World War II, North Korea disallowed missionaries and openly persecuted Christians, but Christianity grew rapidly in South Korea. By 1981, nearly one-fourth of South Koreans were Christians. By the early twenty-first century, nearly 30 percent of South Koreans were Christians; nearly three-fourths of Christians were Protestant. South Korea had the world’s largest congregation—the Yoido Full Gospel Church—a Pentecostal church affiliated with Assemblies of God, founded in 1973 under David Yonggi Cho (b. 1936). Located in Seoul, with satellite churches throughout the city and the region, the congregation in 2007 claimed over 800,000 members; in 2008, Young Hoon Lee (b. 1954) became senior pastor. South Korea’s second largest church, Yong Nak Presbyterian Church, founded in 1945 by Kyung-Chik Han (1902–2000), was much more traditional; in 2000 they had well over 60,000 members and had planted over 500 sister congregations. By the early twenty-first century, South Korea had nearly twenty thousand missionaries working overseas, second only to the United States.

Christianity in the Twentieth Century and Beyond

501

Russia expanded into Central Asia (modern Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan) rapidly after the sixteenth century and beyond. Much of the territory was Muslim. By the early twenty-first century, Armenian Christians living in Central Asia were primarily Armenian Apostolic, and Russians were primarily Russian Orthodox. Under the Soviets, Christians faced systematic persecution. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Protestant missionaries came from a variety of denominations. By the early twenty-first century, Christians represented about one-fourth of the population in Kazakhstan, under 20 percent in Kyrgyzstan, about 10 percent in Turkmenistan, and under 2 percent in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

Discussion questions 1 Given the rich Christian heritage in the Middle East and its current domination by Islamic leaders, how can Christians contribute to a healthy future there? 2 Who is your favorite twentieth-century Christian in Asia, and why? What country will play the most significant role in Christian history by the end of the twenty-first century? Why do you believe this?

Final thoughts By the late twentieth century, many third world leaders were calling for the end of missions. Some African Christian leaders, such as Presbyterian Church of East Africa moderator John G. Gatu ˜ (1925–2017) from Kenya, believed African Christians were equipped and numerically strong enough to sponsor African outreach programs by Africans, without missionary help. Many others such as Pius Wakatama (b. 1939) sought for missionaries to transform their thinking and to be more selective in their chosen ministries. Missionaries who remained tended to work alongside African church leaders more as partners. At the same time, third world Christians increased their own sending of missionaries dramatically—by the early twenty-first century, missionaries from South Korea to other parts of the world were about 20,000 in number. In the early twenty-first century, Christianity was the world’s largest religion, estimated at 2.1 to 2.4 billion Christians. Christian congregations could be found on every continent and in virtually every country. Over half of the world’s Christians were Roman Catholic, about 35 percent Protestant, and over 10 percent Orthodox. Europe, Latin America, and Africa each had over half a billion Christians. During the twentieth century, world Christianity grew from over half a billion to over nearly two billion Christians. The first two decades of the twenty-first century continued that growth, with world Christians estimated as high at over 2.3 billion.

Discussion questions 1 What do you believe will be the future of Christianity in the twenty-first century in Europe? North America? Latin America? Africa? Asia? Oceania and the Pacific islands? Why?

502

A Global Church History

2 Let’s revisit the spread and influence of the Pentecostal movement in the twentieth century. Describe the breadth of presence and influence of Pentecostals and charismatics beyond North America. In Latin America? In Africa, Asia, and Australia? Who is your favorite, or what is your favorite development, and why?

Chapter bibliography Bibliography for “Christianity in the 17th to 19th Centuries” and “Christianity in the 20th Century and Beyond” Ahlstrom, Sydney E. A Religious History of the American People. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1972. Cairns, Earle E. Christianity through the Centuries. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996. Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. “Status of Global Christianity, 2017, in the Context of 1900-2050”. Available at http:​//www​.gord​oncon​well.​edu/o​ckeng​a/res​earch​/docu​ments​/ Stat​usofG​lobal​Chris​tiani​ty201​7.pdf​. Central Intelligence Agency. The World Factbook, also known as the CIA World Factbook. https​://ww​w.cia​.gov/​libra​ry/ pu​blica​tions​/the-​world​-fact​book/​. Chidester, David. Christianity: A Global History. San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 2000. Cone, Steven D. Theology from the Great Tradition. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2018. Cooper, Derek. Introduction to World Christian History. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2016. Daughrity, Dyron B., and Athyal, Jesudas M. India. Understanding World Christianity. Ed. by Dyron B. Daughrity. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2016. Gaustad, Edwin S., and Noll, Mark A., eds. A Documentary History of Religion in America. 2 vols. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003. Gaustad, Edwin S., and Schmidt, Leigh. The Religious History of America: The Heart of the American Story from Colonial Times to Today. 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins, 2002. Irvin, Dale T., and Sunquist, Scott W. History of the World Christian Movement. New York: Orbis Books, 2001. Kollman, Paul, and Smedley, Cynthia Toms. Eastern Africa. Understanding World Christianity. Ed. by Dyron B. Daughrity. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2018. Latourette, Kenneth Scott. A History of the Expansion of Christianity. Vol. 3: Three Centuries of Advance. Vol. 4: The Great Century: Europe and the United States. Vol. 5: The Great Century: The Americas, Australasia, and Africa. Vol. 6: The Great Century: North Africa and Asia. Vol. 7: Advance through Storm. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1939, 1941, 1943, 1944, 1945. Latourette, Kenneth Scott. Christianity in a Revolutionary Age. Vol. 4: The Twentieth Century in Europe: The Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Churches. Vol. 5: The Twentieth Century Outside Europe: The Americas, the Pacific, Asia and Africa: The Emerging World Christian Community. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1958, 1959, 1961. Lodwick, Kathleen L. How Christianity Came to China: A Brief History. Understanding World Christianity. Ed. by Dyron B. Daughrity. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2016. MacCulloch, Diarmaid. Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years. New York: Penguin, 2009. McManners, John, ed. The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. Neill, Stephen. A History of Christian Missions. 2nd ed. Revised by Owen Chadwick. London: Penguin Books, 1986. Noll, Mark. A History of Christianity in the United States & Canada. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992.

Christianity in the Twentieth Century and Beyond

503

Pew Research Center. “The Changing Global Religious Landscape”. Pew Research Center, Washington DC, 2017. http:​//www​.pewf​orum.​org/2​017/0​4/05/​the-c​hangi​ng-gl​obal-​relig​ious-​lands​cape/​. Pew Research Center. “Religion in Latin America”. Pew Research Center, Washington DC, 2014. http:​//www​.pewf​ orum.​org/2​014/1​1/13/​relig​ion-i​n-lat​in-am​erica​/. Pew Research Center. “View World Profiles”. Pew-Templeton Global Religious Futures Project. Pew Research Center, Washington DC, 2016. http:​//www​.glob​alrel​igiou​sfutu​res.o​rg/co​untri​es. Simpson, Christopher Ben. Modern Christian Theology. London: Bloomsbury, 2016. Spickard, Paul R., and Cragg, Kevin M. A Global History of Christians. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1994. U. S. Department of State. “2008  Report on International Religious Freedom.” https​://ww​w.sta​te.go​v/j/d​rl/rl​s/irf​/ 2008​/inde​x.htm​. Walker, Williston, Norris, Richard A., Lotz, David W., and Handy, Robert T. A History of the Christian Church. 4th ed. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1985. See also the census reports of various countries.

504

Section II Documents of Christianity through the Ages Edited by Steven D. Cone



506

Chapter 1 Ancient

1.1  The Didache on Sacraments and Church Order (late 1st century) Chapter 6. Against False Teachers, and Food Offered to Idols See that no one cause you to err from this way of the Teaching, since apart from God it teaches you. For if you are able to bear all the yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect; but if you are not able, what you are able that do. And concerning food, bear what you are able; but against that which is sacrificed to idols be exceedingly on your guard; for it is the service of dead gods.

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

Chapter 8. Concerning Fasting and Prayer (the Lord’s Prayer) But let not your fasts be with the hypocrites; for they fast on the second and fifth day of the week; but fast on the fourth day and the Preparation (Friday). Neither pray as the hypocrites; but as the Lord commanded in His Gospel, thus pray: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done, as in heaven, so on earth. Give us today our daily (needful) bread, and forgive us our debt as we also forgive our debtors. And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one (or, evil); for Yours is the power and the glory forever. Thrice in the day thus pray.

Chapter 9. The Thanksgiving (Eucharist) Now concerning the Thanksgiving (Eucharist), thus give thanks. First, concerning the cup: We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David Your servant, which You made known to us through Jesus

508

A Global Church History

Your Servant; to You be the glory forever. And concerning the broken bread: We thank You, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory forever. 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 forever. 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.

Chapter 10. Prayer After Communion But after you are filled, thus give thanks: We thank You, holy Father, for Your holy name which You caused to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory forever. You, Master almighty, created all things for Your name’s sake; You gave food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to You; but to us You freely gave spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Your Servant. Before all things we thank You that You are mighty; to You be the glory forever. 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; for Yours is the power and the glory forever. Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God (Son) of David! If any one is holy, let him come; if any one is not so, let him repent. Maran atha. Amen. But permit the prophets to make Thanksgiving as much as they desire.

Chapter 11. Concerning Teachers, Apostles, and Prophets 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.

Ancient

509

Chapter 14. Christian Assembly on the Lord’s Day But every Lord’s day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.

Chapter 15. Bishops and Deacons; Christian Reproof Therefore, appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proven; 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; but to every one that acts amiss against another, let no one speak, nor let him hear anything from you until he repents. But your prayers and alms and all your deeds so do, as you have it in the Gospel of our Lord.

1.2  Pliny the Younger, “Christians in Bithynia” (c. 112) It is my invariable rule, Sir [that is, Caesar – ed.], to refer to you in all matters where I feel doubtful; for who is more capable of removing my scruples, or informing my ignorance? Having never been present at any trials concerning those who profess Christianity, I am unacquainted not only with the nature of their crimes, or the measure of their punishment, but how far it is proper to enter into an examination concerning them. Whether, therefore, any difference is usually made with respect to ages, or no distinction is to be observed between the young and the adult; whether repentance entitles them to a pardon, or, if a man has been once a Christian, it avails nothing to desist from his error; whether the very profession of Christianity, unattended with any criminal act, or only the crimes themselves inherent in the profession are punishable; on all these points I am in great doubt. In the meanwhile, the method I have observed towards those who have been brought before me as Christians is this: I asked them whether they were Christians; if they admitted it, I repeated the question twice, and threatened them with punishment; if they persisted, I ordered them to be at once punished: for I was persuaded, whatever the nature of their opinions might be, a contumacious and inflexible obstinacy certainly deserved correction. There were others also brought before me possessed with the same infatuation, but being Roman citizens, I directed them to be sent to Rome. They affirmed the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they met on a stated day before it was light, and addressed a form of prayer to Christ, as to a divinity, binding themselves by a solemn oath, not for the purposes of any wicked design, but never to commit any fraud, theft, or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble, to eat in common a harmless meal. From this custom, however, they desisted after the publication of my edict, by which, according to your commands, I forbade the meeting of any assemblies. After receiving this account, I judged it so much the more necessary to endeavour to

510

A Global Church History

extort the real truth, by putting two female slaves to the torture, who were said to officiate in their religious rites: but all I could discover was evidence of an absurd and extravagant superstition.

1.3  Clement of Rome, 1 Clement on Humility and Church Order (late 1st century) Chapter 36. All Blessings are Given to Us Through Christ. This is the way, beloved, in which we find our Saviour, even Jesus Christ, the High Priest of all our offerings, the defender and helper of our infirmity. By Him we look up to the heights of heaven. By Him we behold, as in a glass, His immaculate and most excellent visage. By Him are the eyes of our hearts opened. By Him our foolish and darkened understanding blossoms up anew towards His marvellous light. By Him the Lord has willed that we should taste of immortal knowledge, who, being the brightness of His majesty, is by so much greater than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For it is thus written, Who makes His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire. But concerning His Son the Lord spoke thus: You are my Son, today have I begotten You. Ask of me, and I will give You the heathen for Your inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Your possession. And again He says to Him, Sit at my right hand, until I make Your enemies Your footstool. But who are His enemies? All the wicked, and those who set themselves to oppose the will of God.

Chapter 38. Let the Members of the Church Submit Themselves, and No One Exalt Himself Above Another. Let our whole body, then, be preserved in Christ Jesus; and let every one be subject to his neighbour, according to the special gift bestowed upon him. Let the strong not despise the weak, and let the weak show respect unto the strong. Let the rich man provide for the wants of the poor; and let the poor man bless God, because He has given him one by whom his need may be supplied. Let the wise man display his wisdom, not by [mere] words, but through good deeds. Let the humble not bear testimony to himself, but leave witness to be borne to him by another. Let him that is pure in the flesh not grow proud of it, and boast, knowing that it was another who bestowed on him the gift of continence. Let us consider, then, brethren, of what matter we were made—who and what manner of beings we came into the world, as it were out of a sepulchre, and from utter darkness. He who made us and fashioned us, having prepared His bountiful gifts for us before we were born, introduced us into His world. Since, therefore, we receive all these things from Him, we ought for everything to give Him thanks; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Chapter 40. Let Us Preserve in the Church the Order Appointed by God. These things therefore being manifest to us, and since we look into the depths of the divine knowledge, it behooves us to do all things in [their proper] order, which the Lord has commanded us to perform at stated times. He has enjoined offerings [to be presented] and service to be performed [to Him], and that not thoughtlessly or irregularly, but at the appointed times and hours. Where and by whom He

Ancient

511

desires these things to be done, He Himself has fixed by His own supreme will, in order that all things, being piously done according to His good pleasure, may be acceptable unto Him. Those, therefore, who present their offerings at the appointed times, are accepted and blessed; for inasmuch as they follow the laws of the Lord, they sin not. For his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen.

Chapter 42. The Order of Ministers in the Church. The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.

Chapter 44. The Ordinances of the Apostles, that There Might Be No Contention Respecting the Priestly Office. Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.

1.4  Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans on Christ (c. 107) Chapter 1. Thanks to God for your faith I glorify God, even Jesus Christ, who has given you such wisdom. For I have observed that you are perfected in an immoveable faith, as if you were nailed to the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, both in the flesh and in the spirit, and are established in love through the blood of Christ, being fully persuaded

512

A Global Church History

with respect to our Lord, that He was truly of the seed of David according to the flesh, and the Son of God according to the will and power of God; that He was truly born of a virgin, was baptized by John, in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him; and was truly, under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, nailed [to the cross] for us in His flesh. Of this fruit we are by His divinely-blessed passion, that He might set up a standard, for all ages, through His resurrection, to all His holy and faithful, whether among Jews or Gentiles, in the one body of His Church.

Chapter 2. Christ’s true passion Now, He suffered all these things for our sakes, that we might be saved. And He suffered truly, even as also He truly raised up Himself, not, as certain unbelievers maintain, that He only seemed to suffer, as they themselves only seem to be [Christians]. And as they believe, so shall it happen unto them, when they shall be divested of their bodies, and be mere evil spirits.

Chapter 3. Christ was possessed of a body after His resurrection For I know that after His resurrection also He was still possessed of flesh, and I believe that He is so now. When, for instance, He came to those who were with Peter, He said to them, Lay hold, handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit. And immediately they touched Him, and believed, being convinced both by His flesh and spirit. For this cause also they despised death, and were found its conquerors. And after his resurrection He ate and drank with them, as being possessed of flesh, although spiritually He was united to the Father.

Chapter 4. Beware of these heretics I give you these instructions, beloved, assured that you also hold the same opinions [as I do]. But I guard you beforehand from those beasts in the shape of men, whom you must not only not receive, but, if it be possible, not even meet with; only you must pray to God for them, if by any means they may be brought to repentance, which, however, will be very difficult. Yet Jesus Christ, who is our true life, has the power of [effecting] this. But if these things were done by our Lord only in appearance, then am I also only in appearance bound. And why have I also surrendered myself to death, to fire, to the sword, to the wild beasts? But, [in fact,] he who is near to the sword is near to God; he that is among the wild beasts is in company with God; provided only he be so in the name of Jesus Christ. I undergo all these things that I may suffer together with Him, He who became a perfect man inwardly strengthening me.

1.5 Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans on Heresy and Church Leadership (c. 107) Chapter 6. Unbelievers in the blood of Christ shall be condemned Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels, and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur

Ancient

513

condemnation. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Let not [high] place puff any one up: for that which is worth all is faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred. But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty.

Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

Chapter 9. Honour the bishop Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness [of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil. Let all things, then, abound to you through grace, for you are worthy. You have refreshed me in all things, and Jesus Christ [shall refresh] you. You have loved me when absent as well as when present. May God recompense you, for whose sake, while you endure all things, you shall attain unto Him.

1.6  Justin Martyr, 1st Apology on Christ and Christian Worship (c. 155) Chapter 40. Christ’s advent foretold And hear how it was foretold concerning those who published His doctrine and proclaimed His appearance, the above-mentioned prophet and king speaking thus by the Spirit of prophecy Day unto

514

A Global Church History

day utters speech, and night unto night shows knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. Their voice has gone out into all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world. In the sun has He set His tabernacle, and he as a bridegroom going out of his chamber shall rejoice as a giant to run his course. And we have thought it right and relevant to mention some other prophetic utterances of David besides these; from which you may learn how the Spirit of prophecy exhorts men to live, and how He foretold the conspiracy which was formed against Christ by Herod the king of the Jews, and the Jews themselves, and Pilate, who was your governor among them, with his soldiers; and how He should be believed on by men of every race; and how God calls Him His Son, and has declared that He will subdue all His enemies under Him; and how the devils, as much as they can, strive to escape the power of God the Father and Lord of all, and the power of Christ Himself; and how God calls all to repentance before the day of judgment comes. These things were uttered thus: Blessed is the man who has not walked in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stood in the way of sinners, nor sat in the seat of the scornful: but his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in His law will he meditate day and night. And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of waters, which shall give his fruit in his season; and his leaf shall not wither, and whatsoever he does shall prosper. The ungodly are not so, but are like the chaff which the wind drives away from the face of the earth. Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the council of the righteous. For the Lord knows the way of the righteous; but the way of the ungodly shall perish. Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine new things? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against His Anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast their yoke from us. He that dwells in the heavens shall laugh at them, and the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall He speak to them in His wrath, and vex them in His sore displeasure. Yet have I been set by Him a King on Zion His holy hill, declaring the decree of the Lord. The Lord said to Me, You are My Son; this day have I begotten You. Ask of Me, and I shall give You the heathen for Your inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth as Your possession. You shall herd them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall You dash them in pieces. Be wise now, therefore, O you kings; be instructed, all you judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Embrace instruction, lest at any time the Lord be angry, and you perish from the right way, when His wrath has been suddenly kindled. Blessed are all they that put their trust in Him.

Chapter 61. Christian baptism I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their

Ancient

515

mothers’ wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, says the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if you refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord has spoken it. And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed.

Chapter 65. Administration of the sacraments But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to genoito [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

Chapter 66. Of the Eucharist And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as

516

A Global Church History

Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, This do in remembrance of Me, this is My body; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, This is My blood; and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

Chapter 67. Weekly worship of the Christians And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.

1.7 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, On the Gnostic Heresies (c. 180) Basilides again, that he may appear to have discovered something more sublime and plausible, gives an immense development to his doctrines. He sets forth that Nous was first born of the unborn father, that from him, again, was born Logos, from Logos Phronesis, from Phronesis Sophia and Dynamis, and from Dynamis and Sophia the powers, and principalities, and angels, whom he also calls the first; and that by them the first heaven was made. Then other powers, being formed by emanation from these, created another heaven similar to the first; and in like manner, when others, again, had been formed

Ancient

517

by emanation from them, corresponding exactly to those above them, these, too, framed another third heaven; and then from this third, in downward order, there was a fourth succession of descendants; and so on, after the same fashion, they declare that more and more principalities and angels were formed, and three hundred and sixty-five heavens. Wherefore the year contains the same number of days in conformity with the number of the heavens. Those angels who occupy the lowest heaven, that, namely, which is visible to us, formed all the things which are in the world, and made allotments among themselves of the earth and of those nations which are upon it. The chief of them is he who is thought to be the God of the Jews; and inasmuch as he desired to render the other nations subject to his own people, that is, the Jews, all the other princes resisted and opposed him. Wherefore all other nations were at enmity with his nation. But the father without birth and without name, perceiving that they would be destroyed, sent his own first-begotten Nous (he it is who is called Christ) to bestow deliverance on those who believe in him, from the power of those who made the world. He appeared, then, on earth as a man, to the nations of these powers, and wrought miracles. Wherefore he did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead; so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them. For since he was an incorporeal power, and the Nous (mind) of the unborn father, he transfigured himself as he pleased, and thus ascended to him who had sent him, deriding them, inasmuch as he could not be laid hold of, and was invisible to all. Those, then, who know these things have been freed from the principalities who formed the world; so that it is not incumbent on us to confess him who was crucified, but him who came in the form of a man, and was thought to be crucified, and was called Jesus, and was sent by the father, that by this dispensation he might destroy the works of the makers of the world. If any one, therefore, he declares, confesses the crucified, that man is still a slave, and under the power of those who formed our bodies; but he who denies him has been freed from these beings, and is acquainted with the dispensation of the unborn father. Salvation belongs to the soul alone, for the body is by nature subject to corruption. He declares, too, that the prophecies were derived from those powers who were the makers of the world, but the law was specially given by their chief, who led the people out of the land of Egypt. He attaches no importance to [the question regarding] meats offered in sacrifice to idols, thinks them of no consequence, and makes use of them without any hesitation; he holds also the use of other things, and the practice of every kind of lust, a matter of perfect indifference. These men, moreover, practise magic; and use images, incantations, invocations, and every other kind of curious art. Coining also certain names as if they were those of the angels, they proclaim some of these as belonging to the first, and others to the second heaven; and then they strive to set forth the names, principles, angels, and powers of the three hundred and sixty-five imagined heavens. They also affirm that the barbarous name in which the Saviour ascended and descended, is Caulacau. He, then, who has learned [these things], and known all the angels and their causes, is rendered invisible and incomprehensible to the angels and all the powers, even as Caulacau also was. And as the son was unknown to all, so must they also be known by no one; but while they know all, and pass through all, they themselves remain invisible and unknown to all; for, Do you, they say, know all, but let

518

A Global Church History

nobody know you. For this reason, persons of such a persuasion are also ready to recant [their opinions], yea, rather, it is impossible that they should suffer on account of a mere name, since they are like to all. The multitude, however, cannot understand these matters, but only one out of a thousand, or two out of ten thousand. They declare that they are no longer Jews, and that they are not yet Christians; and that it is not at all fitting to speak openly of their mysteries, but right to keep them secret by preserving silence.

1.8 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, On Salvation (c. 180) God showed himself, by the fall of man, as patient, benign, merciful, mighty to save. Man is therefore most ungrateful, if, unmindful of his own lot, and of the benefits held out to him, he do not acknowledge divine grace. Long-suffering therefore was God, when man became a defaulter, as foreseeing that victory which should be granted to him through the Word. For, when strength was made perfect in weakness, it showed the kindness and transcendent power of God. For as He patiently suffered Jonah to be swallowed by the whale, not that he should be swallowed up and perish altogether, but that, having been cast out again, he might be the more subject to God, and might glorify Him the more who had conferred upon him such an unhoped-for deliverance, and might bring the Ninevites to a lasting repentance, so that they should be converted to the Lord, who would deliver them from death, having been struck with awe by that portent which had been wrought in Jonah’s case, as the Scripture says of them … so also, from the beginning, did God permit man to be swallowed up by the great whale, who was the author of transgression, not that he should perish altogether when so engulphed; but, arranging and preparing the plan of salvation, which was accomplished by the Word, through the sign of Jonah, for those who held the same opinion as Jonah regarding the Lord, and who confessed, and said, I am a servant of the Lord, and I worship the Lord God of heaven, who has made the sea and the dry land. This was done that man, receiving an unhoped-for salvation from God, might rise from the dead, and glorify God, and repeat that word which was uttered in prophecy by Jonah: I cried by reason of my affliction to the Lord my God, and He heard me out of the belly of hell; and that he might always continue glorifying God, and giving thanks without ceasing, for that salvation which he has derived from Him, that no flesh should glory in the Lord’s presence; and that man should never adopt an opposite opinion with regard to God, supposing that the incorruptibility which belongs to him is his own naturally, and by thus not holding the truth, should boast with empty superciliousness, as if he were naturally like to God. This, therefore, was the object of the long-suffering of God, that man, passing through all things, and acquiring the knowledge of moral discipline, then attaining to the resurrection from the dead, and learning by experience what is the source of his deliverance, may always live in a state of gratitude to the Lord, having obtained from Him the gift of incorruptibility, that he might love Him the more; for he to whom more is forgiven, loves more: and that he may know himself, how mortal and weak he is; while he also understands respecting God, that He is immortal and powerful to such a degree as to confer immortality upon what is mortal, and eternity upon what is temporal; and may understand also the other

Ancient

519

attributes of God displayed towards himself, by means of which being instructed he may think of God in accordance with the divine greatness. For the glory of man is God, but His works are the glory of God; and the receptacle of all His wisdom and power is man. Just as the physician is proved by his patients, so is God also revealed through men. And therefore Paul declares, For God has concluded all in unbelief, that He may have mercy upon all; not saying this in reference to spiritual Æons, but to man, who had been disobedient to God, and being cast off from immortality, then obtained mercy, receiving through the Son of God that adoption which is accomplished by Himself. For he who holds, without pride and boasting, the true glory (opinion) regarding created things and the Creator, who is the Almighty God of all, and who has granted existence to all; [such an one,] continuing in His love and subjection, and giving of thanks, shall also receive from Him the greater glory of promotion, looking forward to the time when he shall become like Him who died for him, for He, too, was made in the likeness of sinful flesh, to condemn sin, and to cast it, as now a condemned thing, away beyond the flesh, but that He might call man forth into His own likeness, assigning him as [His own] imitator to God, and imposing on him His Father’s law, in order that he may see God, and granting him power to receive the Father; [being] the Word of God who dwelt in man, and became the Son of man, that He might accustom man to receive God, and God to dwell in man, according to the good pleasure of the Father. Men are possessed of free will, and endowed with the faculty of making a choice. It is not true, therefore, that some are by nature good, and others bad. This expression of our Lord, How often would I have gathered your children together, and you would not, set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free agent from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests (ad utendum sententia) of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will towards us is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves. … God therefore has given that which is good, as the apostle tells us in this Epistle, and they who work it shall receive glory and honour, because they have done that which is good when they had it in their power not to do it; but those who do it not shall receive the just judgment of God, because they did not work good when they had it in their power so to do. And not merely in works, but also in faith, has God preserved the will of man free and under his own control. … Now all such expressions demonstrate that man is in his own power with respect to faith. Since, then, this power has been conferred upon us, both the Lord has taught and the apostle has enjoined us the more to love God, that we may reach this [prize] for ourselves by striving after it. For otherwise, no doubt, this our good would be [virtually] irrational, because not the result of trial. ... The Lord has therefore endured all these things on our behalf, in order that we, having been instructed by means of them all, may be in all respects circumspect for the time to come, and that, having been rationally taught to love God, we may continue in His perfect love: for God has displayed long-suffering in the case of man’s apostasy; while man has been instructed by means of it, as also the prophet says, Your own apostasy shall heal you; God thus determining all things beforehand for the bringing of man to perfection, for his edification, and for the revelation of His dispensations, that goodness may both be made apparent, and righteousness perfected, and that the Church may be fashioned after the image

520

A Global Church History

of His Son, and that man may finally be brought to maturity at some future time, becoming ripe through such privileges to see and comprehend God.

1.9 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, On the Eucharist (c. 180) Concerning sacrifices and oblations, and those who truly offer them. Inasmuch, then, as the Church offers with single-mindedness, her gift is justly reckoned a pure sacrifice with God. As Paul also says to the Philippians, I am full, having received from Epaphroditus the things that were sent from you, the odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, pleasing to God. For it behooves us to make an oblation to God, and in all things to be found grateful to God our Maker, in a pure mind, and in faith without hypocrisy, in well-grounded hope, in fervent love, offering the first-fruits of His own created things. And the Church alone offers this pure oblation to the Creator, offering to Him, with giving of thanks, [the things taken] from His creation. But the Jews do not offer thus: for their hands are full of blood; for they have not received the Word, Who is offered to God. [The text here fluctuates between quod offertur Deo (“Who is offered to God”) and per quod offertur Deo (“through Whom it is offered to God”).] Nor, again, do any of the conventicles (synagogae) of the heretics [offer this]. For some, by maintaining that the Father is different from the Creator, do, when they offer to Him what belongs to this creation of ours, set Him forth as being covetous of another’s property, and desirous of what is not His own. Those, again, who maintain that the things around us originated from apostasy, ignorance, and passion, do, while offering unto Him the fruits of ignorance, passion, and apostasy, sin against their Father, rather subjecting Him to insult than giving Him thanks. But how can they be consistent with themselves, [when they say] that the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood, if they do not call Himself the Son of the Creator of the world, that is, His Word, through whom the wood fructifies, and the fountains gush forth, and the earth gives first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear. Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity. Now we make offering to Him, not as though He stood in need of it, but rendering thanks for His gift, and thus sanctifying what has been created. For even as God does not need our possessions, so do we need to offer something to God; as Solomon says: He that has pity upon the poor, lends unto the Lord. For God, who stands in need of nothing, takes our good works to Himself for this purpose, that He may grant us a recompense of His own good things, as our Lord says: Come, you blessed of My Father, receive the kingdom prepared for you. For I was an hungered, and you gave Me to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave Me drink: I was a stranger, and you took Me in: naked, and you clothed Me; sick,

Ancient

521

and you visited Me; in prison, and you came to Me. As, therefore, He does not stand in need of these [services], yet does desire that we should render them for our own benefit, lest we be unfruitful; so did the Word give to the people that very precept as to the making of oblations, although He stood in no need of them, that they might learn to serve God: thus is it, therefore, also His will that we, too, should offer a gift at the altar, frequently and without intermission. The altar, then, is in heaven (for towards that place are our prayers and oblations directed); the temple likewise [is there], as John says in the Apocalypse, And the temple of God was opened: the tabernacle also: For, behold, He says, the tabernacle of God, in which He will dwell with men.

1.10 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, On Scripture and Tradition (c. 180) Whosoever confesses that one God is the author of both Testaments, and diligently reads the Scriptures in company with the presbyters of the Church, is a true spiritual disciple; and he will rightly understand and interpret all that the prophets have declared respecting Christ and the liberty of the New Testament. True knowledge is that which consists in the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor suffering curtailment in the truths which she believes; and it consists in reading the word of God without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and above all, it consists in the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts of God.

1.11 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, On Salvation (c. 180) Christ alone is able to teach divine things, and to redeem us: He, the same, took flesh of the Virgin Mary, not merely in appearance, but actually, by the operation of the Holy Spirit, in order to renovate us. For in no other way could we have learned the things of God, unless our Master, existing as the Word, had become man. For no other being had the power of revealing to us the things of the Father, except His own proper Word. For what other person knew the mind of the Lord, or who else has become His counsellor? Again, we could have learned in no other way than by seeing our Teacher, and hearing His voice with our own ears, that, having become imitators of His works as well as doers of His words, we may have communion with Him, receiving increase from the perfect One, and from Him who is prior to all creation. We—who were but lately created by the only best and good Being, by Him also who has the gift of immortality, having been formed after His likeness (predestinated, according to the prescience of the Father, that we, who had as yet no existence, might come into being), and made the first-fruits of creation—have received, in the times known beforehand, the blessings of salvation according to the ministration of the Word, who is perfect in all things, as the mighty Word, and very man,

522

A Global Church History

who, redeeming us by His own blood in a manner consonant to reason, gave Himself as a redemption for those who had been led into captivity. And since the apostasy tyrannized over us unjustly, and, though we were by nature the property of the omnipotent God, alienated us contrary to nature, rendering us its own disciples, the Word of God, powerful in all things, and not defective with regard to His own justice, did righteously turn against that apostasy, and redeem from it His own property, not by violent means, as the apostasy had obtained dominion over us at the beginning, when it insatiably snatched away what was not its own, but by means of persuasion, as became a God of counsel, who does not use violent means to obtain what He desires; so that neither should justice be infringed upon, nor the ancient handiwork of God go to destruction. Since the Lord thus has redeemed us through His own blood, giving His soul for our souls, and His flesh for our flesh, and has also poured out the Spirit of the Father for the union and communion of God and man, imparting indeed God to men by means of the Spirit, and, on the other hand, attaching man to God by His own incarnation, and bestowing upon us at His coming immortality durably and truly, by means of communion with God—all the doctrines of the heretics fall to ruin.

1.12 Irenaeus, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching on the Rule of Faith (late 2nd century) Thus then there is shown forth One God, the Father, not made, invisible, creator of all things; above whom there is no other God, and after whom there is no other God. And, since God is rational, therefore by the Word He created the things that were made; and God is Spirit, and by the Spirit He adorned all things: as also the prophet says: By the word of the Lord were the heavens established, and by his spirit all their power. Since then the Word establishes, that is to say, gives body and grants the reality of being, and the Spirit gives order and form to the diversity of the powers; rightly and fittingly is the Word called the Son, and the Spirit the Wisdom of God. Well also does Paul His apostle say: One God, the Father, who is over all and through all and in its all. For over all is the Father; and through all is the Son, for through Him all things were made by the Father; and in us all is the Spirit, who cries Abba Father, and fashions man into the likeness of God. Now the Spirit shows forth the Word, and therefore the prophets announced the Son of God; and the Word utters the Spirit, and therefore is Himself the announcer of the prophets, and leads and draws man to the Father. This then is the order of the rule of our faith, and the foundation of the building, and the stability of our conversation: God, the Father, not made, not material, invisible; one God, the creator of all things: this is the first point of our faith. The second point is: The Word of God, Son of God, Christ Jesus our Lord, who was manifested to the prophets according to the form of their prophesying and according to the method of the dispensation of the Father: through whom all things were made; who also at the end of the times, to complete and gather up all things, was made man among men, visible and tangible, in order to abolish death and show forth life and produce a community of union between God and man. And the third point is: The Holy Spirit, through whom the prophets prophesied, and the fathers learned the things of God, and the righteous were led forth into the way of righteousness; and who in the end of the times was poured out in a new way a upon mankind in all the earth, renewing man unto God.

Ancient

523

And for this reason the baptism of our regeneration proceeds through these three points: God the Father bestowing on us regeneration through His Son by the Holy Spirit. For as many as carry (in them) the Spirit of God are led to the Word, that is to the Son; and the Son brings them to the Father; and the Father causes them to possess incorruption. Without the Spirit it is not possible to behold the Word of God, nor without the Son can any draw near to the Father for the knowledge of the Father is the Son, and the knowledge of the Son of God is through the Holy Spirit; and, according to the good pleasure of the Father, the Son ministers and dispenses the Spirit to whomsoever the Father wills and as He wills. Now this God is glorified by His Word who is His Son continually, and by the Holy Spirit who is the Wisdom of the Father of all: and the power(s) of these, namely of the Word and Wisdom, which are called Cherubim and Seraphim, with unceasing voices glorify God; and every created thing that is in the heavens offers glory to God the Father of all. He by His Word has created the whole world, and in the world are the angels; and to all the world He has given laws wherein each several thing should abide, and according to that which is determined by God should not pass their bounds, each fulfilling his appointed task. But man He formed with His own hands, taking from the earth that which was purest and finest, and mingling in measure His own power with the earth. For He traced His own form on the formation, that that which should be seen should be of divine form: for as the image of God was man formed and set on the earth. And that he might become living, He breathed on his face the breath of life; that both for the breath and for the formation man should be like unto God. Moreover he was free and self-controlled, being made by God for this end, that he might rule all those things that were upon the earth. And this great created world, prepared by God before the formation of man, was given to man as his place, containing all things within itself. And there were in this place also with their tasks the servants of that God who formed all things; and the steward, who was set over all his fellow servants received this place. Now the servants were angels, and the steward was the archangel. Now, having made man lord of the earth and all things in it, He secretly appointed him lord also of those who were servants in it. They however were in their perfection; but the lord, that is, man, was but small; for he was a child; and it was necessary that he should grow, and so come to his perfection. And, that he might have his nourishment and growth with festive and dainty meats, He prepared him a place better than this world, excelling in air, beauty, light, food, plants, fruit, water, and all other necessaries of life, and its name is Paradise. And so fair and good was this Paradise, that the Word of God continually resorted thither, and walked and talked with the man, figuring beforehand the things that should be in the future, (namely) that He should dwell with him and talk with him, and should be with men, teaching them righteousness. But man was a child, not yet having his understanding perfected; wherefore also he was easily led astray by the deceiver. But, lest man should conceive thoughts too high, and be exalted and uplifted, as though he had no lord, because of the authority and freedom granted to him, and so should transgress against his maker God, overpassing his measure, and entertain selfish imaginings of pride in opposition to God; a law was given to him by God, in order that he might perceive that he had as lord the Lord of all. And He set him certain limitations, so that, if he should keep the commandment of God, he should ever remain such as he was, that is to say, immortal; but, if he should not keep it, he should become mortal and be dissolved to earth from whence his formation had been taken. Now the commandment was

524

A Global Church History

this: Of every tree that is in the Paradise thou shalt freely eat; but of that tree alone from which is the knowledge of good and evil, of it thou shalt not eat; for in the day thou eatest, thou shalt surely die. This commandment the man kept not, but was disobedient to God, being led astray by the angel who, for the great gifts of God which He had given to man, was envious and jealous of him, and both brought himself to nought and made man sinful, persuading him to disobey the commandment of God. So the angel, becoming by his falsehood the author and originator of sin, himself was struck down, having offended against God, and man he caused to be cast out from Paradise. And, because through the guidance of his disposition he apostatized and departed from God, he was called Satan, according to the Hebrew word; that is, Apostate: but he is also called Slanderer. Now God cursed the serpent which carried and conveyed the Slanderer; and this malediction came on the beast himself and on the angel hidden and concealed in him, even on Satan; and man He put away from His presence, removing him and making him to dwell on the way to Paradise at that time; because Paradise receiveth not the sinful.

1.13  The Martyrdom of Polycarp (late 2nd or early 3rd century) The subject of which we write: We have written to you, brethren, as to what relates to the martyrs, and especially to the blessed Polycarp, who put an end to the persecution, having, as it were, set a seal upon it by his martyrdom. For almost all the events that happened previously [to this one], took place that the Lord might show us from above a martyrdom becoming the Gospel. For he waited to be delivered up, even as the Lord had done, that we also might become his followers, while we look not merely at what concerns ourselves but have regard also to our neighbours. For it is the part of a true and well-founded love, not only to wish one’s self to be saved, but also all the brethren.

The departure and vision of Polycarp: But the most admirable Polycarp, when he first heard [that he was sought for], was in no measure disturbed, but resolved to stay in the city. However, in deference to the wish of many, he was persuaded to leave it. He departed, therefore, to a country house not far distant from the city. There he stayed with a few [friends], engaged in nothing else night and day than praying for all men, and for the Churches throughout the world, according to his usual custom. And while he was praying, a vision presented itself to him three days before he was taken; and, behold, the pillow under his head seemed to him on fire. Upon this, turning to those that were with him, he said to them prophetically, I must be burnt alive.

Polycarp refuses to revile Christ: Now, as Polycarp was entering into the stadium, there came to him a voice from heaven, saying, Be strong, and show yourself a man, O Polycarp! No one saw who it was that spoke to him; but those of our brethren who were present heard the voice. And as he was brought forward, the tumult became great when they heard that Polycarp was taken. And when he came near, the proconsul asked him

Ancient

525

whether he was Polycarp. On his confessing that he was, [the proconsul] sought to persuade him to deny [Christ], saying, Have respect to your old age, and other similar things, according to their custom, [such as], Swear by the fortune of Cæsar; repent, and say, Away with the Atheists. But Polycarp, gazing with a stern countenance on all the multitude of the wicked heathen then in the stadium, and waving his hand towards them, while with groans he looked up to heaven, said, Away with the Atheists. Then, the proconsul urging him, and saying, Swear, and I will set you at liberty, reproach Christ; Polycarp declared, Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me any injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and my Saviour?

1.14  The Muratorian Canon (probably late 2nd century) 1. ...those things at which he was present he placed thus. The third book of the Gospel, that according to Luke, the well-known physician Luke wrote in his own name in order after the ascension of Christ, and when Paul had associated him with himself as one studious of right. Nor did he himself see the Lord in the flesh; and he, according as he was able to accomplish it, began his narrative with the nativity of John. The fourth Gospel is that of John, one of the disciples. When his fellow-disciples and bishops entreated him, he said, “Fast ye now with me for the space of three days, and let us recount to each other whatever may be revealed to each of us.” On the same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that John should narrate all things in his own name as they called them to mind. And hence, although different points are taught us in the several books of the Gospels, there is no difference as regards the faith of believers, inasmuch as in all of them all things are related under one imperial Spirit, which concern the Lord’s nativity, His passion, His resurrection, His conversation with His disciples, and His twofold advent, -the first in the humiliation of rejection, which is now past, and the second in the glory of royal power, which is yet in the future. What marvel is it, then, that John brings forward these several things so constantly in his epistles also, saying in his own person, “What we have seen with our eyes, and heard with our ears, and our hands have handled, that have we written.” For thus he professes himself to be not only the eye-witness, but also the hearer; and besides that, the historian of all the wondrous facts concerning the Lord in their order. Moreover, the Acts of all the Apostles are comprised by Luke in one book, and addressed to the most excellent Theophilus, because these different events took place when he was present himself; and he shows this clearly-i.e., that the principle on which he wrote was, to give only what fell under his own notice-by the omission of the passion of Peter, and also of the journey of Paul, when he went from the city-Rome-to Spain. As to the epistles of Paul, again, to those who will understand the matter, they indicate of themselves what they are, and from what place or with what object they were directed. He wrote first of all, and at considerable length, to the Corinthians, to check the schism of heresy; and then to the Galatians, to forbid circumcision; and then to the Romans on the rule of the Old Testament Scriptures, and also to show them that Christ is the first object in these; -which it is needful for us to discuss severally, as the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more

526

A Global Church History

than seven churches by name, in this order: the first to the Corinthians, the second to the Ephesians, the third to the Philippians, the fourth to the Colossians, the fifth to the Galatians, the sixth to the Thessalonians, the seventh to the Romans. Moreover, though he writes twice to the Corinthians and Thessalonians for their correction, it is yet shown-i.e., by this sevenfold writing-that there is one Church spread abroad through the whole world. And John too, indeed, in the Apocalypse, although he writes only to seven churches, yet addresses all. He wrote, besides these, one to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy, in simple personal affection and love indeed; but yet these are hallowed in the esteem of the Catholic Church, and in the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline. There are also in circulation one to the Laodiceans, and another to the Alexandrians, forged under the name of Paul, and addressed against the heresy of Marcion; and there are also several others which cannot be received into the Catholic Church, for it is not suitable for gall to be mingled with honey. The Epistle of Jude, indeed, and two belonging to the above-named John-or bearing the name of John-are reckoned among the Catholic epistles. And the book of Wisdom, written by the friends of Solomon in his honour. We receive also the Apocalypse of John and that of Peter, though some amongst us will not have this latter read in the Church. The Pastor, moreover, did Hermas write very recently in our times in the city of Rome, while his brother bishop Pius sat in the chair of the Church of Rome. And therefore it also ought to be read; but it cannot be made public in the Church to the people, nor placed among the prophets, as their number is complete, nor among the apostles to the end of time. Of the writings of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Miltiades, we receive nothing at all. Those are rejected too who wrote the new Book of Psalms for Marcion, together with Basilides and the founder of the Asian Cataphrygians.

1.15  Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus on Human Nature (late 2nd century) But some one will say to us, Was man made by nature mortal? Certainly not. Was he, then, immortal? Neither do we affirm this. But one will say, Was he, then, nothing? Not even this hits the mark. He was by nature neither mortal nor immortal. For if He had made him immortal from the beginning, He would have made him God. Again, if He had made him mortal, God would seem to be the cause of his death. Neither, then, immortal nor yet mortal did He make him, but, as we have said above, capable of both; so that if he should incline to the things of immortality, keeping the commandment of God, he should receive as reward from Him immortality, and should become God; but if, on the other hand, he should turn to the things of death, disobeying God, he should himself be the cause of death to himself. For God made man free, and with power over himself. That, then, which man brought upon himself through carelessness and disobedience, this God now vouchsafes to him as a gift through His own philanthropy and pity, when men obey Him. For as man, disobeying, drew death upon himself; so, obeying the will of God, he who desires is able to procure for himself life everlasting. For God has given us a law and holy commandments; and every one who keeps these can be saved, and, obtaining the resurrection, can inherit incorruption.

Ancient

527

1.16  Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata on Philosophy (late 2nd or early 3rd century) Chapter 5. Philosophy the Handmaid of Theology Accordingly, before the advent of the Lord, philosophy was necessary to the Greeks for righteousness. And now it becomes conducive to piety; being a kind of preparatory training to those who attain to faith through demonstration. For your foot, it is said, will not stumble, if you refer what is good, whether belonging to the Greeks or to us, to Providence. For God is the cause of all good things; but of some primarily, as of the Old and the New Testament; and of others by consequence, as philosophy. Perchance, too, philosophy was given to the Greeks directly and primarily, till the Lord should call the Greeks. For this was a schoolmaster (paidagogos) to bring the Hellenic mind, as the law, the Hebrews, to Christ. Philosophy, therefore, was a preparation, paving the way for him who is perfected in Christ.

1.17 Tertullian, Prescription against Heretics, on Philosophy (late 2nd or early 3rd century) These are the doctrines of men and of demons produced for itching ears of the spirit of this world’s wisdom: this the Lord called foolishness, and chose the foolish things of the world to confound even philosophy itself. For philosophy it is which is the material of the world’s wisdom, the rash interpreter of the nature and the dispensation of God. Indeed heresies are themselves instigated by philosophy. From this source came the Æons, and I known not what infinite forms, and the trinity of man in the system of Valentinus, who was of Plato’s school. From the same source came Marcion’s better god, with all his tranquillity; he came of the Stoics. Then, again, the opinion that the soul dies is held by the Epicureans; while the denial of the restoration of the body is taken from the aggregate school of all the philosophers; also, when matter is made equal to God, then you have the teaching of Zeno; and when any doctrine is alleged touching a god of fire, then Heraclitus comes in. The same subject-matter is discussed over and over again by the heretics and the philosophers; the same arguments are involved. Whence comes evil? Why is it permitted? What is the origin of man? And in what way does he come? Besides the question which Valentinus has very lately proposed—Whence comes God? Which he settles with the answer: From enthymesis and ectroma. Unhappy Aristotle! Who invented for these men dialectics, the art of building up and pulling down; an art so evasive in its propositions, so far-fetched in its conjectures, so harsh, in its arguments, so productive of contentions—embarrassing even to itself, retracting everything, and really treating of nothing! .... What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? What between heretics and Christians? Our instruction comes from the porch of Solomon, who had himself taught that the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart. Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the gospel! With our faith, we desire no further belief. For this is our palmary faith, that there is nothing which we ought to believe besides.

528

A Global Church History

1.18 Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, On Creation (late 2nd or early 3rd century) Our very bad painter [Hermogenes] has colored this his primary shade absolutely without any light, with such arguments as these: He begins with laying down the premiss, that the Lord made all things either out of Himself, or out of nothing, or out of something; in order that, after he has shown that it was impossible for Him to have made them either out of Himself or out of nothing, he might thence affirm the residuary proposition that He made them out of something, and therefore that that something was [preexisting] Matter. … [Hermogenes] accordingly concludes that God made nothing out of Himself, since He never passed into such a condition as made it possible for Him to make anything out of Himself. In like manner, he contends that He could not have made all things out of nothing—thus: He defines the Lord as a being who is good, nay, very good, who must will to make things as good and excellent as He is Himself; indeed it were impossible for Him either to will or to make anything which was not good, nay, very good itself. Therefore all things ought to have been made good and excellent by Him, after His own condition. Experience shows, however, that things which are even evil were made by Him: not, of course, of His own will and pleasure; because, if it had been of His own will and pleasure, He would be sure to have made nothing unfitting or unworthy of Himself. That, therefore, which He made not of His own will must be understood to have been made from the fault of something, and that is from Matter, without a doubt. [Hermogenes] adds also another point: that as God was always God, there was never a time when God was not also Lord. But it was in no way possible for Him to be regarded as always Lord, in the same manner as He had been always God, if there had not been always, in the previous eternity, a something of which He could be regarded as evermore the Lord. So he concludes that God always had Matter co-existent with Himself as the Lord thereof. …[On the contrary] We affirm, then, that the name of God always existed with Himself and in Himself—but not eternally so the Lord. Because the condition of the one [term] is not the same as that of the other. God is the designation of the substance itself, that is, of the Divinity; but Lord is (the name) not of substance, but of power. I maintain that the substance existed always with its own name, which is God; the title Lord was afterwards added, as the indication indeed of something accruing. For from the moment when those things began to exist, over which the power of a Lord was to act, God, by the accession of that power, both became Lord and received the name thereof.

1.19 Tertullian, Against Praxeas, On Christ (late 2nd or early 3rd century) But why should I linger over matters which are so evident, when I ought to be attacking points on which they seek to obscure the plainest proof? For, refuted on all sides about the distinction between the Father and the Son, which we maintain without destroying their inseparable union—as by the examples of the sun and the ray, and the fountain and the river—yet, by help of their conceit … they endeavour to interpret this distinction in a way which shall nevertheless tally with their own opinions: so that, all in

Ancient

529

one Person, they distinguish two, Father and Son, understanding the Son to be flesh, that is man, that is Jesus; and the Father to be spirit, that is God, that is Christ. Thus they, while contending that the Father and the Son are one and the same, do in fact begin by dividing them rather than uniting them. For if Jesus is one, and Christ is another, then the Son will be different from the Father, because the Son is Jesus, and the Father is Christ. … The Word, therefore, is incarnate; and this must be the point of our inquiry: How the Word became flesh—whether it was by having been transformed, as it were, into flesh, or by having really clothed Himself in flesh. Certainly it was by a real clothing of Himself in flesh. For the rest, we must believe God to be unchangeable, and incapable of form, as being eternal. But transformation is the destruction of that which previously existed. For whatsoever is transformed into some other thing ceases to be that which it had been, and begins to be that which it previously was not. God, however, neither ceases to be what He was, nor can He be any other thing than what He is. The Word is God, and the Word of the Lord remains for ever,—even by holding on unchangeably in His own proper form. Now, if He admits not of being transfigured, it must follow that He be understood in this sense to have become flesh, when He comes to be in the flesh, and is manifested, and is seen, and is handled by means of the flesh; since all the other points likewise require to be thus understood. For if the Word became flesh by a transformation and change of substance, it follows at once that Jesus must be a substance fused together from two substances—of flesh and spirit—a kind of mixture, like electrum, composed of gold and silver; and it begins to be neither gold (that is to say, spirit) nor silver (that is to say, flesh)—the one being changed by the other, and a third substance (tertium quid) produced. Jesus, therefore, cannot at this rate be God for He has ceased to be the Word, which was made flesh; nor can He be Man incarnate for He is not properly flesh, and it was flesh which the Word became. Being compounded, therefore, of both, He actually is neither; He is rather some third substance, very different from either. But the truth is, we find that He is expressly set forth as both God and Man; … certainly in all respects as the Son of God and the Son of Man, being God and Man, differing no doubt according to each substance in its own special property, inasmuch as the Word is nothing else but God, and the flesh nothing else but Man. ... We see plainly the twofold state, which is not confounded, but conjoined in One Person— Jesus, God and Man.

1.20 Origen, On First Principles, On Creation (c. 220-230) By matter, therefore, we understand that which is placed under bodies, namely, that by which, through the bestowing and implanting of qualities, bodies exist …. Although this matter is, as we have said above, according to its own proper nature without qualities, it is never found to exist without a quality. And I cannot understand how so many distinguished men have been of opinion that this matter, which is so great, and possesses such properties as to enable it to be sufficient for all the bodies in the world which God willed to exist, and to be the attendant and slave of the Creator for whatever forms and species He wished in all things, receiving into itself whatever qualities He desired to bestow upon it, was uncreated, i.e., not formed by God Himself, who is the Creator of all things, but that its nature and power were the result of chance. And I am astonished that they should

530

A Global Church History

find fault with those who deny either God’s creative power or His providential administration of the world, and accuse them of impiety for thinking that so great a work as the world could exist without an architect or overseer; while they themselves incur a similar charge of impiety in saying that matter is uncreated, and co-eternal with the uncreated God. According to this view, then, if we suppose for the sake of argument that matter did not exist, as these maintain, saying that God could not create anything when nothing existed, without doubt He would have been idle, not having matter on which to operate, which matter they say was furnished Him not by His own arrangement, but by accident; and they think that this, which was discovered by chance, was able to suffice Him for an undertaking of so vast an extent, and for the manifestation of the power of His might, and by admitting the plan of all His wisdom, might be distinguished and formed into a world. Now this appears to me to be very absurd, and to be the opinion of those men who are altogether ignorant of the power and intelligence of uncreated nature. But that we may believe in the authority of holy Scripture that such is the case, hear how in the book of Maccabees, where the mother of seven martyrs exhorts her son to endure torture, this truth is confirmed; for she says, I ask of you, my son, to look at the heaven and the earth, and at all things which are in them, and beholding these, to know that God made all these things when they did not exist. In the book of the Shepherd also, in the first commandment, he speaks as follows: First of all believe that there is one God who created and arranged all things, and made all things to come into existence, and out of a state of nothingness. Perhaps also the expression in the Psalms has reference to this: He spoke, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created. For the words, He spoke, and they were made, appear to show that the substance of those things which exist is meant; while the others, He commanded, and they were created, seem spoken of the qualities by which the substance itself has been moulded. If, however, it is impossible for this point to be at all maintained, namely, that any other nature than the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can live without a body, the necessity of logical reasoning compels us to understand that rational natures were indeed created at the beginning, but that material substance was separated from them only in thought and understanding, and appears to have been formed for them, or after them, and that they never have lived nor do live without it; for an incorporeal life will rightly be considered a prerogative of the Trinity alone. As we have remarked above, therefore, that material substance of this world, possessing a nature admitting of all possible transformations, is, when dragged down to beings of a lower order, moulded into the crasser and more solid condition of a body, so as to distinguish those visible and varying forms of the world; but when it becomes the servant of more perfect and more blessed beings, it shines in the splendour of celestial bodies, and adorns either the angels of God or the sons of the resurrection with the clothing of a spiritual body, out of all which will be filled up the diverse and varying state of the one world. But if any one should desire to discuss these matters more fully, it will be necessary, with all reverence and fear of God, to examine the sacred Scriptures with greater attention and diligence, to ascertain whether the secret and hidden sense within them may perhaps reveal anything regarding these matters; and something may be discovered in their abstruse and mysterious language, through the demonstration of the Holy Spirit to those who are worthy, after many testimonies have been collected on this very point.

Ancient

531

1.21  Papias, The Traditions of the Elders (early to mid 2nd century) But I will not scruple also to give a place for you along with my interpretations to everything that I learnt carefully and remembered carefully in time past from the elders, guaranteeing its truth. For, unlike the many, I did not take pleasure in those who have so very much to say, but in those who teach the truth; nor in those who relate foreign commandments, but in those (who record) such as were given from the Lord to the Faith, and are derived from the Truth itself. And again, on any occasion when a person came (in my way) who had been a follower of the Elders, I would enquire about the discourses of the Elders— what was said by Andrew, or by Peter, or by Philip, or by Thomas or James, or by John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and what Aristion and the Elder John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that I could get so much profit from the contents of books as from the utterances of a living and abiding voice. And the Elder said this also: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he remembered, without, however, recording in order what was either said or done by Christ. For neither did he hear the Lord nor did he follow Him; but afterwards, as I said, (attended) Peter, who adapted his instructions to the needs (of his hearers), but had no design of giving a connected account of the Lord’s oracles. So then Mark made no mistake, while he thus wrote down some things as he remembered them; for he made it his one care not to omit anything that he heard, or to set down any false statement therein. So then Matthew composed the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as he could.

1.22  Cyprian of Carthage, On the Unity of the Catholic Church (c. 250) If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, I say unto you, that you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, Feed my sheep. And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, As the Father has sent me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins you remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins you retain, they shall be retained; yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her. Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreover

532

A Global Church History

the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God? And this unity we ought firmly to hold and assert, especially those of us that are bishops who preside in the Church, that we may also prove the episcopate itself to be one and undivided. Let no one deceive the brotherhood by a falsehood: let no one corrupt the truth of the faith by perfidious prevarication. The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole. The Church also is one, which is spread abroad far and wide into a multitude by an increase of fruitfulness. As there are many rays of the sun, but one light; and many branches of a tree, but one strength based in its tenacious root; and since from one spring flow many streams, although the multiplicity seems diffused in the liberality of an overflowing abundance, yet the unity is still preserved in the source. Separate a ray of the sun from its body of light, its unity does not allow a division of light; break a branch from a tree—when broken, it will not be able to bud; cut off the stream from its fountain, and that which is cut off dries up. Thus also the Church, shone over with the light of the Lord, sheds forth her rays over the whole world, yet it is one light which is everywhere diffused, nor is the unity of the body separated. Her fruitful abundance spreads her branches over the whole world. She broadly expands her rivers, liberally flowing, yet her head is one, her source one; and she is one mother, plentiful in the results of fruitfulness: from her womb we are born, by her milk we are nourished, by her spirit we are animated. The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the Ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathers not with me scatters. He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathers elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, I and the Father are one; and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, And these three are one. And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? He who does not hold this unity does not hold God’s law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation.

1.23  Cyprian of Carthage, To the Lapsed (c. 250) Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: I say unto you, That you are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Thence, through the

Ancient

533

changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers. Since this, then, is founded on the divine law, I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the Church; when the Church is established in the bishop and the clergy, and all who stand fast in the faith. For far be it from the mercy of God and His uncontrolled might to suffer the number of the lapsed to be called the Church; since it is written, God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. For we indeed desire that all may be made alive; and we pray that, by our supplications and groans, they may be restored to their original state. But if certain lapsed ones claim to be the Church, and if the Church be among them and in them, what is left but for us to ask of these very persons that they would deign to admit us into the Church? Therefore it behooves them to be submissive and quiet and modest, as those who ought to appease God, in remembrance of their sin, and not to write letters in the name of the Church, when they should rather be aware that they are writing to the Church.

1.24  Lactantius, Diocletian’s Persecution and the Edict of Milan (early fourth century) Diocletian’s Persecution: The mother of Galerius, a woman exceedingly superstitious, was a votary of the gods of the mountains. Being of such a character, she made sacrifices almost every day, and she feasted her servants on the meat offered to idols: but the Christians of her family would not partake of those entertainments; and while she feasted with the Gentiles, they continued in fasting and prayer. On this account she conceived ill-will against the Christians, and by woman-like complaints instigated her son, no less superstitious than herself, to destroy them. So, during the whole winter, Diocletian and Galerius held councils together, at which no one else assisted; and it was the universal opinion that their conferences respected the most momentous affairs of the empire. The old man long opposed the fury of Galerius, and showed how pernicious it would be to raise disturbances throughout the world and to shed so much blood; that the Christians were wont with eagerness to meet death; and that it would be enough for him to exclude persons of that religion from the court and the army. Yet he could not restrain the madness of that obstinate man. He resolved, therefore, to take the opinion of his friends. Now this was a circumstance in the bad disposition of Diocletian, that whenever he determined to do good, he did it without advice, that the praise might be all his own; but whenever he determined to do ill, which he was sensible would be blamed, he called in many advisers, that his own fault might be imputed to other men: and therefore a few civil magistrates, and a few military commanders, were admitted to give their counsel; and the question was put to them according to priority of rank. Some, through personal ill-will towards the Christians, were of opinion that they ought to be cut off, as enemies of the gods and adversaries of the established religious ceremonies. Others thought differently, but, having understood the will of Galerius, they, either from dread of displeasing or from a desire of gratifying him, concurred in the opinion given against the Christians. Yet not even then could the emperor be prevailed upon to yield his assent. He determined above all to consult his gods; and to that end he dispatched a soothsayer to

534

A Global Church History

inquire of Apollo at Miletus, whose answer was such as might be expected from an enemy of the divine religion. So Diocletian was drawn over from his purpose. But although he could struggle no longer against his friends, and against Cæsar and Apollo, yet still he attempted to observe such moderation as to command the business to be carried through without bloodshed; whereas Galerius would have had all persons burnt alive who refused to sacrifice.

The Edict of Milan: Not many days after the victory, Licinius, having received part of the soldiers of Daia into his service, and properly distributed them, transported his army into Bithynia, and having made his entry into Nicomedia, he returned thanks to God, through whose aid he had overcome; and on the ides of June, while he and Constantine were consuls for the third time, he commanded the following edict for the restoration of the Church, directed to the president of the province, to be promulgated:— When we, Constantine and Licinius, emperors, had an interview at Milan, and conferred together with respect to the good and security of the commonweal, it seemed to us that, among those things that are profitable to mankind in general, the reverence paid to the Divinity merited our first and chief attention, and that it was proper that the Christians and all others should have liberty to follow that mode of religion which to each of them appeared best; so that that God, who is seated in heaven, might be benign and propitious to us, and to every one under our government. And therefore we judged it a salutary measure, and one highly consonant to right reason, that no man should be denied leave of attaching himself to the rites of the Christians, or to whatever other religion his mind directed him, that thus the supreme Divinity, to whose worship we freely devote ourselves, might continue to vouchsafe His favour and beneficence to us. And accordingly we give you to know that, without regard to any provisos in our former orders to you concerning the Christians, all who choose that religion are to be permitted, freely and absolutely, to remain in it, and not to be disturbed any ways, or molested. And we thought fit to be thus special in the things committed to your charge, that you might understand that the indulgence which we have granted in matters of religion to the Christians is ample and unconditional; and perceive at the same time that the open and free exercise of their respective religions is granted to all others, as well as to the Christians. For it befits the well-ordered state and the tranquillity of our times that each individual be allowed, according to his own choice, to worship the Divinity; and we mean not to derogate anything from the honour due to any religion or its votaries. Moreover, with respect to the Christians, we formerly gave certain orders concerning the places appropriated for their religious assemblies; but now we will that all persons who have purchased such places, either from our exchequer or from any one else, do restore them to the Christians, without money demanded or price claimed, and that this be performed peremptorily and unambiguously; and we will also, that they who have obtained any right to such places by form of gift do immediately restore them to the Christians: reserving always to such persons, who have either purchased for a price, or gratuitously acquired them, to make application to the judge of the district, if they look on themselves as entitled to any equivalent from our beneficence. All those places are, by your intervention, to be immediately restored to the Christians. And because it appears that, besides the places appropriated to religious worship, the Christians did possess other

Ancient

535

places, which belonged not to individuals, but to their society in general, that is, to their churches, we comprehend all such within the regulation aforesaid, and we will that you cause them all to be restored to the society or churches, and that without hesitation or controversy: Provided always, that the persons making restitution without a price paid shall be at liberty to seek indemnification from our bounty. In furthering all which things for the benefit of the Christians, you are to use your utmost diligence, to the end that our orders be speedily obeyed, and our gracious purpose in securing the public tranquillity promoted. So shall that divine favour which, in affairs of the mightiest importance, we have already experienced, continue to give success to us, and in our successes make the commonweal happy. And that the tenor of this our gracious ordinance may be made known unto all, we will that you cause it by your authority to be published everywhere. Licinius having issued this ordinance, made an harangue, in which he exhorted the Christians to rebuild their religious edifices. And thus, from the overthrow of the Church until its restoration, there was a space of ten years and about four months.

1.25  The Creed of the Council of Nicaea (325) We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten (genne¯thenta), not made, being of one substance (homoousion, consubstantialem) with the Father. By whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down [from heaven] and was incarnate and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again, and ascended into heaven. And he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead. And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost. And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not (e¯n pote hote ouk e¯n), or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion [trepton in Greek; convertibilem in Latin]—all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.

1.26 Eusebius, Church History, On the Unity of the Church (mid fourth century) 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. His words are as follows: 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.

536

A Global Church History

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. The same author also describes the beginnings of the heresies which arose in his time, in the following words: 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. … And he wrote of many other matters, which we have in part already mentioned, introducing the accounts in their appropriate places. And from the Syriac Gospel according to the Hebrews he quotes some passages in the Hebrew tongue, showing that he was a convert from the Hebrews, and he mentions other matters as taken from the unwritten tradition of the Jews. And not only he, but also Irenaeus and the whole company of the ancients, called the Proverbs of Solomon All-virtuous Wisdom. And when speaking of the books called Apocrypha, he records that some of them were composed in his day by certain heretics.

1.27  Ephrem the Syrian, Hymns on the Nativity, The Virgin Mother to Her Child (mid fourth century) I shall not be jealous, my Son, that You are with me, and also with all men. Be God to him that confesses You, and be Lord to him that serves You, and be Brother to him that loves You, that You may gain all! When You dwelled in me, You also dwelled out of me, and when I brought You forth openly, Your hidden might was not removed from me. You are within me, and You are without me, O You that makes Your Mother amazed. For [when] I see that outward form of Yours before my eyes, the hidden Form is shadowed forth in my mind, O holy One. In Your visible form I see Adam, and in Your hidden form I see Your Father, who is joined with You. Have You then shown me alone Your Beauty in two Forms? Let Bread shadow forth You, and also the mind; dwell also in Bread and in the eaters thereof. In secret, and openly too, may Your Church see You, as well as Your Mother. He that hates Your Bread is like him that hates Your Body. He that is far off that desires Your Bread, and he that is near that loves Your Image, are alike. In the Bread and in the Body, the first and also the last have seen You. Yet Your visible Bread is far more precious than Your Body; for Your Body even unbelievers have seen, but they have not seen Your living Bread. They that were far off rejoiced! Their portion utterly scorns that of those that are near. Lo! Your Image is shadowed forth in the blood of the grapes on the Bread; and it is shadowed forth on the heart with the finger of love, with the colors of faith. Blessed be He that by the Image of His Truth caused the graven images to pass away.

Ancient

537

You are not [so] the Son of Man that I should sing unto You a common lullaby; for Your Conception is new, and Your Birth marvellous. Without the Spirit who shall sing to You? A new muttering of prophecy is hot within me. How shall I call You a stranger to us, Who is from us? Should I call You Son? Should I call You Brother? Husband should I call You? Lord should I call You, O Child that gave Your Mother a second birth from the waters? For I am Your sister, of the house of David the father of us Both. Again, I am Your Mother because of Your Conception, and Your Bride am I because of Your sanctification, Your handmaid and Your daughter, from the Blood and Water wherewith You have purchased me. The Son of the Most High came and dwelt in me, and I became His Mother; and as by a second birth I brought Him forth so did He bring me forth by the second birth, because He put His Mother’s garments on, she clothed her body with His glory. Tamar, who was of the house of David, Amnon put to shame; and virginity fell and perished from them both. My pearl is not lost: in Your treasury it is stored, because You have put it on. The scent of her brother-in-law slunk from Tamar, whose perfume she had stolen. As for Joseph’s Bride, not even his breath exhaled from her garments, since she conceived Cinnamon. A wall of fire was Your Conception unto me, O holy Son. The little flower was faint, because the smell of the Lily of Glory was great. The Treasure-house of spices stood in no need of flower or its smells! Flesh stood aloof because it perceived in the womb a Conception from the Spirit. The woman ministers before the man, because he is her head. Joseph rose to minister before his Lord, Who was in Mary. The priest ministered before Your ark by reason of Your holiness. Moses carried the tables of stone which the Lord wrote, and Joseph bare about the pure Tablet in whom the Son of the Creator was dwelling. The tables had ceased, because the world was filled with Your doctrine.

1.28 Athanasius, Discourse 3 Against the Arians on the Unity of Human and Divine in Christ (between 356 and 360) Whence it was that, when the flesh suffered, the Word was not external to it; and therefore is the passion said to be His: and when He did divinely His Father’s works, the flesh was not external to Him, but in the body itself did the Lord do them. Hence, when made man, He said, “If I do not the works of the Father, believe Me not; but if I do, though ye believe not Me, believe the works, that you may know that the Father is in Me and I in Him.” And thus when there was need to raise Peter’s wife’s mother, who was sick of a fever, He stretched forth His hand humanly, but He stopped the illness divinely. And in the case of the man blind from the birth, human was the spittle which He gave forth from the flesh, but divinely did He open the eyes through the clay. And in the case of Lazarus, He gave forth a human voice as man; but divinely, as God, did He raise Lazarus from the dead. These things were so done, were so manifested, because He had a body, not in appearance, but in truth;

538

A Global Church History

and it became the Lord, in putting on human flesh, to put it on whole with the affections proper to it; that, as we say that the body was His own, so also we may say that the affections of the body were proper to Him alone, though they did not touch Him according to His Godhead. If then the body had been another’s, to him too had been the affections attributed; but if the flesh is the Word’s (for “the Word became flesh”), of necessity then the affections also of the flesh are ascribed to Him, whose the flesh is. And to whom the affections are ascribed, such namely as to be condemned, to be scourged, to thirst, and the cross, and death, and the other infirmities of the body, of Him too is the triumph and the grace. For this cause then, consistently and fittingly such affections are ascribed not to another, but to the Lord; that the grace also may be from Him , and that we may become, not worshippers of any other, but truly devout towards God, because we invoke no originate thing, no ordinary man, but the natural and true Son from God, who has become man, yet is not the less Lord and God and Saviour.

1.29 Athanasius, Discourse 3 Against the Arians on Salvation in Christ (between 356 and 360) Who will not admire this? Or who will not agree that such a thing is truly divine? For if the works of the Word’s Godhead had not taken place through the body, man had not been deified; and again, had not the properties of the flesh been ascribed to the Word, man had not been thoroughly delivered from them; but though they had ceased for a little while, as I said before, still sin had remained in him and corruption, as was the case with mankind before Him; and for this reason:—Many for instance have been made holy and clean from all sin; nay, Jeremiah was hallowed even from the womb, and John, while yet in the womb, leapt for joy at the voice of Mary Bearer of God; nevertheless “death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression”; and thus man remained mortal and corruptible as before, liable to the affections proper to their nature. But now the Word having become man and having appropriated what pertains to the flesh, no longer do these things touch the body, because of the Word who has come in it, but they are destroyed by Him, and henceforth men no longer remain sinners and dead according to their proper affections, but having risen according to the Word’s power, they abide ever immortal and incorruptible. Whence also, whereas the flesh is born of Mary Bearer of God, He Himself is said to have been born, who furnishes to others an origin of being; in order that He may transfer our origin into Himself, and we may no longer, as mere earth, return to earth, but as being knit into the Word from heaven, may be carried to heaven by Him. Therefore in like manner not without reason has He transferred to Himself the other affections of the body also; that we, no longer as being men, but as proper to the Word, may have share in eternal life. For no longer according to our former origin in Adam do we die; but henceforward our origin and all infirmity of flesh being transferred to the Word, we rise from the earth, the curse from sin being removed, because of Him who is in us , and who has become a curse for us. And with reason; for as we are all from earth and die in Adam, so being regenerated from above of water and Spirit, in the Christ we are all quickened; the flesh being no longer earthly, but being henceforth made Word, by reason of God’s Word who for our sake “became flesh.”

Ancient

539

1.30 Athanasius, Life of Anthony (c. 360) How Antony took up his abode in a ruined fort across the Nile, and how he defeated the demons. His twenty years’ sojourn there. Then again as he went on he saw what was this time not visionary, but real gold scattered in the way. But whether the devil showed it, or some better power to try the athlete and show the Evil One that Antony truly cared nought for money, neither he told nor do we know. But it is certain that that which appeared was gold. And Antony marvelled at the quantity, but passed it by as though he were going over fire; so he did not even turn, but hurried on at a run to lose sight of the place. More and more confirmed in his purpose, he hurried to the mountain, and having found a fort, so long deserted that it was full of creeping things, on the other side of the river; he crossed over to it and dwelt there. The reptiles, as though some one were chasing them, immediately left the place. But he built up the entrance completely, having stored up loaves for six months—this is a custom of the Thebans, and the loaves often remain fresh a whole year—and as he found water within, he descended as into a shrine, and abode within by himself, never going forth nor looking at any one who came. Thus he employed a long time training himself, and received loaves, let down from above, twice in the year. But those of his acquaintances who came, since he did not permit them to enter, often used to spend days and nights outside, and heard as it were crowds within clamouring, dinning, sending forth piteous voices and crying, “Go from what is ours. What do you even in the desert? You can not abide our attack.” So at first those outside thought there were some men fighting with him, and that they had entered by ladders; but when stooping down they saw through a hole there was nobody, they were afraid, accounting them to be demons, and they called on Antony. Them he quickly heard, though he had not given a thought to the demons, and coming to the door he besought them to depart and not to be afraid, “for thus,” said he, “the demons make their seeming onslaughts against those who are cowardly. Sign yourselves therefore with the cross , and depart boldly, and let these make sport for themselves.” So they departed fortified with the sign of the Cross. But he remained in no wise harmed by the evil spirits, nor was he wearied with the contest, for there came to his aid visions from above, and the weakness of the foe relieved him of much trouble and armed him with greater zeal. For his acquaintances used often to come expecting to find him dead, and would hear him singing, “Let God arise and let His enemies be scattered, let them also that hate Him flee before His face. As smoke vanishes, let them vanish; as wax melts before the face of fire, so let the sinners perish from the face of God”; and again, “All nations compassed me about, and in the name of the Lord I requited them.” How he left the fort, and how monasticism began to flourish in Egypt. Antony its leader. And so for nearly twenty years he continued training himself in solitude, never going forth, and but seldom seen by any. After this, when many were eager and wishful to imitate his discipline, and his acquaintances came and began to cast down and wrench off the door by force, Antony, as from a shrine, came forth initiated in the mysteries and filled with the Spirit of God. Then for the first time he was seen outside the fort by those who came to see him. And they, when they saw him, wondered at the sight, for he had the same habit of body as before, and was neither fat, like a man without exercise, nor lean from fasting and striving with the demons, but he was just the same as they had known him before his retirement. And again his soul was free from blemish, for it was neither contracted as if by grief, nor

540

A Global Church History

relaxed by pleasure, nor possessed by laughter or dejection, for he was not troubled when he beheld the crowd, nor overjoyed at being saluted by so many. But he was altogether even as being guided by reason, and abiding in a natural state. Through him the Lord healed the bodily ailments of many present, and cleansed others from evil spirits. And He gave grace to Antony in speaking, so that he consoled many that were sorrowful, and set those at variance at one, exhorting all to prefer the love of Christ before all that is in the world. And while he exhorted and advised them to remember the good things to come, and the loving-kindness of God towards us, “Who spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all,” he persuaded many to embrace the solitary life. And thus it happened in the end that cells arose even in the mountains, and the desert was colonised by monks, who came forth from their own people, and enrolled themselves for the citizenship in the heavens. But when he was obliged to cross the Arsenoitic Canal—and the occasion of it was the visitation of the brethren—the canal was full of crocodiles. And by simply praying, he entered it, and all they with him, and passed over in safety. And having returned to his cell, he applied himself to the same noble and valiant exercises; and by frequent conversation he increased the eagerness of those already monks, stirred up in most of the rest the love of the discipline, and speedily by the attraction of his words cells multiplied, and he directed them all as a father. His address to monks, rendered from Coptic, exhorting them to perseverance, and encouraging them against the wiles of Satan. One day when he had gone forth because all the monks had assembled to him and asked to hear words from him, he spoke to them in the Egyptian tongue as follows: “The Scriptures are enough for instruction , but it is a good thing to encourage one another in the faith, and to stir up with words. Wherefore you, as children, carry that which you know to your father; and I as the elder share my knowledge and what experience has taught me with you. Let this especially be the common aim of all, neither to give way having once begun, nor to faint in trouble, nor to say: We have lived in the discipline a long time: but rather as though making a beginning daily let us increase our earnestness. For the whole life of man is very short, measured by the ages to come, wherefore all our time is nothing compared with eternal life. And in the world everything is sold at its price, and a man exchanges one equivalent for another; but the promise of eternal life is bought for a trifle. For it is written, The days of our life in them are threescore years and ten, but if they are in strength, fourscore years, and what is more than these is labour and sorrow. Whenever, therefore, we live full fourscore years, or even a hundred in the discipline, not for a hundred years only shall we reign, but instead of a hundred we shall reign for ever and ever. And though we fought on earth, we shall not receive our inheritance on earth, but we have the promises in heaven; and having put off the body which is corrupt, we shall receive it incorrupt.

1.31  Cyril of Jerusalem, First Address on the Mysteries on Baptism (c 350) With a Lesson from the First General Epistle of Peter, beginning at Be sober, be vigilant, to the end of the Epistle.

Ancient

541

I have long been wishing, O true-born and dearly beloved children of the Church, to discourse to you concerning these spiritual and heavenly Mysteries; but since I well knew that seeing is far more persuasive than hearing, I waited for the present season; that finding you more open to the influence of my words from your present experience, I might lead you by the hand into the brighter and more fragrant meadow of the Paradise before us; especially as you have been made fit to receive the more sacred Mysteries, after having been found worthy of divine and life-giving Baptism. Since therefore it remains to set before you a table of the more perfect instructions, let us now teach you these things exactly, that you may know the effect wrought upon you on that evening of your baptism. First you entered into the vestibule of the Baptistery, and there facing towards the West you listened to the command to stretch forth your hand, and as in the presence of Satan ye renounced him. Now ye must know that this figure is found in ancient history. For when Pharaoh, that most bitter and cruel tyrant, was oppressing the free and high-born people of the Hebrews, God sent Moses to bring them out of the evil bondage of the Egyptians. Then the door posts were anointed with the blood of a lamb, that the destroyer might flee from the houses which had the sign of the blood; and the Hebrew people was marvellously delivered. The enemy, however, after their rescue, pursued after them, and saw the sea wondrously parted for them; nevertheless he went on, following close in their footsteps, and was all at once overwhelmed and engulphed in the Red Sea. Now turn from the old to the new, from the figure to the reality. There we have Moses sent from God to Egypt; here, Christ, sent forth from His Father into the world: there, that Moses might lead forth an afflicted people out of Egypt; here, that Christ might rescue those who are oppressed in the world under sin: there, the blood of a lamb was the spell against the destroyer; here, the blood of the Lamb without blemish Jesus Christ is made the charm to scare evil spirits: there, the tyrant was pursuing that ancient people even to the sea; and here the daring and shameless spirit, the author of evil, was following you even to the very streams of salvation. The tyrant of old was drowned in the sea; and this present one disappears in the water of salvation. But nevertheless you are bidden to say, with arm outstretched towards him as though he were present, I renounce you, Satan. I wish also to say wherefore ye stand facing to the West; for it is necessary. Since the West is the region of sensible darkness, and he being darkness has his dominion also in darkness, therefore, looking with a symbolic meaning towards the West, you renounce that dark and gloomy potentate. What then did each of you stand up and say? I renounce you, Satan,—you wicked and most cruel tyrant! Meaning, I fear your might no longer; for that Christ has overthrown, having partaken with me of flesh and blood, that through these He might by death destroy death, that I might not be made subject to bondage forever. I renounce you,—you crafty and most subtle serpent. I renounce you,—plotter as you are, who under the guise of friendship contrived all disobedience, and work apostasy in our first parents. I renounce you, Satan,—the artificer and abettor of all wickedness. … You renounce therefore the works of Satan; I mean, all deeds and thoughts which are contrary to reason. … When therefore you renounce Satan, utterly breaking all your covenant with him, that ancient league with hell, there is opened to you the paradise of God, which He planted towards the East, whence for his transgression our first father was banished; and a symbol of this was your turning from West to East, the place of light. Then you were told to say, I believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost,

542

A Global Church History

and in one Baptism of repentance. Of which things we spoke to you at length in the former Lectures, as God’s grace allowed us. Guarded therefore by these discourses, be sober. For our adversary the devil, as was just now read, as a roaring lion, walks about, seeking whom he may devour. But though in former times death was mighty and devoured, at the holy Laver of regeneration God has wiped away every tear from off all faces. For you shall no more mourn, now that you have put off the old man; but you shall keep holy-day, clothed in the garment of salvation, even Jesus Christ. And these things were done in the outer chamber. But if God will, when in the succeeding lectures on the Mysteries we have entered into the Holy of Holies, we shall there know the symbolic meaning of the things which are there performed. Now to God the Father, with the Son and the Holy Ghost, be glory, and power, and majesty, forever and ever. Amen.

1.32  Julius I, Letter to the Eusebians at Antioch on the Arians (c. 341) The Arians who were excommunicated for their impiety by Alexander, the late Bishop of Alexandria, of blessed memory, were not only proscribed by the brethren in the several cities, but were also anathematised by the whole body assembled together in the great Council of Nicaea. For theirs was no ordinary offense, neither had they sinned against man, but against our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, the Son of the living God. And yet these persons who were proscribed by the whole world, and branded in every Church, are said now to have been admitted to communion again; which I think even you ought to hear with indignation. Who then are the parties who dishonour a council? Are not they who have set at nought the votes of the Three hundred, and have preferred impiety to godliness? The heresy of the Arian madmen was condemned and proscribed by the whole body of Bishops everywhere; but the Bishops Athanasius and Marcellus have many supporters who speak and write in their behalf. We have received testimony in favour of Marcellus, that he resisted the advocates of the Arian doctrines in the Council of Nicaea; and in favour of Athanasius, that at Tyre nothing was brought home to him, and that in the Mareotis, where the Reports against him are said to have been drawn up, he was not present. Now you know, dearly beloved, that ex parte proceedings are of no weight, but bear a suspicious appearance. Nevertheless, these things being so, we, in order to be accurate, and neither showing any prepossession in favour of yourselves, nor of those who wrote in behalf of the other party, invited those who had written to us to come hither; that, since there were many who wrote in their behalf, all things might be enquired into in a council, and neither the guiltless might be condemned, nor the person on his trial be accounted innocent. We then are not the parties who dishonour a council, but they who at once and recklessly have received the Arians whom all had condemned, and contrary to the decision of the judges. The greater part of those judges have now departed, and are with Christ; but some of them are still in this life of trial, and are indignant at learning that certain persons have set aside their judgment. Give us notice therefore of this, dearly beloved, that we may write both to them, and to the Bishops who will have again to assemble, so that the accused may be condemned in the presence of all, and confusion no longer prevail in the Churches. What has already taken place is enough: it is enough

Ancient

543

surely that Bishops have been sentenced to banishment in the presence of Bishops; of which it behooves me not to speak at length, lest I appear to press too heavily on those who were present on those occasions. But if one must speak the truth, matters ought not to have proceeded so far; their petty feeling ought not to have been suffered to reach the present pitch. Let us grant the removal, as you write, of Athanasius and Marcellus, from their own places, yet what must one say of the case of the other Bishops and Presbyters who, as I said before, came hither from various parts, and who complained that they also had been forced away, and had suffered the like injuries? O beloved, the decisions of the Church are no longer according to the Gospel, but tend only to banishment and death. Supposing, as you assert, that some offense rested upon those persons, the case ought to have been conducted against them, not after this manner, but according to the Canon of the Church. Word should have been written of it to us all, that so a just sentence might proceed from all. For the sufferers were Bishops, and Churches of no ordinary note, but those which the Apostles themselves had governed in their own persons. And why was nothing said to us concerning the Church of the Alexandrians in particular? Are you ignorant that the custom has been for word to be written first to us, and then for a just decision to be passed from this place? If then any such suspicion rested upon the Bishop there, notice thereof ought to have been sent to the Church of this place; whereas, after neglecting to inform us, and proceeding on their own authority as they pleased, now they desire to obtain our concurrence in their decisions, though we never condemned him. Not so have the constitutions of Paul, not so have the traditions of the Fathers directed; this is another form of procedure, a novel practice. I beseech you, readily bear with me: what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us. Bishops are forced away from their sees and driven into banishment, while others from different quarters are appointed in their place; others are treacherously assailed, so that the people have to grieve for those who are forcibly taken from them, while, as to those who are sent in their room, they are obliged to give over seeking the man whom they desire, and to receive those they do not. I ask of you, that such things may no longer be, but that you will denounce in writing those persons who attempt them; so that the Churches may no longer be afflicted thus, nor any Bishop or Presbyter be treated with insult, nor any one be compelled to act contrary to his judgment, as they have represented to us, lest we become a laughing-stock among the heathen, and above all, lest we excite the wrath of God against us. For every one of us shall give account in the Day of judgment of the things which he has done in this life. May we all be possessed with the mind of God! so that the Churches may recover their own Bishops, and rejoice evermore in Jesus Christ our Lord; through Whom to the Father be glory, for ever and ever. Amen.

1.33  Basil of Caesarea, The Holy Spirit (c. 370) Let us now investigate what are our common conceptions concerning the Spirit, as well those which have been gathered by us from Holy Scripture concerning It as those which we have received from the

544

A Global Church History

unwritten tradition of the Fathers. First of all we ask, who on hearing the titles of the Spirit is not lifted up in soul, who does not raise his conception to the supreme nature? It is called Spirit of God, Spirit of truth which proceeds from the Father, right Spirit, a leading Spirit. Its proper and peculiar title is Holy Spirit; which is a name specially appropriate to everything that is incorporeal, purely immaterial, and indivisible. So our Lord, when teaching the woman who thought God to be an object of local worship that the incorporeal is incomprehensible, said God is a spirit. On our hearing, then, of a spirit, it is impossible to form the idea of a nature circumscribed, subject to change and variation, or at all like the creature. We are compelled to advance in our conceptions to the highest, and to think of an intelligent essence, in power infinite, in magnitude unlimited, unmeasured by times or ages, generous of Its good gifts, to whom turn all things needing sanctification, after whom reach all things that live in virtue, as being watered by Its inspiration and helped on toward their natural and proper end; perfecting all other things, but Itself in nothing lacking; living not as needing restoration, but as Supplier of life; not growing by additions; but straightway full, self-established, omnipresent, origin of sanctification, light perceptible to the mind, supplying, as it were, through Itself, illumination to every faculty in the search for truth; by nature unapproachable, apprehended by reason of goodness, filling all things with Its power, but communicated only to the worthy; not shared in one measure, but distributing Its energy according to the proportion of faith; in essence simple, in powers various, wholly present in each and being wholly everywhere; impassively divided, shared without loss of ceasing to be entire, after the likeness of the sunbeam, whose kindly light falls on him who enjoys it as though it shone for him alone, yet illumines land and sea and mingles with the air. So, too, is the Spirit to every one who receives it, as though given to him alone, and yet It sends forth grace sufficient and full for all mankind, and is enjoyed by all who share It, according to the capacity, not of Its power, but of their nature. Now the Spirit is not brought into intimate association with the soul by physically coming near it. How indeed could there be a corporeal approach to the incorporeal? This association results from the withdrawal of the passions which, coming afterwards gradually on the soul from its friendship to the flesh, have alienated it from its close relationship with God. Only then after a man is purified from the shame whose stain he took through his wickedness, and has come back again to his natural beauty, and as it were cleaning the Royal Image and restoring its ancient form, only thus is it possible for him to draw near to the Paraclete. And He, like the sun, will by the aid of your purified eye show you in Himself the image of the invisible, and in the blessed spectacle of the image you shall behold the unspeakable beauty of the archetype. Through His aid hearts are lifted up, the weak are held by the hand, and they who are advancing are brought to perfection. Shining upon those that are cleansed from every spot, He makes them spiritual by fellowship with Himself. Just as when a sunbeam falls on bright and transparent bodies, they themselves become brilliant too, and shed forth a fresh brightness from themselves, so souls wherein the Spirit dwells, illuminated by the Spirit, themselves become spiritual, and send forth their grace to others. Hence comes foreknowledge of the future, understanding of mysteries, apprehension of what is hidden, distribution of good gifts, the heavenly citizenship, a place in the chorus of angels, joy without end, abiding in God, the being made like to God, and, highest of all, the being made God. Such, then, to instance a few out of many, are the conceptions concerning the Holy Spirit, which we have been taught to hold concerning His greatness, His dignity, and His operations, by the oracles of the Spirit themselves.

Ancient

545

1.34  Gregory of Nyssa, To Ablabius, On “Not Three Gods” (late 4th century) In truth, the question you propound to us is no small one, nor such that but small harm will follow if it meets with insufficient treatment. For by the force of the question, we are at first sight compelled to accept one or other of two erroneous opinions, and either to say there are three Gods, which is unlawful, or not to acknowledge the Godhead of the Son and the Holy Spirit, which is impious and absurd. The argument which you state is something like this: Peter, James, and John, being in one human nature, are called three men: and there is no absurdity in describing those who are united in nature, if they are more than one, by the plural number of the name derived from their nature. If, then, in the above case, custom admits this, and no one forbids us to speak of those who are two as two, or those who are more than two as three, how is it that in the case of our statements of the mysteries of the Faith, though confessing the Three Persons, and acknowledging no difference of nature between them, we are in some sense at variance with our confession, when we say that the Godhead of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is one, and yet forbid men to say there are three Gods? … We say, then, to begin with, that the practice of calling those who are not divided in nature by the very name of their common nature in the plural, and saying they are many men, is a customary abuse of language, and that it would be much the same thing to say they are many human natures. And the truth of this we may see from the following instance. When we address any one, we do not call him by the name of his nature, in order that no confusion may result from the community of the name, as would happen if every one of those who hear it were to think that he himself was the person addressed, because the call is made not by the proper appellation but by the common name of their nature: but we separate him from the multitude by using that name which belongs to him as his own—that, I mean, which signifies the particular subject. Thus there are many who have shared in the nature—many disciples, say, or apostles, or martyrs—but the man in them all is one; since, as has been said, the term man does not belong to the nature of the individual as such, but to that which is common. For Luke is a man, or Stephen is a man; but it does not follow that if any one is a man he is therefore Luke or Stephen: but the idea of the persons admits of that separation which is made by the peculiar attributes considered in each severally, and when they are combined is presented to us by means of number; yet their nature is one, at union in itself, and an absolutely indivisible unit, not capable of increase by addition or of diminution by subtraction, but in its essence being and continually remaining one, inseparable even though it appear in plurality, continuous, complete, and not divided with the individuals who participate in it. And as we speak of a people, or a mob, or an army, or an assembly in the singular in every case, while each of these is conceived as being in plurality, so according to the more accurate expression, man would be said to be one, even though those who are exhibited to us in the same nature make up a plurality. Thus it would be much better to correct our erroneous habit, so as no longer to extend to a plurality the name of the nature, than by our bondage to habit to transfer to our statements concerning God the error which exists in the above case. …

546

A Global Church History

As we have to a certain extent shown by our statement that the word Godhead is not significant of nature but of operation, perhaps one might reasonably allege as a cause why, in the case of men, those who share with one another in the same pursuits are enumerated and spoken of in the plural, while on the other hand the Deity is spoken of in the singular as one God and one Godhead, even though the Three Persons are not separated from the significance expressed by the term Godhead,— one might allege, I say, the fact that men, even if several are engaged in the same form of action, work separately each by himself at the task he has undertaken, having no participation in his individual action with others who are engaged in the same occupation. For instance, supposing the case of several rhetoricians, their pursuit, being one, has the same name in the numerous cases: but each of those who follow it works by himself, this one pleading on his own account, and that on his own account. Thus, since among men the action of each in the same pursuits is discriminated, they are properly called many, since each of them is separated from the others within his own environment, according to the special character of his operation. But in the case of the Divine nature we do not similarly learn that the Father does anything by Himself in which the Son does not work conjointly, or again that the Son has any special operation apart from the Holy Spirit; but every operation which extends from God to the Creation, and is named according to our variable conceptions of it, has its origin from the Father, and proceeds through the Son, and is perfected in the Holy Spirit. For this reason the name derived from the operation is not divided with regard to the number of those who fulfil it, because the action of each concerning anything is not separate and peculiar, but whatever comes to pass, in reference either to the acts of His providence for us, or to the government and constitution of the universe, comes to pass by the action of the Three, yet what does come to pass is not three things. We may understand the meaning of this from one single instance. From Him, I say, Who is the chief source of gifts, all things which have shared in this grace have obtained their life. When we inquire, then, whence this good gift came to us, we find by the guidance of the Scriptures that it was from the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Yet although we set forth Three Persons and three names, we do not consider that we have had bestowed upon us three lives, one from each Person separately; but the same life is wrought in us by the Father, and prepared by the Son, and depends on the will of the Holy Spirit. Since then the Holy Trinity fulfils every operation in a manner similar to that of which I have spoken, not by separate action according to the number of the Persons, but so that there is one motion and disposition of the good will which is communicated from the Father through the Son to the Spirit (for as we do not call those whose operation gives one life three Givers of life, neither do we call those who are contemplated in one goodness three Good beings, nor speak of them in the plural by any of their other attributes); so neither can we call those who exercise this Divine and superintending power and operation towards ourselves and all creation, conjointly and inseparably, by their mutual action, three Gods. … If, then, every good thing and every good name, depending on that power and purpose which is without beginning, is brought to perfection in the power of the Spirit through the Only-begotten God, without mark of time or distinction (since there is no delay, existent or conceived, in the motion of the Divine will from the Father, through the Son, to the Spirit): and if Godhead also is one of the good names and concepts, it would not be proper to divide the name into a plurality, since the unity existing in the action prevents plural enumeration.

Ancient

547

1.35  Gregory of Nyssa, Commentary on the Beatitudes 3 on True Mourning (late 4th century) [N.B. The section on Gregory of Nyssa in “Historical Section IV: The Trinity” from Theology from the Great Tradition should refer to the selection here found in section 1.34, not 1.35.] Now what does this saying mean: Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted? If one looks at it from the point of view of the world, he will certainly say that the words are ridiculous, and argue like this: If one calls blessed those people whose life is spent enduring all manner of misfortune, it follows that those who live without sorrow or care must be miserable. Then he will enumerate the various kinds of calamities and will further provoke laughter among his audience by giving a vivid description of the miseries of widowhood and the sad condition of orphans. And thus he thinks he will have made appear ridiculous the saying that calls blessed those that mourn. Now in the first place one can take that mourning to be blessed which follows the transgressions of sinners, according to St. Paul’s teaching on sorrow. He says that there is more than one kind of sorrow, the one of the world, the other brought about by God; and that the work of the worldly sorrow is death, whereas the other works in those afflicted with it salvation through repentance. For surely, if a soul bewails its wicked life because it feels its bad effects, such suffering cannot be excluded from the sorrow that is called blessed. But it seems to me that the Word indicates something deeper than what has so far been said, and intends us to understand something else by the steady, invigorating influence of sorrow. Hence let us scrutinize the human life to find first what this mourning is in itself, and why it arises. Now it is evident to all that mourning is a sorrowful disposition of the soul which arises from being deprived of some of the things that are pleasant, a sorrow which finds no place in people who spend their life in happiness. Indeed our nature shared in this good that transcends all thought to such an extent that the human being seemed to be another such, since it was fashioned to the most exact likeness in the image of its prototype. For all those attributes of His on which we now speculate and conjecture, once also belonged to man, such as incorruptibility and beatitude, the power to govern oneself without a master, and to lead a life devoid of grief and labour. Man then passed his life in Divine things, and contemplated the Good with a pure mind devoid of veils. The story of the creation of the world hints at all these things in a few words, when it says that man was made in the image of God and lived in Paradise, enjoying the things that were growing there. But the fruit of those plants was life, knowledge, and things like that. If these once belonged to us, how should we not bewail our misfortune, when we contrast our former beatitude with our present misery? What was exalted has been brought low, and what was made in the image of Heaven has been reduced to earth. What was meant to rule has been enslaved, and what had been created for immortality has been destroyed by death. Man, who once lived in the delights of Paradise, has been transplanted into this unhealthy and wearisome place, where his life, once accustomed to impassibility, became instead subject to passion and corruption.

548

A Global Church History

Hence, when He calls mourning blessed, the underlying sense seems to be that the soul should turn to the true good and not immerse itself in the deceits of this present life. For no one who has clearly seen these things can live without tears himself, or fail to think miserable any one deeply involved in the pleasures of this life. Since then there are two spheres of life, and life is considered in a double way, according to the diversity of these two spheres, thus there is also a twofold joy, the one belonging to this life, the other to the life that is presented to our hope. Therefore we should think it blessed to reserve our share of joy for the truly good things in eternal life, and to fulfil the duty of sorrow in this short and transitory life. We should not think it a loss to be deprived of some of the pleasant things of this life, but rather to lose the better things for the sake of enjoying the others. If therefore it is blissful to have the unending and everlasting joy in eternity, human nature is bound also to taste of the opposite. Then it will no longer be difficult to see the meaning of the passage, why those who mourn now are blessed, because they shall be comforted in the world without end. Now the comfort comes through participating in the Comforter. For the gift of comforting is the special operation of the Spirit, of which may we also be made worthy, through the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

1.36  The Nicene Creed, First Council of Constantinople (381) We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sits at the Right Hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead. Whose kingdom shall have no end. And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver-of-Life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And [we believe] in one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins, [and] we look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

1.37 Jerome, Letter 53 on Reading Scripture (early 5th century) But perhaps we ought to call Peter and John ignorant, both of whom could say of themselves, “though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge.” Was John a mere fisherman, rude and untaught? If so, whence did he get the words “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God and the word was God.” Logos in Greek has many meanings. It signifies word and reason and reckoning and the cause of individual things by which those which are subsist. All of which things we rightly predicate of Christ. This truth Plato with all his learning did not know, of this Demosthenes with all his eloquence was ignorant. “I will destroy,” it is said, “the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding

Ancient

549

of the prudent.” The true wisdom must destroy the false, and, although the foolishness of preaching is inseparable from the Cross, Paul speaks “wisdom among them that are perfect, yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world that come to nothing,” but he speaks “the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world.” God’s wisdom is Christ, for Christ, we are told, is “the power of God and the wisdom of God.” He is the wisdom which is hidden in a mystery, of which also we read in the heading of the ninth psalm “for the hidden things of the son.” In Him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. He also who was hidden in a mystery is the same that was foreordained before the world. Now it was in the Law and in the Prophets that he was foreordained and prefigured. For this reason too the prophets were called seers, because they saw Him whom others did not see. Abraham saw His day and was glad. The heavens which were sealed to a rebellious people were opened to Ezekiel. “Open my eyes,” says David, “that I may behold wonderful things out of your Law.” For “the law is spiritual” and a revelation is needed to enable us to comprehend it and, when God uncovers His face, to behold His glory. These instances have been just touched upon by me (the limits of a letter forbid a more discursive treatment of them) to convince you that in the Holy Scriptures you can make no progress unless you have a guide to shew you the way. [Even] farmers, stone wrights, carpenters, workers in wood and metal, wool-dressers and fullers, as well as those artisans who make furniture and cheap utensils, cannot attain the ends they seek without instruction from qualified persons. As Horace says, Doctors alone profess the healing art, And none but joiners ever try to join.

The art of interpreting the Scriptures is the only one of which all men everywhere claim to be masters. To quote Horace again, Taught or untaught we all write poetry.

The [reckless interpreters] do not choose to notice what the Prophets and Apostles have intended, but they adapt conflicting passages to suit their own meaning, as if it were a grand way of teaching—and not rather the faultiest of all—to misrepresent a writer’s views and to force the scriptures reluctantly to do their will. … But all this is childish, and resembles the sleight-of-hand of a charlatan. It is useless to try to teach what you do not know, and—if I may speak with some warmth—is worse still to be ignorant of your ignorance. I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books, to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else. Does not such a life seem to you a foretaste of heaven here on earth? Let not the simplicity of the scripture or the poorness of its vocabulary offend you; for these are due either to the faults of translators or else to deliberate purpose: for in this way it is better fitted for the instruction of an unlettered congregation as the educated person can take one meaning and the uneducated another from one and the same sentence. I am not so dull or so forward as to profess that I myself know it, or that I can pluck upon the earth the fruit which has its root in heaven, but I confess that I should like to do so. I put myself before the man who sits idle and, while I lay no claim to be a master, I readily pledge myself to be a fellow-student. “Every one that asks receives; and he that seeks finds; and to him that knocks it shall be opened.” Let us learn upon earth that knowledge which will continue with us in heaven.

550

A Global Church History

1.38 Augustine, On Christian Teaching on Christianity and Philosophy (397) Moreover, if those who are called philosophers, and especially the Platonists, have said anything that is true and in harmony with our faith, we are not only not to shrink from it, but to claim it for our own use from those who have unlawful possession of it. For, as the Egyptians had not only the idols and heavy burdens which the people of Israel hated and fled from, but also vessels and ornaments of gold and silver, and garments, which the same people when going out of Egypt appropriated to themselves, designing them for a better use, not doing this on their own authority, but by the command of God, the Egyptians themselves, in their ignorance, providing them with things which they themselves were not making a good use of; in the same way all branches of heathen learning have not only false and superstitious fancies and heavy burdens of unnecessary toil, which every one of us, when going out under the leadership of Christ from the fellowship of the heathen, ought to abhor and avoid; but they contain also liberal instruction which is better adapted to the use of the truth, and some most excellent precepts of morality; and some truths in regard even to the worship of the One God are found among them. Now these are, so to speak, their gold and silver, which they did not create themselves, but dug out of the mines of God’s providence which are everywhere scattered abroad, and are perversely and unlawfully prostituting to the worship of devils. These, therefore, the Christian, when he separates himself in spirit from the miserable fellowship of these men, ought to take away from them, and to devote to their proper use in preaching the gospel. Their garments, also—that is, human institutions such as are adapted to that intercourse with men which is indispensable in this life—we must take and turn to a Christian use. And what else have many good and faithful men among our brethren done? Do we not see with what a quantity of gold and silver and garments Cyprian, that most persuasive teacher and most blessed martyr, was loaded when he came out of Egypt? How much Lactantius brought with him? And Victorinus, and Optatus, and Hilary, not to speak of living men! How much Greeks out of number have borrowed! And prior to all these, that most faithful servant of God, Moses, had done the same thing; for of him it is written that he was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians. And to none of all these would heathen superstition (especially in those times when, kicking against the yoke of Christ, it was persecuting the Christians) have ever furnished branches of knowledge it held useful, if it had suspected they were about to turn them to the use of worshipping the One God, and thereby overturning the vain worship of idols. But they gave their gold and their silver and their garments to the people of God as they were going out of Egypt, not knowing how the things they gave would be turned to the service of Christ. For what was done at the time of the exodus was no doubt a type prefiguring what happens now. And this I say without prejudice to any other interpretation that may be as good, or better.

1.39 Augustine, On the Profit of Believing on Reading Scripture (391) [N.B. The section on Jerome in “Historical Section I: Inspiration and Interpretation of Scripture” from Theology from the Great Tradition should refer to the selection here found in section 1.37, not 1.39.]

Ancient

551

Here therefore [the Manicheans] are badly mistaken in their attempt to show the Law of Moses to be nonsense, constraining us to defend these Scriptures. For they note what is said [in the Apostle Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians], that they who are under the Law are in bondage, and they keep waving like a banner that last saying, “You are made empty of Christ, as many of you as are justified in the Law; you have fallen from Grace.” We grant that all these things are true, and we say that the Law is not necessary, except for those who are kept in bondage for their own good: and that the Law was on this account profitably enacted, in that men, who could not be recalled from sins by reason, needed to be restrained by such a Law, that is to say, by the threats and terrors of those punishments which can be seen by fools. When the Grace of Christ sets us free from these fears, it does not condemn the Law, but invites us at length to yield obedience to its love, not to be slaves to the fear of the Law. This itself is Grace, that is free gift, which they do not understand to have come to them from God, who still desire to be under the bonds of the Law. Paul deservedly rebukes those [who still desire to live under the constraints of the Law] as unbelievers, because they do not believe that now through our Lord Jesus they have been set free from that bondage, under which they were placed for a certain time by the most just appointment of God. Hence is that saying of the same Apostle, “For the Law was our schoolmaster in Christ.” He therefore gave to men a schoolmaster to fear, and afterwards gave a Master to love. And yet in these precepts and commands of the Law, which are not now permissible for Christians to practice, such as either the Sabbath, or Circumcision, or Sacrifices, … very great mysteries are contained. Therefore let that every pious person understand, there is nothing more deadly than that whatever is there be understood to the letter, that is, to the word: and nothing more healthful than that it be unveiled in the Spirit. Hence it is: The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Hence it is [that the Apostle Paul says], “That same veil remains in the reading of the Old Testament, which veil is not taken away; since it is made void in Christ.” For there is made void in Christ, not the Old Testament, but its veil: that so through Christ matters may be understood, and, as it were, laid bare, which without Christ [are] obscure and covered. Forasmuch as the same Apostle immediately adds, “But when you shall have passed over to Christ, the veil shall be taken away.” For he does not say, the Law shall be taken away, or, the Old Testament. The Grace of the Lord has taken away nothing [from the Old Testament], as if it concealed useless things; but rather [Grace] has taken away the covering under which useful things [in the Old Testament] were hidden. And this is what is received by all those who earnestly and piously, not disorderly and shamelessly, seek the sense of those Scriptures. They are carefully shown both the order of events, and the causes of deeds and words, and so great agreement of the Old Testament with the New, that not even the least disagreement [between the Old Testament and the New] remains.

1.40 Augustine, On the Trinity First Psychological Analogy (416) We certainly seek a trinity—not any trinity, but that Trinity which is God, and the true and supreme and only God. Let my hearers then wait, for we are still seeking. … For a certain faith is in some way the starting-point of knowledge; but a certain knowledge will not be made perfect, except after this life, when we shall see face to face. Let us therefore have this attitude, so as to know that the disposition to seek the truth is more safe than that which presumes things unknown to be known. Let us therefore so

552

A Global Church History

seek as if we should find, and so find as if we were about to seek. For when a man has finished [this search], then he begins. Let us doubt without unbelief of things to be believed; let us affirm without rashness of things to be understood: authority must be held fast in the former, truth sought out in the latter. As regards this question, then, let us believe that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one God, the Creator and Ruler of the whole creature; and that the Father is not the Son, nor the Holy Spirit either the Father or the Son, but a trinity of persons mutually interrelated, and a unity of an equal essence. And let us seek to understand this, praying for help from [God] Himself, whom we wish to understand; and as much as He grants, desiring to explain what we understand with so much pious care and anxiety, that even if in any case we say one thing for another, we may at least say nothing unworthy. … Even as now our wish is to see whether the Holy Spirit is properly that love which is most excellent which if He is not, either the Father is love, or the Son, or the Trinity itself; since we cannot doubt the most certain faith and weighty authority of Scripture, saying, God is love. … And this being so, let us direct our attention to those three things which we fancy we have found. We are not yet speaking of heavenly things, nor yet of God the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, but of that inadequate image, which yet is an image, that is, man; for our feeble mind perhaps can gaze upon this more familiarly and more easily. Well then, when I, who make this inquiry, love anything, there are three things concerned—myself, and that which I love, and love itself. For I do not love love, except I love a lover; for there is no love where nothing is loved. Therefore there are three things—he who loves, and that which is loved, and love. But what if I love none except myself? Will there not then be two things— that which I love, and love? For he who loves and that which is loved are the same when any one loves himself; just as to love and to be loved, in the same way, is the very same thing when any one loves himself. Since the same thing is said, when it is said, he loves himself, and he is loved by himself. For in that case to love and to be loved are not two different things: just as he who loves and he who is loved are not two different persons. But yet, even so, love and what is loved are still two things. For there is no love when any one loves himself, except when love itself is loved. But it is one thing to love one’s self, another to love one’s own love. For love is not loved, unless as already loving something; since where nothing is loved there is no love. Therefore there are two things when any one loves himself—love, and that which is loved. For then he that loves and that which is loved are one. Whence it seems that it does not follow that three things are to be understood wherever love is. For let us put aside from the inquiry all the other many things of which a man consists; and in order that we may discover clearly what we are now seeking, as far as in such a subject is possible, let us treat of the mind alone. The mind, then, when it loves itself, discloses two things—mind and love. But what is to love one’s self, except to wish to help one’s self to the enjoyment of self? And when any one wishes himself to be just as much as he is, then the will is on a par with the mind, and the love is equal to him who loves. And if love is a substance, it is certainly not body, but spirit; and the mind also is not body, but spirit. Yet love and mind are not two spirits, but one spirit; nor yet two essences, but one: and yet here are two things that are one, he that loves and love; or, if you like so to put it, that which is loved and love. And these two, indeed, are both said about relations. Since he who loves is referred to love, and love to him who loves. For he who loves, loves with some love, and love is the love of some one who loves. But mind and spirit are not said relatively, but express essence. … And therefore, in so far as they are mutually referred to one another, they are two; but whereas they are spoken in respect to

Ancient

553

themselves, each are spirit, and both together also are one spirit; and each are mind, and both together one mind. Where, then, is the trinity? Let us attend as much as we can, and let us invoke the everlasting light, that He may illuminate our darkness, and that we may see in ourselves, as much as we are permitted, the image of God. For the mind cannot love itself, except also it know itself; for how can it love what it does not know? Or if any body says that the mind, from either general or special knowledge, believes itself of such a character as it has by experience found others to be and therefore loves itself, he speaks most foolishly. For from where does a mind know another mind, if it does not know itself? … But whatever is the nature of the power by which we discern through the eyes, certainly, whether it be rays or anything else, we cannot discern with the eyes that power itself; but we inquire into it with the mind, and if possible, understand even this with the mind. As the mind, then, itself gathers the knowledge of corporeal things through the senses of the body, so of incorporeal things through itself. Therefore it knows itself also through itself, since it is incorporeal; for if it does not know itself, it does not love itself. But as there are two things (duo quaedam), the mind and the love of it, when it loves itself; so there are two things, the mind and the knowledge of it, when it knows itself. Therefore the mind itself, and the love of it, and the knowledge of it, are three things (tria quaedam), and these three are one; and when they are perfect they are equal. … For knowledge is a kind of life in the reason of the knower, but the body is not life; and any life is greater than any body, not in bulk, but in power. But when the mind knows itself, its own knowledge does not rise above itself, because itself knows, and itself is known. When, therefore, it knows itself entirely, and no other thing with itself, then its knowledge is equal to itself; because its knowledge is not from another nature, since it knows itself. And when it perceives itself entirely, and nothing more, then it is neither less nor greater. We said therefore rightly, that these three things, [mind, love, and knowledge], when they are perfect, are by consequence equal.

1.41 Augustine, On the Trinity on the Holy Spirit and Loving (416) We have spoken sufficiently of the Father and of the Son, so far as was possible to see in this mirror and in this riddle. We must now speak of the Holy Spirit, so far as by God’s gift it is permitted to see Him. And the Holy Spirit, according to the Holy Scriptures, is neither of the Father alone, nor of the Son alone, but of both; and so the Holy Spirit shares with us a mutual love, with which the Father and the Son reciprocally love each other. But the language of the Word of God, in order to draw us to greater efforts, has caused those things to be sought into with greater zeal, which do not lie of the surface, but are to be scrutinized in hidden depths, and to be drawn out from there. The Scriptures, accordingly, have not said, The Holy Spirit is Love. If they had said so, they would have done away with no small part of this inquiry. But they have said, God is love; so that it is uncertain and remains to be inquired whether God the Father is love, or God the Son, or God the Holy Ghost, or the Trinity itself which is God. For we are not going to say that God is called Love because love itself is a substance worthy of the name of God, but because it is a gift of God, as it is said to God, You are my patience. For this is not said because our patience is God’s substance, but in that He Himself gives it to us; as it is elsewhere read, Since from Him is my patience. …

554

A Global Church History

God, then, is love; but the question is, whether the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, or the Trinity itself: because the Trinity is not three Gods, but one God. But I have already argued above in this book, that the Trinity, which is God, is not so to be understood from those three things which have been set forth in the trinity of our mind, as that the Father should be the memory of all three, and the Son the understanding of all three, and the Holy Spirit the love of all three; as though the Father should neither understand nor love for Himself, but the Son should understand for Him, and the Holy Spirit love for Him, but He Himself should remember only both for Himself and for them; nor the Son remember nor love for Himself, but the Father should remember for Him, and the Holy Spirit love for Him, but He Himself understand only both for Himself and them; nor likewise that the Holy Spirit should neither remember nor understand for Himself, but the Father should remember for Him, and the Son understand for Him, while He Himself should love only both for Himself and for them; but rather in this way, that both all and each have all three each in His own nature. Nor that these things should differ in them, as in us memory is one thing, understanding another, love or charity another, but should be some one thing that is equivalent to all, as wisdom itself; and should be so contained in the nature of each, as that He who has it is that which He has, as being an unchangeable and simple substance. If all this, then, has been understood, and so far as is granted to us to see or conjecture in things so great, has been made patently true, I know not why both the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit should not be called Love, and all together one love, just as both the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is called Wisdom, and all together not three, but one wisdom. For so also both the Father is God, and the Son God, and the Holy Ghost God, and all three together one God. And yet it is not to no purpose that in this Trinity the Son and none other is called the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit and none other the Gift of God, and God the Father alone is He from whom the Word is born, and from whom the Holy Spirit principally proceeds. And therefore I have added the word principally, because we find that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also. But the Father gave Him this too, not as to one already existing, and not yet having it; but whatever He gave to the onlybegotten Word, He gave by begetting Him. Therefore He so begot Him as that the common Gift should proceed from Him also, and the Holy Spirit should be the Spirit of both. This distinction, then, of the inseparable Trinity is not to be merely accepted in passing, but to be carefully considered; for hence it was that the Word of God was specially called also the Wisdom of God, although both Father and Holy Spirit are wisdom. If, then, any one of the three is to be specially called Love, what more fitting than that it should be the Holy Spirit?—namely, that in that simple and highest nature, substance should not be one thing and love another, but that substance itself should be love, and love itself should be substance, whether in the Father, or in the Son, or in the Holy Spirit; and yet that the Holy Spirit should be specially called Love. As, then, we call the only Word of God specially by the name of Wisdom, although universally both the Holy Spirit and the Father Himself is wisdom; so the Holy Spirit is specially called by the name of Love, although universally both the Father and the Son are love. But the Word of God, i.e. the only-begotten Son of God, is expressly called the Wisdom of God by the mouth of the apostle, where he says, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. But where the Holy Spirit is called Love, is to be found by careful scrutiny of the language of John the apostle, who, after saying, “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God,” has gone on to say, “And every one that loves is born of God, and knows God. He

Ancient

555

that loves not, knows not God; for God is love.” Here, manifestly, he has called that love God, which he said was of God; therefore God of God is love. But because both the Son is born of God the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from God the Father, it is rightly asked which of them we ought here to think is the rather called the love that is God. For the Father only is so God as not to be of God; and hence the love that is so God as to be of God, is either the Son or the Holy Spirit. But when, in what follows, the apostle had mentioned the love of God, not that by which we love Him, but that by which He loved us, and sent His Son to atone for our sins, and thereupon had exhorted us also to love one another, and that so God would abide in us—because, namely, he had called God Love; immediately, in his wish to speak yet more expressly on the subject, he says, “This is how we know that we dwell in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.” Therefore the Holy Spirit, of whom He has given us, makes us to abide in God, and Him in us; and this it is that love does. Therefore He is the God that is love. Lastly, a little after, when he had repeated the same thing, and had said God is love, he immediately added, “And he who abides in love, abides in God, and God abides in him”; whence he had said above, “Hereby we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.” He therefore is signified, where we read that God is love. Therefore God the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father, when He has been given to man, inflames him to the love of God and of his neighbor, and is Himself love. For human beings do not have the ability to love God unless they receive this from God; and therefore he says a little after, “Let us love Him, because He first loved us.” The Apostle Paul, too, says, “The love of God is poured into our hears by the Holy Spirit, which is given unto us.” There is no gift of God more excellent than this. It alone distinguishes the sons of the eternal kingdom and the sons of eternal perdition. Other gifts, too, are given by the Holy Spirit; but without love they profit nothing. Unless, therefore, the Holy Spirit is so far imparted to each, as to make him one who loves God and his neighbor, he is not removed from the left hand to the right. Nor is the Spirit specially called the Gift, unless on account of love. … Love, therefore, which is of God and is God, is specially the Holy Spirit, by whom the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts, by which love the whole Trinity dwells in us. And therefore most rightly is the Holy Spirit, although He is God, called also the gift of God. And by that gift what else can properly be understood except love, which brings to God, and without which any other gift of God whatsoever does not bring to God?

1.42 Augustine, City of God, On the Nature of Evil (426) Whoever gives even moderate attention to human affairs and to our common nature, will recognize that if there is no man who does not wish to be joyful, neither is there any one who does not wish to have peace. For even they who make war desire nothing but victory,—desire, that is to say, to attain to peace with glory. For what else is victory than the conquest of those who resist us? and when this is done there is peace. It is therefore with the desire for peace that wars are waged, even by those who take pleasure in exercising their warlike nature in command and battle. And hence it is obvious that peace is the end sought for by war. For every one seeks peace by waging war, but no one seeks war by making peace. For even they who intentionally interrupt the peace in which they are living have no hatred of peace, but only wish it changed into a peace that suits them better. They do not, therefore, wish to have no peace,

556

A Global Church History

but only one more to their mind. And in the case of sedition, when men have separated themselves from the community, they yet do not bring about what they wish, unless they maintain some kind of peace with their fellow-conspirators. And therefore even robbers take care to maintain peace with their comrades, that they may more effectively and with greater safety invade the peace of other men. … And thus all men desire to have peace with their own circle whom they wish to govern as they wish. For even those whom they make war against they wish to make their own, and impose on them the laws of their own peace. … He, then, who prefers what is right to what is wrong, and what is well-ordered to what is perverted, sees that the peace of unjust men is not worthy to be called peace in comparison with the peace of the just. And yet even what is perverted must of necessity be in harmony with, and in dependence on, and in some part of the order of things, for otherwise it would have no existence at all.

1.43 Augustine, On Nature and Grace, On the Fall and Redemption (415) Man’s nature, indeed, was created at first faultless and without any sin; but that nature of man in which every one is born from Adam, now needs the Physician, because it is not healthy. All good qualities, no doubt, which it still possesses in its composition, such as life, senses, intellect, it has of the Most High God, its Creator and Maker. But the flaw, which darkens and weakens all those natural goods, so that it has need of illumination and healing, it has not contracted from its blameless Creator—but from that original sin, which it committed by free will. Accordingly, criminal nature has its part in most righteous punishment. For, if we are now newly created in Christ, we were, for all that, children of wrath, like all the rest. But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love he loves us with, even when we were dead in sins, has made us alive together with Christ, by whose grace we were saved. This grace, however, of Christ, without which neither infants nor adults can be saved, is not rendered for any merits, but is given gratis, on account of which it is also called grace. “Being justified,” says the apostle, “freely through His blood.” Because of this, those who are not liberated by grace are indeed justly condemned, whether they failed to receive liberation because they were not able to hear [the message of grace], or because they were unwilling to obey it; or because they did not receive the bath of regeneration [that is, baptism] when they were too young to hear [the message], through which they might have been saved. They are justly condemned because they are not without sin, either the sin that they have inherited from birth or that which they have added by their own misconduct. For all have sinned—whether in Adam or in themselves—and come short of the glory of God. The entire mass, therefore, incurs penalty and if the deserved punishment of condemnation were rendered to all, it would without doubt be righteously rendered. They, therefore, who are delivered therefrom by grace are called, not vessels of their own merits, but vessels of mercy. But of whose mercy, if not His who sent Christ Jesus into the world to save sinners, whom He foreknew, and foreordained, and called, and justified, and glorified? Now, who could be so madly insane as to fail to give ineffable thanks to the Mercy which liberates whom it would? The man who correctly appreciated the whole subject could not possibly blame the justice of God in wholly condemning all men whatsoever.

Ancient

557

1.44 Augustine, City of God, On Death (426) Thus the souls of departed saints are not affected by the death which dismisses them from their bodies, because their flesh rests in hope, no matter what indignities it receives after sensation is gone. For they do not desire that their bodies be forgotten, as Plato thinks fit, but rather, because they remember what has been promised by [God], who deceives no one. And God has given them a promise for the safe keeping even of the hairs of their head. They wait with a longing patience, hoping for the resurrection of their bodies, in which they suffered many hardships, and now will never suffer again. For if they did not hate their own flesh, when it, with its native infirmity, opposed their will, and had to be constrained by the spiritual law, how much more shall they love it, when it shall even itself have become spiritual! For as, when the spirit serves the flesh, it is fitly called carnal, so, when the flesh serves the spirit, it will justly be called spiritual. Not that it is converted into spirit, as some fancy from the words, “It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption,” but because it is subject to the spirit with a perfect and marvellous readiness of obedience, and responds in all things to the will that has entered on immortality—all reluctance, all corruption, and all slowness being removed. For the body will not only be better than it was here in its best estate of health, but it will surpass the bodies of our first parents ere they sinned. For, though they were not to die unless they should sin, yet they used food as men do now, their bodies not being as yet spiritual, but animal only. And though they decayed not with years, nor drew nearer to death—a condition secured to them in God’s marvellous grace by the tree of life, which grew along with the forbidden tree in the midst of Paradise,—yet they took other nourishment, though not of that one tree, which was prohibited to them not because it was itself bad, but for the sake of commending a pure and simple obedience, which is the great virtue of the rational creature set under the Creator as his Lord. … Other fruits were, so to speak, their nourishment, but this their sacrament. So that the tree of life would seem to have been in the terrestrial Paradise what the wisdom of God is in the spiritual, of which it is written, “She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her.”

1.45 Pelagius Letter to Demetrias on Grace and Free Will (413) It is God himself, however, that eternal, ineffable majesty and incalculable power, who sends us his holy scriptures and the writ of his own commandments truly worthy of our worship, and yet we fail to receive them at once with joy and reverence nor do we consider the command of so mighty, so illustrious an authority as a great kindness, especially when it is not the advantage of the one giving the order which is being sought but the interest of the one who obeys it; on the contrary, with a proud and casual attitude of mind, in the manner of good-for-nothing and haughty servants, we cry out against the face of God and say, ‘It is hard, it is difficult, we cannot do it, we are but men, we are encompassed by frail flesh.’ What blind madness! what unholy foolhardiness! We accuse God of a twofold lack of knowledge, so that he appears not to know what he has done, and not to know what he has commanded; as if, forgetful of the human frailty of which he is himself the author, he has imposed on man commands which he cannot bear. And, at the same time, oh horror!, we ascribe iniquity to the righteous and cruelty to the holy, while complaining, first, that he has commanded something impossible, secondly, that man is to be damned by him for doing things which he was unable to avoid, so that God—and this is

558

A Global Church History

something which even to suspect is sacrilege—seems to have sought not so much our salvation as our punishment! And so the apostle, knowing that nothing impossible has been commanded by the God of justice and majesty, deprives us of this fault of ours of ‘grumbling and questioning’, which is wont to be found especially when commands are unjust or the standing of the one who gives them does not entitle him to do so. Why do we indulge in pointless evasions, advancing the frailty of our nature as an objection to the one who commands us? No one knows better the true measure of our strength than he who has given it to us nor does anyone understand better how much we are able to do than he who has given us this very capacity of ours to be able; nor has he who is just wished to command anything impossible or he who is good intended to condemn a man for doing what he could not avoid doing.

1.46  John Cassian, Conferences, On Grace and Free Will (c. 420) For human reason cannot easily decide how the Lord gives to those that ask, is found by those that seek, and opens to those that knock, and on the other hand is found by those that did not seek him, appears openly among those who did not ask after him, and all the day long stretches forth His hands to an unbelieving and contradicting people, calls those who resist and stand afar off, draws men against their will to salvation, takes away from those who want to sin the faculty of carrying out their desire, in His goodness stands in the way of those who are rushing into wickedness. But who can easily see how it is that the completion of our salvation is assigned to our own will, of which it is said: “If you be willing, and hearken unto Me, you shall eat the good things of the land,” and how “It is not of him that wills or runs, but of God that has mercy?” What too is this, that God will render to every man according to his works; and it is God who works in you both to will and to do, of His good pleasure; and this is not of yourselves but it is the gift of God: not of works, that no man may boast? What is this too which is said: “Draw near to the Lord, and He will draw near to you,” and what He says elsewhere: “No man comes unto Me except the Father who sent Me draw Him?” What is it that we find: “Make straight paths for your feet and direct your ways,” and what is it that we say in our prayers: “Direct my way in Your sight, and establish my travels in Your paths, that my footsteps would not be unstable?” What is it again that we are admonished: “Make yourself a new heart and a new spirit,” and what is this which is promised to us: “I will give them one heart and will put a new spirit within them: and I will take away the stony heart from their flesh and will give them an heart of flesh that they may walk in Your statutes and keep My judgments?” … But that it may be still clearer that through the excellence of nature which is granted by the goodness of the Creator, sometimes first beginnings of a good will arise, which however cannot attain to the complete performance of what is good unless it is guided by the Lord, the Apostle bears witness and says: “For to will is present with me, but to perform what is good I find not.” For Holy Scripture supports the freedom of the will where it says: “Keep your heart with all diligence,” but the Apostle indicates its weakness by saying, “The Lord keep your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus.” David asserts the power of free will, where he says, “I have inclined my heart to do Your righteous acts,” but the same man in a similar way teaches us its weakness, by praying and saying, “Incline my

Ancient

559

heart unto Your testimonies and not to covetousness:” Solomon also said: “The Lord incline our hearts unto Himself that we may walk in all His ways and keep His commandments, and ordinances and judgments.” The Psalmist denotes the power of our will, where he says: “Keep your tongue from evil, and your lips that they speak no guile,” our prayer testifies to its weakness, when we say: “O Lord, set a watch before my mouth, and keep the door of my lips.” … The Apostle writing to the Philippians, to show that their will is free, says, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,” but to point out its weakness, he adds: “For it is God that works in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure.”

1.47  Cyril of Alexandria, Second Tome against Nestorius On the Union of Natures in Christ (c. 430) But [Nestorius,] the inventor of the most recent impiety, although pretending to affirm One Christ, ever divides the Natures and sets Each by itself, saying that they did not truly come together. … Yet how is it not obvious to all that the Only-Begotten being God by Nature has been made man, not by connection simply, … considered as external or accidental, but by true union, ineffable and passing understanding. And thus He is conceived of as One and Only, and every thing said befits Him and all will be said of One Person. For the Incarnate Nature of the Word Himself is after the Union now conceived of as One, just as will reasonably be conceived in regard to ourselves too, for man is really One, compounded of unlike things, soul I mean and body. … But even though the things named be conceived of as diverse and sundered in diverseness of nature, yet is Christ conceived of as One out of both, the Godhead and manhood having come together one to another in true union. … [Christ has a] Body that was His own by true union: and as He is said to suffer in the flesh humanly, albeit by Nature Impassible as God; so is He conceived of as anointed [with the Holy Spirit] in regard to the human nature, albeit Himself anointing with His own Spirit those whom it befits to partake of His holiness. … The nature of the things that have been brought together are not the same, but diverse: so again must we conceive of Christ, for He is not twofold, but One and Only Lord and Son is the Word from forth God the Father, not without flesh. For I myself would also agree that the difference or interval between Manhood and Godhead is most vast, plainly being completely other in respect of the mode of their being and nothing like one to another. But when the mystery of Christ is brought before us, the plan of the union indeed does not ignore the difference, but puts aside the severance, not confusing the natures or immingling them but, because the Word of God when He partook of flesh and blood, even thus is conceived of and called One Son.

1.48  Cyril of Alexandria Gospel According to John, On the Unity of the Church (c. 430-440) And if we are all of us of the same Body with one another in Christ, and not only with one another, but also of course with Him Who is in us through His Flesh, are we not then all of us clearly one both

560

A Global Church History

with one another and with Christ? For Christ is the bond of union, being at once God and Man. With reference, then, to the unity that is by the Spirit, following in the same track of inquiry, we say once more, that we all, receiving one and the same Spirit, I mean the Holy Spirit, are in some sort blended together with one another and with God. For if, we being many, Christ, Who is the Spirit of the Father and His own Spirit, dwells in each one of us severally, still is the Spirit one and indivisible, binding together the dissevered spirits of the individualities of one and all of us, as we have a separate being, in His own natural singleness into unity, causing us all to be shown forth in Him, through Himself, and as one. For as the power of His holy Flesh makes those in whom It exists to be of the same Body, so likewise also the indivisible Spirit of God That abides in all, being one, binds all together into spiritual unity.

1.49  Council of Carthage (417), The Canon of Scripture That besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis. Exodus. Leviticus. Numbers. Deuteronomy. Joshua the Son of Nun. The Judges. Ruth. The Kings, four books. The Chronicles, two books. Job. The Psalter. The Five books of Solomon. The Twelve Books of the Prophets. Isaiah. Jeremiah. Ezechiel. Daniel. Tobit. Judith. Esther. Ezra, two books. Macchabees, two books. The New Testament. The Gospels, four books. The Acts of the Apostles, one book.

Ancient

561

The Epistles of Paul, fourteen. The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, two. The Epistles of John the Apostle, three. The Epistles of James the Apostle, one. The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, one. The Revelation of John, one book.

Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.

1.50  The Athanasian Creed (late 5th or early 6th century) Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Eternal and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there be Three Gods or Three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity. Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting Salvation, that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man. God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the substance of His mother, born into the world. Perfect God and Perfect Man, of a reasonable Soul and human Flesh

562

A Global Church History

subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood. Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but One Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into Flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by Unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one Man, so God and Man is one Christ. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into Hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into Heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

1.51 Arius’ Letter to Paulinus on Christ (c. 324) To my lord Paulinus, Eusebius sends greeting in the Lord. The zeal of my lord Eusebius in the cause of the truth, and likewise your silence concerning it, have not failed to reach our ears. Accordingly, if, on the one hand, we rejoiced on account of the zeal of my lord Eusebius; on the other we are grieved at you, because even the silence of such a man appears like a defeat of our cause. Hence, as it behooves not a wise man to be of a different opinion from others, and to be silent concerning the truth, stir up, I exhort you, within yourself the spirit of wisdom to write, and at length begin what may be profitable to yourself and to others, specially if you consent to write in accordance with Scripture, and tread in the tracks of its words and will. We have never heard that there are two unbegotten beings, nor that one has been divided into two, nor have we learned or believed that it has ever undergone any change of a corporeal nature; but we affirm that the unbegotten is one and one also that which exists in truth by Him, yet was not made out of His substance, and does not at all participate in the nature or substance of the unbegotten, entirely distinct in nature and in power, and made after perfect likeness both of character and power to the maker. We believe that the mode of His beginning not only cannot be expressed by words but even in thought, and is incomprehensible not only to man, but also to all beings superior to man. These opinions we advance not as having derived them from our own imagination, but as having deduced them from Scripture, whence we learn that the Son was created, established, and begotten in the same substance and in the same immutable and inexpressible nature as the Maker; and so the Lord says,’ God created me in the beginning of His way; I was set up from everlasting; before the hills was I brought forth.’ If He had been from Him or of Him, as a portion of Him, or by an emanation of His substance, it could not be said that He was created or established; and of this you, my lord, are certainly not ignorant. For that which is of the unbegotten could not be said to have been created or founded, either by Him or by another, since it is unbegotten from the beginning. But if the fact of His being called the begotten gives any ground for the belief that, having come into being of the Father’s substance, He also has from the Father likeness of nature, we reply that it is not of Him alone that the Scriptures have spoken as begotten, but that they also thus speak of those who are entirely dissimilar to Him by nature. For of men it is said, ‘I have begotten and brought up sons, and they have rebelled against me;’ and in another place,

Ancient

563

‘You have forsaken God who begot you;’ and again it is said, ‘Who begot the drops of dew?’ This expression does not imply that the dew partakes of the nature of God, but simply that all things were formed according to His will. There is, indeed, nothing which is of His substance, yet every thing which exists has been called into being by His will. He is God; and all things were made in His likeness, and in the future likeness of His Word, being created of His free will. All things were made by His means by God. All things are of God. When you have received my letter, and have revised it according to the knowledge and grace given you by God, I beg you will write as soon as possible to my lord Alexander. I feel confident that if you would write to him, you would succeed in bringing him over to your opinion. Salute all the brethren in the Lord. May you, my lord, be preserved by the grace of God, and be led to pray for us. It is thus that they wrote to each other, in order to furnish one another with weapons against the truth. And so when the blasphemous doctrine had been disseminated in the churches of Egypt and of the East, disputes and contentions arose in every city, and in every village, concerning theological dogmas. The common people looked on, and became judges of what was said on either side, and some applauded one party, and some the other. These were, indeed, scenes fit for the tragic stage, over which tears might have been shed. For it was not, as in bygone days, when the church was attacked by strangers and by enemies, but now natives of the same country, who dwelt under one roof, and sat down at one table, fought against each other not with spears, but with their tongues. And what was still more sad, they who thus took up arms against one another were members of one another, and belonged to one body.

1.52  The Dated Creed (359) The catholic faith was expounded at Sirmium in presence of our lord Constantius, in the consulate of the most illustrious Flavius Eusebius, and Hypatius, on the twenty-third of May. We believe in one only and true God, the Father Almighty, the Creator and Framer of all things: and in one only-begotten Son of God, before all ages, before all beginning, before all conceivable time, and before all comprehensible thought, begotten without passion: by whom the ages were framed, and all things made: who was begotten as the only-begotten of the Father, only of only, God of God, like to the Father who begot him, according to the Scriptures: whose generation no one knows, but the Father only who begot him. We know that this his only-begotten Son came down from the heavens by his Father’s consent for the putting away of sin, was born of the Virgin Mary, conversed with his disciples, and fulfilled every dispensation according to the Father’s will: was crucified and died, and descended into the lower parts of the earth, and disposed matters there; at the sight of whom the (door-keepers of Hades trembled): having arisen on the third day, he again conversed with his disciples, and after forty days were completed he ascended into the heavens, and is seated at the Father’s right hand; and at the last day he will come in his Father’s glory to render to every one according to his works. [We believe] also in the Holy Spirit, whom the only-begotten Son of God Jesus Christ himself promised to send to the human race as the Comforter, according to that which is written: I go away to my Father, and will ask him, and he will send you another Comforter, the Spirit of truth. He shall receive of mine, and shall teach

564

A Global Church History

you, and bring all things to your remembrance. As for the term substance, which was used by our fathers for the sake of greater simplicity, but not being understood by the people has caused offense on account of the fact that the Scriptures do not contain it, it seemed desirable that it should be wholly abolished, and that in future no mention should be made of substance in reference to God, since the divine Scriptures have nowhere spoken concerning the substance of the Father and the Son. But we say that the Son is in all things like the Father, as the Holy Scriptures affirm and teach.

1.53  Leo the Great, Tome on the Christ (449) Not knowing, therefore, what he was bound to think concerning the incarnation of the Word of God, and not wishing to gain the light of knowledge by researches through the length and breadth of the Holy Scriptures, [Eutyches] might at least have listened attentively to that general and uniform confession [of the Council of Nicaea], whereby the whole body of the faithful confess that they believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. By these three statements, the deceits of almost all heretics are overthrown. For not only is God believed to be both Almighty and the Father, but the Son is shown to be co-eternal with Him, differing in nothing from the Father because He is God from God, Almighty from Almighty, and being born from the Eternal one is co-eternal with Him; not later in point of time, not lower in power, not unlike in glory, not divided in essence. But at the same time the only begotten of the eternal Father was born eternal of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. And this nativity which took place in time took nothing from, and added nothing to that divine and eternal birth, but expended itself wholly on the restoration of man who had been deceived: in order that he might both vanquish death and overthrow by his strength, the Devil who possessed the power of death. For we should not now be able to overcome the author of sin and death unless He took our nature on Him and made it His own, whom neither sin could pollute nor death retain. Doubtless then, He was conceived of the Holy Spirit within the womb of His Virgin Mother, who brought Him forth without the loss of her virginity, even as she conceived Him without its loss. … But that birth so uniquely wondrous and so wondrously unique, is not to be understood in such wise that the properties of His kind were removed through the novelty of His creation. For though the Holy Spirit imparted fertility to the Virgin, yet a real body was received from her body. … Without detriment therefore to the properties of either nature and substance which then came together in one person, majesty took on humility, strength weakness, eternity mortality: and for the paying off of the debt belonging to our condition inviolable nature was united with possible nature, so that, as suited the needs of our case, one and the same Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, could both die with the one and not die with the other. Thus in the whole and perfect nature of true man was true God born, complete in what was His own, complete in what was ours. And by ours we mean what the Creator formed in us from the beginning and what He undertook to repair. For what the Deceiver brought in and man deceived committed, had no trace in the Saviour. Nor, because He partook of man’s weaknesses, did He therefore share our faults. He took the form of a slave without stain of sin, increasing the human and not diminishing the divine: because that emptying

Ancient

565

of Himself whereby the Invisible made Himself visible and, Creator and Lord of all things though He be, wished to be a mortal, was the bending down of compassion, not the failing of power. Accordingly He who while remaining in the form of God made man, was also made man in the form of a slave. For both natures retain their own proper character without loss: and as the form of God did not do away with the form of a slave, so the form of a slave did not impair the form of God. For inasmuch as the Devil used to boast that man had been cheated by his guile into losing the divine gifts, and having lost the gift of immortality had undergone sentence of death, and that he had found some comfort in his troubles from having a partner in crime, and that God also at the demand of the principle of justice had changed His own purpose towards man whom He had created in such honour: there was need for the issue of a secret counsel, that the unchangeable God whose will cannot be robbed of its own kindness, might carry out the first plan of His Fatherly care towards us by a more hidden mystery; and that man who had been driven into his fault by the treacherous cunning of the devil might not perish contrary to the purpose of God. There enters then into these lower parts of the world the Son of God, descending from His heavenly home and yet not quitting His Father’s glory, begotten in a new order by a new nativity. In a new order, because being invisible in His own nature, He became visible in ours, and He whom nothing could contain was content to be contained: abiding before all time, He began to be in time: the Lord of all things, He obscured His immeasurable majesty and took on Him the form of a servant: being God that cannot suffer, He did not disdain to be man that can, and, immortal as He is, to subject Himself to the laws of death. From the mother of the Lord was received nature, not faultiness: nor in the Lord Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin’s womb, does the wonderfulness of His birth make His nature unlike ours. For He who is true God is also true man: and in this union there is no lie, since the humility of manhood and the loftiness of the Godhead both meet there. For as God is not changed by the showing of compassion, so man is not swallowed up by the dignity [of the divine]. For each form does what is proper to it with the co-operation of the other; that is the Word performing what appertains to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what appertains to the flesh. One of them sparkles with miracles, the other succumbs to injuries. And as the Word does not cease to be on an equality with His Father’s glory, so the flesh does not forego the nature of our race. For it must again and again be repeated that one and the same is truly Son of God and truly son of man.

1.54  Cyril of Alexandria, Cum salvator noster on the Christ (c. 430) Following in all points the confessions of the Holy Fathers which they made (the Holy Ghost speaking in them), and following the scope of their opinions, and going, as it were, in the royal way, we confess that the Only begotten Word of God, begotten of the same substance of the Father, True God from True God, Light from Light, through Whom all things were made, the things in heaven and the things in the earth, coming down for our salvation, making himself of no reputation (katheis heauton eis keno ¯sin), was incarnate and made man; that is, taking flesh of the Holy Virgin, and having made it his own from the womb, he subjected himself to birth for us, and came forth man from a woman, without casting off that which he was; but although he assumed flesh and blood, he remained what he was, God in essence and in truth. Neither do

566

A Global Church History

we say that his flesh was changed into the nature of divinity, nor that the ineffable nature of the Word of God was laid aside for the nature of flesh; for he is unchanged and absolutely unchangeable, being the same always, according to the Scriptures. For although visible and a child in swaddling clothes, and even in the bosom of his Virgin Mother, he filled all creation as God, and was a fellow-ruler with him who begot him, for the Godhead is without quantity and dimension, and cannot have limits. … We confess that he is the Son, begotten of God the Father, and Only-begotten God; and although according to his own nature he was not subject to suffering, yet he suffered for us in the flesh according to the Scriptures, and although impassible, yet in his Crucified Body he made his own the sufferings of his own flesh; and by the grace of God he tasted death for all: he gave his own Body thereto, although he was by nature himself the life and the resurrection, in order that, having trodden down death by his unspeakable power, first in his own flesh, he might become the first born from the dead, and the firstfruits of them that slept. And that he might make a way for the nature of man to attain incorruption, by the grace of God (as we just now said), he tasted death for every man, and after three days rose again, having despoiled hell. So although it is said that the resurrection of the dead was through man, yet we understand that man to have been the Word of God, and the power of death was loosed through him, and he shall come in the fullness of time as the One Son and Lord, in the glory of the Father, in order to judge the world in righteousness, as it is written.

1.55  The Definition of Chalcedon (451) Following the holy Fathers we teach with one voice that the Son [of God] and our Lord Jesus Christ is to be confessed as one and the same [Person], that he is perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, very God and very man, of a reasonable soul and [human] body consisting, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood; made in all things like us, sin only excepted; begotten of his Father before the worlds according to his Godhead; but in these last days for us men and for our salvation born [into the world] of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God according to his manhood. This one and the same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son [of God] must be confessed to be in two natures, unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably [united], and that without the distinction of natures being taken away by such union, but rather the peculiar property of each nature being preserved and being united in one Person and subsistence, not separated or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and only-begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, as the Prophets of old time have spoken concerning him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ has taught us, and as the Creed of the Fathers has delivered to us.

1.56  Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium on Knowing the True Faith (c. 434) A General Rule for distinguishing the Truth of the Catholic Faith from the Falsehood of Heretical Pravity. I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of

Ancient

567

Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church. But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation. Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.

1.57 Rufinus, The Ecclesiastical History, Christianity in Ethiopia (late fourth or early fifth century) [N.B. Rufinus, following Roman geographic opinions, thought that India and Africa were connected by land. In this excerpt, what he calls India is correctly identified as Ethiopia.—ed.] At this period, the light of the knowledge of God was for the first time shed upon India [that is, Ethiopia—ed.]. The courage and the piety of the emperor had become celebrated throughout the world; and the barbarians, having learnt by experience to choose peace rather than war, were able to enjoy intercourse with one another without fear. Many persons, therefore, set out on long journeys ; some for the desire of making discoveries, others from a spirit of commercial enterprise. About this period a native of Tyre, acquainted with Greek philosophy, desiring to penetrate into the interior of India, set off for this purpose with his two young nephews. When he had accomplished the object of his wishes, he embarked for his own country. The ship being compelled to put in to land in order to obtain a fresh supply of water, the barbarians fell upon her, drowned some of the crew, and took the others prisoners. The uncle was among the number of those who were killed, and the lads were conducted to the king. The name of the one was Edesius, and of the other Frumentius. The king of the country, in

568

A Global Church History

course of time, perceiving their intelligence, promoted them to the superintendence of his household. If any one should doubt the truth of this account, let him recall to mind the history of Joseph in the kingdom of Egypt, and also the history of Daniel, and of the three champions of the truth, who, from being captives, became princes of Babylon. The king died; but these young men remained with his son, and were advanced still greater power. As they had been brought up in the true religion, they exhorted the merchants who visited the country to assemble, according to the custom of Romans, to take part in the divine liturgy. After a considerable time they solicited the king to reward their services by permitting them to return to their own country. They obtained his permission, and safely reached Roman territory. Edesius directed his course towards Tyre, but Frumentius, whose religious zeal was greater than the natural feeling of affection for his relatives, proceeded to Alexandria, and informed the bishop of that city that the Indians [that is, the Ethiopians—ed.] were deeply anxious to obtain spiritual light. Athanasius then held the rudder of that church; he heard the story, and then “Who,” said he, “better than you yourself can scatter the mists of ignorance, and introduce among this people the light of Divine preaching?” After having said this, he conferred upon him the episcopal dignity, and sent him to the spiritual culture of that nation. The newly ordained bishop left this country, caring nothing for the mighty ocean, and returned to the unfilled ground of his work. There, having the grace of God to labour with him, he cheer fully and successfully played the husbandman, catching those who sought to gainsay his words by works of apostolic wonder, and thus, by these marvels, confirming his teaching, he continued each day to take many souls alive.

1.58  Cosmas Indicopleustes, Topographia Christiana on Christianity in Central and South Asia (550) This I had learned from the divine Scriptures, and from the living voice of that most divine man and great teacher Patricius [Mar-aba]; who, when fulfilling the vows of the Abrahamic rule, set out from Chaldaea with his disciple Thomas of Edessa, a holy man who followed him wherever he went, but by the will of God was removed from this life at Byzantium. Patricius propagated the doctrines of holy religion and true science, and has now by the grace of God been elevated to the lofty episcopal throne of all Persia, having been appointed bishop Catholic of that country. Even in Taprobene (Ceylon), an island in Further India, where the Indian sea is, there is a church of Christians, with clergy and a body of believers, but I know not whether there be any Christians in the parts beyond it. In the country called Male (Malabar), where the pepper grows, there is also a church, and at another place called Calliana (Quilon) there is moreover a bishop, who is appointed from Persia. In the island again called the Island of Dioscorides (Socotra), which is situated in the same Indian sea, and where the inhabitants speak Greek, having been originally colonists sent thither by the Ptolemies who succeeded Alexander the Macedonian, there are clergy who receive their ordination in Persia, and are sent on to the island, and there is also a multitude of Christians. I sailed along the coast of this island, but did not land upon it. I met, however, with some of its Greek-speaking people, who had come over into Ethiopia. And so likewise among the Bactrians, and Huns and Persians, and the rest of the Indians, and throughout the whole land of Persia, there is no limit to the number of churches with

Ancient

569

bishops and very large communities of Christian people, as well as many martyrs, and monks also living as hermits.

1.59  The Nestorian Stele, On Christianity in China (781) In the time of the accomplished Emperor Tai-tsung, the illustrious and magnificent founder of the dynasty, among the enlightened and holy men who arrived was the most-virtuous Olopun, from the country of Syria. Observing the azure clouds, he bore the true sacred books; beholding the direction of the winds, he braved difficulties and dangers. In the year of our Lord 635 he arrived at Chang-an; the Emperor sent his Prime Minister, Duke Fang Hiuen-ling; who, carrying the official staff to the west border, conducted his guest into the interior; the sacred books were translated in the imperial library, the sovereign investigated the subject in his private apartments; when becoming deeply impressed with the rectitude and truth of the religion, he gave special orders for its dissemination. In the seventh month of the year A.D. 638 the following imperial proclamation was issued: “Right principles have no invariable name, holy men have no invariable station; instruction is established in accordance with the locality, with the object of benefiting the people at large. The greatly virtuous Olopun, of the kingdom of Syria, has brought his sacred books and images from that distant part, and has presented them at our chief capital. Having examined the principles of this religion, we find them to be purely excellent and natural; investigating its originating source, we find it has taken its rise from the establishment of important truths; its ritual is free from perplexing expressions, its principles will survive when the framework is forgot; it is beneficial to all creatures; it is advantageous to mankind. Let it be published throughout the Empire, and let the proper authority build a Syrian church in the capital in the I-ning May, which shall be governed by twenty-one priests. When the virtue of the Chau Dynasty declined, the rider on the azure ox ascended to the west; the principles of the great Tang becoming resplendent, the Illustrious breezes have come to fan the East.”

1.60  Council of Constantinople II (553) Having thus detailed all that has been done by us, we again confess that we receive the four holy Synods, that is, the Nicene, the Constantinopolitan, the first of Ephesus, and that of Chalcedon, and we have taught, and do teach all that they defined respecting the one faith. And we account those who do not receive these things aliens from the Catholic Church. Moreover we condemn and anathematize, together with all the other heretics who have been condemned and anathematized by the beforementioned four holy Synods, and by the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, Theodore who was Bishop of Mopsuestia, and his impious writings, and also those things which Theodoret impiously wrote against the right faith, and against the Twelve Chapters of the holy Cyril, and against the first Synod of Ephesus, and also those which he wrote in defense of Theodore and Nestorius. In addition to these we also anathematize the impious Epistle which Ibas is said to have written to Maris, the Persian, which denies that God the Word was incarnate of the holy Mother of God, and ever Virgin Mary, and accuses Cyril

570

A Global Church History

of holy memory, who taught the truth, as an heretic, and of the same sentiments with Apollinaris, and blames the first Synod of Ephesus as deposing Nestorius without examination and inquiry, and calls the Twelve Chapters of the holy Cyril impious, and contrary to the right faith, and defends Theodorus and Nestorius, and their impious dogmas and writings. We therefore anathematize the Three Chapters before-mentioned, that is, the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia, with his execrable writings, and those things which Theodoret impiously wrote, and the impious letter which is said to be of Ibas, and their defenders, and those who have written or do write in defense of them, or who dare to say that they are correct, and who have defended or attempt to defend their impiety with the names of the holy Fathers, or of the holy Council of Chalcedon.

1.61  The Council of Constantinople III (680-681) [W]e likewise declare that in [Christ] are two natural wills and two natural operations indivisibly, inconvertibly, inseparably, inconfusedly, according to the teaching of the holy Fathers. And these two natural wills are not contrary the one to the other (God forbid!) as the impious heretics assert, but his human will follows and that not as resisting and reluctant, but rather as subject to his divine and omnipotent will. For it was right that the flesh should be moved but subject to the divine will, according to the most wise Athanasius. For as his flesh is called and is the flesh of God the Word, so also the natural will of his flesh is called and is the proper will of God the Word, as he himself says: I came down from heaven, not that I might do my own will but the will of the Father which sent me! where he calls his own will the will of his flesh, inasmuch as his flesh was also his own. For as his most holy and immaculate animated flesh was not destroyed because it was deified but continued in its own state and nature (oro te kai logo ¯), so also his human will, although deified, was not suppressed, but was rather preserved according to the saying of Gregory Theologus: His will [i.e., the Saviour’s] is not contrary to God but altogether deified. We glorify two natural operations indivisibly, immutably, inconfusedly, inseparably in the same our Lord Jesus Christ our true God, that is to say a divine operation and a human operation, according to the divine preacher Leo, who most distinctly asserts as follows: For each form (morphe ¯) does in communion with the other what pertains properly to it, the Word, namely, doing that which pertains to the Word, and the flesh that which pertains to the flesh. For we will not admit one natural operation in God and in the creature, as we will not exalt into the divine essence what is created, nor will we bring down the glory of the divine nature to the place suited to the creature.

1.62  The Council of Nicaea II (787) We, therefore, following the royal pathway and the divinely inspired authority of our Holy Fathers and the traditions of the Catholic Church (for, as we all know, the Holy Spirit indwells her), define with all certitude and accuracy that just as the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross, so also the venerable

Ancient

571

and holy images, as well in painting and mosaic as of other fit materials, should be set forth in the holy churches of God, and on the sacred vessels and on the vestments and on hangings and in pictures both in houses and by the wayside, to wit, the figure of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ, of our spotless Lady, the Mother of God, of the honourable Angels, of all Saints and of all pious people. For by so much more frequently as they are seen in artistic representation, by so much more readily are men lifted up to the memory of their prototypes, and to a longing after them; and to these should be given due salutation and honourable reverence (aspasmon kai time ¯tike¯n proskyne¯sin), not indeed that true worship of faith (latreian) which pertains alone to the divine nature; but to these, as to the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross and to the Book of the Gospels and to the other holy objects, incense and lights may be offered according to ancient pious custom. For the honour which is paid to the image passes on to that which the image represents, and he who reveres the image reveres in it the subject represented. For thus the teaching of our holy Fathers, that is the tradition of the Catholic Church, which from one end of the earth to the other has received the Gospel, is strengthened. Thus we follow Paul, who spoke in Christ, and the whole divine Apostolic company and the holy Fathers, holding fast the traditions which we have received.

Chapter 2 The Medieval, Byzantine, and Oriental Church

2.1  Emperor Zeno, Henoticon on the Orthodox Faith (482) The emperor Caesar Zeno, pious, victorious, triumphant, supreme, ever worshipful Augustus, to the most reverent bishops and clergy, and to the monks and laity throughout Alexandria, Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis. Being assured that the origin and constitution, the might and invincible defence of our sovereignty is the only right and true faith, which, through divine inspiration, the three hundred holy fathers assembled at Nicaea set forth, and the hundred and fifty holy fathers, who in like manner met at Constantinople, confirmed; we night and day employ every means of prayer, of zealous pains and of laws, that the holy Catholic and apostolic church in every place may be multiplied, the uncorruptible and immortal mother of our sceptre; and that the pious laity, continuing in peace and unanimity with respect to God, may, together with the bishops, highly beloved of God, the most pious clergy, the archimandrites and monks, offer up acceptably their supplications in behalf of our sovereignty. So long as our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, who was incarnate and born of Mary, the Holy Virgin, and Mother of God, approves and readily accepts our concordant glorification and service, the power of our enemies will be crushed and swept away, and peace with its blessings, kindly temperature, abundant produce, and whatever is beneficial to man, will be liberally bestowed. Since, then, the irreprehensible faith is the preserver both of ourselves and the Roman weal, petitions have been offered to us from pious archimandrites and hermits, and other venerable persons, imploring us with tears that unity should be procured for the churches, and the limbs should be knit together, which the enemy of all good has of old time been eagerly bent upon severing, under a consciousness that defeat will befall him whenever he assails the body while in an entire condition. For since it happens, that of the unnumbered generations which during the lapse of so many years time has withdrawn from life, some have departed, deprived of the laver of regeneration, and others have been borne away on the inevitable journey of man, without having partaken in the divine communion; and innumerable murders have also been perpetrated; and not only the earth, but the very air has been defiled by a multitude of blood-sheddings; that this state of things might be transformed into good, who would not pray? For this reason, we were anxious that you should be informed, that we and the churches in every quarter neither have held, nor do we or shall we hold, nor are we aware of persons who hold, any other symbol or lesson or definition of faith or creed than the before-mentioned holy symbol of the three hundred

The Medieval, Byzantine, and Oriental Church

573

and eighteen holy fathers, which the aforesaid hundred and fifty holy fathers confirmed; and if any person does hold such, we deem him an alien: for we are confident that this symbol alone is, as we said, the preserver of our sovereignty, and on their reception of this alone are all the people baptised when desirous of the saving illumination: which symbol all the holy fathers assembled at Ephesus also followed; who further passed sentence of deposition on the impious Nestorius and those who subsequently held his sentiments: which Nestorius we also anathematise, together with Eutyches and all who entertain opinions contrary to those above-mentioned, receiving at the same time the twelve chapters of Cyril, of holy memory, formerly archbishop of the holy Catholic church of the Alexandrians. We moreover confess, that the only begotten Son of God, himself God, who truly assumed manhood, namely, our Lord Jesus Christ, who is con-substantial with the Father in respect of the Godhead, and consubstantial with ourselves as respects the manhood; that He, having descended, and become incarnate of the Holy Spirit and Mary, the Virgin and Mother of God, is one and not two; for we affirm that both his miracles, and the sufferings which he voluntarily endured in the flesh, are those of a single person: for we do in no degree admit those who either make a division or a confusion, or introduce a phantom; inasmuch as his truly sinless incarnation from the Mother of God did not produce an addition of a son, because the Trinity continued a Trinity even when one member of the Trinity, the God Word, became incarnate. Knowing, then, that neither the holy orthodox churches of God in all parts, nor the priests, highly beloved of God, who are at their head, nor our own sovereignty, have allowed or do allow any other symbol or definition of faith than the before-mentioned holy lesson, we have united ourselves thereto without hesitation. And these things we write not as setting forth a new form of faith, but for your assurance: and every one who has held or holds any other opinion, either at the present or another time, whether at Chalcedon or in any synod whatever, we anathematise; and specially the before-mentioned Nestorius and Eutyches, and those who maintain their doctrines. Link yourselves, therefore, to the spiritual mother, the church, and in her enjoy the same communion with us, according to the aforesaid one and only definition of the faith, namely, that of the three hundred and eighteen holy fathers. For your all holy mother, the church, waits to embrace you as true children, and longs to hear your loved voice, so long withheld. Speed yourselves, therefore, for by so doing you will both draw towards yourselves the favor of our Master and Saviour and God, Jesus Christ, and be commended by our sovereignty.

2.2  Benedict Of Nursia, Rule (c. 540-550) The Prologue Listen, my son, and turn the ear of your heart to the precepts of thy Master. Receive readily, and faithfully carry out the advice of a loving Father, so that by the work of obedience you may return to Him, whom you have left by the sloth of disobedience. For you, therefore, whosoever you be, my words are intended, who, giving up your own will, do take up the all-powerful and excellent arms of obedience to fight under the Lord Christ, the true King. … Therefore, with our loins girt by faith, and by the practice of good works under the guidance of His Gospel, let us walk in the path He has marked out for us, that we may deserve to see Him who has called us in His kingdom. …

574

A Global Church History

So questioning the Lord, brothers, we have heard on what conditions we may dwell in His temple; and if we fulfil these we shall be heirs of the kingdom of heaven. Therefore must our hearts and bodies be prepared to fight under the holy obedience of His commands, and we must beg our Lord to supply by the help of His grace what by nature is not possible to us. And if, fleeing from the pains of hell, we will to attain to life everlasting, we must, while time yet serves and while we live in the flesh and the light is still on our path, hasten to do now what will profit us for all eternity. We are therefore now about to institute a school for the service of God, in which we hope nothing harsh nor burdensome will be ordained. But if we proceed in certain things with some little severity, sound reason so advising for the amendment of vices or the preserving of charity, do not for fear of this forthwith flee from the way of salvation, which is always narrow in the beginning. In living our life, however, and by the growth of faith, when the heart has been enlarged, the path of God’s commandments is run with unspeakable loving sweetness; so that never leaving His school, but persevering in the monastery until death in His teaching, we share by our patience in the sufferings of Christ, and so merit to be partakers of His kingdom

Chapter LXXIII That All Perfection Is Not Contained In This Rule We have written this Rule, that, by its observance in monasteries, we may show that we have in some measure uprightness of manners or the beginning of religious life. But for such as hasten onward to the perfection of holy life there are the teachings of the Holy Fathers, the observance whereof leads a man to the heights of perfection. For what page or what passage of the divinely inspired books of the Old and the New Testament is not a most perfect rule for man’s life? Or what book is there of the Holy Catholic Fathers that does not proclaim this, that by a direct course we may come to our Creator? Also, what else are the Collations of the Fathers, their Institutes, their Lives, and the Rule of our Holy Father St. Basil, but examples of the virtues, of the good living and obedience of monks? But to us who are slothful, and lead bad and negligent lives, they are matter for shame and confusion. Do you, therefore, whosoever you are who hastens forward to the heavenly country, accomplish first, by the help of Christ, this little Rule written for beginners, and then at length shall you come, under God’s guidance, to the lofty heights of doctrine and virtue, which we have spoken of above.

2.3  Dorotheos of Gaza, Discourses and Sayings on Humility (sixth century) One of the fathers used to say, “Before anything else we need humility: a being ready to listen whenever a word is spoken to use, and to say, ‘I submit,’ because through humility every device of the enemy, every kind of obstacle, is destroyed,” What is the force of this saying? Why did he say, “before anything else we need humility,” and not, “we have need of self-control”? Because, the Apostle says, “Everyone who strives for mastery abstains from all things.” Or why did he not say, “Before anything else we have need of the fear of God”? For it is written, “The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord” and again, “With the fear of the Lord a man turns away from evil.” Or why did he not say, “Before all else we

The Medieval, Byzantine, and Oriental Church

575

need almsgiving, or faith”? For it is said that by faith and almsgiving we are cleansed from sin, and the Apostle says, “Without faith it is impossible to please God.” If, therefore, it is impossible to please God without faith, and faith and almsgiving cleanse from sin, and by fear a man turns aside from evil, and the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord, and a man who strives for the mastery abstain from all things, why does he say, “Before all else we need humility” and leaves aside all these very necessary things? The holy man wishes to show us that neither the fear of God, nor faith, nor self-control, nor any one of the other virtues can set us right without humility, and therefore he says, “Before anything else we need humility, being ready to listen whenever a word is said to us, and to say, ‘I submit,’ because through humility every device of the enemy and every kind of obstacle is destroyed.”

2.4  Maximus of Constantinople, Quaestiones ad Thalassium 22 on the Order of Creation (c. 640) Q. If in the coming ages God will show his riches (Eph 2:7), how is it that the end of the ages has [already] come upon us (1 Cor 10:11)? He who, by the sheer inclination of his will, established the beginning of all creation, seen and unseen, before all the ages and before that beginning of created beings, had an ineffably good plan for those creatures. The plan was for him to mingle, without change on his part, with human nature by true hypostatic union, to unite human nature to himself while remaining immutable, so that he might deify humanity in union with himself. Also, according to this plan, it I clear that God wisely divided “the ages” between those intended for God to become human, and those intended for humanity to become divine.

2.5  Venerable Bede, Life of Cuthbert (mid eighth century) Inasmuch as you bade me, my beloved, prefix to the book, which I have written at your request about the life of our father Cuthbert, of blessed memory, some preface, as I usually do, by which its readers might become acquainted with your desire and my readiness to gratify it, it has seemed good to me, by way of preface, to recall to the minds of those among you who know, and to make known to those readers who were before ignorant thereof, how that I have not presumed without minute investigation to write any of the deeds of so great a man, nor without the most accurate examination of credible witnesses to hand over what I had written to be transcribed. Moreover, when I learnt from those who knew the beginning, the middle, and the end of his glorious life and conversation, I sometimes inserted the names of these my authors, to establish the truth of my narrative, and thus ventured to put my pen to paper and to write. But when my work was arranged, but still kept back from publication, I frequently submitted it for perusal and for correction to our reverend brother Herefrid the priest, and others, who for a long time had well known the life and conversation of that man of God. Some faults were, at their suggestion, carefully amended, and thus every scruple being utterly removed, I have taken care to commit to writing what I clearly ascertained to be the truth, and to bring it into your presence also, my brethren, in order that by the judgment of your authority, what I have written might be either corrected,

576

A Global Church History

if false, or certified to be true. Whilst, with God’s assistance, I was so engaged, and my book was read during two days by the elders and teachers of your congregation, and was accurately weighed and examined in all its parts, there was nothing at all found which required to be altered, but every thing which I had written was by common consent pronounced worthy to be read without any hesitation, and to be handed over to be copied by such as by zeal for religion should be disposed to do so. But you also, in my presence, added many other facts of no less importance than what I had written, concerning the life and virtues of that blessed man, and which well deserved to be mentioned, if I had not thought it unmeet to insert new matter into a work, which, after due deliberation, I considered to be perfect. The beginning of our history of the life of the blessed Cuthbert is hallowed by Jeremiah the prophet, who, in exaltation of the anchorite’s perfect state, says, “It is good for a man, when he hath borne the yoke from his youth; he shall sit alone, and shall be silent, because he shall raise himself above himself.” For, inspired by the sweetness of this good, Cuthbert, the man of God, from his early youth bent his neck beneath the yoke of the monastic institution; and when occasion presented itself, having laid fast hold of the anachoretic life, he rejoiced to sit apart for no small space of time, and for the sweetness of divine meditation to hold his tongue silent from human colloquy. But that he should be able to do this in his advanced years, was the effect of God’s grace inciting him gradually to the way of truth from his early childhood; for even to the eighth year of his life, which is the first year of boyhood succeeding to infancy, he gave his mind to such plays and enjoyments alone as boys delight in, so that it might be testified of him as it was of Samuel, “ Moreover Cuthbert knew not yet the Lord, neither had the voice of the Lord been revealed to him. “ Such was the panegyric of his boyhood, who in more ripened age was destined perfectly to know the Lord, and opening the ears of his mind to imbibe the voice of God. He took delight, as we have stated, in mirth and clamour; and, as was natural at his age, rejoiced to attach himself to the company of other boys, and to share in their sports: and because he was agile by nature, and of a quick mind, he often prevailed over them in their boyish contests, and frequently, when the rest were tired, he alone would hold out, and look triumphantly around to see if any remained to contend with him for victory. For in jumping, running, wrestling, or any other bodily exercise, he boasted that he could surpass all those who were of the same age, and even some that were older than himself. For when he was a child, he knew as a child, he thought as a child; but afterwards, when he became a man, he most abundantly laid aside all those childish things. Whilst this venerable servant of the Lord was thus during many years, distinguishing himself by such signs of spiritual excellence in the monastery of Melrose, its reverend abbot, Eata, transferred him to the monastery in the island of Lindisfarne, that there also he might teach the rules of monastic perfection with the authority of its governor, and illustrate it by the example of his virtue; for the same reverend abbot had both monasteries under his jurisdiction. And no one should wonder that, though the island of Lindisfarne is small, we have above made mention of a bishop, and now of an abbot and monks; for the case is really so. For the same island, inhabited by servants of the Lord, contains both, and all are monks. For Aidan, who was the first bishop of that place, was a monk, and with all his followers lived according to the monastic rule. Wherefore all the principals of that place from him to the present time exercise the episcopal office; so that, whilst the monastery is governed by the abbot, whom they, with the consent of the brethren, have elected, all the priests, deacons, singers, readers, and other ecclesiastical officers of different ranks, observe the monastic rule in every respect, as well as the

The Medieval, Byzantine, and Oriental Church

577

bishop himself. The blessed pope Gregory showed that he approved this mode of life, when in answer to Augustine, his first missionary to Britain, who asked him how bishops ought to converse with their clerks, among other remarks he replied, “ Because, my brother, having been educated in the monastic rule, you ought not to keep aloof from your clerks: in the English Church, which, thanks be to God, has lately been converted to the faith, you should institute the same system, which has existed from the first beginning of our Church among our ancestors, none of whom said that the things which he possessed were his own, but they had all things common.” When Cuthbert, therefore, came to the church or monastery of Lindisfarne, he taught the brethren monastic rules both by his life and doctrines, and often going round, as was his custom, among the neighbouring people, he kindled them up to seek after and work out a heavenly reward. Moreover, by his miracles he became more and more celebrated, and by the earnestness of his prayers restored to their former health many that were afflicted with various infirmities and sufferings; some that were vexed with unclean spirits, he not only cured whilst present by touching them, praying over them, or even by commanding or exorcising the devils to go out of them; but even when absent he restored them by his prayers, or by foretelling that they should be restored; amongst whom also was the wife of the prefect above mentioned. There were some brethren in the monastery who preferred their ancient customs to the new regular discipline. But he got the better of these by his patience and modest virtues, and by daily practice at length brought them to the better system which he had in view. Moreover, in his discussions with the brethren, when he was fatigued by the bitter taunts of those who opposed him, he would rise from his seat with a placid look, and dismiss the meeting until the following day, when, as if he had suffered no repulse, he would use the same exhortations as before, until he converted them, as I have said before, to his own views. For his patience was most exemplary, and in enduring the opposition which was heaped equally upon his mind and body he was most resolute, and, amid the asperities which he encountered, he always exhibited such placidity of countenance, as made it evident to all that his outward vexations were compensated for by the internal consolations of the Holy Spirit. But he was so zealous in watching and praying, that he is believed to have sometimes passed three or four nights together therein, during which time he neither went to his own bed, nor had any accommodation from the brethren for reposing himself. For he either passed the time alone, praying in some retired spot, or singing and making something with his hands, thus beguiling his sleepiness by labour; or, perhaps, he walked round the island, diligently examining every thing therein, and by this exercise relieved the tediousness of psalmody and watching. Lastly, he would reprove the faintheartedness of the brethren, who took it amiss if any one came and unseasonably importuned them to awake at night or during their afternoon naps. “No one,” said he, “can displease me by waking me out of my sleep, but, on the contrary, give me pleasure; for, by rousing me from inactivity, he enables me to do or think of something useful.” So devout and zealous was he in his desire after heavenly things, that, whilst officiating in the solemnity of the mass, he never could come to the conclusion thereof without a plentiful shedding of tears. But whilst he duly discharged the mysteries of our Lord’s passion, he would, in himself, illustrate that in which he was officiating; in contrition of heart he would sacrifice himself to the Lord; and whilst he exhorted the standers-by to lift up their hearts and to give thanks unto the Lord, his own heart was lifted up rather than his voice, and it was the spirit which groaned within him rather than the note of singing. In his zeal for righteousness he was fervid to correct

578

A Global Church History

sinners, he was gentle in the spirit of mildness to forgive the penitent, so that he would often shed tears over those who confessed their sins, pitying their weaknesses, and would himself point out by his own righteous example what course the sinner should pursue. He used vestments of the ordinary description, neither noticeable for their too great neatness, nor yet too slovenly. Wherefore, even to this day, it is not customary in that monastery for any one to wear vestments of a rich or valuable colour, but they are content with that appearance which the natural wool of the sheep presents. By these and such like spiritual exercises, this venerable man both excited the good to follow his example, and recalled the wicked and perverse from their errors to regularity of life.

2.6  Isaac the Syrian, Ascetical Homilies on Christian Excellence (seventh century) The fear of God is the foundation of excellence; for excellence is said to be the offspring of faith. It is sown in a man’s heart, when he allows his mind to confine the wandering impulses to continual meditation on the order of things to come, away from the distractions of the world. As to the foundation of excellence, the first among its peculiar elements is the concentration of the self, by freeing it from practical things, upon the enlightened word of the straight and holy ways, the word that by the inspired Psalmist is called the teacher. There is scarcely to be found a man who is able to bear honours, or possibly such a one exists not; because man is very prone to err, even if he be an angel in his way. The foundation of the way of life consists in accustoming the mind to the words of God and the practice of patience. For the draught provided by the former is helpful towards acquiring perfection in the latter; and, further, increased development towards accomplishment in the latter, will cause a heightened desire of the former. And the help provided by both of them will quickly bring about the rise of the whole building. No one is able to come near to God save only he who is far from the world. For I do not call separation the departure from the body, but from the bodily things. Excellence consists therein that a man in his mind be a void as regards the world. As long as the senses are occupied with [outward] things, it is not possible for the heart to rest from imagining them. Nor do the affections cease, nor evil thoughts end except in the desert and the wilderness. While the soul has not yet become drunk by the faith in God, in that it has received an impression of its powers, the weakness of the senses cannot be healed and it is not able to tread down with force visible matter which is a screen before what is within and not perceived [by the senses]. Reason is the cause of freedom and the fruit of both liability to err. Without the first, the second cannot be. And where the second fails, there is the third bound as it were with halters. When grace is abundant in man, then the fear of death is despised on account of the love of righteousness. He finds many arguments in his soul [proving} that it is becoming to bear troubles for the sake of the fear of God. And those things which are supposed to injure the body, and to repel nature injustly, which consequently are of a nature to cause suffering, are reckoned in his eye as nothing in comparison with what is expected to be. And his mind convinces him firmly of the fact that it is not possible to recognize truth without gaining experience of the affections, and that God bestows great care upon man, and that he is not abandoned to chance. Especially those who are trained in praying unto Him and who bear suffering for His sake, see [these truths] clearly [as if

The Medieval, Byzantine, and Oriental Church

579

painted] in colours. But when little faith takes root in our heart, then all these things are felt as contrary, not as serving for testing us. And that we are not always successful in trusting in God, and that God does not care for thee as it is supposed, is often insinuated by those who lay ambushes and shoot their arrows in the darkness.

2.7  Eleventh Council of Toledo, Symbol of the Faith (675) (The divine Trinity) We confess and believe that the holy and ineffable Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is one God by nature, of one substance, of one nature as also of one majesty and power.

(The Father) And we profess that the Father is not begotten, not created, but unbegotten. For He Himself, from whom the Son has received His birth and the Holy Spirit His procession, has His origin from no one. He is therefore the source and origin of the whole Godhead. He Himself is the Father of His own essence, who in an ineffable way has begotten the Son from His ineffable substance. Yet He did not beget something different (aliud) from what He Himself is: God has begotten God, light has begotten light. From Him, therefore, is “all fatherhood in heaven and on earth” (cf. Eph. 3.15 Vulg.).

(The Son) We also confess that the Son was born, but not made, from the substance of the Father, without beginning, before all ages, for at no time did the Father exist without the Son, nor the Son without the Father. Yet the Father is not from the Son, as the Son is from the Father, because the Father was not generated by the Son but the Son by the Father. The Son, therefore, is God from the Father, and the Father is God, but not from the son. He is indeed the Father of the Son, not God from the Son; but the latter is the Son of the Father and God from the Father. Yet in all things the Son is equal to God the Father, for He has never begun nor ceased to be born. We also believe that He is of one substance with the Father; wherefore He is called homoousios with the Father, that is of the same being as the Father, for homos in Greek means “one” and ousia means “being,” and joined together they mean “one in being.” We must believe that the Son is begotten or born not from nothing or from any other substance, but from the womb of the Father, that is from His substance. Therefore the Father is eternal, and the Son is also eternal. If He was always Father, He always had a Son, whose Father He was, and therefore we confess that the Son was born from the Father without beginning. We do not call the same Son of God a part of a divided nature, because He was generated from the Father, but we assert that the perfect Father has begotten the perfect Son, without diminution or division, for it pertains to the Godhead alone not to have an unequal Son. This Son of God is also Son by nature, not by adoption; of Him we must also believe that God the Father begot Him neither by an act of will nor out of necessity, for in God there is no necessity nor does will precede wisdom.

580

A Global Church History

(The Holy Spirit) We also believe that the Holy Spirit, the third person in the Trinity, is God, one and equal with God the Father and the Son, of one substance and of one nature, not, however, begotten nor created but proceeding from both, and that He is the Spirit of both. Of this Holy Spirit, we also believe that He is neither unbegotten nor begotten, for if we called Him unbegotten we would assert two Fathers, or if begotten, we would appear to preach two Sons. Yet He is called the Spirit not of the Father alone, nor of the Son alone, but of both Father and Son. For He does not proceed from the Father to the Son, nor from the Son to sanctify creatures, but He is shown to have proceeded from both at once, because He is known as the love or the sanctity of both. Hence we believe that the Holy Spirit is sent by both, as the Son is sent by the Father. But He is not less than the Father and the Son, in the way in which the Son, on account of the body which He has assumed, testifies that He is less than the Father and the Holy Spirit.

(The oneness in the Trinity) This is the way of speaking about the Holy Trinity as it has been handed down: one must not call it or believe it to be threefold, but Trinity. Nor can it properly be said that in the one God there is the Trinity, but the one God is the Trinity. In the relative names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance. Although we profess three persons, we do not profess three substances, but one substance and three persons. For the Father is Father not with respect to Himself but to the Son, and the Son is Son not to Himself but in relation to the Father; and likewise the Holy Spirit is not referred to Himself but is related to the Father and the Son, inasmuch as He is called the Spirit of the Father and the Son. So when we say “God,” this does not express a relationship to another, as of the Father to the Son or of the Son to the Father or of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son, but “God” refers to Himself only. For, if we are asked about the single persons, we must confess that each is God. Therefore, we say that the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God each one distinctly; yet there are not three gods, but one God. Similarly, we say that the Father is almighty, the Son is almighty, the Holy Spirit is almighty, each one distinctly; yet there are not three almighty ones, but one Almighty, as we profess one light and one principle. Hence we confess and believe that each person distinctly is fully God, and the three persons together are one God. Theirs is an undivided and equal Godhead, majesty and power, which is neither diminished in the single persons nor increased in the three. For it is not less when each person is called God separately, nor is it greater when all three persons are called one God. This Holy Trinity, which is the one true God, is not without number; yet it is not comprised by number, because in the relationships of the persons there appears number, but in the substance of the Godhead nothing is comprised that could be counted. Therefore they imply number only in so far as they are mutually related, but they lack number in so far as they are by themselves (ad se). For this Holy Trinity has so much one name referring to its nature that it cannot be used in the plural with relation to the three

The Medieval, Byzantine, and Oriental Church

581

persons. This then is, in our faith, the meaning of the saying in Holy Scripture: “Great is our Lord, abundant in power, and of His wisdom there is no number” (Ps. 147 (146) 5 Vulg.).

(The Trinity in the oneness) However, though we have said that these three persons are one God, we are not allowed to say that the same one is the Father who is the Son, or that He is the Son who is the Father, or that He who is the Holy Spirit is either the Father or the Son. For He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son He who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit He who is the Father or the Son, even though the Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, that is one God by nature. For, when we say: He who is the Father is not the Son, we refer to the distinction of persons; but when we say: the Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, and the Holy Spirit that which the Father is and the Son is, this clearly refers to the nature or substance, whereby God exists since in substance they are one; for we distinguish the persons, but we do not divide the Godhead. Hence, we recognise the Trinity in the distinction of persons and we profess the unity on account of the nature or substance. Thus, the three are one by nature, not as person.

(The undivided Trinity) Nevertheless these three persons are not to be considered separable since, according to our belief, none of them ever existed or acted before another, after another, without another. For they are inseparable both in what they are and in what they do, because, according to our faith, between the Father who generates and the Son who is generated or the Holy Spirit who proceeds, there has not been an interval of time in which the one who generates would precede the one who is generated, or there would be no begotten one to Him who begets, or the Holy Spirit in His proceeding would appear later than Father or Son. For this reason we profess and believe that this Trinity is inseparable and distinct (inconfusa). We say, therefore, of these three persons, as our forefathers defined it, that they should be acknowledged, not separated. For if we listen to what Holy Scripture says about Wisdom: “She is a reflection of eternal light” (Wis. 7.26), we see that, as the reflection belongs inseparably to the light, so too, according to our confession, the Son cannot be separated from the Father. Therefore, neither do we confuse these three persons whose nature is one and inseparable, nor do we preach that they are in any way separable. The Holy Trinity itself has indeed deigned clearly to reveal it to us: in these names by which He wanted the single persons to be known, it is impossible to understand one person without the other; one cannot conceive of the Father without the Son, nor can the Son be found without the Father. Indeed, the very relationship expressed in the personal names forbids us to separate the persons, for, though it does not name them together, it implies them. No one can hear any one of these names without necessarily understanding also the other. While then these Three are One and this One Three, each of the persons retains His own characteristics: The Father has eternity without birth; the Son has eternity with birth; the Holy Spirit has procession without birth with eternity.

582

A Global Church History

2.8  Syrian Orthodox Divine Liturgy of St. James, Anaphora The Anaphora. Then [the Priest] says aloud:— XXVIII. The love of the Lord and Father, the grace of the Lord and Son, and the fellowship and the gift of the Holy Spirit, be with us all. The People. And with your spirit. The Priest. Let us lift up our minds and our hearts. The People. It is becoming and right. Then the Priest prays. Verily it is becoming and right, proper and due to praise You, to sing of You, to bless You, to worship You, to glorify You, to give You thanks, Maker of every creature visible and invisible, the treasure of eternal good things, the fountain of life and immortality, God and Lord of all: Whom the heavens of heavens praise, and all the host of them; the sun, and the moon, and all the choir of the stars; earth, sea, and all that is in them; Jerusalem, the heavenly assembly, and church of the first-born that are written in heaven; spirits of just men and of prophets; souls of martyrs and of apostles; angels, archangels, thrones, dominions, principalities, and authorities, and dread powers; and the many-eyed cherubim, and the six-winged seraphim, which cover their faces with two wings, their feet with two, and with two they fly, crying one to another with unresting lips, with unceasing praises: (Aloud.) With loud voice singing the victorious hymn of Your majestic glory, crying aloud, praising, shouting, and saying:— The People. Holy, holy, holy, O Lord of Sabaoth, the heaven and the earth are full of Your glory. Hosanna in the highest; blessed is He that comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest. The Priest, making the sign of the cross on the gifts, says:— XXIX. Holy are You, King of eternity, and Lord and giver of all holiness; holy also Your only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom You have made all things; holy also Your Holy Spirit, which searches all things, even Your deep things, O God: holy are You, almighty, all-powerful, good, dread, merciful, most compassionate to Your creatures; who made man from earth after Your own image and likeness; who gave him the joy of paradise; and when he transgressed Your commandment, and fell away, did not disregard nor desert him, O Good One, but chastened him as at merciful father, call him by the law, instruct him by the prophets; and afterwards sent forth Your only-begotten Son Himself, our Lord Jesus Christ, into the world, that He by His coming might renew and restore Your image; Who, having descended from heaven, and become flesh of the Holy Spirit and Virgin Godmother Mary, and having sojourned among men, fulfilled the dispensation for the salvation of our race; and being about to endure His voluntary and life-giving death by the cross, He the sinless for us the sinners,

The Medieval, Byzantine, and Oriental Church

583

in the night in which He was betrayed, nay, rather delivered Himself up for the life and salvation of the world, Then the Priest holds the bread in his hand, and says:— XXX. Having taken the bread in His holy and pure and blameless and immortal hands, lifting up His eyes to heaven, and showing it to You, His God and Father, He gave thanks, and hallowed, and broke, and gave it to us, His disciples and apostles, saying:— The Deacons say: For the remission of sins and life everlasting. Then he says aloud:— Take, eat: this is my body, broken for you, and given for remission of sins. The People. Amen. Then he takes the cup, and says:— In like manner, after supper, He took the cup, and having mixed wine and water, lifting up His eyes to heaven, and presenting it to You, His God and Father, He gave thanks, and hollowed and blessed it, and filled it with the Holy Spirit, and gave it to us His disciples, saying, Drink all of it; this is my blood of the new testament shed for you and many, and distributed for the remission of sins. The People. Amen. The Priest. This do in remembrance of me; for as often as you eat this bread, and drink this cup, you do show forth the Lord's death, and confess His resurrection, till He come. The Deacons say:— We believe and confess: The People. We show forth Your death, O Lord, and confess Your resurrection. The Priest (Oblation). Remembering, therefore, His life-giving sufferings, His saving cross, His death and His burial, and resurrection from the dead on the third day, and His ascension into heaven, and sitting at the right hand of You, our God and Father, and His second glorious and awful appearing, when He shall come with glory to judge the quick and the dead, and render to every one according to His works; even we, sinful men, offer unto You, O Lord, this dread and bloodless sacrifice, praying that You will not deal with us after our sins, nor reward us according to our iniquities; But that You, according to Your mercy and Your unspeakable loving-kindness, passing by and blotting out the handwriting against us Your suppliants, will grant to us Your heavenly and eternal gifts (which eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and which have not entered into the heart of man ) that you have prepared, O God, for those who love You; and reject not, O loving Lord, the people for my sake, or for my sin's sake: Then he says, thrice:— For Your people and Your Church supplicate You. The People.

584

A Global Church History

Have mercy on us, O Lord our God, Father Almighty. Again the Priest says (Invocation):— Have mercy upon us, O God Almighty. Have mercy upon us, O God our Saviour. Have mercy upon us, O God, according to Your great mercy, and send forth on us, and on these offered gifts, Your all-holy Spirit. Then, bowing his neck, he says:— The sovereign and quickening Spirit, that sits upon the throne with You, our God and Father, and with Your only-begotten Son, reigning with You; the consubstantial and co-eternal; that spoke in the law and in the prophets, and in Your New Testament; that descended in the form of a dove on our Lord Jesus Christ at the river Jordan, and abode on Him; that descended on Your apostles in the form of tongues of fire in the upper room of the holy and glorious Zion on the day of Pentecost: this Your all-holy Spirit, send down, O Lord, upon us, and upon these offered holy gifts; And rising up, he says aloud:— That coming, by His holy and good and glorious appearing, He may sanctify this bread, and make it the holy body of Your Christ. The People. Amen. The Priest. And this cup the precious blood of Your Christ. The People. Amen. The Priest by himself standing. That they may be to all that partake of them for remission of sins, and for life everlasting, for the sanctification of souls and of bodies, for bearing the fruit of good works, for the establishing of Your Holy Catholic Church, which You have founded on the Rock of Faith, that the gates of hell may not prevail against it; delivering it from all heresy and scandals, and from those who work iniquity, keeping it till the fullness of the time. And having bowed, he says:— We present them to You also, O Lord, for the holy places, which You have glorified by the divine appearing of Your Christ, and by the visitation of Your all-holy Spirit; especially for the glorious Zion, the mother of all the churches; and for Your Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church throughout the world: even now, O Lord, bestow upon her the rich gifts of Your all-holy Spirit. Remember also, O Lord, our holy fathers and brethren in it, and the bishops in all the world, who rightly divide the word of Your truth. Remember also, O Lord, every city and country, and those of the true faith dwelling in them, their peace and security. Remember, O Lord, Christians sailing, travelling, sojourning in strange lands; our fathers and brethren, who are in bonds, prison, captivity, and exile; who are in mines, and under torture, and in bitter slavery. Remember, O Lord, the sick and afflicted, and those troubled by unclean spirits, their speedy healing from You, O God, and their salvation.

The Medieval, Byzantine, and Oriental Church

585

Remember, O Lord, every Christian soul in affliction and distress, needing Your mercy and succour, O God; and the return of the erring. Remember, O Lord, our fathers and brethren, toiling hard, and ministering unto us, for Your holy name's sake. Remember all, O Lord, for good: have mercy on all, O Lord, be reconciled to us all: give peace to the multitudes of Your people: put away scandals: bring wars to an end: make the uprising of heresies to cease: grant Your peace and Your love to us, O God our Saviour, the hope of all the ends of the earth. Remember, O Lord, favourable weather, peaceful showers, beneficent dews, abundance of fruits, and to crown the year with Your goodness; for the eyes of all wait on You, and You give their food in due season: you open Your hand, and fill every living thing with gladness. Remember, O Lord, those who bear fruit, and labour honourably in the holy of Your Church; and those who forget not the poor, the widows, the orphans, the strangers, and the needy; and all who have desired us to remember them in our prayers. Moreover, O Lord, be pleased to remember those who have brought these offerings this day to Your holy altar, and for what each one has brought them or with what mind, and those persons who have just now been mentioned to You. Remember, O Lord, according to the multitude of Your mercy and compassion, me also, Your humble and unprofitable servant; and the deacons who surround Your holy altar, and graciously give them a blameless life, keep their ministry undefiled, and purchase for them a good degree, that we may find mercy and grace, with all the saints that have been well pleasing to You since the world began, to generation and generation — grandsires, sires, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, confessors, teachers, saints, and every just spirit made perfect in the faith of Your Christ. Hail, Mary, highly favoured: the Lord is with You; blessed are you among women, and blessed the fruit of your womb, for you bore the Saviour of our souls. The Deacons. Remember us, O Lord God. The Priest, bowing, says:— Remember, O Lord God, the spirits and all flesh, of whom we have made mention, and of whom we have not made mention, who are of the true faith, from righteous Abel unto this day: unto them do You give rest there in the land of the living, in Your kingdom, in the joy of paradise, in the bosom of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, our holy fathers; whence pain, and grief, and lamentation have fled: there the light of Your countenance looks upon them, and enlightens them forever. Make the end of our lives Christian, acceptable, blameless, and peaceful, O Lord, gathering us together, O Lord, under the feet of Your elect, when You will, and as You will; only without shame and transgressions, through Your only-begotten Son, our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ: for He is the only sinless one who has appeared on the earth. The Deacon. And let us pray:— For the peace and establishing of the whole world, and of the holy churches of God, and for the purposes for which each one made his offering, or according to the desire he has: and for the people standing round, and for all men, and all women:

586

A Global Church History

The People. And for all men and all women. (Amen.) The Priest says aloud:— Wherefore, both to them and to us, do You in Your goodness and love: The People. Forgive, remit, pardon, O God, our transgressions, voluntary and involuntary: in deed and in word: in knowledge and in ignorance: by night and by day: in thought and intent: in Your goodness and love, forgive us them all. The Priest. Through the grace and compassion and love of Your only-begotten Son, with whom You are blessed and glorified, together with the all-holy, and good, and quickening Spirit, now and ever, and to all eternity. The People. Amen. The Priest. Peace be to all: The People. And to your spirit. The Deacon. Again, and continually, in peace let us pray to the Lord. For the gifts to the Lord God presented and sanctified, precious, heavenly, unspeakable, pure, glorious, dread, awful, divine; Let us pray. That the Lord our God, having graciously received them to His altar that is holy and above the heavens, rational and spiritual, for the odour of a sweet spiritual savour, may send down in answer upon us the divine grace and the gift of the all-holy Spirit; Let us pray. Having prayed for the unity of the faith, and the communion of His all-holy and adorable Spirit; Let us commend ourselves and one another, and our whole life, to Christ our God: The People. Amen. The Priest prays. God and Father of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, the glorious Lord, the blessed essence, the bounteous goodness, the God and Sovereign of all, who art blessed to all eternity, who sittest upon the cherubim, and art glorified by the seraphim, before whom stand thousand thousands and ten thousand times ten thousand hosts of angels and archangels: You have accepted the gifts, offerings, and fruits brought unto You as an odour of a sweet spiritual smell, and hast been pleased to sanctify them, and make them perfect, O good One, by the grace of Your Christ, and by the presence of Your all-holy Spirit. Sanctify also, O Lord, our souls, and bodies, and spirits, and touch our understandings, and search our consciences, and cast out from us every evil imagination, every impure feeling, every base desire,

The Medieval, Byzantine, and Oriental Church

587

every unbecoming thought, all envy, and vanity, and hypocrisy, all lying, all deceit, every worldly affection, all covetousness, all vainglory, all indifference, all vice, all passion, all anger, all malice, all blasphemy, every motion of the flesh and spirit that is not in accordance with Your holy will: (Aloud.) And count us worthy, O loving Lord, with boldness, without condemnation, in a pure heart, with a contrite spirit, with unshamed face, with sanctified lips, to dare to call upon You, the holy God, Father in heaven, and to say, The People. Our Father, which art in heaven: hollowed be Your name; and so on to the doxology. The Priest, bowing, says (the Embolism ):— And lead us not into temptation, Lord, Lord of Hosts, who know our frailty, but deliver us from the evil one and his works, and from all his malice and craftiness, for the sake of Your holy name, which has been placed upon our humility: (Aloud.) For Yours is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, now and forever. The People. Amen. The Priest. Peace be to all. The People. And to your spirit. The Deacon. Let us bow our heads to the Lord. The People. To You, O Lord. The Priest prays, speaking thus:— To You, O Lord, we Your servants have bowed our heads before Your holy altar, waiting for the rich mercies that are from You. Send forth upon us, O Lord, Your plenteous grace and Your blessing; and sanctify our souls, bodies, and spirits, that we may become worthy communicants and partakers of Your holy mysteries, to the forgiveness of sins and life everlasting: (Aloud.) For adorable and glorified are You, our God, and Your only-begotten Son, and Your all-holy Spirit, now and ever. The People. Amen. The Priest says aloud:— And the grace and the mercies of the holy and consubstantial, and uncreated, and adorable Trinity, shall be with us all. The People. And with your spirit.

588

A Global Church History

The Deacon. In the fear of God, let us attend. The Priest says secretly:— O holy Lord, who abides in holy places, sanctify us by the word of Your grace, and by the visitation of Your all-holy Spirit: for You, O Lord, have said, You will be holy, for I am holy. O Lord our God, incomprehensible Word of God, one in substance with the Father and the Holy Spirit, co-eternal and indivisible, accept the pure hymn, in Your holy and bloodless sacrifices; with the cherubim, and seraphim, and from me, a sinful man, crying and saying:— He takes up the gifts and says aloud:— The holy things unto holy. The People. One only is holy, one Lord Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the Father, to whom be glory to all eternity. The Deacon. For the remission of our sins, and the propitiation of our souls, and for every soul in tribulation and distress, needing the mercy and succour of God, and for the return of the erring, the healing of the sick, the deliverance of the captives, the rest of our fathers and brethren who have fallen asleep aforetime; Let us all say fervently, Lord, have mercy: The People (twelve times). Lord, have mercy. Then the Priest breaks the bread, and holds the half in his right hand, and the half in his left, and dips that in his right hand in the chalice, saying:— The union of the all-holy body and precious blood of our Lord and God and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Then he makes the sign of the cross on that in his left hand: then with that which has been signed the other half: then immediately he begins to divide, and before all to give to each chalice a single piece, saying:— It has been made one, and sanctified, and perfected, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, now and ever. And when he makes the sign of the cross on the bread, he says:— Behold the Lamb of God, the Son of the Father, that takes away the sin of the world, sacrificed for the life and salvation of the world. And when he gives a single piece to each chalice he says:— A holy portion of Christ, full of grace and truth, of the Father, and of the Holy Spirit, to whom be the glory and the power to all eternity. Then he begins to divide, and to say:— The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want. In green pastures, and so on. Then, I will bless the Lord at all times, and so on. Then, I will extol You, my God, O King, and so on . Then,

The Medieval, Byzantine, and Oriental Church

589

O praise the Lord, all you nations, and so on . The Deacon. Sir, pronounce the blessing. The Priest. The Lord will bless us, and keep us without condemnation for the communion of His pure gifts, now and always, and forever. And when they have filled, the Deacon says:— Sir, pronounce the blessing. The Priest says:— The Lord will bless us, and make us worthy with the pure touchings of our fingers to take the live coal, and place it upon the mouths of the faithful for the purification and renewal of their souls and bodies, now and always. Then, O taste and see that the Lord is good; who is parted and not divided; distributed to the faithful and not expended; for the remission of sins, and the life everlasting; now and always, and forever. The Deacon. In the peace of Christ, let us sing: The Singers. O taste and see that the Lord is good. The Priest says the prayer before the communion. O Lord our God, the heavenly bread, the life of the universe, I have sinned against Heaven, and before You, and am not worthy to partake of Your pure mysteries; but as a merciful God, make me worthy by Your grace, without condemnation to partake of Your holy body and precious blood, for the remission of sins, and life everlasting. Then he distributes to the clergy; and when the deacons take the disks and the chalices for distribution to the people, the Deacon, who takes the first disk, says:— Sir, pronounce the blessing. The Priest replies:— Glory to God who has sanctified and is sanctifying us all. The Deacon says:— Be exalted, O God, over the heavens, and Your glory over all the earth, and Your kingdom endures to all eternity. And when the Deacon is about to put it on the side-table the Priest says:— Blessed be the name of the Lord our God forever. The Deacon. In the fear of God, and in faith and love, draw near. The People. Blessed is He that comes in the name of the Lord. And again, when he sets down the disk upon the side-table, he says:— Sir, pronounce the blessing. The Priest.

590

A Global Church History

Save Your people, O God, and bless Your inheritance. The Priest again. Glory to our God, who has sanctified us all. And when he has put the chalice back on the holy table, the Priest says:— Blessed be the name of the Lord to all eternity. The Deacons and the People say:— Fill our mouths with Your praise, O Lord, and fill our lips with joy, that we may sing of Your glory, of Your greatness all the day. And again:— We render thanks to You, Christ our God, that You have made us worthy to partake of Your body and blood, for the remission of sins, and for life everlasting. We pray You, in Your goodness and love, keep us without condemnation. The prayer of incense at the last entrance. We render thanks to You, the Saviour and God of all, for all the good things You have given us, and for the participation of Your holy and pure mysteries, and we offer to You this incense, praying: Keep us under the shadow of Your wings, and count us worthy till our last breath to partake of Your holy rites for the sanctification of our souls and bodies, for the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven: for You, O God, are our sanctification, and we send up praise and thanksgiving to You, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Deacon begins in the entrance. Glory to You, glory to You, glory to You, O Christ the King, only-begotten Word of the Father, that You have counted us, Your sinful and unworthy servants, worthy to enjoy your pure mysteries for the remission of sins, and for life everlasting: glory to You. And when he has made the entrance, the Deacon begins to speak thus:— Again and again, and at all times, in peace, let us beseech the Lord. That the participation of His Holy rites may be to us for the turning away from every wicked thing, for our support on the journey to life everlasting, for the communion and gift of the Holy Spirit; Let us pray. The Priest prays. Commemorating our all-holy, pure, most glorious, blessed Lady, the God-Mother and Ever-Virgin Mary, and all the saints that have been well-pleasing to You since the world began, let us devote ourselves, and one another, and our whole life, to Christ our God: The People. To You, O Lord. The Priest. O God, who through Your great and unspeakable love condescended to the weakness of Your servants, and hast counted us worthy to partake of this heavenly table, condemn not us sinners for the participation of Your pure mysteries; but keep us, O good One, in the sanctification of Your Holy Spirit, that being made holy, we may find part and inheritance with all Your saints that have been well-pleasing to You since the world began, in the light of Your countenance, through the mercy of Your only-begotten Son, our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, with whom You are blessed, together with Your all-

The Medieval, Byzantine, and Oriental Church

591

holy, and good, and quickening Spirit: for blessed and glorified is Your all-precious and glorious name, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, now and ever, and to all eternity. The People. Amen.

2.9  Roman Missal, The Canon of the Mass, c. 400-600 [From the Ordo Missae, secundum Missale Romanum] 1. Te igitur. Wherefore, O most merciful Father, we humbly pray and beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ Thy Son our Lord, to accept and bless these gifts and offerings, this holy and spotless sacrifice, which we offer unto Thee ; first, for Thy holy Catholic Church that Thou wouldst be pleased to preserve it in peace, to unite and govern it throughout the whole world, together with N. our Pope and N. our Bishop, and all true believers who hold to the Catholic and Apostolic Faith. 2. Memento, Domine. Remember, O Lord, Thy servants and handmaidens and all here present whose faith and devotion are known unto Thee ; for whom we offer, or who themselves offer to Thee, this sacrifice of praise, for them and theirs, for the redemption of their souls, for the hope of salvation and safety, and who render their vows unto Thee, the eternal and true God. 3. Communicantes. [Being in Communion with the Catholic Church] and venerating the memory first of the glorious and ever-Virgin Mary, mother of our God and Lord Jesus Christ, and also of Thy blessed Apostles and Martyrs Peter and Paul, Andrew, James, John, Thomas, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Simon and Thaddaeus: of Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, Cornelius, Cyprian, Laurence, Chrysogonus, John and Paul, Cosmas and Damian, and all the Saints [we pray and beseech Thee], that for their merits and prayers Thou wouldst grant that in all things we may be defended by the help of Thy protection, through the same Christ our Lord. Amen. 4. Hanc igitur oblationem? We therefore beseech Thee, O Lord, that Thou wouldst graciously receive this offering which we thy servants and thy whole household do make, unto Thee: that Thou wouldst order our days in peace, and bid us to be delivered from eternal damnation and numbered in the flock of Thine elect, through Christ our Lord. Amen. 5. Quiam oblationem. And this our offering, we beseech Thee, O God, vouchsafe in all things to accept as blessed and accredited, ratified and rational, that it may become for us the body and blood of Thy dearly beloved Son our Lord Jesus our Lord Christ. 6. Qui pridie? Who the day before He suffered took bread into His holy and venerable hands and, with His eyes uplifted to Thee, O God, His Father almighty, gave thanks to Thee, blessed, brake, and gave it to His disciples, saying, Take and eat ye all of this : this is My body. 7. Simili modo? Likewise after supper He took also this excellent chalice into His holy and venerable hands and, giving thanks to Thee, blessed and gave it to His disciples, saying, Drink ye all of this ; for this is the chalice of My blood : of the new and eternal testament: the mystery of faith: which shall

592

A Global Church History

be shed for you and for many, for the remission of sins : as oft as ye shall do this, ye shall do it in remembrance of Me. 8. Unde et memores. Wherefore, O Lord, we Thy servants yea and Thy holy people, having in remembrance the passion of Thy Son Christ our Lord, His resurrection from the dead and His glorious ascension into heaven, do offer to Thine excellent majesty, of these Thy gifts and graces, a pure victim, a holy victim, a spotless victim, even the holy bread of life eternal and the chalice of everlasting salvation. 9. Supra quae. Whereon vouchsafe to look with propitious and serene countenance, and to accept them as Thou didst accept the gifts of Thy righteous servant Abel, the sacrifice of our forefather Abraham, and that which was offered to Thee by Thy high priest Melchisedek, a holy sacrifice, a spotless victim. 10. Supplices Te? We humbly beseech Thee, O almighty God, to command that these things be borne by the hand of Thy holy angel to Thine altar on high, in the sight of Thy divine majesty, that so many of us as at this altar shall be partakers and receivers of the most holy body and blood of Thy Son, may be filled with all heavenly benediction and grace, through the same Christ our Lord. Amen. 11. Memento etiam. Remember also, O Lord, Thy servants and handmaidens, who are gone before us with the sign of faith and sleep in the sleep of peace. To them, Lord, and to all who rest in Christ, we pray Thee to grant a place of refreshment, light and peace, through the same Christ our Lord. Amen. 12. Nobis quoque. And to us sinners also, Thy servants, who hope in the multitude of Thy mercies, vouch safe to grant part and lot with Thy holy apostles martyrs: and with John [the Baptist], Stephen, Matthias, Barnabas, Ignatius, Alexander, Marcellinus, Peter, Felicitas, Perpetua, Agatha, Lucy, Agnes, Caecilia, Anastasia, and all Thy saints; into whose company we pray Thee to admit us, not weighing our merits but pardoning our offences, through Christ our Lord. 13. Per quern? Through whom, O Lord, Thou dost ever create, hallow, quicken and bless [these] Thy bounteous gifts and bestow them upon us: by whom and with whom and in whom, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, be unto Thee, O God, the Father Almighty, all honour and glory, world without end. Amen.

2.10  Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, Eucharistic Prayers (c. 400-600) The Deacon: Let us stand well, let us stand with fear; let us attend to offer the holy Anaphora in peace. The Choir: A mercy of peace, a sacrifice of praise. The Priest aloud: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God the Father, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. The Choir: And with thy spirit. The Priest: Let us lift up our hearts. The Choir: We have them to the Lord.

The Medieval, Byzantine, and Oriental Church

593

The Priest: Let us give thanks unto the Lord The Choir : It is meet and right to worship Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, Trinity consubstantial and undivided. The Priest prayeth secretly: It is meet and right to hymn thee, to bless thee, to praise thee, to give thanks to thee, to worship thee in every place of thy dominion. For thou art God ineffable, beyond understanding, invisible, incomprehensible, eternally existing, changelessly existing; thou and thine Only-begotten Son and thy Holy Spirit. Thou didst bring us into being from nothing, and when we were fallen didst raise us up again, and didst not cease working all things until thou broughtest us up to heaven, and didst bestow on us thy Kingdom that is to come. For all these things we give thanks to thee, and to thine Only-begotten Son and to thy Holy Spirit, for all the benefits which we know and for those which we do not know, the seen and the unseen, which have come upon us. We thank thee also for this Liturgy, which thou hast deigned to accept at our hands, although there stand about thee thousands of Archangels and myriads of Angels, the Cherubim, and the six-winged Seraphim with many eyes, soaring on high, borne on wings. The Priest, aloud (Ekphonesis): Singing, crying, proclaiming the triumphal hymn, and saying: The Choir ; Holy, holy, holy, Lord of Sabaoth : the heaven and the earth are full of thy glory. Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is he who cometh in the Name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest. The Priest prayeth secretly: We also with these blessed Powers, O Master, lover of men, cry aloud and say: Holy art thou and All-holy, thou and thine Only-begotten Son, and thy holy Spirit. Holy art thou and All-holy, and sublime is thy glory; who didst so love thy world that thou didst give thine Only-begotten Son, that everyone who believeth in him should not perish, but may have eternal life; who, having come, and having fulfilled all the dispensation for us, on the night in which he was given up, or rather gave himself up, for the life of the world, taking bread into his holy and undefiled and blameless hands, giving thanks, and blessing, sanctifying, breaking, gave it to his holy Disciples and Apostles, saying: The Priest, aloud: Take, eat: this is my Body, which is broken for you, for the remission of sins. The Choir: Amen. Then the Priest secretly: Likewise also the Chalice after they had supped, saying: The Priest, aloud: Drink ye all of it : this is my Blood of the new Testament which is shed for you and for many unto remission of sins. The Choir: Amen. The Priest prayeth secretly: Being mindful therefore of this saving commandment, and of all things done for us, of the Cross, the Tomb, the Resurrection the third day, the Ascension into heaven, the Throne at the right hand, the second and glorious Coming again: The Priest, aloud: Thine own of thine own we offer to thee in all, and through all. The Choir: We hymn thee, we bless thee, we give thanks to thee, O Lord, and we beseech thee, our God. The Priest prayeth secretly: Again we offer to thee this reasonable and bloodless worship, and we implore, and beseech, and supplicate: Send down thy Holy Spirit upon us, and upon these Gifts presented.

594

A Global Church History

The Priest standing erect, signeth the holy Gifts thrice, saying: And make this bread the precious Body of thy Christ. The Deacon: Amen. Bless, Master, the holy Chalice. The Priest blessing saith: And that which is in this Chalice, the precious Blood of thy Christ. The Deacon: Amen. Bless, Master, both. The Priest blessing both holy Gifts, saith: Changing them by thy Holy Spirit. The Deacon: Amen. Amen. Amen. Be mindful of me a sinner, holy Master. The Priest prayeth secretly: That they may be to those who partake unto purification of soul, unto remission of sins, unto communion of thy Holy Spirit, unto fulfilment of the Kingdom of heaven, unto boldness toward thee, not unto judgment nor unto condemnation. Again we offer unto thee this reasonable worship for those that are at rest in faith, Forefathers, Fathers, Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Preachers, Evangelists, Martyrs, Confessors, Virgins, and every righteous soul made perfect in faith.

2.11  Coptic Orthodox Liturgy of St. Basil the Great, Eucharistic Prayers (c. 400-600) The Priest uncovers his head, and removes the great veil from the bread and wine, and the Deacon says: Offer, offer, offer in order—stand ye—with trembling—Look eastward. Let us attend; [it is] a mercy of peace, a sacrifice of praise. The People answer: A mercy of peace, a sacrifice of praise. The Priest turns towards the People, and signs the Cross over them, saying: The Lord be with you all. The People answer: And with thy spirit. The Priest turns towards the Deacon, and signs the Cross over him, saying: [Lift] up your hearts. The People answer: Let us have them [lifted up] unto the Lord. The Priest crosses himself, and says: Let us give thanks unto the Lord. The People answer: [It is] meet and right. The Priest says: Meet and right, meet and right, meet and right, for verily [it is] just, meet and right. Who is the Lord, the Lord God of Righteousness. Who is before the worlds, and is King for ever. Who is in the highest, and Who beholdeth the things which are lowly. Who hath created the heaven and the earth, and the Sea, and all things that are in them. Father of Our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ.—Who hast created all things by Him, the things which are seen and the things which are not seen. Who sitteth upon the throne of His glory. Whom all the holy powers do worship. The Deacon says: Ye that be sitting, arise. The Priest says: Around Whom do stand the Angels, and the Archangels, the Principalities, the Powers, the Thrones, the Lordships, the Mights. The Deacon says: Look eastward. The Priest says: For round about Thee do stand the Cherubim full of eyes, and the Seraphim with six wings. They sing without ceasing, with unfailing voices, they cry [unto Thee],

The Medieval, Byzantine, and Oriental Church

595

The People sing: Rejoice, O Thou heaven shout aloud, O earth! The Cherubim have spread their wings! they cry aloud three times, according to the type of the Trinity. The Priest continues: Holy, Holy, Holy art Thou, O Lord! Alleluia. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. Both now, and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen. The Priest and Choir together sing: The Cherubim and Seraphim shout aloud, they cry, saying, Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord of Sabaoth, Heaven and Earth are full of Thine holy glory. The Priest takes the veil off the Chalice, signs himself, the Deacon, and the People with it, and puts it back. The Priest says: Holy, Holy, Holy, of a truth, is the Lord our God, Who formed us and created us and put us in the garden of delight. When we broke Thy commandment through the guile of the serpent, We fell from eternal life, and were cast forth out of the garden of delight. Thou didst not leave us for ever, but didst visit us continually by Thine holy prophets. And in the end of days, when we were sitting in darkness and in the shadow of death, Thou hast enlightened us. Through Thine Only-begotten Son, Our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, Who of the Holy Ghost and of the Holy Virgin Mary— The People say: Amen. The Priest continues: Took flesh and was made man, and taught us the paths of salvation. He gave unto us the grace of the birth from on high, of water and Spirit. He made us unto Himself a people united. He sanctified us by Thine Holy Spirit.—He loved His own who are in the world, He gave Himself up for our salvation unto the death which reigned over us,—Whereby we were bound on account of [our] sins. He descended down into hell from the Cross. The People say: Amen. I believe. The Priest continues: He rose again from the dead upon the third day. He ascended up into the heavens: He sat down at Thy right hand, O Father! He hath appointed a day of retribution wherein He will appear, to judge the world in righteousness. And He will give unto every man according to his works. The People say: According to Thy mercy, O Lord, and not according to our sins. The Deacon: And He hath instituted for us this great mystery of godliness. The Priest extends his hands over the bread and wine, Saying: For when He was determined to give Himself up to death for the life of the world— The People say: We believe, we believe that it is so indeed. Amen. The Priest takes the bread in his hands, saying: He took bread into His holy, spotless and pure, and blessed, and life-giving Hands. The People say: I believe that it is so indeed. Amen. The Priest looks up to heaven, saying: He looked up to heaven, to Thee, O God, Who art His Father, and Lord of all. Holding the bread in his left hand, the Priest signs the Cross over it with his right, saying: He gave thanks. The People answer: Amen. The Priest signs again and says: He blessed it. The People answer: Amen.

596

A Global Church History

The Priest signs the third time and says: He sanctified it. The People answer: Amen. Amen, Amen, Amen. We believe and we confess, and we glorify [Him.] The Priest slightly breaks the bread at one side, and, holding it in his hands, and gazing on it, he says: He brake it, He gave it unto His saintly disciples and holy Apostles, saying: Take, eat ye all of it. For this is my Body Which shall be broken for you, and for many, to be given for the remission of sins; The Priest places the Sacred Host on the paten, kneels, adores It, and rises, while he continues: Do this in remembrance of Me. The People say: We believe; thus is it indeed. Amen. The Priest uncovers the chalice, and touches the lip of it with the joined thumb and forefinger of his right hand, saying: In like manner also after supper He mingled the Cup with wine and water. The Priest signs the Cross over the wine, saying: He gave thanks. The People say: Amen. The Priest signs a second time, saying: He blessed it. The People say: Amen. The Priest points to the Sacred Host and says: For as often as ye eat of this Bread He points to the chalice, says: And drink of this Cup, And ends thus: Ye do show forth My death, ye do confess My resurrection, ye do make memorial of Me until I come. The People say: Amen. Amen. Amen. We show forth Thy death, O Lord! and we confess Thine holy resurrection and ascension. We praise Thee; we bless Thee; we give Thee thanks, O Lord, and entreat of Thee, O our God! Meanwhile the Priest says inaudibly: We make memorial of His Holy Passion, and of His Resurrection from the dead, and of His Ascension into the heavens, and of His Session at Thy right hand, O Father! And of His Second Coming which shall be from heaven, terrible and full of glory. We offer unto Thee these Thy Gifts of Thy gifts. He concludes aloud: Of all, and for all, and in all. The Deacon says: Worship God in fear and trembling. The People prostrate themselves, saying: We praise Thee; we bless Thee ; we serve Thee; we worship Thee.

2.12  Armenian Orthodox Liturgy, The Badarak, Eucharistic Prayers (fifth century) The Deacon aloud: Bless, Lord. The Priest, turning and making the sign of the Cross says, aloud: Peace be with you all. The Clerks: And with Thy Spirit. The Deacon: Let us worship God. The Clerks: In Thy presence, O Lord. Son of God, who wast sacrificed in order to reconcile us to the Father. Bread of life, Thou art distributed among us; we pray Thee, through the shedding of Thy Blood, have mercy on the flock saved by Thy

The Medieval, Byzantine, and Oriental Church

597

Blood. While they sing, the Priest, humbling himself, shall bow to the Holy Table and say, privately: We worship and we beseech and request Thee, beneficent God, shed abroad upon us and these oblations which we now present [unto Thee], Thy Spirit who is both eternal and of the same essence with Thee. The Deacon, reverently: Amen. Bless, Lord. Then the Priest shall sign the offering with the sign of the Cross saying privately: Whereby Thou wilt make the bread when blessed truly the Body of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ {thrice repeated). And the Cup when blessed wilt Thou really make it the Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (thrice repeated). Whereby Thou wilt make the bread and wine when blessed truly the Body and Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, changing them by Thy Holy Spirit {thrice repeated). The Deacon: Amen. Be it so. (thrice repeated). The Deacon, aloud: Bless, O Lord. The Priest: So that it be to us all, who draw near to it, our release from condemnation, and for the expiation and remission of our sins. The Clerks: Spirit of God, Who didst come down from heaven, to perform the mystery of Him who is glorified with Thee, through the shedding of His Blood, we beseech Thee, grant rest to the souls of our departed. The Priest, privately: Through it, to the whole world, grant love, security and the peace that is so much wanted to the Holy Church and to all Orthodox Bishops; to Priests; Deacons; Kings of the earth and to Princes; to congregations; to way-faring men; to sea-faring men; to prisoners; to men in danger; to others who labour and toil; and to those who are at war among barbarians. Through it grant a good [mixture of atmospheres] a favourable return of the seasons, and to the fields fruitfulness; and to those who are afflicted with divers diseases, grant them all speedy relief and health. Through it give rest to all those who ere this have fallen asleep in Christ; to the Patriarchs; to the Fathers; to Prophets; to the Apostles; to Martyrs; to Bishops; to Presbyters; to Deacons; and to the whole clergy of Thy Holy Church; and to all the laymen and women who have died in the faith. The Deacon, aloud: Bless, Lord. The Priest: With whom, we also pray Thee, beneficent God, to come and visit us. The Clerks, Lord, remember us, and have mercy on us. The Priest We pray Thee also that in this holy oblation [or sacrifice] remembrance be made of the Mother of God, the Holy Virgin Mary; and of John the Baptist, of the proto-martyr Stephen, and of all the Saints. The Clerks. Remember [them], Lord, and have mercy [on them].

2.13  Venerable Bede, Ecclesiastical History on St. Ninian and St. Columba (c. 731) In the year of our Lord 565, when Justin the younger, the succesor of Justinian, took the government of the Roman Empire, there came into Britain a priest and abbot, distinguished in habit and monastic life,

598

A Global Church History

Columba by name, to preach the word of God to the provinces of the northern Picts, i.e. to those who are separated from the southern parts by steep and rugged mountains. For the southern Picts, who had their homes within these mountains, had long before, as is reported, forsaken the error of idolatry, and embraced the true faith by the preaching of the word to them by Ninian, a most reverend bishop and holy man of the British nation, who had been regularly instructed at Rome in the faith and mysteries of the truth, whose episcopal see was named after St. Martin, the bishop, and was famous for its church, wherein he and many other saints rest in the body, and which the English nation still possesses. The place belongs to the province of Bernicia, and is commonly called Candida Casa, because he there built a church of stone, which was not usual among the Britons. Columba came to Britain in the ninth year of the reign of Bridius, the son of Meilochon, the very powerful King of the Picts, and he converted by work and example, that nation to the faith of Christ ; whereupon he also received the aforesaid island [Iona] for a monastery. It is not large, but contains about five families, according to English reckoning. His successors hold it to this day, and there also he was buried, when he was seventy-seven, about thirty-two years after he came into Britain to preach. Before he came into Britain he had built a noble monastery: in Ireland which from the great number of oaks is called in the Scottish tongue Dearmach, that is, the Field of Oaks. From both of these monasteries many others had their origin through his disciples both in Britain and Ireland; but the island monastery where his body lies holds the rule. That island always has for its ruler an abbot, who is a priest, to whose direction all the province and even bishops themselves are subject by an unusual form of organization, according to the example of their first teacher, who was not a bishop but a priest and a monk; of whose life and discourses some writings are said to have been preserved by his disciples. But whatever he was himself, this we regard as certain concerning him, that he left successors renowned for their great continency, their love of God and their monastic rules. However they followed “uncertain cycles in their observance of the great festival [Easter], for no one brought them the synodal decrees for the observance of Easter, because they were placed so far away from the rest of the world; they only practised such works of piety and chasity as they could learn from the prophetical, evangelical and apostolical writings. This manner of keeping Easter continued among them for a long time, that is, for the space of 150 years, or until the year of our Lord’s incarnation

2.14  The Conversion of Boris, King of Bulgaria (864) [Letter of Pope Nicholas I to the envoys of Louis the German] As you inform me that the king has arranged to come to Tullina [Austria], and then to confirm the peace with the King of the Bulgars and to enforce the submission of Rastislav, willy-nilly, we pray that Almighty God will prosper his journey, and that he may return home in peace and joy. As you tell me that the most Christian king hopes that the King of the Bulgars himself wishes to become a convert to the faith and that already many of his people have become Christians, we give thanks to God : and let us pray that an abundant harvest may be gathered into His barn. . . .

The Medieval, Byzantine, and Oriental Church

599

[Letter of Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, to the Oriental Patriarchs] Moreover, the barbarous race of the Bulgars, so hostile to Christ, have taken to such gentleness and knowledge of God that they have abandoned their ancestral and devilish rites; given up the errors of their heathen superstition, and beyond all expectation have adopted the Christian faith.

2.15  Bernard of Clairvaux, De consideratione on the Papacy (c. 1150) Come, let us still more closely investigate what you are, i.e. the character you represent for a time in the Church of God. Who are you? The chief priest, the sovereign pontiff. You are the prince of bishops, the head of the apostles ... in power Peter, in virtue of your anointing you are Christ. You are he to whom the keys have been committed, and the sheep entrusted…. Other pastors have each their several flocks assigned to them; to you all the flocks have been entrusted, one flock under one shepherd…. Hence it is that other bishops, understanding the mystery, have shared the various nations between them. In fact, James, who seemed to be a pillar of the Church (Gal. ii. 9), was content with Jerusalem, and gave up universal dominion to Peter (ibid. i. 18). Admirably was James placed there to raise up seed to his dear Brother in the place where his Brother was slain, for he was the Lord’s brother. Now if the Lord’s brother yielded to Peter, what other man can dare to trespass on Peter’s prerogative? So then, according to your own authorities, other bishops are called to a share in responsibility, you are called to the exercise of plenary power! The power of other men is confined within fixed limits ; yours extends to those who have power over their fellows. Have you not power, for sufficient reason, to shut heaven against a bishop, and even deliver him to Satan? Your prerogative, therefore, whether the power of the keys or the pastorate of the flocks is unassailable. Let me point out something else no less confirmatory of your prerogative. The disciples were in a boat when the Lord appeared (Jn. xxi. 3, 4); and, which was more delightful still, appeared in His risen body. Peter, knowing that it was the Lord, cast himself into the sea, and thus reached his Master, while the rest came in a boat. What does that mean? It was surely a sign of the unique pontificate of Peter, intended to shew that while the others had charge, each of his own ship, he was entrusted with not one ship, but the government of the whole world. For the sea is the world, and the ships are churches. Hence it is that on another occasion, like his Lord, he walked upon the water, and thus proved himself the one and only Vicar of Christ, destined to rule over not one people, but all, that is if the “many waters” are “many peoples” (Rev. xvii. 15). So then, while each of the other bishops has his own ship, you are in command of the greatest, the Universal Church throughout the world, the sum of all the other churches put together.

2.16  Anselm of Canterbury, Proslogion, On Knowing God Exists (1077-1078) Truly there is a God, although the fool has said in his heart, There is no God.

600

A Global Church History

And so, Lord, do thou, who does give understanding to faith, give me, so far as you know it to be profitable, to understand that you exist, as we believe; and that you are that which we believe. And indeed, we believe that you are a being than which nothing greater can be conceived. Or is there no such nature, since the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God? (Psalms xiv. 1). But, at any rate, this very fool, when he hears of this being of which I speak—a being than which nothing greater can be conceived—understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his understanding; although he does not understand it to exist. For, it is one thing for an object to be in the understanding, and another to understand that the object exists. When a painter first conceives of what he will afterwards perform, he has it in his understanding, but he does not yet understand it to be, because he has not yet performed it. But after he has made the painting, he both has it in his understanding, and he understands that it exists, because he has made it. Hence, even the fool is convinced that something exists in the understanding, at least, that than which nothing greater can be conceived. For, when he hears of this, he understands it. And whatever is understood, exists in the understanding. And assuredly that, that than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone. For, suppose it exists in the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater. Therefore, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, exists in the understanding alone, the very being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, is one, than which a greater can be conceived. But obviously this is impossible. Hence, there is no doubt that there exists a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality. God cannot be conceived not to exist.—God is that, than which nothing greater can be conceived.— That which can be conceived not to exist is not God. And it assuredly exists so truly, that it cannot be conceived not to exist. For, it is possible to conceive of a being which cannot be conceived not to exist; and this is greater than one which can be conceived not to exist. Hence, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, can be conceived not to exist, it is not that, than which nothing greater can be conceived. But this is an irreconcilable contradiction. There is, then, so truly a being than which nothing greater can be conceived to exist, that it cannot even be conceived not to exist; and you are this being, O Lord, our God. So truly, therefore, you do exist, O Lord, my God, in a way that you can not be conceived not to exist; and rightly. For, if a mind could conceive of a being better than you, the creature would rise above the Creator; and this is most absurd. And, indeed, whatever else there is, except you alone, can be conceived not to exist. To you alone, therefore, it belongs to exist more truly than all other beings, and hence in a higher degree than all others. For, whatever else exists does not exist so truly, and hence in a less degree it belongs to it to exist.

2.17  Anselm of Canterbury, Proslogion, On Divine Compassion and Impassibility (1077-1078) But how are you compassionate, and, at the same time, passionless? For, if you are impassible, you do not feel sympathy; and if you do not feel sympathy, your heart is not wretched from sympathy

The Medieval, Byzantine, and Oriental Church

601

for the wretched; but this what being compassionate is? How, then, are you compassionate and not compassionate, O Lord, unless because you are compassionate in terms of our experience, and not compassionate in terms of your being. Truly, you are so in terms of our experience, but you are not so in terms of your own. For, when you behold us in our wretchedness, we experience the effect of compassion, but you do not experience the feeling. Therefore, you are both compassionate, because you do save the wretched, and spare those who sin against thee; and not compassionate because you are affected by no sympathy for wretchedness. … For you are all just and supremely just, yet you art kind even to the wicked, even because you are all supremely good. For you would be less good if you were not kind to any wicked being. For, he who is good, both to the righteous and the wicked, is better than he who is good to the wicked alone; and he who is good to the wicked, both by punishing and sparing them, is better than he who is good by punishing them alone. Therefore, you are compassionate, because you are all supremely good. And, although it appears why you dost reward the good with goods and the evil with evils; yet this, at least, is most wonderful, why you, the all and supremely just, who lack nothing, bestow goods on the wicked and on those who are guilty toward you. The depth of your goodness, O God! The source of your compassion appears, and yet is not clearly seen! We see whence the river flows, but the spring whence it arises is not seen. For, it is from the abundance of your goodness that you art good to those who sin against you; and in the depth of your goodness is hidden the reason for this kindness.

2.18  Anselm of Canterbury, Cur Deus Homo on the Atonement (1098) [N.B. The section on Anselm’s ontological argument from “Historical Section III: Proofs of God’s Existence” in Theology from the Great Tradition should refer to section 2.16, above.] The only subject under discussion is the Incarnation of God, and what we believe concerning God made Man. We have therefore to inquire wherefore God remits sins to man and that we may do this the more thoroughly, let us first see what it is to sin, and what to make satisfaction for sin. If angelic beings, or men, always repaid to God what they owe, they would never sin. The whole will of a rational creature ought to be subject to the will of God. This is the debt which angels and men owe to God: paying which, none sins; and every one who does not pay it, does sin. This is uprightness, or rectitude of will, which constitutes the just or upright in heart, that is, in will; this is the sole and whole honour which we owe to God, and which God requires from us. Only such a will, when it can act, can do works pleasing to God; and when it cannot act, it pleases by itself alone, since no work is pleasing without it. Whoever renders not unto God this due honour, takes away from God that which is His, and does God dishonour: and this is sin. … And this is also to be noted: that when anyone repays what he took unjustly, he ought to give somewhat which could not have been required of him had he not taken that which was another’s. Thus, therefore, each sinner ought to repay the honour of which he has robbed God: and this is the satisfaction which every sinner ought to make to God.

602

A Global Church History

Let us go back, and see whether by mercy alone, no atonement being made to His honour, it may be fitting for God to forgive sins. … To remit, is but this: not to punish sin; and since the just treatment of unatoned sin is to punish it: if it be not punished, it is unjustly forgiven. But it is not appropriate for God to forgive anything in His realm illegally. Therefore it is not appropriate for God thus to forgive unpunished sin. And there is somewhat else which follows, if sin be thus forgiven unpunished: since the same treatment would at God’s hands be dealt to sinful and sinless; which is not consistent with God. Wherefore, if it does not beseem God to do anything unjustly or irregularly, it does not appertain to His freedom, benignity, or will, to forgive, unpunished, the sinner who hath not paid to God that of which he robbed Him. It is therefore necessary that either the honour stolen shall be restored, or punishment shall follow; otherwise, God were either unjust to Himself, or were powerless for either, which it is a shame even to imagine. It is impossible that God should lose the honour due to Him; either the sinner freely pays what he owes, or God receives it from an unwilling giver. For either man spontaneously of his own free will yields due submission to God (whether by not sinning, or by satisfying for his sin), or God subjects him unwillingly by compulsion, and thus declares Himself to be his Lord, which no man himself refuses willingly to own. … Since therefore man was so created as to be able to attain to bliss if he had not sinned, when, on account of sin, he is deprived of bliss and of all good, he repays of his own, however unwillingly, that which he took…. It is not possible for anything to add to or to diminish the honour of God, in so far as it appertains to Himself. For that same honour of His is incorruptible, and in no way mutable. But when any creature follows its own course, as it were, marked out for it, whether in the natural or rational order, it is said to obey God and to honour Him; and this applies chiefly to that creature rational by nature, to whom it is given to understand that which it ought to do. When this creature wills what he should, he honours God; not because he gives God anything, but because he freely yields himself to the will and decision of God, and preserves as far as in him lies his place in the universal order, and the beauty of that universe. But when he does not will what he ought, he dishonours God, so far as in him lies, since he submits not himself freely to God’s direction, and, as far as he can, perturbs the order and beauty of the universe, even though he in no way can injure or lower the power or dignity of God. Therefore, should any man or bad angel be unwilling to be subject to the divine will and rule, yet he cannot escape from it; for, trying to flee from under the Will that commands, he rushes under the Will that punishes. And if you ask by what road he passes, it is but under the permissive Will; and his perverse will and action even are turned aside by the highest Wisdom into the pre-ordained order and symmetry of the universe. That spontaneous satisfaction for perversity, or that exaction of penalty from one refusing satisfaction (this excepted, that God brings good out of evil in many ways), have their own place, and a beauty of order in the same universe. If Divine Wisdom did not add this when perversity attempts to disturb the regular order of things, there would be caused in that universe, which God should rule, a certain deformity from this violated symmetry of its order, and God would seem to fail in His government. Which two consequences, being inconsistencies, are therefore impossibilities, and hence it is necessary that all sin be followed by satisfaction or penalty.

The Medieval, Byzantine, and Oriental Church

603

Let us suppose a rich man holding in his hand a precious pearl, which no pollution has ever touched, and which no other can take out of his hand unless he allows this; and that he is intending to lay it up in his treasury, where are his dearest and most precious possessions. What if he suffers that same pearl to be jerked by some envious person out of his hand into the mud, when he might prevent this; and then, picking it out of the mud, puts it away dirty, unwashed, into some clean and special repository, meaning to keep it thus in future. Would not God, I say, act in likewise, were He to take back man, stained with the pollution of sin, uncleansed, that is, without any satisfaction, into paradise again, whence he had been ejected? Therefore hold most firmly, that without satisfaction—that is, without the spontaneous payment of the debt—neither can God release the sinner unpunished, nor the sinner attain to such bliss as he enjoyed before his sin; not in that way could man be restored to what he was before sinning. He who has not paid says in vain, “forgive”; while he who has paid, prays this way, because his supplication is itself a part of the payment; for God owes nothing to anyone, every creature being His debtor, and therefore it is not well for man to act as equal towards equal. The amends must be in proportion to the offence. Now tell me, what will you offer to God in satisfaction for your sin? When you render to God something which you owe to Him, even had you not sinned, you should not set it against the debt which you owe on account of your sin …Thus, in your obedience, what do you give to God which you do not owe to Him at whose call you are bound to render up all you are, all you have, and all you can do. You have not yet considered the exceeding gravity of sin. If you found yourself in the presence of God, and some one said to you, “Look there”; and God said on the contrary, “I will that you on no account look”;—ask your own heart what there is among all things that are, for which you should against God’s will give that look? Not to try you at too great length: how, if it were necessary, that either the whole world, and whatever is not God, should perish and return to nothingness, or that you should do so small an action against the will of God? When I consider the action in itself, I see that it is a very slight one; but when I enter fully into what it is when done against the will of God, I see that it is something very serious, and above comparison with any loss whatsoever; but we sometimes act against the will of another, and that not reprehensibly, so that his interests are served, which afterwards pleases him against whose very will we did it. You can do nothing better; but consider also, if it should happen that you did against God’s will give that glance: what amends could you make for that sin? It is plain that God demands proportionate satisfaction. You do not therefore make amends unless you repay something greater than is that for which you ought not to have committed the sin. And God cannot [accept less], because He should not raise to beatitude anyone who is to any extent a debtor for sin. From this it is easy to perceive, that either God will perfect in human nature that which He began, or He made so exalted a nature for so great good, in vain. Thus it is needful that He should complete what He designed in human nature ; but, as we said before, He cannot do this except through an entire satisfaction for sin, which no sinner can make. God does nothing of necessity, since in no way is He compelled or forbidden to do anything. And when we say that God does anything as by a necessity of avoiding inconsistency; since He fears it not, this is rather to be understood as that He

604

A Global Church History

does it by the necessity of preserving integrity; which necessity is nothing else than His own immutable integrity, which He has from Himself, and not from another; and therefore it is but improperly called necessity. Let us say then, that it is necessary that the goodness of God, on account of His own unchangeableness, should perfect in man what He began, although all the benefits He bestows are of free grace. But it is not possible that this should be, unless there be some one who can repay to God for the sin of man somewhat which is greater than all which is not God. Also, he who of his own should be able to give to God anything which might surpass all that is below God, must needs be greater than all which is not God. But nothing exists which is above all that is not God, save God. None therefore but God can make this reparation. Yet, none should make it save a man, otherwise man does not make amends. If, then, it be necessary (as we have ascertained) that the celestial citizenship is to be completed from among men, and that this cannot be unless there be made that before-mentioned satisfaction, which God only can, and man only should, make, it is needful that it should be made by one who is both God and man. But in whatever way these two perfect natures be said to be joined, if it be still so as that God is not the same as man, it is impossible that both should do what is necessary to be done. For God will not do it, because He ought not, and man will not, because he cannot; therefore that God and man may do this, it is needful that the same person shall be perfect God and perfect man, who shall make this satisfaction; since he cannot do it unless he be very God, nor ought, unless he be very man. Thence, since it is necessary, preserving the entirety of either nature, that a God-man should be found, no less needful is it that these two natures should meet in one person, as the body and the reasonable soul meet in one being: which can be done in no other way but that the same person should be perfect God and perfect man. But as it is right that man should make reparation for the sin of man, therefore it is necessary that the one who makes satisfaction should be of the same race as the sinner; otherwise neither Adam nor his race would really make reparation. So therefore that man who would be also God, would, since he would have every virtue he possessed from himself, be righteous not of necessity but of free will, and by his own power ; and would therefore be worthy of praise. For although the human nature would have from the divine whatever it possessed, yet he (since two natures will be one Person) will have it from himself. Let us then assert that he would not be obliged to die, because he would not be a sinner. It is not doubtful that since He would be God He would be omnipotent. Then, if he so willed, he could lay down his life and take it again. Therefore he need never die, if he so willed ; and he could die and rise again. But whether he lays down his life without the action of any other, or whether another causes him to lay it down, he permitting this, makes no difference as to the future. Reason taught us also that he ought to have something greater than anything which is not God, which he may offer to God of free will, and not as a debt owed to God. But this can be found neither beneath him nor without him. Therefore it is to be discovered within him. Therefore he will give either himself, or something of himself. Therefore this giving is so to be understood, as that in some way he gives up himself, or something of himself, for the glory of God, for which he was not a debtor. If we say that he will give himself up to

The Medieval, Byzantine, and Oriental Church

605

obey God, so that by holding steadfastly to uprightness he may yield himself to God’s will, this will not be giving what God doth not require from him as a debt, for every rational creature owes this obedience to God. Therefore he must needs give himself, or somewhat of himself, to God in some other way. Let us see if perhaps this may be: to give his life, to yield up his spirit, or give himself up to death for the honour of God. For God will not require this of him as a debt due; for since there would not be sin in him, he would not be obliged to die, as we asserted. But nothing harder or more difficult could man suffer of free will, being under no necessity, for the glory of God, than death; in no way could man give himself more fully to God than by yielding himself to death for His honour. But think: sins are hateful in proportion as they are evil; and this his life is deserving of love in proportion to its goodness. Whence it follows that this his life is more deserving of love than are sins hateful. Do you not think that so great, so lovable good can suffice to atone for the sins of the whole world? Since that Man is proved to be God and the reconciler of sinners, it is not doubtful but that He is entirely without sin, which He cannot be, unless He were taken without sin from the sinful mass. But if we cannot understand for what reason -the wisdom of God did this, we should not be surprised, but reverently acquiesce in the fact that among the mysteries of so deep a subject there is something of which we are ignorant. Indeed God restored human nature more wondrously than He created it. No man except Himself ever by dying gave to God, what He was not of necessity to lose at some time; or paid, that which He owed not. But He freely offered to His Father what He would never have been obliged to lose, and paid for sinners that which He owed not on His own account. Wherefore He much the rather set the example that every one should not hesitate to render up to God of his own accord when reason requires it, that which at some time or other he must infallibly lose, who, in nowise needing to do it on His own account, nor being compelled thereto for the sake of others, to whom nothing was due save punishment, gave so precious a Life, even Himself, so ineffable a Person, by a will so perfectly free. That honour appertains to the whole Trinity; because since He Himself is God the Son of God, to His own glory as well as to the glory of the Father and of the Holy Ghost did He offer up Himself, that is, His Humanity to His Divinity, which same is One of Three Persons. Let us now, as far as we can, consider by how conclusive a chain of reasoning human salvation can be deduced hence. How much the Son freely gave, it is not however needful to set forth. But you will not consider that He who freely gives to God so great a gift, ought to be without any recompence. He who recompenses another, either gives what that other has not, or remits, what from that other might be required. But, before the Son did that great thing, all which the Father had, were His also; nor did He ever owe anything which to Him might be remitted. What recompence therefore could be made to Him who had need of naught, and to whom naught could be given or remitted? If so great a reward, and one so justly due, be not paid either to Him or to another, the Son will seem to have done this so great thing in vain.

606

A Global Church History

Therefore it is necessary that this be repaid to some one else, since to Him it cannot be. Should the Son will to give to another that which is due to Himself, surely the Father could not rightly forbid Him, nor refuse it to any to whom the Son might give it. To whom could He more fitly assign the fruit of, and retribution for His death, than to those for whose salvation (as the investigation of the truth showed us) He made Himself man, and to whom (as we said) He in dying gave the example of dying for righteousness’ sake. In vain, however, would they be imitators of Him if they were not sharers in His merits. Or whom could He more justly make heirs of a debt due to Him of which He Himself had no need, and of the overflowings of His fulness, than His kindred and brethren, whom He sees burdened with so many and so great debts and wasting away in the depths of misery; that what they owe for their sins may be remitted to them, and what on account of their sins they are in need of may be given them ? Thus it is, if he approach in the right way. But, how one ought to enter into participation of so great grace, and how live under it, we are taught everywhere in Holy Scripture, which is founded on solid truth (which, God helping us, we shall some day perceive) as upon a firm foundation. Still, it is plain, that God in nowise needed to do that which we have mentioned; immutable verity, however, so required. But granting that what that Man did, God is said to have done, (on account of the unity of Person:) yet God needed not to come down from heaven to conquer the devil, nor to act against him to set man free as a maker of justice; but, God required man to vanquish the devil, in order that he who had offended God by sin, by righteousness might make reparation. And what can be more just than that he, to whom is given a payment greater than all that is owing to him, should, if this be given in payment of what is owing, remit the whole debt.

2.19  Urban II, Speech at Council of Clermont, 1095, Call for Crusade Although, O sons of God, you have promised more firmly than ever to keep the peace among yourselves and to preserve the rights of the church, there remains still an important work for you to do. Freshly quickened by the divine correction, you must apply the strength of your righteousness to another matter which concerns you as well as God. For your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ’s heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.

The Medieval, Byzantine, and Oriental Church

607

All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested.

2.20  Innocent III, Sicut universitalis conditor on Papal Authority (1198) Even as God, the Creator of the Universe, has set two great lights in the firmament of heaven, the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night, so for the firmament of the universal Church, which is called by the name of heaven, He has appointed two great dignities: the greater to rule over men’s souls, as it were the day, and the lesser to rule over men’s bodies, as it were the night. These are the authority of the Pope and the King. Further, as the moon derives its light from the sun, which indeed is less than the sun both in bulk and in importance, though alike in place and power, so the power of the King derives the splendour of its dignity from the authority of the Pope; and the more the former keeps within view of the latter, so much the more is it adorned by a lesser light, and the further it is removed from the view of the other so much the more does it excel in splendour.

2.21  Peter Abelard, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, on the Atonement (mid 1130s) On Romans 3:26 Nevertheless it seems to us that in this we are justified in the blood of Christ and reconciled to God, that it was through this matchless grace shown to us that his Son received our nature, and in that nature, teaching us both by word and by example, persevered to the death and bound us to himself even more through love, so that when we have been kindled by so great a benefit of divine grace, true charity might fear to endure nothing for his sake. We do not doubt that this benefit kindled the ancient fathers, expecting this through faith, in the supreme love of God just as it kindled the men of the time of grace, since it is written, “And they who went before him and they who followed him cried out, saying, ‘Hosanna to the son of David,’” etc. Each one is also made more righteous after the Passion of Christ than before; that is, he loves God more, because the completed benefit kindles him in love more than a hoped-for benefit. Therefore, our redemption is that supreme love in us through the Passion of Christ, which not only frees us from slavery to sin, but gains for us the true liberty of the sons of God, so that we may complete all things by his love rather than by fear. He showed us such great grace, than which a greater cannot be found, by his own word: “No one,” he says, “has greater love than this: that he lays down his life for his friends.” Concerning this love the same person says elsewhere, “I have come to send fire on the earth, and what do I desire except that it burn?” He witnesses, therefore, that he has come to increase this true liberty of charity among men.

608

2.22  York Cycle (Mystery Play) (mid 14th century) Play 12: The Spicer’s Guild The Annunciation, and Visit of Elizabeth to Mary [Scene 1, Nasareth: Prologue in the fore-ground.] Prologue: Thus of cristis commyng may we see, How sainte Luke spekis in his gospell, “Fro God in heuen es sent,” sais he, “An aungell is named Gabriell To Nazareth in Galale, Where than a mayden mylde gon dwell, That with Joseph suld wedded be. Hir name is Marie” thus gan he telle, To god his grace than grayd, To man in this manere, And how the Aungell saide, Takes hede, all that will here.

[The Angel sings “Ave Maria.”] Angel: Hayle! Marie! full of grace and blysse, Oure lord god is with thee, And has chosen thee for his, Of all women blist mot thou be. Mary: What maner of halsyng is this? Thus preuely comes to me, For in myn hcrte a thoght it is, The tokenyng that I here see.

[The angel sings “Ne timeas, Maria.”] Angel: Ne drede thee noght, thou mylde marie, For no-thyng that may be-falle, For thou has fun soueranly At god a grace ouer othir all. In chastite of thy bodye

A Global Church History

The Medieval, Byzantine, and Oriental Church

Consayue and bere a childe thou sail, This bodword brynge I thee, for-thy His name Jesu sail thou calle. Mekill of myght than sall he bee, He sall be God and called God sonne “. Dauid sege, his fadir free, Sail God hym giffe to sytte vppon; Als kyng for euer regne sall hee, In Jacob house ay for to wonne. Of his kyngdome and dignite Shall noo man erthly knaw ne con” Mary: Thou goddis aungell, meke and mylde, Howe sulde it be, I the praye, That I sulde consayve a childe Of any man by nyght or daye. 171 I knawe no man that shulde haue fyled My maydenhode, the sothe to saye; With-outen will of werkis wilde, In chastite I haue ben ay. Angel: The Halygast in thee sall lighte, Hegh vertue sall to thee holde, The holy birthe of the so bright, God sonne he sall be calde. Loo, Elyzabeth, thi cosyne, ne myght In elde consayue a childe for aide, This is the sexte moneth full ryght, To hir that baran has ben talde. Mary: Thou aungell, blissid messanger, Of goddis will I holde me payde, I love my lorde with herte dere, The grace That he has for me layde. Goddis handmayden, lo! me here, To his wille all redy grayd, Be done to me of all manere, Thurgh thy worde als thou hast saide.

609

610

A Global Church History

2.23  Hildegard of Bingen, Book of Divine Works on Man and Woman (1163) When God looked upon the human countenance, God was exceedingly pleased. For had not God created humanity according to the divine image and likeness? Human beings were to announce all God’s wondrous works by means of their tongues that were endowed with reason. For humanity is God’s complete work. God is known to human beings, and for our sake God created all creatures. God has allowed us to glorify and praise God in the kiss of true love through our spirituality. But the human species still needed a support that was a match for it. So God gave the first man a helper in the form of woman, who was man’s mirror image, and in her the whole human race was present in a latent way. God did this with manifold creative power, just as God had produced in great power the first man. Man and woman are in this way so involved with each other that one of them is the work of the other (opus alterum per alterum). Without woman, man could not be called man; without man, woman could not be named woman. Thus woman is the work of man, while man is a sight full of consolation for woman. Neither of them could henceforth live without the other. Man is in this connection an indication of the Godhead while woman is an indication of the humanity of God’s Son.

2.24  Francis of Assisi, Rule (c. 1233) If any wish to embrace this life and come to our brothers, let them send them to their provincial ministers, to whom alone and not to others is accorded the power of receiving brothers. But let the ministers diligently examine them regarding the Catholic faith and the Sacraments of the Church. And if they believe all these things, and if they will confess them faithfully and observe them firmly to the end, and if they have no wives, or, if they have and their wives have already entered a monastery, or have, with the authority of the diocesan bishop, given them permission after having made a vow of continence, and if the wives be of such an age that no suspicion may arise concerning them, let them [the ministers] say to them the word of the holy Gospel, that they go and sell all their goods and strive to distribute them to the poor. If they should not be able to do this, their good will suffices. And the brothers and their ministers must take care not to be solicitous about their temporal affairs, that they may freely do with their affairs whatsoever the Lord may inspire them. If, however, counsel should be required, the ministers shall have power of sending them to some God-fearing men by whose advice their goods may be distributed to the poor. Afterwards, let them give them clothes of probation, to wit, two tunics without a hood and a cord and breeches and a chaperon reaching to the cord, unless at some time the same ministers may decide otherwise according to God. The year of probation being finished, they shall be received to obedience, promising to observe always this life and rule. And according to the command of the Lord Pope in no wise shall it be allowed them to go out of this religion, because, according to the holy Gospel: “No man putting his hand to the plough and looking back is fit for the kingdom of God.” And let those who have already promised obedience have one tunic with a hood, and if they wish it another without a hood. And those who are obliged by necessity may wear shoes.

The Medieval, Byzantine, and Oriental Church

611

And let all the brothers be clothed in poor garments and they may patch them with pieces of sackcloth and other things, with the blessing of God. I admonish and exhort them not to despise or judge men whom they see clothed in fine and showy garments using dainty meats and drinks, but rather let each one judge and despise himself. I indeed counsel, warn, and exhort my brothers in the Lord Jesus Christ that when they go through the world they be not litigious nor contend in words, nor judge others; but that they be gentle, peaceful, and modest, meek and humble, speaking honestly to all as is fitting. And they must not ride on horseback unless compelled by manifest necessity or infirmity. Into whatsoever house they may enter let them first say: Peace be to this house! And, according to the holy Gospel, it is lawful to eat of all foods which are set before them. The brothers shall appropriate nothing to themselves, neither a house nor place nor anything. And as pilgrims and strangers in this world, serving the Lord in poverty and humility, let them go confidently in quest of alms, nor ought they to be ashamed, because the Lord made Himself poor for us in this world. This, my dearest brothers, is the height of the most sublime poverty which has made you heirs and kings of the kingdom of heaven: poor in goods, but exalted in virtue. Let that be your portion, for it leads to the land of the living; cleaving to it unreservedly, my best beloved brothers, for the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, never desire to possess anything else under heaven.

2.25  Mechthild of Magdeburg, Flowing Light of the Godhead on the Soul’s Desire (c. 1250-1282) God asks the Soul what She brings, and She Answers. “What do you bring me, O my Queen? Love makes your steps to fly.” “Lord, to You my jewel I bring, Greater than mountains high; Broader than all the earth’s broad lands, Heavier than the ocean sands, And higher it is than the sky: Deeper it is than the depths of the sea, And fairer than the sun, Unreckoned, as if the stars could be All gathered into one.” “O you, My Godhead’s image fair, You Eve, from Adam framed, My flesh, My bone, My life to share, My Spirit’s diadem to wear, How is your jewel named?”

612

A Global Church History

“Lord, it is called my heart’s desire, From the world’s enchantments won; I have borne it afar through flood and fire, And will yield it up to none; But the burden I can bear no more— Where shall I lay it up in store?” “There is no treasure-house but this, My heart divine, My Manhood’s breast; There shall My Spirit’s sacred kiss Fill you with rest.”

2.26  Fourth Lateran Council on Transubstantiation (1215) There is one Universal Church of the faithful, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation. In which there is the same priest and sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine; the bread being changed (transsubstantiatio) by divine power into the body, and the wine into the blood, so that to realize the mystery of unity we may receive of Him what He has received of us. And this sacrament no one can effect except the priest who has been duly ordained in accordance with the keys of the Church, which Jesus Christ Himself gave to the Apostles and their successors.

2.27  Magna Carta, 1215, The Clauses for the English Church John, by the grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and Earl of Anjou, to his archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justiciars, foresters, sheriffs, revees, ministers, and all bailiffs and liege men, greeting. Know ye that we by God’s inspiration and for the safety of our soul and those of our ancestors and heirs, for the honor of God and the exaltation of holy Church, and the amending of our realm, by the advice of our venerable fathers Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England, and cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, [and of many other noblemen named herein]: Have in the first place granted to God, and confirmed by this our present charter, for us and our heirs for ever, that the Church of England be free, and have her rights intact, and her liberties uninjured; and so we will it to be observed, which appears from the fact that freedom of elections which is considered to be of chief moment and the more necessary for the Church of England, we have by our mere and spontaneous will, before the beginning of the discord between us and our barons, granted and confirmed by our charter, and have had it confirmed by the lord the Pope Innocent III, which we will both observe and will that it be observed in good faith by our heirs for ever. We have also granted to all free men of our realm for us and our heirs for ever, all the liberties mentioned below, to have and to hold for them and their heirs of us and our hearts.

The Medieval, Byzantine, and Oriental Church

613

Wherefore we will and firmly command that the English Church be free, and that the men in our realm have and hold all the aforesaid liberties, rights, and grants, well and in peace, freely and quietly, fully and wholly, to themselves and their heirs of us and our heirs in all things and places for ever, as is aforesaid. Moreover an oath has been taken, as well on our side as on that of the barons, that all these things aforesaid shall be obeyed with good faith and without evil disposition. The aforesaid and many others being witness. Given by our hand in the meadow which is called Runnymede between Windsor and Staines, on the fifteenth day of June in the seventeenth year of our reign.

2.28  Theodore Metochites, Poems To Himself on His Misfortunes (c. 1325-1330) To Himself and Concerning the Misfortune of His Affairs Wretch that I am! What unbearable things I have suffered and seen, griefs monstrous even to hear, truly unspeakable calamities for our people at the hands of bitterest enemies! Wherefore it is clear indeed that by our enormous sins we have brought the Lord Christ, merciful and good by His Nature, to dire anger, quite unwillingly and contrary to nature though nevertheless most justly, against ourselves, we who live arrogantly and do offence to His commandments; the which He proclaimed wishing us well and warning us of deadly things straightway through terrible reports. For He never willingly bringeth on human woes, but prescribeth long beforehand better things and all the ruinous, dire consequences to be avoided by sinning mortals. The latter take no care in their minds for these things as they ought, but rather, they fearlessly rush to do acts of unrighteousness; and afterwards He gives them the reward of their sins. Hearing of these things formerly, we always shamelessly looked aside, heedless of good things, heedless moreover of the griefs to follow; and each and every one of these same are now clearly visited upon us, final judgements of the Lord, which he foretold. I am afraid every yet; and great, dreadful fear torments me from within always, having constantly before my eyes the direst possible evils, as though present at former calamities I have seen, thinking of the incurable, utter destruction to follow upon the people whose excellent, imperishable glory was vaunted greatly of old amongst all peoples in every age. Indeed did I always think these things formerly, ever since I acquired some experience of affairs; for it was no short time ago that we, in a state of weakness, became like those suffering from disease, suspect of dealing badly with grievous affairs with have arisen somehow of a sudden, as is wont to happen each time; and I am convinced now especially—would that it were not so!—, seeing unspeakable woes constantly succeeding one another like savage waves roaring fiercely upon the seashore, sending off great din and dread to those who hear from afar with listless minds. Whether or not such fear as now grips me alarms listless minds, nevertheless, anyone who trusts those who understand affairs of the world would think these things likely and pertinent. Yet I refuse, longing to believe them to be false and my opinions to be mistaken, and that I have senseless, irrational, vain fears; and it were more advantageous for me privately and for everyone withal if I was not sensible in these considerations as formerly, but rather, feared deceivedly where verily no danger was and the small-hearted feared unlikely things easily to be avoided; unless, as I fear in turn, there should follow forthwith monstrous miracles from God, unthinkable, unexpected, astounding, even as

614

A Global Church History

He is wont to work extraordinary, unlooked-for things upon mortals. Tormented as I am always by these considerations, as if moths were knowing at my bones within, how shall I tell of what a miserable life I lead, like a man with the worst of illnesses, scarcely breathing, expecting forthwith to be amongst the dead, it being ever impossible, no matter how swiftly, to outrun death and life’s end, which in no wise returneth again so long as Earth nourisheth mortals and Sun Hyperion revolveth in his orbit? Such has been my mind and thinking, ever unchanged: living with these considerations I am constantly word down, moaning every day and every night, especially because I must needs take forethought about these things, being in this wearisome office which all amongst mortals thought honourable and muchdesired. Whether it was so formerly, I cannot now tell; let others say what they think. But upon me now it brings always, without respite or ceasing, many painful, dire cares, relentless concern and horrible, deadly terrors, both private and publick, griefs which weigh down sorely.

2.29  Hymn of the Transfiguration (Nestorian Church, China) (early eighth century) [N.B. “Da Qin” was the Chinese name for the Roman Empire—ed.] Praise of the transfiguration of the great holy one of the Jing religion of Da Qin. Salutation to the great holy one, merciful Father Aluohe: Bright and clear as the sun and the moon is they glistening white visage. Loftily higher thy virtue stands than all the saints and sages.1 Thy tidings glad, thy doctrine amusing resounding as a gold bell large. They law kind, widely thrives2 reaching millions and millions of lives. Ignorant and greedy are hundreds of spirits Their bodies widely poisoned, their true nature fell Only our great holy King of law in the high and infinite world dwells. They holiness and mercy brightly so shines through dust and dirt that they shall dispel. Demons driven out, peoples praise3 Thee Hundreds of wonders to heal, justice, and peace to keep Mighty is the great holiness, my merciful father millions of people saved by thy wisdom and power. With thy strength mighty and thy people holy The sea of laws4 is bound to conquer In quietness and honesty

Two ways of interpreting: the moral and the saints or sages or all sages and saints. The word (fan) can carry two meanings: (1) the ordinary, the mortal or (d) all. 2 To cover 3 Maybe it is incorrectly written. The word might be (zhang): to praise. 4 (chao) is exceeding, over, (fahai) literally means the sea of laws, here referring to this world. 1

The Medieval, Byzantine, and Oriental Church

615

So let my heart worship thee. Worship and honor thee, shall all thy people holy Return to they great law that thy kingdom may come wholly.5 Salutation!6 Under the presbyter7 Johanan: Reading in sequence: the Pauline epistle, Psalms, and the Gospels. Part I of “In Praise of the Transfiguration of the Great Holiness of the Da Qin Religion.” Order of writing for teaching and reading fixed by Suoyaun, Disciple of the Da Qin Temple in Shazhou.8 The Second of May of the eighth year of Kaiyuan.9

2.30 Bonaventure, Breviloquium, On the Origin of Evil (mid 13th century) On the Origin of Evil in General Having briefly clarified certain matters relating to the Trinity of God and the creation of the world, we shall now, with equal brevity, touch upon the corruption caused by sin. What we must hold is summarized thus: sin is not some positive essence, but a defect, a corruptive tendency, that is, a force which contaminates mode, species, and order in the created will. Hence the corruptive power of sin, while opposed to good as such, yet has no being except in a good, and no origin except from a good; which good is the will’s capacity for free choice. And this capacity is not entirely evil, for it may tend toward good; nor entirely good, for it may fall into evil. This should be understood as follows. Since the first Principle exists of Himself, and not by another, He must necessarily exist for His own sake: He must be the supreme Good, absolutely free of defect. A first and absolute evil does not and could not exist, for the notion of first Principle implies supreme plenitude, and the notion of supreme evil, utter deficiency. Since the first Principle, the supreme and complete Being, cannot fail either in existence or in operation, He is neither absolute evil, nor any degree of evil, nor can He in any manner be the cause of evil. Because the first Principle is almighty, He is able to draw something good into being out of nonbeing, even without any pre-existing elements. This is precisely what He did when He formed the creature to whom He granted being, life, intelligence, and will. This creature, proceeding from the supreme Good and innerly conformed to the triple cause, fittingly has in its substance and will a mode,

 iterally translated as a “heavenly wheel is descending.” L Here, it may indicate the bowing down ceremony in worship. 7 Literally, king of law. Normally a Buddhist term referring to the title of leaders of Lamanism in the Mongol period. See, chai: Zongiian. Here it may refer to the leader of the Church, Johanan, who was leading the service. 8 (Shazhou), line 16: a town near Dunhaung 9 (kaiyuan ba nian), line 18: the 8th year of Kaiyuan, that is, A. D. 720. Kaiyuan is the name of the years of the Emperor Tang Xuanzong. 5 6

616

A Global Church History

species, and order: following which mode, species, and order implanted in its nature, it was meant to act by the power of God, in accordance with God, and for God as an end. But man, made out of nothingness, and imperfect as he was by nature, had the capacity of acting for ends other than God; of acting for himself instead of for God, and thus not properly by the power of God, nor according to God, nor for God as an end. That precisely is sin: the vitiation of mode, species, and order. As sin is a defect, it has a cause which is not EF-ficient, but DE-ficient, being the defection of the created will. Sin can only be the corruption of a good; and only a corruptible being is subject to corruption; therefore, sin can be found only in some corruptible good. Now, free will, by falling away from the true Good, corrupts its own mode, species, and order; hence, sin as such proceeds from the will as from its source, and resides in the will as in its proper subject: which occurs whenever the will, through fallibility, mutability, and indifference, spurns the indefectible and immutable Good and cleaves to the mutable.

2.31  Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, On the Need for Theology (1265-1274) Article 1. Whether, besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required? Objection 1. It seems that, besides philosophical science, we have no need of any further knowledge. For man should not seek to know what is above reason: “Seek not the things that are too high for thee” (Sirach 3:22). But whatever is not above reason is fully treated of in philosophical science. Therefore any other knowledge besides philosophical science is superfluous. Objection 2. Further, knowledge can be concerned only with being, for nothing can be known, save what is true; and all that is, is true. But everything that is, is treated of in philosophical science— even God Himself; so that there is a part of philosophy called theology, or the divine science, as Aristotle has proved (Metaph. vi). Therefore, besides philosophical science, there is no need of any further knowledge. On the contrary, It is written (2 Timothy 3:16): “All Scripture, inspired of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice.” Now Scripture, inspired of God, is no part of philosophical science, which has been built up by human reason. Therefore it is useful that besides philosophical science, there should be other knowledge, i.e. inspired of God. I answer that, It was necessary for man’s salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God besides philosophical science built up by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God, as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason: “The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee” (Isaiah 64:4). But the end must first be known by men who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the end. Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation. Even as regards those truths about God which human reason could have discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation; because the truth about God such

The Medieval, Byzantine, and Oriental Church

617

as reason could discover, would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors. Whereas man’s whole salvation, which is in God, depends upon the knowledge of this truth. Therefore, in order that the salvation of men might be brought about more fitly and more surely, it was necessary that they should be taught divine truths by divine revelation. It was therefore necessary that besides philosophical science built up by reason, there should be a sacred science learned through revelation. Reply to Objection 1. Although those things which are beyond man’s knowledge may not be sought for by man through his reason, nevertheless, once they are revealed by God, they must be accepted by faith. Hence the sacred text continues, “For many things are shown to thee above the understanding of man” (Sirach 3:25). And in this, the sacred science consists. Reply to Objection 2. Sciences are differentiated according to the various means through which knowledge is obtained. For the astronomer and the physicist both may prove the same conclusion: that the earth, for instance, is round: the astronomer by means of mathematics (i.e. abstracting from matter), but the physicist by means of matter itself. Hence there is no reason why those things which may be learned from philosophical science, so far as they can be known by natural reason, may not also be taught us by another science so far as they fall within revelation. Hence theology included in sacred doctrine differs in kind from that theology which is part of philosophy.

2.32  Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, On Knowing that God Exists (1265-1274) Article 3. Whether God exists? Objection 1. It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word “God” means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist. Objection 2. Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God’s existence. On the contrary, It is said in the person of God: “I am Who am.” (Exodus 3:14) I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways. The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be

618

A Global Church History

actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God. The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God. The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence—which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God. The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost

The Medieval, Byzantine, and Oriental Church

619

being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God. The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God. Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): “Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil.” This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good. Reply to Objection 2. Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article.

2.33  Life of Constantine on the Missions of Cyril and Methodius (tenth or eleventh century) At that time; envoys from the Khazars came to the Emperor, praying and beseeching him that he would be pleased to send them a learned man to teach them the Catholic Faith in truth adding, among other things, that “the Jews are now trying to convert us to their faith, and the Saracens to theirs. We did not know to whom to commit ourselves; and so we resolved to consult the Great and Catholic Emperor about our faith and salvation, having full confidence in your friendship.” Then the Emperor, after consulting the Patriarch, summoned the aforesaid Constantine [that is, Cyril] the Philosopher, and sent him there, along with the envoys of the Khazars and his own, having entire confidence in his wisdom and eloquence…. The Philosopher started on his journey, and arrived at the country to which he was sent. He converted ... all those who were rescued from the unbelief of the Jews and the Saracens. Greatly rejoicing, they gave thanks to Almighty God, and to His servant Constantine the Philosopher. They sent letters of thanks to the Emperor, promising that in future they would always remain his faithful subjects. They offered the Philosopher many gifts, but he refused them, and asked them instead to let him take back with him those in captivity, as he was shortly returning home.

620

A Global Church History

On the return of the Philosopher to Constantinople, Rastislav, prince of Moravia, heard of what he had done amongst the Khazars. After consulting his people, he sent envoys to the Emperor to say that they had given up the worship of idols, and desired to observe the Christian law, but had no teacher to instruct them and to teach them the perfect law; and to request him to send to their country such a man as could explain to them fully the faith and order of the divine law and the way of truth. The Emperor listened to their petition, and summoned the Philosopher to his presence, and sent him there i.e. to the country of the Slavs, accompanied by his brother Methodius, with ample supplies from the palace. With God’s help they arrived there. The people welcomed their coming with great rejoicings on hearing that they brought with them the relics of the blessed Clement and the Gospel which the Philosopher had translated into their own tongue. ... So they began to do that for which they had come, by carefully teaching; educating, the children; instructing them in the offices of the Church ; correcting the various errors which they found among the people by the sickle of their words; uprooting and extirpating from that plague-stricken land the manifold briers of vice. They remained in Moravia for four and a half years; bringing the people up in the Catholic Faith, and leaving behind them everything necessary for the service of the Church. On hearing all this, the most glorious Pope Nicholas greatly rejoiced at all that was told him, commanded them, or by letters apostolic invited them, to come to him. They gave thanks to God that they had been counted worthy of so great an honour as to be summoned by the Apostolic See. They took with them several disciples whom they thought worthy of the episcopate; and, after some days, arrived in Rome. But Nicholas died before their arrival. His successor, however, Adrian II received them with honour; consecrated Constantine and Methodius bishops, and some of the disciples presbyters and deacons.

2.34  John Scotus Eriugena, The Division of Nature on Paradise (867) But that Adam was in Paradise for a period of time before the woman was moulded from his side let him declare who can. Therefore that praise of the life of man in Paradise must refer rather to the life that would have been his if he had remained obedient than to that which he only began to spend and in which he did not continue. For if he had continued in it even for a brief interval he must necessarily have achieved some degree of perfection, and in that case perhaps this master would not have said “He began to live, “ but “He lived” or “He had lived:” although if he had used the preterite and pluperfect in this way, or if he used them elsewhere, I should rather think that he was using the preterite for the future than that he meant that man had continued for a space of time in the blessedness of Paradise before the Fall, for the following reason, that he was expressing the predestined and fore-determined blessedness which was to be man’s if he had not sinned, as though it had already occurred, when in fact, that is, in the effects of the completed predestination, it was still among those things which were destined to be created at some future time. … “Had existed,” he says, not “began to exist,” nor is this surprising since very often the Divine Authority speaks of the future as though it had already happened.

The Medieval, Byzantine, and Oriental Church

2.35  Dante Alighieri, Divine Comedy (1320) Inferno Canto III Inscription on the Gate to Hell: “Through me you pass into the city of woe: Through me you pass into eternal pain: Through me among the people lost for aye. Justice the founder of my fabric mov’d: To rear me was the task of power divine, Supremest wisdom, and primeval love. Before me things create were none, save things Eternal, and eternal I endure. All hope abandon ye who enter here.”

Purgatorio Canto II Dante and Virgil observe new souls come to Purgatory: Meanwhile we linger’d by the water’s brink, Like men, who, musing on their road, in thought Journey, while motionless the body rests. When lo! as near upon the hour of dawn, Through the thick vapours Mars with fiery beam Glares down in west, over the ocean floor; So seem’d, what once again I hope to view, A light so swiftly coming through the sea, No winged course might equal its career. From which when for a space I had withdrawn Thine eyes, to make inquiry of my guide, Again I look’d and saw it grown in size And brightness: thou on either side appear’d Something, but what I knew not of bright hue, And by degrees from underneath it came Another. My preceptor silent yet Stood, while the brightness, that we first discern’d, Open’d the form of wings: then when he knew The pilot, cried aloud, “Down, down; bend low Thy knees; behold God’s angel: fold thy hands: Now shalt thou see true Ministers indeed.” Lo how all human means he sets at naught! So that nor oar he needs, nor other sail

621

622

Except his wings, between such distant shores. Lo how straight up to heaven he holds them rear’d, Winnowing the air with those eternal plumes, That not like mortal hairs fall off or change!” As more and more toward us came, more bright Appear’d the bird of God, nor could the eye Endure his splendor near: I mine bent down. He drove ashore in a small bark so swift And light, that in its course no wave it drank. The heav’nly steersman at the prow was seen, Visibly written blessed in his looks. Within a hundred spirits and more there sat. “In Exitu Israel de Aegypto [Ps. 113—ed.]”; All with one voice together sang, with what In the remainder of that hymn is writ. Then soon as with the sign of holy cross He bless’d them, they at once leap’d out on land, The swiftly as he came return’d. The crew, There left, appear’d astounded with the place, Gazing around as one who sees new sights. From every side the sun darted his beams, And with his arrowy radiance from mid heav’n Had chas’d the Capricorn, when that strange tribe Lifting their eyes towards us: “If ye know, Declare what path will Lead us to the mount.”

Paradisio 33 Dante and Beatrice observe the highest heaven: With fixed heed, suspense and motionless, Wond’ring I gaz’d; and admiration still Was kindled, as I gaz’d. It may not be, That one, who looks upon that light, can turn To other object, willingly, his view. For all the good, that will may covet, there Is summ’d; and all, elsewhere defective found, Complete. My tongue shall utter now, no more E’en what remembrance keeps, than could the babe’s That yet is moisten’d at his mother’s breast. Not that the semblance of the living light

A Global Church History

The Medieval, Byzantine, and Oriental Church

623

Was chang’d (that ever as at first remain’d) But that my vision quickening, in that sole Appearance, still new miracles descry’d, And toil’d me with the change. In that abyss Of radiance, clear and lofty, seem’d methought, Three orbs of triple hue clipt in one bound: And, from another, one reflected seem’d, As rainbow is from rainbow: and the third Seem’d fire, breath’d equally from both. Oh speech How feeble and how faint art thou, to give Conception birth! Yet this to what I saw Is less than little. Oh eternal light! Sole in thyself that dwellst; and of thyself Sole understood, past, present, or to come! Thou smiledst; on that circling, which in thee Seem’d as reflected splendour, while I mus’d; For I therein, methought, in its own hue Beheld our image painted: steadfastly I therefore por’d upon the view. As one Who vers’d in geometric lore, would fain Measure the circle; and, though pondering long And deeply, that beginning, which he needs, Finds not; e’en such was I, intent to scan The novel wonder, and trace out the form, How to the circle fitted, and therein How plac’d: but the flight was not for my wing; Had not a flash darted athwart my mind, And in the spleen unfolded what it sought. Here vigour fail’d the tow’ring fantasy: But yet the will roll’d onward, like a wheel In even motion, by the Love impell’d, That moves the sun in heav’n and all the stars.

2.36  Kebra Negast, The Glory of Kings (Ethiopian Orthodox Church) (fourteenth century) When Solomon the King purposed to build an House unto the name of the Lord, he sent messengers to all the merchants of the world, to those who lived in the North and in the South, in the East and in the West, that they bring unto him all that they had. And he promised to pay them twofold.

624

A Global Church History

Having received his invitation, the rich Tamrin, Chief Merchant to the Queen of Ethiopia, betook himself unto Solomon. The King obtained from him all that he desired and paid him twofold. And it followed that this clever merchant remained with Solomon a long time. Day by day he beheld and wondered at the Wisdom of Solomon. He tried himself to hear the Voice of Justice. He delighted in the pleasant words the King pronounced as he came and went while the work was being carried on. Tamrin was astonished at the love which Solomon bore his people and their Laws and their Code. When the King commanded, it was gently and with humility. He forgave those who transgrest. The knowledge and the fear of the Lord ruled his household; he spoke by proverbs; his voice was soft as honey, his beauty surpassed that of other men; and all that concerned him was astonishing. Having seen all this, the Ethiopian wondered at it. When Queen Magda had heard all these stories her soul was drawn to Solomon and she knew no desire but to go and greet this king. Thereupon the Queen set out with much state and majesty and gladness, for by the will of the Lord, she wished in her heart to make this journey to Jerusalem, to rejoice in the Wisdom of Solomon. Queen Magda reached Jerusalem and she offered the King many presents which he greatly desired. And he, for his part, paid honor to her. And she was happy. He came to her and said what was in his heart, and she also went to him, and said all that was in her heart. Hour by hour she grew to know more of his wisdom, his justice and his glory, his beauty and his gentleness. She clung to these things. She dwelt upon them in her thoughts. She said to herself: “Is it a dream or do I behold a living creature?” She lifted her eyes and it seemed to her that he was there before her, speaking with her. And she was astonished at what she had seen and at what she had heard, at the King’s accomplishment And he was building the House of the Lord. The King Solomon answered: “Wisdom is descending upon you for your good. As to the Learning of which you speak, I owe it to God of whom I besought it. You, without knowing the god of Israel, you decided in your own heart to visit me, you desired to become the humble servant of my God. As you see for yourself, I am raising here to Him the Ark of the Covenant. I stand before it. I serve the Ark of the Covenant, of the God of Israel which is Sion, the Holy, the Celestial. I am the servant of my Lord. I am not the master; I do not exist of my free will but by His wish alone. It is through Him that I speak and that I walk and that I think. My Wisdom I owe to Him. I was dust, it was He who formed my body and who created me in His own image.” “Truly we should worship the God who has made the Heavens and the Earth, the Sun, the Moon, the Stars, the Planets, the Thunder, the Lightning, the stones, the trees, the animals, the good as well as the wicked men. It is to Him alone that we pray, for He has created the universe of angels and of men. He it is who punishes and who pardons, who puts to death and who gives life. Concerning what you say of the Ark of the Covenant, it is true that it was given to Israel by his God. It was created before the world. By it the commandments have come down to us as they were spoken on the Holy Mount, so that we might understand His law and His will.”

The Medieval, Byzantine, and Oriental Church

625

The Queen said: “Now can I no longer worship the Sun, but I wish to worship the Creator of the Sun, the God of Israel. May His Ark of the Covenant be a patron beloved by me and by my descendants, and by all those who knell beneath my scepter. Day by day she went to him to hear the Word of Wisdom so that she might keep it always in her heart. And day by day he went to her to answer all that she had to ask of him. And day by day she went to him. After Queen Magda had remained six months in Jerusalem, she desired to return to her own country. When the King received this message, he meditated in his heart, and he thought: “This woman full of beauty has come to me from the uttermost parts of the earth. Who knows if it be not the will of God that I should have seed of her?” The supper of the King was as formal as the Law of the Kingdom. The Queen entered after the King, she was seated behind him with much honor and pomp. She witnessed all that was going on during the repast. She was amazed at what she saw and at what she heard, and in her heart she gave thanks to the God of Israel. Solomon had raised for her a throne covered with silken carpets bound with fringes of gold, of silver, of pearls, and of brilliants. He had had his servants scatter about the palace all sorts of perfumes, that is to say myat, selika, meurigo, kanaat, sehin, selihot. When one entered one was satisfied without eating, because of these perfumes. The he got upon his bed which was made ready in the next room to this one. And she remained where she was. The King pretended to sleep heavily, but he was awake and he was watching until the Queen should rouse herself to drink the water. She got down from her bed, she walked stealthily, she lifted with her hands the vase of pure water. But before she could drink he had seized her by the arm. He asked: “Do you free me of the oath which I have given?” She said: “Be free of it but let me drink…” He let fall her arm, she drank. And after she had drunk he did as he would with her, and they slept together. Now as the king was sleeping he had a vision. He saw a dazzling sun which came down from the heavens and shed its rays upon Israel. This brilliancy endured a certain length of time, then the sun moved away. It stopt in its course over Ethiopia and it seemed that it was shining there for centuries. The King waited for the return of this start to Israel, but it did not come back. And again he saw a second sun which came down from the heavens and which shone up Judea. It was brighter than the sun which had preceded it, but the Israelites blasphemed it because of its ardor. They raised against it their hands with sticks and with swords. They wished to extinguish it, so that the earth trembled and clouds darkened the world. Those of Israel though that this star would not rise a second time. They had put out its light. They had buried it. But in spite of their watchfulness the buried sun rose up again. It lighted the world. Its light illuminated the sea, the two rivers of Ethiopia, and the Empire of Rome. Further than ever it withdrew from Israel and it mounted upon its former throne.

626

A Global Church History

The Queen went away satisfied. She departed, and set out upon her way. Now Solomon accompanied her with much pomp and majesty. When they had gone a certain distance he wished to speak alone with Queen Magda. He took from his finger a ring. He gave it to her and said: “Take this ring and keep it as a token of my love. If thou shouldst ever bear a child this ring will be the sign of recognition. If it should be a son send him to me. And in any case may the peace of God be with thee.”

2.37  Bull of Pope Gregory XI, Against John Wycliffe (1377) Gregory, bishop, servus servorum dei [servant to the servants of God], to his beloved sons the Chancellor and University of Oxford, in the diocese of Lincoln, grace and apostolic benediction. We are compelled to wonder and grieve that you, who, in consideration of the favors and privileges conceded to your University of Oxford by the apostolic see, and on account of your familiarity with the Scriptures, in whose sea you navigate, by the gift of God, with auspicious oar, you, who ought to be, as it were, warriors and champions of the orthodox faith, without which there is no salvation of souls,—that you through a certain sloth and neglect allow tares to spring up amidst the pure wheat in the fields of your glorious University aforesaid; and what is still more pernicious, even continue to grow to maturity. And you are quite careless, as has been lately reported to us, as to the extirpation of these tares; with no little clouding of a bright name, danger to your souls, contempt of the Roman Church, and injury to the faith above mentioned. And what pains us the more, is that this increase of the tares aforesaid is known in Rome before the remedy of extirpation has been applied in England where they sprang up. By the insinuation of many, if they are indeed worthy of belief, deploring it deeply, it has come to our ears that John de Wycliffe, rector of the church of Lutterworth, in the diocese of Lincoln, Professor of the Sacred Scriptures (would that he were not also Master of Errors), has fallen into such a detestable madness that he does not hesitate to dogmatize and publicly preach, or rather vomit forth from the recesses of his breast, certain propositions and conclusions which are erroneous and false. He has cast himself also into the depravity of preaching heretical dogmas which strive to subvert and weaken the state of the whole church and even secular polity, some of which doctrines, in changed terms, it is true, seem to express the perverse opinions and unlearned learning of Marsilio of Padua of cursed memory, and of John of Jandun, whose book is extant, rejected and cursed by our predecessor, Pope John XXII, of happy memory. This he has done in the kingdom of England, lately glorious in its power and in the abundance of its resources, but more glorious still in the glistening piety of its faith, and in the distinction of its sacred learning; producing also many men illustrious for their exact knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, mature in the gravity of their character, conspicuous in devotion, defenders of the Catholic Church. He has polluted certain of the faithful of Christ by sprinkling them with these doctrines, and led them away from the right paths of the aforesaid faith to the brink of perdition. Wherefore, since we are not willing, nay, indeed, ought not to be willing, that so deadly a pestilence should continue to exist with our connivance, a pestilence which, if it is not opposed in its beginnings, and torn out by the roots in its entirety, will be reached too late by medicines when it has infected very

The Medieval, Byzantine, and Oriental Church

627

many with its contagion; we command your University with strict admonition, by the apostolic authority, in virtue of your sacred obedience, and under penalty of the deprivation of all the favors, indulgences, and privileges granted to you and your University by the said see, for the future not to permit to be asserted or proposed to any extent whatever, the opinions, conclusions, and propositions which are in variance with good morals and faith, even when those proposing strive to defend them under a certain fanciful wresting of words or of terms. Moreover, you are on our authority to arrest the said John, or cause him to be arrested and to send him under a trustworthy guard to our venerable brother, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Bishop of London, or to one of them. Besides, if there should be, which God forbid, in your University, subject to your jurisdiction, opponents stained with these errors, and if they should obstinately persist in them, proceed vigorously and earnestly to a similar arrest and removal of them, and otherwise as shall seem good to you. Be vigilant to repair your negligence which you have hitherto shown in the premises, and so obtain our gratitude and favor, and that of the said see, besides the honor and reward of the divine recompense. Given at Rome, at Santa Maria Maggiore, on the 31st of May, the sixth year of our pontificate. The Condemned Conclusions of John Wycliffe: 1. That the material substance of bread and of wine remains, after the consecration, in the sacrament of the altar. 2. That the accidents do not remain without the subject, after the consecration, in the same sacrament. 3. That Christ is not in the sacrament of the altar identically, truly and really in his proper corporeal presence. 4. That if a bishop or priest lives in mortal sin he does not ordain, or consecrate, or baptize. 5. That if a man has been truly repentant, all external confession is superfluous to him or useless. 6. That it is not founded in the gospel that Christ instituted the mass. 7. That God ought to be obedient to the devil. 8. That if the pope is fore-ordained to destruction and a wicked man, and therefore a member of the devil, no power has been given to him over the faithful of Christ by any one, unless perhaps by the Emperor. 9. That since Urban VI, no one is to be acknowledged as pope; but all are to live, in the way of the Greeks, under their own laws. 10. To assert that it is against sacred scripture that men of the Church should have temporal possessions. 11. That no prelate ought to excommunicate any one unless he first knows that the man is excommunicated by God. 12. That a prelate thus excommunicating is thereby a heretic or excommunicate. 13. That a prelate excommunicating a clerk who has appealed to the king, or to a council of the kingdom, on that very account is a traitor to God, the king and the kingdom. 14. That those who neglect to preach, or to hear the word of God, or the gospel that is preached, because of the excommunication of men, are excommunicate, and in the day of judgment will be considered as traitors to God.

628

A Global Church History

15. To assert that it is allowed to any one, whether a deacon or a priest, to preach the word of God, without the authority of the apostolic see, or of a Catholic bishop, or of some other which is sufficiently acknowledged. 16. To assert that no one is a civil lord, no one is a bishop, no one is a prelate, so long as he is in mortal sin. 17. That temporal lords may, at their own judgment, take away temporal goods from churchmen who are habitually delinquent; or that the people may, at their own judgment, correct delinquent lords. 18. That tithes are purely charity, and that parishoners may, on account of the sins of their curates, detain these and confer them on others at their will. 19. That special prayers applied to one person by prelates or religious persons, are of no more value to the same person than general prayers for others in a like position are to him. 20. That the very fact that any one enters upon any private religion whatever, renders him more unfitted and more incapable of observing the commandments of God. 21. That saints who have instituted any private religions whatever, as well of those having possessions as of mendicants, have sinned in thus instituting them. 22. That religious persons living in private religions are not of the Christian religion. 23. That friars should be required to gain their living by the labor of their hands and not by mendicancy. 24. That a person giving alms to friars, or to a preaching friar, is excommunicate; also the one receiving.

2.38  The Council of Constance on Conciliarism (1418) This holy synod of Constance . . . declares, first of all, that being in the Holy Spirit lawfully assembled, constituting a General Council and representing the Catholic Church, has authority immediately from Christ; and that to it everyone of whatsoever estate or dignity, even the papal, is bound to obey, in matters pertaining to the faith, to the extirpation of the said schism, and to the reformation of the Church in head and members. Further, it declares that anyone of whatsoever condition, estate or dignity, even papal, who contumaciously scorns to obey the mandates, statutes, ordinances and precepts of this sacred synod and any other General Council, lawfully assembled, shall unless he repents be subject to condign penance and duly punished: even by having recourse to other assistance of law, if need be.

2.39  Concordat of Worms on Papal Privilege (1122) Privilege of Pope Calixtus II I, bishop Calixtus, servant of the servants of God, do grant to thee beloved son, Henry-by the grace of God august emperor of the Romans-that the elections of the bishops and abbots of the German kingdom, who belong to the kingdom, shall take place in thy presence, without simony and without

The Medieval, Byzantine, and Oriental Church

629

any violence; so that if any discord shall arise between the parties concerned, thou, by the counsel or judgment of the metropolitan and the co-provincials, may’st give consent and aid to the party which has the more right. The one elected, moreover, without any exaction may receive the regalia from thee through the lance, and shall do unto thee for these what he rightfully should. Be he who is consecrated in the other parts of the empire (i.e. Burgundy and Italy) shall, within six months, and without any exaction, receive the regalia from thee through the lance, and shall do unto thee for these what he rightfully should. Excepting all things which are known to belong to the Roman church. Concerning matters, however, in which thou dost make complaint to me, and dost demand aid—I, according to the duty of my office, will furnish aid to thee. I give unto thee true peace, and to all who are or have been on thy side in the time of this discord.

Edict of the Emperor Henry V In the name of the holy and indivisible Trinity, I, Henry, by the grace of God august emperor of the Romans, for the love of God and of the holy Roman church and of our master pope Calixtus, and for the healing of my soul, do remit to God, and to the holy apostles of God, Peter and Paul, and to the holy catholic church, all investiture through ring and staff; and do grant that in all the churches that are in my kingdom or empire there may be canonical election and free consecration. All the possessions and regalia of St. Peter which, from the beginning of this discord unto this day, whether in the time of my father or also in mine, have been abstracted, and which I hold: I restore to that same holy Roman church. As to those things, moreover, which I do not hold, I will faithfully aid in their restoration. As to the possessions also of all other churches and princes, and of all other lay and clerical persons which have been lost in that war: according to the counsel of the princes, or according to justice, I will restore the things that I hold; and of those things which I do not hold I will faithfully aid in the restoration. And I grant true peace to our master pope Calixtus, and to the holy Roman church, and to all those who are or have been on its side. And in matters where the holy Roman church shall demand aid I will grant it; and in matters concerning which it shall make complaint to me I will duly grant to it justice.

Chapter 3 Reformation/Renaissance/Early Modern

3.1  Pope Alexander VI, Inter cetera, addressed to King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain on the New World (1493) We are aware that, for a long time, you have had it in mind to seek out and find certain islands and lands, remote, unknown and hitherto undiscovered by others, in order that you might bring their inhabitants and the dwellers therein to the worship of our Redeemer and to belief in the Catholic Faith, but have been so much occupied hitherto by the conquest and recovery of the kingdom of Granada, that you have been unable to carry through, to its desired end, this holy and laudable purpose. At last, however, it has pleased God that you have recovered the kingdom aforesaid: and in your desire to fulfill your purpose, and have appointed our beloved son Christopher Columbus, a man well worthy, well spoken of, and well fit for the said business, together with ships and crew well trained for it, and have done so not without great toil, danger and expense, that he may diligently search for lands and islands, far distant and unknown beyond the seas, where hitherto no one has sailed. These, at last, have by divine aid discovered certain islands and lands, inhabited by several peoples who live, peaceably there; go about naked, so it is said; and do not eat flesh . . . believe in one God the Creator; and seem disposed to embrace the Catholic Faith and to live moral lives; and there is good hope that, if they are taught, the name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ will be con fessed among them. Further, the aforesaid Christopher, in one of the principal islands aforesaid, has built a fort, and put certain of the Christians who went with him in charge thereof, that they might discover other remote and unknown islands and lands. In the islands and lands already discovered, gold, spices and all other sorts of things have been discovered. Whence, all things considered, and more especially the exaltation and extension of the Catholic Faith, you, as behoves Catholic Kings and Princes . . . propose to subject and reduce them to the Catholic Faith.

3.2  Sixtus IV, Salvator noster on Indulgences for Those in Purgatory (1476) And, in order that the salvation of souls may be the more easily procured at a time when they are the more in need of the prayers of others and the less capable of aiding themselves; anxious, as we are, by

Reformation/Renaissance/Early Modern

631

apostolic authority to succour from the Treasury of the Church the souls, in purgatory who, being united to Christ in love, have departed from the light of day and who, while they were still alive, deserved that such indulgence should be obtained for them, we, longing with fatherly affection, as far as we can by the help of God and trusting in His mercy, do, out of the plenitude of our authority, concede and grant that, if any relatives, friends or other Christians, moved by piety for the souls exposed to purgatorial fire for the expiation due to them by divine justice, during the said ten years, do, for the repairing of the church of Saints, give a fixed proportion of money, or value thereof, in accordance with the ordinance of the Dean and Chapter of the said church or of our Collector, and visit the said church, or send messengers of their own appointment during the said ten years, will that plenary remission by way of prayer shall, as afore said, avail and provide for plenary remission to those souls in purgatory for whom they have paid the said proportion of money or the value thereof.

3.3  Petrarch, “The Ascent of Mt. Ventoux” (1350) To-day I made the ascent of the highest mountain in this region, which is not improperly called Ventosum. My only motive was the wish to see what so great an elevation had to offer. I have had the expedition in mind for many years; for, as you know, I have lived in this region from infancy, having been cast here by that fate which determines the affairs of men. Consequently the mountain, which is visible from a great distance, was ever before my eyes, and I conceived the plan of some time doing what I have at last accomplished to-day. The idea took hold upon me with especial force when, in re-reading Livy’s History of Rome, yesterday, I happened upon the place where Philip of Macedon, the same who waged war against the Romans, ascended Mount Haemus in Thessaly, from whose summit he was able, it is said, to see two seas, the Adriatic and the Euxine. Whether this be true or false I have not been able to determine, for the mountain is too far away, and writers disagree. Pomponius Mela, the cosmographer—not to mention others who have spoken of this occurrence—admits its truth without hesitation; Titus Livius, on the other hand, considers it false. I, assuredly, should not have left the question long in doubt, had that mountain been as easy to explore as this one. Let us leave this matter one side, however, and return to my mountain here,—it seems to me that a young man in private life may well be excused for attempting what an aged king could undertake without arousing criticism. … Then a new idea took possession of me, and I shifted my thoughts to a consideration of time rather than place. “To-day it is ten years since, having completed thy youthful studies, thou didst leave Bologna. Eternal God! In the name of immutable wisdom, think what alterations in thy character this intervening period has beheld! I pass over a thousand instances. I am not yet in a safe harbour where I can calmly recall past storms. The time may come when I can review in due order all the experiences of the past, saying with St. Augustine, “I desire to recall my foul actions and the carnal corruption of my soul, not because I love them, but that I may the more love thee, O my God.” Much that is doubtful and evil still clings to me, but what I once loved, that I hove no longer. And yet what am I saying? I still love it, but with shame, but with heaviness of heart. Now, at last, I have confessed the truth. So it is. I love, but love what I would not love, what I would that I might hate. Though loath to do so, though constrained, though sad and sorrowing, still I do love, and I feel in my miserable self the truth of the well known

632

A Global Church History

words, “I will hate if I can; if not, I will love against my will.” Three years have not yet passed since that perverse and wicked passion which had a firm grasp upon me and held undisputed sway in my heart began to discover a rebellious opponent, who was unwilling longer to yield obedience. These two adversaries have joined in close combat for the supremacy, and for a long time now a harassing and doubtful war has been waged in the field of my thoughts.” Thus I turned over the last ten years in my mind, and then, fixing my anxious gaze on the future, I asked myself, “If, perchance, thou shouldst prolong this uncertain life of thine for yet two lustres, and shouldst make an advance toward virtue proportionate to the distance to which thou hast departed from thine original infatuation during the past two years, since the new longing first encountered the old, couldst thou, on reaching thy fortieth year, face death, if not with complete assurance, at least with hopefulness, calmly dismissing from thy thoughts the residuum of life as it faded into old age?” These and similar reflections occurred to me, my father. I rejoiced in my progress, mourned my weaknesses, and commiserated the universal instability of human conduct. I had well-nigh forgotten where I was and our object in coming; but at last I dismissed my anxieties, which were better suited to other surroundings, and resolved to look about me and see what we had come to see. The sinking sun and the lengthening shadows of the mountain were already warning us that the time was near at hand when we must go. As if suddenly wakened from sleep, I turned about and gazed toward the west. I was unable to discern the summits of the Pyrenees, which form the barrier between France and Spain; not because of any intervening obstacle that I know of but owing simply to the insufficiency of our mortal vision. But I could see with the utmost clearness, off to the right, the mountains of the region about Lyons, and to the left the bay of Marseilles and the waters that lash the shores of Aigues Mortes, altho’ all these places were so distant that it would require a journey of several days to reach them. Under our very eyes flowed the Rhone.

3.4  Liturgy from The Book of Common Prayer, Eucharistic Prayers (1662) Then shall the Priest, kneeling down at the Lord’s Table, say in the name of all them that shall receive the Communion this Prayer following.

We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy: Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen. When the Priest, standing before the Table, hath so ordered the Bread and Wine, that he may with the more readiness and decency break the Bread before the people, and take the Cup into his hands, he shall say the Prayer of Consecration, as followeth.

Reformation/Renaissance/Early Modern

633

ALMIGHTY God, our heavenly Father, who of thy tender mercy didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death, until his coming again; Hear us, O merciful Father, we most humbly beseech thee; and grant that we receiving these thy creatures of bread and wine, according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ’s holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood: who, in the same night that he was betrayed, (a) took Bread; and, when he had given thanks, (b) he brake it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, Take, eat, (c) this is my Body which is given for you: Do this in remembrance of me. Likewise after supper he (d) took the Cup; and, when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of this; for this (e) is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins: Do this, as oft as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me. Amen. (a) Here the Priest is to take the Paten unto his hands: (b) And here to break the Bread: (c) And here to lay his hand upon all the Bread. (d) Here he is to take the Cup into his hand: (e) And here to lay his hand upon every vessel (be it Chalice or Flagon) in which there is any Wine to be consecrated.

Then shall the Minister first receive the Communion in both kinds himself, and then proceed to deliver the same to the Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, in like manner, (if any be present,) and after that to the people also in order, into their hands, all meekly kneeling. And, when he delivereth the Bread to any one, he shall say, The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving. And the Minister that delivereth the Cup to any one shall say,

The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Drink this in remembrance that Christ’s Blood was shed for thee, and be thankful. … When all have communicated, the Minister shall return to the Lord’s Table, and reverently place upon it what remaineth of the consecrated Elements, covering the same with a fair linen cloth. Then shall the Priest say the Lord’s Prayer, the people repeating after him every Petition.

Our Father, which art in heaven, …. After shall be said as followeth.

O Lord and heavenly Father, we thy humble servants entirely desire thy fatherly goodness mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; most humbly beseeching thee to grant, that by the

634

A Global Church History

merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in his blood, we and all thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins, and all other benefits of his passion. And here we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice unto thee; humbly beseeching thee, that all we, who are partakers of this holy Communion, may be fulfilled with thy grace and heavenly benediction. And although we be unworthy, through our manifold sins, to offer unto thee any sacrifice, yet we beseech thee to accept this our bounden duty and service; not weighing our merits, but pardoning our offences, through Jesus Christ our Lord; by whom, and with whom, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, all honour and glory be unto thee, O Father Almighty, world without end. Amen.

3.5  Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Oration on Human Dignity on Human Nature (1486) Most esteemed Fathers, I have read in the ancient writings of the Arabians that Abdala the Saracen on being asked what, on this stage, so to say, of the world, seemed to him most evocative of wonder, replied that there was nothing to be seen more marvelous than man. And that celebrated exclamation of Hermes Trismegistus, “What a great miracle is man, Asclepius,” confirms this opinion. And still, as I reflected upon the basis assigned for these estimations, I was not fully persuaded by the diverse reasons advanced for the preeminence of human nature; that man is the intermediary between creatures, that he is the familiar of the gods above him as he is the lord of the beings beneath him; that, by the acuteness of his senses, the inquiry of his reason and the light of his intelligence, he is the interpreter of nature, set midway between the timeless unchanging and the flux of time; the living union (as the Persians say), the very marriage hymn of the world, and, by David’s testimony but little lower than the angels. These reasons are all, without question, of great weight; nevertheless, they do not touch the principal reasons, those, that is to say, which justify man’s unique right for such unbounded admiration. … Hear then, oh Fathers, precisely what this condition of man is; and in the name of your humanity, grant me your benign audition as I pursue this theme. God the Father, the Mightiest Architect, had already raised, according to the precepts of His hidden wisdom, this world we see, the cosmic dwelling of divinity, a temple most august. He had already adorned the supercelestial region with Intelligences, infused the heavenly globes with the life of immortal souls and set the fermenting dung-heap of the inferior world teeming with every form of animal life. But when this work was done, the Divine Artificer still longed for some creature which might comprehend the meaning of so vast an achievement, which might be moved with love at its beauty and smitten with awe at its grandeur. When, consequently, all else had been completed (as both Moses and Timaeus testify), in the very last place, He bethought Himself of bringing forth man. … “We have given you, O Adam, no visage proper to yourself, nor endowment properly your own, in order that whatever place, whatever form, whatever gifts you may, with premeditation, select, these same you may have and possess through your own judgement and decision. The nature of all other creatures is defined and restricted within laws which We have laid down; you, by contrast, impeded by no such restrictions, may, by your own free will, to whose custody We have assigned you, trace for yourself the lineaments of your own nature. I have placed you at the very center of the world, so that

Reformation/Renaissance/Early Modern

635

from that vantage point you may with greater ease glance round about you on all that the world contains. We have made you a creature neither of heaven nor of earth, neither mortal nor immortal, in order that you may, as the free and proud shaper of your own being, fashion yourself in the form you may prefer. It will be in your power to descend to the lower, brutish forms of life; you will be able, through your own decision, to rise again to the superior orders whose life is divine.” Oh unsurpassed generosity of God the Father, Oh wondrous and unsurpassable felicity of man, to whom it is granted to have what he chooses, to be what he wills to be! The brutes, from the moment of their birth, bring with them, as Lucilius says, “from their mother’s womb” all that they will ever possess. The highest spiritual beings were, from the very moment of creation, or soon thereafter, fixed in the mode of being which would be theirs through measureless eternities. But upon man, at the moment of his creation, God bestowed seeds pregnant with all possibilities, the germs of every form of life. Whichever of these a man shall cultivate, the same will mature and bear fruit in him. If vegetative, he will become a plant; if sensual, he will become brutish; if rational, he will reveal himself a heavenly being; if intellectual, he will be an angel and the son of God. And if, dissatisfied with the lot of all creatures, he should recollect himself into the center of his own unity, he will there become one spirit with God, in the solitary darkness of the Father, Who is set above all things, himself transcend all creatures.

3.6  John Smith, Select Discourses on Mystical Knowledge of God (1660) A Prefatory Discourse Concerning the True Way or Method of Attaining Divine Knowledge. It hath been long since well observed, that every art and science hath some certain principles upon which the whole frame and body of it must depend; and he that will fully acquaint himself with the mysteries thereof, must come furnished with some praecognita, or prole ¯ pseis, that I may speak in the language of the Stoics. Were I indeed to define divinity, I should rather call it a Divine life than a Divine science; it being something rather to be understood by a spiritual sensation, than by any verbal description, as all things of sense and life are best known by sentient and vital faculties; gno ¯ sis heasto ¯n di homoiote¯tos ginetai, as the Greek philosopher hath well observed—everything is best known by that which bears a just resemblance and analogy with it; and therefore the Scripture is wont to set forth a good life as the prolepsis and fundamental principle of Divine science; “Wisdom hath builded her house, and hewn out her seven pillars”; but “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,” —the foundation of the whole fabric. We shall therefore, as a prolegomenon or preface to what we shall afterward discourse upon the heads of divinity, speak something of this true method of knowing, which is not so much by notions as actions; as religion itself consists not so much in words as in things. They are not always the best skilled in divinity that are the most studied in those pandects, into which it is sometimes digested, or that have erected the greatest monopolies of art and science. He that is most practical in Divine things hath the purest and sincerest knowledge of them, and not he that is most dogmatical. Divinity, indeed, is a true efflux from the eternal light, which, like the sunbeams, does not only enlighten, but heat and enliven; and therefore our Saviour hath, in His beatitudes, connected purity of heart with the beatifical vision. And as

636

A Global Church History

the eye cannot behold the sun, h¯elioeid¯es m¯e ginomenos,—unless it be sunlike, and hath the form and resemblance of the sun drawn in it ; so neither can the soul of man behold God, theoeid¯es m¯e ginomen¯e,— unless it be Godlike, hath God formed in it, and be made partaker of the Divine nature. And the Apostle St. Paul, when he would lay open the right way of attaining to Divine truth, saith that “knowledge puffeth up,” but it is “love that edifieth.” The knowledge of divinity that appears in systems and models is but a poor wan light; but the powerful energy of Divine knowledge displays itself in purified souls: here we shall find the true pedion al¯etheias, as the ancient philosophy speaks—“the land of truth.”

3.7  Desiderius Erasmus, In Praise of Folly on Corruption in the Church (1511) An oration, of feigned matter, spoken by Folly in her own person But to come to the purpose: I have given you my name, but what epithet shall I add? What but that of the most foolish? For by what more proper name can so great a goddess as Folly be known to her disciples? And because it is not alike known to all from what stock I am sprung, with the Muses’ good leave I’ll do my endeavor to satisfy you. But yet neither the first Chaos, Orcus, Saturn, or Japhet, nor any of those threadbare, musty gods were my father, but Plutus, Riches; that only he, that is, in spite of Hesiod, Homer, nay and Jupiter himself, divum pater atque hominum rex, the father of gods and men, at whose single beck, as heretofore, so at present, all things sacred and profane are turned topsyturvy. According to whose pleasure war, peace, empire, counsels, judgments, assemblies, wedlocks, bargains, leagues, laws, arts, all things light or serious—I want breath—in short, all the public and private business of mankind is governed; without whose help all that herd of gods of the poets’ making, and those few of the better sort of the rest, either would not be at all, or if they were, they would be but such as live at home and keep a poor house to themselves. A most inhuman and economical thing, and more to be execrated, that those great princes of the Church and true lights of the world should be reduced to a staff and a wallet. Whereas now, if there be anything that requires their pains, they leave that to Peter and Paul that have leisure enough; but if there be anything of honor or pleasure, they take that to themselves. By which means it is, yet by my courtesy, that scarce any kind of men live more voluptuously or with less trouble; as believing that Christ will be well enough pleased if in their mystical and almost mimical pontificality, ceremonies, titles of holiness and the like, and blessing and cursing, they play the parts of bishops. To work miracles is old and antiquated, and not in fashion now; to instruct the people, troublesome; to interpret the Scripture, pedantic; to pray, a sign one has little else to do; to shed tears, silly and womanish; to be poor, base; to be vanquished, dishonorable and little becoming him that scarce admits even kings to kiss his slipper; and lastly, to die, uncouth; and to be stretched on a cross, infamous. Theirs are only those weapons and sweet blessings which Paul mentions, and of these truly they are bountiful enough: as interdictions, hangings, heavy burdens, reproofs, anathemas, executions in effigy, and that terrible thunderbolt of excommunication, with the very sight of which they sink men’s souls beneath the bottom of hell: which yet these most holy fathers in Christ and His vicars hurl with more

Reformation/Renaissance/Early Modern

637

fierceness against none than against such as, by the instigation of the devil, attempt to lessen or rob them of Peter’s patrimony. When, though those words in the Gospel, “We have left all, and followed Thee,” were his, yet they call his patrimony lands, cities, tribute, imposts, riches; for which, being enflamed with the love of Christ, they contend with fire and sword, and not without loss of much Christian blood, and believe they have then most apostolically defended the Church, the spouse of Christ, when the enemy, as they call them, are valiantly routed. As if the Church had any deadlier enemies than wicked prelates, who not only suffer Christ to run out of request for want of preaching him, but hinder his spreading by their multitudes of laws merely contrived for their own profit, corrupt him by their forced expositions, and murder him by the evil example of their pestilent life.

3.8  Martin Luther, 95 Theses (1517) Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in Ordinary on the same at that place. Wherefore he requests that those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us, may do so by letter. In the Name our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen. 1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance. 2. This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance, i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by the priests. 3. Yet it means not inward repentance only; nay, there is no inward repentance which does not outwardly work divers mortifications of the flesh. 4. The penalty [of sin], therefore, continues so long as hatred of self continues; for this is the true inward repentance, and continues until our entrance into the kingdom of heaven. 5. The pope does not intend to remit, and cannot remit any penalties other than those which he has imposed either by his own authority or by that of the Canons. 6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that it has been remitted by God and by assenting to God’s remission; though, to be sure, he may grant remission in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in such cases were despised, the guilt would remain entirely unforgiven. 7. God remits guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to His vicar, the priest. 8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to them, nothing should be imposed on the dying. 9. Therefore the Holy Spirit in the pope is kind to us, because in his decrees he always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity. 10. Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those priests who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penances for purgatory.

638

A Global Church History

11. This changing of the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory is quite evidently one of the tares that were sown while the bishops slept. 12. In former times the canonical penalties were imposed not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition. 13. The dying are freed by death from all penalties; they are already dead to canonical rules, and have a right to be released from them. 14. The imperfect health [of soul], that is to say, the imperfect love, of the dying brings with it, of necessity, great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater is the fear. 15. This fear and horror is sufficient of itself alone (to say nothing of other things) to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair. 16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ as do despair, almost-despair, and the assurance of safety. 17. With souls in purgatory it seems necessary that horror should grow less and love increase. 18. It seems unproved, either by reason or Scripture, that they are outside the state of merit, that is to say, of increasing love. 19. Again, it seems unproved that they, or at least that all of them, are certain or assured of their own blessedness, though we may be quite certain of it. 20. Therefore by “full remission of all penalties” the pope means not actually “of all,” but only of those imposed by himself. 21. Therefore those preachers of indulgences are in error, who say that by the pope’s indulgences a man is freed from every penalty, and saved; 22. Whereas he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to the canons, they would have had to pay in this life. 23. If it is at all possible to grant to any one the remission of all penalties whatsoever, it is certain that this remission can be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to the very fewest. 24. It must needs be, therefore, that the greater part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and highsounding promise of release from penalty. 25. The power which the pope has, in a general way, over purgatory, is just like the power which any bishop or curate has, in a special way, within his own diocese or parish. 26. The pope does well when he grants remission to souls [in purgatory], not by the power of the keys (which he does not possess), but by way of intercession. 27. They preach man who say that so soon as the penny jingles into the money-box, the soul flies out [of purgatory]. 28. It is certain that when the penny jingles into the money-box, gain and avarice can be increased, but the result of the intercession of the Church is in the power of God alone.

Reformation/Renaissance/Early Modern

639

29. Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory wish to be bought out of it, as in the legend of Sts. Severinus and Paschal. 30. No one is sure that his own contrition is sincere; much less that he has attained full remission. 31. Rare as is the man that is truly penitent, so rare is also the man who truly buys indulgences, i.e., such men are most rare. 32. They will be condemned eternally, together with their teachers, who believe themselves sure of their salvation because they have letters of pardon. 33. Men must be on their guard against those who say that the pope’s pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to Him; 34. For these “graces of pardon” concern only the penalties of sacramental satisfaction, and these are appointed by man. 35. They preach no Christian doctrine who teach that contrition is not necessary in those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessionalia. 36. Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without letters of pardon. 37. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has part in all the blessings of Christ and the Church; and this is granted him by God, even without letters of pardon. 38. Nevertheless, the remission and participation [in the blessings of the Church] which are granted by the pope are in no way to be despised, for they are, as I have said, the declaration of divine remission. 39. It is most difficult, even for the very keenest theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people the abundance of pardons and [the need of] true contrition. 40. True contrition seeks and loves penalties, but liberal pardons only relax penalties and cause them to be hated, or at least, furnish an occasion [for hating them]. 41. Apostolic pardons are to be preached with caution, lest the people may falsely think them preferable to other good works of love. 42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend the buying of pardons to be compared in any way to works of mercy. 43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better work than buying pardons; 44. Because love grows by works of love, and man becomes better; but by pardons man does not grow better, only more free from penalty. 45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a man in need, and passes him by, and gives [his money] for pardons, purchases not the indulgences of the pope, but the indignation of God. 46. Christians are to be taught that unless they have more than they need, they are bound to keep back what is necessary for their own families, and by no means to squander it on pardons.

640

A Global Church History

47. Christians are to be taught that the buying of pardons is a matter of free will, and not of commandment. 48. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting pardons, needs, and therefore desires, their devout prayer for him more than the money they bring. 49. Christians are to be taught that the pope’s pardons are useful, if they do not put their trust in them; but altogether harmful, if through them they lose their fear of God. 50. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the pardon-preachers, he would rather that St. Peter’s church should go to ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh and bones of his sheep. 51. Christians are to be taught that it would be the pope’s wish, as it is his duty, to give of his own money to very many of those from whom certain hawkers of pardons cajole money, even though the church of St. Peter might have to be sold. 52. The assurance of salvation by letters of pardon is vain, even though the commissary, nay, even though the pope himself, were to stake his soul upon it. 53. They are enemies of Christ and of the pope, who bid the Word of God be altogether silent in some Churches, in order that pardons may be preached in others. 54. Injury is done the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or a longer time is spent on pardons than on this Word. 55. It must be the intention of the pope that if pardons, which are a very small thing, are celebrated with one bell, with single processions and ceremonies, then the Gospel, which is the very greatest thing, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies. 56. The “treasures of the Church,” out of which the pope. grants indulgences, are not sufficiently named or known among the people of Christ. 57. That they are not temporal treasures is certainly evident, for many of the vendors do not pour out such treasures so easily, but only gather them. 58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the Saints, for even without the pope, these always work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell for the outward man. 59. St. Lawrence said that the treasures of the Church were the Church’s poor, but he spoke according to the usage of the word in his own time. 60. Without rashness we say that the keys of the Church, given by Christ’s merit, are that treasure; 61. For it is clear that for the remission of penalties and of reserved cases, the power of the pope is of itself sufficient. 62. The true treasure of the Church is the Most Holy Gospel of the glory and the grace of God. 63. But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be last. 64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.

Reformation/Renaissance/Early Modern

641

65. Therefore the treasures of the Gospel are nets with which they formerly were wont to fish for men of riches. 66. The treasures of the indulgences are nets with which they now fish for the riches of men. 67. The indulgences which the preachers cry as the “greatest graces” are known to be truly such, in so far as they promote gain. 68. Yet they are in truth the very smallest graces compared with the grace of God and the piety of the Cross. 69. Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of apostolic pardons, with all reverence. 70. But still more are they bound to strain all their eyes and attend with all their ears, lest these men preach their own dreams instead of the commission of the pope. 71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let him be anathema and accursed! 72. But he who guards against the lust and license of the pardon-preachers, let him be blessed! 73. The pope justly thunders against those who, by any art, contrive the injury of the traffic in pardons. 74. But much more does he intend to thunder against those who use the pretext of pardons to contrive the injury of holy love and truth. 75. To think the papal pardons so great that they could absolve a man even if he had committed an impossible sin and violated the Mother of God—this is madness. 76. We say, on the contrary, that the papal pardons are not able to remove the very least of venial sins, so far as its guilt is concerned. 77. It is said that even St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could not bestow greater graces; this is blasphemy against St. Peter and against the pope. 78. We say, on the contrary, that even the present pope, and any pope at all, has greater graces at his disposal; to wit, the Gospel, powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written in I. Corinthians xii. 79. To say that the cross, emblazoned with the papal arms, which is set up [by the preachers of indulgences], is of equal worth with the Cross of Christ, is blasphemy. 80. The bishops, curates and theologians who allow such talk to be spread among the people, will have an account to render. 81. This unbridled preaching of pardons makes it no easy matter, even for learned men, to rescue the reverence due to the pope from slander, or even from the shrewd questionings of the laity. 82. To wit:—“Why does not the pope empty purgatory, for the sake of holy love and of the dire need of the souls that are there, if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a Church? The former reasons would be most just; the latter is most trivial.” 83. Again:—“Why are mortuary and anniversary masses for the dead continued, and why does he not return or permit the withdrawal of the endowments founded on their behalf, since it is wrong to pray for the redeemed?”

642

A Global Church History

84. Again:—“What is this new piety of God and the pope, that for money they allow a man who is impious and their enemy to buy out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God, and do not rather, because of that pious and beloved soul’s own need, free it for pure love’s sake?” 85. Again:—“Why are the penitential canons long since in actual fact and through disuse abrogated and dead, now satisfied by the granting of indulgences, as though they were still alive and in force?” 86. Again:—“Why does not the pope, whose wealth is to-day greater than the riches of the richest, build just this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of poor believers?” 87. Again:—“What is it that the pope remits, and what participation does he grant to those who, by perfect contrition, have a right to full remission and participation?” 88. Again:—“What greater blessing could come to the Church than if the pope were to do a hundred times a day what he now does once, and bestow on every believer these remissions and participations?” 89. “Since the pope, by his pardons, seeks the salvation of souls rather than money, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons granted heretofore, since these have equal efficacy?” 90. To repress these arguments and scruples of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the Church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christians unhappy. 91. If, therefore, pardons were preached according to the spirit and mind of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved; nay, they would not exist. 92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, “Peace, peace,” and there is no peace! 93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, “Cross, cross,” and there is no cross! 94. Christians are to be exhorted that they be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hell; 95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven rather through many tribulations, than through the assurance of peace.

3.9  Diet of Worms, Luther’s Statement as Published (1521) Most Serene Lord Emperor, Most Illustrious Princes, Most Gracious Lords . . . I beseech you to grant a gracious hearing to my plea, which, I trust, will be a plea of justice and truth; and if through my inexperience I neglect to give to any their proper titles or in any way offend against the etiquette of the court in my manners or behavior, be kind enough to forgive me, I beg, since I am a man who has spent his life not in courts but in the cells of a monastery; a man who can say of himself only this, that to this day I have thought and written in simplicity of heart, solely with a view to the glory of God and the pure instruction of Christ’s faithful people. . . .

Reformation/Renaissance/Early Modern

643

However, since I am a man and not God, I cannot provide my writings with any other defense than that which my Lord Jesus Christ provided for His teaching. When He had been interrogated concerning His teaching before Annas and had received a buffet from a servant, He said: “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil.” If the Lord Himself, who knew that He could not err, did not refuse to listen to witness against His teaching, even from a worthless slave, how much more ought I, scum that I am, capable of naught but error, to seek and to wait for any who may wish to bear witness against my teaching. And so, through the mercy of God, I ask Your Imperial Majesty, and Your Illustrious Lordships, or anyone of any degree, to defeat them by the writings of the Prophets or by the Gospels; for I shall be most ready, if I be better instructed, to recant any error, and I shall be the first in casting my writings into the fire. . . . Thereupon the Orator of the Empire, in a tone of upbraiding, said that his [Luther’s] answer was not to the point, and that there should be no calling into question of matters on which condemnations and decisions had before been passed by Councils. He was being asked for a plain reply, without subtlety or sophistry, to this question: Was he prepared to recant, or no? Luther then replied: Your Imperial Majesty and Your Lordships demand a simple answer. Here it is, plain and unvarnished. Unless I am convicted [convinced] of error by the testimony of Scripture or (since I put no trust in the unsupported authority of Pope or councils, since it is plain that they have often erred and often contradicted themselves) by manifest reasoning, I stand convicted [convinced] by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God’s word, I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us. On this I take my stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.

3.10  Martin Luther, Appeal to the German Nobility on Reforming the Church (1520) The Romanists have, with great adroitness, drawn three walls round themselves, with which they have hitherto protected themselves, so that no one could reform them, whereby all Christendom has fallen terribly. Firstly, if pressed by the temporal power, they have affirmed and maintained that the temporal power has no jurisdiction over them, but on the contrary that the spiritual power is above the temporal. Secondly, if it were proposed to admonish them with the Scriptures, they objected that no one may interpret the Scriptures but the Pope. Thirdly, if they are threatened with a Council, they pretend that no one may call a Council but the Pope. Thus they have secretly stolen our three rods, so that they may be unpunished, and entrenched themselves behind these three walls, to act with all wickedness and malice, as we now see. And whenever they have been compelled to call a Council, they have made it of no avail, by binding the Princes beforehand with an oath to leave them as they were. Besides this they have given the Pope full power over the arrangement of the Council, so that it is all one, whether we have many Councils, or no Councils, for in any case they deceive us with pretences and false tricks. So grievously do they tremble

644

A Global Church History

for their skin before a true, free Council; and thus they have overawed Kings and Princes, that these believe they would be offending God, if they were not to obey them in all such knavish, deceitful artifices. Now may God help us, and give us one of those trumpets, that overthrew the walls of Jericho, so that we may blow down these walls of straw and paper, and that we may set free our Christian rods, for the chastisement of sin, and expose the craft and deceit of the devil, so that we may amend ourselves by punishment and again obtain God’s favour. Let us, in the first place, attack the first wall. It has been devised, that the Pope, bishops, priests and monks are called the Spiritual Estate; Princes, lords, artificers and peasants, are the Temporal Estate; which is a very fine, hypocritical device. But let no one be made afraid by it; and that for this reason: That all Christians are truly of the Spiritual Estate, and there is no difference among them, save of office alone. As St. Paul says (1 Cor. xii.), we are all one body, though each member does its own work, to serve the others. This is because we have one baptism, one gospel, one faith, and are all Christians alike; for baptism, gospel and faith, these alone make Spiritual and Christian people. As for the unction by a pope or a bishop, tonsure, ordination, consecration, clothes differing from those of laymen—all this may make a hypocrite or an anointed puppet, but never a Christian, or a spiritual man. Thus we are all consecrated as priests by baptism, as St. Peter says: “Ye are a royal priesthood, a holy nation” (1 Peter ii. 9); and in the book of Revelations: “and hast made us unto our God, kings and priests.” (Rev. v. 10.) For, if we had not a higher consecration in us than Pope or bishop can give, no priest could ever be made by the consecration of Pope or bishop; nor could he say the mass, or preach, or absolve. Therefore the bishop’s consecration is just as if in the name of the whole congregation he took one person out of the community, each member of which has equal power, and commanded him to exercise this power for the rest; in the same way as if ten brothers, co-heirs as king’s sons, were to choose one from among them to rule over their inheritance; they would, all of them, still remain kings and have equal power, although one is ordered to govern. And to put the matter even more plainly; If a little company of pious Christian laymen were taken prisoners and carried away to a desert, and had not among them a priest consecrated by a bishop, and were there to agree to elect one of them, married or unmarried, and were to order him to baptize, to celebrate the mass, to absolve and to preach; this man would as truly be a priest, as if all the bishops and all the Popes had consecrated him. That is why in cases of necessity every man can baptize and absolve, which would not be possible if we were not all priests. This great grace and virtue of baptism and of the Christian Estate, they have almost destroyed and made us forget by their ecclesiastical law. In this way the Christians used to choose their bishops and priests out of the community; these being afterwards confirmed by other bishops, without the pomp that we have now. So was it that St. Augustine, Ambrose, Cyprian, were bishops. Since then the temporal power is baptized as we are, and has the same faith and gospel, we must allow it to be priest and bishop, and account its office an office that is proper and useful to the Christian community. For whatever issues from baptism, may boast that it has been consecrated priest, bishop, and Pope, although it does not beseem everyone to exercise these offices. For, since we are all priests alike, no man may put himself forward, or take upon himself, without our consent and election, to do

Reformation/Renaissance/Early Modern

645

that which we have all alike power to do. For, if a thing is common to all, no man may take it to himself without the wish and command of the community. And if it should happen that a man were appointed to one of these offices and deposed for abuses, he would be just what he was before. Therefore a priest should be nothing in Christendom but a functionary; as long as he holds his office, he has precedence of others; if he is deprived of it, he is a peasant and a citizen like the rest. Therefore a priest is verily no longer a priest after deposition. But now they have invented characters indelebiles, and pretend that a priest after deprivation still differs from a simple layman. They even imagine that a priest can never be anything but a priest, that is, that he can never become a layman. All this is nothing but mere talk and ordinance of human invention. It follows then, that between layman and priests, princes and bishops, or as they call it, between spiritual and temporal persons, the only real difference is one of office and function, and not of estate: for they are all of the same Spiritual Estate, true priests, bishops and Popes, though their functions are not the same: just as among priests and monks every man has not the same functions. And this St. Paul says (Rom. xii.; 1 Cor. xii.) and St. Peter (1 Peter ii.); “we being many are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.” Christ’s body is not double or twofold, one temporal, the other spiritual. He is one head, and he has one body. We see then that just as those that we call spiritual, or priests, bishops or popes, do not differ from other Christians in any other or higher degree, but in that they are to be concerned with the word of God, and the sacraments—that being their work and office—in the same way the temporal authorities hold the sword and the rod in their hands to punish the wicked and to protect the good. A cobbler, a smith, a peasant, every man has the office and function of his calling, and yet all alike are consecrated priests and bishops, and every man in his office must be useful and beneficial to the rest, that so many kinds of work may all be united into one community: just as the members of the body all serve one another.

3.11  Martin Luther, Babylonian Captivity of the Church on the Sacraments (1520) Concerning the Sacrament of the Altar. To begin,—if we wish to attain safely and prosperously to the true and free knowledge of this sacrament, we must take the utmost care to put aside all that has been added by the zeal or the notions of men to the primitive and simple institution; such as vestments, ornaments, hymns, prayers, musical instruments, lamps, and all the pomp of visible things; and must turn our eyes and our attention only to the pure institution of Christ; and set nothing else before us but those very words of Christ, with which He instituted and perfected that sacrament, and committed it to us. In that word, and absolutely in nothing else, lies the whole force, nature, and substance of the mass. All the rest are human notions, accessory to the word of Christ; and the mass can perfectly well subsist and be kept up without them. Now the words in which Christ instituted this sacrament are as follows:— While they were at supper Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to His disciples, and said: “Take, eat; this is my body which is given for you.” And He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying: “Drink ye all of this; this cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins; do this in remembrance of me.”

646

A Global Church History

These words the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. xi.) also delivers to us and explains at greater length. On these we must rest, and build ourselves up as on a firm rock, unless we wish to be carried about with every wind of doctrine, as we have hitherto been, through the impious teachings of men who pervert the truth. For in these words nothing has been omitted which pertains to the completeness, use, and profit of this sacrament; and nothing laid down which it is superfluous or unnecessary for us to know. He who passes over these words in his meditations or teachings concerning the mass will teach monstrous impieties; as has been done by those who have made an opus operatum and a sacrifice of it. Let this then stand as a first and infallible truth, that the mass or Sacrament of the Altar is the testament of Christ, which He left behind Him at His death, distributing an inheritance to those who believe in Him. For such are His words: “This cup is the new testament in my blood.” Let this truth, I say, stand as an immovable foundation, on which we shall erect all our arguments. You will see how we shall thus overthrow all the impious attacks of men on this sweetest sacrament. The truthful Christ, then, says with truth, that this is the new testament in His blood, shed for us. It is not without cause that I urge this; the matter is no small one, but must be received into the depths of our minds. If then we enquire what a testament is, we shall also learn what the mass is; what are its uses, advantages, abuses. A testament is certainly a promise made by a man about to die, by which he assigns his inheritance and appoints heirs. Thus the idea of a testament implies, first, the death of the testator, and secondly, the promise of the inheritance, and the appointment of an heir. In this way Paul (Rom. iv.; Gal. iii., iv.; Heb. ix.) speaks at some length of testaments. We also see this clearly in those words of Christ. Christ testifies of His own death, when He says: “This is my body which is given; this is my blood which is shed.” He assigns and points out the inheritance, when He says: “For the remission of sins.” And He appoints heirs when He says: “For you and for many”; that is, for those who accept and believe the promise of the testator; for it is faith which makes us heirs, as we shall see. You see then that the mass—as we call it—is a promise of the remission of sins, made to us by God; and such a promise as has been confirmed by the death of the Son of God. For a promise and a testament only differ in this, that a testament implies the death of the promiser. A testator is a promiser who is about to die; and a promiser is, so to speak, a testator who is about to live. This testament of Christ was prefigured in all the promises of God from the beginning of the world; yea! whatsoever value the ancient promises had, lay in that new promise which was about to be made in Christ, and on which they depended. Hence the words, “agreement, covenant, testament of the Lord,” are constantly employed in the Scriptures; and by these it was implied that God was about to die. “For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.” (Heb. ix. 16.) God having made a testament, it was necessary that He should die. Now He could not die, unless He became a man; and thus in this one word “testament” the incarnation and the death of Christ are both comprehended. From all this it is now self-evident what is the use, and what the abuse, of the mass; what is a worthy or an unworthy preparation for it. If the mass is a promise, as we have said, we can approach to it by no works, no strength, no merits, but by faith alone. For where we have the word of God who promises, there we must have faith on the part of man who accepts; and it is thus clear that the beginning of our salvation is faith, depending on the word of a promising God, who, independently of any efforts of ours, prevents us by His free and undeserved mercy, and holds out to us the word of His promise. “He sent His word and healed them.” (Ps. cvii. 20.) He did not receive our works and so save us. First of all

Reformation/Renaissance/Early Modern

647

comes the word of God; this is followed by faith, and faith by love, which in its turn does every good work, because it worketh no evil, yea, it is the fulfilling of the law. There is no other way in which man can meet or deal with God but by faith. It is not man by any works of his, but God, who by His own promise is the author of salvation; so that everything depends, is contained, and preserved in the word of His power, by which He begot us, that we might be a kind of first-fruits of His creation.

3.12  Martin Luther, Lesser Catechism on Baptism (1529) The Sacrament of Holy Baptism As the head of the family should teach it in a simple way to his household. First. What is Baptism? Answer. Baptism is not simple water only, but it is the water comprehended in God’s command and connected with God’s Word. Which is that word of God? Answer. Christ, our Lord, says in the last chapter of Matthew: Go ye into all the world and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Secondly. What does Baptism give or profit? Answer. It works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare. Which are such words and promises of God? Answer. Christ, our Lord, says in the last chapter of Mark: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Thirdly. How can water do such great things? Answer. It is not the water indeed that does them, but the word of God which is in and with the water, and faith, which trusts such word of God in the water. For without the word of God the water is simple water and no baptism. But with the word of God it is a baptism, that is, a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration in the Holy Ghost, as St. Paul says, Titus, chapter three: By the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ, our Savior, that, being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying. Fourthly. What does such baptizing with water signify? Answer. It signifies that the old Adam in us should, by daily contrition and repentance, be drowned and die with all sins and evil lusts, and, again, a new man daily come forth and arise; who shall live before God in righteousness and purity forever.

648

A Global Church History

Where is this written? Answer. St. Paul says Romans, chapter 6: We are buried with Christ by Baptism into death, that, like as He was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

3.13  Martin Luther, “Preface to the Latin Works” on the Righteousness of God (1545) Meanwhile in that same year, 1519, I had begun interpreting the Psalms once again. I felt confident that I was now more experienced, since I had dealt in university courses with St. Paul’s Letters to the Romans, to the Galatians, and the Letter to the Hebrews. I had conceived a burning desire to understand what Paul meant in his Letter to the Romans, but thus far there had stood in my way, not the cold blood around my heart, but that one word which is in chapter one: “The justice of God is revealed in it.” I hated that word, “justice of God,” which, by the use and custom of all my teachers, I had been taught to understand philosophically as referring to formal or active justice, as they call it, i.e., that justice by which God is just and by which he punishes sinners and the unjust. But I, blameless monk that I was, felt that before God I was a sinner with an extremely troubled conscience. I couldn’t be sure that God was appeased by my satisfaction. I did not love, no, rather I hated the just God who punishes sinners. In silence, if I did not blaspheme, then certainly I grumbled vehemently and got angry at God. I said, “Isn’t it enough that we miserable sinners, lost for all eternity because of original sin, are oppressed by every kind of calamity through the Ten Commandments? Why does God heap sorrow upon sorrow through the Gospel and through the Gospel threaten us with his justice and his wrath?” This was how I was raging with wild and disturbed conscience. I constantly badgered St. Paul about that spot in Romans 1 and anxiously wanted to know what he meant. I meditated night and day on those words until at last, by the mercy of God, I paid attention to their context: “The justice of God is revealed in it, as it is written: ‘The just person lives by faith.’” I began to understand that in this verse the justice of God is that by which the just person lives by a gift of God, that is by faith. I began to understand that this verse means that the justice of God is revealed through the Gospel, but it is a passive justice, i.e. that by which the merciful God justifies us by faith, as it is written: “The just person lives by faith.” All at once I felt that I had been born again and entered into paradise itself through open gates. Immediately I saw the whole of Scripture in a different light. I ran through the Scriptures from memory and found that other terms had analogous meanings, e.g., the work of God, that is, what God works in us; the power of God, by which he makes us powerful; the wisdom of God, by which he makes us wise; the strength of God, the salvation of God, the glory of God. I exalted this sweetest word of mine, “the justice of God,” with as much love as before I had hated it with hate. This phrase of Paul was for me the very gate of paradise. Afterward I read Augustine’s “On the Spirit and the Letter,” in which I found what I had not dared hope for. I discovered that he too interpreted “the justice of God” in a similar way, namely, as that with which God clothes us when he justifies us. Although Augustine had said it imperfectly and did not explain in detail how God imputes justice to us, still it pleased me that he taught the justice of God by which we are justified.

Reformation/Renaissance/Early Modern

649

3.14  Martin Luther, On the Councils and the Church (1539) This Christian Church is to be recognized by holding fast the sacred word of the Almighty; and yet all who bear Christ’s name do not maintain an uniform purity of doctrine, as St. Paul signifies. Some (he argues) hold it in thorough purity: others not altogether pure: the former are extolled for building gold, silver, and precious stones, upon the foundation: the latter, who profess it with less purity, are said to build hay, stubble, and wood, upon the foundation. This is the chief point to be observed, and the high mark of holiness in the flock of the Redeemer. It is the word of God, by means of which His people are inclined to holiness, and it hallows all with which it has connection. With this word the Holy Spirit anoints or sanctifies the Church—that is, Christian and holy persons—and not with pontifical chrism, which tinges the finger, raiment, coat, chalice, and stones: neither can these observances inculcate at any time love to Jehovah, faith, praise, virtue, and the weighty lessons of the Gospel. We are speaking here of that outward word which is preached by the mouth of man— whether mine or yours—the same which Jesus left behind Him for an external token to distinguish His Church, or His holy people on earth. Yes: we are speaking now of that oral word, when it is firmly believed and openly confessed before the world. Such is the Saviour’s language—”He that confesses me before men, him will I confess before my Father and His angels.” There are many who know it perfectly well in private, but will not make a public confession: there are many who possess the word, but who do not either believe or live as it requires. Too few are those who believe and act according to it, as we read in the parable of the sower (Matt. xiii). Wherever, therefore, you see and hear the word proclaimed, and received with faith, and confessed with the mouth, and adopted as the rule of life, there you may be certain of the presence of a true Church, of a Christian holy people, although the number be inconsiderable. For God’s word cannot exist without God’s people, and God’s people cannot be separated from God’s word. And who, in truth, would be willing to preach, or to listen to the preacher, in a spot where none of the people of God reside? What would, what could, His people believe, if the word of the Lord were not ministered in their presence?

3.15  Philip Melanchthon, The Defense of the Augsburg Confession, on Justification (c. 1530) If the carnal mind is enmity against God, the flesh certainly does not love God; if it cannot be subject to the Law of God, it cannot love God. If the carnal mind is enmity against God, the flesh sins, even when we do external civil works. If it cannot be subject to the Law of God, it certainly sins even when, according to human judgment, it possesses deeds that are excellent and worthy of praise. … But the human heart without the Holy Ghost either in security despises God’s judgment, or in punishment flees from, and hates, God when He judges. … Since, therefore, contempt of God, and doubt concerning the Word of God, and concerning the threats and promises, inhere in human nature, men truly sin, even when, without the Holy Ghost, they do virtuous works, because they do them with a wicked heart, according to Rom. 14:23: Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. For such persons perform their works with contempt of God .... This contempt vitiates works seemingly virtuous, because God judges the heart. …

650

A Global Church History

Paul says, in Romans 4:15: The Law worketh wrath. He does not say that by the Law men merit the remission of sins. For the Law always accuses and terrifies consciences. Therefore it does not justify, because conscience terrified by the Law flees from the judgment of God. Therefore they err who trust that by the Law, by their own works, they merit the remission of sins. … Because, therefore, men by their own strength cannot fulfil the Law of God, and all are under sin, and subject to eternal wrath and death, on this account we cannot be freed by the Law from sin and be justified, but the promise of the remission of sins and of justification has been given us for Christ’s sake, who was given for us in order that He might make satisfaction for the sins of the world, and has been appointed as the Mediator and Propitiator. And this promise has not the condition of our merits, but freely offers the remission of sins and justification as Paul says Rom. 11:6: If it be of works, then is it no more grace. And in another place, Rom. 3:21: The righteousness of God without the Law is manifested, i.e., the remission of sins is freely offered. Nor does reconciliation depend upon our merits. Because if the remission of sins were to depend upon our merits, and reconciliation were from the Law, it would be useless. For as we do not fulfil the Law, it would also follow that we would never obtain the promise of reconciliation. Thus Paul reasons, Rom. 4:14: For if they which are of the Law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect. For if the promise would require the condition of our merits and the Law, which we never fulfil, it would follow that the promise would be useless. … But since justification is obtained through the free promise it follows that we cannot justify ourselves. Otherwise wherefore would there be need to promise? [Paul highly praises grace because:] For since the promise cannot be received except by faith, the Gospel which is properly the promise of the remission of sins and of justification for Christ’s sake, proclaims the righteousness of faith in Christ, which the Law does not teach. Nor is this the righteousness of the Law. For the Law requires of us our works and our perfection. But the Gospel freely offers, for Christ’s sake, to us, who have been vanquished by sin and death, reconciliation which is received not by works, but by faith alone. This faith brings to God not confidence in one’s own merits, but only confidence in the promise, or the mercy promised in Christ. This special faith, therefore, by which an individual believes that for Christ’s sake his sins are remitted him, and that for Christ’s sake God is reconciled and propitious, obtains remission of sins and justifies us. … Thus, because faith, which freely receives the remission of sins, sets Christ, the Mediator and Propitiator, against God’s wrath, it does not present our merits or our love. This faith is the true knowledge of Christ, and avails itself of the benefits of Christ, and regenerates hearts, and precedes the fulfilling of the Law. … As often, therefore, as we speak of justifying faith, we must keep in mind that these three objects concur: the promise, and that, too, gratuitous, and the merits of Christ, as the price and propitiation. The promise is received by faith; the “gratuitous” excludes our merits, and signifies that the benefit is offered only through mercy; the merits of Christ are the price, because there must be a certain propitiation for our sins. Scripture frequently implores mercy; and the holy Fathers often say that we are saved by mercy. As often, therefore, as mention is made of mercy, we must keep in mind that faith is there required, which receives the promise of mercy. And, again, as often as we speak of faith, we wish an object to be understood, namely, the promised mercy. For faith justifies and saves, not on the ground that it is a work in itself worthy, but only because it receives the promised mercy.

Reformation/Renaissance/Early Modern

651

3.16  Menno Simons, “Sincere and True Repentance,” “A Supplication to the Magistracy,” and “Concerning Baptism” (1530s) Sincere and True Repentance: In the second place we exhort you in the language of Christ, “Repent ye, and believe the Gospel,” Mark 1:15. Oh, thon faithful word of grace! Oh, thou faithful word of divine love! Thou art read in books, sung in hymns, preached with the mouth, with life and death and proclaimed in many countries, but in thy power they desire thee not: yea more, all those who rightly teach and receive thee, are made a prey for the whole world. Alas, beloved Sirs, it will avail us nothing to be called Christians, and boast of the Lord’s blood, death, merits, grace and Gospel, as long as we are not converted from this wicked, impious and shameful life. It is in vain that we are called Christians; that Christ died; that we were born in the day of grace, and baptized with water, if we do not walk according to his law, counsel, admonition, will and command and are not obedient to his word. Behold, dear reader, the repentance we teach, is to die unto sin, and all ungodly works, and live no longer according to the lusts of the flesh, even as David did, 2 Sam. 13: 12; 18: 1. When he was reproved by the prophet on account of his adultery, and for numbering the people, he wept bitterly, called upon God, forsook the evil, and committed these sinful abominations no more. Peter sinned very grievously but one, and no more. Matthew, after being called by the Saviour, did not again return to his ways of life. Zaccheus and the sinful woman did not again return to their impure works of darkness. Zaccheus made restitution to those whom he had defrauded, and gave half of his goods to the poor and distressed. The woman wept very bitterly, and washed the feet of the Lord with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head; she anointed them with precious ointment, and sat humbly at his feet, to listen to his blessed words. Such a repentance we teach and no other, namely, that no one can glory in the grace of God, the forgiveness of sins, the merits of Christ, and count himself pious, unless he has truly repented. It is not enough that we say, we are Abraham’s children, that is, that we are called Christians and esteemed as such, but we must do the works of Abraham, that is, we must walk as all true children of God are commanded by his word, as John writes, “If we say, we have fellowship with him (God) and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth; but if we walk in the lights, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanseth us from all sins,” 1 Jn. 1:6,7.

A Supplication to the Magistracy: It is a fearful abomination, and bitter enmity, thus miserably to murder, destroy and exterminate those, who with such warm hearts, seek the Lord and eternal life, and who would not molest any one upon the earth. “Precious in the sight of the Lord,” David says, “is the death of his saints,” Ps. 116:15. It is Jesus of Nazareth whom ye persecute, Acts 9:5, ad not us; therefore awake, forbear, fear God and his word, for we shall all be called to appear before one Judge, before whom neither power, exaltation, comeliness, fine speech nor talents will avail. Judgment will there be passed in righteousness upon all flesh, impartially and without respect to persons; the oppressed will then receive justice, and the

652

A Global Church History

crucified Jesus with his elect, released from the power of death, and the hands of tyrants, will enter into his promised inheritance, kingdom and glory. Seeing then that you deal so unjustly and tyrannically, according to the evil intentions of your hearts, without the sanction of scripture and mercy, with the helpless and God-fearing, how can you expect any grace and mercy in the day of the Lord? When we shall all have to stand before the impartial judgment seat, where every one will be rewarded according to his deeds, 2 Cor. 5:10. We desire not such favors as the evil-doers of this world; for we have not sinned in this our doctrine, faith and practice, although we have to suffer so much; but we, only with the word of the Lord, as the scriptures direct us, resist the anti-christian doctrines, ordinances and life. We resist neither the emperor, the king, nor any authority to which they are called of God; but we are ready to obey till death, in all things which are not contrary to God and his word, and well know what the scriptures teach and enjoin concerning this matter, Rom. 13: 1-8. But we desire so much mercy, that under your gracious protection we may life, teach, labor, and serve the Lord, according to the dictates of our consciences, so that to you and many with you, the gospel of Christ may be rightly preached, and the gate of life opened. Alas! If the learned had the word of God, and we had it not, how gladly would we be taught by them. But since we have it, and they do not, therefore we pray, for Jesus’ sake, do not urge us to leave Christ and join anti-christ; to go from truth to error; from life to certain death. Oh, ye renowned lords and princes, who are appointed by God, to be heads and rulers, consider well and believe on the word of the Lord; for if you will not desist from unrighteousness, fear God and do right, it would be better for you if you had never been born. The innocent blood of Abel calls unto heaven, and will be strictly demanded at your hands at the last day. Again we say, awake, fear God’s word; for God, the Lord himself, will rule in heaven, in his kingdom, that is, in the hearts of men. He will permit none to detract from his glory, or become exalted above him. Lucifer, the fair angel of God, desired to exalt himself to the Most High, and was cast out of heaven into the abyss of hell; and is retained in chains of darkness till the judgement of the last day, Isa.14:12-15; Rev. 12:7-9; Pet. 2:4.

Concerning Baptism: Here we have the Lord’s command concerning baptism, when and how, after the ordinance of God, it shall be administered and received; namely, that the gospel must first be preached, and then those baptized who believe therin, as Christ says, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature; he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned,” Mark 16:15. Thus has the Lord commanded and ordered; therefore, let no other be taught, or practiced forever. The word of God abideth forever. Young children are without understanding and cannot be taught, therefore, baptism cannot be administered to them without perverting the ordinance of the Lord; misusing his exalted name, and doing violence to his holy word. In the New Testament there are no ordinances enjoined upon infants, for it treats, both in doctrines and sacraments, with those who have ears to hear, and hearts to understand, Matt. 13:16. Even as Christ commanded, so the holy apostles also taught and practiced, as may be plainly perceived in many parts of the New Testament. Thus Peter said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost,” Acts 2:38. Again, Philip said to the eunuch, “If though

Reformation/Renaissance/Early Modern

653

believest with all thine heart, thou mayest, “Acts 8:37. Here, faith did not follow baptism, but baptism followed faith, Mark 16:16.

3.17  The Supremacy Act, 1534, on the English Monarch and the English Church Albeit the king’s majesty justly and rightfully is and ought to be the supreme head of the Church of England, and so is recognized by the clergy of this realm in their Convocations, yet nevertheless for corroboration and confirmation thereof, and for increase of virtue in Christ’s religion within this realm of England, and to repress and extrip all errors, heresies, and other enormities and abuses heretofore used in the same; be it enacted by authority of this present Parliament, that the king our sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall be taken, accepted, and reputed the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England, called Anglicana Ecclesia; and shall have and enjoy, annexed and united to the imperial crown of this realm, as well the title and style thereof, as all honours, dignities, pre-eminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits, and commodities to the said dignity of supreme head of the same Church belonging and appertaining; and that our said sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall have full power and authority from time to time to visit, repress, redress, reform, order, correct, restrain, and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offences, contempts, and enormities, whatsoever they be, which by any manner spiritual authority or jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be reformed, repressed, ordered, redressed, corrected, restrained, or amended, most to the pleasure of Almighty God, the increase of virtue in Christ’s religion, and for the conservation of the peace, unity, and tranquility of this realm; any usage, custom, foreign law, foreign authority, prescription, or any other thing or things to the contrary hereof notwithstanding.

3.18  John Calvin, Institutes I.1.1 on True Wisdom (1559) Our wisdom, in so far as it ought to be deemed true and solid Wisdom, consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves. But as these are connected together by many ties, it is not easy to determine which of the two precedes and gives birth to the other. For, in the first place, no man can survey himself without forthwith turning his thoughts towards the God in whom he lives and moves; because it is perfectly obvious, that the endowments which we possess cannot possibly be from ourselves; nay, that our very being is nothing else than subsistence in God alone. In the second place, those blessings which unceasingly distil to us from heaven, are like streams conducting us to the fountain. Here, again, the infinitude of good which resides in God becomes more apparent from our poverty. In particular, the miserable ruin into which the revolt of the first man has plunged us, compels us to turn our eyes upwards; not only that while hungry and famishing we may thence ask what we want, but being aroused by fear may learn humility. For as there exists in man something like a world of misery, and ever since we were stript of the divine attire our naked shame discloses an immense series

654

A Global Church History

of disgraceful properties every man, being stung by the consciousness of his own unhappiness, in this way necessarily obtains at least some knowledge of God. Thus, our feeling of ignorance, vanity, want, weakness, in short, depravity and corruption, reminds us (see Calvin on John 4:10), that in the Lord, and none but He, dwell the true light of wisdom, solid virtue, exuberant goodness. We are accordingly urged by our own evil things to consider the good things of God; and, indeed, we cannot aspire to Him in earnest until we have begun to be displeased with ourselves. For what man is not disposed to rest in himself? Who, in fact, does not thus rest, so long as he is unknown to himself; that is, so long as he is contented with his own endowments, and unconscious or unmindful of his misery? Every person, therefore, on coming to the knowledge of himself, is not only urged to seek God, but is also led as by the hand to find him. On the other hand, it is evident that man never attains to a true self-knowledge until he has previously contemplated the face of God, and come down after such contemplation to look into himself. For (such is our innate pride) we always seem to ourselves just, and upright, and wise, and holy, until we are convinced, by clear evidence, of our injustice, vileness, folly, and impurity. Convinced, however, we are not, if we look to ourselves only, and not to the Lord also —He being the only standard by the application of which this conviction can be produced. For, since we are all naturally prone to hypocrisy, any empty semblance of righteousness is quite enough to satisfy us instead of righteousness itself. And since nothing appears within us or around us that is not tainted with very great impurity, so long as we keep our mind within the confines of human pollution, anything which is in some small degree less defiled delights us as if it were most pure just as an eye, to which nothing but black had been previously presented, deems an object of a whitish, or even of a brownish hue, to be perfectly white. Nay, the bodily sense may furnish a still stronger illustration of the extent to which we are deluded in estimating the powers of the mind. If, at mid-day, we either look down to the ground, or on the surrounding objects which lie open to our view, we think ourselves endued with a very strong and piercing eyesight; but when we look up to the sun, and gaze at it unveiled, the sight which did excellently well for the earth is instantly so dazzled and confounded by the refulgence, as to oblige us to confess that our acuteness in discerning terrestrial objects is mere dimness when applied to the sun. Thus too, it happens in estimating our spiritual qualities. So long as we do not look beyond the earth, we are quite pleased with our own righteousness, wisdom, and virtue; we address ourselves in the most flattering terms, and seem only less than demigods. But should we once begin to raise our thoughts to God, and reflect what kind of Being he is, and how absolute the perfection of that righteousness, and wisdom, and virtue, to which, as a standard, we are bound to be conformed, what formerly delighted us by its false show of righteousness will become polluted with the greatest iniquity; what strangely imposed upon us under the name of wisdom will disgust by its extreme folly; and what presented the appearance of virtuous energy will be condemned as the most miserable impotence. So far are those qualities in us, which seem most perfect, from corresponding to the divine purity. Hence that dread and amazement with which as Scripture uniformly relates, holy men were struck and overwhelmed whenever they beheld the presence of God. When we see those who previously stood firm and secure so quaking with terror, that the fear of death takes hold of them, nay, they are, in a manner, swallowed up and annihilated, the inference to be drawn is that men are never duly touched and impressed with a conviction of their insignificance, until they have contrasted themselves

Reformation/Renaissance/Early Modern

655

with the majesty of God. Frequent examples of this consternation occur both in the Book of Judges and the Prophetical Writings; so much so, that it was a common expression among the people of God, “We shall die, for we have seen the Lord.” Hence the Book of Job, also, in humbling men under a conviction of their folly, feebleness, and pollution, always derives its chief argument from descriptions of the Divine wisdom, virtue, and purity. Nor without cause: for we see Abraham the readier to acknowledge himself but dust and ashes the nearer he approaches to behold the glory of the Lord, and Elijah unable to wait with unveiled face for His approach; so dreadful is the sight. And what can man do, man who is but rottenness and a worm, when even the Cherubim themselves must veil their faces in very terror? To this, undoubtedly, the Prophet Isaiah refers, when he says (Isaiah 24:23), “The moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the Lord of Hosts shall reign”; i.e., when he shall exhibit his refulgence, and give a nearer view of it, the brightest objects will, in comparison, be covered with darkness.

3.19  John Calvin, Institutes III.ii.29, 30 on Salvation by Grace (1559) Free promise we make the foundation of faith, because in it faith properly consists. For though it holds that God is always true, whether in ordering or forbidding, promising or threatening; though it obediently receive his commands, observe his prohibitions, and give heed to his threatening; yet it properly begins with promise, continues with it, and ends with it. It seeks life in God, life which is not found in commands or the denunciations of punishment, but in the promise of mercy. And this promise must be gratuitous; for a conditional promise, which throws us back upon our works, promises life only in so far as we find it existing in ourselves. Therefore, if we would not have faith to waver and tremble, we must support it with the promise of salvation, which is offered by the Lord spontaneously and freely, from a regard to our misery rather than our worth. Hence the Apostle bears this testimony to the Gospel, that it is the word of faith (Rom. 10:8). This he concedes not either to the precepts or the promises of the Law, since there is nothing which can establish our faith, but that free embassy by which God reconciles the world to himself. Hence he often uses faith and the Gospel as correlative terms, as when he says, that the ministry of the Gospel was committed to him for “obedience to the faith”; that “it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth”; that “therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith,” (Rom. 1:5, 16, 17). No wonder: for seeing that the Gospel is “the ministry of reconciliation,” (2 Cor. 5:18), there is no other sufficient evidence of the divine favor, such as faith requires to know. Therefore, when we say, that faith must rest on a free promise, we deny not that believers accept and embrace the word of God in all its parts, but we point to the promise of mercy as its special object. Believers, indeed, ought to recognize God as the judge and avenger of wickedness; and yet mercy is the object to which they properly look, since he is exhibited to their contemplation as “good and ready to forgive,” “plenteous in mercy,” “slow to anger,” “good to all,” and shedding “his tender mercies over all his works”. (Ps. 86:5; 103:8; 145:8, 9). I stay not to consider the rabid objections of Pighius, and others like-minded, who inveigh against this restriction, as rending faith, and laying hold of one of its fragments. I admit, as I have already said,

656

A Global Church History

that the general object of faith (as they express it) is the truth of God, whether he threatens or gives hope of his favor. Accordingly, the Apostle attributes it to faith in Noah, that he feared the destruction of the world, when as yet it was not seen (Heb. 11:17). If fear of impending punishment was a work of faith, threatening ought not to be excluded in defining it. This is indeed true; but we are unjustly and calumniously charged with denying that faith has respect to the whole word of God. We only mean to maintain these two points,—that faith is never decided until it attain to a free promise; and that the only way in which faith reconciles us to God is by uniting us with Christ. Both are deserving of notice. We are inquiring after a faith which separates the children of God from the reprobate, believers from unbelievers. Shall every man, then, who believes that God is just in what he commands, and true in what he threatens, be on that account classed with believers? Very far from it. Faith, then, has no firm footing until it stand in the mercy of God. Then what end have we in view in discoursing of faith? Is it not that we may understand the way of salvation? But how can faith be saving, unless in so far as it in grafts us into the body of Christ? There is no absurdity, therefore, when, in defining it, we thus press its special object, and, by way of distinction, add to the generic character the particular mark which distinguishes the believer from the unbeliever. In short, the malicious have nothing to carp at in this doctrine, unless they are to bring the same censure against the Apostle Paul, who specially designates the Gospel as “the word of faith,” (Rom. 10:8).

3.20  Ignatius Loyola, Spiritual Exercises, “Rules for Thinking with the Church” (1524) To Have the True Sentiment which We Ought to Have in the Church Militant Let the following Rules be observed. First Rule. The first: All judgment laid aside, we ought to have our mind ready and prompt to obey, in all, the true Spouse of Christ our Lord, which is our holy Mother the Church Hierarchical. Second Rule. The second: To praise confession to a Priest, and the reception of the most Holy Sacrament of the Altar once in the year, and much more each month, and much better from week to week, with the conditions required and due. Third Rule. The third: To praise the hearing of Mass often, likewise hymns, psalms, and long prayers, in the church and out of it; likewise the hours set at the time fixed for each Divine Office and for all prayer and all Canonical Hours. Fourth Rule. The fourth: To praise much Religious Orders, virginity and continence, and not so much marriage as any of these. Fifth Rule. The fifth: To praise vows of Religion, of obedience, of poverty, of chastity and of other perfections of supererogation. And it is to be noted that as the vow is about the things which approach to Evangelical perfection, a vow ought not to be made in the things which withdraw from it, such as to be a merchant, or to be married, etc.

Reformation/Renaissance/Early Modern

657

Sixth Rule. To praise relics of the Saints, giving veneration to them and praying to the Saints; and to praise Stations, pilgrimages, Indulgences, pardons, Cruzadas, and candles lighted in the churches. Seventh Rule. To praise Constitutions about fasts and abstinence, as of Lent, Ember Days, Vigils, Friday and Saturday; likewise penances, not only interior, but also exterior. Eighth Rule. To praise the ornaments and the buildings of churches; likewise images, and to venerate them according to what they represent. Ninth Rule. Finally, to praise all precepts of the Church, keeping the mind prompt to find reasons in their defence and in no manner against them. Tenth Rule. We ought to be more prompt to find good and praise as well the Constitutions and recommendations as the ways of our Superiors. Because, although some are not or have not been such, to speak against them, whether preaching in public or discoursing before the common people, would rather give rise to fault-finding and scandal than profit; and so the people would be incensed against their Superiors, whether temporal or spiritual. So that, as it does harm to speak evil to the common people of Superiors in their absence, so it can make profit to speak of the evil ways to the persons themselves who can remedy them. Eleventh Rule. To praise positive and scholastic learning. Because, as it is more proper to the Positive Doctors, as St. Jerome, St. Augustine and St. Gregory, etc., to move the heart to love and serve God our Lord in everything; so it is more proper to the Scholastics, as St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, and to the Master of the Sentences, etc., to define or explain for our times the things necessary for eternal salvation; and to combat and explain better all errors and all fallacies. For the Scholastic Doctors, as they are more modern, not only help themselves with the true understanding of the Sacred Scripture and of the Positive and holy Doctors, but also, they being enlightened and clarified by the Divine virtue, help themselves by the Councils, Canons and Constitutions of our holy Mother the Church. Twelfth Rule. We ought to be on our guard in making comparison of those of us who are alive to the blessed passed away, because error is committed not a little in this; that is to say, in saying, this one knows more than St. Augustine; he is another, or greater than, St. Francis; he is another St. Paul in goodness, holiness, etc. Thirteenth Rule. To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it, believing that between Christ our Lord, the Bridegroom, and the Church, His Bride, there is the same Spirit which governs and directs us for the salvation of our souls. Because by the same Spirit and our Lord Who gave the ten Commandments, our holy Mother the Church is directed and governed. Fourteenth Rule. Although there is much truth in the assertion that no one can save himself without being predestined and without having faith and grace; we must be very cautious in the manner of speaking and communicating with others about all these things. Fifteenth Rule. We ought not, by way of custom, to speak much of predestination; but if in some way and at some times one speaks, let him so speak that the common people may not come into any error,

658

A Global Church History

as sometimes happens, saying: Whether I have to be saved or condemned is already determined, and no other thing can now be, through my doing well or ill; and with this, growing lazy, they become negligent in the works which lead to the salvation and the spiritual profit of their souls. Sixteenth Rule. In the same way, we must be on our guard that by talking much and with much insistence of faith, without any distinction and explanation, occasion be not given to the people to be lazy and slothful in works, whether before faith is formed in charity or after. Seventeenth Rule. Likewise, we ought not to speak so much with insistence on grace that the poison of discarding liberty be engendered. So that of faith and grace one can speak as much as is possible with the Divine help for the greater praise of His Divine Majesty, but not in such way, nor in such manners, especially in our so dangerous times, that works and free will receive any harm, or be held for nothing. Eighteenth Rule. Although serving God our Lord much out of pure love is to be esteemed above all; we ought to praise much the fear of His Divine Majesty, because not only filial fear is a thing pious and most holy, but even servile fear—when the man reaches nothing else better or more useful—helps much to get out of mortal sin. And when he is out, he easily comes to filial fear, which is all acceptable and grateful to God our Lord: as being at one with the Divine Love.

3.21  The Peace of Augsburg (1555) In order to bring peace to the Holy Roman Empire of the Germanic Nation between the Roman Imperial Majesty and the Electors, Princes and Estates, let neither his Imperial Majesty nor the Electors, Princes, etc., do any violence or harm to any estate of the empire on the account of the Augsburg Confession, but let them enjoy their religious belief, liturgy and ceremonies as well as their estates and other rights and privileges in peace; and complete religious peace shall be obtained only by Christian means of amity, or under threat of punishment of the Imperial ban. Likewise the Estates espousing the Augsburg Confession shall let all the Estates and Princes who cling to the old religion live in absolute peace and in the enjoyment of all their estates, rights, and privileges. However, all such as do not belong to the two above named religions shall not be included in the present peace but be totally excluded from it. And since it has proved to be a matter of great dispute what was to happen with the bishoprics, priories and other ecclesiastical benefices of such Catholic priests who would in course of time abandon the old religion, we have in virtue of the powers of Roman Emperors ordained as follows: where an archbishop, bishop or prelate or any other priest of our old religion shall abandon the same, his archbishopric, bishopric, prelacy and other benefices together with all their income and revenues which he has so far possessed, shall be abandoned by him without any further objection or delay. The chapter and such are entitled to it by common law or the custom of the place shall elect a person espousing the old religion who may enter on the possession and enjoyment of all the rights and incomes of the place without any further hindrance and without prejudging any ultimate amicable transaction of religion. Some of the abbeys, monasteries and other ecclesiastical estates having been confiscated and turned into churches, schools, and charitable institutions, it is herewith ordained that such estates

Reformation/Renaissance/Early Modern

659

which their original owners had not possessed at the time of the Treaty of Passau [1552] shall be comprised in the present treaty of peace. The ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the Augsburg Confession, dogma, appointment of ministers, church ordinances, and ministries hitherto practiced (but apart from all the rights of Electors, Princes and Estates colleges and monasteries to taxes in money or tithes) shall from now cease and the Augsburg Confession shall be left to the free and untrammeled enjoyment of their religion, ceremonies, appointment of ministers, as is stated in a subsequent separate article, until the final transaction of religion will take place. No Estate shall try to persuade the subjects of other Estates to abandon their religion nor protect them against their own magistrates. Such as had from olden times the rights of patronage are not included in the present article. In case our subjects whether belonging to the old religion or the Augsburg confession should intend leaving their homes with their wives and children in order to settle in another, they shall be hindered neither in the sale of their estates after due payment of the local taxes nor injured in their honour.

3.22  The Belgic Confession on Scripture and Nature (1566) Now we acknowledge God in two ways: first, by creation itself, preservation, and by His government of the whole world. For this world is in our eyes like a very beautiful book, in which all creatures, from the least unto the greatest, do, is it were, to a certain degree, display His attributes and matchless perfections, by which the invisible things of God may be clearly seen and known by us, even His eternal power and Godhead, it the apostle Paul speaketh in Rom. i. 20; which knowledge is sufficient to render men inexcusable everywhere. But again, God has much more clearly and more lucidly revealed Himself to us in His own sacred and divine Word; so far, indeed, as is conducive in this life to the manifestation of His own glory, and to the salvation of His people, (Ps xix; Eph. iv. 6; 2 Cor. iv. 6.)

3.23  The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, Statement on Holy Scripture (1571) Articles, agreed upon by the Archbishops and Bishops of both Provinces, and the whole Clergy, In the Convocation holden at London in the Year 1562; For the avoiding of Diversities of Opinions, and for the establishing of Consent touching True Religion.

Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation. Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an Article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the holy Scripture we do

660

A Global Church History

understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, The 1 Book of Samuel, The 2 Book of Samuel, The 1 Book of Kings, The 2 Book of Kings, The 1 Book of Chronicles, The 2 Book of Chronicles, The 1 Book of Esdras, The 2 Book of Esdras, The Book of Esther, The Book of Job, The Psalms, The Proverbs, Ecclesiastes or Preacher, Cantica, or Songs of Solomon, Four Prophets the greater, Twelve Prophets the less. And the other Books (as Jerome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such as are the following: The 3 Book of Esdras, The 4 Book of Esdras, The Book of Tobias, The Book of Judith, The rest of the Book of Hesther, The Book of Wisdom, Jesus the Son of Sirach, Baruch the Prophet, The Song of the three Children,

Reformation/Renaissance/Early Modern

661

The Story of Susanna, Of Bel and the Dragon, The Prayer of Manasses, The 1 Book of Maccabees, The 2 Book of Maccabees.

All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.

3.24  The Council of Trent, Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures (1546) DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,—lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein,—keeping this always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament—seeing that one God is the author of both —as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one’s mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of

662

A Global Church History

John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.

DECREE CONCERNING THE EDITION, AND THE USE, OF THE SACRED BOOKS Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,—considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,—ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever. Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,—in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, —wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,—whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,—hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.

3.25  The Synod of Jassy (Orthodox Church), Statement on Scripture and Tradition (1642) From all this it is clear that the Articles of Faith receive their authority and approval partly from Sacred Scripture and partly from Ecclesiastical Tradition and the teaching of the Councils and of the Holy Fathers. All of which St. Dionysius makes clearer in his Ecclesiastical Hierarchy (c. 1) where he says as follows: “Indeed the essence of this Hierarchy of ours lies in the divinely handed down utterances, of which we consider the most to be respected are those which have been given to us by our divinely inspired sacred initiators in sacred scriptures and theological books; and also all those in which our leaders have been initiated by those holy men through a more immaterial initiation, in some way close to the Celestial Hierarchy, from mind to mind through the medium of the corporeal word, though in a less material sense, not in writing; all of which means to say that the dogmas are from two sorts of sayings. The first are those handed down in writing and which are contained in the theological books of Sacred Scripture, while the other dogmas are those which have been handed down orally by the Apostles and have been explained by the Councils and the holy Fathers. And in these two is contained the Faith.

Reformation/Renaissance/Early Modern

663

3.26  Patriarch Jeremias Tranos, Answers to the Tubingen Theologians on the Eastern Orthodox response to the Augsburg Confession (1573-1575) We received the letters which your love sent us and the booklet which contains the articles of your faith. We accept your love, and in compliance with your request we shall endeavor to clear the issues in which we agree and those in which we disagree. The expression of love is the fulfillment of the Law and Prophets [cf. Rom 13:10]. Indeed, it is fulfilled, we may say, not only by mere words, but proven by the very facts themselves and by deeds. Even as the most precious stones that need no words or praise, yet they are looked upon with admiration because of their own intrinsic worth by those who know their value. You have displayed such a love, most wise German men, bereft of pride in those matters which you have communicated to us. In responding, then, we shall say nothing originating of ourselves, but (what is pertinent) from the holy seven Ecumenical Synods with which, as you write, you acquiesce and you accept. We shall further speak in accordance with the opinion of the divine teachers and exegetes of the divinely inspired Scripture, whom the catholic Church of Christ has received in common accord, for their words and miracles illuminated the universe like another sun [cf. Mt. 13:43]. Because the Holy Spirit breathed on them and spoke through them. Indeed, their statements shall remain unshaken forever because they are founded on the Word of the Lord.

[On Justification] The fourth [article] concerns the remission of sins. You contend that, as you believe, the remission of sins is granted mainly by faith alone. But the Church demands a living faith, which is made evident by good works; for as Paul says, faith without works is dead [Jas 2:17]. If, as the saying goes, we were to look earnestly toward the great and infinite compassion of God and His extraordinarily great gifts, and imagine that we will be saved by grace alone in the manner of the ingrates, we cannot hope to benefit. And besides, our own deeds, even if they may approach perfection, are nothing in comparison, except that they are supplementary and demonstrate our disposition—namely, that we are thankful, that we obey the commandments and perform good and virtuous deeds so that we may not be placed into paradise like insensible creatures, which absolutely is not done but, by our preference, through the grace of God.

[On the Church and Sacraments] The seventh [article] says that you also have one holy catholic Church and perform correctly the sacraments and the ceremonies of the Church. To this we say the following; One is the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of the Christians who correctly execute what has been legislated, defined, and determined by the canons, as given by the Holy Fathers and ratified by the Holy Spirit. The sacraments and ceremonies in this Church catholic of the Orthodox Christians are seven as follows: baptism, chrismation with the holy unction, Holy Communion, ordination, marriage, penance, and holy oil. For

664

A Global Church History

the gifts of the Holy Spirit are seven, as Isaiah says [cf. Is 11:2]. Seven, also, are the sacraments of the Church which have been effected by the Spirit. And the fact that only these and not more are sacraments is proved by their division. For a sacrament either refers to the genesis of human beings, which is marriage in Christ, or to salvation, and is the order of holy actions effected through them and in them. Baptism, myrrh [chrismation], and Communion, are to be used by all. For those, however, who dedicate themselves to God, there is ordination, as there is marriage for laymen. For those who have committed sin after baptism there are penance and the anointing with holy oil, which grant remission of sins committed or cleanse the stains which lie in the soul. These are also called mysteria, because it is understood that the visible symbols have the completed action as well as the mystical effect.

[On What the Church Is] The eighth [article] testifies that the Church is the gathering of believers and devout persons. And if the sacraments are administered by hypocrites and wicked men, those who are sanctified by them are not harmed in any way according to [Scripture]: “The Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat,” etc. [Mt 23:2]. We ourselves also say that when the sacraments are administered by unworthy ones, they [the officiants] do not benefit, but rather are harmed. Yet the recipients are sanctified and benefit, for divine grace is efficacious even through unworthy servants because it [is grace that] perfects the sacraments. Those who administer the sacraments are to be honored, and the sincere ones are not to be scorned on the pretext that some may be hypocrites (even Judas was among the Apostles). For Saint Chrysostom, interpreting the Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim 1:12], says: Whoever honors the priest will honor God, and he who has learned to despise the priest will gradually proceed in time to insult God also. “He who receives you receives me.”

3.27  The Edict of Nantes (1598) Henry, by the grace of God king of France and of Navarre, to all to whom these presents come, greeting: Among the infinite benefits which it has pleased God to heap upon us, the most signal and precious is his granting us the strength and ability to withstand the fearful disorders and troubles which prevailed on our advent in this kingdom. The realm was so torn by innumerable factions and sects that the most legitimate of all the parties was fewest in numbers. God has given us strength to stand out against this storm; we have finally surmounted the waves and made our port of safety,—peace for our state. For which his be the glory all in all, and ours a free recognition of his grace in making use of our instrumentality in the good work. . . . We implore and await from the Divine Goodness the same protection and favor which he has ever granted to this kingdom from the beginning…. We have, by this perpetual and irrevocable edict. established and proclaimed and do establish and proclaim: First, that the recollection of everything done be one party or the other between March, 1585, and our accession to the crown, and during all the preceding period of troubles, remain obliterated and forgotten, as if no such things had ever happened.

Reformation/Renaissance/Early Modern

665

III. We ordain that the Catholic Apostolic and Roman religion shall be restored and reestablished in all places and localities of this our kingdom and countries subject to our sway, where the exercise of the same has been interrupted, in order that it may be peaceably and freely exercised, without any trouble or hindrance: forbidding very expressly all persons, of whatsoever estate, quality, or condition, from troubling, molesting, or disturbing ecclesiastics in the celebration of divine service, in the enjoyment or collection of tithes, fruits, or revenues of their benefices, and all other rights and dues belonging to them: and that all those who during the troubles have taken possession of churches. houses, goods or revenues, belonging to the said ecclesiastics, shall surrender to them entire possession and peaceable enjoyment of such rights, liberties, and sureties as they had before they were deprived of them. VI. And in order to leave no occasion for troubles or differences between our subjects, we have permitted, and herewith permit, those of the said religion called Reformed to live and abide in all the cities and places of this our kingdom and countries of our sway, without being annoyed, molested, or compelled to do anything in the matter of religion contrary to their consciences, . . . upon condition that they comport themselves in other respects according to that which is contained in this our present edict. VII. It is permitted to all lords, gentlemen, and other persons making profession of the said religion called Reformed, holding the right of high justice [or a certain feudal tenure], to exercise the said religion in their houses. IX. We also permit those of the said religion to make and continue the exercise of the same in all villages and places of our dominion where it was established by them and publicly enjoyed several and divers times in the year 1597, up to the end of the month of August, notwithstanding all decrees and judgments to the contrary. XIII. We very expressly forbid to all those of the said religion its exercise, either in respect to ministry, regulation, discipline, or the public instruction of children, or otherwise, in this our kingdom and lands of our dominion, otherwise than in the places permitted and granted by the present edict. XIV. It is forbidden as well to perform any function of the said religion in our court or retinue, or in our lands and territories beyond the mountains, or in our city of Paris. or within five leagues of the said city. XVIII. We also forbid all our subjects, of whatever quality and condition, from carrying off be force or persuasion, against the will of their parents, the children of the said religion, in order to cause them to be baptized or confirmed in the Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church; and the same is forbidden to those of the said religion called Reformed, upon penalty of being punished with especial severity. XXI. Books concerning the said religion called Reformed may not be printed and publicly sold, except in cities and places where the public exercise of the said religion is permitted. XXII. We ordain that there shall be no difference or distinction made in respect to the said religion, in receiving pupils to be instructed in universities, colleges, and schools; nor in receiving the sick and poor into hospitals, retreats and public charities. XXIII. Those of the said religion called Reformed shall be obliged to respect the laws of the Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church, recognized in this our kingdom, for the consummation of marriages contracted, or to be contracted, as regards the degrees of consanguinity and kinship.

666

A Global Church History

3.28  Roberto de Nobili, Treatises on Christian Teaching for India (seventeenth century) Dialogue on Eternal Life: First proposition: Brahmins are not managers of temples nor are they priests. If anyone discharges the office of priest, that one is of low birth and equal to a plebeian. Second proposition: The brahmins are the world’s wise men, inasmuch as their appropriate and distinct office consists in both learning and teaching all the laws and all the sciences. Third proposition: All the laws and sciences, however many may be found among men—e.g., logic, philosophy, the science of words, mathematics, the science which treats of the world and of God, as well as poetry and the teaching of Sanskrit (i.e., the language in which the sciences are written)—all these subjects, I say, fall within the ambit of the office of studying and teaching which the brahmins take upon themselves. This is the proper definition of brahmins. Fourth proposition: Any Brahmin who fails to remain engaged in these pursuits is a brahmin only in a questionable sense, since he acts inconsistently and in a manner contrary to his inborn calling. Fifth proposition: As for sacrifices (the so-called yajnah): brahmins, rajas, and noble merchants are all entitled to perform them, as the law and Smriti clearly show. Sixth proposition: The threat worn by the Brahmin caste is nothing but a distinct badge of the noblest clan and, of course, of the official power of imparting wisdom. Seventh proposition: Sandal, musk, and such things cannot be said to be the emblems of some particular god or sect. Rather, they have been introduced for the sole purpose of decent adornment and the removal of unsightliness. Since they have for their object the display of refinement in bodily appearance, they may legitimately be used by anyone who delights in social stylishness. Chief among these embellishments ranks the frontal beauty mark which they call the tilakam. Eighth proposition: The square-shaped figure drawn on the forehead is the symbol of learning. Therefore, it is particularly fitting for learned men and renunciants (i.e., such men as lead a chaste life, since the people here want such men to be well educated). It also looks well on those who are well versed in theology and all such men who profess various branches of law and other sciences.

Advice to Intelligent People: Inquiry into the Meaning of “God” A certain ascetic desires that everyone should gain what is good. He therefore wants to offer an inquiry into the meaning of “God,” so that, in this way, he can indicate the only way for anyone to reach the shore of ultimate liberation. For this reason, he has written the following “Brief Discourse.” The intelligent person who knows the most important reality and is intent on attaining the goal which is above everything else will not despise spending a few minutes thinking about such matters.

Reformation/Renaissance/Early Modern

667

Humans have both bodies and souls. Of these two, the body perishes and becomes dust and ashes. We see this clearly. But the soul is not destroyed along with the body. After its separation from the body, in accordance with its merits and demerits, it either attains its goal or goes to hell and suffers torment forever. There is no doubt about this either. But since only the true divine Reality can grant the favor of salvation, and only he is capable of forgiving sins, those who worship something that is not God and trust in such things will not attain ultimate liberation and the remission of sins. This too is certain. In such an important matter an intelligent person must therefore avoid any mistakes. He must not close his eyes like a blind man and accept just any god. He must examine the matter thoroughly and find out with certainty who is the true god, and then accept him.

Characteristics of the True God: Among the characteristics of the transcendent and immanent Reality, the six [key] characteristics are summed up in the following verse: He is (1) self existent, (2) without beginning, (3) without a body, (4) by nature possessed of all good qualities, (5) all-pervasive, and (6) Lord of all; I reverence this first cause.

The Ten Commandments: Just as we made known a few characteristics by which one could discern the true Reality, it also occurs to us to include in this Brief Discourse some clear characteristics by which to ascertain which is the true Veda, so that no one could cheat others regarding the Veda. But for various reasons we must leave these aside at present. Instead, for the sake of all who desire to follow the reasonable path of justice, we will record just a few of the commandments found in the Veda, revealed by the Lord God himself so that people might reach salvation. The divine commandments revealed by God to people are ten: 1. The first among them is this: I am the Lord God, your creator. Let there not be for you any other lord or god apart from me. 2. Do not utter in vain the holy name of the Lord God. 3. Remember to observe the holy days of the Lord god. 4. Honor your father and mother. 5. Do not kill. 6. Do not commit the sins of lust or adultery. 7. Do not be a thief. 8. Do not be a false witness. 9. Do not desire the wife or another. 10. Do not covet the belongings of others.

668

A Global Church History

These ten commandments are also contained in two. The first is, love God above all things, while the second is, Love others as you love yourself. Know this, and act accordingly.

3.29  The Five Articles of the Remonstrants on Grace and Free Will (1610) Article 1 That God, by an eternal, unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his Son Jesus, and shall persevering this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the gospel in John 3:36: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but wrath of God abideth on him,” and according to other passages of Scripture also.

Article 2 That, agreeably thereto, Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer according to the word of the Gospel of John 3:16: “God so love the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” And in the First Epistle of John 2:2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

Article 3 That man has not saving grace himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself, neither thing, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5: “Without me ye can do nothing.”

Article 4 That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awaking, following and co-operative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ.

Reformation/Renaissance/Early Modern

669

But as respects the mode of the operation of this grace it is not irresistible, inasmuch as it is written concerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Ghost (Acts 7:51), and elsewhere in many places.

Article 5 That those who are incorporated into Christ by a true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his lifegiving Spirit, have thereby full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory; it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Ghost; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand, and if only they are ready for the conflict, and desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no craft or power of Satan, can be misled nor plucked out of Christ’s hands, according to the Word of Christ, John 10:28: “Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginnings of their life in Christ (Heb 3:6, 14; 2 Pet 1:10; Jude 3; 1 Tim 1:19; Heb 11:13), of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered to them, of losing a good conscience, of becoming void of grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, before we ourselves can teach it with full persuasion of our minds. These Articles, thus set forth and taught, the Remonstrants deem agreeable to the Word of God, tending to edification, and, as regards this argument, sufficient for salvation, so that it is not necessary of edifying to rise higher or to descend deeper.

3.30  The Humble Petition and Advice on Freedom of Religion (1657) To his highness the lord protector of the commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the dominions thereto belonging, the humble petition and advice of the knights, citizens, and burgesses now assembled in the Parliament of this commonwealth: And whereas your highness out of your zeal to the glory of God and the propagation of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, has been pleased to encourage a godly ministry in these nations, we earnestly desire that such as do openly revile them or their assemblies, or disturb them in the worship or service of God to the dishonour of God; scandal of good men, or breach of the peace, may be punished according to law; and where the laws are defective that your highness will give consent to such laws as shall be made in that behalf. That the true Protestant Christian religion, as it is contained in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, and no other, be held forth and asserted for the public profession of these nations; and that a confession of faith, to be agreed by your highness and the Parliament, according to the rule and warrant of the Scriptures, be asserted, held forth, and recommended to the people of these nations, that none may be suffered or permitted, by opprobrious words or writing, maliciously or contemptuously to revile or reproach the confession of faith to be agreed upon as aforesaid; and such who profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His eternal Son, the true God, and in the Holy Spirit, God coequal with the Father and the Son, one God blessed for ever, and do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the

670

A Global Church History

Old and New Testament to be the revealed Will and Word of God, and shall in other things differ in doctrine, worship, or discipline from the public profession held forth, endeavours shall be used to convince them by sound doctrine and the example of a good conversation; but that they may not be compelled thereto by penalties, nor restrained from their professions, but protected from all injury and molestation in the profession of the faith and exercise of their religion, whilst they abuse not this liberty to the civil injury of others, or the disturbance of the public peace; so that this liberty be not extended to popery or prelacy, or to the countenancing such who publish horrible blasphemies or practice or hold forth licentiousness or profaneness under the profession of Christ; and that those ministers or public preachers who shall agree with the public profession aforesaid in matters of faith, although their judgment and practice they differ in matters of worship and discipline, shall not only have protection in the way of their churches and worship respectively, but be esteemed fit and capable, notwithstanding such difference (being otherwise duly qualified and duly approved), of any trust, promotion, or employment whatsoever in these nations, that any ministers who agree in doctrine, worship, and discipline with the public profession aforesaid are capable of; and all others who agree with the public profession in matters of faith, although they differ in matters of worship and discipline as aforesaid, shall not only have protection as aforesaid, but be esteemed fit and capable, notwithstanding such difference (being otherwise duly qualified), of any civil trust, employment, or promotion in these nations: but for such persons who agree not in matters of faith with the public profession aforesaid, they shall not be capable of receiving the public maintenance appointed for the ministry. Provided that this clause shall not be construed to extend to enable such ministers or public preachers or pastors of congregations; but that they be disenabled, and they are hereby disenabled, to hold any civil employment which those in orders were or are disenabled to hold, by an Act, entitled: “An Act for disenabling all Persons in Holy Orders to exercise any temporal jurisdiction or authority.” And that your highness will give your consent that all laws, statutes, ordinances, and clauses in any law, statute, and ordinance, so far as they are contrary to the aforesaid liberty, be repealed.

3.31  The Church of Scotland, The First Book of Discipline on Ordination (1560) The Fourth Head, concerning Ministers and their lawfull Election. In a Church reformed, or tending to Reformation, none ought to presume either to preach, or yet to minister the Sacraments, till that orderly they be called to the same. Ordinarie vocation consisteth in election, examination, and admission….

The Ninth Head, concerning the Policie of the Kirk. The papisticall Priests have neither power nor authoritie to minister the Sacraments of Christ Jesus, because that in their mouth is not the sermon of exhortation; and therefore to them must strait inhibition be made, notwithstanding any usurpation they have made in the time of blindnesse, not to presume upon the like hereafter, as likewise to all others who are not lawfully called to the holy

Reformation/Renaissance/Early Modern

671

Ministry, it is neither the clipping of their crownes, the greasing of their fingers, nor the blowing of the dumb dogges called the Bishops, neither the laying on of their hands that maketh true Ministers of Christ Jesus: but the Spirit of God inwardly first moving the heart to seeke to enter in the holy calling for Christ’s glory and the profite of his Kirk, and thereafter the nomination of the people, the examination of the learned, and publick admission as before is said, make men lawfull Ministers of the Word and Sacraments. We speak of the ordinarie vocation in Kirks reformed; and not of that which is extraordinary, when God by himselfe and by his onely power, raiseth up to the Ministerie such as best pleaseth his Wisedome.

3.32  Jeremy Taylor, The Rule and Exercises of Holy Dying on Heaven (1651) Christian prudence is a great security against the fear of death. For if we be afraid of death, it is but reasonable to use all spiritual arts to take off the apprehension of the evil; but therefore we ought to remove our fear, because fear gives to death wings and spurs and darts. Death hastens to a fearful man; if therefore you would make death harmless and slow, to throw off fear is the way to do it; and prayer is the way to do that. If therefore you be afraid of death, consider you will have less need to fear it by how much the less you do fear it: and so cure your direct fear by a reflex act of prudence and consideration. … If thou wilt be fearless of death endeavour to be in love with the felicities of saints and angels, and be once persuaded to believe that there is a condition of living better than this; that there are creatures more noble than we; that above there is a country better than ours; that the inhabitants know more and know better, and are in places of rest and desire; and first learn to value it, and then learn to purchase it, and death cannot be a formidable thing, which lets us into so much joy and so much felicity. And, indeed, who would not thing his condition mended if he passed from conversing with dull tyrants and enemies of learning, to converse with Homer and Plato, with Socrates and Cicero, with Plutarch and Fabricius? So the heathens speculated, but we consider higher. “The dead that die in the Lord” shall converse with St. Paul, and all the college of the apostles, and all the saints and martyrs, with all the good men whose memory we preserve in honour, with excellent kings and holy bishops, and with the great Shepherd and Bishop of our souls, Jesus Christ, and with God himself. For Christ died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we might live together with him.

3.33  Russian Orthodox Hymn of Passiontide (date unknown) To ¯ pathei sou, Christe, patho ¯n ¯eleuthero ¯the ¯men Stichera of The Resurrection Wherefore on the Cross uplifted, Bore the Lord our anguish sore? That He might from suffering save us By those wounds for evermore.—

672

A Global Church History

Wherefore from the grave triumphant, Came our Lord that radiant day? That the bondage of corruption Might for ever yield its sway. Let the heavens resound with gladness, Praises ring through all the earth; Let the nations all, before Him, Clap their hands with joyous mirth. To the Cross that bore our Saviour, Were our sins in mercy bound; By the death of Him Who loved us, Life for all mankind is found. Glory unto God the Father, Glory unto Christ the Son, Glory to the Holy Spirit, Now, and while the ages run.

3.34  The Synod of Jerusalem, 1672, Declaration on Holy Scripture and Predestination We believe the Divine and Sacred Scriptures to be God-taught; and, therefore, we ought to believe the same without doubting; yet not otherwise than as the Catholic Church hath interpreted and delivered the same. For every foul heresy receiveth, indeed, the Divine Scriptures, but perversely interpreteth the same, using metaphors, and homonymies, and sophistries of man’s wisdom, confounding what ought to be distinguished, and trifling with what ought not to be trifled with. For if [we were to receive the same] otherwise, each man holding every day a different sense concerning the same, the Catholic Church would not [as she doth] by the grace of Christ continue to be the Church until this day, holding the same doctrine of faith, and always identically and steadfastly believing, but would be rent into innumerable parties, and subject to heresies; neither would the Church be holy, the pillar and ground of the truth, without spot or wrinkle; but would be the Church of the malignant; as it is manifest that of the heretics undoubtedly is, and especially that of Calvin, who are not ashamed to learn from the Church, and then to wickedly repudiate her. Wherefore, the witness also of the Catholic Church is, we believe, not of inferior authority to that of the Divine Scriptures. For one and the same Holy Spirit being the author of both, it is quite the same to be taught by the Scriptures and by the Catholic Church. Moreover, when any man speaketh from himself he is liable to err, and to deceive, and be deceived; but the Catholic Church, as never having spoken, or speaking from herself, but from the Spirit of God—who being her teacher, she is ever unfailingly rich—it is impossible for her to in any wise err, or to at all deceive, or be deceived; but like the Divine Scriptures, is infallible, and hath perpetual authority.

Reformation/Renaissance/Early Modern

673

We believe the most good God to have from eternity predestinated unto glory those whom He hath chosen, and to have consigned unto condemnation those whom He hath rejected; but not so that He would justify the one, and consign and condemn the other without cause. For that were contrary to the nature of God, who is the common Father of all, and no respecter of persons, and would have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth; but since He foreknew the one would make a right use of their free-will, and the other a wrong, He predestinated the one, or condemned the other. And we understand the use of free-will thus, that the Divine and illuminating grace, and which we call preventing grace, being, as a light to those in darkness, by the Divine goodness imparted to all, to those that are willing to obey this—for it is of use only to the willing, not to the unwilling—and co-operate with it, in what it requireth as necessary to salvation, there is consequently granted particular grace; which, co-operating with us, and enabling us, and making us perse-verant in the love of God, that is to say, in per-forming those good things that God would have us to do, and which His preventing grace admonisheth us that we should do, justifieth us, and maketh us predestinated. But those who will not obey, and co-operate with grace; and, therefore, will not observe those things that God would have us perform, and that abuse in the service of Satan the free-will, which they have received of God to perform voluntarily what is good, are consigned to eternal condemnation. But to say, as the most wicked heretics do—and as is contained in the Chapter answering hereto—that God, in predestinating, or condemning, had in no wise regard to the works of those predestinated, or condemned, we know to be profane and impious. For thus Scripture would be opposed to itself, since it promiseth the believer salvation through works, yet supposeth God to be its sole author, by His sole illuminating grace, which He bestoweth without preceding works, to shew to man the truth of divine things, and to teach him how he may co-operate therewith, if he will, and do what is good and acceptable, and so obtain salvation. He taketh not away the power to will—to will to obey, or not obey him. But than to affirm that the Divine Will is thus solely and without cause the author of their condemnation, what greater calumny can be fixed upon God? and what greater injury and blasphemy can be offered to the Most High? For that the Deity is not tempted with evils, and that He equally willeth the salvation of all, since there is no respect of persons with Him, we do know; and that for those who through their own wicked choice, and their impenitent heart, have become vessels of dishonour, there is, as is just, decreed condemnation, we do confess. But of eternal punishment, of cruelty, of pitilessness, and of inhumanity, we never, never say God is the author, who telleth us that there is joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth. Far be it from us, while we have our senses, thus to believe, or to think; and we do subject to an eternal anathema those who say and think such things, and esteem them to be worse than any infidels.

3.35  Nicholas Bulgaris, A Holy Catechism (1681) on the Holy Mysteries A Holy Catechism, or Explanation of the Divine and Holy Liturgy: And Examination of Candidates for Orders by Way of Question and Answer.

674

A Global Church History

On Mysteries. Examiner. What hast thou come hither to seek, my brother? Candidate. Desiring to receive the office of the priesthood, I have gladly come for the proper examination according to the express rule of this God protected polity. Ex. Dost thou desire hereafter to be ordained priest? C. Yes, by the grace of the all-powerful God, the Giver of good things. Ex. And what signifieth this name Priest? C. Priest signifies a sacrificer and minister, who offers for sacrifice, not the blood of goats and calves, as the priests of the old law used to do, and the Gentiles, but the very Lamb of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, for the salvation of the world; and by Divine grace and authority he celebrates and performs the holy Mysteries of our Catholic Holy Church, imparting them to the orthodox and pious who draw near with faith. Ex. Know that, if thou wishest to receive so great and high an office, and to celebrate worthily the actual God-delivered Mysteries of which thou speakcst, thou acceptest a weighty duty, hard to be borne, and thou must understand not only the supernatural grace and power which these things have (particularly what concerns the Holy Liturgy); but also must lead henceforth a life pleasing to God, and in all things holy. Since if he who eats and drinks, that is communicates unworthily, be punished as the Apostle says, how much more he who celebrates unworthily? C. All these matters I refer, I have said, to the grace of the great God, the Giver of good things, because “every perfect boon comcth down from above.” Therefore am I come to this illustrious place before your excellency and this holy Synod, that I too may undergo the appointed inquiry, for the glory in the first place of the all-powerful God, and secondly for the perpetual preservation and protection of this your most pious authority, as well as for the salvation of me unworthy. Ex. In fact, brother, let us begin with God, and let us leave off with God. First let us speak about all Mysteries generally; then about the Divine or Holy Liturgy as God shall enlighten us: forasmuch as these are the two points with which the whole idea of the sacred office it is clear is specially concerned. How many Mysteries are there? C. There are seven Mysteries; Holy Baptism, Holy Unction, Priesthood, Repentance, the Divine Eucharist, Marriage, and Prayer Oil. Ex.. Why are they called Mysteries? C. Mysteries arc so named from muo ¯, which means “I keep the mouth closed.” And that because they contain a certain hidden grace, which may not be manifested to unbelievers, for they not having the light of faith, cannot at all comprehend them. Thus we have Nicodemus, who said to CHRIST, “How can I man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” (S. John iii. 4), as unable to contemplate the supernatural regeneration, which gives the grace of Holy Baptism to believers. So the Jews disputed with each other, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”“ S. John vi. 52. And many of His disciples when they heard it, said, “This saying is a hard one: who can hear it?” as unable to contemplate the great mystery of the Holy Communion. Others derive Mystery from muo ¯ [the accentuation of the two uses of muo ¯ is different in Greek, rendering different senses—ed.], which means, “I teach Divine

Reformation/Renaissance/Early Modern

675

things.” Whence also Eustathius, fitting together the two meanings, said, “ Mystae ought to shut the mouth, (here is the first meaning,) and not to publish what they have been taught,” (here is the second.) Ex. Explain to us what a Mystery is. C. A Mystery is a thing divine and holy, which appears one thing to the eye, and figuratively signifies and intends another, showing from material and sensible forms the immaterial and spiritual grace which the great God gives to those who worthily receive it. So in the Eucharist, though we behold bread and wine, yet after the consecration there is not simple bread and wine, but Christ Himself concealed beneath those species. And in Baptism, though with the eye we behold simple water, yet in the very water is concealed God’s grace which washes the soul, and invisibly purges it from every sin. So also the oil in the Prayer-Oil, the spices in Unction, and so forth. A Mystery, write the Schoolmen in the 4th part of the Holy Theology, “is a sign perceptible to the senses, by similarity suggestive, in rite significant, and by consecration containing the invisible grace.” Again: “A Mystery is a sign, as has been said, perceptible to the senses, containing God’s invisible grace, purposely arranged for the salvation of men, significant by divine ordinance.” And in the 2nd book of Christian Doctrine (Ch. I.) in a couple of words Augustine says, “A Mystery is a visible sign of an invisible grace.” And John of the Golden words, “A Mystery is what is inexplicable, and marvellous, and beyond knowledge.” Ex. Who thinkest thou ordained the Mysteries? C. Our Master and God Himself immediately, our Lord Jesus Christ. Ex. And wherefore did God choose through such sensible forms to convey the holy Mysteries? Was He not able invisibly to impart daily to the faithful His holy grace, and to operate through His omnipotence without water and oil, without bread and wine and spices? C. He was certainly able : since God by His mere Word performs at once what He chooses. And in divinity, thought is result, as the theologian of Nazianzum says, in his homily for Epiphany or the Birthday of our Saviour. Howbeit, the Infinite wisdom so ordered it, and with reason: because as the incarnate dispensation and reason-transcending embodiment of God and the Word became the first-fruits of our salvation, so He determined that the Mysteries should be corporeally founded in material and sensible signs, and should operate spiritually. Consequently, besides the fact that man seeing his salvation proceeding from such poor and material means, is much bumbled, while simultaneously concentrating his thought in God’s temple through the prayers that arc made in the celebration of the holy Mysteries, he is admonished and sobered, he at once glorifies the majesty of God and His supreme omnipotence and compassion.

Chapter 4 Modern

4.1  Blaise Pascal, Pensées on the Wager (1670) By faith we know [God’s] existence; in glory we shall know His nature. Now, I have already shown that we may well know the existence of a thing, without knowing its nature.

Let us now speak according to natural lights If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. This being so, who will dare to undertake the decision of the question? Not we, who have no affinity to Him. Who then will blame Christians for not being able to give a reason for their belief, since they profess a religion for which they cannot give a reason? They declare, in expounding it to the world, that it is a foolishness, and then you complain that they do not prove it! If they proved it, they would not keep their word; it is in lacking proofs that they are not lacking in sense. “Yes, but although this excuses those who offer it as such and takes away from them the blame of putting it forward without reason, it does not excuse those who receive it.” Let us then examine this point, and say, “God is, or He is not.” But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions. Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. “No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all.” Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God exists. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He exists. “That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much.” Let us see. Since

Modern

677

there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. It is all divided; whereever the infinite is and there is not an infinity of chances of loss against that of gain, there is no time to hesitate, you must give all. And thus, when one is forced to play, he must renounce reason to preserve his life, rather than risk it for infinite gain, as likely to happen as the loss of nothingness. For it is no use to say it is uncertain if we will gain, and it is certain that we risk, and that the infinite distance between the certainly of what is staked and the uncertainty of what will be gained, equals the finite good which is certainly staked against the uncertain infinite. It is not so, as every player stakes a certainty to gain an uncertainty, and yet he stakes a finite certainty to gain a finite uncertainty, without transgressing against reason. There is not an infinite distance between the certainty staked and the uncertainty of the gain; that is untrue. In truth, there is an infinity between the certainty of gain and the certainty of loss. But the uncertainty of the gain is proportioned to the certainty of the stake according to the proportion of the chances of gain and loss. Hence it comes that, if there are as many risks on one side as on the other, the course is to play even; and then the certainty of the stake is equal to the uncertainty of the gain, so far is it from fact that there is an infinite distance between them. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain. This is demonstrable; and if men are capable of any truths, this is one. “I confess it, I admit it. But, still, is there no means of seeing the faces of the cards?” Yes, Scripture and the rest, etc. “Yes, but I have my hands tied and my mouth closed; I am forced to wager, and am not free. I am not released, and am so made that I cannot believe. What, then, would you have me do?”

True. But at least learn your inability to believe, since reason brings you to this, and yet you cannot believe. Endeavour, then, to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness. “But this is what I am afraid of.” And why? What have you to lose? But to show you that this leads you there, it is this which will lessen the passions, which are your stumbling-blocks.

678

A Global Church History

The end of this discourse.—Now, what harm will befall you in taking this side? You will be faithful, humble, grateful, generous, a sincere friend, truthful. Certainly you will not have those poisonous pleasures, glory and luxury; but will you not have others? I will tell you that you will thereby gain in this life, and that, at each step you take on this road, you will see so great certainty of gain, so much nothingness in what you risk, that you will at last recognise that you have wagered for something certain and infinite, for which you have given nothing. “Ah! This discourse transports me, charms me,” etc.

If this discourse pleases you and seems impressive, know that it is made by a man who has knelt, both before and after it, in prayer to that Being, infinite and without parts, before whom he lays all he has, for you also to lay before Him all you have for your own good and for His glory, that so strength may be given to lowliness.

4.2  Blaise Pascal, Pensées on Proofs of God’s Existence (1670) Order. Men despise religion; they hate it and fear it is true. To remedy this, we must begin by showing that religion is not contrary to reason; that it is venerable, to inspire respect for it; then we must make it lovable, to make good men hope it is true; finally, we must prove it is true. Venerable, because it has perfect knowledge of man; lovable because it promises the true good. I admire the boldness with which these persons undertake to speak of God. In addressing their argument to infidels, their first chapter is to prove Divinity from the works of nature. I should not be astonished at their enterprise, if they were addressing their argument to the faithful; for it is certain that those who have the living faith in their hearts see at once that all existence is none other than the work of the God whom they adore. But for those in whom this light is extinguished, and in whom we purpose to rekindle it, persons destitute of faith and grace, who, seeking with all their light whatever they see in nature that can bring them to this knowledge, find only obscurity and darkness; to tell them that they have only to look at the smallest things which surround them, and they will see God openly, to give them, as a complete proof of this great and important matter, the course of the moon and planets, and to claim to have concluded the proof with such an argument, is to give them ground for believing that the proofs of our religion are very weak. And I see by reason and experience that nothing is more calculated to arouse their contempt. It is not after this manner that Scripture speaks, which has a better knowledge of the things that are of God. It says, on the contrary, that God is a hidden God, and that, since the corruption of nature, He has left men in a darkness from which they can escape only through Jesus Christ, without whom all communion with God is cut off. … This is what Scripture points out to us, when it says in so many places that those who seek God find Him. It is not of that light, “like the noonday sun,” that this is said. We do not say that those who seek the noonday sun, or water in the sea, shall find them; and hence the evidence of God must not be of this nature. So it tells us elsewhere: Vere tu es Deus absconditus [Truly you are a hidden God—ed.].

Modern

679

The heart has its reasons, which reason does not know. We feel it in a thousand things. I say that the heart naturally loves the Universal Being, and also itself naturally, according as it gives itself to them; and it hardens itself against one or the other at its will. You have rejected the one and kept the other. Is it by reason that you love yourself? It is the heart which experiences God, and not the reason. This, then, is faith: God felt by the heart, not by the reason. Faith is a gift of God; do not believe that we said it was a gift of reasoning. Other religions do not say this of their faith. They only give reasoning in order to arrive at it, and yet it does not bring them to it. We know truth, not only by the reason, but also by the heart, and it is in this last way that we know first principles; and reason, which has no part in it, tries in vain to impugn them. The sceptics, who have only this for their object, labour to no purpose. We know that we do not dream, and, however impossible it is for us to prove it by reason, this inability demonstrates only the weakness of our reason, but not, as they affirm, the uncertainty of all our knowledge. For the knowledge of first principles, as space, time, motion, number, is as sure as any of those which we get from reasoning. And reason must trust these intuitions of the heart, and must base them on every argument. … And it is as useless and absurd for reason to demand from the heart proofs of her first principles, before admitting them, as it would be for the heart to demand from reason an intuition of all demonstrated propositions before accepting them. This inability ought, then, to serve only to humble reason, which would judge all, but not to impugn our certainty, as if only reason were capable of instructing us. Would to God, on the contrary, that we had never need of it, and that we knew everything by instinct and intuition! But nature has refused us this boon. On the contrary, she has given us but very little knowledge of this kind; and all the rest can be acquired only by reasoning. Therefore, those to whom God has imparted religion by intuition are very fortunate and justly convinced. But to those who do not have it, we can give it only by reasoning, waiting for God to give them spiritual insight, without which faith is only human and useless for salvation.

4.3  The First Confession (Baptist – London 1644) VII. The Rule of this Knowledge, Faith, and Obedience, concerning the worship and service of God, and all other Christian duties, is not man’s inventions, opinions, devices, lawes, constitutions, or traditions unwritten whatsoever, but onely the word of God contained in the Canonicall Scriptures. VIII. In this written Word God hath plainly revealed I whatsoever he hath thought needfull for us to know, beleeve, and acknowledge, touching the Nature and Office of Christ, in whom all the promises are Yea and Amen to the praise of God. XXII. That Faith is the gift of God wrought in the hearts of the elect by the Spirit of God, whereby they come to see, know, and beleeve the truth of the Scriptures & not onely so, but the excellencie of them above all other writings and things in the world, as they hold forth the glory of God in his attributes, the excellency of Christ in his nature and offices, and the power of the fulnesse of the Spirit in its workings and operations ; and thereupon are inabled to cast the weight of their soules upon this truth thus beleeved.

680

A Global Church History

XXIV. That faith is ordinarily begot by the preaching of the Gospel, or word of Christ, without respect to any power or capacitie in the creature, but it is wholly passive, being dead in sinnes and trespasses, doth beleeve, and is converted by no lesse power, then that which raised Christ from the dead. XXVIII. That those which have union with Christ, are justified from all their sinnes, past, present, and to come, by the bloud of Christ; which justification wee conceive to be a gracious and free acquittance of a guiltie, sinfull creature, from all sin by God, through the satisfaction that Christ hath made by his death; and this applyed in the manifestation of it through faith. XXIX. That all beleevers are a holy and sanctified people, and that sanctification is a spirituall grace of the new Covenant, and effect of the love of God, manifested to the soule, whereby the beleever is in truth and realitie separated, both in soule and body, from all sinne and dead workes, through the bloud of the everlasting Covenant, whereby he also presseth after a heavenly and Evangelicall perfection, in obedience to all the Commands, which Christ as head and King in this new Covenant has prescribed to him. XXXIX. That Baptisme is an Ordinance of the new Testament, given by Christ, to be dispensed onely upon persons professing faith or that are Disciples, or taught, who upon profession of faith, ought to be baptized. XL. The way and manner of the dispensing of this Ordinance the Scripture holds out to be dipping or plunging the whole body under underwater: it being a signe, must answer the thing signified, which are these: first, the washing the whole soule in the bloud of Christ: Secondly, that interest the Saints have in the death, buriall, and resurrection; thirdly, together with a confirmation of our faith, that as certainly as the body is buried under water, and riseth againe, so certainly shall the bodies of the Saints be raised by the power of Christ, in the day of the resurrection, to reigne with Christ. XLL. The persons designed by Christ, to dispense this Ordinance, the Scriptures hold forth to be a preaching Disciple, it being no where tyed to a particular Church, Officer, or person extraordinarily sent, the Commission injoyning the administration, being given to them under no other consideration, but as considered Disciples.

4.4  The Westminster Confession of Faith on Scripture (1647) Chapter I. Of the Holy Scripture. I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence, do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation”; therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his Church”; and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and com fort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing”; which maketh the holy Scripture to be most necessary”; those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased. …

Modern

681

IV. The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God. V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellences, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. VI. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word; that there are some circumstances, concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

4.5  The Russian Orthodox Church, Catechism of Platon, Primer for Children, and Longer Catechism The Catechism of Platon (1765): The Catechism is, a concise instruction teaching us how to know God and to live according to his commandments. In this we are guided by nature itself, and by Divine revelation: hence the Catechism is to be divided into two parts; the first treating of Natural, and the second of Revealed Religion. Each of these parts is subdivided into three heads: the first part into those treating of the Existence of God, the Essence of God, and the worship due to Him; the second into those of the Gospel Faith, the Law of God, and the Lord’s Prayer.

Of the Worship of God. Divine worship is the enterprise of our subjection to God; it is internal and external. Internal worship is the expression of our subjection before God with the whole heart and soul; it consists in love toward, God, in fear of Him, in the glorification of his name, in the recognition of our weakness and corruption, and in calling upon Him for help. External worship implies the expression of this subjection by external signs; to this pertain adoration, the reading of prayers, the hearing of instruction, contrition in confession, joyfulness of countenance in thanksgiving, the frequentation of the temple, abstaining from all evil, such u drunkenness and the like. And this inward and outward expression of our subjection to God may fitly be called a perfect worship.

682

A Global Church History

Faith Faith is the reception of the Gospel with the whole heart and soul. I. The doctrine of the Faith is contained in Holy Scripture. Holy Scripture is divided into the Old and New Testament. The Old Testament contains the Law, which prepared man for the perfect reception of the Gospel faith. The New Testament, revealing the fulfillment of the prophecies and types, announces to us the great lovingkindness of God, which He has vouchsafed to us in the death of Jesus Christ. And the Old Testament having been written by the Prophets, and the New by the Apostles, through the Holy Ghost, both the one and the other are together called Holy Scripture. II. The doctrine of the faith is concisely summed up in the Symbol of faith, which was compiled by the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers of the first General Council, which was held at Nicaea in the year 325.

The Russian Primer for Children (1825): Daily Prayers. In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Amen. Glory be to Thee, O our God, glory be to Thee. O Heavenly King, the Comforter, the Spirit of truth, Who art every where and fillest all things, the treasure of blessings and giver of life, come to us and make Thine abode in us, cleanse us from all impurity, and save our souls of Thy goodness. O Holy God, O Holy God Almighty, O Holy God Immortal, have mercy upon us. O Most Holy Trinity, have mercy upon us: O God, cleanse us from our sins: Forgive us our offences, O Lord: Visit us, O God, and help our infirmities for Thy Name’s sake. Our Father, which art in heaven, Hallowed be Thy Name. ....

To the Mother of God. Hail Mary, Virgin Mother of God, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, for thou hast borne the Saviour of our souls.

On rising from sleep. O Lord. I thank Thee with my whole heart that Thou hast raised me up from sleep safe and sound, that Thou hast scattered the darkness of night, and gladdened mine eyes with the light of this day. And now, O Lord, I believe in Thee with my whole heart; scatter, I pray Thee, the darkness of my ignorance, and of my passions, and lighten my mind and my will with Thy almighty grace. Grant me to do cheerfully and zealously every work which Thou hast appointed for me, and reverently to search out the wonders hidden in Thy holy law, ever calling with boldness upon Thy holy Name.

On Going to rest. Almighty God, Who hast vouchsafed of Thy providence to bring me to this present hour of night; I give Thee hearty thanks for all the blessings that I have this day received at Tby hand, praying Thee

Modern

683

to accept my contrition for all that I have done amiss. And now that I am going to my rest, keep me, I beseech Thee, under the shadow of Thy wings, and make me withal to remember that everlasting rest which Thou hast prepared for them that love Thee; among whom place me also, O Lord.

Before Dinner. The eyes of all wait upon Thee, O Lord, and Thou givest them their meat in due season: Thou openest Thy hand, and fillest all things living with good.

After Dinner. I thank Thee, O Christ my God, that Thou hast fed me with Thy earthly good things: let it not be with these only, I beseech Thee, but bring me also to Thy heavenly kingdom. The Creed, or Symbol of Faith. I believe in one God ….

The Longer Catechism of the Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church (1839): On Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture. Q. How is Divine Revelation spread among men, and preserved in the true Church? A. By two channels; holy Tradition, and holy Scripture. Q. What is meant by the name holy Tradition? A. By the name holy Tradition is meant the doctrine of the faith, the law of God, the sacraments, and the ritual as handed down by the true believers and worshippers of God by word and example from one to another, and from generation to generation. Q. Is there any sure repository of holy Tradition? A. All true believers united by the holy tradition of the faith, collectively and successively, by the will of God, compose the Church; and She is the sure repository of holy Tradition, or, as St. Paul expresses it, The Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. 1 Tim. iii. 15. St. Irenaeus writes thus: We ought not to seek among others the truth, which we may have for asking from the Church. For in her, as in a rich treasure-house, the Apostles have laid up in its fulness all that pertains to the truth, so that whosoever seeketh, may receive from her the food of life. She is the door of life. Adv. Heres. 1. iii. c. 4. Q. What is that which you call holy Scripture? A. Certain books written by the Spirit of God, through men sanctified by God, called Prophets and Apostles. These books are commonly termed the Bible. Q. What does the word Bible mean? A. It is Greek, and means The books. The name signifies that the sacred books deserve attention before all others. Q. Which is the more ancient, holy Tradition, or holy Scripture? A. The most ancient and original instrument for spreading Divine Revelation is holy Tradition. From Adam to Moses there were no sacred books. Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself delivered His Divine

684

A Global Church History

doctrine and ordinances to His disciples by word and example, but not by writing. The same method was followed by the Apostles also at first, when they spread abroad the faith and established the Church of Christ. The necessity of tradition is further evident from this, that books can be available only to a small part of mankind, but tradition to all. Q, Why then was holy Scripture given? A. To this end, that Divine Revelation might be preserved more exactly and unchangeably. In holy Scripture we read the words of the Prophets and Apostles precisely as if we were living with them and listening to them, although the latest of the sacred books were written a thousand and some hundred years before our time. Q. Must we follow holy Tradition, even when we possess holy Scripture? A. We must follow that tradition which agrees with the Divine Revelation and with holy Scripture, as is taught us by holy Scripture itself. The Apostle Paul writes; Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle. 2 Thess. ii. 15. Q. Why is Tradition necessary even now? A. As a guide to the right understanding of holy Scripture, for the right ministration of the Sacraments, and the preservation of sacred rites and ceremonies in the purity of their original institution.

4.6  John Wesley, “Sermon 5” on Justification (eighteenth century) Least of all does justification imply, that God is deceived in those whom he justifies; that he thinks them to be what in fact they are not; that he accounts them to be otherwise than they are. It does by no means imply, that God judges concerning us contrary to the real nature of things; that he esteems us better than we really are, or believes us righteous when we are unrighteous. Surely no. The judgment of the all-wise God is always according to truth. Neither can it ever consist with his unerring wisdom to think that I am innocent, to judge that I am righteous or holy, because another is so. He can no more, in this manner, confound me with Christ, than with David or Abraham. Let any man to whom God hath given understanding, weigh this without prejudice; and he cannot but perceive, that such a notion of justification is neither reconcilable to reason nor Scripture. The plain scriptural notion of justification is pardon, the forgiveness of sins. It is that act of God the Father, whereby, for the sake of the propitiation made by the blood of his Son, he “showeth forth his righteousness (or mercy) by the remission of the sins that are past.” This is the easy, natural account of it given by St. Paul, throughout this whole epistle. So he explains it himself, more particularly in this and in the following chapter. Thus, in the next verses but one to the text, “ Blessed are they,” saith he, “whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered: blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.” To him that is justified or forgiven, God “will not impute sin” to his condemnation. He will not condemn him on that account, either in this world, or in that which is to come.

Modern

685

4.7  Friedrich Schleiermacher, “Sermon XV, Christ’s Resurrection an Image of Our New Life.” (early 19th century) (Easter Sunday.) Praise and glory be to God, and peace with all who with joyful hearts greet one another with the cry, The Lord is risen! Amen. Text : Rom. vi. 4-8. It is natural, my friends, that the glorious festival of our Saviour’s resurrection should attract the thoughts of believers to a far remote time, and that it should make them rejoice to think of the time when they shall be with Him who, after He had risen from the dead, returned to His and our Father,—a joyful prospect, expressed in the hymn we have sung together. But the apostle, in the words of our text, recalls us from what is far off to what is close to us—to the immediate present of our life here. He takes hold of what is the most immediate concern, of what we are at once to share in and which is to form us, even here, into the like ness of Christ’s resurrection. We are buried with Him, ho says, unto death, that as He was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we also might walk in new ness of life. And this new life is that which, as the Lord Himself says, all who believe in Him possess even now as having passed through death to life. Thus, my friends, we know what is the new life that is to be like the resurrection life of the Lord. A previous life must die; the apostle calls it the body of sin, the law of sin in our members, and this needs no lengthened discussion. We all know and feel that this life, which Scripture calls a being dead in sins, pleasant and splendid as may be the form it often assumes, is yet nothing but what the mortal body of the Saviour also was, an expression and evidence of the power of death, because even the fairest and strongest presentation of this kind lacks the element of being imperishable. Thus with the mortal body of the Saviour, and thus also with the natural life of man, which is as yet not a life from God. And, secondly, this new life resembles its type and ideal, the resurrection life of Christ, not only in being risen from death, but also in its whole nature, way and manner. First, in this respect, that though a new life, it is, nevertheless, the life of the same man, and in the closest connection with his former life. … And as the glad faith of the disciples rested on the very fact that they recognised the Lord as being, in the glory of His resurrection, the same person that He was before ; so also in us, the confidence in this new life, as a permanent and now natural state with us, rests only on this—that we recognise ourselves in it as the same persons that we were before ; that there are the same faculties, lower and higher, of the human soul, which formerly served sin, but are now created anew as instruments of righteousness. Indeed, all the traces of that death, as well as of the former life, make us more vividly conscious of the great change that the life-giving call of God has produced in us, and call for the most heartfelt gratitude. And lastly, my friends, we cannot feel all these com forting and glorious things in which our new life resembles the resurrection life of our Lord, without being at the same time, on another side, moved to sorrow by this resemblance. For if we put together all that the evangelists and the apostles of the Lord have preserved for us about His resurrection life, we still cannot out of it all form an entirely consecutive history. There are separate moments and hours, separate conversations and actions, and then the risen One vanishes again from the eyes that look for Him ; in vain we ask where He can have tarried, we must

686

A Global Church History

wait till He appears again. Not that in Himself there was anything of this broken or uncertain life, but as to our view of it, it is and cannot but be so…. Therefore always back, my friends, to Him who is the only fountain of this spiritual life! If, ever and anon, we cannot find it in ourselves, we always find it in Him, and it is always pouring forth afresh from Him the Head to us His members. If every moment in which we do not perceive it is a moment of longing, as soon as we become conscious of the void; then it is also a moment in which the risen One appears to our spirit, and breathes on us anew with His life-giving power. And thus drawing only from Him, we shall attain to having His heavenly gifts becoming in us more and more an inexhaustible, continually flowing fountain of spiritual and eternal life. For this He rose from the dead by the glory of the Father, that we should be made into the likeness of His resurrection.

4.8  Søren Kierkegaard, Preparation for a Christian Life on Following Christ (1850) “Come hither unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11.28) “Come hither unto me!” Strange! For human compassion also, and willingly, does something for them that labor and are heavy laden; one feeds the hungry, clothes the naked, makes charitable gifts, builds charitable institutions, and if the compassion be heartfelt, perhaps even visits those that labor and are heavy laden. But to invite them to come to one, that will never do, because then all one’s household and manner of living would have to be changed. For a man cannot himself live in abundance, or at any rate in well-being and happiness, and at the same time dwell in one and the same house together with, and in daily intercourse with, the poor and miserable, with them that labor and are heavy laden! In order to be able to invite them in such wise, a man must himself live altogether in the same way, as poor as the poorest, as lowly as the lowliest, familiar with the sorrows and sufferings of life, and altogether belonging to the same station as they, whom he invites, that is, they who labor and are heavy laden. If he wishes to invite a sufferer, he must either change his own condition to be like that of the sufferer, or else change that of the sufferer to be like his own; for if this is not done the difference will stand out only the more by contrast. And if you wish to invite all those who suffer—for you may make an exception with one of them and change his condition—it can be done only in one way, which is, to change your condition so as to live as they do; provided your life be not already lived thus, as was the case with him who said: “Come hither unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden!” Thus said he; and they who lived with him saw him, and behold! there was not even the least thing in his manner of life to contradict it. With the silent and truthful eloquence of actual performance his life expresses—even though he had never in his life said these words—his life expresses: “Come hither unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden”! He abides by his word, or he him-self is the word; he is what he says, and also in this sense he is the Word. … The invitation stands at the parting of the ways, where the road of sin turns away from the inclosure of innocence—ah, come hither, ye are so close to him; but a single step in the opposite direction, and ye are infinitely far from him. Very possibly ye do not yet stand in need of rest, nor grasp fully what that means; but still follow the invitation, so that he who invites may save you from a predicament out of which it is so difficult and dangerous to be saved; and so that, being saved, ye may stay with him who

Modern

687

is the Savior of all, likewise of innocence. For even if it were possible that innocence be found somewhere, and altogether pure: why should not innocence also need a savior to keep it safe from evil?—The invitation stands at the parting of the ways, where the road of sin turns away, to enter more deeply into sin. Come hither all ye who have strayed and have been lost, whatever may have been your error and sin: whether one more pardonable in the sight of man and nevertheless perhaps more frightful, or one more terrible in the sight of man and yet, perchance, more pardonable; whether it be one which became known here on earth or one which, though hidden, yet is known in heaven—and even if ye found pardon here on earth without finding rest in your souls, or found no pardon because ye did not seek it, or because ye sought it in vain: ah, return and come hither, here is rest! … He that invites. Who is he? Jesus Christ. Which Jesus Christ? He that sits in glory on the right side of his Father? No. From his seat of glory he spoke not a single word. Therefore it is Jesus Christ in his lowliness, and in the condition of lowliness, who spoke these words. Is then Jesus Christ not the same? Yes, verily, he is today, and was yesterday, and 1800 years ago, the same who abased himself, assuming the form of a servant—the Jesus Christ who spake these words of invitation. It is also he who hath said that he would return again in glory. In his return in glory he is, again, the same Jesus Christ; but this has not yet come to pass. Is he then not in glory now? Assuredly, that the Christian believes. But it was in his lowly condition that he spoke these words; he did not speak them from his glory. And about his return in glory nothing can be known, for this can in the strictest sense be a matter of belief only. But a believer one cannot become except by having gone to him in his lowly condition—to him, the rock of offense and the object of faith. In other shape he does not exist, for only thus did he exist. That he will return in glory is indeed expected, but can be expected and believed only by him who believes, and has believed, in him as he was here on earth. Jesus Christ is, then, the same; yet lived he 1800 years ago in debasement, and is transfigured only at his return. As yet he has not returned; therefore he is still the one in lowly guise about whom we believe that he will return in glory. Whatever he said and taught, every word he spoke, becomes eo ipso untrue if we give it the appearance of having been spoken by Christ in his glory. Nay, he is silent. It is the lowly Christ who speaks. The space of time between (i.e. between his debasement and his return in glory) which is at present about 1800 years, and will possibly become many times 1800—this space of time, or else what this space of time tries to make of Christ, the worldly information about him furnished by world history or church history, as to who Christ was, as to who it was who really spoke these words—all this does not concern us, is neither here nor there, but only serves to corrupt our conception of him, and thereby renders untrue these words of invitation. With its invitation to all “that labor and are heavy laden” Christianity has entered the world, not as the clergy whimperingly and falsely introduce it as a shining paragon of mild grounds of consolation; but as the absolute. God wills it so because of His love, but it is God who wills it, and He wills it as He wills it. He does not choose to have His nature changed by man and become a nice, that is to say, humane, God; but He chooses to change the nature of man because of His love for them. … “And what, then, does all this signify?” It signifies that every one, in silent inwardness before God, is to feel humility before what it means to be in the strictest sense a Christian; is to confess sincerely before God what his position is, so that he may worthily partake of the grace which is offered to

688

A Global Church History

every one who is not perfect, that is, to every one. And it means no more than that. For the rest let him attend to his work and find joy in it, let him love his wife, rejoicing in her, let him raise his children to be a joy to him, and let him love his fellow men and enjoy life. God will surely let him know if more is demanded of him, and will also help him to accomplish it; for in the terrifying language of the law this sounds so terrible because it would seem as if man by his own strength were to hold fast to Christ, whereas in the language of love it is Christ that holds fast to him. As was said, then, God will surely let him know if more is demanded of him. But what is demanded of every one is that he humble himself in the presence of God under the demands of ideality. And therefore these demands should be heard, and heard again and again in all their absoluteness. To be a Christian has become a matter of no importance whatever a mummery, something one is anyway, or something one acquires more readily than a trick. In very truth, it is high time that the demands of ideality were heard. “But if being a Christian is something so terrifying and awesome, how in all the world can a man get it into his head to wish to accept Christianity?” Very simply and, if you so wish, quite according to Luther: only the consciousness of sin, if I may express myself so, can force one from the other side, grace exerts the attraction can force one into this terror. And in the same instant the Christian ideal is transformed, and is sheer mildness, grace, love, and pity. Looking at it any other way, however, Christianity is, and shall ever be, the greatest absurdity, or else the greatest terror. Approach is had only through the consciousness of sin, and to desire to enter by any other way amounts to a crime of lèse‑majesté against Christianity.

4.9  Vatican I. The Dogmatic Decrees on Papal Infallibility (1870) Therefore faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God our Saviour, the exaltation of the Catholic religion, and the salvation of Christian people, the sacred Council approving, we teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals ; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church. But if any one—which may God avert—presume to contradict this our definition: let him be anathema.

4.10  A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology on Scripture (1860) In what sense and to what extent has the Church universally held the Bible to be inspired? That the sacred writers were so influenced by the Holy spirit that their writings are, as a whole and in every part, God’s word to us—an authoritative revelation to us from God, endorsed by him, and sent to us as a

Modern

689

rule of faith and practice, the original autographs of which are absolutely infallible when interpreted in the sense intended, and hence are clothed with absolute divine authority. What is meant by “plenary inspiration”? A divine influence full and sufficient to secure its end. The end in this case secured is the perfect infallibility of the Scriptures in every part, as a record of fact and doctrine both in thought and verbal expression. So that although they come to us through the instrumentality of the minds, hearts, imaginations, consciences, and wills of men, they are nevertheless in the strictest sense the word of God. What is meant by the phrase “verbal inspiration,” and how can it be proved that the words oft he Bible were inspired? It is meant that the divine influence, of whatever kind it may have been, which accompanied the sacred writers in what they wrote, extends to their expression of their thoughts in language, as well as to the thoughts themselves. The effect being that in the original autograph copies the language expresses the thought God intended to convey with infallible accuracy, so that the words as well as the thoughts are God’s revelation to us. By what means does the Church hold that God has effected the result above defined? The Church doctrine recognizes the fact that every part of Scripture is at once a product of God’s and of man’s agency. The human writers have produced each his part in the free and natural exercise of his personal faculties under his historical conditions. God has also so acted concurrently in and through them that the whole organism of Scripture and every part thereof is his word to us, infallibly true in the sense intended and absolutely authoritative. God’s agency includes the three following elements: 1st. His PROVIDENTIAL agency in producing the Scriptures. The whole course of redemption, of which revelation and inspiration are special functions, was a special providence directing the evolution of a specially providential history. Here the natural and the supernatural continually interpenetrate. But as is of necessity the case, the natural was always the rule and the supernatural the exception; yet as little subject to accident, and as much the subject of rational design as the natural itself. Thus God providentially produced the very man for the precise occasion, with the faculties, qualities, education, and gracious experience needed for the production of the intended writing, Moses, David, Isaiah, Paul, or John, genius and character, nature and grace, peasant, philosopher, or prince, the man, and with him each subtle personal accident, was providentially prepared at the proper moment as the necessary instrumental precondition of the work to be done. 2nd. REVELATION of truth not otherwise attainable. Whenever the writer was not possessed, or could not naturally become possessed, of the knowledge God intended to communicate, it was supernaturally revealed to him by vision or language. This revelation was supernatural, objective to the recipient, and assured to him to be truth of divine origin by appropriate evidence. This direct revelation applies to a large element of the sacred Scriptures, such as prophecies of future events, the peculiar doctrines of Christianity, the promises and threatenings of God’s word, etc., but it applies by no means to all the contents of Scripture. 3rd. INSPIRATION. The writers were the subjects of a plenary divine influence called inspiration, which acted upon and through their natural faculties in all they wrote directing them in the choice of subject and the whole course of thought and verbal expression, so as while not interfering with the natural exercise of their faculties, they freely and spontaneously, produced the very writing which God designed, and which thus possesses the attributes of infallibility and authority as above defined. This

690

A Global Church History

inspiration differs, therefore, from revelation—(1) In that it was a constant experience of the sacred writers in all they wrote and it affects the equal infallibility of all the elements of the writings they produced, while, as before said, revelation was supernaturally vouchsafed only when it was needed. (2) In that revelation communicated objectively to the mind of the writer truth otherwise unknown. While inspiration was a divine influence flowing into the sacred writer subjectively, communicating nothing, but guiding their faculties in their natural exercise to the producing an infallible record of the matters of history, doctrine, prophecy, etc., which God designed to send through them to his Church.

4.11  Richard Watson, Theological Institutes on Justification and Sanctification (1825) The leading blessings concomitant with justification, are regeneration and adoption; with respect to which we may observe generally, that although we must distinguish them as being different from each other, and from justification, yet they are not to be separated. They occur at the same time, and they all enter into the experience of the same person; so that no man is justified without being regenerated and adopted, and no man is regenerated and made a son of God, who is not justified. Whenever they are mentioned in Scripture, they, therefore involve and imply each other; a remark which may preserve us from some errors. … [Regeneration] is that mighty change in man, wrought by the Holy Spirit, by which the dominion which sin has over him in his natural state, and which he deplores and struggles against in his penitent state, is broken arid abolished, so that, with full choice of will and the energy of right affections, he serves God freely and “runs in the way of his commandments.” “Whosoever is born of God-doth not commit sin, for his seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.” “ For sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the law, But under grace.” “But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.” Deliverance from the bondage of sin, and the power and the will to do all things which are pleasing to God, both as to inward habits and outward acts, are, therefore, the distinctive characters of this state. That repentance is not regeneration, we have before observed. It will not bear disputing whether regeneration begins with repentance; for if the regenerate state is only entered upon at our justification, then all that can be meant by this, to be consistent with the Scriptures, is, that the preparatory process, which, leads to regeneration, as it leads to pardon, commences with conviction and contrition, and goes on to a repentant turning to the Lord. In the order which God has established, regeneration does not take place without this process. Conviction of the evil and danger of an unregenerate state must first be felt. God hath appointed this change to be effected in answer to our prayers; and acceptable prayer supposes that we desire the blessing we ask; that we accept of Christ as the appointed medium of access to God; that we feel and confess our own inability to attain what we ask from another; and that we exercise faith in the promises of God which convey the good we It is clear that none of these is regeneration, for they all suppose it to be a good in prospect, the object of prayer and eager desire. True it is, that deep and serious conviction for sin, the power to desire deliverance from it, the power to pray, the struggle against the corruptions of an unregenerate heart, are all proofs of a work of God in

Modern

691

the heart, and of an important moral change; but it is not this change, because regeneration is that renewal of our nature which gives us dominion over sin, and enables us to serve God, from love, and not merely from fear, and it is yet confessedly unattained, being still the object of search and eager desire. We are not yet “created anew unto good works,” which is as special and instant a work of God as justification, and for this reason, that it is not attained before the pardon of our sins, and always accompanies it. This last point may be proved, 1. From the nature of justification itself, which takes away the penalty of sin; but that penalty is not only obligation to punishment, but the loss of the sanctifying Spirit, and the curse of being left under the slavery of sin, and under the dominion of Satan. Regeneration is effected by this Spirit restored to us, and is a consequence of our pardon; for though justification in itself is the remission of sin, yet a justified state implies a change, both in our condition and in our disposition: in our condition, as we are in a state of life, not of death, of safety, not of condemnation; in our disposition, as regenerate and new creatures. 2. From Scripture, which affords us direct proof that regeneration is a concomitant of justification, “ If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature.” It is then the result of our entrance into that state in which we are said to be in Christ; and the meaning of this phrase is most satisfactorily explained by Rom. viii. 1, considered in connection with the preceding chapter, from which, in the division of the chapters, it ought not to have been separated. That chapter clearly describes the state of a person convinced and slain by the law applied by the Spirit. We may discover indeed, in this description, certain moral changes, as consenting to the law that it is good; delighting in it after the inward man; powerful desires; humble confession, &c. The state represented is, however, in fact, one of guilt, spiritual captivity, helplessness, and misery; a state of condemnation; and a state of bondage to sin. The opposite condition is that of a man “in Christ Jesus:” to him “there is no condemnation”; he is forgiven; the bondage to sin is broken; he “walks not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” To be in Christ, is, therefore, to be justified, and regeneration instantly follows. We see then the order of the Divine operation in individual experience: conviction of sin, helplessness and danger; faith; justification; and regeneration. The regenerate state is, also, called in Scripture sanctification; though a distinction is made by the Apostle Paul between that and being “sanctified wholly” a doctrine to be afterward considered. In this regenerate, or sanctified state, the former corruptions of the heart may remain, and strive for the mastery; but that which characterizes and distinguishes it from the state of a penitent before justification, before he is “in Christ,” is, that they are not even his inward habit; and that they have no dominion. Faith unites to Christ; by it we derive “grace and peace Christ,” from God the Father, and his Son Jesus and enjoy “the communion of the Holy Ghost ; “and this Spirit, as the sanctifying Spirit, is given to us to “abide with us, and to be in, us,” and then we walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit. Adoption is the second concomitant of justification, and is a large and comprehensive blessing. To suppose that the apostles take this term from the practice of the Greeks, Romans, and other nations who had the custom of adopting the children of others, and investing them with all the privileges of their natural offspring, is, probably, a refinement. It is much more likely that they had simply in view the obvious fact, that our sins had deprived us of our sonship, the favour of God, and our right to

692

A Global Church History

the inheritance of eternal life ; that we had become strangers, and aliens, and enemies; and that, upon our return to God, and reconciliation with him, our forfeited privileges were not only restored, but heightened through the paternal love of God, They could scarcely be forgetful of the affecting parable of the prodigal, son; and it is under the same simple view that St. Paul, quotes from the Old Testament, “wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you, and I will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord almighty.” Adoption, then, is that act by which we who were alienated, and enemies, and disinherited, are made the sons of God, and heirs of his eternal glory.” If children then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ”; where it is to be remarked, that it is not in our own right, nor in right of any work done in us, or which we ourselves do, though it be an evangelical work, that we become heirs, but jointly with him, and in his right.

4.12  James Orr, The Christian View of God and the World as Centring in the Incarnation on Revelation (1893) In entering on the task of unfolding the Christian view of Christianity the world under its positive aspects, and of considering its relations to modern thought, I begin where religion itself begins, with the existence of God. Christianity is a theistic system; this is its first postulate—the personal, ethical, self-revealing God. Volkmar has remarked that of monotheistic religions there are only three in the world—the Israelitish, the Christian, and the Mohammedan; and the last-named is derived from the other two. “So,” he adds, “is the ‘Israel of God’ the one truly religious, the religiously-select, people of antiquity; and ancient Israel remains for each worshipper of the one, therefore of the true God, who alone is worthy of the name, the classical people…. Christianity is the blossom and fruit of the true worship of God in Israel, which has become such for all mankind.” This limitation of Monotheism in religion to the peoples who have benefited by the Biblical teaching on this subject suggests its origin from a higher than human source; and refutes the contention of those who would persuade us that the monotheistic idea is the result of a long process of development through which the race necessarily passes, beginning with Fetishism, or perhaps Ghost worship, mounting to Polytheism, and ultimately subsuming the multitude of Divine powers under one all-controlling will. It will be time enough to accept this theory when, outside the line of the Biblical development, a single nation can be pointed to which has gone through these stages and reached this goal. I should like further at the outset to direct attention to the fact that in affirming the existence of God as Theism apprehends Him, we have already taken a great step into the supernatural, a step which should make many others easy. Many speak glibly of the denial of the supernatural, who never realise how much of the supernatural they have already admitted in affirming the existence of a personal, wise, holy, and beneficent Author of the universe. They may deny supernatural actions in the sense of miracles, but they have affirmed supernatural Being on a scale and in a degree which casts supernatural action quite into the shade. If God is a reality, the whole universe rests on a supernatural basis. A

Modern

693

supernatural presence pervades it; a supernatural power sustains it; a supernatural will operates in its forces; a supernatural wisdom appoints its ends. The whole visible order of things rests on another,—an unseen, spiritual, supernatural order,—and is the symbol, the manifestation, the Revelation of it. It is therefore only to be expected that the feeling should grow increasingly in the minds of thoughtful men that if this supernatural basis of the universe is to be acknowledged, a great deal more must be admitted besides. On the other hand, if the opposition to the supernatural is to be carried out to its logical issue, it must not stop with the denial of miracle, but must extend to the whole theistic conception. This is the secret of the intimate connection which I showed in last Lecture to exist between the idea of God and the idea of Revelation. A genuine Theism can never long remain a bare Theism. At the height to which Christianity has raised our thoughts of God, it is becoming constantly more difficult for minds that reflect seriously to believe in a God who does not manifest himself in word and deed. This is well brought out in a memorable conversation which Mr. Froude had with Mr. Carlyle in the last days of his life. “I once said to him,” says Mr. Froude, “not long before his death, that I could only believe in a God which did something. With a cry of pain, which I shall never forget, he said, ‘He does nothing.’” This simply means that if we are to retain the idea of a living God we must be in earnest with it. We must believe in a God who expresses Himself in living deeds in the history of mankind, who has a word and message for mankind, who, having the power and the will to bless mankind, does it. Theism, as I contended before, needs Revelation to complete it. Here, accordingly, it is, that the Christian view of God has its strength against any conception of God based on mere grounds of natural theology. It binds together, in the closest connection reciprocal relations, the two ideas of God and Revelation. The Christian doctrine, while including all that the word Theism ordinarily covers, is much more than a doctrine of simple Theism. God, in the Christian view, is a Being who enters into the history of the world in the most living way. He is not only actively present in the material universe,—ordering, guiding, controlling it,—but He enters also in the most direct way into the course of human history, working in it in His general and special providence, and by a gradual and progressive Revelation, which is, at the same time, practical discipline and education, giving to man that knowledge of Himself by which he is enabled to attain the highest ends of his own existence, and to co-operate freely in the carrying out of Divine ends; above all, discovering Himself as the God of Redemption, who, full of longsuffering and mercy, executes in loving deeds, and at infinite sacrifice, His gracious purpose for the salvation of mankind. The Christian view of God is thus bound up with all the remaining elements of the Christian system—with the idea of Revelation in Christ, with a kingdom of God to be realised through Christ, with Redemption from sin in Christ,— and it is inseparable from them. It is through these elements—not in its abstract character as Theism—that it takes the hold it does on the living convictions of men, and is felt by them to be something real. If I undertake to defend Theism, it is not Theism in dissociation from Revelation, but Theism as completed in the entire Christian view. It is scarcely necessary that I should prove that Christ’s teaching about God embraces all the affirmations commonly understood to be implied in a complete Theism. Christ’s doctrine of the Father is, indeed, entirely unmetaphysical. We meet with no terms such as absolute, infinite, unconditioned, first cause, etc., with which the student of philosophy is familiar. Yet all that these terms imply is undeniably recognised by Jesus in His teaching about God.

694

A Global Church History

4.13  Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, 2.2 (Chapter VII) on Election (1955) The election of Jesus Christ is the eternal choice and decision of God. And our first assertion tells us that Jesus Christ is the electing God. We must not ask concerning any other but Him. In no depth of the Godhead shall we encounter any other but Him. There is no such thing as Godhead in itself. Godhead is always the Godhead of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But the Father is the Father of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of Jesus Christ. There is no such thing as a decretum absolutum. There is no such thing as a will of God apart from the will of Jesus Christ. Thus Jesus Christ is not only the manifestitio and speculum nostrae praedestinationis. And He is this not simply in the sense that our election can be known to us and contemplated by us only through His election, as an election which, like His and with His, is made (or not made) by a secret and hidden will of God. On the contrary, Jesus Christ reveals to us our election as an election which is made by Him, by His will which is also the will of God. He tells us that He Himself is the One who elects us. In the very foreground of our existence in history we can and should cleave wholly and with full assurance to Him because in the eternal background of history, in the beginning with God, the only decree which was passed, the only Word which was spoken and which prevails, was the decision which was executed by Him. As we believe in Him and hear His Word and hold fast by His decision, we can know with a certainty which nothing can ever shake that we are the elect of God. Jesus Christ is elected man. In making this second assertion we are again at one with the tradition teaching. But the Christological assertion of tradition tells us no more than that in His humanity Jesus Christ was one of the elect. It was in virtue of His divinity that He was ordained and appointed Lord and Head of all others, the organ and instrument of the whole election of God and the revelation and reflection of the election of those who were elected with Him. Now without our first assertion we cannot maintain such a position. For where can Jesus Christ derive the authority and power to be Lord and Head of all others, and how can these others be elected “in Him,” and how can they see their election in Him the first of the elect, and how can they find in His election the assurance of their own, if He is only the object of election and not Himself its Subject, if He is only an elect creature and not primarily and supremely the electing Creator? Obviously in a strict and serious sense we can never say of any creature that other creatures are elect “in it,” that it is their Lord and Head, and that in its election they can and should have assurance of their own. How can a mere creature ever come to the point of standing in this way before God, above and on behalf of others? If the testimony of the Holy Scripture concerning the man Jesu Christ is true, that this man does stand before God above and on behalf of others, then this man is no mere creature but He is also the Creator, and His own electing as Creator must have preceded His election as creature. In one and the same person He must be both elected man and the electing God. Thus the second assertion rests on the first, and for the sake of the second the first ought never to be denied or passed over. Because of this interconnexion we must now formulate the second statement with rather more precision. It tells us that before all created reality, before al being and becoming in time, before time itself, in the pre-temporal eternity of God, the eternal divine decision as such has as its object and content the existence of this one created being, the man Jesus of Nazareth, and the work of this man

Modern

695

in His life and death, His humiliation and exaltation, His obedience and merit. It tells us further that in and with the existence of this man the eternal divine decision has as its object and content the execution of the divine covenant with man, the salvation of all men. In this function this man is the object of the eternal divine decision and foreordination. Jesus Christ, then, is not merely one of the elect but the elect of God. From the every beginning (from eternity itself), as elected man He does not stand alongside the rest of the elect, but before and above them as the one who is originally and properly the Elect. From the very beginning (from eternity itself), there are no other elect together with or apart from Him, but, as Eph. I tells us, only “in” Him. “In Him” does not simply mean with Him, but together with Him, in His company. Nor does it mean only through Him, by means of that which He has elected man can be and do for them. “In Him” means in His person, in His will, in His own divine choice, in the basic decision of God which He fulfills over against every man. What singles Him out from the rest of the elect, and yet also, and for the first time, unites Him with them, is the fact that as elected man He is also the electing God, electing them in His own humanity. In that He (as God) wills Himself (as man), He also wills them. And so they are elect “in Him,” in and with His own election. And so, too, His election must be distinguished from theirs. It must not be distinguished from theirs merely as the exampled and type, the revelation and reflection of their election. All this can, of course, be said quite truly of the election of Jesus Christ. But it must be said further that His election is the original and all-inclusive election; the election which is absolutely unique, but which in this very uniqueness is universally meaningful and efficacious, because it is the election of Him who Himself elects. Of non other of the elect can it be said that His election carries in it and with it the election of the rest. But that is what we must say of Jesus Christ when we think of Him in relation to the rest. And for this reason, as elected man, He is the Lord and Head of al the elect, the revelation and reflection of their election, and the organ and instrument of all divine electing. For this reason His election is indeed the type of all election. For this reason we must now learn really to recognize in Him not only the electing God but also the elected man.

4.14  Godfrey E. Phillips, “Naturalizing Christianity in India” (1920) It was said in the Preface that the religion of Christ is a seed, cast into the soil of the world. Both soil and seed help to determine the form of the life of any plant; and this is equally true of religion. Without changing its essential life or breaking its continuity with the Church of all lands and all ages, Indian Christianity will find new expressions of the life in Christ. That it should do so is almost the supreme need of the present hour. The worst criticism which can be levelled against the Church in India to-day is that its movements of life are so seldom spontaneous, and so often galvanized from without, with the result that the forms which they create have an inevitably foreign appearance. Large numbers of Indian people are refusing to give any serious examination to the claims of Christ because they are repelled at the outset by this unnecessary foreignness in the outward appearance of the Christian religion. What is the remedy? Most certainly not any attempt to modify Christianity with a view to making it more popular. That would be an unfaithfulness whose results would be fatal.

696

A Global Church History

Nor is it likely that much success will attend the efforts of any but Indian Christians themselves at what may be called the Indianization of Christianity, though foreign missionaries can give useful help by refusing to impose on India the whole paraphernalia of their Western Church organization, and by securing a clear course for Indian Christians who wish to try their own methods. There is no quick remedy, but only the way of growth. … The supreme need is still the faithful portrayal of Christ Himself, and the communication of the spirit which He imparts. Our main business, then, is the proclamation of the good news of Christ, evidenced by the power of a life which is obviously inspired by Him.

4.15  The Barmen Declaration (1934) Article 1. The inviolable foundation of the German Evangelical Church is the gospel of Jesus Christ as it is attested for us in Holy Scripture and brought to light again in the Confessions of the Reformation. The full powers that the Church needs for its mission are hereby determined and limited. Article 2(1). The German Evangelical Church is divided into member Churches (Landeskirchen). We, the representatives of Lutheran, Reformed, and United Churches, of free synods, church assemblies, and parish organizations united in the Confessional Synod of the German Evangelical Church, declare that we stand together on the ground of the German Evangelical Church as a federation of German Confessional churches. We are bound together by the confession of the one Lord of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. We publicly declare before all evangelical churches in Germany that what they hold in common in this Confession is grievously imperiled, and with it the unity of the German Evangelical Church. It is threatened by the teaching methods and actions of the ruling church party of the “German Christians” and of the church administration carried on by them. These have become more and more apparent during the first year of the existence of the German Evangelical Church. This threat consists in the fact that the theological basis, in which the German Evangelical Church is united, has been continually and systematically thwarted and rendered ineffective by alien principles, on the part of the leaders and spokesmen of the “German Christians” as well as on the part of the church administration. When these principles are held to be valid, then, according to all the Confessions in force among us, the church ceases to be the church and the German Evangelical Church, as a federation of Confessional churches, becomes intrinsically impossible. As members of Lutheran, Reformed, and United churches, we may and must speak with one voice in this matter today. Precisely because we want to be and to remain faithful to our various Confessions, we may not keep silent, since we believe that we have been given a common message to utter in a time of common need and temptation. We commend to God what this may mean for the interrelations of the Confessional churches. In view of the errors of the “German Christians” of the present Reich Church government which are devastating the church and are also thereby breaking up the unity of the German Evangelical Church, we confess the following evangelical truths:

Modern

697

1. “I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one comes to the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6.) “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber. . . . I am the door; if anyone enters by me, he will be saved.” (John 10:1, 9.) Jesus Christ, as he is attested for us in Holy Scripture, is the one Word of God which we have to hear and which we have to trust and obey in life and in death. We reject the false doctrine, as though the church could and would have to acknowledge as a source of its proclamation, apart from and besides this one Word of God, still other events and powers, figures and truths, as God’s revelation. 2. “Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption.” (I Cor. 1:30.) As Jesus Christ is God’s assurance of the forgiveness of all our sins, so in the same way and with the same seriousness is he also God’s mighty claim upon our whole life. Through him befalls us a joyful deliverance from the godless fetters of this world for a free, grateful service to his creatures. We reject the false doctrine, as though there were areas of our life in which we would not belong to Jesus Christ, but to other lords—areas in which we would not need justification and sanctification through him. 3. “Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body [is] joined and knit together.” (Eph. 4:15–16.) The Christian Church is the congregation of the brethren in which Jesus Christ acts presently as the Lord in Word and Sacrament through the Holy Spirit. As the church of pardoned sinners, it has to testify in the midst of a sinful world, with its faith as with its obedience, with its message as with its order, that it is solely his property, and that it lives and wants to live solely from his comfort and from his direction in the expectation of his appearance. We reject the false doctrine, as though the church were permitted to abandon the form of its message and order to its own pleasure or to changes in prevailing ideological and political convictions. 4. “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant.” (Matt. 20:25, 26.) The various offices in the church do not establish a dominion of some over the others; on the contrary, they are for the exercise of the ministry entrusted to and enjoined upon the whole congregation. We reject the false doctrine, as though the church, apart from this ministry, could and were permitted to give to itself, or allow to be given to it, special leaders vested with ruling powers. 5. “Fear God. Honor the emperor.” (I Peter 2:17.) Scripture tells us that, in the as yet unredeemed world in which the church also exists, the State has by divine appointment the task of providing for justice and peace. [It fulfills this task] by means of the threat and exercise of force, according to the measure of human judgment and human ability. The church acknowledges the benefit of this divine appointment in gratitude and reverence before him. It calls to mind the Kingdom of God, God’s commandment and righteousness, and thereby the

698

A Global Church History

responsibility both of rulers and of the ruled. It trusts and obeys the power of the Word by which God upholds all things. We reject the false doctrine, as though the State, over and beyond its special commission, should and could become the single and totalitarian order of human life, thus fulfilling the church’s vocation as well. We reject the false doctrine, as though the church, over and beyond its special commission, should and could appropriate the characteristics, the tasks, and the dignity of the State, thus itself becoming an organ of the State. 6. “Lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Matt. 28:20.) “The word of God is not fettered.” (II Tim. 2:9.) The church’s commission, upon which its freedom is founded, consists in delivering the message of the free grace of God to all people in Christ’s stead, and therefore in the ministry of his own Word and work through sermon and Sacrament. We reject the false doctrine, as though the church in human arrogance could place the Word and work of the Lord in the service of any arbitrarily chosen desires, purposes, and plans. The Confessional Synod of the German Evangelical Church declares that it sees in the acknowledgment of these truths and in the rejection of these errors the indispensable theological basis of the German Evangelical Church as a federation of Confessional churches. It invites all who are able to accept its declaration to be mindful of these theological principles in their decisions in church politics. It entreats all whom it concerns to return to the unity of faith, love, and hope.

4.16  Reinhold Niebuhr, The Nature and Destiny of Man on Sin (1943) [N.B. The section on C. S. Lewis in “Christianity and World Religions” from Theology from the Great Tradition should refer to “Is Theology Poetry,” here found in section 4.17, not 4.16.] The Christian doctrine of sin in its classical form offends both rationalists and moralists by maintaining the seemingly absurd position that man sins inevitably and by a fateful necessity but that he is nevertheless to be held responsible for actions which are prompted by an ineluctable fate. The explicit Scriptural foundation for the doctrine is given in Pauline teaching. On the one hand St. Paul insists that man’s sinful glorification of himself is without excuse: “So that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God” (Romans 1:20-21). And on the other hand he regards human sin as an inevitable defect, involved in or derived from the sin of the first man: “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Romans 5:12). Augustine manages to compress both of these assertions of the inevitability and of responsibility into one statement when he writes: “Man’s nature was indeed at first created faultless and without sin; by nature as man now has it into which every one who is born from Adam, wants the Physician, being no longer in a healthy state. All good qualities which it still possesses… it has from the most High God, its Creator and

Modern

699

Maker. But the flaws which darkens and weakens all these natural goods, it has not contracted from its blameless Creator… but from that original sin which it committed of its own free will. Here is the absurdity in a nutshell. Original sin, which is by definition an inherited corruption, or at least an inevitable one, is nevertheless not to be regarded as belonging to his essential nature and therefore is not outside the realm of his responsibility. Sin is natural for man in the sense that it is universal but not in the sense that it is necessary. Sin is to be regarded as neither a necessity of man’s nature nor yet as a pure caprice of his will. It proceeds rather from a defect of the will, for which reason is not completely deliberate; but since it is the will in which the defect is found and the will presupposes freedom the defect cannot be attributed to a taint in man’s nature. Here again Calvin is most precise: “Wherefore as Plato has been deservedly censured for imputing all sins to ignorance, so also we must reject the opinion of those who maintain that al sins proceed from deliberate malice and pravity. For we too much experience how frequently we fall into error even when our intentions are good. Our reason is overwhelmed with deceptions in so many forms…” The doctrine of original sin never escapes the logical absurdities in which these words of Calvin abound. Calvin remains within speaking terms of logic by insisting that sin is “an adventitious quality or accident” rather than a necessity. But if this were true it could not be inevitable as Calvin’s own doctrine assumes. Kierkegaard is more correct in his assertion that “sin comes as neither necessity nor accident.” Naturally a position which seems so untenable from a logical standpoint has been derided and scorned not only by non-Christian philosophers by but many Christian theologians. The whole crux of the doctrine of original sin lies in the seeming absurdity of the conception of freewill which underlies it. The Pauline doctrine, as elaborated by Augustine and the Reformers, insists on the one hand that the will of man is enslaved to sin and is incapable of fulfilling God’s law. It may be free, declares Augustine, only it is not free to do good. “How then do miserable men dare to be proud of the free-will before they are liberated or of their own strength after they are liberated?” Yet on the other hand the same Augustine insists upon the reality of free-will whenever he has cause to fear that the concept of original sin might threaten the idea of human responsibility: “Only let no man dare so to deny the freedom of the will as to desire to excuse sin.” Calvin is willing to accept Augustine’s emphasis upon free-will when it is intended to emphasize human responsibility and yet he rejects Peter Lombard’s definition, which is practically identical with Augustine’s, because he suspects that it contains the Catholic heresy of belief in some native endowment of man, which remains untainted by sin. Lombard’s assertion that man is free not in the sense that he has an equal choice between good and evil but in the sense that he does evil voluntarily and not by constraint is accepted by Calvin sneeringly: “That indeed is very true; but what end could it answer to decorate a thing so diminutive with a title so superb?” One could multiply examples in the thought of theologians of the Pauline tradition in which logical consistency is sacrificed in order to maintain on the one hand that the will is free in the sense that man is responsible for his sin, and is not free in the sense that he can, of his own will, do nothing but evil. Sometimes, as in Luther, the vehemence of the attack upon doctrines of free-will which seem to deny the inevitability of sin, is such that the inconsistence is eliminated in favour of a position which retains nothing of the doctrine of free-will but the term. In the words of Luther, “Free-will lies prostrate…for it must either be that the Kingdom of Satan in man is nothing at all and thus Christ will be made to lie; or if the Kingdom be such as Christ describes, free-will must be nothing but a beast of burden, the captive

700

A Global Church History

of Satan, which cannot be liberated unless the devil be first cast out by the finger of God.” In this, as in other instances, Luther seems to heighten the Augustinian doctrine in the interest of a greater consistency but at the price of imperiling one element in the paradox, the element of human responsibility. Free-will is denied to the point of offering man an excuse or his sin. It is obviously not so easy to state the doctrine of original sin without falling into logical pitfalls on the one hand and without obscuring factors in man’s moral experience on the other. The full complexity of the psychological facts which validate the doctrine of original sin must be analyzed, first in terms of the relation of temptation to the inevitability of sin. Such an analysis may make it plain why man sins inevitably, yet without escaping responsibility for his sin. The temptation to sin lies, as previously observed, in the human situation itself. This situation is that man as a spirit transcends the temporal and natural process in which he is involved and also transcends himself. Thus his freedom is the basis of his creativity but it is also his temptation. Since he is involved in the contingencies and necessities of the natural process on the one hand and since, on the other, he stands outside of them and foresees their caprices and perils, he is anxious. In his anxiety he seeks to transmute his finiteness into infinity, his weakness into strength, his dependence into independence. He seeks in other words to escape finiteness and weakness by a quantitative rather than qualitative development of his life. The quantitative antithesis of finiteness is infinity. The qualitative possibility of human life is its obedient subjection to the will of God. This possibility is expressed in the words of Jesus: “He that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.” (Mt. 10:39). But the self lacks the faith and trust to subject itself to God. It seeks to establish itself independently. It seeks to find its life and thereby loses it. For the self which it asserts is less than the true self. It is the self in all the contingent and arbitrary factors of its immediate situation. By asserting these contingent and arbitrary factors of an immediate situation, the self loses its true self. It increases its insecurity because it gives its immediate necessities a considering which they do not deserve and which they cannot have without disturbing the harmony of creation. By giving life a false centre, the self then destroys the real possibilities for itself and other. Hence the relation of injustice, increasing as it does the insecurity which pride was intended to overcome.

4.17  C. S. Lewis, “The Weight of Glory” and “Is Theology Poetry” “The Weight of Glory” (1942)

The negative ideal of Unselfishness carries with it the suggestion not primarily of securing good things for others, but of going without them ourselves, as if our abstinence and not their happiness was the important point. I do not think this is the Christian virtue of Love. The New Testament has lots to say about self-denial, but not about self-denial as an end in itself. We are told to deny ourselves and to take up our crosses in order that we may follow Christ; and nearly every description of what we shall ultimately find if we do so contains an appeal to desire. … There are different kinds of reward. There is the reward which has no natural connexion with the things you do to earn it, and is quite foreign to the desires that ought to accompany those things. …

Modern

701

The proper rewards are not simply tacked on to the activity for which they are given, but are the activity itself in consummation. There is also a third case, which is more complicated. An enjoyment of Greek poetry is certainly a proper … reward for learning Greek; but only those who have reached the stage of enjoying Greek poetry can tell from their own experience that this is so. The schoolboy beginning Greek grammar cannot look forward to his adult enjoyment of Sophocles as a lover looks forward to marriage …. But it is just in so far as he approaches the reward that he becomes able to desire it for its own sake; indeed, the power of so desiring it is itself a preliminary reward. The Christian, in relation to heaven, is in much the same position as this schoolboy. Those who have attained everlasting life in the vision of God doubtless know very well that it is no mere bribe, but the very consummation of their earthly discipleship; but we who have not yet attained it cannot know this in the same way, and cannot even begin to know it at all except by continuing to obey and finding the first reward of our obedience in our increasing power to desire the ultimate reward. … Now, if we are made for heaven, the desire for our proper place will be already in us, but not yet attached to the true object, and will even appear as the rival of that object. And this, I think, is just what we find. … In speaking of this desire for our own faroff country, which we find in ourselves even now, I feel a certain shyness. I am almost committing an indecency. I am trying to rip open the inconsolable secret in each one of you …; the secret also which pierces with such sweetness that when, in very intimate conversation, the mention of it becomes imminent, we grow awkward and affect to laugh at ourselves; the secret we cannot hide and cannot tell, though we desire to do both. … Almost our whole education has been directed to silencing this shy, persistent, inner voice; almost all our modem philosophies have been devised to convince us that the good of man is to be found on this earth. … We remain conscious of a desire which no natural happiness will satisfy. But is there any reason to suppose that reality offers any satisfaction to it? “Nor does the being hungry prove that we have bread.” But I think it may be urged that this misses the point. A man’s physical hunger does not prove that that man will get any bread; he may die of starvation on a raft in the Atlantic. But surely a man’s hunger does prove that he comes of a race which repairs its body by eating and inhabits a world where eatable substances exist. … Our sacred books give us some account of the object. It is, of course, a symbolical account. …. The natural appeal of this authoritative imagery is to me, at first, very small. At first sight it chills, rather than awakes, my desire. And that is just what I ought to expect. If Christianity could tell me no more of the far-off land than my own temperament led me to surmise already, then Christianity would be no higher than myself. … Meanwhile the cross comes before the crown and tomorrow is a Monday morning. A cleft has opened in the pitiless walls of the world, and we are invited to follow our great Captain inside. The following Him is, of course, the essential point. … And our charity must be a real and costly love, with deep feeling for the sins in spite of which we love the sinner—no mere tolerance or indulgence which parodies love as flippancy parodies merriment. Next to the Blessed Sacrament itself, your neighbour is the holiest object presented to your senses. If he is your Christian neighbour he is holy in almost the same way, for in him also Christ vere latitat—the glorifier and the glorified, Glory Himself, is truly hidden.

702

A Global Church History

“Is Theology Poetry” (1944) What light is really thrown on the truth or falsehood of Christian Theology by the occurrence of similar ideas in Pagan religion? … Supposing, for purposes of argument, that Christianity is true; then it could avoid all coincidence with other religions only on the supposition that all other religions are one hundred percent erroneous. … The truth is that the resemblances tell nothing either for or against the truth of Christian Theology. If you start from the assumption that the Theology is false, the resemblances are quite consistent with that assumption. One would expect creatures of the same sort, faced with the same universe, to make the same false guess more than once. But if you start with the assumption that the Theology is true, the resemblances fit in equally well. Theology, while saying that a special illumination has been vouchsafed to Christians and (earlier) to Jews, also says that there is some divine illumination vouchsafed to all men. The Divine light, we are told, “lighteneth every man.” We should, therefore, expect to find in the imagination of great Pagan teachers and myth makers some glimpse of that theme which we believe to be the very plot of the whole cosmic: story—the theme of incarnation, death, and rebirth. And the differences between the Pagan Christs (Balder, Osiris, etc.) and the Christ Himself is much what we should expect to find. The Pagan stories are all about someone dying and rising, either every year, or else nobody knows where and nobody knows when. The Christian story is about a historical personage, whose execution can be dated pretty accurately, under a named Roman magistrate, and with whom the society that He founded is in a continuous relation down to the present day. It is not the difference between falsehood and truth. It is the difference between a real event on the one hand and dim dreams or premonitions of that same event on the other. It is like watching something come gradually into focus; first it hangs in the clouds of myth and ritual, vast and vague, then it condenses, grows hard and in a sense small, as a historical event in first century Palestine. This gradual focussing goes on even inside the Christian tradition itself. The earliest stratum of the Old Testament contains many truths in a form which I take to be legendary, or even mythical—hanging in the clouds, but gradually the truth condenses, becomes more and more historical. From things like Noah’s Ark or the sun standing still upon Ajalon, you come down to the court memoirs of King David. Finally you reach the New Testament and history reigns supreme, and the Truth is incarnate. And “incarnate” is here more than a metaphor. It is not an accidental resemblance that what, from the point of view of being, is stated in the form “God became Man,” should involve, from the point of view of human knowledge, the statement “Myth became Fact.” The essential meaning of all things came down from the “heaven” of myth to the “earth” of history. In so doing, it partly emptied itself of its glory, as Christ emptied Himself of His glory to be Man. That is the real explanation of the fact that Theology, far from defeating its rivals by a superior poetry, is, in a superficial but quite real sense, less poetical than they. That is why the New Testament is, in the same sense, less poetical than the Old. … That is the humiliation of myth into fact, of God into Man; what is everywhere and always, imageless and ineffable, only to be glimpsed in dream and symbol and the acted poetry of ritual becomes small, solid—no bigger than a man who can lie asleep in a rowing boat on the Lake of Galilee. You may say that this, after all, is a still deeper poetry. I will not contradict you. The humiliation leads to a greater glory.

Modern

703

4.18  C. S. Song, Third-Eye Theology on Christian Theology in Asia (1979) A well-known passage in the book of the prophet Joel can be cited as the point of departure for our discussion in this book. It reads: Therefore the day shall come When I will pour out my spirit on all mankind; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your old men will dream dreams And your young men see visions; I will pour out my spirit in those days Even upon slaves and slave-girls (Joel 2:28-29).

The Spirit of God and all human flesh—these are the two principal actors in this prophetic utterance. When these two actors step onto the stage before the silent but intensely expectant audience of the whole universe, the dark silence that has dominated the primordial world is broken. All human flesh becomes infused with the divine Spirit. This Spirit of God is contagious as well as creative. Men and women, regardless of age, sex, or social status, begin to dream dreams, see visions, and utter prophecy. They history of the Spirit-endowed human beings is thus begun. History as we know it is made up of the dreams, visions, and prophecies that human beings are enabled to make through the Spirit of God. History, in its most far-reaching sense, is the movement of the human spirit under the irresistible impact of the divine Spirit. It is the glorious and at the same time painful story of human spirituality caught in the bondage of the divine Spirit trying to realize its dreams, visions, and prophecies. If this is true, the scope of Christian theology is much broader and its contents much more varied than we normally think. Christian theology, within western theological traditions, has to a large extent limited itself to the explication of the Christian faith handed down from the early church. The spirituality with which theology wrestles is the spirituality largely confined to and understood in ecclesiastical terms. The subject matter of theology, in other words, is “Christian” spirituality. It is the traditions of the church that constitute the contents of theological endeavors. And on account of the fact that Christianity has played an enormous role in western civilization, the marriage between theology and western normal thought and life inevitably becomes the implicit assumptions of doing theology in the West. It is the offspring of this marriage between theology and western civilization that have largely defined the rules of the game called Christian theology. In recent years, however, it has become increasingly obvious to many thinking people, both in the East and in the West, that the theology constructed on the marriage between Christianity and western civilization cannot serve the spirituality that grows, develops, and creates outside the framework of Constantinian Christianity. This does not deny the contributions of traditional academic theologians in the West to their churches and societies. Of course not. They have helped shape the spirituality that has blossomed into western culture. But it cannot be denied that they are limited in their ability to interpret the spirituality that lies beyond their knowledge and experience.

704

A Global Church History

But the point I want to make is this: the Christian Gospel that seeks to lead people to the God of love manifested in Jesus Christ must find its echoes and responses from within their spirituality. By spirituality I do not me merely something derived from a religious faith or belief. This is spirituality in a narrow sense. What I mean by spirituality is much broader, as should be already evident from our discussion so far. Spirituality is the totality of being that expresses itself in ways of life, modes of thinking, patterns of behavior and conduct, and attitudes toward the mystery that surrounds our immediate world and that beckons us on to the height beyond heights, to the depth below depths, and to the light beyond lights. Such spirituality is present both in the East and the West. And the discovery of such spirituality in the essence of Asian cultures will open the eyes of Christians to see something new in their understanding of the Gospel. It will enable them to discover fresh insights into how God is at work in nations and peoples alien to western Christian culture. Doing theology with an Asian spirituality thus may bring about a conversion in Christians as well as in people of other faiths. This should prove to be an enrichment to the churches within the western cultural tradition.

4.19  Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption on Human Nature (1952) In Jesus Christ God meets me as the One who imparts Himself to me in freedom, since as Holy Love He claims me wholly for Himself. It is as such that He reveals Himself to me. But the fact that He so reveals Himself to me means that He also at the same time reveals myself to me: that is, He shows me my relation to Himself. He is the One who wills to have from me a free response to His love, a response which gives back love for love, a living echo, a living reflection of His glory. I cannot meet the holy loving God in Christ without knowing this about myself. Once more, both are correlated and connected; to be aware of the holy Loving God, and to be aware of the fact that my nature is created by God, comes to the same thing. It is thus, and not otherwise, that I am intended to be by the Creator. This generous will which claims me, of the God who wills to glorify Himself, and to impart Himself, is the cause of my being, and the fundamental reason for my being what I am, and as I am. Now we must go into some particular points in greater detail. God, who wills to glorify Himself and to impart Himself, wills man to be a creature who responds to His call of love with a grateful, responsive love. God wills to possess man as a free being. God wills a creature which is not only, like other creatures, a mere object of His will, as if it were a reflector of His glory as Creator. He desires from us an active and spontaneous response in our “reflecting”; He who creates through the Word, who as Spirit creates in freedom, wills to have a “reflex” which is more than a “reflex,” which is an answer to His Word, a free spiritual act, a correspondence to His speaking. Only thus can His love really impart itself as love. For love can only impart itself where it is received in love. Hence the heart of the creaturely existence of man is freedom, selfhood, to be an “I,” a person. Only an “I” can answer a “though,” only a Self which is self-determining can freely answer God. An automaton does not respond; an animal, in contradistinction from an automaton, may indeed re-act, but it cannon

Modern

705

re-spond. It is not capable of speech, of free self-determination, it cannot stand at a distance from itself, and is therefore not re-sponsible. The free Self, capable of self-determination, belongs to the original constitution of man as created by God. But from the very outset this freedom is limited. It is not primary but secondary. Indeed, it does not posit itself—like the Self of Idealism—but it is posited; it is not a se but a Deo. Hence although man’s answer is free, it is also limited. God wills my freedom, it is true, because He wills to glorify Himself, and to give Himself. He wills my freedom in order to make this answer possible; my freedom is therefore, from the outset, a responsible one. Responsibility is restricted freedom, which distinguishes human from divine freedom; and it is a restriction which is also free—and this distinguishes our human limited freedom from that of the rest of creation. The animals, and God, have no responsibility—the animals because they are below the level of responsibility, and God, because He is above it; the animals because they have no freedom, and God because He has absolute Freedom. Man, however, has a limited freedom. This is the heart of his being as man, and it is the “condition” on which he possesses freedom. In other words, this limited human freedom is the very purpose for which man has been created: he possesses this “freedom” in order that he may respond to God, in such a way that through this response God may glorify Himself, and give Himself to His creature. Now, however, it is of the essence of this responsible freedom that its purpose may or may not be fulfilled. This open question is the consequence of freedom. Thus it is part of the divinely created nature of man that it should have both a formal and a material aspect. The fact that man must respond that he is responsible, is fixed; no amount of human freedom, not of the sinful misuse of freedom, can alter this fact. Man is and remains, responsible, whatever his personal attitude to his Creator may be. He may deny his responsibility, and he may misuse his freedom, but h cannot get rid of his responsibility. Responsibility is part of the unchangeable structure of man’s being. That is: the actual existence of man—of every man, not only the man who believes in Christ – consists in the positive fact that he has been made to respond—to God. Whatever kind of response man may make to the call of the Creator—in any case he does respond, even if his reply is: “I do not know any Creator, and I will not obey any God.” Even this answer is an answer, and it comes under the inherent law of responsibility. This formal essential structure cannot be lost. It is identical with human existence as such, and indeed with the quality of being which all human beings possess equally; it only ceases where true human living ceases—on the borderline of imbecility or madness. In the Old Testament, the Bible describes this formal aspect of human nature by the concept of “being made in the image of God.” In the thought of the Old Testament the fact that man has been “made in the Image of God” means something which man can never lose; even when he sins he cannot lost it. This conception is therefore unaffected by the contrast between sin and grace, or sin and obedience, precisely because it describes the “formal” or “structural,” and not the “material” aspect of human nature. Then how is it possible to perceive reflected similarity in this formal likeness to God? The similarity consists in being “subject,” being “person,” freedom. Certainly, man has only a limited freedom, because he is responsible, but he has freedom; only so can he be responsible. Thus the formal aspect of man’s nature, as a being “made in the image of God,” denotes his being as Subject, or his freedom; it is this which differentiates man from the lower creation; this constitutes his specifically

706

A Global Church History

human quality; it is this which is given to him—and to him alone—and under all circumstances—by Divine appointment. The New Testament simply presupposes this fact that man—in his very nature—has been “made in the image of God”; it does not develop this any further. To the Apostles what matters most is the “material” realization of this God-given quality; that is, that man should really give the answer which the Creator intends, the response in which God is honoured, and in which He fully imparts Himself, the response of reverent, grateful love, given not only in words, but in his whole life. The New Testament, in its doctrine of the Imago Dei, tell us that this right answer has not been given; that a quite different one has been given instead, in which the glory is not given to God, but to men and to creatures, in which man does not live in the love of God, but seeks himself. Secondly, the New Testament is the proclamation of what God has done in order that He may turn this false answer into the true one. Here, therefore, the fact than man has been “made in the image of God” is spoken of as having been lost, and indeed as wholly, and not partially lost. Man no longer possesses this Imago Dei; but it is restored through Him, through whom God glorifies and gives Himself: through Jesus Christ. The restoration of the Imago Dei, the new creation of the original image of God in man, is identical with the gift of God in Jesus Christ received by faith. The Imago Dei, in the New Testament, “material” sense of the word, is identical with “being-in-the Word” of God. This means that man does not possess his true being in himself, but in God. Thus it is not a fact which can be discovered in man, something which can be found through introspection. It is not the “Thou” of Idealistic philosophy, but it is the “I” derived from the “Thou.” Hence it cannot be understood by looking at man, but only by looking at God, or more exactly, by looking at the Word of God. To be true man, man must not be “himself,” and in order to understand his true being he must not look at himself. Our true being is “extra nos et alienum nobis” (Luther); it is “eccentric” and “ecstatic”; man is only true human when he is in God. Then, and then only, is he truly “himself.” From the standpoint of sinful man the Imago Dei is existence in Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh. Jesus Christ is the true Imago Dei, which man regains when through faith he is “in Jesus Christ.” Faith in Jesus Christ is therefore the restauratioimaginis, because he restores to us that existence in the Word of God which we had lost through sin. When man enters into the love of God revealed in Christ he becomes truly human. True human existence is existence in the love of God. Thus also the true freedom of man is complete dependence upon God. Deo servire libertas (Augustine). The words “Whose service is perfect freedom” express the essence of Christian faith. True humanity is not genius but love, that love which man does not possess from or in himself but which he receives from God, who is love. True humanity does not spring from the full development of human potentialities, but it arises through the reception, the perception, and the acceptance of the love of God, and it develops and is preserved by “abiding” in communion with the God who reveals Himself as Love. Hence separation from God, sin, is the loss of the true human quality, and the destruction of the quality of “being made in the Image of God,” which simply consist in the fact that God’s love is reflected in the human heart. Since through faith in Jesus Christ man once more receives God’s Primal Word of love, once more the divine Image (Urbild) is reflected in him,1 the lost Imago Dei is restored. The Imago Dei, in the sense of true humanity—is thus identical with the true attitude of man in relation to God, in accordance with God’s purpose in Creation. Your attitude to God determines what you are. If your attitude towards God

Modern

707

is “right,” in harmony with the purpose of Creation, that is, if in faith you receive the love of God, then you are right; if your attitude to God is wrong, then you are wrong, as a whole. It is evident that our though will become terribly muddled if the two ideas of the Imago Dei—the “formal” and “structural” one of the Old Testament, and the “material” one of the New Testament—are either confused with one another, or treated as identical. The result will be: either that we must deny that the sinner possesses the quality of humanity at all; or, that which makes him a human being must be severed from the Imago Dei; or, the loss of the Imago, in the material sense must be regarded merely as an obscuring, or a partial corruption of the Imago, which lessens the heinousness of sin. All these three false solutions disappear once the distinction is rightly made.

4.20  Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from the Birmingham Jail (1963) Birmingham City Jail April 16, 1963 My dear Fellow Clergymen, While confined here in the Birmingham City Jail, I came across your recent statement calling our present activities “unwise and untimely.” Seldom, if ever, do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would be engaged in little else in the course of the day and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine goodwill and your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I would like to answer your statement in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms. … Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial “outside agitator” idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere in this country. You deplore the demonstrations that are presently taking place in Birmingham. But I am sorry that your statement did not express a similar concern for the conditions that brought the demonstrations into being. I am sure that each of you would want to go beyond the superficial social analyst who looks merely at effects, and does not grapple with underlying causes. I would not hesitate to say that it is unfortunate that so-called demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham at this time, but I would say in more emphatic terms that it is even more unfortunate that the white power structure of this city left the Negro community with no other alternative. In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: (1) Collection of the facts to determine whether injustices are alive; (2) Negotiation; (3) Self-purification; and (4) Direct action. We have gone through all of these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying of the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of police brutality is known in every section of this country. Its unjust treatment of

708

A Global Church History

Negroes in the courts is a notorious reality. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than any city in this nation. These are the hard, brutal, and unbelievable facts. On the basis of these conditions Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the political leaders consistently refused to engage in good faith negotiation. Then came the opportunity last September to talk with some of the leaders of the economic community. In these negotiating sessions certain promises were made by the merchants—such as the promise to remove the humiliating racial signs from the stores. On the basis of these promises Rev. Shuttlesworth and the leaders of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights agreed to call a moratorium on any type of demonstrations. As the weeks and months unfolded we realized that we were the victims of a broken promise. The signs remained. As in so many experiences of the past we were confronted with blasted hopes, and the dark shadow of a deep disappointment settled upon us. So we had no alternative except that of preparing for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and national community. We were not unmindful of the difficulties involved. So we decided to go through a process of self-purification. We started having workshops on nonviolence and repeatedly asked ourselves the questions, “Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?” “Are you able to endure the ordeals of jail?” … This reveals that we did not move irresponsibly into direct action. … After this we felt that direct action could be delayed no longer. You may well ask, Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches, etc.? Isn’t negotiation a better path?” You are exactly right in your call for negotiation. Indeed, this is the purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. … Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must see the need of having nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. So the purpose of the direct action is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. We, therefore, concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in the tragic attempt to live in monologue rather than dialogue. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. History is the long and tragic story of the fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups are more immoral than individuals. We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly I have never yet engaged in a direct action movement that was “well timed,” according to the timetable of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. … We must come to see with the distinguished jurist of yesterday that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.” We have waited for more than three hundred and forty years for our constitutional and God-given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jet-like speed toward

Modern

709

the goal of political independence, and we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward the gaining of a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. I guess it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say wait. But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick, brutalize, and even kill your black brothers and sisters with impunity; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an air-tight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year-old daughter why she can’t go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her little eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see the depressing clouds of inferiority begin to form in her little mental sky, and see her begin to distort her little personality by unconsciously developing a bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son asking in agonizing pathos: “Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?”; when you take a cross-country drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading “white” men and “colored”; when your first name becomes “nigger” and your middle name becomes “boy” (however old you are) and your last name becomes “John,” and when your wife and mother are never given the respected title “Mrs.”; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tip-toe stance never quite knowing what to expect next, and plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of “nobodiness”—then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into an abyss of injustice where they experience the bleakness of corroding despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, it is rather strange and paradoxical to find us consciously breaking laws. One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer is found in the fact that there are two types of laws: There are just laws and there are unjust laws. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with Saint Augustine that “An unjust law is no law at all.” Now what is the difference between the two? How does one determine when a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of Saint Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. To use the words of Martin Buber, the great Jewish philosopher, segregation substitutes an “I-it” relationship for an “I-thou” relationship, and ends

710

A Global Church History

up relegating persons to the status of things. So segregation is not only politically, economically, and sociologically unsound, but it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Isn’t segregation an existential expression of man’s tragic separation, an expression of his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? So I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court because it is morally right, and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances because they are morally wrong. Let us turn to a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a majority inflicts on a minority that is not binding on itself. This is difference made legal. On the other hand a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. … I hope you can see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law as the rabid segregationist would do. This would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do it openly, lovingly (not hatefully as the white mothers did in New Orleans when they were seen on television screaming “nigger, nigger, nigger”) and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law. Of course there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was seen sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar because a higher moral law was involved. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks, before submitting to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. We can never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal.” It was “illegal” to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany. But I am sure that, if I had lived in Germany during that time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers even though it was illegal. If I lived in a communist country today where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I believe I would openly advocate disobeying these anti-religious laws. … Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The urge for freedom will eventually come. This is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom; something without has reminded him that he can gain it. Consciously and unconsciously, he has been swept in by what the Germans call the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa, and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America, and the Caribbean, he is moving with a sense of cosmic urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. Recognizing this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand public demonstrations. The Negro has many pent-up resentments and latent frustrations. He has to get them out. So let him march sometime; let him have his prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; understand why he must have sit-ins and freedom rides. If his repressed emotions do not come out in these nonviolent ways, they will come out in ominous expressions of violence. This is not a threat; it is a fact of history. So I have not said to my people, “Get rid of your discontent.” But I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled

Modern

711

through the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. Now this approach is being dismissed as extremist. I must admit that I was initially disappointed in being so categorized. … Let me rush on to mention my other disappointment. I have been so greatly disappointed with the white Church and its leadership. Of course there are some notable exceptions. … I had the strange feeling when I was suddenly catapulted into the leadership of the bus protest in Montgomery several years ago that we would have the support of the white Church. I felt that the white ministers, priests, and rabbis of the South would be some of our strongest allies. Instead, some have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leaders; all too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of the stained glass windows. … There was a time when the Church was very powerful. It was during that period when the early Christians rejoiced when they were deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the Church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Wherever the early Christians entered a town the power structure got disturbed and immediately sought to convict them for being “disturbers of the peace” and “outside agitators.” But they went on with the conviction that they were “a colony of heaven” and had to obey God rather than man. They were small in number but big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be “astronomically intimidated.” They brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contest. Things are different now. The contemporary Church is so often a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. It is so often the arch-supporter of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the Church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the Church’s silent and often vocal sanction of things as they are. But the judgment of God is upon the Church as never before. If the Church of today does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early Church, it will lose its authentic ring, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. I am meeting young people every day whose disappointment with the Church has risen to outright disgust. … If I have said anything in this letter that is an overstatement of the truth and is indicative of an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything in this letter that is an understatement of the truth and is indicative of my having a patience that makes me patient with anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me. I hope this letter finds you strong in the faith. I also hope that circumstances will soon make it possible for me to meet each of you, not as an integrationist or a civil rights leader, but as a fellow clergyman and a Christian brother. Let us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear-drenched communities and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty. Yours for the cause of Peace and Brotherhood, Martin Luther King, Jr.

712

A Global Church History

4.21  Vatican II, Gaudium et spes (1965) on Human Nature 1. The joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of the men of this age, especially those who are poor or in any way afflicted, these are the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of the followers of Christ. Indeed, nothing genuinely human fails to raise an echo in their hearts. For theirs is a community composed of men. United in Christ, they are led by the Holy Spirit in their journey to the Kingdom of their Father and they have welcomed the news of salvation which is meant for every man. That is why this community realizes that it is truly linked with mankind and its history by the deepest of bonds. 12. According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown. But what is man? About himself he has expressed, and continues to express, many divergent and even contradictory opinions. In these he often exalts himself as the absolute measure of all things or debases himself to the point of despair. The result is doubt and anxiety. The Church certainly understands these problems. Endowed with light from God, she can offer solutions to them, so that man’s true situation can be portrayed and his defects explained, while at the same time his dignity and destiny are justly acknowledged. For Sacred Scripture teaches that man was created “to the image of God,” is capable of knowing and loving his Creator, and was appointed by Him as master of all earthly creatures that he might subdue them and use them to God’s glory. “What is man that you should care for him? You have made him little less than the angels, and crowned him with glory and honor. You have given him rule over the works of your hands, putting all things under his feet” (Ps. 8:5-7). But God did not create man as a solitary, for from the beginning “male and female he created them” (Gen. 1:27). Their companionship produces the primary form of interpersonal communion. For by his innermost nature man is a social being, and unless he relates himself to others he can neither live nor develop his potential. Therefore, as we read elsewhere in Holy Scripture God saw “all that he had made, and it was very good” (Gen. 1:31). 13. Although he was made by God in a state of holiness, from the very onset of his history man abused his liberty, at the urging of the Evil One. Man set himself against God and sought to attain his goal apart from God. Although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, but their senseless minds were darkened and they served the creature rather than the Creator. What divine revelation makes known to us agrees with experience. Examining his heart, man finds that he has inclinations toward evil too, and is engulfed by manifold ills which cannot come from his good Creator. Often refusing to acknowledge God as his beginning, man has disrupted also his proper relationship to his own ultimate goal as well as his whole relationship toward himself and others and all created things. Therefore man is split within himself. As a result, all of human life, whether individual or collective, shows itself to be a dramatic struggle between good and evil, between light and darkness. Indeed, man finds that by himself he is incapable of battling the assaults of evil successfully, so that everyone feels as though he is bound by chains. But the Lord Himself came to free and strengthen man, renewing him

Modern

713

inwardly and casting out that “prince of this world” (John 12:31) who held him in the bondage of sin. For sin has diminished man, blocking his path to fulfillment. The call to grandeur and the depths of misery, both of which are a part of human experience, find their ultimate and simultaneous explanation in the light of this revelation. 14. Though made of body and soul, man is one. Through his bodily composition he gathers to himself the elements of the material world; thus they reach their crown through him, and through him raise their voice in free praise of the Creator. For this reason man is not allowed to despise his bodily life, rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and honorable since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day. Nevertheless, wounded by sin, man experiences rebellious stirrings in his body. But the very dignity of man postulates that man glorify God in his body and forbid it to serve the evil inclinations of his heart. Now, man is not wrong when he regards himself as superior to bodily concerns, and as more than a speck of nature or a nameless constituent of the city of man. For by his interior qualities he outstrips the whole sum of mere things. He plunges into the depths of reality whenever he enters into his own heart; God, Who probes the heart, awaits him there; there he discerns his proper destiny beneath the eyes of God. Thus, when he recognizes in himself a spiritual and immortal soul, he is not being mocked by a fantasy born only of physical or social influences, but is rather laying hold of the proper truth of the matter. 15. Man judges rightly that by his intellect he surpasses the material universe, for he shares in the light of the divine mind. By relentlessly employing his talents through the ages he has indeed made progress in the practical sciences and in technology and the liberal arts. In our times he has won superlative victories, especially in his probing of the material world and in subjecting it to himself. Still he has always searched for more penetrating truths, and finds them. For his intelligence is not confined to observable data alone, but can with genuine certitude attain to reality itself as knowable, though in consequence of sin that certitude is partly obscured and weakened. The intellectual nature of the human person is perfected by wisdom and needs to be, for wisdom gently attracts the mind of man to a quest and a love for what is true and good. Steeped in wisdom. man passes through visible realities to those which are unseen. Our era needs such wisdom more than bygone ages if the discoveries made by man are to be further humanized. For the future of the world stands in peril unless wiser men are forthcoming. It should also be pointed out that many nations, poorer in economic goods, are quite rich in wisdom and can offer noteworthy advantages to others. It is, finally, through the gift of the Holy Spirit that man comes by faith to the contemplation and appreciation of the divine plan. 16. In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged. Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in

714

A Global Church History

his depths. In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor. In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. Hence the more right conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality. Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin. 17. Only in freedom can man direct himself toward goodness. Our contemporaries make much of this freedom and pursue it eagerly; and rightly to be sure. Often however they foster it perversely as a license for doing whatever pleases them, even if it is evil. For its part, authentic freedom is an exceptional sign of the divine image within man. For God has willed that man remain “under the control of his own decisions,” so that he can seek his Creator spontaneously, and come freely to utter and blissful perfection through loyalty to Him. Hence man’s dignity demands that he act according to a knowing and free choice that is personally motivated and prompted from within, not under blind internal impulse nor by mere external pressure. Man achieves such dignity when, emancipating himself from all captivity to passion, he pursues his goal in a spontaneous choice of what is good, and procures for himself through effective and skilful action, apt helps to that end. Since man’s freedom has been damaged by sin, only by the aid of God’s grace can he bring such a relationship with God into full flower. Before the judgement seat of God each man must render an account of his own life, whether he has done good or evil. 18. It is in the face of death that the riddle a human existence grows most acute. Not only is man tormented by pain and by the advancing deterioration of his body, but even more so by a dread of perpetual extinction. He rightly follows the intuition of his heart when he abhors and repudiates the utter ruin and total disappearance of his own person. He rebels against death because he bears in himself an eternal seed which cannot be reduced to sheer matter. All the endeavors of technology, though useful in the extreme, cannot calm his anxiety; for prolongation of biological life is unable to satisfy that desire for higher life which is inescapably lodged in his breast. Although the mystery of death utterly beggars the imagination, the Church has been taught by divine revelation and firmly teaches that man has been created by God for a blissful purpose beyond the reach of earthly misery. In addition, that bodily death from which man would have been immune had he not sinned will be vanquished, according to the Christian faith, when man who was ruined by his own doing is restored to wholeness by an almighty and merciful Saviour. For God has called man and still calls him so that with his entire being he might be joined to Him in an endless sharing of a divine life beyond all corruption. Christ won this victory when He rose to life, for by His death He freed man from death. Hence to every thoughtful man a solidly established faith provides the answer to his anxiety about what the future holds for him. At the same time faith gives him the power to be united in Christ with his loved ones who have already been snatched away by death; faith arouses the hope that they have found true life with God.

Modern

715

4.22  Vatican II Lumen Gentium (1965) on the Church 5. The mystery of the holy Church is manifest in its very foundation. The Lord Jesus set it on its course by preaching the Good News, that is, the coming of the Kingdom of God, which, for centuries, had been promised in the Scriptures: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand.” In the word, in the works, and in the presence of Christ, this kingdom was clearly open to the view of men. The Word of the Lord is compared to a seed which is sown in a field; those who hear the Word with faith and become part of the little flock of Christ, have received the Kingdom itself. Then, by its own power the seed sprouts and grows until harvest time. The Miracles of Jesus also confirm that the Kingdom has already arrived on earth: “If I cast out devils by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.” Before all things, however, the Kingdom is clearly visible in the very Person of Christ, the Son of God and the Son of Man, who came “to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many:” When Jesus, who had suffered the death of the cross for mankind, had risen, He appeared as the one constituted as Lord, Christ and eternal Priest, and He poured out on His disciples the Spirit promised by the Father. From this source the Church, equipped with the gifts of its Founder and faithfully guarding His precepts of charity, humility and self-sacrifice, receives the mission to proclaim and to spread among all peoples the Kingdom of Christ and of God and to be, on earth, the initial budding forth of that kingdom. While it slowly grows, the Church strains toward the completed Kingdom and, with all its strength, hopes and desires to be united in glory with its King. 6. In the old Testament the revelation of the Kingdom is often conveyed by means of metaphors. In the same way the inner nature of the Church is now made known to us in different images taken either from tending sheep or cultivating the land, from building or even from family life and betrothals, the images receive preparatory shaping in the books of the Prophets. The Church is a sheepfold whose one and indispensable door is Christ. It is a flock of which God Himself foretold He would be the shepherd, and whose sheep, although ruled by human shepherds; are nevertheless continuously led and nourished by Christ Himself, the Good Shepherd and the Prince of the shepherds, who gave His life for the sheep. The Church is a piece of land to be cultivated, the tillage of God. On that land the ancient olive tree grows whose holy roots were the Prophets and in which the reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles has been brought about and will be brought about. That land, like a choice vineyard, has been planted by the heavenly Husbandman. The true vine is Christ who gives life and the power to bear abundant fruit to the branches, that is, to us, who through the Church remain in Christ without whom we can do nothing. Often the Church has also been called the building of God. The Lord Himself compared Himself to the stone which the builders rejected, but which was made into the cornerstone. On this foundation the Church is built by the apostles, and from it the Church receives durability and consolidation. This edifice has many names to describe it: the house of God in which dwells His family; the household of God in the Spirit; the dwelling place of God among men; and, especially, the holy temple. This Temple, symbolized in places of worship built out of stone, is praised by the Holy Fathers and, not without reason, is compared in the liturgy to the Holy City, the New Jerusalem. As living stones we here on earth

716

A Global Church History

are built into it. John contemplates this holy city coming down from heaven at the renewal of the world as a bride made ready and adorned for her husband. The Church, further, “that Jerusalem which is above” is also called “our mother.” It is described as the spotless spouse of the spotless Lamb, whom Christ “loved and for whom He delivered Himself up that He might sanctify her,” whom He unites to Himself by an unbreakable covenant, and whom He unceasingly “nourishes and cherishes,” and whom, once purified, He willed to be cleansed and joined to Himself, subject to Him in love and fidelity, and whom, finally, He filled with heavenly gifts for all eternity, in order that we may know the love of God and of Christ for us, a love which surpasses all knowledge. The Church, while on earth it journeys in a foreign land away from the Lord, is like in exile. It seeks and experiences those things which are above, where Christ is seated at the right-hand of God, where the life of the Church is hidden with Christ in God until it appears in glory with its Spouse. 7. In the human nature united to Himself the Son of God, by overcoming death through His own death and resurrection, redeemed man and re-molded him into a new creation. By communicating His Spirit, Christ made His brothers, called together from all nations, mystically the components of His own Body. In that Body the life of Christ is poured into the believers who, through the sacraments, are united in a hidden and real way to Christ who suffered and was glorified. Through Baptism we are formed in the likeness of Christ: “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” In this sacred rite a oneness with Christ’s death and resurrection is both symbolized and brought about: “For we were buried with Him by means of Baptism into death”; and if “we have been united with Him in the likeness of His death, we shall be so in the likeness of His resurrection also.” Really partaking of the body of the Lord in the breaking of the Eucharistic bread, we are taken up into communion with Him and with one another. “Because the bread is one, we though many, are one body, all of us who partake of the one bread.” In this way all of us are made members of His Body, “but severally members one of another.” As all the members of the human body, though they are many, form one body, so also are the faithful in Christ. Also, in the building up of Christ’s Body various members and functions have their part to play. There is only one Spirit who, according to His own richness and the needs of the ministries, gives His different gifts for the welfare of the Church. What has a special place among these gifts is the grace of the apostles to whose authority the Spirit Himself subjected even those who were endowed with charisms. Giving the body unity through Himself and through His power and inner joining of the members, this same Spirit produces and urges love among the believers. From all this it follows that if one member endures anything, all the members co-endure it, and if one member is honored, all the members together rejoice. The Head of this Body is Christ. He is the image of the invisible God and in Him all things came into being. He is before all creatures and in Him all things hold together. He is the head of the Body which is the Church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He might have the first place. By the greatness of His power He rules the things in heaven and the things on earth, and with His all-surpassing perfection and way of acting He fills the whole body with the riches of His glory. All the members ought to be molded in the likeness of Him, until Christ be formed in them. For this reason we, who have been made to conform with Him, who have died with Him and risen with Him, are taken up into the mysteries of His life, until we will reign together with Him. On earth, still as pilgrims in

Modern

717

a strange land, tracing in trial and in oppression the paths He trod, we are made one with His sufferings like the body is one with the Head, suffering with Him, that with Him we may be glorified. From Him “the whole body, supplied and built up by joints and ligaments, attains a growth that is of God.” He continually distributes in His body, that is, in the Church, gifts of ministries in which, by His own power, we serve each other unto salvation so that, carrying out the truth in love, we might through all things grow unto Him who is our Head. In order that we might be unceasingly renewed in Him, He has shared with us His Spirit who, existing as one and the same being in the Head and in the members, gives life to, unifies and moves through the whole body. This He does in such a way that His work could be compared by the holy Fathers with the function which the principle of life, that is, the soul, fulfills in the human body. Christ loves the Church as His bride, having become the model of a man loving his wife as his body; the Church, indeed, is subject to its Head. “Because in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily,” He fills the Church, which is His body and His fullness, with His divine gifts so that it may expand and reach all the fullness of God. 8. Christ, the one Mediator, established and continually sustains here on earth His holy Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as an entity with visible delineation through which He communicated truth and grace to all. But, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, are not to be considered as two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things; rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element. For this reason, by no weak analogy, it is compared to the mystery of the incarnate Word. As the assumed nature inseparably united to Him, serves the divine Word as a living organ of salvation, so, in a similar way, does the visible social structure of the Church serve the Spirit of Christ, who vivifies it, in the building up of the body. This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth.” This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity. Just as Christ carried out the work of redemption in poverty and persecution, so the Church is called to follow the same route that it might communicate the fruits of salvation to men. Christ Jesus, “though He was by nature God . . . emptied Himself, taking the nature of a slave,” and “being rich, became poor” for our sakes. Thus, the Church, although it needs human resources to carry out its mission, is not set up to seek earthly glory, but to proclaim, even by its own example, humility and self-sacrifice. Christ was sent by the Father “to bring good news to the poor, to heal the contrite of heart,” “to seek and to save what was lost.” Similarly, the Church encompasses with love all who are afflicted with human suffering and in the poor and afflicted sees the image of its poor and suffering Founder. It does all it can to relieve their need and in them it strives to serve Christ. While Christ, holy, innocent and undefiled knew nothing of sin, but came to expiate only the sins of the people, the Church, embracing

718

A Global Church History

in its bosom sinners, at the same time holy and always in need of being purified, always follows the way of penance and renewal. The Church, “like a stranger in a foreign land, presses forward amid the persecutions of the world and the consolations of God,” announcing the cross and death of the Lord until He comes.” By the power of the risen Lord it is given strength that it might, in patience and in love, overcome its sorrows and its challenges, both within itself and from without, and that it might reveal to the world, faithfully though darkly, the mystery of its Lord until, in the end, it will be manifested in full light.

4.23  Vatican II Nostra Aetate (1965) on Non-Christian Religions 1. In our time, when day by day mankind is being drawn closer together, and the ties between different peoples are becoming stronger, the Church examines more closely her relationship to non-Christian religions. In her task of promoting unity and love among men, indeed among nations, she considers above all in this declaration what men have in common and what draws them to fellowship. One is the community of all peoples, one their origin, for God made the whole human race to live over the face of the earth. One also is their final goal, God. His providence, His manifestations of goodness, His saving design extend to all men, until that time when the elect will be united in the Holy City, the city ablaze with the glory of God, where the nations will walk in His light. Men expect from the various religions answers to the unsolved riddles of the human condition, which today, even as in former times, deeply stir the hearts of men: What is man? What is the meaning, the aim of our life? What is moral good, what is sin? Whence suffering and what purpose does it serve? Which is the road to true happiness? What are death, judgment and retribution after death? What, finally, is that ultimate inexpressible mystery which encompasses our existence: whence do we come, and where are we going? 2. From ancient times down to the present, there is found among various peoples a certain perception of that hidden power which hovers over the course of things and over the events of human history; at times some indeed have come to the recognition of a Supreme Being, or even of a Father. This perception and recognition penetrates their lives with a profound religious sense. Religions, however, that are bound up with an advanced culture have struggled to answer the same questions by means of more refined concepts and a more developed language. Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust. Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing “ways,” comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.

Modern

719

Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself. The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men. 3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting. Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom. 4. As the sacred synod searches into the mystery of the Church, it remembers the bond that spiritually ties the people of the New Covenant to Abraham’s stock. Thus the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to God’s saving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professes that all who believe in Christ-Abraham’s sons according to faith-are included in the same Patriarch’s call, and likewise that the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosen people’s exodus from the land of bondage. The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles. Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles. making both one in Himself. The Church keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about his kinsmen: “theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the Christ according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:4-5), the Son of the Virgin Mary. She also recalls that the Apostles, the Church’s main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ’s Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people. As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation, nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading. Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle. In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the

720

A Global Church History

Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and “serve him shoulder to shoulder” (Soph. 3:9). Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great, this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues. True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ. Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel’s spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone. Besides, as the Church has always held and holds now, Christ underwent His passion and death freely, because of the sins of men and out of infinite love, in order that all may reach salvation. It is, therefore, the burden of the Church’s preaching to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of God’s all-embracing love and as the fountain from which every grace flows. 5. We cannot truly call on God, the Father of all, if we refuse to treat in a brotherly way any man, created as he is in the image of God. Man’s relation to God the Father and his relation to men his brothers are so linked together that Scripture says: “He who does not love does not know God” (1 John 4:8). No foundation therefore remains for any theory or practice that leads to discrimination between man and man or people and people, so far as their human dignity and the rights flowing from it are concerned. The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion. On the contrary, following in the footsteps of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, this sacred synod ardently implores the Christian faithful to “maintain good fellowship among the nations” (1 Peter 2:12), and, if possible, to live for their part in peace with all men, so that they may truly be sons of the Father who is in heaven.

4.24  Leslie Newbigin, Unfinished Agenda on the Inauguration of the Church of South India (1951) The cathedral [in Madras] had seating for about 1500 and there were about 2000 in the pandal outside. Exactly as the clock was striking eight, the procession came into the cathedral and we began to sing, “O God our help.” It was wonderful to see that great sea of faces, people from all over India, and representatives from other countries and other Churches. … I wish I could convey a sense of the unity of the whole congregation in the whole of the service. It was, after all, something quite new for which there were no precedents, and yet there was never a

Modern

721

moment of stumbling or awkwardness. [Planning the inauguration service had before] seemed an academic exercise and one wondered whether it would ever be more than something printed in the minutes of the joint committee. Yet here God had taken something lifeless in itself, and breathed into it and it became a vehicle for the work of the Holy Spirit that none of us will ever forget. … What struck me over and over again in it was that the two notes which are so often opposed— Catholic and Evangelical—were constantly and completely blended throughout. It is something we have so often talked about as an ideal, and yet here it was really happening, and they fitted as if they had always been made for each other—as indeed they had. … It made one so utterly sure that what we were doing is not patching things together, but being led by the Holy Spirit back to the fullness and simplicity of Gospel truth. … The climax of the service was, of course, the communion … when I found it hard, and I’m sure others did, to keep back tears. I believe about 2500 people took communion. A great company of ministers of all three uniting Churches served them. As one saw them moving about, men who yesterday could not have shared communion together, but now all fellow-members of one Church; and as one saw the great multitude of people, so absolutely rapt and intent, and their faces so full of joy; and the servers moving about to see that all were served; the thought uppermost in my mind was: Never again will I say that a thing which I believe is God’s will is impossible. Here we were at last, not a scheme of union, but one Church really in being, and accepting one another as fellow-members.

4.25  Gustavo Gutiérrez, A Theology of Liberation on the Nature of Theology (1971) Theology must be critical reflection on humankind, on basic human principles. Only with this approach will theology be a serious discourse, aware of itself, in full possession of its conceptual elements. But we are not referring exclusively to this epistemological aspect when we talk about theology as exclusively to this epistemological aspect when we talk about theology as critical reflection. We also refer to a clear and critical attitude regarding economic and socio-cultural issues in the life and reflection of the Christian community. To disregard these is to deceive both oneself and others. But above all, we intend this term to express the theory of a definite practice. Theological reflection would then necessarily be a criticism of society and the church insofar as they are called and addressed by the Word of God; it would be a critical theory, worked out in the light of the Word accepted in faith and inspired by a practical purpose—and therefore indissolubly linked to historical praxis. By preaching the Gospel message, by its sacraments, and by the charity of its members, the Church proclaims and shelters the gift of the Kingdom of God in the Heart of human history. The pastoral activity of the Church does not flow as a conclusion from theological premises. Theology does not produce pastoral activity; rather it reflects upon it. Theology must be able to find in pastoral activity the presence of the Spirit inspiring the action of the Christian community. A privileged locus theologicus for understanding the faith will be the life, preaching, and historical commitment of the Church.

722

A Global Church History

To reflect upon the presence and action of the Christian in the world means, moreover, to go beyond the visible boundaries of the Church. This I of prime importance. It implies openness to the world, gathering the questions it poses, being attentive to its historical transformations. This critical task is indispensable. Reflection in the light of faith must constantly accompany the pastoral action of the Church. By keeping historical events in their proper perspective, theology helps safeguard society and the Church from regarding as permanent what is only temporary. Critical reflection thus always plays the inverse role of an ideology which rationalizes and justifies a given social and ecclesial order. On the other hand, theology, by pointing to the sources of revelation, helps to orient pastoral activity; it puts it in a wider context and so helps it to avoid activism and immediatism. Theology as critical reflection thus fulfills a liberating function for humankind and the Christian community, preserving them from fetishism and idolatry, as well as from a pernicious and belittling narcissism. Understood in this way, theology has a necessary and permanent role in liberation from every form of religious alienation—which is often fostered by the ecclesiastical institution itself when it impedes an authentic approach to the Word of the Lord. Finally, theology thus understood, that is to say as linked to praxis, fulfills a prophetic function insofar as it interprets historical events with the intention of revealing and proclaiming their profound meaning. According to Cullmann, this is the meaning of the prophetic role: “The prophet does not limit himself as does the fortune-teller to isolated revelations, but his prophecy becomes preaching, proclamation. He explains to the people the true meaning of all events; he informs them of the plan and will of God at the particular moment.” But if theology is based on this observation of historical events and contributes to the discovery of their meaning, it is with the purpose of making Christians’ commitment within them more radical and clear. Only with the exercise of the prophetic function understood in this way, will the theologian be—to borrow an expression from Antonio Gramsci—a new kind of “organic intellectual.” Theologians will be personally and vitally engaged I historical realities with specific times and places. They will be engaged where nations, social classes, and peoples struggle to free themselves from domination and oppression by other nations, classes, and peoples. In the last analysis, the true interpretation of the meaning revealed by theology is achieved only in historical praxis. “The hermeneutics of the Kingdom of God,” observed Schillebeeckx “Consists especially in making the world a better place. Only in this way will I be able to discover what the Kingdom of God means.” We have here a political hermeneutics of the Gospel. Theology as a critical reflection on Christian praxis in the light of the word does not replace the other functions of theology, such as wisdom and rational knowledge; rather it presupposes and needs them. But this is not all. We are not concerned here with a mere juxtaposition. The critical function of theology necessarily leads to redefinition of these other two tasks. Henceforth, wisdom and rational knowledge will more explicitly have ecclesial praxis as their point of departure and their context. It is in reference to this praxis that an understanding of spiritual growth based on Scripture should be developed, and it is through this same praxis that faith encounters the problems posed by human reason. Given the theme of the present work, we will be especially aware of this critical function of theology with the ramifications suggested above. This approach will lead us to pay special attention to the life of the Church and to commitments which Christians, impelled by the Spirit and in communion with others, undertake in

Modern

723

history. We will give special consideration to participation in the process of liberation, and outstanding phenomenon of our times, which takes on special meaning in the so-called Third World countries. This kind of theology, arising from concern with a particular set of issues, will perhaps give us the solid and permanent albeit modest foundation for the theology in a Latin American perspective which is both desired and needed. This Latin American focus would not be due to frivolous desire for originality, but rather to a fundamental sense of historical efficacy and also—why hide it?—to the desire to contribute to the life and reflection of the universal Christian community.

4.26  Vladimir Lossky on Redemption and Deification (1974) “God made Himself man, that man might become God.” These powerful words, which we find for the first time in St. Ignatius, are again found in the writings of St. Athanasius, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, and St. Gregory of Nazianzus. The Fathers and Orthodox Theologians have repeated them in every century with the same emphasis, wishing to sum up in this striking sentence the essence of Christianity: an ineffable descent of God to the ultimate limit of our fallen human condition, even unto death—a descent of God which opens to men a path of ascent, the unlimited vistas of the union of created beings with the Divinity. The descent (katabasis) of the divine person of Christ makes human persons capable of ascent (anabasis) in the Holy Spirit. It was necessary that the voluntary humiliation, the redemptive keno ¯sis, of the Son of God should take place, so that fallen men might accomplish their vocation of theo ¯sis, the deification of created beings by uncreated grace. Thus the redeeming work of Christ—or rather, more generally, the Incarnation of the Word—is seen to be directly related to the ultimate goal of creatures: to know union with God. If this union had been accomplished in the divine person of the Son, who is God become man, it is necessary that each human person, in turn, should become god by grace, or “a partaker of the divine nature,” according to St. Peter’s expression (II Peter 1:4). Since, in the thought of the Fathers, the Incarnation of the Word is so closely linked to our ultimate deification, it could be asked whether the Incarnation would have taken place if Adam had not sinned. The question has often been raised, but it seems to us an unreal question. In fact, we have no knowledge of any condition of the human race except for the condition resulting from original sin, in which our deification—the carrying out of the divine purpose for us—has become impossible without the Incarnation of the Son, a fact necessarily having the character of a redemption. The Son of God came down from heaven to accomplish the work of our salvation, to liberate us from the captivity of the devil, to destroy the dominion of sin in our nature, and to undo death, which is the wages of sin. The Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Christ, by which his redemptive work was accomplished, thus occupy a central place in the divine dispensation of the fallen world. From this point of view it is easy to understand why the doctrine of the redemption has such a great importance in the theological thought of the Church. Nevertheless, when the dogma of the redemption is treated in isolation from the general body of Christian teaching, there is always a risk of limiting the tradition by interpreting it exclusively in terms of the work of the Redeemer. Then theological thought develops along three lines: original sin, its reparation

724

A Global Church History

on the cross, and the appropriation of the saving results of the work of Christ to Christians. In these constricting perspectives of a theology dominated by the idea of redemption, the patristic sentence, “God made Himself man that man might become God,” seems to be strange and abnormal. The thought of union with God is forgotten because of our preoccupation solely with our own salvation; or, rather, union with God is seen only negatively, in contrast with our present wretchedness. It was Anselm of Canterbury, with his treatise Cur Deus Homo, who undoubtedly made the first attempt to develop the dogma of redemption apart from the rest of Christian teaching. In his work Christian horizons are limited by the drama played between God, who is infinitely offended by sin, and man, who is unable to satisfy the impossible demands of vindictive justice. The drama finds its resolution in the death of Christ, the Son of God who has become man in order to substitute Himself for us and pay our debt to divine justice. What becomes of the dispensation of the Holy Spirit here? His part is reduced to an auxiliary, an assistant in redemption, causing us to receive Christ’s expiating merit. The final goal of our union with God is, if not excluded altogether, at lest shut out from our sight by the stern vault of a theological conception built on the ideas of original guilt and its reparation. The price of our redemption having been paid by the death of Christ, the resurrection and the ascension are only a glorious happy end of His work, a kind of apotheosis without direct relationship to our human destiny. This redemptionist theology, placing all the emphasis on the passion, seems to take no interest in the triumph of Christ over death. The very work of the Christ-Redeemer, to which this theology is confined, seems to be truncated to a change of the divine attitude toward fallen men, unrelated to the nature of humanity. We find an entirely different conception of the redeeming work of Christ in the thought of St. Athanasius. “Christ,” he says, “having delivered the temple of His body to death, offered one sacrifice for all men to make them innocent and free from original guilt, and also to show Himself victorious over death and to create the first fruits of the General Resurrection with His incorruptible body.” Here, the juridical image of the Redemption is completed by another image, the physical—or rather biological— image of the triumph of life over death, of incorruptibility triumphing in the nature which had been corrupted by sin.

4.27  Michael Green, I Believe in the Holy Spirit on the Holy Spirit (1975) Theologians often distinguish between God as he is in himself, and God as he has revealed himself to us. It seems to me that both useless and presumptuous to attempt to pierce the incognito of the essential Godhead. It is quite enough for me to try to grasp the way in which God has disclosed himself to us. And without too much distortion, you could say that it is a drama in three acts. Act One is a long one. It lasts from the beginning of the world’s history until the coming of Jesus Christ. It comprises the whole history of the people of Israel until the coming of the Messiah. The Law, the Prophets and the Writings (the three divisions of the Old Testament Scriptures) combine to teach one basic lesson. It was this. There is one God, and no runners up. That is the lesson Abraham learnt in polytheistic Ur of the Chaldees. It had to be learnt time and again by his descendants throughout the

Modern

725

succeeding twenty centuries. Yahweh, the God is Israel, was the only deity. The other gods of the heathen were idols (literally “nothings” in Hebrew). The downtrodden captives in Egypt at the time of the Exodus came to realise that Yahweh, the only self-existent one (Exod. 3:14), was a mighty deliverer who could be trusted. The Mosaic Law underlines the fact that their whole social, religious, and daily life must be governed by loyalty to that one God who brought them out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. … In Act Two God comes in person to make himself known. After years of scrutinizing Jesus of Nazareth, of listening to his teaching, of watching his character, of observing his miracles, after witnessing that shameful death and experiencing that glorious resurrection, the men who had known him best were sure of it. This man had brought God into focus. “God, who spoke of old in many and varied ways to our fathers through the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us in a Son. Him he has appointed the heir of all things. Through him he created the worlds. He reflects the glory of God, and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by the word of his power.” In words like these Paul, John and the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews struggle to express the unheard-of claim, that they themselves would have deemed blasphemous but for the irrefragable evidence of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, that God had indeed visited and redeemed his people. The one it was unlawful to name had taken the name of “Emmanuel” (“God with us”) and “Jesus” (“God saves”). He had done just that; lived with them, and saved them from a doom and a captivity worse than that which gripped their forefathers in Pharaoh’s Egypt. They could no longer plead ignorance of God. He had become one of them, their contemporary. … Act Three began at Pentecost, and it has not ended. Nor will it end until the completion of God’s purposes for this world at the return of Christ. God the Creator, the God who had come alongside men in Jesus, now made himself available to come within their very personalities. It is inconceivable that anyone sat down to think out any doctrine so intrinsically improbable as the Trinity. It was forced upon them by experience. Convinced as they were of the unity and uniqueness of God, the disciples became confident that he was present in Jesus. After Pentecost, they became assured that their experience of God’s activity in their midst and in their mission was nothing less than the continued work and presence of Jesus among them. Accordingly, they did not shrink from speaking indifferently of “the Spirit of God” and “the Spirit of Jesus” or “the Spirit of Christ.” Jesus of Nazareth was now the prism through which the various shafts of light in the Old Testament about the Spirit became luminous and in focus to them. … An apology such as I have just drawn in this three act drama of salvation can be dangerously misleading. It could lead to what the theologians have called “Modalism,” as though God disclosed himself in these three successive modes or forms—forms which do not correspond to any differences in his own nature, but are merely adopted for our benefit. I do no think that this will do. The ministry of Jesus provides sufficient refutation. On the one hand he is conceived and baptized by the Holy Spirit, and the promises of the gift of that Spirit to his followers after his death. On the other hand, he clearly looks to God as his Father, and into this Father’s hand he commits his spirit when he dies. There is, in other words, a double overlap in the ministry of Jesus, which prevents us from assuming that Father, Son and Spirit are three moulds into which the Deity pours himself at a different period in the history of salvation.

726

A Global Church History

4.28  James Cone, God of the Oppressed on the Nature of Theology (1975) Theologians do not normally reveal the true source of their theological reflections. They often tell us about the books that are similar and not so similar to their perspectives, but seldom do they tell us about the nonintellectual factors that are decisive for the arguments advanced on a particular issue. More often than not, it si a theologian’s personal history, in a particular sociopolitical setting, that serves as the most important factor in shaping the methodology and content of his or her theological perspective. Thus theologians ought to be a little more honest, and let the reader know something about those nonintellectual factors that are so important for the opinions they advance. In this book, I take the risk of revealing the origin of my commitment to the Christian faith; not for its own sake, but for the sake of the theology I seek to explicate. In previous books and articles, I have discussed the intellectual foundation of Black Theology and sought to show theologically that any analysis of the Gospel which did not begin and end with God’s liberation of the oppressed was ipeo factor unchristian. In this present work, I do not abandon the intellectual search but simply integrated it with the existential and social formation of my faith as it was and is being shaped by the black community. I hope that this approach will not only help to clarify my perspective on Black Theology, but more importantly will help to join the black theological enterprise more firmly with the true source of its existence—the black community.

4.29  Donald Bloesch, “A Christological Hermeneutic: Crisis and Conflict in Hermeneutics” on Scripture (1985) The discipline of biblical hermeneutics, which deals with the principles governing the interpretation of Scripture, is presently in crisis. For some time it has been obvious in the academic world that the scriptural texts cannot simply be taken at face value but presuppose a thought world that is alien to our own. In an attempt to bring some degree of coherence to the interpretation of Scripture, scholars have appealed to current philosophies or sociologies of knowledge. Their aim has been to come to an understanding of what is essential and what is peripheral in the Bible, but too often in the process they have lost contact with the biblical message. It is fashionable among both theologians and biblical scholars today to contend that there is no one biblical view or message but instead a plurality of viewpoints that stand at considerable variance with one an other as well as with the modem world-view. There are a number of academically viable options today concerning biblical interpretation, some of which I shall consider in this essay. These options represent competing theologies embracing the whole of the theological spectrum. First, there is the hermeneutic of Protestant scholastic orthodoxy, which allows for grammaticalhistorical exegesis, the kind that deals with the linguistic history of the text but is loathe to give due recognition to the cultural or historical conditioning of the perspective of the author of the text. Scripture is said to have one primary author, the Holy Spirit, with the prophets and Apostles as the secondary authors. For this reason Scripture is believed to contain an underlying theological and philosophical

Modern

727

unity. It is therefore proper to speak of a uniquely biblical life and “odd-view. Every text, it is supposed, can be harmonized not only with the whole of Scripture but also with the findings of secular history and natural science. The meaning of most texts is thought to be obvious even to an unbeliever. The end result of such a treatment of Scripture is a coherent, systematic theological system, presumably reflecting the very mind of God. This approach has been represented in Reformed circles by the so-called Princeton School of Theology associated with Charles Hodge, A. A. Hodge, and Benjamin Warfield. In this perspective, hermeneutics is considered a scientific discipline abiding by the rules that govern other disciplines of knowledge. Scripture, it is said, yields its meaning to a systematic, inductive analysis and does not necessarily presuppose a faith commitment to be understood. Some proponents of the old orthodoxy (such as Gordon Clark and Carl Henry) favor a metaphysical-deductive over an empiricalinductive approach, seeking to deduce the concrete meanings of Scripture from first principles given in Scripture. A second basic approach to biblical studies is historicism in which Scripture is treated in the same way as any worthy literature of a given cultural tradition. The tools of higher criticism are applied to Scripture to find out what the author intended to say in that particular historical-cultural context. Higher criticism includes an analysis of the literary genre of the text, its historical background, the history of the oral tradition behind the text, and the cultural and psychological factors at work on the author and editor (or editors) of the text. With its appeal to the so-called historical-critical method for gaining an insight into the meaning of the text, this approach is to be associated with the liberal theology stemming from the Enlightenment. Historicism is based on the view that the historicity of a phenomenon affords the means of comprehending its essence and reality (H. Martin Rumscheidt). It is assumed that meaning is to be found only in the historical web of things. The aim is the historical reconstruction of the text, in other words, seeing the text in its historical and cultural context (Sitz im Leben). Historical research, it is supposed, can procure for us the meaning of the Word of God. Ernst Troeltsch articulated the basic principles of historicism, but this general approach has been conspicuous in J. S. Semler, David Friedrich Strauss, Ferdinand Christian Baur, Adolf van Hamack, and, in our day, Willi Marxsen and Krister Stendahl. A historicist bent was apparent in Rudolf Bultmann and Gerhard Ebeling, especially in their earlier years, though other quite different influences were also at work on them. It was out of this perspective that the quest for the historical Jesus emerged, since it was believed that only by ascertaining by historical science what Jesus really believed in terms of his own culture and historical period can we find a sure foundation for faith. Albert Schweitzer broke with historicism when he discovered that the historical Jesus indisputably subscribed to an apocalyptic vision of the kingdom of God. Finding this incredible to the modern mind, he sought a new anchor for faith in the mystical Christ. A third option in hermeneutics is the existentialist one, popularized by Rudolf Bultmann, Ernst Fuchs, Gerhard Ebeling, and Fritz Burl, among others. This approach does not deny the role of historical research but considers it incapable of giving us the significance of the salvific events for human existence. It can tell us much about the thought-world and language of the authors, but it cannot

728

A Global Church History

communicate to us the inferiority of their faith. Demonstrating an affinity with the Romanticist tradition of Schleiermacher and Dilthey, these men seek to uncover the seminal experience or creative insight of the authors of the texts in question, the experience that was objectified in words. Only by sharing this same kind of experience or entering into the same type of vision do we rightly understand the meaning of the text. Drawing upon both Hegel and Heidegger, these scholars affirm that real knowledge is selfknowledge and that the role of the text is to aid us in self-understanding. In existentialist hermeneutics history is dissolved into the historicity of existence. The Word becomes formative power rather than informative statement. The message of faith becomes the breakthrough into freedom. Jesus is seen as a witness to faith or the historical occasion for faith rather than the object of faith. It is contended that we should come to Scripture with the presuppositions of existentialist anthropology so that the creative questions of our time can be answered. In contradistinction to the above approaches I propose a christological hermeneutic by which we seek to move beyond historical criticism to the christological, as opposed to the existential, significance of the text. The text’s Christological meaning can in fact be shown to carry tremendous import for human existence. I believe that I am here being true to the intent of the scriptural authors themselves and even more to the Spirit who guided them, since they frequently made an effort to relate their revelatory insights to the future acts of cosmic deliverance wrought by the God of Israel (in the case of the Old Testament)i or to God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ (in the case of the New Testament). This approach, which is associated with Karl Barth, Jacques Ellul, and Wilhelm Vischer, among others, and which also has certain affinities with the confessional stances of Gerhard van Rad and Brevard Childs, seeks to supplement the historical-critical method by theological exegesis in which the innermost intentions of the author are related to the center and culmination of sacred history mirrored in the Bible, namely, the advent of Jesus Christ. It is believed that the fragmentary insights of both Old and New Testament writers are fulfilled in God’s dramatic incursion into human history which we see in the incarnation and atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, in his life, death, and resurrection. Here the aim is to come to Scripture without any overt presuppositions or at least holding these presuppositions in abeyance so that we can hear God’s Word anew speaking to us in and through the written text. According to this view, the Word of God is not procured by historical-grammatical examination of the text, nor by historical-critical research, nor by existential analysis, but is instead received in a commitment of faith This position has much in common with historical orthodoxy, but one major difference is that it welcomes a historical investigation of the text. Such investigation, however, can only throw light on the cultural and literary background of the text it does not give us its divinely intended meaning. Another difference is that we seek to understand the text not simply in relation to other texts but in relation to the Christ revelation. Some of the theologians of the older orthodoxy would agree but others would say that what the Bible tells us about creation for example, can be adequately understood on its own apart from a reference to the incarnation. With the theology of the Reformation and Protestant orthodoxy, I hold that we should begin by ascertaining the literal sense of the text—what was in the mind of the author—and we can do this only by seeing the passage in question in its immediate context. But then we should press on to discern its christological significance—how it relates to the message of the cross of Jesus Christ.

Modern

729

In opposition to liberalism, I believe that the text should be seen not simply against its immediate historical environment but also against the background of Eternity. To do this, we need to go beyond authorial motivation to theological relation Moreover, it is neither the faith of Jesus (as in Ebeling) nor the Christ of faith (as in Bultmann and Tillich) but the Jesus Christ of sacred history that is our ultimate norm in faith and conduct. According to this approach, God reveals himself fully and definitively only in one time and place, viz., in the life history of Jesus Christ. The Bible is the primary witness to this event or series of events. This revelation was anticipated in the Old Testament and remembered and proclaimed in the New Testament. The testimony of the biblical authors was directed to this event by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Yet this relationship is not always obvious and must be brought home to us and clarified by the illumination of the Spirit of God in the history of the church. The Word of God is neither the text nor the psychological disposition of the author behind the text but is instead its salvific significance seen in the light of the cross of Christ. The criterion is not the original intention of the author as such but the intention of the Holy Spirit. This can be found to some degree by comparing the author’s meaning to the meaning of the whole; yet even here the dogmatic norm, the very divine word itself, can elude us. Although in the mystery of God’s grace his Word is assuredly present in Scripture, it is nonetheless veiled to those who are perishing (2 Cor. 3:14-16; 4:1-6). It is not always obvious even to the people of faith, and this is why it must be sought in Scripture. This Word finally must be given by God alone and not until this bestowal of divine grace can we really hear or know. It is not only what the Spirit revealed to the original author but what he reveals to us in the here and now that is the Word of God. Yet what he teaches us now does not contradict what he taught then. Indeed, it stands in an unbroken continuity with what has gone before. A can never come to mean B or C, but it can come to signify A + or A + +. This is to say, a text can have more than one meaning in the sense that it can be used by the Holy Spirit in different ways. Certainly in his prediction of the birth of the child Immanuel in Isaiah 7, the prophet did not consciously have in mind the virgin birth of Jesus Christ; yet this text points to and is fulfilled in the virgin birth as this is attested in Matthew 1:23. The text had both an immediate reference and an eschatological significance, but the latter was, for the most part, still hidden at the time of Isaiah. The many texts about false prophets and antichrists in the New Testament have been used by the Spirit to refer to various adversaries of the faith in all ages of the church. The meaning of the text is thereby not annulled but expanded. Under the influence of the philosopher Gadamer, the new hermeneutic today is concerned to merge the horizons of the text and of contemporary humanity. But this fusion of horizons can take place not by a poetic divination into the language of the text, nor by a mystical identification with the preconceptual experience of the author of the text, but by the breaking in of the Word of God from the Beyond into our limited horizons and the remolding of them, in some cases even the overthrowing of them. I have in mind not only the horizons of the exegete also those of the original authors who may have only faintly grasped what the Spirit was teaching them to see (cf. I Peter 1:1012 We should remember that some prophecies in the Bible were corrected or reinterpreted by further illuminations of the Spirit in later biblical history. To insist on a literal fulfillment of all the Old Testament

730

A Global Church History

prophecies, as dispensationalists do, is to contradict the New Testament assertion that the church is the New Israel and that at least some of these prophecies have their fulfillment in the church of Jesus Christ. The christological hermeneutic that I propose is in accord with the deepest insights of both Luther and Calvin. Both Reformers saw Christ as the ground and center of Scripture. Both sought to relate the Old Testament, as well as the New, to the person and work of Christ. Their position, which was basically reaffirmed by Barth and Vischer, was that the hidden Christ is in the Old Testament and the manifest Christ in the New Testament. Luther likened Christ to the “star and kernel” of Scripture, describing him as “the center part of the circle” about which everything else revolves. On one occasion he compared certain texts to “hard nuts” which resisted cracking and confessed that he had to throw these texts against the rock (Christ) so that they would yield their “delicious kernel.” The orthodox followers of Luther and Calvin did not always retain this christological focus, although most of them remained fairly close to their heritage. Philosophical speculation was the source of some of the deviations. Among Lutherans there was a drift toward natural theology in which the existence of God and the moral law were treated apart from the special revelation of God in Jesus Christ In Reformed circles, there was both a fascination with natural theology and a concentration on the eternal decrees of God. Reprobation was located in the secret will of God, which stood at variance with his revealed will in Christ. Jesus Christ was reduced to an instrument in carrying out this decree rather than being the author and finisher of our salvation (Heb. 5:9; 11). Scripture was used to support the idea of a God of absolute power, thereby obscuring the biblical conception of a God of infinite love whose power was manifest in his suffering and humiliation in Jesus Christ. Christological exegesis, when applied to the Old Testament, often takes the form of  typological exegesis in which the acts of God in Old Testament history as well as the prophecies of his servants are seen to have their fulfillment in Jesus Christ. Such an approach was already discernible in the New Testament where, for example, the manna given to the children of Israel in the wilderness was regarded as a type of the bread of life (John 6:31, 32, 49-50, 58). Typological exegesis differs from allegorical and anagogical exegesis in that it is controlled by the analogy of faith, which views the events and discourses of the Old Testament in indissoluble relation to Jesus Christ, to the mystery of his incarnation and the miracle of his saving work (cf. Acts 26:22; I Peter 1:10-12).

4.30  Stanley Hauerwas, A Community of Character on the Church and Christian Ethics (1981) Of course some of the material in those [biblical] documents is not immediately narrative in form, but such material could not exist without the narratives and indeed draws its intelligibility from them. To insist on the significance of narrative for theological reflection is not, however, just to make a point about the form of biblical sources, but involves claims about the nature of God, the self, and the nature of the world. We are “storied people” because the God that sustains us is a “Storied God,” whom we come to know only by having our character formed appropriate to God’s character.

Modern

731

Through the Church, therefore, the world is given a history. Indeed the term “world” derives its intelligibility from there being a people who can supply a history for the world. Of course such a history cannot ignore the fact that the world involves many separate stories that cannot be easily reconciled or even related. It is not the task of the church to deny the reality of the multiplicity of stories in the world or to force the many stories into an artificial harmony. Rather the task of the church is to be faithful to the story of God that makes intelligible the divided nature of the world. The existence of the church, therefore, is not an accidental or contingent fact that can be ignored in considerations of the truth of Christian convictions. The church, and the social ethic implied by its separate existence, is an essential aspect of why Christians think their convictions are true. For it is a central Christian conviction that even though the world is God’s creation and subject to God’s redemption it continues eschatologically to be a realm that defies his rule. The church, which too often is unfaithful to its task, at the very least must lay claim to being the earnest of God’s Kingdom and thus able to provide the institutional space for us to rightly understand the disobedient, sinful, but still Godcreated character of the world. The ethical to shape a community sufficient to face truthfully the nature of our world. Christian social ethics should not begin with attempts to develop strategies designed to make the world more “just,” but with the formation of a society shaped and informed by the truthful character of God we find revealed in the stories of Israel and Jesus. The remarkable richness of these stories of God requires that a church be a community of discourse and interpretation that endeavors to tell these stories and form its life in accordance with them. The church, the whole body of believers, therefore cannot be limited to any one historical paradigm or contained by any one institutional form. Rather the very character of the stories of God requires a people who are willing to have their understanding of the story constantly challenged by what others have discovered in their attempt to live faithful to that tradition. For the church is able to exist and grow only through tradition, which—as the memory sustained over time by ritual and habit—sets the context and boundaries for the discussion required by the Christian stories. As Frank Kermode has recently reminded us, the way to interpret a narrative is through another narrative; indeed, a narrative is already a form of interpretation, as the power of a narrative lies precisely in its potential for producing a community of interpretation sufficient for the growth of further narratives. Inevitably, calling attention to the narrative shape of Christian convictions means that Christian ethics must be taken seriously as Christian. To do that seems to risk the cooperation Christians have achieved with those who do not share their convictions; or worse, it might provide justification for the church to withdraw into a religious ghetto no longer concerned to serve the world. Such a result would indeed be a new and not even sophisticated form of tribalism. The church, however, is not and cannot be “tribal”; rather the church is the community that enables us to recognize that, in fact, it is the world we live in which has a splintered and tribal existence. The ability of the church to interpret and provide alternatives to the narrow loyalties of the world results from the story—a particular story, to be sure—that teaches us the significance of lives different from our own, within and without our community. Indeed, we only learn what that story entails as it is lived and lives through the lives of others.

732

A Global Church History

4.31  World Council of Churches, “Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry” on Baptism (1982) I. THE INSTITUTION OF BAPTISM 1. Christian baptism is rooted in the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, in his death and in his resurrection. It is in corporation into Christ, who is the crucified and risen Lord; it is entry into the New Covenant between God and God’s people. Baptism is a gift of God, and is administered in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. St Matthew records that the risen Lord, when sending his disciples into the world, commanded them to baptize (Matt. 28:18–20). The universal practice of baptism by the apostolic Church from its earliest days is attested in letters of the New Testament, the Acts of the Apostles, and the writings of the Fathers. The churches today continue this practice as a rite of commitment to the Lord who bestows his grace upon his people.

II. THE MEANING OF BAPTISM 2. Baptism is the sign of new life through Jesus Christ. It unites the one baptized with Christ and with his people. The New Testament scriptures and the liturgy of the Church unfold the meaning of baptism in various images which express the riches of Christ and the gifts of his salvation. These images are some- times linked with the symbolic uses of water in the Old Testament. Baptism is participation in Christ’s death and resurrection (Rom. 6:3–5; Col. 2:12); a washing away of sin (I Cor. 6:11); a new birth (John3:5); an enlightenment by Christ (Eph. 5:14); a re- clothing in Christ (Gal. 3:27); a renewal by the Spirit(Titus 3:5); the experience of salvation from the flood(I Peter 3:20–21); an exodus from bondage (I Cor. 10:1–2) and a liberation into a new humanity in which barriers of division whether of sex or race or social status are transcended (Gal. 3:27-28; I Cor. 12:13). The images are many but the reality is one.

A. Participation in Christ’s Death and Resurrection 3. Baptism means participating in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Jesus went down into the river Jordan and was baptized in solidarity with sinners in order to fulfil all righteousness (Matt. 3:15). This baptism led Jesus along the way of the Suffering Servant, made manifest in his sufferings, death and resurrection (Mark 10:38–40, 45). By baptism, Christians are immersed in the liberating death of Christ where their sins are buried, where the “old Adam” is crucified with Christ, and where the power of sin is broken. Thus those baptized are no longer slaves to sin, but free. Fully identified with the death of Christ, they are buried with him and are raised here and now to a new life in the power of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, confident that they will also ultimately be one with him in a resurrection like his (Rom. 6:3–11; Col. 2:13,3:1; Eph. 2:5-6).

B. Conversion, Pardoning and Cleansing 4. The baptism which makes Christians partakers of the mystery of Christ’s death and resurrection implies confession of sin and conversion of heart. The baptism administered by John was itself a

Modern

733

baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4). The New Testament underlines the ethical implications of baptism by representing it as an ablution which washes the body with pure water, a cleansing of the heart of all sin, and an act of justification (Heb. 10:22; I Peter3:21; Acts 22:16; I Cor. 6:11). Thus those baptized are pardoned, cleansed and sanctified by Christ, and are given as part of their baptismal experience a new ethical orientation under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

C. The Gift of the Spirit 5. The Holy Spirit is at work in the lives of people before, in and after their baptism. It is the same Spirit who revealed Jesus as the Son (Mark 1:10–11) and who empowered and united the disciples at Pentecost (Acts 2). God bestows upon all baptized persons the anointing and the promise of the Holy Spirit, marks them with a seal and implants in their hearts the first installment of their inheritance as sons and daughters of God. The Holy Spirit nurtures the life of faith in their hearts until the final deliverance when they will enter into its full possession, to the praise of the glory of God (II Cor. 1:21— 22; Eph. 1:13-14).

D. Incorporation into the Body of Christ 6. Administered in obedience to our Lord, baptism is a sign and seal of our common discipleship. Through baptism, Christians are brought into union with Christ, with each other and with the Church of every time and place. Our common baptism, which unites us to Christ in faith, is thus a basic bond of unity. We are one people and are called to confess and serve one Lord in each place and in all the world. The union with Christ which we share through baptism has important implications for Christian unity. “There is... one baptism, one God and Father of us all ...” (Eph. 4:4—6).When baptismal unity is realized in one holy, catholic, apostolic Church, a genuine Christian witness can be made to the healing and reconciling love of God. Therefore, our one baptism into Christ constitutes a call to the churches to overcome their divisions and visibly manifest their fellowship. COMMENTARY (6) The inability of the churches mutually to recognize their various practices of baptism as sharing in the one baptism, and their actual dividedness in spite of mutual baptismal recognition, have given dramatic visibility to the broken witness of the Church. The readiness of the churches in some places and times to allow differences of sex, race, or social status to divide the body of Christ has further called into question genuine baptismal unity of the Christian community (Gal. 3:27—28) and has seriously compromised its witness. The need to recover baptismal unity is at the heart of the ecumenical task as it is central for the realization of genuine partnership within the Christian communities.

E. The Sign of the Kingdom 7. Baptism initiates the reality of the new life given in the midst of the present world. It gives participation in the community of the Holy Spirit. It is a sign of the Kingdom of God and of the life of the world to come. Through the gifts of faith, hope and love, baptism has a dynamic which embraces the whole of life, extends to all nations, and anticipates the day when every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

734

A Global Church History

4.32  John Hick, The Second Christianity on Religious Pluralism (1983) Now it seems to many of us today that we need a Copernican revolution in our understanding of the religions. The traditional dogma has been that Christianity is the centre of the universe of faiths, with all the other religions seen as revolving at various removes around the revelation in Christ and being graded according to their nearness to or distance from it. But during the last hundred years or so we have been making new observations and have realized that there is deep devotion to God, true sainthood, and deep spiritual life within these other religions; and so we have created our epicycles of theory, such as the notions of anonymous Christianity and of implicit faith. But would it not be more realistic now to make the shift from Christianity at the centre to God at the centre, and to see both our own and the other great world religions as revolving around the same divine reality? This distinction enables us to acknowledge both the one unlimited transcendent diving Reality and also a plurality of varying human concepts, images, and experiences of and response to that Reality. These different human awarenesses of and response to the Real are formed by and reciprocally inform the religious traditions of the earth. In them are reflected the different ways of thinking, feeling and experiencing which have developed within the world-wide human family. Indeed these cultural variations amount, on the large scale, to different ways of being human—for example, the Chinese, the Indian, the African, the Semitic, the Graeco-Roman way or ways, and the way of our contemporary technological Atlantic civilization. We do not know at all fully why the life of our species has taken these various forms, though geographical, climatic and economic factors have clearly played their parts. However, given these various cultural ways of being human we can I think to some extent understand how it is that they constitute different “lenses” through which the divine Reality is differently perceived. For we know that all human awareness involves an indispensable contribution by the perceiver. The mind is active in perception, organizing the impacts of the environment in ways made possible both by the inherent structure of consciousness and by the particular sets of concepts embedded in particular consciousnesses. These concepts are the organizing and recognitional capacities by which we interpret and give meaning to the data which come to us from outside. And this general epistemological pattern, according to which conscious experience arises out of the interpretative activity of the mind, also applies to religious experience. The wide range of the forms of human religious experience seems to be shaped by one or other of two basic concepts: the concept of God, or of the Real as personal, which presides over the theistic religions, and the concept of the Absolute, or of the Real as non-personal, which presides over the nontheistic religious hemisphere. These basic concepts do not, however, enter, in these general and abstract forms, into our actual religious experience. We do not experience the presence of God in general, or the reality of the Absolute in general. Each concept takes the range of specific concrete forms which are known in the actual thought and experience of the different religious traditions. Thus the concept of deity is concretized as a range of divine personae—Jahweh, the Heavenly Father, Allah, Krishna, Shiva, etc. Each of these personae has arisen within human experience through the impact of the divine Reality upon some particular stream of human life. Thus Yahweh is the face of God turned towards and perceived by the Jewish people or, in more philosophical language, the

Modern

735

concrete form in which the Jews have experienced the infinite divine Reality. As such, Yahweh exists essentially in relation to the Hebrews, the relationship being defined by the idea of covenant. He cannot be extracted from his role in Hebrew historic experience. He is part of the history of the Jews, and they are a part of his history. And as such Yahweh is a quite different divine persona from Krishna, who is God’s face turned towards and perceived by hundreds of millions of people within the Vaishnavite tradition of India. Krishna is related to a different strand of human history from Yahweh, and lives within a different world of religious thought and experience. And each of these divine personae, formed at the interface between the divine Reality and some particular human faith community, has inevitably been influenced by human faith community, has inevitably been influenced by human imaginative construction and sinful human distortion as well as by all-important impact of the transcendent Reality; there is an element of human projection as well as of divine revelation. How otherwise can we account for the ways in which the various divine personae have sometimes validated cruel massacres, savage punishments, ruthless persecutions, oppressive and dehumanizing political regimes? God, as imaged and understood by the masses of believers within any of the great traditions, must be partly a human construction in order, for example, for God the Father to have been on both sides of the conflict in Europe in the Second World War, and for Allah to have been on both sides of the recent Iraq-Iran conflict. But it does not follow that the divine personae are purely human projections. On the contrary, the theory that I am outlining is that they constitute the concrete forms in which the transcendent divine Reality is known to us. Each is the Real as perceived and experienced (and partly misperceived and misexperienced) from within a particular strand of the human story. And essentially the same is to be said concerning the various impersonae in terms of which the Real is known in the nontheistic religious traditions. Here the concept of the Absolute is made concrete as Brahman, Nirvana, the Dharma, the Dharmakaya, Sunyata, the Tao. And according as an individual’s thoughts and practices are formed by the advaitic Hindu tradition, or the Theravada or Mahayana Buddhist tradition, he or she is likely to experience the Real in the distinctive way made possible by this conceptuality and meditational discipline. But can the divine Reality possibly be such as to be authentically experienced by millions of people as a personal god, and also by millions of others as the impersonal Brahman or Tao or Sunyata? Perhaps there is a helpful analogy in the principle of complementarity in modern physics. Electromagnetic radiation, including light, is sometimes found to behave like waves and sometimes like particles. If we experiment upon it in one way we discover a wave-like radiation, whilst if we experiment upon it in another way we discover a procession of particles. The two observations have both had to be accepted as valid and hence as complementary. We have to say that the electromagnetic reality is such that, in relation to human observation, it is wave-like or particle-like according to how the observer acts upon it. Analogously, it seems to be the case that when humans “experiement” with the Real in one kind of way—the way of theistic thought and worship—they find the Real to be personal and when other humans approach the Real in a different kind of way—the way for example of Buddhist or Hindu thought and meditation—they find the Real to be non-personal. This being so, we may well emulate the scientists in their realistic acceptance of the two sets of reports concerning the Real as complementary truths. This complementarity is connected with the fact that the great world traditions are fundamentally alike in exhibiting a soteriological structure. That is to say, they are all concerned with salva​tion/​liber​

736

A Global Church History

ation​/enli​ghten​ment/​fulfi​llmen​t. Each begins by declaring that our ordinary human life is profoundly lacking and distorted. It is a “fallen” life, immersed in the unreality of maya, or pervaded by dukkha, sorrow and unsatisfactoriness. But each then declares that there is another Reality, already there and already open to us, in relation to or in identity with which we can find a limitlessly better existence. And each proceeds to point out a path of life which leads to this salvation/liberation. Thus they are all concerned to bring about the transformation of human existence from self-centredness to Realitycentredness. Salvation/liberation occurs through a total self-giving in faith to God as he has revealed himself through Jesus Christ; or by the total self-surrender to God which is islam: or by transcending self-centredness and experiencing an underlying unity with Brahman; or by discovering the unreality of the self and its desires and thus experiencing nirvana, or by becoming part of the flow of life which in its emptiness-fullness (sunyata) is found to be itself nirvana. Along each path the great transition is from the sin or error of self-enclosed existence to the liberation and bliss of Reality-centredness.

4.33  John Zizioulas, Being as Communion (1985) on the Church From what has just ben said it follows that the “catholicity” of the Church is not to be juxtaposed to locality: it is rather an indispensable aspect of the local Church, the ultimate criterion of ecclesiality for any local body. Universality, however, is a different notion and can certainly be contrasted with locality. How does the concept of universality affect our understanding of the local Church? It is in the nature of the Eucharist to transcend not only divisions occurring within a local situation but also the very division which is inherent in the concept of geography: the division of the world into local places. Just as a Eucharist which is not a transcendence of divisions within a certain locality is a false Eucharist, equally a Eucharist which takes places in conscious and intentional isolation and separation from other local communities in the world is not a true Eucharist. From that it follows inevitably that a local Church, in order to be not just local but also Church, must be in full communion with the rest of the local Churches in the world. For a local Church to be in full communion with the rest of the local Churches the following elements are involved: (a) That the problems and concerns of all local Churches should be the objects of prayer and active care by a particular local Church. If a local Church falls into indifference as to what is going on in the rest of the world, it is certainly not a Church. (b) That a certain common basis of the vision and understanding of the Gospel and the eschatological nature of the Church exist between a local Church and the rest of the local Churches. This requires a constant vigilance concerning the true faith in all local Churches by every single local Church. (c) That certain structures be provided which will facilitate this communion. On this point some further explanations become necessary. If the locality of the Church is not to be absorbed and in fact negated by the element of universality, the utmost care must be taken so that the structures of ministries which are aimed at facilitating communion among the local Churches do not become superstructure over the local Church. It is extremely significant

Modern

737

that in the entire course of church history there has never been an attempt at establishing a super-local Eurcharist or a super-local bishop. All Eucharists and all bishops are local in character—at least in their primary sense. In a Eucharistic view of the Church this means that the local Church, as defined early here, is the only form of ecclesial existence which can be properly called Church. All structures aiming at facilitating the universality of the Church create a network of communion of Churches, not a new form of Church. This is not only supported by history, but rests also upon sound theological and existential ground. Any structural universalization of the Church to the point of creating an ecclesial entity called “universal Church” as something parallel to or above that of the local Church would inevitably introduce into the concept of the Church cultural and other dimensions which are foreign to a particular local context. Culture cannot be a monolithically universal phenomenon without some kind of demonic imposition of one culture over the rest of cultures. Nor is it possible to dream of a universal “Christian culture” without denying the dialectic between history and eschatology which is so central, among other things, to the Eucharist itself. Thus, if there is a transcendence of culture divisions on a universal level— which indeed must be constantly aimed at by the Church—it can only take place via the local situations expressed in and through the particular local Churches and not through universalistic structures which imply a universal Church. For a universal Church is an entity besides the local Church would be either a culturally disincarnated Church—since there is no such thing as a universal culture—or alternatively it would be culturally incarnated in a demonic way, if it either blesses or directly or indirectly imposes on the world a particular culture. In conclusion, all church structures aiming at facilitating communion between local Churches (e.g. synods, councils of all forms, etc.) do possess ecclesiological significance and must be always viewed in the light of ecclesiology But they cannot be regarded as forms of Church without the serious dangers I have just referred to.

4.34  M. R. A. Kanyoro, “A Story—Difference: Cultural Christianity or Syncretism?” on Christianity in Africa (2002) When I was born, my grandparents took me outside the house and raised me up to the sky three times (four times for baby-boys), thanking the heavens and the earth for a baby girl. They thanked the sun, the moon, and the stars for my birth. They thanked the earth and symbolically watered the soil begging God for rain to enable food to grow so that I may be nourished and grow to be a healthy baby. After this prayer, my own grand-mother passed on her name to me. Then my grandparents returned me to the house, gave me back to my parents and Christian prayers were said. A little later, my family presented me to the Church for baptism where I was also given a church name. My parents told me about baptism, but never about my grandparents’ naming ceremony and prayers. I learned about this as a young adult in a private conversation with my grandmother whose name I bear. At that time, I too felt the need to hush up because I was a member of the Students’ Christian Union and an active youth in the church. In this context, I did not know how to handle these two parallel religious ceremonies, neither did my Christian family or the Church. Among African Christians, nobody talked about their own similar experiences.

738

A Global Church History

I learned many new things through birthing a baby. I learned that fighting all the time, even for a just cause, leaves you exhausted and dead, and one must choose one’s fights. Most importantly, I learned that one’s dreams only become visions when set within a community; the community helps to envision those dreams and to implement them. In labour-bed for our second baby, over and over, I knew without any doubt that I was part of the community. If the baby were to be a boy, he would take my father’s name; if a daughter, my mother-inlaw’s name. I regretted the latter’s early death. She had died due to “motherhood,” a state which I was now going through! Amid the fear and pain of thinking about her, I also wondered, though, who would shower me with praises if I was to get a daughter. When the doctor announced that it was a girl, I named her without any hesitation. “oh my!” I sighed. My mother-in-law lives on! The news spread in the community as is usually the case at the birth of any baby. The women of the clan, the sisters of my mother-in-law, aunts and friends all descended on us in masses. They were coming to honour my mother-in-law and fulfill her responsibilities so that she would have no debt wherever she is. Then the men came with equal force led by my father-in-law. They, too, declared their relationship to my late mother-in-law, asking the little girl to recognize that she is a “daughter of the people,” meaning, “she is loved.” The women friends of my mother-in-law took me as their friend and offered information to me regarding the life of my mother-in-law. They told me what her likes and dislikes were, what made her laugh and what made her cry. I was supposed to know so that the spirit of another person does not enter into the life of my daughter in disguise. I would have to bring up the girl to live up to the traits of her grandmother. Through this community process, I developed love and respect for my dead motherin-law whom I had never met. Although she was long dead, I suddenly felt as if I knew her and as if she was really present with us. Through the memory of the community, I somehow became convinced that she still lived and was happy to have my daughter continue this life. I no longer belittle the community’s value for children, for they are the paths through which history is told and relationships built. The birth and naming of my own children gave me new eyes to see my community beliefs and I found it immediately necessary to apply a cultural hermeneutics to this new experience. I began to see how this naming system was not only an oral preservation of family genealogies, but also a method of maintaining the moral cohesion in society. I learned that not everybody is named. People who do not behave well, such as murderers, thieves and others considered a nuisance to the community, are not named. Their names must be forgotten as a way of casting away those traits that disturb the well-being of the community. I also learned the injustice in this community practice. I learned that to be without child is to be considered a lesser person. Without a child, the community suffers. The individual woman without a child also suffers from not fulfilling the expectations of the community. I saw the boy child celebrated much more than the girl child. While I appreciated the joy and celebration, I also clearly saw the need for the liberation that the Christian gospel brings by proclaiming the equality of all people before God. The challenges facing African Christianity involve living faithfully within a culture that tries indeed to accommodate the pain and struggle of being a community, yet needs the love and liberating message of Jesus Christ to fulfill that which human abilities alone cannot do.

Modern

739

Serious reflection on our personal and communal experiences helps us to affirm our worthiness as African communities before God our Creator. In doing so, we cannot tell only the stories of suffering, struggles and failures. We must also tell about the “good news” that we find in the liberating new experiences of coming to terms with our past and our present as we recall our cultural heritage and reread the Bible with new eyes. We have a unique history and experience of our double heritage. We must write our histories with dignity and respect. To lose sight of the reality of the continued and arising problems in our societies is naïve, but to be blind to the strength and celebrations of our religious beliefs, or the inherent goodness in our cultures is to encourage pessimism.

4.35  Mary Hayter, The New Eve in Christ (1987) on Human Nature We are now in a position to examine specific issues regarding the relation of male and female in God’s image. In the past, several deductions have been made from the Genesis passages which seem to me to be based upon misinterpretations of the text. There is need, therefore, for a reappraisal of the biblical material if it is to be used correctly by modern doctrinal scholars in the debate about the role of women in the Church. First, there has been a persistent tradition which declares that while the “whole man” as male is in God’s image, woman does not participate in the Imago Dei, or that woman is only in the divine image in a secondary sense. Diodore of Tarsus, for instance, in his commentary on Genesis, states that woman is not in God’s image but is under man’s dominion. Again, by “image of god” in man, John Chrysostom understands Adam’s sovereignty over the rest of creation, including woman. Tavard comments: “Diodoros of Chrysostom do not include woman in the natural image of God, since this image is one of power and dominion, of which woman has been deprived by God and society.” An unbiased exegesis of Genesis 1.26f and 5.1f provides no grounds for holding that woman participates in the image of god in a different way from man. It is as false to say that only the male is created in the divine image as it would be to make the same claim for the female. The implications of this for the debate about women’s ministry are succinctly put by Lampe: Genesis 1…with its reminder that male and female together constitute that humanity which has been created in the image of God, is a standing witness against the belief that an inferiority of the woman to the man belongs to the intention of the Creator; and it is on the basis of a supposed inferiority that the refusal of ordination to women has historically rested. Second, it has been suggested that originally humanity was sexless or androgynous and that the fact of the two sexes was a result of the Fall. Sexuality in general, and femininity in particular, came to be regarded with fear and suspicion by many Christians. This tallied with some of the motives behind ascetic and monastic movements and the effort to bring man to the level of an angelic, sexless life. Through subversive influences from Gnosticism and Platonic Hellenistic mysticism large sections of the early Church were permeated with the idea that the sex element is something low and unworthy of intelligent man—an idea which, as Brunner points out, has “more or less unconsciously and secretly… determined the thought of Christendom down to the present day.”

740

A Global Church History

A notable twentieth-century spokesman for the view that man’s sexual duality is an expression of fallen nature is N. Berdyaev, who refers with approval to the androgynous ideal which he finds in Plato’s Symposium. As with most supporters of the androgynous ideal, in the end it is not sexuality as such that Berdyaev despises, but femininity. For example, more than a hit of misogyny characterizes the remark that “Man’s slavery to sex is slavery to the feminine element, going back to the image of Eve.” I believe that Genesis 1.26-8 provides no evidence to support such views. The subject of this passage, “man,” adam, is referred to by the collective Hebrew noun for “mankind.” Genesis 5.2 confirms that male and female together were named Adam, man, when they were created. In Genesis 5.3, ‘Adam” is used as a proper name; but this is not the case in Chapter 1, not in 5.1-2. Therefore, efforts to harmonize the first Creation narrative with the ancient Greek myth of the androgyne or hermaphrodite cannot be sustained. Vawter states correctly that “the man formed from the ground and destined to return to it is all Mankind, men and women together, as is the man who is driven from the garden of Eden.” This has important implications for our thinking about the role of women, and their relative position to men in the created order, since it stresses both the unity and the differentiation of the sexes. First, the singular word ‘adām with its singular pronoun, “him,” ‘otô (Gen. 1.27), indicates God’s intention for the harmony and community of males and females in their shared humanity and join participation in the image and likeness of God. Second, sexuality is presented as fundamental to what it means to be human and procreation is the subject of a positive command (Gen. 1.28); the differentiation between the sexes and the means of procreation were not retrograde steps away from an ideal androgyny. This accords with the positive value ascribed to marriage and sexual love in other parts of the Old Testament. For the Hebrews, reproduction, and so sexual life, too, are a special gift to all living creatures. Third, since man and woman were created together, with no hint of temporal or ontological superiority, the difference between the sexes cannot be said to affect their equal standing—before God and before one another. “Sexual differentiation does not mean hierarchy.” There is no sexual stereotyping of roles regarding procreation and dominion here; male and female are blessed together and together are commanded to “fill the earth and subdue it” (Gen. 1.28); neither sex is given dominion over the other. If there is any relationship between the image of God and dominion it must be noted that the record ascribes the image of God to man and woman indiscriminately. Thus, Genesis 1.26-8 does away with any justification for the view that sexuality resulted from sinfulness. Furthermore, by stating that men and women were together created after God’s image, the passage forbids us to hold the female half of the human race in contempt as inferior, or in some way “closer to the animals,” or as needing redemption in the form of a transformation of feminine nature into the “more noble” spirituality of the masculine or the asexual. It may be justifiable to say that the use of divine plurals for God, such as the term ‘ elo ¯hîm, shows that the fullness of deity is comprehended in Yahweh. Whatever the origin of this practice, the Old Testament usage may be interpreted in an inclusive sense: Yahweh, as ‘elo ¯hîm, embraces the whole range of divinity, including any facets of masculinity or femininity which may legitimately be predicated of deity. Above and beyond the feminist term God/Goddess, the term ‘elo ¯hîm as applied to Yahweh can denote that the God of Israel incorporates and transcends masculinity and femininity. Thus, Macquarrie believes that if the image of God is represented by male and female, then:

Modern

741

This implies that already in the divine Being there must be, through in an eminent way beyond what we can conceive, whatever is affirmative in sexuality and sociality, in masculinity and femininity…God transcends the distinction of sex, but he does this not by sheer exclusion, but by prefiguring whatever is of value in sexuality on an altogether higher level.

Such a sensitive and carefully worded statement marks the limit to which we may go in making deductions about sexuality in God from Genesis 1.26f and 5.1f. By contrast, when Frazer declares that we gather from Gensesis 1 “that the distinction of the sexes, which is characteristic of humanity, is shared also by the divinity,” he seems to be reading back human male- and female- ness on to God. As Barr reminds us, the question behind Genesis 1.26-8 is not so much “What is God like?” but “What is man like?” The Priestly theologian “is saying not primarily that God’s likeness is man, but that man is in a relation of likeness to God.” It is incorrect therefore, to state bluntly that the Imago concept and the divine plurals in Genesis are illustrative of a sexual distinction in God. What deductions and conclusions may legitimately be drawn from the Priestly Creation narrative to contribute to our understanding of diving and human sexuality and the status of woman? First, Genesis 1.26f and 5.1f confirm emphatically the view that woman as well as man participates in the Imago Dei. Whatever it is correct to say about the creation of the male in the image and likeness of God applies also to the female. Anything and everything that may be deduced from the text about “man,” “mankind,” “humanity,” is relevant not simply to one half of the human race but to all men and women. Women’s role and status in no mere addendum to the doctrine of man but an integral and essential part of it. Brunner declares that the primal truth is that god created man in his own image; “male and female he created them.” “This truth cuts away the ground from all belief in the inferior value of woman.” Second, it must be concluded that there is no place in biblical doctrine for theories which advocate ideal androgyny, or sexless humanity, or which equate woman with earth-bound sexuality and man with ascetic transcendence and freedom from sensuality. Genesis affirms that sexuality, maleness and femaleness, was part of God’s original intention for human beings, part of the creation which was “very good” (Gen. 1.31), and not a secondary and corrupt development consequent upon the Fall. Sexuality is a fundamental part of the creation and there is no suggestion that one of the two sexes is somehow evil or inferior. Third, it must be concluded that, in Genesis 1, there is no deification of sex. As Tribles writes, “the metaphorical language of Genesis 1.27 preserves with exceeding care the otherness of God…God is neither male nor female, nor a combination of the two.” It must be reiterated that the Priestly theologian ascribed neither maleness nor femaleness to God. Sex is firmly rooted in the good creative purposes of God, and the essential need of male and female for each other is underlined. Yet precisely because sexual differentiation is a God-given gift to the created order, it cannot serve as an adequate description of the deity, since God, transcending the limitations of created beings, has no need or use for sexuality qua sexuality. God’s blessing hallows human reproductivity and sexual love, so that there is no room for an ascetic denigration of these faculties. But the assertion that man’s procreative ability is an emanation or manifestation of his creation in God’s image must be discarded. Sexuality is not, per se, a sign of God-likeness. In all, the Priestly creation narrative encapsulates several crucial points which may be taken up and learnt from by modern theologians who seek to present a biblically based doctrine of sexuality and the

742

A Global Church History

status of woman. Genesis does not adulate sexual polarity as being itself the Imago Dei; but it reveals a balanced attitude towards sexuality and a sane egalitarianism regarding the man-woman relationship. As Brunner writes: “That is the immense double statement, of a lapidary simplicity, so simple indeed that we hardly realize that with it a vast world of myth and Gnostic speculation, of cynicism and asceticism, of the deification of sexuality and fear of sex completely disappear.”

4.36  Alexander Schmemann, The Eucharist (1988) on the Eucharist Now we can ask, what is the specific function of the epiklesis, the prayer for the sending down of the Holy Spirit, which we find to be the concluding part of the anamnesis in the Orthodox liturgy? Above all it is what the very text of the epiklesis, which begins in both the liturgies of St John Chrysostom and St Basil the Great with the words “remembering therefore,” testifies to: the organic connection of this prayer with the remembrance. I cited Chrysostom’s text in the very beginning of this chapter, and therefore I will limit myself here to citing the parallel prayer, the epiklesis in the liturgy of St Basil the Great: Therefore, we also, O master, remembering His (i.e., Christ’s) saving Passion and life-creating Cross, His three-day Burial and resurrection from the dead, His Ascension in heaven and Sitting at Thy right hand of the God and Father, and His Glorious and awesome Second Coming, Thine own of Thine own we offer to Thee, in behalf of all, and for all….we now dare to approach Thy holy altar and, offering to Thee the antitypes of the holy Body and Blood of Thy Christ, we pray Thee and call upon Thee, O Holy of Holies, that by the favor of Thy goodness Thy Holy Spirit may come upon us and upon the gifts no offered….

As we see, the prayer of the epiklesis constitutes the conclusion of the remembrance. In the categories of the new time in which the eucharist is accomplished, it unites “all those things which have come to pass for us, “ the entire mystery of salvation accomplished by Christ, the mystery of Christ’s love, which embraces the whole world and has been granted to us. The remembrance is the confession of the knowledge of this mystery, its reality, and likewise faith in it as the salvation of the world and man. Like the entire eucharist, the remembrance is not a repetition. It is the manifestation, gift and experience, in “this world” and therefore again and again, of the eucharist offered by Christ once and for all, and of our ascension to it. The eucharist is accomplished from beginning to end over the bread and wine. Bread and wine are the food that God created from the beginning as life: “you shall have them for food” (Gn 1:29). But the meaning, essence and joy of life is not in food, but in God, in communion with him. Man, and in him “this world,” fell away from this food, “in paradise the food of immortality” (Liturgy of St Basil the Great). Food came to reign in him, but this reign is not unto life, but unto death, disintegration and separation. And that is why Christ, when he had come into the world, called himself “the bread of God…which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world” (Jn 6:33). “I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst” (Jn 6:35).

Modern

743

Christ is the “bread of heaven,” for this definition contains the entire content, the entire reality of our faith in him as Savior and Lord. He is life, and therefore food. He offered this life in sacrifice “on behalf of all and for all,” in order that we might become communicants of his own life, the new life of the new creation, and that we might manifest him as his body. To all this the Church answers amen, she receives all this through faith, she fulfils all this in the eucharist through the Holy Spirit. All the rites of the liturgy are a manifestation, one after the other, of the realities of which the saving work of Christ is manifested is not something new, that did not exist before the manifestation. No—in Christ all is already accomplished, all is real, all is granted. In him we have obtained access to the Father and communion in the Holy Spirit and anticipation of the new life in his kingdom. And here the epiklesis, which we find at the end of the Eucharistic prayer, is also this manifestation and this gift, and likewise the Church’s acceptance of them. “Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts here offered.” For the invocation of the Holy Spirit is not a separate act whose one and only object is the bread and wine. Immediately after the invocation of the Holy Spirit the celebrant prays: “And united all of us to one another who become partakers of the One Bread and Cup in the communion of the Holy Spirit” (St Basil the Great). “That they may be to those who partake for the purification of soul, for the remission of sins, for the communion of Thy Holy Spirit, for the fulfillment of the Kingdom of Heaven…” Furthermore, again without interruption, the prayer goes on to the intercession, of which we shall speak later. The purpose of the eucharist lies not in the change of the bread and wine, but in our partaking of Christ, who has become our food, our life, the manifestation of the Church as the body of Christ. This is why the holy gifts themselves never became in the orthodox East an object of special theological “problematics”: how, when, in what manner their change is accomplished. The eucharist— and this means the changing of the holy gifts—is a mystery that cannot be revealed and explained in the categories of “this world”—time, essence, causality, etc. It is revealed only to faith: “I believe also that this is truly Thine own most pure Body, and that this is truly Thine own precious Blood.” Nothing is explained, nothing is defined, nothing has changed in “this world.” But then whence comes the light, this joy that overflows the heart, this feeling of fullness and of touching the “other world”? We find the answer to these questions in the epiklesis. But the answer is not “rational,” built upon the laws of our “one-storied” logic; it is disclosed to us by the Holy Spirit. In almost every ordo of the eucharist that has reached us, the Church prays in the text of the epiklesis that the eucharist will be for those who partake “for the communion of the Holy Spirit”: “And unite all of us to one another who become partakers of the one Bread and Cup in the communion of the Holy Spirit,” and further “for the fulfillment of the Kingdom of Heaven.” These two definitions of the purpose of the eucharist are in essence synonyms, for both manifest the eschatological essence of the sacrament, its orientation to the kingdom of God, which is to come but in the Church is already manifested and granted. Thus the epiklesis concludes the anaphora, the part of the liturgy that encompasses the “assembly as the Church,” the entrance, the proclamation of the good news of the word of god, the offering, the oblation, the thanksgiving and the remembrance. But with the epiklesis begins the consummation of the liturgy, whose essence lies in communion, in the distribution to the faithful of the holy gifts, the body and blood of Christ.

744

A Global Church History

4.37  Leonardo Boff, Trinity and Society on the Trinity and Society (1987) The Holy Trinity as Good News to Men and Women, Especially to the Poor In what sense can the Trinity be called “gospel,” good news, to people, especially to the poor and oppressed? For many Christians it is simply a mystery in logic: how can the one God exist in three Persons? How can a Trinity of Persons form the unity of the one God? Any Christian coming into contact with debates on the Trinity for the first time might well form this impression: the Christian faith developed intellectually in the Hellenic world; Christians had to translate their doxology into a theology appropriate to that world in order to assert the truth of their faith. So they used expressions accessible to the critical reasoning of that time, such as substance, person, relation, perichoresis, procession. This was a most difficult path to follow, as we saw in earlier chapters; it has left its mark even today, even though the mystery defies all human categories and calls for new approaches, springing from an encounter between biblical revelation and dominant cultures. We should never forget that the New Testament never uses the expressions “trinity of persons” and “unity of nature.” To say that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit is revelation; to say that God is “one substance and three Persons” is theology, a human endeavor to fir the revelation of God within the limitations of reason. The same thing happens when Christians read the pronouncements of the magisterium. These are statements of great pithiness and logical coherence, designed to curb the speculative exuberance of theologians. Dogmatic progress virtually came to an end with the Council of Florence (1439-45); from then to the present (with some noted exceptions, as we have seen) theological works have generally confined themselves to commenting on the terms defined and investigating historical questions of detail of the system already constructed.2 It is not easy to explain to Christians caught up in the “logical mystery” of the Trinity that the number “three” in the Trinity (trias and trinitas, words established by Theophilius of Antioch and Tertullian at the end of the second century) does not signify anything that can be counted and has nothing to do with arithmetical processes of addition and subtraction. The scriptures count nothing in God; they know only one divine number—the number “one”: one God, one Lord, one Spirit. This “one” is not a number, not the number “one” in sense of first in a series; it is rather the negation of all numbers, simply “the only.” The father is “an only,” as are the Son and the Holy Spirit; these “onlies” cannot be added together. As we have tried to explain earlier, it is the eternal communion between these Onlies that forms the divine oneness in the power of life and love (the divine nature). Nevertheless, by reason of the communion and relationship revealed to us between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, there is an order to the divine names. Though each Person is co-eternal with the others and, therefore, none can exist before the others, we must, nevertheless, affirm that the Father who begets is logically “before” the Son who is begotten, as is the son “before” the Spirit, breathed out by the Father with and through the Son. This is the explanation for the order of the divine names, and from this comes the human convention of speaking of three “Person.”3 But theology has never been satisfied with the expression “three Persons,” as the continuous debates have shown. We need to go beyond the understanding of Trinity as logical mystery and see it as saving mystery. The Trinity has to do with the lives of each of us, our daily experiences, our struggles to follow our

Modern

745

conscience, our love and joy, our bearing the sufferings of the world and the tragedies of human existence; it also has to do with the struggle against social injustice, with efforts at building a more human form of society, with the sacrifices and martyrdoms that these endeavors so often bring. If we fail to include the Trinity in our personal and social odyssey, we shall have failed to show the saving mystery, failed in evangelization. If oppressed believers come to appreciate the fact that their struggles for life and liberty are also those of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, working for the Kingdom of glory and eternal life, then they will have further motives for struggling and resisting; the meaning of their efforts will break out of the restricting framework of history and be inscribed in eternity, in the heart of the absolute Mystery itself. We are not condemned to live alone, cut off from one another; we are called to live together and to enter into the communion of the Trinity. Society is not ultimately set in its unjust and unequal relationships, but summoned to transform itself in the light of the open and egalitarian relationships that obtain in the communion of the Trinity, the goal of social and historical progress. If the Trinity is good news, then it is so particularly for the oppressed and those condemned to solitude.

4.38  T. F. Torrance, The Trinitarian Faith on Christ (1988) It is to be noted that the defence of the complete reality and integrity of the historical humanity of Christ by Nicene theologians was offered mainly on soteriological grounds. It was the whole man that the Son of god came to redeem by becoming many himself and effecting our salvation in and through the very humanity he appropriated from us—if the humanity of Christ were in any way deficient, all that he is said to have done in offering himself in sacrifice “for our sakes,” “on our behalf” and “in our place” would be quite meaningless. As Athanasius wrote to Epictetus, “The Saviour having in very truth become man, the salvation of the whole man was brought about…Truly our salvation is no myth, and does not extend to the body only—the whole man, body and soul, has truly received salvation in the Word himself.” He wrote in similar terms to the Antiochenes: “The body possessed by the Saviour did not lack soul or sense or mind, for it was impossible when the Lord became man that his body should be without mind; not was the salvation effected in the Word himself only of the body but also of the soul.” Thus the whole life of Christ is understood as a continuous vicarious sacrifice and oblation which, as such, is indivisible, for everything he assumed from us is organically united in his one Person and work as Saviour and Mediator. The teaching given here in face of the critical questions that arose after the Council of Nicaea was in fact but an extension of what he had first put forward in his early work On the incarnation of the Word, as well as in his debates with the Arians: the redemption of the whole man through the incarnation, and the redemption of the whole man effected in it by way of Christ’s vicarious sacrifice for sin and his victory in death and resurrection over corruption and death. In his incarnation the Son of God took on himself not only the form of man but the form of a servant— for his incarnation was an act of utter self-abasement and humiliation in which he assumed our abject servile condition, our state under the slavery of sin, in order to act for us and on our behalf from within our actual existence. It must be noted, however, as Basic insisted, that the Pauline expression “form of a servant” should be taken to mean, not some “likeness” or “resemblance” assumed by Christ in his incarnation, but the actual form of existence which he took over from ‘the lump of Adam’—it was a “real

746

A Global Church History

incarnation.” The Nicene theologians could never suppress their utter astonishment at the incredible act of condescension on the part of God in the stark reality of the incarnation. Thus Gregory Nyssen exclaimed: “Why did the divine being descend to such humiliation? Our faith staggers at the thought that God, the infinite, inconceivable and ineffable reality, who transcends all glory and majesty, should be clothed with the defiled nature of man, so that his sublime activities are abased through being united with what is so degraded.” The Pauline concept of kenosis was not interpreted in any metaphysical way as involving a contraction, diminution or self-limitation of God’s infinite being, but in terms of his selfabnegating love in the inexpressible mystery of the tapeinosis, impoverishment or abasement, which he freely took upon himself in what he became and did in Christ entirely for our sake. The Arians before the Council of Nicea and afterwards, had made a point of searching the Scriptures for every possible passage or text indicating the creatureliness, human weakness, the mortality of Christ, his subordinate and servile condition, which were stressed in contrast to the transcendent Godhead of the Father. Instead of rejecting these passages, however, Athanasius seized upon them and emphasized them in order to show that it was deliberately in this servile condition that the eternal Son came among us, became one of us and one with us, precisely in order to be our Saviour. Here we find closely allied, and knit into each other, the notions of the servant and of the priest—the teaching of St. Paul and that of the Epistle to the Hebrews (which was held to be Pauline) were integrated. The servant form of Christ was discerned to be essential to his priestly oneness with us in virtue of which he could act on our behalf, in our place, and in our stead, before God the Father. As we shall see, this involved an understanding of Christ in which his Person and his act, what he was and what he did, were completely one, for he was himself both the one offered and the one who offered for mankind. On this incarnational basis let us now consider what atonement or mediation and redemption mean. Here we must remind ourselves right away that the Father/Son relation subsists eternally within the being and life of God. This means that we cannot but think of the incarnation of the Son as falling within the being and life of God—although, as we have had occasion to note, the incarnation must be regarded as something “new” even for God, for the Son was not eternally man any more than the Father was eternally Creator. Moreover, since Jesus Christ is himself God and man in one Person, and all his divine and human acts issue from his one Person, the atoning mediation and redemption which he wrought for us, fall within his own being and life as the one Mediator between God and man. That is to say, the work of atoning salvation does not take place outside of Christ, as something external to him, but takes place within him, within the incarnate constitution of his Person as Mediator.

4.39  Leslie Newbingin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (1989) on Religious Pluralism 1. Surely we all see “salvation” in the sense of total welfare and happiness. The trouble is that we define it differently and see lot at the expense of others. Human beings have different ideas about what “salvation, “ total welfare, might be, and thus the human search for salvation is a highly competitive affair.

Modern

747

2. All serious seeking involves reliance on some clue. Christians are all seekers, and they believe that the decisive clue, the true and living way, has been given in Jesus. A common search cannot surely mean a search which abandons any specific clue and simply agrees to search. The Christian points to Jesus as the master-clue in the common search of humanity for salvation and invites others to follow. It is true that this invitation, when it is given by Christians who are in positions of power and privilege, may be radically corrupted into a kind of spiritual imperialism which is oppressive rather than liberating. Missions have been guilty of this distortion and we have to acknowledge it. But it is also worth noting that most of the vigorous evangelism in our contemporary world is being done by the churches of the Third World which have no such power or privilege. There is a longing for unity among all human beings, for unity offers the promise of peace. The problem is that we want unity on our terms, and it is our rival programs for unity which tear us apart. As Augustine said, all wars are fought for the sake of peace. The history of the world could be told as the story of successive efforts to bring unity to the world, and of course the name we give to these efforts is “imperialism.” The Christian gospel has sometimes been made the tool of an imperialism, and of that we have to repent. But at its heart it is the denial of all imperialisms, for at its center there is the cross where all imperialisms are humbled and we are invited to find the center of human unity in the One who was made nothing so that all might be one. The very heart of the biblical vision for the unity of humankind is that its center is not an imperial power but the slain Lamb. The truth, of course, is that every program for human unity has implicit in it some vision of the organizing principle, which is to make this unity possible. As Andrew Dumas has pointed out, if this is not clearly recognized and state, as it is in the Christian vision of the cross of Jesus as the place where all peoples may find reconciliation, then we shall find that the interests and intentions of the proposer are the hidden center. If there is no explicit statement of the center of unity, then the assumptions and interests of the proposer become the effective center. This becomes very clear in The Myth of Christian Uniqueness. Professor Gordon Kaufman of Harvard begins with the need for human unity, assumes without argument that the Christian gospel cannot furnish the center for such unity, and goes on to say that “modern historical consciousness” requires us to abandon the claim to Christ’s uniqueness, and to recognize that the biblical view of things, like all other human views, is culturally conditioned (The Myth, pp.5ff). This same “modern historical consciousness” will enable us to enter into the mental worlds of the other religions without supposing that we can impose our Christian norms on them. But to a person living in another culture it is not obvious that the modern historical consciousness of twentiethcentury Western intellectuals provides us with a vantage point which can displace the one provided by the Christian story, or that it can furnish a basis for human unity. It is true that modern historical studies enable us to see that people in other times and places were looking at the world through culturally conditioned lenses and that their claim to “see things as they really are” is relativized by our studies in the history of cultures. But to suppose that modern historical consciousness gives us a privileged standpoint where we really do see things as they are, is of course unsupported dogma. Modern historical consciousness is also the product of a particular culture and can claim no epistemological privilege. Kaufman’s theology of religions is thus similar to that of the Christian in that it finally rests on an ultimate faith-commitment which does not and cannot seek validation from some more ultimate

748

A Global Church History

ground. In this case the ultimate faith-commitment is to the validity of the “modern historical consciousness.” The same is true for the often made claim that all religions are variants of one central human experience, namely that which has been explored most fully by the great mystics. It is indeed true that mystical experience has played a very important role in all the world’s great religions, including Christianity. But in no religious traditions is it the only reality. There is much else in all religious traditions, much about the conduct of human life, about justice, freedom, obedience, and mutual charity. To select the mystical element in religion as the core reality is a decision which can be questioned in the name of other elements in the religious life. And the claim that the mystical experience is that which provides the primary clue to what is real, and therefore the one road to salvation for all humanity, is—once again—to choose a particular faith commitment among others which are possible. It does not enable one to evade the question: Why this, rather than that? Wilfred Cantwell Smith in the same volume restates his familiar view that all the religions have as their core some experience of the Transcendent; that whether we speak of images made of wood and stone or images made in the mind, or even of such an image as the man Jesus, all are equally the means used by the Transcendent to make himself, herself, or itself present to us humans. To claim uniqueness for one particular form or vehicle of this contact with the Transcendent is preposterous and even blasphemous. Much rather accept the truth so beautifully stated in the Bhagavadgita and in the theology of Ramanuja, that God is so gracious that he (or she or it) accepts everyone who worships whatever be the form through which that worship is offered (The Myth, p. 65). It is clear that in Smith’s view “The Transcendent” is a purely formal category. He, she, or it may be conceived in any way that the worshipper may choose. There can therefore be no such thing as false or misdirected worship, since the reality to which it is directed is unknowable. Smith quotes as “one of the theologically most discerning remarks that I know” the words of the Yogavasistha: “Thou are formless Thy only form is our knowledge of Thee” (The Myth, p. 55). Any claims for uniqueness made for one concept of the Transcendent, for instance the Christian claim that the Transcendent is present in fullness in Jesus (Col. 1:19), is to be regarded as wholly unacceptable. There are no criteria by which different concepts of the Transcendent may be tested. We are shut up to a total subjectivity: The Transcendent is unknowable. This belief (or, rather, this declining of the possibility of belief) is taken to its logical conclusion in the frank polytheism with which the Myth volume concludes. In this final essay Tom Driver writes: God has different “natures.” In pluralist perspective, it is not simply that god has one nature variously and inadequately expressed by different religious tradition. It is that there are real and genuine differences within the godhead itself, owing to the manifold involvement that God has undertaken with the great variety of human communities. (Myth, p. 212)

I venture to offer two concluding comments on the pluralist position as it is set out in the The Myth of Christian Uniqueness. One is from the perspective of the sociology of knowledge. The culture in which this type of thinking has developed is one in which the most typical feature is the supermarket. In a society which has exalted the autonomous individual as the supreme reality, we are accustomed to the rich variety offered on the supermarket shelves and to the freedom we have to choose our favorite

Modern

749

brands. It is very natural that this mentality should pervade our view of religion. One may stick to one’s favorite brand and acclaim its merits in songs of praise; but to insist that everyone else should choose the same brand is unacceptable. And that leads to a second point, which is more fundamental. The Myth volume celebrated a decisive move beyond exclusivism, and beyond the inclusivism which acknowledges the saving work of Christ beyond Christianity, to a pluralism which denies any uniqueness to Jesus Christ. This move, the “crossing of the Rubicon,” is the further development of what was described by John Hick as a Copernican revolution—the move from a Christocentric view of reality to a theocentric one (Hick, God and the Universe of Faiths). The further move is described as “soteriocentric”—it has its center in the common quest for salvation. Even the word “God” excludes some concepts of the Transcendent Reality and is therefore exclusivist. But what is “salvation”? It is, according to Hick, “the transformation of human experience from self-centredness to God—or Reality—centredness” (Myth, p. 23). The Christian creator and sustainer of all that is, has acted in the historical person of the man Jesus to meet us, take our burden of sin and death, invite us to trust and love him, and so to come to a life centered in God and not in the self. The authors of the Myth deny this. “Reality” is not to be identified with any specific name or form or image or story. Reality “has no form except our knowledge of it.” Reality is unknowable, and each of us has to form his or her own image of it. There is no objective reality which can confront the self and offer another center—as the concrete person of Jesus does. There is only the self and its need for salvation, a need which must be satisfied with whatever form of the unknown Transcendent the self may cherish. The movement, in other words, is exactly the reverse of the Copernican one. It is a move away from a center outside the self, to the self as the only center. It is a further development of the move which converted Christian theology from a concern with the reality of God’s saving acts, to a concern with “religious experience,” the move which converts theology into anthropology, the move about which perhaps the final word was spoken by Feuerbach who saw that the “God” so conceived was simply the blown-up image of the self thrown up against the sky. It is the final triumph of the self over reality. A “soteriocentric” view makes “reality” the servant of the self and its desires. It excludes the possibility that “reality” as personal might address the self with a call which requires an answer. It is the authentic product of a consumer society. It is not easy to resist the contemporary tide of thinking and feeling which seems to sweep us irresistibly in the direction of an acceptance of religious pluralism, and away from any confident affirmation of the absolute sovereignty of Jesus Christ. It is not easy to challenge the reigning plausibility structure. It is much easier to conform. The overwhelming dominance of relativism in contemporary culture makes any firm confession of belief suspect. To the affirmation which Christians make about Jesus, the reply is, Yes, but others make similar affirmations about the symbols of their faith; why Jesus and not someone or something else?” Thus a reluctance to believe in something leads to a state of mind in which the Zeitgeist becomes the only ruling force. The true statement that none of us can grasp the whole truth is made an excuse for disqualifying any claim to have a valid clue for at least the beginnings of understanding. There is an appearance of humility in the protestation that the truth is much greater than any one of us can grasp, but if this is used to invalidate all claims to discern the truth it is in fact an arrogant claim to a kind of knowledge which is superior to the knowledge which is available to fallible human beings. We have to ask, “how do you know the truth about god is greater

750

A Global Church History

than what is revealed to us in Jesus?” When Samartha and others ask us, “What grounds can you show for regarding the Bible as uniquely authoritative when other religions also have their sacred books?” we have to ask in turn, “What is the vantage ground from which you claim to be able to relativize all the absolute claims which these different scriptures make? What higher truth do you have which enables you to reconcile the diametrically opposite statements of the Bible and Qur’an about Jesus? Or are you in effect advising that it is better not to believe in anything?” When the answer is, “We want the unity of humankind so that we may be saved from disaster,” the answer must be, “We also want that unity, and therefore seek the truth by which alone humankind can become one.” That truth is not a doctrine or a worldview or even a religious experience; it is certainly not to be found by repeating abstract nouns like justice and love; it is the man Jesus Christ in whom God was reconciling the world. The truth is personal, concrete, historical. To make that confession does not mean, as critics seem to assume, that we believe that God’s saving mercy is limited to Christians and that the rest of the world is lost. Taking for granted the faith that Christ is indeed unique Lord and Savior, we must ask what this means for our understanding of and relations with the other great world faiths.

4.40  Clark Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy (1992) on Religious Pluralism Theological pluralists have a problem with Christology. Were Jesus to be decisive for all nations, that would be unconducive to dialogue and cooperation among the religions. Therefore, ways must be found to reinterpret historical data so as to eliminate finality claims from Christology. They must be diminished so they do not constitute a barrier to interreligious peace. Pluralists hope there is a way to read the New Testament without coming up with a Christ who has to be normative for everybody in the world. They need a way for Jesus to be unique for his followers, but not necessarily for others. If his uniqueness could be relational, for example, this would create fewer problems. Pluralists think that belief in the finality of Jesus Christ stands in the way of our appreciating other religions and getting along smoothly with them. They intend to correct the problem. Different solutions have been proposed. The least radical involves shifting the emphasis away from metaphysics in the directions of action/functional categories. The problem could be eased, in the minds of theological pluralists, if we would just learn to view Jesus as God’s love in action and present him as one who assists people to find access to the grace of God. Why not put the emphasis on Christ’s prophetic office. Then stress the way he reveals the Father’s character and will for humans in his own life and teachings? This would shift the emphasis away from Jesus as a metaphysical oddity and toward the impact he had on people, the way he shaped people’s understanding of what God is like. Instead of repeating the idea that God entered history in Jesus from the outside in a miraculous way, we couple explain how Jesus functions as a window into God’s very nature. As Jesus himself said, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (Jn 14:9). In this way, one can speak about the importance of Jesus without having to talk about his preexistence, or about the trinity, or about Incarnation in a metaphysical sense.

Modern

751

The late J. A. T. Robinson took this tack. He claimed that it was God’s love that was incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth, not the divine substance. Jesus was special because God was acting in and through him. He became the image for us of who God is. In carnation imagery supplies an effective mythic expression of the way we related to God through him. Jesus is the clue to the nature of God as personal love, not the absolutely unique embodiment of God’s being. He is unique in degree but not in kind. The idea of Jesus embodying God’s love for us is true as far as it goes. But not going farther creates severe difficulties. First, unwanted claims of finality tend to attach themselves to action Christology, even though the claims are functional. Even when the Christ-event is taken only as disclosure, it is still viewed as decisive disclosure. But if decisive for us, why not for others? If it is decisive for us in our cultural setting, why not also in other people’s settings? Second, functional Christology has a way of not remaining functional. Edward Schillebeecks also places emphasis on Jesus’ role in communicating God’s love, but then he goes on to posit an ontological bond between Jesus and God his Father also. Substance and action categories are brought together in his final assessment. For, he reasons, if Jesus presents us with God most human, are we not also in the presence of unfathomable mystery? Third, there are texts that present ontological teaching about the person of Jesus elsewhere in the New Testament, so that moving to action Christology does not really get one off the hook. It cannot account for the entire biblical witness, even though it can account for some of it. A second possible way to correct the “problem” of high Christology in the New Testament allows one to accept the higher-than-functional claims that are made for Jesus and still dispense with universal normativeness. With reference to the “once and for all” language of the New Testament for the decisive work of Jesus, Paul Knitter comments that, “To close one’s eyes to such proclamation is either psychologically to repress or dishonestly to deny what one does not wish to face.” We cannot prevent the biblical witnesses from saying what they meant to say. Nevertheless, Knitter dos try to evade the proclamation in another way. First, he explains the expressions in terms of the culture of the early Christians, saying it was natural for them to speak of their religious experiences in the ways that they did. Being a culturally conditioned way of speaking, their words tell us more about their social setting than about the actual person of Jesus. Second, their high praise of Jesus is more an expression of love and devotion to him that truth claims as such. It is rather like our saying, “My wife (or my husband) is the kindest and most loving person in the world.” This is not a scientific statement based on research but rather love language. By looking at these claims in this way, Jesus can be relationally unique (like a spouse, is relationally unique), unique in the way Christians experience god – but not unique in a universal sense, in the sense of being normative for other people who may experience God in different religious contexts. The confession, “Jesus is Lord,“ would express what Jesus means to us without carrying any implication that everybody in the world must worship him or come to God by way of him. This confession is our way to honor God, but need not be taken as a judgment on other confessions made by other people. This approach allows one to admit that the New Testament witnesses make extraordinarily high claims for Jesus. Yet, one does not have to deny or excise them. The key is to reinterpret their significance in the experiential and confessional terms of love. Because they are culturally conditioned and psychologically rendered, the claims for Jesus turn out not to be truth claims in the ordinary sense, in which the church has understood them historically. The problem of high Christology vanishes.

752

A Global Church History

The approach is ingenious and possible, I not entirely plausible. But there are problems in the following areas. First, the New Testament writers appear to be stating, as far as one can tell, what they consider to be facts and truths. They are not only sharing religious feelings, but conveying what they took to be information as well. In a famous text, for example, Paul tells his readers about Christ’s identification with their humanity and god’s raising him up from the dead (1 Co 15: 1-11). How fair is it to forbid Paul to make these claims by categorizing them as only what he could not but have said, given his culture and personal life-history? Surely we ought to take him more seriously that than. We need to listen to what he wants to say, and consider whether or not what he claims I true. Reducing the Resurrection to an event of experience only, when Paul obviously though it was more than that is unfair. Just because it is easier for us to think of the Resurrection as the ongoing presence of Jesus rather than the transformation of a dead man, we are not entitled to impute this view to the early Christians. If they wanted to say more than that, we should let them. Such a hermeneutic is being driven by a modern agenda imposed on the text. Second, there is also something of a justice issue involved here. What right does a modern interpreter have to alter what the biblical witnesses intend, so as to make it means something else? What right has he or she to change and reduce the meaning in this way? To transmute claims about Jesus, as Savior of the world and risen from the dead, into a description of what was going on in their culturally conditioned psyches is illegitimate. Suppose one turned this same argument on pluralists and reduced their claims in this same way? Are their claims for God similarly derivative from the psyche? Is it their love for God that makes them think there actually is a God? To argue in this way constitutes an unacceptable putdown. People have the right to make claims others do not like or accept without having others change and distort their meaning to suit themselves. New Testament claims for Jesus ought to be taken seriously, the same way Knitter’s claim about god ought to be. It is inconsistent to apply a noncognitivist bias to claims for Jesus and not to claims for God. Third, the suggestion is very dubious that Christians might confess a nonnormative Jesus without losing anything important in their faith. Knitter posits our living, and even dying, for Christ with the knowledge that the truth of the gospel is our truth, but not necessarily the truth for the world. It is as though we could confess the Jesus is Lord while harboring the reservation that maybe he is, and maybe he isn’t. How can Christ’s resurrection be true for us and not for the world? The faith of Christians would be fatally damaged if it came to be accepted that the risen Lord were our myth of meaning and not more than that. A more radical approach to the problem of high Christology in the New Testament is adopted by John Hick. First, he outright denies any uniqueness claims of the part of Jesus. He realizes that hesitating on this point would leave a threat of continuity between Jesus and the later developments, giving it a toehold of plausibility. This is certainly a wise move methodologically, if a risky one exegetically. Second, like knitter he transposes all the uniqueness claims made on behalf of Jesus by the New Testament witnesses onto the level of noncognitive love language. Third, he attempts to locate the Christology of the Incarnation in a hypothetical context of the development of traditions. Using Buddhism as an example, he points to the process by with religious leaders are deified over time out of respect. Fourth, he adds that there are various insuperable logical problems with belief in Incarnation. This supplies a philosophical backup objection should all else fail.

Modern

753

Unfortunately, none of his points sticks firmly. First, one cannot deny Jesus’ claims to uniqueness on the basis of critical exegesis. While granting his point about Jesus not making explicit claims to Incarnation. The implicit claims Jesus does make solidly ground the more-developed views of his person after the Resurrection. Not easily sidestepped, they entail the high view of Jesus which issued in the faith of the church. Second, transposing claims for Jesus’ uniqueness made by the biblical witnesses onto the level of noncognitive love language is an unacceptable put-down of their sincerely held beliefs. It is rooted in hostile presuppositions again the truth of what they are declaring. Neither just nor fair, it refuses to take them seriously. Third, there is Christological development in early doctrine, and the Incarnation is noticeable in that development. But the Christology being developed there is already very high, with the event of Jesus’ Resurrection, and constitutes an unpacking of what is implicit from the beginning. The centuries of development envisaged by the Buddhist analogy do not exist in this case. Fourth, as to whether belief in the Incarnation is rational or not, two things can be said. First, the problem of finality is much larger than belief in the Incarnation. In many other ways the biblical witnesses lift up Jesus as lord of the universe. Second, not everyone is as impressed as Hick by the logical problems of believing in the Incarnation. A large number of thoughtful Christians find the belief coherent, even true and magnificient. The New Testament quite effectively resists attempts of this type to rid it of the unwanted belief in the finality of Jesus Christ. Efforts to revise Christology downward are difficult to accept because they go against the evidence, and they appear to be based on special pleading and hostile presuppositions. It is impossible to bring it off in an exegetically convincing way. One cannot make the New Testament teach a non-normative Christology. There may be nothing wrong with trying—one learns a lot from conducting exegetical experiments. But in terms of results, the effort to rid the New Testament of the doctrine of the finality of Christ must be pronounced a failure.

4.41  John Paul II, “Evangelium Vitae” on Christ’s Sacrifice and the Sacredness of Life (1995) 1. The Gospel of life is at the heart of Jesus’ message. Lovingly received day after day by the Church, it is to be preached with dauntless fidelity as “good news” to the people of every age and culture. At the dawn of salvation, it is the Birth of a Child which is proclaimed as joyful news: “I bring you good news of a great joy which will come to all the people; for to you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord” (Lk 2:10-11). The source of this “great joy” is the Birth of the Saviour; but Christmas also reveals the full meaning of every human birth, and the joy which accompanies the Birth of the Messiah is thus seen to be the foundation and fulfilment of joy at every child born into the world (cf. Jn 16:21). When he presents the heart of his redemptive mission, Jesus says: “I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly” (Jn 10:10). In truth, he is referring to that “new” and “eternal” life which consists in communion with the Father, to which every person is freely called in the Son by the power of the Sanctifying Spirit. It is precisely in this “life” that all the aspects and stages of human life achieve their full significance. …

754

A Global Church History

24. It is at the heart of the moral conscience that the eclipse of the sense of God and of man, with all its various and deadly consequences for life, is taking place. It is a question, above all, of the individual conscience, as it stands before God in its singleness and uniqueness. But it is also a question, in a certain sense, of the “moral conscience” of society: in a way it too is responsible, not only because it tolerates or fosters behaviour contrary to life, but also because it encourages the “culture of death,” creating and consolidating actual “structures of sin” which go against life. The moral conscience, both individual and social, is today subjected, also as a result of the penetrating influence of the media, to an extremely serious and mortal danger: that of confusion between good and evil, precisely in relation to the fundamental right to life. A large part of contemporary society looks sadly like that humanity which Paul describes in his Letter to the Romans. It is composed “of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth” (1:18): having denied God and believing that they can build the earthly city without him, “they became futile in their thinking” so that “their senseless minds were darkened” (1:21); “claiming to be wise, they became fools” (1:22), carrying out works deserving of death, and “they not only do them but approve those who practise them” (1:32). When conscience, this bright lamp of the soul (cf. Mt 6:2223), calls “evil good and good evil” (Is 5:20), it is already on the path to the most alarming corruption and the darkest moral blindness. And yet all the conditioning and efforts to enforce silence fail to stifle the voice of the Lord echoing in the conscience of every individual: it is always from this intimate sanctuary of the conscience that a new journey of love, openness and service to human life can begin. “You have come to the sprinkled blood” (cf. Heb 12: 22, 24): signs of hope and invitation to commitment

25. “The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground” (Gen 4:10). It is not only the voice of the blood of Abel, the first innocent man to be murdered, which cries to God, the source and defender of life. The blood of every other human being who has been killed since Abel is also a voice raised to the Lord. In an absolutely singular way, as the author of the Letter to the Hebrews reminds us, the voice of the blood of Christ, of whom Abel in his innocence is a prophetic figure, cries out to God: “You have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God ... to the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel” (12:22, 24). It is the sprinkled blood. A symbol and prophetic sign of it had been the blood of the sacrifices of the Old Covenant, whereby God expressed his will to communicate his own life to men, purifying and consecrating them (cf. Ex 24:8; Lev 17:11). Now all of this is fulfilled and comes true in Christ: his is the sprinkled blood which redeems, purifies and saves; it is the blood of the Mediator of the New Covenant “poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Mt 26:28). This blood, which flows from the pierced side of Christ on the Cross (cf. Jn 19:34), “speaks more graciously” than the blood of Abel; indeed, it expresses and requires a more radical “justice,” and above all it implores mercy,19 it makes intercession for the brethren before the Father (cf. Heb 7:25), and it is the source of perfect redemption and the gift of new life. The blood of Christ, while it reveals the grandeur of the Father’s love, shows how precious man is in God’s eyes and how priceless the value of his life. The Apostle Peter reminds us of this: “You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot” (1 Pt

Modern

755

1:18-19). Precisely by contemplating the precious blood of Christ, the sign of his self-giving love (cf. Jn 13:1), the believer learns to recognize and appreciate the almost divine dignity of every human being and can exclaim with ever renewed and grateful wonder: “How precious must man be in the eyes of the Creator, if he ‘gained so great a Redeemer’ (Exsultet of the Easter Vigil), and if God ‘gave his only Son’ in order that man should not perish but have eternal life” (cf. Jn 3:16)!” Furthermore, Christ’s blood reveals to man that his greatness, and therefore his vocation, consists in the sincere gift of self. Precisely because it is poured out as the gift of life, the blood of Christ is no longer a sign of death, of definitive separation from the brethren, but the instrument of a communion which is richness of life for all. Whoever in the Sacrament of the Eucharist drinks this blood and abides in Jesus (cf. Jn 6:56) is drawn into the dynamism of his love and gift of life, in order to bring to its fullness the original vocation to love which belongs to everyone (cf. Gen 1:27; 2:18-24). It is from the blood of Christ that all draw the strength to commit themselves to promoting life. It is precisely this blood that is the most powerful source of hope, indeed it is the foundation of the absolute certitude that in God’s plan life will be victorious. “And death shall be no more,” exclaims the powerful voice which comes from the throne of God in the Heavenly Jerusalem (Rev 21:4). And Saint Paul assures us that the present victory over sin is a sign and anticipation of the definitive victory over death, when there “shall come to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” “O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?” (1 Cor 15:54-55).

4.42  John Paul II, Spirit is Source of New and Eternal Life (1998) Spirit is Source of New and Eternal Life 1. The revelation of the Holy Spirit as a person distinct from the Father and the Son, foreshadowed in the Old Testament, becomes clear and explicit in the New. It is true that the New Testament writings do not offer us systematic teaching on the Holy Spirit. However, by gathering the many statements found in the writings of Luke, Paul and John, it is possible to perceive the convergence of these three great currents of New Testament revelation concerning the Holy Spirit. 2. Compared to the other two Synoptic Gospels, the Evangelist Luke  offers us a far more developed pneumatology. In the Gospel he intends to show us that Jesus alone possesses the fullness of the Holy Spirit. Of course, the Spirit also comes upon Elizabeth, Zechariah, John the Baptist and especially Mary herself, but it is only Jesus, throughout his earthly life, who fully possesses God’s Spirit. He is conceived by the work of the Holy Spirit (cf. Lk 1:35). The Baptist will say of him: “I baptize you with water; but he who is mightier than I is coming ... he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Lk 3:16). Before being baptized with the Holy Spirit and with fire, Jesus was baptized in the Jordan and “the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form, as a dove” (Lk 3:22). Luke stresses that Jesus not only goes into the wilderness “led by the Spirit,” but that he goes there “full of the Holy Spirit” (Lk 4:1) and is victorious there over the tempter. He undertakes his mission “in the power of the Spirit” (Lk 4:14). In the

756

A Global Church History

synagogue at Nazareth, when he officially begins his mission, Jesus applies to himself the prophecy of the book of Isaiah (cf. 61:1-2): “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor” (Lk 4:18). All of Jesus’ evangelizing activity is thus guided by the Spirit. This same Spirit will sustain the Church’s evangelizing mission, as the Risen One had promised his disciples: “Behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high” (Lk 24:49). According to the book of Acts, the promise is fulfilled on the day of Pentecost: “And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts 2:4). Joel’s prophecy is thus realized: “In the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy” (Acts 2:17). Luke sees the Apostles as representing the People of God of the last days and rightly emphasizes that this Spirit of prophecy involves the whole People of God. 3. St Paul in turn highlights the aspect of renewal and the eschatological dimension of the Spirit’s work: the Spirit is seen as the source of the new and eternal life that Jesus communicates to his Church. In the First Letter to the Corinthians we read that Christ, the new Adam, by virtue of the Resurrection, became “a life-giving spirit” (1 Cor 15:45): he was transformed by the vital power of God’s Spirit so as to become, in turn, a principle of new life for believers. Christ communicates this life precisely through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Believers no longer live as slaves under the law, but as sons, because in their hearts they have received the Spirit of the Son and can cry out: “Abba, Father!” (cf. Gal 4:5-7; Rom 8:14-16). It is a life “in Christ,” that is, a life of belonging exclusively to him and of incorporation into the Church: “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body” (cf. 1 Cor 12:13). The Holy Spirit gives rise to faith (1 Cor 12:3), pours love into our hearts (cf. Rom 5:5) and guides the prayer of Christians (cf. Rom 8:26). As the principle of a new existence, the Holy Spirit also produces a new and active dynamism in the believer: “If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit” (Gal 5:25). This new life is opposed to that of the “flesh,” whose desires displease God and enclose the person in the suffocating prison of an ego turned in on itself (cf. Rom 8:5-9). Instead, by opening himself to the Holy Spirit, the Christian can taste the fruits of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, etc. (cf. Gal 5:16-24). According to Paul, however, what we now possess is only a “down payment” or the first fruits of the Spirit (cf. Rom 8:23; cf. also 2 Cor 5:5). In the final resurrection, the Spirit will complete his masterpiece by bringing about, for believers, the full “spiritualization” of their bodies (cf. 1 Cor 15:43-44) and in some way involving the whole universe in salvation as well (cf. Rom 8:20-22). 4. In the Johannine perspective, the Holy Spirit is above all the Spirit of truth, the Paraclete. Jesus announces the gift of the Spirit as he completes his earthly work: “When the Paraclete comes, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father—and whom I myself will send from the Father—he will bear witness on my behalf. You must bear witness as well, for you have been with me from the beginning” (Jn 15:26ff.). In further explaining the Spirit’s role, Jesus adds: “He will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you”

Modern

757

(Jn 16:13-14). Thus, the Spirit will not bring a new revelation, but will guide the faithful to an interiorization and deeper penetration of the truth revealed by Jesus. What does it mean to call the Spirit of truth the Paraclete? Bearing in mind the Johannine perspective which views Jesus’ trial as one that continues in the disciples who will be persecuted because of his name, the Paraclete is the one who defends the cause of Jesus, convincing the world “of sin, of righteousness and of judgement” (Jn 16:7f.). The fundamental sin which the Paraclete will make known is not to have believed in Christ. The justice he indicates is that which the Father gave his crucified Son by glorifying him in the Resurrection and Ascension into heaven. The judgement, in this context, consists in revealing the sin of those who, dominated by Satan, the prince of this world (cf. Jn 16:11), rejected Christ (cf. Dominum et Vivificantem, n. 27). With his inner assistance, the Holy Spirit is therefore the defender and supporter of Christ’s cause, the One who leads the minds and hearts of disciples to full acceptance of the “truth” of Jesus.

4.43  Rowan Williams, On Christian Theology on the Sacraments (2000) In the history that stands behind—and within—the Christian revelation, we see a people signifying, “intending,” a belief in their creation as a people by the hand of God, and making social and ritual signs to embody the nature of the God who has so acted. And in this light, we can look afresh at what is done in and by the Israelite Jesus of Nazareth. It is clear that the tradition of his deeds and words is heavily influenced by the sense that he was a sign-maker of a disturbingly revolutionary kind. He worked—we are led to understand—on the assumption that a time of crisis had begun in which the people of God would be both summoned to judgement and restored under God’s kingship so as to become a people bound to God in unprecedented closeness. The covenanted faithfulness of God would once and for all overcome and cast out the unfaithfulness of the people. Thus Jesus acts for a community that does not yet exist, the Kingdom of God: He chooses rabbis and judges for the twelve tribes of the future, he heals and forgives, he takes authority to bring the outcasts of Israel into this new world by sharing their tables. His strange isolation, the suspicion and incomprehension he meets, have to do with the fact that his acts are signs of a form of human life yet to be realized and standing at odds with the political and cultic status quo. The “sense” he is making is entirely rooted in the fundamental Jewish conviction that God is the god who, by his free commitment, brings a people into being; yet the “people” in whose name he acts, whose forms and signs he constructs in his healing and fellowship, both is and is not identical with the Israel that now exists. This paradox is most evident in the last of the “signs” of the kingdom which he performs, the unexpected variation on the Passover theme in which he announces a new covenant sealed in his forthcoming death. The Last Supper is not a simple, primitive fellowship meal; as far back as we can go in the tradition about Jesus, it is seen as “intending,” meaning, the event that finally sets Jesus and his followers apart from the continuities of Israel and makes the beginnings of a new definition of God’s people. Maundy Thursday means Good Friday and Easter, the sealing of the new and everlasting

758

A Global Church History

covenant. In the costly gift of his chosen and beloved to the risk of rejection and death, God uncovers the scope of hi commitment in a way that alters the whole quality of human trust and commitment to him: he creates faith. And he creates a community of faith called, exactly as Israel is called, to show his nature in their life by following out the logic of Torah itself. Every act must speak of god, but not in such a way as to suggest a satisfying of divine demands, an adequacy of response to God’s creative act. What we do is now to be a sign, above all, of a gift given for the deepening of solidarity—or, in Paul’s language, ethics is about “the building up of the body of Christ.” If our acts with one another speak of mutual gift and given-ness, they are signs of the radical self-gift which initiates the Church. So, it is readily intelligible that the most characteristic (i.e. self-identifying) acts of the Church from its beginnings should be the signs of the paschal event. Baptism is already, in the tradition about Jesu, something that stands not only for commission and empowerment, but for the specific commission to die at the hands of the powerful of this earth, to realize God’s power through the gift of one’s own life to him (Mark 10.38-39, cf. Luke 12.50), so that the washing of the convert becomes an identification with this death, this gift and this empowering. The supper draws us into the event of the covenant’s sealing, placing us with the unfaithful disciples at table whose unfaithfulness is to be both judged and set aside by god—for the supper is also celebrated as the meal shared with the risen Jesus. Jesus, baptized, tempted, forgiving and healing, offering himself as the means of a new covenant, is himself “sacrament”: it is his identity that is set before us as a sign, the form of a new people of God.

4.44  Kathryn Tanner, Jesus, Humanity and the Trinity on Death (2001) Because we are united with the life-giving humanity of Jesus by the power of the Spirit across the fact of our deaths, as our lives perish of themselves, lose their own powers of living, God gives to us God’s own powers of life so as to maintain us. As in the case of Christ’s crucifixion, where the divine powers that are always his are put to special use in a victory over death, this life of Christ is also ours now by grace, to be employed by God in a special way at our deaths. In virtue of our relationship to the lifegiving powers of Christ’s humanity, our lives are lived now, as after death, in and through God’s own powers of life: “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (Gal. 2:19-20). But these life-giving powers of Jesus’ humanity do not overcome our deaths until we suffer them, at which time the only power of life we have is God’s own. Because it runs across the fact of death, life in Christ is eternal life. There is a life in the triune God that we possess now and after death, in Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit. Ante and post mortem do not mark any crucial difference with respect to it. Death makes no difference to that life in god in the same sense that, despite our deaths, God maintains a relationship with us that continues to be the source of all life-giving benefit. Even when we are alive, we are therefore dead in so far as we are dead to Christ. Separation from Christ (and from one’s fellows in Christ) is a kind of death despite the apparent gains that might accrue to one in virtue of an isolated, simply self-concerned existence. Eternal life, moreover, is one’s portion or possession despite all the sufferings of life and death in a way

Modern

759

that should comfort sufferers of every kind of tribulation. In all the senses of death, including the biological, we therefore live even though we die if we are alive to Christ. “If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord; so then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s” (Rom. 14:8). This understanding of eternal life follows the Old Testament suggestion, then, that all the good of life (“life” in its extended senses) flow from relationship with God (the second biblical sense of life in relationship): “ye that did cleave unto the Lord are alive…this day” (Deut. 4:4, KJV). The effort to turn away or separate oneself from God has, in this understanding of things, the force of death, broadly construed. (It is literally the effort to unmake oneself.) Eternal life as life in God is a way of indicating this priority of the second biblical sense of life as relationship with God. It is also a way of specifying a character of relationship with God beyond the fact of their deaths, they must live in God and not simply in relationship with God. After death, the only powers of life our bodies have are God’s own powers of life via the life-giving humanity of Christ in the power of the Spirit. Eternal life means a deepened affirmation that one’s relation with God is not conditional; it is not conditioned even by biological death or the cessation of community and cosmos. The bible maintains that god remains the God of Israel and the church, remains the god of the world that God creates and all the individuals in it, whatever happens; the idea of eternal life is simply a way of continuing this affirmation of God’s loving and steadfast faithfulness across the fact of death. While continuing and consummating God’s faithful commitment to the creature’s good as that is manifest in creation, eternal life is itself a great gift (and bring in its train greater gifts) than the relationship with God that creatures enjoy simply as creatures. The evident unconditionality of eternal life marks one such difference. With eternal life it becomes clear how relation with God as the source of all benefit cannot be broken by either sin or death (in all its senses including the biological); relations with a lifegiving God are maintained unconditionally from God’s side. Whatever might happen, God remains faithful to a life-giving relation to us and empowers us, through Christ, for faithfulness, too. The relationship is also unconditional, then, in that what we should be in it—the image of God’s own relationship with us—is maintained or shored up from God’s side (in virtue of the free favor and mercy of God in Christ) despite our own failings, suffering, and sin. In the relationship of eternal life, God sets us in and upholds our position in relation to God, whatever we do, whatever happens to us. Despite the fact of human failing, faithfulness and death, we are alive in God. Eternal life is, secondly, not the same sort of relationship as the rather external one that exists between God and creatures: our very identity as creatures is redefined so as to be essentially constituted by relationship with God. Separation from God is now impossible in a way it was not for us simply as creatures. The very meaning of this new identity is that our dependence upon God for our existence is now complete: in Christ we essentially are that relationship to God in a way that simply being creatures of God does not entail. The model for this aspect of life in God is the incarnation. Jesus is the one who lives in God, the one who is all that he is as a human being without existing independently of God, the human being whose very existence is God’s own existence—that is the meaning of the hypostatic union. Otherwise expressed, in Jesus God becomes the bearer of our very human acts and attributes. By grace—by virtue, that is, of a life-giving relationship with Jesus that is ours in the power of the Spirit—we enjoy

760

A Global Church History

something like the sort of life in God that Jesus lives. We (and the whole world) are to live in God as Jesus does, through him. In short, there is an approximation to the hypostatic union that the world enjoys through grace, most particularly after the world’s death, when it transpires that, like Christ, the only life or existence we have is in and through God. Eternal life is, in the third place, a greater gift than the relations enjoyed simply by creatures because of the gifts it brings with it. As a consequence of the incarnation, the powers and character of Godself shine through Jesus’ human acts and attributes—giving Jesus’ acts and attributes a salvific force (for example, so as to overcome and heal the consequences of sin) and eventuating in the manifest glorification of Jesus’ own human being in the resurrection. So for us, life in Christ brings not just created goods but divine attributes such as imperishability and immortality, which are ours only through the grace of Christ in the resurrection of our bodies. When the fire of our lives grows cold, we come to burn with God’s own flame.

4.45  Brother Roger, No Greater Love on Christian Worship and Community (1991) The silent longing for a presence “Someone you do not know is in your midst” (St. John).

Wherever you are on the earth, you wish to perceive the mystery that lies at the heart of your heart: do you sense within you, even fleetingly, the silent longing for a presence? This simple longing, this simple desire for God, is already the beginning of faith. The One we do not know is in our midst. More accessible for some, more hidden for others…with astonishment each of us might hear him say, “Why be afraid? I, Jesus, am here; I am the Christ. I loved you first…in you I have set my joy.” You know well enough how fragile your response is. Confronted with the unconditional challenges of the Gospel, there are times when you feel unprepared. One of the very first believers already said to Christ, “I believe; help my unbelief.” Know once and for all that neither doubts nor the impression that God is silent every take his Holy Spirit away from you. What God is asking is for you to surrender yourself to Christ in the trust of faith and to welcome his love. Even though you are pulled in different directions, you alone have to make the choice; no one can make it for you.

Christ never forces our hand You want to follow Christ, and not look back: will you dare to put your trust in the Gospel time and time again?

Modern

761

Will you keep setting off anew, drawn on by the One who walks quietly beside you, never imposing himself? The Risen Christ is present with you, and goes before you on the way. Will you let him place a source of refreshment in the hollow of your being? Or will you blush with confusion and even say: I am not worthy to be loved by him? What is fascinating about god I how humbly he is present. God never punishes, never wounds our human dignity. God does not extort our obedience. Any authoritarian gesture would disfigure him. The impression that God comes to punish is one of the greatest obstacles to faith. Christ, “poor and humble of heart,” never forces anyone’s hand. If he imposed himself, who would dare invite you to follow him? In the silence of your heart he whispers, “Don’t be afraid; I am here.” Recognized or not, the Risen Christ remains close to every person, even those unaware of him. He is there in secret. A Fire burning in the human heart, a light in the darkness, he loves you as if you were his sole concern. He has given his life for you. That is his secret.

4.46  Letty M. Russell, “Authority and the Challenge of Feminist Interpretation” on Biblical Interpretation (1985) The imaginative configuration of feminist interpretation seeks to be a form of intelligible discourse, speaking in a logical, consistent, and documented way out of a variety of academic disciplines and religious traditions. Yet along with other liberation theologies, stress is placed on an inductive process of action and reflection in which a major criterion for consistency is the way that reflection is brought together with action. The feminist paradigm of authority is a shift in interpretive framework that affects all the authority structures in religion and society, including the claim that scripture evokes our consent to faith and action. The prevailing paradigm of authority in Christian and Jewish religion is one of authority are settled with reference to the “hit parade of authority.” But, as the feminist-liberation paradigm of authority in community begins to become the one most “seriously imaginable” to women and men of faith, a new framework emerges that allows or multiple authorities to enrich, rather than to outrank, one another. The paradigm that no longer makes sense to feminists is that of authority as domination. This constellation of beliefs, values, and methods shared as a common perspective tends to predominate in church and university and in most theological research and dialogue. Consciously or unconsciously, reality is seen in the form of a hierarchy, or pyramid. Ordination and every other topic are viewed in terms of super- and sub- ordination. Things are assigned a divine order, with God at the top, men next, and so on down to dogs, plants, and “impersonal” nature. This paradigm reinforces ideas of authority over community and refuses to admit the ideas and persons that do not (wish to) fit into the established hierarchies of thought or social structures. In this framework, theological “truth” is sought through ordering the hierarchy of doctrines, orders, and degrees. This difficulty for women and Third World groups is that their perspectives often do not fit

762

A Global Church History

in the pyramid structure of such a system of interpretation. The price of inclusion in the theological enterprise is loss of their own perspective and culture in order to do “good theology” as defined by “those at the top.” Those who persist in raising questions and in affirming perspectives that do not fit in the paradigm pay the price of further marginalization. The extreme form of this is the emergence of “heretical groups” that are forced out of the theological conversation and thus lose the possibility of mutual development and critique. This paradigm of reality is an inadequate theological perspective because it proves a religious rationale for the domination and oppression of the weak by the oppressive political, economic, and religious power elites. Such a view is clearly contrary to the prophetic-messianic promise of God’s welcome to all the outsider (Luke 4: 16-30). It is also an inadequate paradigm of authority in a world so diverse that it no longer makes sense to try to fit people into such a rigid view of theological and social truth. Lastly, it discourages cooperation in the search for meaning because it frames discussion as a competition of ideas in which all participants aim at gaining the top spot and vanquishing the others. The emerging feminist paradigm trying to make sense of biblical and theological truth claims is that of authority as partnership. In this view, reality is interpreted in the form of a circle of interdependence. Ordering is explored through inclusion of diversity of persons enriching the whole. When difference is valued and respected, those who have found themselves marginal to church or society begin to discover their own worth as human beings.

4.47  Benedict XVI, “Regensburg Address” on Faith and Reason (2006) At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God’s nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, the first verse of the whole Bible, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: “In the beginning was the logos.” This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts, syn logo ¯, with logos. Logos means both reason and word—a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis. In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist. The encounter between the Biblical message and Greek thought did not happen by chance. The vision of Saint Paul, who saw the roads to Asia barred and in a dream saw a Macedonian man plead with him: “Come over to Macedonia and help us!” (cf. Acts 16:6-10)—this vision can be interpreted as a “distillation” of the intrinsic necessity of a rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek inquiry. In point of fact, this rapprochement had been going on for some time. The mysterious name of God, revealed from the burning bush, a name which separates this God from all other divinities with their many names and simply asserts being, “I am,” already presents a challenge to the notion of myth, to

Modern

763

which Socrates’ attempt to vanquish and transcend myth stands in close analogy. Within the Old Testament, the process which started at the burning bush came to new maturity at the time of the Exile, when the God of Israel, an Israel now deprived of its land and worship, was proclaimed as the God of heaven and earth and described in a simple formula which echoes the words uttered at the burning bush: “I am.” This new understanding of God is accompanied by a kind of enlightenment, which finds stark expression in the mockery of gods who are merely the work of human hands (cf. Ps 115). Thus, despite the bitter conflict with those Hellenistic rulers who sought to accommodate it forcibly to the customs and idolatrous cult of the Greeks, biblical faith, in the Hellenistic period, encountered the best of Greek thought at a deep level, resulting in a mutual enrichment evident especially in the later wisdom literature. Today we know that the Greek translation of the Old Testament produced at Alexandria—the Septuagint—is more than a simple (and in that sense really less than satisfactory) translation of the Hebrew text: it is an independent textual witness and a distinct and important step in the history of revelation, one which brought about this encounter in a way that was decisive for the birth and spread of Christianity. A profound encounter of faith and reason is taking place here, an encounter between genuine enlightenment and religion. From the very heart of Christian faith and, at the same time, the heart of Greek thought now joined to faith, Manuel II was able to say: Not to act “with logos” is contrary to God’s nature. In all honesty, one must observe that in the late Middle Ages we find trends in theology which would sunder this synthesis between the Greek spirit and the Christian spirit. In contrast with the so-called intellectualism of Augustine and Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a voluntarism which, in its later developments, led to the claim that we can only know God’s voluntas ordinata. Beyond this is the realm of God’s freedom, in virtue of which he could have done the opposite of everything he has actually done. This gives rise to positions which clearly approach those of Ibn Hazm and might even lead to the image of a capricious God, who is not even bound to truth and goodness. God’s transcendence and otherness are so exalted that our reason, our sense of the true and good, are no longer an authentic mirror of God, whose deepest possibilities remain eternally unattainable and hidden behind his actual decisions. As opposed to this, the faith of the Church has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which—as the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 stated—unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language. God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf. Certainly, love, as Saint Paul says, “transcends” knowledge and is thereby capable of perceiving more than thought alone (cf. Eph 3:19); nonetheless it continues to be love of the God who is Logos. Consequently, Christian worship is, again to quote Paul—“logike ¯ latreia,” worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason (cf. Rom 12:1). This inner rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek philosophical inquiry was an event of decisive importance not only from the standpoint of the history of religions, but also from that of world history—it is an event which concerns us even today. Given this convergence, it is not surprising that Christianity, despite its origins and some significant developments in the East, finally took on its historically decisive character in Europe. We can also express this the other way around: this

764

A Global Church History

convergence, with the subsequent addition of the Roman heritage, created Europe and remains the foundation of what can rightly be called Europe.

4.48  Sarah Coakley, God, Sexuality, and the Self on Human Nature and the Trinity (2013) A perception of the significance of the right ordering of desire was not, of course, alien to some of the greatest early Christian thinkers of the late antique era; and a central part of my task in this book will be to explore how, for them, the perception of “perfect relation in God” (the Trinity) was fundamentally attuned, and correlated, to their concomitant views about men and women, gender roles, and the nature of “erotic” desire. … Some of the most significant figures in the historical development of the doctrine of the Trinity (Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, especially) feature large in this volume because of the fascinatingly different ways in which they relate their perceptions of intense desire for God, their often problematic feelings about sexual desire at the human level, and their newly creative understandings of God as Trinity. My own reading of this early patristic period, then, neither reduces the history of the development of trinitarian doctrine to non-theological forces, nor assumes that the achievement of classical orthodoxy is the arrival at some stable place of spiritual safety. “Orthodoxy” as mere propositional assent needs to be carefully distinguished from “orthodoxy” as demanding, and ongoing, spiritual project, in which the language of the creeds is personally and progressively assimilated. Not, on the other hand, does my approach see the very emergence of Nicene orthodoxy as a kind of patriarchal plot—or a suppression of a more subtle, if elite, engagement with “gnostic” wisdom. Rather, my proposal is both more modest and more complex. It is to set the story of the development of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity within a constellation of considerations—spiritual, ascetical, sexual, social—which the dominant modern textbook tradition has tended either to ignore, or to sideline, in favour of its more purely cerebral account of the intellectual issues, along with the imperial political backdrop. But it is just as much to query, and correct, some of the more simplistic and reductive reactions to that textbook tradition, as well. But by the end of the book it will be argued that the critical retrieval of this spiritual nexus today has great potential theological importance. It provides the resources for the presentation of a contemporary trinitarian ontology of desire—a vision of God’s trinitarian nature as both the source and goal of human desires, as God intends them. It indicates how God the “Father,” in and through the Spirit, both stirs up, and progressively chastens and purges, the frailer and often misdirected desires of humans, and so forges them, by stages of sometimes painful growth, into the likeness of his Son.

Sources for the Reader

N.B. The text for some public domain sources has been modified for clarity. 1.1

The Didache. Tr. by M.B. Riddle. In Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 7. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886. Public domain.

1.2

Pliny the Younger, “Letter to the Emperor Trajan about the Treatment of Christians in Bithynia.” The Harvard Classics, 1909; par. 1, 2, and 4. Public domain.

1.3

Clement of Rome. 1 Clement. Translated by John Keith. In Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 9. Edited by Allan Menzies. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1896. Public domain.

1.4

Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans. Translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. In Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885. Public domain.

1.5

Ignatius of Antioch. Epistle to the Smyrnaeans. Translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. In Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885. Public domain.

1.6

Justin Martyr, 1st Apology. Translated by Marcus Dods and George Reith. In Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885. Public domain.

1.7 Irenaeus. Adversus Haeresus. Translated by Alexander Roberts and William Rambaut. In Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885; I. xxiv. 3-6. Public domain. 1.8 Irenaeus. Adversus Haeresus. Translated by Alexander Roberts and William Rambaut. In Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885; III.xx.1-2, IV.xxxvii.1, 4, 5, 7. Public domain. 1.9 Irenaeus. Adversus Haeresus. Translated by Alexander Roberts and William Rambaut. In Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885; IV.xviii 4-6. Public domain. 1.10 renaeus. Adversus Haeresus. Translated by Alexander Roberts and William Rambaut. In Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885; IV.xxxiii.8. Public domain. 1.11 Irenaeus. Adversus Haeresus. Translated by Alexander Roberts and William Rambaut. In Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885; V.i.1. Public domain. 1.12 Irenaeus, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching. Tr. by Armitage Robinson. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1920; sections 5-7, 10-12, 15-16. Public domain. 1.13 Martyrdom of Polycarp. Tr. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. In Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885; sections 1, 5, 9. Public domain.

766

Sources for the Reader

1.14 The Muratorian Canon. Tr. by A. Roberts and J. Donaldson. In Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 5. Ed. by A. Roberts and J. Donaldson, A. Cleveland Coxe. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1913. Public domain. 1.15 Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Autolucum. Translated by Marcus Dods. In Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885; II.27. Public domain. 1.16 Clement of Alexandria. Stromata. Translated by William Wilson. In Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885; I.v.28. Public domain. 1.17 Tertullian. De praescriptione haereticorum. Translated by Peter Holmes. In Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 3. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885; 7. Public domain. 1.18 Tertullian. Adversus Hermogenem. Translated by Peter Holmes. From Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 3. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885; 2-3. Public domain. 1.19 Tertullian, Adversus Praxean. Translated by Peter Holmes. In Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 3. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885; 27. Public domain. 1.20 Origen. De Principis. Translated by Frederick Crombie. In Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 4. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885; II. i-ii. Public domain. 1.21 Pappias, The Traditions of the Elders. In Documents Illustrative of the History of the Church. Vol. 1. Ed. by B. J. Kidd. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1920; p. 53. Public domain. 1.22 Cyprian of Carthage. On the Unity of the Catholic Church. Translated by Robert Ernest Wallis. In AnteNicene Fathers. Vol. 5. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886; 4-6. Public domain. 1.23 Cyprian of Carthage. Epistle xxvi. Translated by Robert Ernest Wallis. In Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 5. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886; section 1. Public domain. 1.24 Lactantius. De mortibus persecutorum. Translated by William Fletcher. In Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 7. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886; sections xi, xlviii. Public domain. 1.25 “The Ecthesis of the Synod at Nice.” Translated by Henry Percival. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series, Vol. 14. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1900. Public domain. 1.26 Eusebius, H.E. Translated by Arthur Cushman McGiffert. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series, Vol. 1. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890; iv. xxii, 1-8. Public domain. 1.27 Ephrem the Syrian. Hymn 11. Translated by J.B. Morris. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series, Vol. 13. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1898. Public domain. 1.28 Athanasius. Contra Arianos. Translated by John Henry Newman and Archibald Robertson. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series, Vol. 4. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1892; III.32. Public domain.

Sources for the Reader

767

1.29 Athanasius. Contra Arianos. Translated by John Henry Newman and Archibald Robertson. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series, Vol. 4. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1892; III.33. Public domain. 1.30 Athanasius, Life of Anthony. Translated by H. Ellershaw. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series, Vol. 4. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1892; 12-16. Public domain. 1.31 Cyril of Jerusalem. Catechetical Oration 19. Translated by Edwin Hamilton Gifford. In Nicene and PostNicene Fathers. Second Series, Vol. 7. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894. Public domain. 1.32 Athanasius. Apology against the Arians (Part I). Translated by M. Atkinson and Archibald Robertson. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series, Vol. 4. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1892; 23, 35. Public domain. 1.33 Basil of Caesarea. De spiritu sanctu. Translated by Blomfield Jackson. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series, Vol. 8. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1895; Chapter 9, Sections 22-23. Public domain. 1.34 Gregory of Nyssa. To Ablabius, On “Not Three Gods.” Translated by H.A. Wilson. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series, Vol. 5. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1893; paragraphs 2, 3, 5, 9, 11. Public domain. 1.35 [N.B. The section on Gregory of Nyssa in “Historical Section IV: The Trinity” from Theology from the Great Tradition should refer to the selection here found in section 1.34, not 1.35.] Gregory of Nyssa. The Lord’s Prayer, The Beatitudes. Tr. by Hilda C. Graef. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1978. Used by permission. 1.36 The Nicene Creed, First Council of Constantinople. Translated by Henry Percival. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series, Vol. 14. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1900. Public domain. 1.37 Jerome, Letter 53. Translated by W. H. Fremantle, G. Lewis and W. G. Martley. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series, Vol. 6. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1893; 4-7, 9-10. Public domain. 1.38 Augustine. De doctrina Christiana. Translated by James Shaw. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. First Series, Vol. 2. Edited by Philip Schaff. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887; II.xl.60-61. Public domain. 1.39 [N.B. The section on Jerome in “Historical Section I: Inspiration and Interpretation of Scripture” from Theology from the Great Tradition should refer to the selection here found in section 1.37, not 1.39.] Augustine, De utilitate credendi. Translated by C.L. Cornish. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. First Series, Vol. 3. Edited by Philip Schaff. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887; 9. Public domain. 1.40 Augustine, On the Trinity. Translated by Arthur West Haddan. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. First Series, Vol. 3. Edited by Philip Schaff. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887; IX, 1-4. Public domain. 1.41 Augustine, On the Trinity. Translated by Arthur West Haddan. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. First Series, Vol. 3. Edited by Philip Schaff. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887; XV. 27-32. Public domain. 1.42 Augustine. City of God. Translated by Marcus Dods. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. First Series, Vol. 2. Edited by Philip Schaff. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887; XIX.12. Public domain.

768

Sources for the Reader

1.43 Augustine, On Nature and Grace. Translated by Peter Holmes and Robert Ernest Wallis, and revised by Benjamin B. Warfield. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. First Series, Vol. 5. Edited by Philip Schaff. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887; 3-5. Public domain. 1.44 Augustine, City of God. Translated by Marcus Dods. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. First Series, Vol. 2. Edited by Philip Schaff. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887; XIII.20. Public domain. 1.45 Pelagius. “To Demetrias.” The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers. Tr. and ed. by B. R. Rees. Rochester, NY: The Boydell Press, 1991; pp. 53-54. Used by permission. 1.46 John Cassian. Conferences. Translated by C.S. Gibson. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series, Vol. 11. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894; 13.9-10. Public domain. 1.47 Cyril of Alexandria. Second Tome against Nestorius. In Five Tomes against Nestorius. Ed. by P.E. Pusey and E.B. Pusey. A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church: Anterior to the Division of the East and West. Tr. by members of the English Church. Vol. 47. Oxford: James Parker and Company, 1881. Public domain. 1.48 Cyril of Alexandria. Commentary on the Gospel according to S. John. Vol. 2. A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church: Anterior to the Division of the East and West, 43, 48. Translated by T. Randell. London: Walter Smith, 1885; pp. 453-588 on John 11:20-21. Public domain. 1.49 Council of Carthage (A.D. 417). Translated by Henry Percival. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series, Vol. 14. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1900; Canon 24. Public domain. 1.50 The Athanasian Creed. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. Ed. by J. Sullivan. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. Public domain. 1.51 Theodoret, H.E. Translated by Blomfield Jackson. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series, Vol. 3. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1892; section 1.5. Public domain. 1.52 Socrates, H.E. Translated by A.C. Zenos. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series, Vol. 2. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890; II. 37. Public domain. 1.53 Pope Leo I. “Letter 28 to Flavian (13 June 449).” Translated by Charles Lett Feltoe. In Nicene and PostNicene Fathers. Second Series, Vol. 12. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1895. Public domain. 1.54 Cyril of Alexandria, Letter to Nestorius “Cum salvator noster.” Translated by Henry Percival. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series, Vol. 14. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1900. Public domain. 1.55 “The Definition of Chalcedon.” Translated by Henry Percival. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series, Vol. 14. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1900. Public domain. 1.56 Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium. Translated by C.A. Heurtley. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series, Vol. 11. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894; Chapter 2, sections 4-6. Public domain. 1.57 Rufinus. The Ecclesiastical History. In A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Second Series, Vol. 3. Ed. and Tr. by P. Schaff and H. Wace. New York: The Christian Literature Company, 1892; p. 58 (section I.22). Public domain. 1.58 Cosmas Indicopleustes. “Topographia Christiana.” In Documents Illustrative of the History of the Church. Vol. 3. Ed. by B. J. Kidd. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1920; p. 30-1. Public domain.

Sources for the Reader

769

1.59 The Nestorian Stele. In The Sacred Books and Early Literature of the East. Vol. XII, Medieval China. Ed. by Charles F. Horne. New York: Parke, Austin, & Lipscomb, 1917; pp. 381-392. Public domain. 1.60 Council of Constantinople II. Translated by Henry Percival. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series, Vol. 14. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1900. Public domain. 1.61 The Council of Constantinople III. Translated by Henry Percival. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series, Vol. 14. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1900. Public domain. 1.62 The Council of Nicaea II. Translated by Henry Percival. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series, Vol. 14. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1900. Public domain. 2.1 Zeno, Henoticon. In A History of the Church in Six Books, from A.D. 431 to A.D. 594. Book 3. By Evagrius Scholasticus. Tr. by E. Walford. London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1846. Public domain. 2.2

Benedict Of Nursia, Rule. In The Rule Of Saint Benedict: Translated With An Introduction By Abbot Gasquet. London: Chatto And Windus, 1909. Public domain.

2.3

Dorotheos Of Gaza. Discourses and Sayings. Tr. by Eric Wheeler OSB. Collegeville, MN: Cistercian Publications, 1977. Used by permission.

2.4

Maximus the Confessor. “Ad Thalassium 22.” In On The Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ. Popular Patristics Series Book 25. Tr. and ed. by P. Blowers and R. Wilken. Yonkers, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2003. Used by permission.

2.5 Bede, Life and Miracles of St. Cuthbert. In Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation. Tr. by J. A. Giles. Everyman’s Library 479. London: J.M. Dent, 1910; pp. 286-349 (Preface, Chs. 1, 16). Public domain. 2.6

Isaac Of Nineveh. Mystic Treatises. Tr. by A. J. Wensinck. Amsterdam: Koninkeijke Akademie Van Wetenschappen, 1923; Part 23 (1). Public domain.

2.7

Eleventh Council of Toledo, Symbolum fidei de Trinitate et Incarnatione. In The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church. 7th ed. Ed. by Jacques Dupuis. New York: Alba House, 2001; pp. 146151. Used by permission.

2.8

The Divine Liturgy of St. James. Translated by James Donaldson. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 7. Ed. by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886. Public domain.

2.9

Roman Missal. In Documents Illustrative of The History of the Church. Vol 3. Ed. by B. J. Kidd. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1920; p 1-5. Public domain.

2.10 The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. In The Liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox Church: With an Introduction & Explanatory Note. Ed. and tr. by H. Hamilton Maughan. London: The Faith Press, 1916; pp. 60-64. Public domain. 2.11 The Liturgy of St. Basil the Great. In The Coptic Morning Service for the Lord’s Day. Tr. by John, Marquis of Bute. London: Cope and Fenwick, 1908; pp. 92-103. Public domain. 2.12 The Badarak (The Liturgy of the Armenian Church). In Liturgy of the Holy Apostolic Church of Armenia: Armenian and English. Ed. and tr. by Essaie Asdvadzadouriants. London, Gilbert And Rivington, 1887; pp. 87-93. Public domain. 2.13 Bede. The Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation. In Documents Illustrative of Church History. Vol. 3. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge 1920; pp. 33-34. Public domain.

770

Sources for the Reader

2.14 Pope Nicholas I. Fateor veraciter; and Patriarch Photius of Constantinople. Epp. I. xiii. In Documents Illustrative of The History of the Church. Vol 3. Ed. by B. J. Kidd. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1920; p 98. Public domain. 2.15 Bernard of Clairvaux. De consideration. in Documents Illustrative of The History of the Church. Vol 3. Ed. by B. J. Kidd. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1920; p. 147-148. Public domain. 2.16 Anselm of Canterbury. Proslogion. In Proslogium; Monologium; An Appendix in Behalf of the Fool by Gaunilo; And Cur Deus Homo. Tr. by Sidney Norton Deane. Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Company, 1926. Public domain. 2.17 Anselm of Canterbury. Proslogion. In Proslogium; Monologium; An Appendix in Behalf of the Fool by Gaunilo; And Cur Deus Homo. Tr. by Sidney Norton Deane. Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Company, 1926. Public domain. 2.18 [N.B. The section on Anselm’s ontological argument from “Historical Section III: Proofs of God’s Existence” in Theology from the Great Tradition should refer to section 2.16, above.] St Anselm. Cur Deus Homo? In The Ancient And Modern Library of Theological Literature. London: Newbery House, 1891. Public domain. 2.19 Urban II, “Speech at Council of Clermont.” In A Source Book for Medieval History. Ed. and tr. by Oliver J. Thatcher and Edgar Holmes McNeal. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1905; pp. 513-17. Public domain. 2.20 Pope Innocent III. Sicut universitatis conditor. In Documents Illustrative of The History of the Church. Vol 3. Ed. by B. J. Kidd. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1920; p 149. Public domain. 2.21 Peter Abelard. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Tr. by Steven R. Cartwright. Fathers of the Church Medieval Continuations, 13. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2011. Used by permission. 2.22 The Plays Performed by the Crafts or Mysteries Of York on the Day of Corpus Christi in the 14th, 15th, and 16th Centuries. Ed. by Lucy Toulmin Smith. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1885. Public domain. 2.23 Hildegard of Bingen. Book of Divine Works. Section I.iv.100. In Hildegard of Bingen’s Book of Divine Works: With Letters and Songs. Ed. by M. Fox. Santa Fe, NM: Bear & Company, 1987; pp. 122-123. Used by permission. 2.24 Francis of Assisi. Rule. In The Writings of Saint Francis of Assisi, Newly Translated into English with an Introduction and Notes. Tr. by P. Robinson. Philadelphia: The Dolphin Press, 1906. Public domain. 2.25 Mechthild of Magdeburg. The Flowing Light of the Godhead. In The Book Of Matilda Of Magdeburg. Ed. and tr. by Frances Bevan. London: Ballantyne, Hanson & Co., 1896. Public domain. 2.26 The Fourth Lateran Council. In Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils: Text, Translation and Commentary. Ed. by H. J. Schroeder. St. Louis: B. Herder, 1937; pp. 236-296. Public domain. 2.27 John of England. Magna Carta. In Documents Illustrative of English Church History. Ed. by H. Gee and W. Hardy. London: Macmillan and Co., 1914; pp. 79-80. Public domain. 2.28 Theodore Metochites. Theodore Metochites’s Poems ‘to Himself’: Introduction, Text and Translation. Tr. by Jeffrey Featherstone. Byzantina Vindobonensia, 23. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, 2000. Used by permission. Austrian Academy of Sciences Press webpage: https://verlag/oeaw.ac.at. 2.29 “In Praise of the Transfiguration of the Great Holiness of the Da Qin Religion.” In A Study of the History of Nestorian Christianity in China and Its Literature in Chinese: Together with a New English Translation of the Dunhuang Nestorian Documents. By Li Tang. 2nd ed. New York: Peter Lang, 2004; pp. 203-204. Used by permission. 2.30 Bonaventure. The Works of Bonaventure. Vol. 2: The Breviloquium. Tr. by J. de Vinck. Patterson, NJ: St. Anthony’s Guild Press, 1963; pp. 109-110 (Pars III, cap. 1, 1-3). Used by permission.

Sources for the Reader

771

2.31 Thomas Aquinas. The Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas. 2nd ed. Tr. by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. London: Burns Oats & Washbourne, 1920; (I.1.1). Public domain. 2.32 Thomas Aquinas. The Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas. 2nd ed. Tr. by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. London: Burns Oats & Washbourne, 1920; (I.2.3). Public domain. 2.33 The Life of Constantine. In Documents Illustrative of The History of the Church. Vol 3. Ed. by B. J. Kidd. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1920; p 94-96. Public domain. 2.34 John Scotus Eriugena, Periphyseon (The Division of Nature). Tr. by I.P. Sheldon-Williams. Rev. by J. O’Meara. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 1987; p. 462 (809B-D). Used by permission. 2.35 Dante Alighieri Divine Comedy. Tr. by Henry Francis Cary. London: Cassell and Company, 1903-1904. Public domain. 2.36 Magda Queen of Sheba, From the Ancient Royal Abyssinian Manuscript “The Glory of the Kings”. Tr. by John Van Vorst. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1907. Public domain. 2.37 Pope Gregory XI, “Propositions Condemning John Wycliffe.” In Library of Original Sources. Vol. V: The Early Medieval World. Ed. by Oliver J. Thatcher. Milwaukee: University Research Extension Co., 1907; pp. 378382. Public domain. 2.38 The Council of Constance. In Documents Illustrative of The History of the Church. Vol 3. Ed. by B. J. Kidd. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1920; p 209. Public domain. 2.39 Concordat of Worms. In Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages. Tr. by Ernest F. Henderson. London: George Bell and Sons, 1910; pp. 408-409. Public domain. 3.1

Pope Alexander VI. Inter cetera. In Documents Illustrative of the History of the Church. Vol III. Ed. by B. J. Kidd. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1920; pp. 226-7. Public domain.

3.2

Pope Sixtus IV, Salvator noster. In Documents Illustrative of The History of the Church. Vol 3. Ed. by B. J. Kidd. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1920; p 224. Public domain.

3.3

Petrarch, Francis. “Familiar Letters.” From Petrarch: The First Modern Scholar and Man of Letters. Ed. and trans. by James Harvey Robinson. New York: G.P. Putnam, 1898. Public domain.

3.4

The Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, and Other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the Use of the Church of England, together with the Psalter or Psalms of David, Pointed as They Are to Be Said or Sung in Churches. Cambridge: John Baskerville & B. Dod, 1760; pp. U4-U5. Public domain.

3.5

Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Oration on Human Dignity on Human Nature (1486). Tr. by A. Robert Caponigri. Public domain indicated. (http​://we​b.mns​tate.​edu/g​racyk​/cour​ses/w​eb%20​publi​shing​/pico​ _orat​ion.h​tm and https​://eb​ooks.​adela​ide.e​du.au​/p/pi​co_de​lla_m​irand​ola/g​iovan​ni/di​gnity​/, accessed 12 November 2018).

3.6

Smith, John. “A Prefatory Discourse Concerning the True Way or Method of Attaining Divine Knowledge.” In Selections from the Literature of Theism, Ed. by Alfred Caldecott and H.R. Mackintosh. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1904; pp. 115-6. Public domain.

3.7 3.8

Erasmus, Desiderius. The Praise of Folly. Tr. by Wilson, John. 1688. Public domain. Luther, Martin. “Disputation of Doctor Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences by Dr. Martin Luther (1517)”. In Works of Martin Luther. Vol.1. Ed. and tr. by Adolph Spaeth, L.D. Reed, Henry Eyster Jacobs, et al. Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1915; pp. 29-38. Public domain.

3.9

Luther, Martin. “Martin Luther: Excerpts from His Account of the Confrontation at the Diet of Worms (1521).” In Documents of the Christian Church. Ed. by H.C. Bettenson. 1903. Public domain.

772

Sources for the Reader

3.10 Luther, Martin. Appeal to the German Nobility. In First Principles Of The Reformation Or The Ninety-Five Theses And The Three Primary Works Of Dr. Martin Luther Translated Into English. Ed. by Henry Wace. London: John Murray, 1883; pp. 20-23. Public domain. 3.11 Luther, Martin. Babylonian Captivity of the Church. In First Principles Of The Reformation Or The NinetyFive Theses And The Three Primary Works Of Dr. Martin Luther Translated Into English. Ed. by Henry Wace. London: John Murray, 1883; pp. 162-164. Public domain. 3.12 Luther, Martin. Lesser Catechism. In Triglot Concordia: The Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church: German-Latin-English. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921. Public domain. 3.13 Luther, Martin. “Preface to the Latin Works (1545).” Tr. by Bro. Andrew Thornton, OSB, for the Saint Anselm College Humanities Program. (c)1983 by Saint Anselm Abbey. This translation may be used freely with proper attribution. You may distribute, copy or print this text, providing you retain the author and copyright statements. 3.14 Luther, Martin. In Martin Luther’s Authority Of Councils And Churches. Tr. by C. B. Smyth. London: William Edward Painter, 1847; Section 3.1, pp. 178-181. Public domain. 3.15 Melanchthon, Philip. The Defense of the Augsburg Confession. In Triglot Concordia: The Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church: German-Latin-English. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921. Public domain. 3.16 Simon, Menno. “Sincere and True Repentance,” “A Supplication to the Magistracy,” and “Concerning Baptism.” In The Complete Works of Menno Simon, Translated from the Original Dutch or Holland. Part 1. Elkhart, IN: John F. Funk and Brother, 1871. Public domain. 3.17 In Documents Illustrative of English Church History. Ed. by H. Gee and W. Hardy. London: Macmillan and Co., 1914; pp. 243-244. Public domain. 3.18 Calvin, John. Institutes Of The Christian Religion. Tr. by Henry Beveridge. Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845-1846; section I.1.1. Public domain. 3.19 Calvin, John. Institutes Of The Christian Religion. Tr. by Henry Beveridge. Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845-1846; sections III.ii.29, 30. 3.20 Ignatius Loyola. The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola. Tr. by S. J. Mullan. New York: P. J. Kennedy and Sons, 1914. Public domain. 3.21 The Religious Peace of Augsburg, 1555. In Select Documents Illustrating Medieval and Modern History. Ed. by E. Reich. London: P.S. King and Son, 1905; pp. 230-232. Public domain. 3.22 The Belgic Confession. In Church of the Living God; Also, the Swiss & Belgian Confessions & Expositions of the Faith. Ed by Owen Jones. London: Caryl Book Society, 1865; pp. 203-204. Public domain. 3.23 The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion. In The Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, and Other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the Use of the Church of England, together with the Psalter or Psalms of David, Pointed as They Are to Be Said or Sung in Churches. Cambridge: John Baskerville & B. Dod, 1760. Public domain. 3.24 The Council of Trent, Fourth Session. “Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures.” In The Canons and Decrees of the Sacred and Ecumenical Council of Trent. Tr. by J. Waterworth. London: Dolman, 1848; pp. 17-21. Public domain. 3.25 The Synod of Jassy. In The Creeds of Christendom. Ed. by P. Schaff. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1877; p. 278. Public domain. 3.26 “The First Answer of Patriarch Jeremiah [II] of Constantinople Concerning the Augsburg Confession Sent to Tubingen [May 15] 1576.” In Augsburg and Constantinople: The Correspondence between the Tubingen

Sources for the Reader

773

Theologians and Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople on the Augsburg Confession. Tr. and ed. by George Mastrantonis. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2005. Used by permission. 3.27 The Edict of Nantes (1598). In Readings in European History. Vol. 2. Ed by James Harvey Robinson. Boston: Ginn, 1906; pp. 183-185. Public domain. Public domain. 3.28 Di Nobli, Roberto. Preaching Wisdom to the Wise: Three Treatises by Roberto de Nobili, S.J., Missionary and Scholar in 17th Century India. Tr. and ed. by Anand Amaladass, S.J., and Francis X. Clooney, S.J. St. Louis, MO: The Institute of Jesuit Sources, 2000. Used by permission. 3.29 The Five Articles of the Remonstrants. In The Creeds of Christendom. Vol. 3. Ed. by Philip Schaff and David S. Schaff. New York, Harper and Sons, 1919; pp. 545–49. Public domain. 3.30 “The Humble Petition and Advice.” In Documents Illustrative of English Church History. Ed. by H. Gee and W. Hardy. London: Macmillan and Co., 1914; pp. 583-585. Public domain. 3.31 The Church of Scotland. “The First Book of Discipline, 20 May, 1560.” In Documents Illustrative of the Continental Reformation. Ed. by B. J. Kidd. Oxford, The Clarendon Press, 1911; pp. 349-350. Public domain. 3.32 Taylor, Jeremy. The Rule And Exercises Of Holy Dying. London: Rivingtons, 1869. Public domain. 3.33 “Of Passiontide.” In Hymns of the Russian Church, Being Translations, Centos, and Suggestions from the Greek Office Books. Tr. by J. Brownlie. London: Humphrey Milford / Oxford University Press, 1920; pp. 25-26. Public domain. 3.34 The Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem, Sometimes called the Council of Bethlehem, Holden under Dositheus, Patriarch of Jerusalem in 1672. Tr. by J. N. W. B. Robertson. London: Thomas Baker, 1899; Chapter 6.2-3, pp. 112-116. Public domain. 3.35 Nicholas Bulgaris. The Holy Catechism of Nicolas Bulgaris. Tr. by W. E. Daniel. Ed. by R. Raikes Bromage. London: J. Masters and Co., 1893; pp. 1-4. Public domain. 4.1

Pascal, Blaise. Pensées. Tr. by W. F. Trotter. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc., 1958. Public domain.

4.2

Pascal, Blaise. Pensées. Tr. by W. F. Trotter. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc., 1958. Public domain.

4.3

McGlothlin, W. J., and William Joseph, eds. Baptist Confessions of Faith. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1911; pp. 174-185. Public domain.

4.4

Schaff, P., ed. The Creeds of Christendom with Translations. Vol 3. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1877; pp. 600-604. Public domain.

4.5

Platon of Moscow. The Great Catechism of Platon, Metropolitan of Moscow (1765). In The Faith of the Eastern Church: A Catechism. New York: G. P. Putnam, 1867. pp. 1, 8, 12. Public domain. The Russian Primer, for Teaching Children to Read the Ecclesiastical and Civil Characters. In The Doctrine of the Russian Church. Tr. by R. W. Blackmore. Aberdeen: A. Brown and Co., 1845; pp. 1, 3-4. Public domain. The Longer Catechism of the Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church (Moscow, 1939). In The Doctrine of the Russian Church. Tr. by R. W. Blackmore. Aberdeen: A. Brown and Co., 1845; pp. 34-36. Public domain.

4.6

Wesley, John. The Sermons with Introductions, Analysis, and Notes. Ed by N. Burwash. Toronto: W. Briggs, 1881; p. 45. Public domain.

4.7

Schleiermacher, Friederich. Selected Sermons of Schleiermacher. Tr. by Mary F. Wilson. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1890; pp. 266-277. Public domain.

4.8

Kierkegaard, Søren. Preparation for a Christian Life. In Selections from the Writings of Kierkegaard. Tr. by L. M. Hollander. University of Texas Bulletin 2326 (July 8, 1923): 152-213. Public domain.

774

4.9

Sources for the Reader

Pope Pius IX. “The Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican Council Concerning the Catholic Faith and the Church of Christ. A.D. 1870.” in The Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical Notes. Vol. 2. Ed. by Philip Schaff. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1890; pp. 270-271. Public domain.

4.10 Hodge, A. A. Outlines of Theology. New York: Robert Carter &​Brothers, 1861; pp. 66-69. Public domain. 4.11 Watson, Richard. Theological Institutes: Or, A View of the Evidences, Doctrines, Morals, and Institutions of Christianity. Vol. 2. New York: B. Waugh and T. Mason, for the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1834; pp. 266-269. Public domain. 4.12 James Orr. The Christian View of God and the World as Centring in the Incarnation. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Andrew Elliot, 1893; pp. 91-94. Public domain. 4.13 Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. Vol. 2.2. 11th ed. Ed. by G. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance. London: T&T Clark, 2010. Used by permission. 4.14 Phillips, Godfrey E. The Ancient Church and Modern India. London: Student Christian Movement, 1920; pp. 136-137. Public domain. 4.15 “The Theological Declaration of Barmen.” In The Church’s Confessions Under Hitler by Arthur C. Cochrane. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962; pp. 237– 242. Used by permission. 4.16 [N.B. The section on C. S. Lewis in “Christianity and World Religions” from Theology from the Great Tradition should refer to “Is Theology Poetry,” here found in section 4.17, not 4.16.] Niebuhr, Reinhold. The Nature and Destiny of Man. Vol. 1. Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1996; pp. 241-5, 252-3. Used by permission. 4.17 Lewis, C. S. “The Weight of Glory.” Theology 43 (1941): 263-274. Lewis, C. S. “Is Theology Poetry.” Socratic Digest (1945): 75-82. IS THEOLOGY POETRY by C.S. Lewis copyright© C.S. Lewis Pte. Ltd. 1945. THE WEIGHT OF GLORY by C.S. Lewis copyright© C.S. Lewis Pte. Ltd. 1949. Extracts reprinted by permission. 4.18 Song, C. S. Third Eye Theology: Theology in Formation in Asian Society. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1979; pp. 1-10. Used by permission. 4.19 Brunner, Emil. The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption: Dogmatics. Vol. 2. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1952; pp. 55-58. Used by permission. 4.20 Martin Luther King, Jr. Letter from a Birmingham Jail (16 April 1963). From https​://ww​w.lov​eallp​eople​.org/​ lette​rfrom​thebi​rming​hamci​tyjai​l.htm​l (accessed Oct. 23, 2018) Website indicated as public domain. Rev. King’s letter was a widely disseminated open letter with no indication of copyright, therefore public domain. 4.21 Pope Paul VI. “Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes.” Vatican: The Holy See, 1965. From: http:​//www​.vati​can.v​a/arc​hive/​hist_​counc​ils/i​i_vat​ican_​counc​il/do​cumen​ts/va​t-ii_​ const​_1965​1207_​gaudi​um-et​-spes​_en.h​tml, accessed Nov. 14, 2018. Used by permission. 4.22 Pope Paul VI. “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium.” Vatican: The Holy See, 1965. From: http:​//www​.vati​can.v​a/arc​hive/​hist_​counc​ils/i​i_vat​ican_​counc​il/do​cumen​ts/va​t-ii_​const​_1964​1121_​lumen​ -gent​ium_e​n.htm​l, accessed Nov. 14, 2018. Used by permission. 4.23 Pope Paul VI. “Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions Nostra Aetate.” Vatican: The Holy See, 1965. From: http:​//www​.vati​can.v​a/arc​hive/​hist_​counc​ils/i​i_vat​ican_​counc​il/do​cumen​ts/va​t-ii_​ decl_​19651​028_n​ostra​-aeta​te_en​.html​, accessed Nov. 14, 2018. Used by permission. 4.24 Newbigin, Leslie. Unfinished Agenda: An Autobiography. Geneva: World Council of Churches Publications, 1985; pp. 94-96. Used by permission. 4.25 Gutiérrez, Gustavo. A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation. Rev. ed. Tr. by C. Inda and J. Eagleson. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1988; pp. 9-11. Used by permission.

Sources for the Reader

775

4.26 Lossky, Vladimir. “Redemption and Deification.” In Image and Likeness of God by Vladimir Lossky. Tr. by T. Bird. Yonkers, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1974; pp. 97-100. Used by permission. 4.27 Green, Michael. I Believe in the Holy Spirit. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975; pp. 14-18. Used by permission. 4.28 Cone, James. God of the Oppressed. Rev. ed. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2003; p. xix. Used by permission. 4.29 Bloesch, Donald. “A Christological Hermeneutic: Crisis and Conflict in Hermeneutics.” In The Use of the Bible in Theology: Evangelical Options. Ed. by R. Johnson. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1985; pp. 78-85. Used by permission. 4.30 Hauerwas, Stanley. A Community of Character. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981; pp. 91-92. Used by permission. 4.31 World Council of Churches. “Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry.” Faith and Order Paper 111. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1982; pp. 1-2; From: https​://ww​w.oik​oumen​e.org​/en/r​esour​ces/d​ocume​nts/c​ommis​ sions​/fait​h-and​-orde​r/i-u​nity-​the-c​hurch​-and-​its-m​issio​n/bap​tism-​eucha​rist-​and-m​inist​ry-fa​ith-a​nd-or​der-p​ aper-​no-11​1-the​-lima​-text​, accessed Nov. 14, 2018. Used by permission. 4.32 Hick, John. The Second Christianity. London: SCM Press, 1983; pp. 82-87. Used by permission. 4.33 Zizioulas, John. Being as Communion. Yonkers, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985; pp. 256-259. Used by permission. 4.34 Kanyoro, M. R. A. Introducing Feminist Cultural Hermeneutic: An African Perspective, Scheffield: Sheffield University Press, 2002; pp. 68-71. Used by permission. 4.35 Hayter, Mary. The New Eve in Christ: The Use and Abuse of the Bible in the Debate about Women in the Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987; pp. 87-92. Original copyright by SPCK, 1987. Reproduced with permission of the Licensor through PLSclear. 4.36 Schmemann, Alexander. The Eucharist: Sacrament of the Kingdom. Yonkers, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1988; pp. 224-227. Used by permission. 4.37 Boff, Leonardo. Trinity and Society. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1988; pp. 156-8. Used by permission. 4.38 Torrance, T. F. The Trinitarian Faith: The Evangelical Theology of the Ancient Catholic Faith. London: T&T Clark, 1988; 151-4. Used by permission. 4.39 Newbingin, Leslie. The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989; pp. 159-61, 168170. Used by permission. 4.40 Pinnock, Clark. A Wideness in God’s Mercy. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992; pp. 64-9. Used by permission. 4.41 Pope John Paul II. “Evangelium Vitae.” Vatican: The Holy See, 1995. From: http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/ j​ohn-p​aul-i​i/en/​encyc​lical​s/doc​ument​s/hf_​jp-ii​_enc_​25031​995_e​vange​lium-​vitae​.html​, accessed on Nov. 14, 2018. Used by permission. 4.42 Pope John Paul II. “General Audience, Wednesday 20 May 1998.” Vatican: The Holy See, 1998. From: https​://w2​.vati​can.v​a/con​tent/​john-​paul-​ii/en​/audi​ences​/1998​/docu​ments​/hf_j​p-ii_​aud_2​00519​98.ht​ml, accessed on Nov. 14, 2018. Used by permission. 4.43 Williams, Rowan. On Christian Theology. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2000; pp. 203-4. Used by permission. 4.44 Tanner, Kathryn. Jesus, Humanity and the Trinity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001; pp. 108-10. Used by permission. 4.45 Brother Roger. The Sources of Taizé: No Greater Love. Chicago, IL: GIA Music, 2005. Used by permission.

776

Sources for the Reader

4.46 Russell, Letty M. “Authority and the Challenge of Feminist Interpretation.” In Feminist Interpretation of the Bible. Ed. by Letty Russell. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1985; pp. 143-4. Used by permission. 4.47 Pope Benedict XVI. “Apostolic Journey of His Holiness Benedict XVI To München, Altötting and Regensburg (September 9-14, 2006): Meeting with the Representatives of Science, Lecture of the Holy Father.” Vatican: The Holy See, 2006. From: http:​//w2.​vatic​an.va​/cont​ent/b​enedi​ct-xv​i/en/​speec​hes/2​006/s​eptem​ber/d​ocume​ nts/h​f_ben​-xvi_​spe_2​00609​12_un​ivers​ity-r​egens​burg.​html,​accessed Nov. 14, 2018; Greek transliterated. Used by permission. 4.48 Coakley, Sarah. God, Sexuality, and the Self: An Essay ‘On the Trinity’. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Used by permission.

Licenses for Figures

Chapter 1 Figure 1.1 Multiformity in the Early Church Adapted by Robert F. Rea from File:Blank Roman Empire.png, by Coldeel. https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/6/6​4/Bla​nk_Ro​man_E​mpire​.png Licenses: Public domain: Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 Unported, 2.5 Generic, 2.0 Generic, 1.0 Generic; and author’s permission: I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following licenses: Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled GNU Free Documentation License. Figure 1.2 File:Photographic Facsimiles of the Remains of the Epistles of Clement of Rome. Made from the Unique Copy Preserved in the Codex Alexandrinus. MET DP212806.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/b/b​c/Pho​togra​phic_​Facsi​miles​_of_t​he_Re​mains​_of_t​he_Ep​istle​ s_of_​Cleme​nt_of​_Rome​._Mad​e_fro​m_the​_Uniq​ue_Co​py_Pr​eserv​ed_in​_the_​Codex​_Alex​andri​nus._​MET_D​P2128​ 06.jp​g License: Public domain- https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/pu​blicd​omain​/zero​/1.0/.​ Figure 1.3 The Apostolic Fathers. By Robert F. Rea. Figure 1.4 File:Byzantine - Saint Ignatius of Antioch - Walters 4820867.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/1/1​8/Byz​antin​e_-_S​aint_​Ignat​ius_o​f_Ant​ioch_​-_ Wal​ters_​48208​67.jp​g License: Walters Art Museum, https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/3.​0/dee​d.en and https​://en​. wiki​pedia​.org/​wiki/​GNU_F​ree_D​ocume​ntati​on_Li​cense​, {{PD-1923}}. Figure 1.5 Archivo:St Polycarp-ApollinareNuovoRavenna.JPG https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/b/b​c/St_​Polyc​arp-A​polli​nareN​uovoR​avenn​a.JPG​ License: Public domain. Figure 1.6 The Apologists. By Robert F. Rea. Figure 1.7 Icon: St. Irenaeus of Lyons. By Ted. https​://ww​w.fli​ckr.c​om/ph​otos/​31801​622@N​07/82​92671​260 License: https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/2.​0/. Figure 1.8 Croatia-01335 – Diocletian. By Dennis Jarvis https​://ww​w.fli​ckr.c​om/ph​otos/​arche​r10/9​55234​7668 License: https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/2.​0/.

778

Licenses for Figures

Figure 1.9 File:Roman Empire with dioceses in 300AD.png https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/d/d​4/Rom​an_Em​pire_​with_​dioce​ses_i​n_300​_AD.p​ng License: Public domain. Figure 1.10 Portrait of the Four Tetrarchs (Diocletian, Maximianus, Galerius & Constantius), a porphyry sculpture sacked from the Byzantine Philadelphion palace in 1204, c. 305 AD, Venice by Carole Raddato https​://ww​w.fli​ckr.c​om/ph​otos/​carol​emage​/1986​51114​16 License: https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/2.​0/. Figure 1.11 File:Nero 1.JPG https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/8/8​9/Ner​o_1.J​PG License: https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/3.​0/dee​d.en,​ and https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​. org/​wiki/​Commo​ns:GN​U_Fre​e_Doc​ument​ation​_Lice​nse,_​versi​on_1.​2. Figure 1.12 Roman Persecutions of Christians. By Robert F. Rea. Figure 1.13 File:Sculpture of constantine.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/3/3​1/Scu​lptur​e_of_​const​antin​e.jpg​ License: Public domain https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/4.​0/dee​d.en. Figure 1.14 File:Burghers-Pantaenus.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/c/c​4/Bur​ghers​-Pant​aenus​.jpg License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 1.15 File:Clement alexandrin.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/5/5​c/Cle​ment_​alexa​ndrin​.jpg License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 1.16 File:Origen.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/2/2​0/Ori​gen.j​pg License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 1.17 File:Hosios Loukas (nave, south east conch) - John Chrysostom.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/9/9​8/Hos​ios_L​oukas​_%28n​ave%2​C_sou​th_ea​st_ co​nch%2​9_-_J​ohn_C​hryso​stom.​jpg License: Public domain, {{PD-1923}}. Figure 1.18 File:Church of Saint Simeon Stylites 22- Baptistry.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/f/f​8/Chu​rch_o​f_Sai​nt_Si​meon_​Styli​tes_2​2-_Ba​ptist​ry.jp​g License: https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/3.​0/dee​d.en. Figure 1.19 Adapted with permission from Icon: St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Ignatius. By Ted. https​://ww​w.fli​ckr.c​om/ph​otos/​frted​/5692​62746​2/ License: https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/2.​0/. Figure 1.20 Important Locations during the Trinitarian Controversies Adapted by Robert F. Rea from File:Blank Roman Empire.png, by Coldeel. https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/6/6​4/Bla​nk_Ro​man_E​mpire​.png Licenses: Public domain: Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 Unported, 2.5 Generic, 2.0 Generic, 1.0 Generic; and author’s permission: I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following licenses: Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free

Licenses for Figures

779

Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled GNU Free Documentation License. Figure 1.21 St. Basil the Great. By Ted https​://ww​w.fli​ckr.c​om/ph​otos/​31801​622@N​07/42​63454​277 License: https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/2.​0/. Figure 1.22 File:Bartolozzi St Gregorius Nyssenus.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/8/8​5/Bar​toloz​zi_St​_Greg​orius​_Nyss​enus.​jpg License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 1.23 File:Gregory the Theologian La Martorana Palermo 2008-08-27.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/f/f​d/Gre​gory_​the_T​heolo​gian_​La_Ma​rtora​na_Pa​lermo​_2008​ -08-2​7.jpg​ License: Public domain. Figure 1.24 File:Theod1.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/5/5​8/The​od1.j​pg License: https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/3.​0/dee​d.en and https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​Commo​ ns:GN​U_Fre​e_Doc​ument​ation​_Lice​nse,_​versi​on_1.​2. Figure 1.25 File: Gratian Trier.JPG https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/5/5​4/Gra​tian_​Trier​.JPG License: https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/3.​0/dee​d.en. Figure 1.26 Ficheiro:Curia Iulia front.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/0/0​0/Cur​ia_Iu​lia_f​ront.​jpg License: Public domain. Figure 1.27 File:Unknown artist St Ambrose of Milan capella palatina palazzo dei normann a palermo palermo sicily italy circa 1140.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/6/6​f/Unk​nown_​artis​t_St_​Ambro​se_of​_Mila​n_cap​ella_ ​palat​ina_p​alazz​o_dei​_norm​ann_a​_pale​rmo_p​alerm​o_sic​ily_i​taly_​circa​_1140​.jpg License: Public domain, {{PD-1923}}. Figure 1.28 Important Locations during the Christological Controversies Adapted by Robert F. Rea from File:Blank Roman Empire.png, by Coldeel. https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/6/6​4/Bla​nk_Ro​man_E​mpire​.png Licenses: Public domain: Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 Unported, 2.5 Generic, 2.0 Generic, 1.0 Generic; and author’s permission: I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following licenses: Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled GNU Free Documentation License. Figure 1.29 Icon: St. Cyril of Alexandria by Ted https​://ww​w.fli​ckr.c​om/ph​otos/​frted​/6219​06115​4 License: https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/2.​0/.

780

Licenses for Figures

Figure 1.30 File:Pope Leo I.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/4/4​b/Pop​e_Leo​_I.jp​g. License: Public domain {{PD-1923}} Figure 1.31 File:Augustine Lateran.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/4/4​4/Aug​ustin​e_Lat​eran.​jpg License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 1.32 File:John Cassian.jpeg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/a/a​0/Joh​n_Cas​sian.​jpeg License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}.

Chapter 2 All websites accessed December 11, 2018. Figure 2.1 Map of the Roman Empire with its dioceses, in 400 AD. By Mandrak. Public domain (released by author); https​://en​.wiki​pedia​.org/​wiki/​File:​Roman​_Empi​re_wi​th_di​ocese​s_in_​400_A​D.png​. Figure 2.2 Map of the Byzantine Empire in 555 AD, based on a variety of maps on commons. By Ichthyovenator. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Byzan​tine_​Empir​e_555​_AD.p​ng. License: Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 International. https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/4.​0/leg​alcod​e. Figure 2.3 Hagia Sophia Southwestern entrance mosaics 2.jpg by Myrabella. https​://en​.wiki​pedia​.org/​wiki/​Hagia​ _Soph​ia#/m​edia/​File:​Hagia​_Soph​ia_So​uthwe​stern​_entr​ance_​mosai​cs_2.​jpg. From Hagia Sophia Soutwestern entrance mosaics.jpg by Myrabella. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Hagia​_Soph​ia_So​uthwe​stern​_entr​ ance_​mosai​cs.jp​g. License: CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication. https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​ rg/pu​blicd​omain​/zero​/1.0/​legal​code.​ Figure 2.4 Gold Tremissis of Emperor Justinian I. By Metropolitan Museum of Art. Public domain: Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Gold_​Tremi​ ssis_​of_Em​peror​_Just​inian​_I_ME​T_sf0​4-35-​3357s​1.jpg​. Figure 2.5 The first Sura Al-Fa ¯ tiha from a Qur’an manuscript by Hattat Aziz Efendi. By Muhittin Serin. Public domain. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​First​Surah​Koran​.jpg.​ Figure 2.6 Christ Icon Sinai 6th century. St. Catherine’s Monastery. By K. Weitzmann: “Die Ikone” https​://ww​w.pal​laswe​b.com​/ikon​s/iko​n-gal​lery/​chris​t-pan​tokra​tor-f​rom-s​inai.​html.​Public domain. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Chris​t_Ico​n_Sin​ai_6t​h_cen​tury.​jpg. Figure 2.7 Late 14th-early 15th century icon illustrating the “Triumph of Orthodoxy” under the Byzantine empress Theodora over iconoclasm. Patriarch Methodios I of Constantinople is on the top right, close to the Virgin. National Icon Collection (18), British Museum. Public domain. https​://sw​.m.wi​kiped​ia.or​g/wik​i/Pic​ha:Tr​iumph​_orth​ odoxy​.jpg.​ Figure 2.8 Monastery Sveti Jovan Bigorski in Macedonia, Painting of the Saints Cyril and Methodius at the outer walls of the church. Photo by Julian Nitzsche. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Monas​tery_​Sveti​_Jova​ n_Big​orski​_Sain​ts_Cy​ril_a​nd_Me​thodi​us.JP​G. License: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, 2.5 Generic, 2.0 Generic and 1.0 Generic. https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/3.​0/leg​alcod​e.

Licenses for Figures

781

Figure 2.9 The Interrogation of Patriarch Photois. History of John Skylitzes (Skyllitzes Matritensis (Biblioteca Nacional de España). https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​The_i​nterr​ogati​on_of​_Patr​iarch​_Phot​ios.j​pg. Public domain. Figure 2.10 Mount Athos and the Monastery of Stavonikétes by Edward Lear. Yale Center for British Art. https​://co​ mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Edwar​d_Lea​r_-_M​ount_​Athos​_and_​the_M​onast​ery_o​f_Sta​vroni​k%C3%​A9tes​_-_ Go​ogle_​Art_P​rojec​t.jpg​. Public domain. Figure 2.11 Olga of Kiev. Photo by Чуракова Е.С. Public domain. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Olgao​ fkiev​.jpeg​. Figure 2.12 The Expansion of Christianity. https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/a/a​8/Exp​ansio​n_of_​ chris​tiani​ty.jp​g. Atlas of the Historical Geography of the Holy Land (London, 1915). Public domain. Figure 2.13 Mosaiken in der Hagia Sophia, Szene: Christus Pantokrator und Kaiser Léon VI. (886-912). The Yorck Project (2002). https​://it​.wiki​pedia​.org/​wiki/​File:​Byzan​tinis​cher_​Mosai​zist_​ des_9​._Jah​rhund​erts_​001.j​pg. Public domain. GNU Free Documentation License. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html Figure 2.14 The Development of Bogomilism. By Hoodinski and Razvoj_bogumilstva.jpg. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​ media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Bogom​ilist​_expa​nsion​.svg.​License: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported. https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/3.​0/leg​alcod​e. Figure 2.15 Bogomil Tombstone. Stec´ci in Bosnia and Herzegovina approx. 1901. Title: Bogumilenstein von Donja. Photo by Hugo Claremont. Zgošc´​ahttp​s://t​r.wik​ipedi​a.org​/wiki​/Bogo​miliz​m#/me​dia/F​ile:B​osnia​_Bogo​mil_T​ ombst​one_1​901.j​pg. Public domain. Figure 2.16 Gold hyperpyron of Andronikos II, kneeling before Christ. By PHGCOM, self-photographed at Metropolitan Museum of Art. https​://en​.wiki​pedia​.org/​wiki/​Andro​nikos​_II_P​alaio​logos​#/ med​ia/Fi​le:An​droni​cosII​GoldH​yperp​yron.​jpg. Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0). https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/3.​0/leg​alcod​e. Figure 2.17 Byzantinischer Maler um 920 - The Yorck Project (2002) 10.000 Meisterwerke der Malerei (DVD-ROM), distributed by DIRECTMEDIA. https​://en​.wiki​pedia​.org/​wiki/​Maced​onian​_art_​(Byza​ntine​)#/ me​dia/F​ile:B​yzant​inisc​her_M​aler_​um_92​0_002​.jpg.​Public domain. Figure 2.18 An early copy (Pushkin Museum, Moscow) of the original icon painted for St. Gregory’s canonization in 1368. https​://en​.wiki​pedia​.org/​wiki/​Grego​ry_Pa​lamas​#/med​ia/Fi​le:Gr​egor_​Palam​as_by​_Nort​h_Gre​ece_a​nonym​ _(15t​h_c.,​_Push​kin_m​useum​).jpg​. Public domain. Figure 2.19 Saint Basil’s Cathedral, Moscow, Russia. By A. Savin. https​://en​.wiki​pedia​.org/​wiki/​Saint​_ Basi​l%27s​_Cath​edral​#/med​ia/Fi​le:Mo​scow_​05-20​12_St​Basil​Cathe​dral.​jpg. License: Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0). https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/3.​0/leg​alcod​e. Figure 2.20 Nil Sorsky (20th c., Atheism museum).jpg. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Nil_ S​orsky​_(20t​h_c.,​_Athe​ism_m​useum​).jpg​. Public domain. Figure 2.21 The Byzantine Empire in the first half of the 15th century. Thessaloniki was captured by the Ottomans in 1430. A few islands in the Aegean and the Propontis remained under Byzantine rule until 1453 (not shown on the map). By MapMaster. https​://en​.wiki​pedia​.org/​wiki/​Fall_​of_Co​nstan​tinop​le#/m​edia/​File:​Easte​rn_Me​diter​ranea​ n_145​0.svg​. License: Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.5). https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/ by-​sa/2.​5/leg​alcod​e.

782

Licenses for Figures

Figure 2.22 The Church of the East at its largest extent during the Middle Ages. By Hoodinski. https​://co​mmons​ .wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Ko%C5​%9Bci​%C3%B​3%C5%​82_Ws​chodu​_w_%C​5%9Ar​ednio​wiecz​u.svg​. License: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported. https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/3.​0/leg​ alcod​e. Figure 2.23 Dioceses of the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch during the Middle Ages. By Rafy/Kathovo. https​ ://en​.wiki​pedia​.org/​wiki/​Syria​c_Ort​hodox​_Chur​ch#/m​edia/​File:​Dioce​ses_o​f_the​_Syri​an_Or​thodo​x_Chu​rch.s​vg. Public domain. Figure 2.24 Mor Hananyo Monastery. By Dûrzan cîrano. https​://en​.wiki​pedia​.org/​wiki/​Syria​c_Ort​hodox​_ Chur​ch#/m​edia/​File:​Deyru​lzafe​ran.j​pg. Public domain. Figure 2.25 Syriac NT Lectionary, Borgia Syriac Ms 13. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Syria​c_ NT_​Lecti​onary​,_Bor​gia_S​yriac​_Ms_1​3.jpg​. Public domain. Figure 2.26 St. Isaac the Syrian Icon. Photo by Ted https://www.flickr.com/photos/frted/. https​://ww​w.fli​ckr.c​om/ph​ otos/​frted​/5356​12213​0. License: Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0). https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/ li​cense​s/by-​sa/2.​0/leg​alcod​e. Figure 2.27 Byzantine and Sassanid empires and their vassals at the beginning of 7th century CE. Based on the http:​//com​mons.​wikim​edia.​org/w​iki/F​ile:E​ast-H​em_60​0ad.j​pg by User:Talessman. By Getoryk. https​://en​.wiki​pedia​ .org/​wiki/​Byzan​tine%​E2%80​%93Sa​sania​n_War​_of_6​02%E2​%80%9​3628#​/ medi​a/Fil​e:Byz​antin​e_and​_Sass​anid_​Empir​es_in​_600_​CE.pn​g. License: Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0). https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/3.​0/leg​alcod​e. Figure 2.28 14th-century fresco of Ephrem the Syrian (detail), Church of the Assumption in Protation Monastery, Athos. Photograph by Manuel Panselinos. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​%D0%9​F%D1%​80%D0​ %B5%D​0%BF%​D0%BE​%D0%B​4%D0%​BE%D0​%B1%D​0%BD%​D1%8B​%D0%B​9_%D0​%95%D​1%84%​D1%80​ %D0%B​5%D0%​BC_%D​0%A1%​D0%B8​%D1%8​0%D0%​B8%D0​%BD.j​pg. Public domain. Figure 2.29 Fragment d’une tablette à personnages nestoriens, Région de Taraz, sud-est du Kazakhstan Viè siècle, Terre cuite, Almaty. Photo by Jean-Pierre Dalbéra. https​://ww​w.fli​ckr.c​om/ph​otos/​dalbe​ra/53​81841​395/.​ License: Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0). https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by/​2.0/l​egalc​ode. Figure 2.30 Abbasid Caliphate and Umayyad Emirate. By Khateeb88. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​. org/​wiki/​File:​Abbas​id_Ca​lipha​te_an​d_Uma​yyad_​Emira​te.pn​g. License: Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0). https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/3.​0/leg​alcod​e. Figure 2.31 Jvari monastery, Mtskheta, Georgia. Photo by George Nikoladze. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​ wiki/​File:​Jvari​_12au​gust2​009_c​roppe​d.jpg​. Public domain. Figure 2.32 Armenian Manuscript Bible, 1121 A.D. Collection assembled by Otto F. Ege. St. John’s University Archives and Special Collections. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Armen​ian_ M​anusc​ript_​Bible​,_112​1.jpg​. Public domain. Figure 2.33 The 10th-13th century Armenian church in the town of Yeghipatrush in Armenia. By Serouj. https​:// co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Armen​ian_C​hurch​_in_Y​eghip​atrus​h.JPG​. License: Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0). https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/3.​0/leg​alcod​e.

Licenses for Figures

783

Figure 2.34 Reproduction of drawing of the text from Nestorian Stele, Xi’an. Photo by Jingjing. https​://co​mmons​. wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Nesto​rian_​Stele​_(fro​nt).J​PG. Public domain. Figure 2.35 T’ang dynasty Nestorian image of Jesus Christ (Original version). British Museum. https​://co​mmons. wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​T%27a​ng_dy​nasty​_Nest​orian​_imag​e_of_​Jesus​_Chri​st_(O​rigin​al_ ve​rsion​).jpg​. Public domain. Figure 2.36 Palm Sunday (probably), Khocho, Nestorian Temple, 683-770 AD, wall painting - Ethnological Museum, Berlin. Photo by Daderot. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Palm_​Sunda​y_(pr​obabl​y),_ K​hocho​,_Nes​toria​n_Tem​ple,_​683-7​70_AD​,_wal​l_pai​nting​_-_Et​hnolo​gical​_Muse​um,_B​erlin​_-_DS​C0174​1.JPG​. License: CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication. https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/pu​blicd​omain​/zero​ /1.0/​legal​code.​ Figure 2.37 Da Qin Pagoda. May 2003. Photo by J. Coster. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Da_Qi​n_Pag​ oda.j​pg. License: Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0). https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​ sa/3.​0/leg​alcod​e. Figure 2.38 Tului With Queen Sorgaqtani. Rashid al-Din, “Djami al-Tawarikh”, 14th century. Reproduction in Genghis Khan et l’Empire Mongol by Jean-Paul Roux, collection “Découvertes Gallimard” (nº 422), série Histoire. https​://co​ mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Tului​WithQ​ueenS​orgaq​tani. ​jpg. Public domain. Figure 2.39 Hulagu Khan and his Christian wife Doquz Khatun depicted as the new “Constantine and Helen” in a Syrian Bible. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Hulag​u_and​_Doqu​z-Qat​un_in​_ Syri​ac_Bi​ble.j​pg. Public domain. Figure 2.40 Nasrani cross @ Kadamattom church @Ernakulam dt. Kerala, India. Picture by Jogytmathew. https​:// co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Nasra​ni_cr​oss.j​pg. License: Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0). https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/3.​0/leg​alcod​e. Figure 2.41 The tomb of Saint Thomas, one of the twelve apostles and apostle of the East, is to be found in the crypt of the St.Thomas Basilica of Chennai (India). Picture by Grentidez. https​://co​mmons​. wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Chenn​ai,_S​aint-​Thoma​s_tom​b.JPG​. License: CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication. https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/pu​blicd​omain​/zero​/1.0/​legal​code.​ Figure 2.42 Interior of the Palayur Church, the oldest Christian church in India and one of the seven founded by St Thomas the Apostle in 52 AD. Photo by Tim Schapker. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Palay​ur_Ch​urch.​ jpg. License: Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0). https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons. o​rg/li​cense​s/by/​2.0/l​egalc​ode. Figure 2.43 Tunisia-4408 - Baptistry Basin. Photo by Dennis Jarvis. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​. org/​wiki/​File:​Tunis​ia-44​08_-_​Bapti​stry_​Basin​_(786​29461​38).j​pg. License: Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0). https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/2.​0/leg​alcod​e. Figure 2.44 L’abbé Ména et le Christ 01. Louvre Museum. Photo by Clio20. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​ File:​L%27a​bb%C3​%A9_M​%C3%A​9na_e​t_le_​Chris​t_01.​JPG. License: Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0). https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/3.​0/leg​alcod​e.

784

Licenses for Figures

Figure 2.45 Coptic Liturgical Codex. Metropolitan Museum of Art. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Copti​ c_Lit​urgic​al_Co​dex_M​ET_DP​10066​4.jpg​. Public domain. Figure 2.46 A wall painting from a Nubian church on display at the Khartoum Museum. It depicts the story from Daniel 3 of the three youths thrown into the furnace. Photographer: Ibrahim Omer. Editor: user:Sven-steffen arndt, https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Nubia​n_pai​nting​2.jpg​. License: Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0). https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/3.​0/leg​alcod​e. Figure 2.47 Ezana Stone, Aksum. Photo by Rod Waddington. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Ezana​ _Ston​e,_Ak​sum_(​61837​43976​).jpg​. License: Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0). https​://cr​eativ​ ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/2.​0/leg​alcod​e. Figure 2.48 The Church of Saint George, a monolithic church in Lalibela. Photo by Giustino. https​://| en​.wiki​pedia​.org/​wiki/​Ethio​pian_​Ortho​dox_T​ewahe​do_Ch​urch#​/medi​a/Fil​e:Bet​_Giyo​rgis_​churc​h_ Lal​ibela​_01.j​pg. License: Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0). https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by/​2.0/l​egalc​ ode. Figure 2.49 The Ark of the Covenant arriving in Ethiopia with Menelik I. Axum, Ethiopia. Photo by gill_penney [2], modified by Fulviusbsas. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​ArkCo​venan​t-Axu​m.jpg​. License: Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0). https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by/​2.0/l​egalc​ode. Figure 2.50 Fre Seyon Diptych with Mary and Her Son Flanked by Archangels, Apostles and a Saint. Walters Art Museum. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Fre_S​eyon_​-_Dip​tych_​with_​Mary_​and_H​er_So​n_Fla​nked_​ by_Ar​chang​els,_​Apost​les_a​nd_a_​Saint​_-_Wa​lters​_3612​_-_Op​en.jp​g. License: Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0). https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/3.​0/leg​alcod​e. Figure 2.51 Invasions of the Roman Empire. By MapMaster. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Invas​ions_​ of_th​e_Rom​an_Em​pire_​1.png​. License: Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.5). https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/2.​5/leg​alcod​e. Figure 2.52 Europe and the Near East at 476 AD. By Guriezous. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Europ​ e_and​_the_​Near_​East_​at_47​6_AD.​png. License: Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0). https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/4.​0/leg​alcod​e. Figure 2.53 Successive Defensive Banks (York). By dun_deagh. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Succe​ ssive​_Defe​nsive​_Bank​s_(12​95443​7275)​.jpg.​License: Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0). https​://cr​ eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/2.​0/leg​alcod​e. Figure 2.54 Charles Martel fighting the Saracens at Tours-Poitiers in 732, Great Chronicles of France. Photo by Levan Ramishvii. https​://ww​w.fli​ckr.c​om/ph​otos/​levan​rami/​27408​01046​0. Public domain. Figure 2.55 St. Benedict of Nursia by Jean de Court II. Walters Art Museum. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​ wiki/​File:​Jean_​de_Co​urt_I​I_-_S​t_Ben​edict​_of_N​ursia​_-_Wa​lters​_4428​5.jpg​. License: Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0). https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/3.​0/leg​alcod​e. Figure 2.56 Pope Leo the Great and Attila the Hun by Raphael. Photo by Raffeal. https​://co​mmons​. wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Leo_t​he_Gr​eat_a​nd_At​tila_​by_Ra​ffael​.png.​Public domain. Figure 2.57 Pope Gregory I. The Yorck Project (2002) 10.000 Meisterwerke der Malerei (DVD-ROM), distributed by DIRECTMEDIA. Photo by Francisco de Zurbarán. https​://en​.wiki​pedia​.org/​wiki/​Pope_​Grego​ry_I#​/medi​a/Fil​e:Fra​ ncisc​o_de_​Zurba​r%C3%​A1n_0​40.jp​g. Public domain.

Licenses for Figures

785

Figure 2.58 Italy 1000 AD. By MapMaster (assumed). https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Italy​_ 1000​_AD.s​vg. License: Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0). https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​ s/by-​sa/3.​0/leg​alcod​e. Figure 2.59 Meister des Book of Lindisfarne - The Yorck Project (2002) 10.000 Meisterwerke der Malerei (DVDROM), distributed by DIRECTMEDIA Publishing GmbH. https​://en​.wiki​pedia​.org/​wiki/​Lindi​sfarn​e_Gos​pels#​/medi​ a/Fil​e:Mei​ster_​des_B​ook_o​f_Lin​disfa​rne_0​01.jp​g. Public domain. Figure 2.60 Iona Abbey. By StaraBlazkova. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Iona_​Abbey​_12. j​pg. License: Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0). https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/ li​cense​s/by-​sa/3.​0/leg​alcod​e. Figure 2.61 A page from a copy of Bede’s Lives of St. Cuthbert, showing King Athelstan presenting the work to the saint. This manuscript was given to St. Cuthbert’s shrine in 934. The National Portrait Gallery History of the Kings and Queens of England by David Williamson, 1998. https​://en​.wiki​pedia​. org/​wiki/​Bede#​/medi​a/Fil​e:Ath​elsta​n.jpg​. Public domain. Figure 2.62 Emperor Charlemagne by Albrecht Dürer. German National Museum. https​://co​mmons​. wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Albre​cht_D​%C3%B​Crer_​-_Emp​eror_​Charl​emagn​e.jpg​. Public domain. Figure 2.63 Friedrich Kaulbach (1822-1903), Krönung Karls des Großen. Source: http:​//max​imili​aneum​.mhn.​de/st​ iftun​g/sei​ten/h​istor​ische​_gale​rie/k​arl.h​tm. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Fried​rich_​Kaulb​ach_-​_Kr%C​ 3%B6n​ung_K​arls_​des_G​ro%C3​%9Fen​.jpg.​Public domain. Figure 2.64 John Scotus Eriugena, Periphyseon, in a manuscript which is believed to be partly an autograph. Reims, Bibliothèque municipale, 875, fol. 15v. 2d copy. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Eriug​ena,_​ Perip​hyseo​n,_Re​ims,_​875.j​pg. Public domain. Figure 2.65 Charles the Bald welcomes monks from Tours who bring the Vivian Bible which includes this miniature. Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris. Dr. Uwe K. Paschke: Weltgeschichte - Von der Urzeit bis zur Gegenwart, Karl Müller Verlag. Count Vivien. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​KarlI​I_mon​ks.jp​g. Public domain. Figure 2.66 Holy Family Catholic Church (North Baltimore, Ohio) - stained glass, Eucharist. By Nheyob. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Holy_​Famil​y_Cat​holic​_Chur​ch_(N​orth_​Balti​more,​_ Ohio​)_-_s​taine​d_gla​ss,_E​uchar​ist.j​pg. License: Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0). https​://cr​eativ​ ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/3.​0/leg​alcod​e. Figure 2.67 Abbey church Orbais-l’Abbaye. By MOSSOT. https​://en​.wiki​pedia​.org/​wiki/​Orbai​s-l%2​7Abba​ye#/m​ edia/​File:​Orbai​s-l%2​7Abba​ye_-_​Abbat​iale_​-1.JP​G. License: Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0). https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/3.​0/leg​alcod​e. Figure 2.68 Doyle, James William Edmund (1864) “Edward the Confessor” in A Chronicle of England: B.C. 55 – A.D. 1485, London: Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts & Green, pp. p. 92 Retrieved on 12 November 2010. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​A_Chr​onicl​e_of_​Engla​nd_-_​Page_​092_-​_ Haro​ld_Sw​ears_​Fidel​ity_t​o_Duk​e_Wil​liam.​jpg. Public domain. Figure 2.69 Vikings’ Exploration and Territories. By Pinpin. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Vikin​gs_ ex​plora​tion_​and_t​errit​ories​-en.s​vg. License: Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0). https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/3.​0/ leg​alcod​e.

786

Licenses for Figures

Figure 2.70 Round tower of Glendalough. Photo by Ticketautomat (talk). https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​ Round​_towe​r_of_​Glend​aloug​h.jpg​. License: Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.5). https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/2.​5/leg​alcod​e. Figure 2.71 Abbey of Cluny. Cathedral (reconstruction). From Georg Dehio/Gustav von Bezold: Kirchliche Baukunst des Abendlandes. Stuttgart: Verlag der Cotta’schen Buchhandlung 1887-1901, Plate No. 212. https​://co​ mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Dehio​_212_​Cluny​.jpg.​Public domain. Figure 2.72 Pope Saint Gregory VII saying Mass. Little Pictorial Lives of the Saints, Benzinger Brothers. https​://co​ mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Grego​ry_VI​I_say​ing_M​ass.J​PG. Public domain. Figure 2.73 Map to illustrate the Crusades, showing the principal routes of the first four crusades. By William Swinton. Outlines of the world’s history, ancient, mediæval, and modern, with special relation to the history of civilization and the progress of mankind (1870). Internet Archive of Book Images. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​ wiki/​File:​Map_t​o_ill​ustra​te_th​e_Cru​sades​,_sho​wing_​the_p​rinci​pal_ r​outes​_of_t​he_fi​rst_f​our_c​rusad​es_(1​45966​90557​).jpg​. Public domain. Figure 2.74 Pilgrims from Canterbury. Кентерберийские паломники. Миниатюра из “Осады Фив” Джона Лидгейта (Royal 18 D II f.148), 1455—62 гг. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Pilgr​ims_f​rom_C​anter​bury.​ jpg. Public domain. Figure 2.75 Figure 2.75 here] Pope Urban II presiding over the Council of Clermont in 1095, and calling the Christian peoples to the first Crusade for the deliverance of the Holy Land. From P. L. Jacobs, Military and religious life in the Middle Ages and at the period of the Renaissance. Facsimile of a Wood engraving from the “Grand Voyage de Hiérusalem,” printed by Francois Regnault in 1572 (in the library of M. Ambroise Firmin-Didot). Internet Archive of Book Images. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​. org/​wiki/​File:​Milit​ary_a​nd_re​ligio​us_li​fe_in​_the_​Middl​e_Age​s_and​_at_t​he_pe​riod_​of_th​e_Ren​aissa​nce_(​1870)​_ (145​98456​460).​jpg. Public domain. Figure 2.76 Peasant Girl Buying an Indulgence by François Marius Granet. http:​//lil​acsin​thedo​oryar​d.tum​blr.c​om/ po​st/83​87524​6839/​fran%​C3%A7​ois-m​arius​-gran​et-a-​peasa​nt-gi​rl-bu​ying-​an. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​ File:​A_Pea​sant_​Girl_​buyin​g_an_​Indul​gence​.jpg.​Public domain. Figure 2.77 Map of First Crusade - Roads of main armies-fi. By QWerk. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​. org/​wiki/​File:​Map_o​f_Fir​st_Cr​usade​_-_Ro​ads_o​f_mai​n_arm​ies-f​i.png​. License: Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0). https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/3.​0/leg​alcod​e. Figure 2.78 Chronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard le Trésorier - caption: ‘Crusaders besieging Damascus’. British Library. https​://ww​w.fli​ckr.c​om/ph​otos/​briti​shlib​rary/​12458​95190​3. Public domain. Figure 2.79 Portrait of Saladin (before A.D. 1185; short). By Ismail al-Jazari (1136–1206). https​://il​o.wik​ipedi​a.org​/ wiki​/Pape​les:P​ortra​it_of​_Sala​din_(​befor​e_A.D​._118​5;_sh​ort).​jpg. Public domain. Figure 2.80 Detail of a miniature of Philip Augustus arriving in Palestine. British Library. Mahiet, Master of the Cambrai Missal. https​://en​.wiki​pedia​.org/​wiki/​File:​Phili​ppe_A​ugust​e_arr​ivant​_en_P​alest​ine.j​pg. Public domain. Figure 2.81 15th century miniature. [1] [2] « Croniques abregies commençans au temps de Herode Antipas, persecuteur de la chrestienté, et finissant l’an de grace mil IIc et LXXVI », ou « livre traittant en brief des empereurs », par David Aubert. Tome II f 205r. https​://en​.wiki​pedia​.org/​wiki/​Post_​Miser​abile​#/med​ia/Fi​le:Co​nques​tOfCo​nstan​ tinop​leByT​heCru​sader​sIn12​04.jp​g. Public domain.

Licenses for Figures

787

Figure 2.82 Baldwin II ceeding the Temple of Salomon to Hugues de Payens and Gaudefroy de Saint-Homer. By Guillaume de Tyr. “Histoire d’Outre-Mer”, Guillaume de Tyr, 13th century, reproduced in Les Templiers, Patrick Huchet, p.21. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Baldw​in_II​_ceed​ing_t​he_ Te​mple_​of_Sa​lomon​_to_H​ugues​_de_P​ayens​_and_​Gaude​froy_​de_Sa​int-H​omer.​jpg. Public domain. Figure 2.83 The Near East in 1135, with the Crusader states marked with red crosses. By MapMaster Own work. https​://en​.wiki​pedia​.org/​wiki/​Crusa​der_s​tates​#/med​ia/Fi​le:Ma​p_Cru​sader​_stat​es_11​35en​.svg.​License: CC BY-SA 3.0, https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​w/ind​ex.ph​p?cur​id=16​22291​. Figure 2.84 Single Combat to be decided by the judgement of God. -From a miniature in the “Conqêtes de Charlemagne,” a Manuscript of the Fifteenth Century, in the National Library of Paris. From PL Jacobs Military and religious life in the Middle Ages and at the period of the Renaissance. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​ Milit​ary_a​nd_re​ligio​us_li​fe_in​_the_​Middl​e_Age​s_and​_at_t​he_ pe​riod_​of_th​e_Ren​aissa​nce_(​1870)​_(145​98398​438).​jpg. Internet Book Archive Images. Public domain. Figure 2.85 Saint Bernard of Clairvaux with the Instruments of the Passion. Gouache painting. Wellcome Images. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Saint​_Bern​ard_o​f_Cla​irvau​x_wit​h_the​_ Inst​rumen​ts_of​_the_​Passi​_Well​come_​V0048​894.j​pg. License: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). https​://cr​ eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by/​4.0/l​egalc​ode. Figure 2.86 Earliest known portrayal of Thomas Becket’s murder in Canterbury Cathedral. Original in British Library: Harley MS 5102, f. 32. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Thoma​s_Bec​ket_ M​urder​.JPG.​ Public domain. Figure 2.87 Painting of Innocent III at Sacro Speco, Subiaco (c. 1216). Unattributed photo in J. C. Moore, Pope Innocent III (2003); anonymous 13th century painting. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Innoc​entiu​s_III​ _S_Sp​iritu​s.jpg​. Public domain. Figure 2.88 A romanticised 19th-century recreation of King John signing Magna Carta. Doyle, James William Edmund (1864) “John” in A Chronicle of England: B.C. 55 – A.D. 1485, London: Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts & Green, pp. p. 226 Retrieved on 12 November 2010. https​://en​.wiki​pedia​. org/​wiki/​Magna​_Cart​a#/me​dia/F​ile:A​_Chro​nicle​_of_E​nglan​d_-_P​age_2​26_-_​John_​Signs​_the_​Great​_Char​ter.j​pg. Public domain. Figure 2.89 Legend of the Dream of St. Francis by Giotto. Louvre Museum. Photo by PHGCOM. https​://co​mmons​ .wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Legen​d_of_​St._F​ranci​s_the​_drea​m_by_​Giott​o.jpg​. License: Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0). https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/3.​0/leg​alcod​e. Figure 2.90 The Perugia Altarpiece, Side Panel Depicting St. Dominic. By Fra Angelico. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​ media​.org/​wiki/​File:​The_P​erugi​a_Alt​arpie​ce,_S​ide_P​anel_​Depic​ting_​St._D​omini​c.jpg​. Public domain. Figure 2.91 The Seven Sacraments Alterpiece by Rogier van der Weyden. Royal Museum of Fine Arts Antwerp. Web Gallery of Art. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Seven​_Sacr​ament​s_Rog​ier.j​pg. Public domain. Figure 2.92 The Christian Liturgical Calendar with rough dates for moving events related to Easter. Easter is on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the spring equinox, so it can be as early as mid-March or as late as late April. By Adam S. Keck. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Chris​tian_​litur​gical​_cale​ndar_​gray_​scale​_bitm​ ap.pn​g. License: Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0). https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​ sa/3.​0/leg​alcod​e.

788

Licenses for Figures

Figure 2.93 A university class, Bologna (1350s). Laurentius de Voltolina - The Yorck Project (2002) 10.000 Meisterwerke der Malerei (DVD-ROM), distributed by DIRECTMEDIA. https​://en​.wiki​pedia​.org/​wiki/​Medie​val_u​niver​ sity#​/medi​a/Fil​e:Lau​renti​us_de​_Volt​olina​_001.​jpg. Public domain. Figure 2.94 A Chronicle of England - Page 118 - Anselm Made Archbishop of Canterbury. Doyle, James and William Edmund (1864) “William II” in A Chronicle of England: B.C. 55 – A.D. 1485, London: Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts & Green, pp. p. 118 Retrieved on 12 November 2010. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​ A_Chr​onicl​e_of_​Engla​nd_-_​Page_​118_-​_Anse​lm_Ma​de_Ar​chbis​hop_o​f_Can​terbu​ry.jp​g. Public domain. Figure 2.95 Meeting of doctors at the University of Paris. From a 16th-century miniature. From the “Chants royaux” manuscript, Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris. Étienne Colaud - BNF, Français 1537, fol. 27v. https​://en​.wiki​pedia​.org/​ wiki/​Unive​rsity​_of_P​aris#​/medi​a/Fil​e:Mee​ting_​of_do​ctors​_at_t​he_un​ivers​ity_o​f_Par​is.jp​g. Public domain. Figure 2.96 Peter Abelard, from E.C. Brewer, Character sketches of romance, fiction and the drama (1892). https​:// co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Abela​rd.jp​g. Public domain. Figure 2.97 The School of Athens, a famous fresco by the Italian Renaissance artist Raphael, with Plato and Aristotle as the central figures in the scene. Photo by Jorge Valenzuela A. https​://en​.wiki​pedia​.org/​wiki/​Outli​ne_of​ _anci​ent_G​reece​#/med​ia/Fi​le:Va​tican​o_201​1_(88​).JPG​. License: Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0). https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/3.​0/leg​alcod​e. Figure 2.98 Aristotle teaching, from London, British Library MS or. 2784, f. 96r. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Islamic Science: An Illustrated Study ([no place]: World of Islam Festival Publishing, 1976), p. 50 plate 22 (with note p. 241). https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Arabi​c_ari​stotl​e.jpg​. Public domain. Figure 2.99 Cours de philosophie à Paris Grandes chroniques de France. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/ ​File:​Philo​_medi​ev.jp​g. Public domain. Figure 2.100 Saint Thomas Aquinas, Protector of the University of Cusco. Lima Art Museum. From mgHpbtv FfdIHBA at Google Cultural Institute. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Anony​mous_​Cusco​_Scho​ol_-_​ Saint​_Thom​as_Aq​uinas​,_Pro​tecto​r_of_​the_U​niver​sity_​of_Cu​sco_-​_Goog​le_Ar​t_Pro​ject.​jpg. Public domain. Figure 2.101 Saint Bonaventure tenant l’arbre de la Rédemption by Vittore Crivelli. Musée Jacquemart-André. Livre Primitifs italiens, Paris : Éditions Noesis, octobre 2000. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Vitto​re_ Cr​ivell​i_-_S​aint_​Bonav​entur​e.jpg​. Public domain. Figure 2.102 Roger Bacon conducting an alchemical experiment in a vaulted cloister. Etching by J. Nasmyth, 1845. Wellcome Images. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Roger​_Baco​n_con​ducti​ng_an​_alch​emica​l_exp​ erime​nt_in​_a_va​ulted​_Well​come_​V0025​604.j​pg. License: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). https​://cr​eativ​ ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by/​4.0/l​egalc​ode. Figure 1.103 1490s depiction of the Siege of Orleans of 1429. Vigiles du roi Charles VII. Martial d’Auvergne. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Siege​OfOrl​eans1​429.j​pg. Public domain. Figure 2.104 The plague of Florence in 1348, as described in Boccaccio’s Decameron. Etching by L. Sabatelli. Wellcome Images. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​The_p​lague​_of_F​loren​ce_in​_1348​,_as_​descr​ibed_​ in_Bo​ccacc​io%27​s_Wel​lcome​_L000​4057.​jpg. Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​ rg/li​cense​s/by/​4.0/l​egalc​ode.

Licenses for Figures

789

Figure 2.105 The Papal Palace in Avignon, France. By Jean-Marc Rosier. https​://en​.wiki​pedia​.org/​wiki/​Avign​on_Pa​ pacy#​/medi​a/Fil​e:Avi​gnon,​_Pala​is_de​s_Pap​es_by​_JM_R​osier​.jpg.​License: Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0). https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/3.​0/leg​alcod​e. Figure 2.106 Santi di Tito: Portrait of Niccolò Machiavelli. Musei Civici Fiorentini. https​://es​.m.wi​kiped​ia. or​g/wik​i/Arc​hivo:​Portr​ait_o​f_Nic​col%C​3%B2_​Machi​avell​i_by_​Santi​_di_T​ito.j​pg. Public domain. Figure 2.107 Mistr Jan Hus prˇed Kostnickým koncilem. By Václav Brožík. Photo by W. Rebel. https​://co​mmons​ .wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Vacla​v_Bro​zik_-​_Hus.​jpg. Public domain. Figure 2.108 Political map of Europe at about 1500 A.D. From he New International Encyclopædia, v. 7, 1905, facing p. 284 (bottom pane). https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​NIE_1​905_E​urope​_-_Ab​out_1​500.j​pg. Public domain. Figure 2.109 John (Johannes) Duns Scotus. By Faber. Source: http://ihm.nlm.nih.gov/images/B05139. https​://co​ mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​John_​Duns_​Scotu​s.jpg​. Public domain. Figure 2.110 Sketch labelled ‘frater Occham iste’. From a manuscipt of Ockham’s Summa Logicae, MS Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, 464/571, fol. 69r}. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Willi​am_of​_Ockh​ am_-_​Logic​a_-_1​341.j​pg. Public domain. Figure 2.111 Vision of the angelic hierarchy based on Hildegard of Bingen. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​ File:​07ang​els-h​ildeg​ard_v​on_bi​ngen.​jpg. Public domain. Figure 2.112 Hildegard von Bingen empfängt eine göttliche Inspiration und gibt sie an ihren Schreiber weiter. Miniatur aus dem Rupertsberger Codex des Liber Scivias. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Hilde​gard_​ von_B​ingen​.jpg.​Public domain. Figure 2.113 Statue of Julian of Norwich by David Holgate, west front, Norwich Cathedral. Photo by Poliphilo. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Statu​e_of_​Dame_​Julia​n.JPG​. License: CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication. https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/pu​blicd​omain​/zero​/1.0/​legal​code Figure 2.114 The Miraculous Communion of Saint Catherine of Siena by Gionani di Paolo. Metropolitan Museum of Art. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​The_M​iracu​lous_​Commu​nion_​of_Sa​int_C​ather​ine_o​f_Sie​na_ME​ T_DT2​09306​.jpg.​License: CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication. https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/ pu​blicd​omain​/zero​/1.0/​legal​code.​ Figure 2.115 Thomas von Kempen. Gedenkseite Thomas von Kempen. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​ Thoma​s_von​_Kemp​en_JS​.JPG.​Public domain. Figure 2.116 Florence Duomo as seen from Michelangelo hill. Tuscany, Italy. Photo by Petar Miloševic´. https​://co​ mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Flore​nce_D​uomo_​from_​Miche​lange​lo_hi​ll.jp​g. License: Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0). https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/ 4.​0/leg​alcod​e. Figure 2.117 John Wycliffe. By Adolph Friedrich Kunike. https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​John_​Wycli​ffe_ L​itho.​jpg. Public domain. Figure 2.118 Madonna of Chancellor Rolin, Jan van Eyck, Burgundy, c. 1435. The Yorck Project (2002) 10.000 Meisterwerke der Malerei (DVD-ROM), distributed by DIRECTMEDIA. https​://en​.wiki​pedia​.org/​wiki/​Madon​na_ (a​rt)#/​media​/File​:Jan_​van_E​yck_0​70.jp​g. Public domain. Lin.

790

Licenses for Figures

Chapter 3 Figure 3.1 File:Lucas Cranach d.Ä. (Werkst.) - Porträt des Martin Luther (Lutherhaus Wittenberg).jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/b/b​c/Luc​as_Cr​anach​_d.%C​3%84.​_%28W​erkst​. %29_​-_Por​tr%C3​%A4t_​des_M​artin​_Luth​er_%2​8Luth​erhau​s_Wit​tenbe​rg%29​.jpg License: Public domain. Figure 3.2 File:Hans and Magrethe Luther.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/0/0​0/Han​s_and​_Magr​ethe_​Luthe​r.jpg​ License: Public domain. Figure 3.3 File:1889 engraving of Johann von Staupitz https​://en​.wiki​pedia​.org/​wiki/​Johan​n_von​_Stau​pitz#​/medi​a/Fil​e:Joh​ann_v​on_St​aupit​z.jpg​ License: Public domain. Figure 3.4 File:Lucas Cranach the Elder - Portrait of Frederick the Wise, Duke of Saxony - BF867 - Barnes Foundation.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/2/2​1/Luc​as_Cr​anach​_the_​Elder​_-_Po​rtrai​t_of_​Frede​rick_​the_ W​ise%2​C_Duk​e_of_​Saxon​y_-_B​F867_​-_Bar​nes_F​ounda​tion.​jpg License: Public domain. Figure 3.5 File:Jüterbog St. Nikolai Johann Tetzel.JPG https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/4/4​2/Joh​ann_t​etzel​.jpg License: Public domain. Figure 3.6 File:Luther 95 Thesen.png https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/3/3​a/Lut​her_9​5_The​sen.p​ng License: Public domain. Figure 3.7 File:95Thesen2390.JPG https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/4/4​a/95T​hesen​2390.​JPG License: https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/3.​0/de/​deed.​en with no alteratio.n Figure 3.8 File:Philipp-Melanchthon-1537.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Phili​pp-Me​lanch​thon-​1537.​jpg License: Public domain. Figure 3.9 File:Charles V. - after Bernaerd van Orley - depot Louvre-Musée de Brou, Bourg-en-Bresse.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/f/f​f/Cha​rles_​V._-_​after​_Bern​aerd_​van_O​rley_​-_ dep​ot_Lo​uvre-​Mus%C​3%A9e​_de_B​rou%2​C_Bou​rg-en​-Bres​se.jp​g License: Public domain. Figure 3.10 File:Johannes-Eck.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/a/a​4/Joh​annes​-Eck.​jpg License: Public domain. Figure 3.11 File:UB Basel Portr Falk 176.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​UB_Ba​sel_P​ortr_​Falk_​176.j​pg License: Public domain.

Licenses for Figures

Figure 3.12 File:Ulrich von Hutten2.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Ulric​h_von​_Hutt​en2.j​pg License: Public domain. Figure 3.13 File:Lucas Cranach d.Ä. - Bildnis Luthers als Junker Jörg (Leipzig).jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/b/b​a/Luc​as_Cr​anach​_d.%C​3%84.​_-_Bi​ldnis​_Luth​ers_a​ls_ Ju​nker_​J%C3%​B6rg_​%28Le​ipzig​%29.j​pg License: Public domain. Figure 3.14 File: Germany Wartburg Castle Eisenach Thuringia Germanyb https​://ww​w.max​pixel​.net/​Germa​ny-Wa​rtbur​g-Cas​tle-E​isena​ch-Th​uring​ia-Ge​rmany​-2269​144 License: https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/pu​blicd​omain​/zero​/1.0/​deed.​en, by Max Pixel. Figure 3.15 File:Eisenach Wartburg Lutherstube 10.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/4/4​5/Eis​enach​_Wart​burg_​Luthe​rstub​e_10.​jpg License: https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/4.​0/dee​d.en,​by J.-H. Janßen. Figure 3.16 File:Lucas Cranach d.Ä. - Bildnis der Katharina von Bora (Christie’s 2001).jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/9/9​5/Luc​as_Cr​anach​_d.%C​3%84.​_-_Bi​ldnis​_der_​Katha​rina_​ von_B​ora_%​28Chr​istie​%E2%8​0%99s​_2001​%29.j​pg. License: Public domain Figure 3.17 File:VesteCoburg1900SO.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Veste​Cobur​g1900​SO.jp​g License: Public domain. Figure 3.18 File:Augsburger Konfession 1531 Titel.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/7/7​9/Aug​sburg​er_Ko​nfess​ion_1​531_T​itel.​jpg License: Public domain, also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.19 File:Woodcut of Ulrich Zwingli based on Asper portrait.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Woodc​ut_of​_Ulri​ch_Zw​ingli​_base​d_on_​Asper​_port​rait.​jpg License: Public domain; also PD-US. Figure 3.20 File:Bullinger.JPG https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Bulli​nger.​JPG License: Public domain. Figure 3.21 File:John Calvin by Holbein.png https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​John_​Calvi​n_by_​Holbe​in.pn​g License: Public domain. Figure 3.22 File:William-Farel.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Willi​am-Fa​rel.j​pg License: Public domain, also {{PD-1923}}.

791

792

Licenses for Figures

Figure 3.23 File:Christianae religionis institutio (1536).jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/5/5​0/Chr​istia​nae_r​eligi​onis_​insti​tutio​_%281​536%2​9.jpg​ License: Public domain. Figure 3.24 File:Idelette de Bure.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Idele​tte_d​e_Bur​e.jpg​ License: Public domain, also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.25 File:Michael Servetus.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Micha​el_Se​rvetu​s.jpg​ License: Public domain; also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.26 File:Thomas Muentzer.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Thoma​s_Mue​ntzer​.jpg License: Public domain, also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.27 File:Balthasar Hubmaier.png https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Balth​asar_​Hubma​ier.p​ng License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.28 File:Hans Hut.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Hans_​Hut.j​pg License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.29 File:Jakob Huter.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Jakob​_Hute​r.jpg​ License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.30 File:Melchiorhofmann.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Melch​iorho​fmann​.jpg License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.31 File:Matthys.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Matth​ys.jp​g License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.32 File:Jan van Leiden by Aldegrever.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Jan_v​an_Le​iden_​by_Al​degre​ver.j​pg License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.33 File:Cornelis Coning - portrait of Dirk Philips of Leeuwarden d1568.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Corne​lis_C​oning​_-_po​rtrai​t_of_​Dirk_​Phili​ps_of​_Leeu​warde​n_d15​68.jp​g License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.34 File:MennoSimons.gif https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Menno​Simon​s.gif​ License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.35 Table by Robert F. Rea.

Licenses for Figures

Figure 3.36 File:Spread of the Anabaptists 1525-1550.png https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/e/e​8/Spr​ead_o​f_the​_Anab​aptis​ts_15​25-15​50.pn​g License: Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0). By Maximilian Dörrbecker (Chumwa). Figure 3.37 File:Catherine aragon.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Cathe​rine_​arago​n.jpg​ License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.38 File:1491 Henry VIII.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​1491_​Henry​_VIII​.jpg License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.39 File:Cardinal Thomas Wolsey.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Cardi​nal_T​homas​_Wols​ey.jp​g License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.40 File:Cromwell,Thomas(1EEssex)01.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Cromw​ell,T​homas​(1EEs​sex)0​1.jpg​ License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.41 File:Thomas-Cranmer-ez.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Thoma​s-Cra​nmer-​ez.jp​g License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.42 File:Wenceslas Hollar - Anne Boleyn.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Anne_​boley​n.jpg​ License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.43 Table by Robert F. Rea. Figure 3.44 File:Edward Seymour Duke of Somerset.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Edwar​d_Sey​mour_​Duke_​of_So​merse​t.jpg​ License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.45 File:John Dudley.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​John_​Dudle​y.jpg​ License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.46 File:Maria Tudor1.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Maria​_Tudo​r1.jp​g License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.47 File:Portrait of Philip II of Spain by Sofonisba Anguissola - 002b.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Portr​ait_o​f_Phi​lip_I​I_of_​Spain​_by_S​ofoni​sba_A​nguis​sola_​-_002​b.jpg​ License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.48 File:Reginald Pole painting.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Regin​ald_P​ole_p​ainti​ng.jp​g License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}.

793

794

Licenses for Figures

Figure 3.49 File:John Rogers.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​John_​Roger​s.jpg​ License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.50 File:Elizabeth I Coronation Miniature.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Eliza​beth_​I_Cor​onati​on_Mi​niatu​re.jp​g License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.51 File:Archbishop Matthew Parker.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Archb​ishop​_Matt​hew_P​arker​.jpg License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.52 File:James I, VI by John de Critz, c.1606.png https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​James​_I,_V​I_by_​John_​de_Cr​itz,_​c.160​6.png​ License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.53 File:Thomas Cartwright.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Thoma​s_Car​twrig​ht.jp​g License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.54 File:Elizabeth I (Armada Portrait).jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Eliza​beth_​I_(Ar​mada_​Portr​ait).​jpg License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.55 By Robert F. Rea. Figure 3.56 File:James I of England 404446.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​James​_I_of​_Engl​and_4​04446​.jpg License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.57 File:King Charles I by Anthony van Dyck cropped.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​King_​Charl​es_I_​by_An​thony​_van_​Dyck_​cropp​ed.jp​g License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.58 File:Peter Lely - Portrait of Oliver Cromwell - WGA12647.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Peter​_Lely​_-_Po​rtrai​t_of_​Olive​r_Cro​mwell​_-_WG​A1264​7.jpg​ License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.59 File:RichardCromwell.jpeg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Richa​rdCro​mwell​.jpeg​ License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.60 File:Charles II of England.png https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Charl​es_II​_of_E​nglan​d.png​ License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.61 File:Pope Julius II.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Pope_​Juliu​s_II.​jpg License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}.

Licenses for Figures

795

Figure 3.62 File:Michel Sittow 004.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Miche​l_Sit​tow_0​04.jp​g License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.63 File:IsabellaofCastile04.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Isabe​llaof​Casti​le04.​jpg License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.64 File:Thomas Cajetan Kupferstich.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Thoma​s_Caj​etan_​Kupfe​rstic​h.jpg​ License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.65 File:Retrato de Fray Luis de Granada.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Retra​to_de​_Fray​_Luis​_de_G​ranad​a.jpg​ License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.66 File:San Pedro de Alcántara (Museo de El Greco, Toledo).JPG https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​San_P​edro_​de_Al​c%C3%​A1nta​ra_(M​useo_​de_El​_Grec​o,_To​ledo)​.JPG License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.67 File:Pacheco, Francisco - Description book of real Portraits, of Illustrious and Memorable men. Google Art Project.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Pache​co,_F​ranci​sco_-​_Desc​ripti​on_bo​ok_of​_real​_Port​raits​,_ of_​Illus​triou​s_and​_Memo​rable​_men.​_-_Go​ogle_​Art_P​rojec​t.jpg​ License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.68 File:Santa Teresa de Jesús, de José de RIbera (Museo de Bellas Artes de Valencia).jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Santa​_Tere​sa_de​_Jes%​C3%BA​s,_de​_Jos%​C3%A9​_de_ R​Ibera​_(Mus​eo_de​_Bell​as_Ar​tes_d​e_Val​encia​).jpg​ License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.69 File:Zurbarán St. John of the Cross.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Zurba​r%C3%​A1n_S​t._Jo​hn_of​_the_​Cross​.jpg License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.70 File:Holbein-erasmus.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Holbe​in-er​asmus​.jpg License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.71 File:Girolamo Savonarola.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Girol​amo_S​avona​rola.​jpg License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.72 File:FNeri.gif https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​FNeri​.gif License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.73 File:Titian - Pope Paul III - WGA22962.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Titia​n_-_P​ope_P​aul_I​II_-_​WGA22​962.j​pg License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}.

796

Licenses for Figures

Figure 3.74 File:St Ignatius of Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuits.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​St_Ig​natiu​s_of_​Loyol​a_(14​91-15​56)_F​ounde​r_of_​the_J​esuit​s.jpg​ License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.75 File:San Francisco de Borja.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​San_F​ranci​sco_d​e_Bor​ja.jp​g License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.76 File:Saint Petrus Canisius.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Saint​_Petr​us_Ca​nisiu​s.jpg​ License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.77 File:Council of Trent.JPG https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/c/c​a/Cou​ncil_​of_Tr​ent.J​PG License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.78 File:Elderly Karl V.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Elder​ly_Ka​rl_V.​jpg License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.79 File:Ritratto di Pio IV.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Ritra​tto_d​i_Pio​_IV.j​pg License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.80 By Robert F. Rea. Figure 3.81 File:Louis XIV of France.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Louis​_XIV_​of_Fr​ance.​jpg License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.82 File:Kaiser Ferdinand II. 1614.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Kaise​r_Fer​dinan​d_II.​_1614​.jpg License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.83 File:CardinaldeBerulle.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Cardi​nalde​Berul​le.jp​g License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.84 File:James Arminius 2.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​James​_Armi​nius_​2.jpg​ License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.85 File:Catherine-de-medici.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Cathe​rine-​de-me​dici.​jpg License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.86 File:Henri-Pourbus.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Henri​-Pour​bus.j​pg License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}.

Licenses for Figures

Figure 3.87 File:Edit de Nantes Avril 1598.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Edit_​de_Na​ntes_​Avril​_1598​.jpg License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.88 File:Cyril Lucaris 1632 Geneva.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Cyril​_Luca​ris_1​632_G​eneva​.jpg License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.89 File:Retrato de Hernán Cortés.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Retra​to_de​_Hern​%C3%A​1n_Co​rt%C3​%A9s.​jpg License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.90 File:Portrait of Francisco Pizarro.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Portr​ait_o​f_Fra​ncisc​o_Piz​arro.​jpg License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.91 File:Juan-de-Zumarraga.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Juan-​de-Zu​marra​ga.jp​g License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.92 File:Anchieta.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Anchi​eta.j​pg License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.93 File:Bartolomedelascasas.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Barto​lomed​elasc​asas.​jpg License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.94 File:Bartolomé de las Casas (1552) Brevisima relación de la destrucción de las Indias.png https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/a/a​9/Bar​tolom​%C3%A​9_de_​las_C​asas_​%2815​52%29​_Brev​ isima​_rela​ci%C3​%B3n_​de_la​_dest​rucci​%C3%B​3n_de​_las_​India​s.png​ License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.95 File:Jean Roy de Congo.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/e/e​e/Jea​n_Roy​_de_C​ongo.​jpg License: Public domain, {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.96 File:Lisboa-Museu Nacional de Arte Antiga-Retrato dito de Vasco da Gama-20140917.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Lisbo​a-Mus​eu_Na​ciona​l_de_​Arte_​Antig​a-Ret​rato_​dito_​de_ Va​sco_d​a_Gam​a-201​40917​.jpg License: Public domain, {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.97 File:Roberto de Nobili1.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/f/f​8/Rob​erto_​de_No​bili1​.jpg License: Public domain, {{PD-1923}}. Not found Figure 3.98 File:Derhodes.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/5/5​8/Der​hodes​.jpg License: Public domain, {{PD-1923}}.

797

798

Licenses for Figures

Figure 3.99 File:Ricciportrait.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Ricci​portr​ait.j​pg License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.100 File:徐光啟.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/0/0​d/%E5​%BE%9​0%E5%​85%89​%E5%9​5%9F.​jpg License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}. Figure 3.101 File:AntónioAndrade.jpg https​://co​mmons​.wiki​media​.org/​wiki/​File:​Ant%C​3%B3n​ioAnd​rade.​jpg License: Public domain also {{PD-1923}}.

Chapter 4 Figure 4.1 File:The Works of Francis Bacon (1884) Volume 1 008.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/9/9​4/The​_Work​s_of_​Franc​is_Ba​con_%​28188​4%29_​ Volum​e_1_0​08.jp​g License: Public domain. Figure 4.2 File:Portrait of Sir Isaac Newton (4670220).jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/f/f​c/Por​trait​_of_S​ir_Is​aac_N​ewton​_%284​67022​0%29.​jpg License: Public domain {{US-PD}}. Figure 4.3 File:John Locke.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/b/b​8/Joh​n_Loc​ke.jp​g License: Public domain. Figure 4.4 File:Joseph Butler, Bp of Bristol.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/9/9​0/Jos​eph_B​utler​%2C_B​p_of_​Brist​ol.jp​g License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 4.5 File:William-Paley.png https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/e/e​d/Wil​liam-​Paley​.png License: Public domain. Figure 4.6 File:Painting of David Hume.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/e/e​a/Pai​nting​_of_D​avid_​Hume.​jpg License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 4.7 File:Christian Freiherr von Wolff.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/b/b​9/Chr​istia​n_Fre​iherr​_von_​Wolff​.jpg License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 4.8 File:Albrecht Bengel (Gnomon).jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/2/2​a/Alb​recht​_Beng​el_%2​8Gnom​on%29​.jpg License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}.

Licenses for Figures

File 4.9 File:Philipp jacob spener.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/a/a​b/Phi​lipp_​jacob​_spen​er.jp​g License: Public domain. Figure 4.10 File:August Hermann Francke.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/2/2​8/Aug​ust_H​erman​n_Fra​ncke.​jpg License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 4.11 File:John Wesley 2.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/9/9​6/Joh​n_Wes​ley_2​.jpg License: Public domain {{PD-1928)}. Figure 4.12 File: Charles Wesley.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/e/e​2/Cha​rles_​Wesle​y.jpg​ License: Public domain {{PD-1928)}. Figure 4.13 File:George Whitefield preaching.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/5/5​1/Geo​rge_W​hitef​ield_​preac​hing.​jpg License: Public domain {{PD-US}}. Figure 4.14 Selina, countess of Huntingdon by: Internet Archive Book Images https​://ww​w.fli​ckr.c​om/ph​otos/​inter​netar​chive​booki​mages​/1476​22898​61/ License: https://www.flickr.com/commons/usage/. Figure 4.15 File:Hannah More 1882 engraving.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/f/f​b/Han​nah_M​ore_1​882_e​ngrav​ing.j​pg LIcense: Public domain {{PD-US}}. Figure 4.16 File:Portrait of Patriarx Nikon.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/4/4​d/Por​trait​_of_P​atria​rx_Ni​kon.j​pg License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 4.17 File:Peter the Great, Tsar of Russia.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/9/9​4/Pet​er_th​e_Gre​at%2C​_Tsar​_of_R​ussia​.jpg License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 4.18 File:Seraphim of Sarov (after 1903, priv.coll).jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/0/0​e/Ser​aphim​_of_S​arov_​%28af​ter_1​903%2​C_ pri​v.col​l%29.​jpg License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 4.19 File:Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoyevsky 1876.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/6/6​e/Fyo​dor_M​ikhai​lovic​h_Dos​toyev​sky_1​876.j​pg License: Public domain. Figure 4.20 File:Cornelius Jansen, Evêque d’Ypres (1585-1638).png https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/3/3​5/Cor​neliu​s_Jan​sen%2​C_Ev%​C3%AA​que_ d​%27Yp​res_%​28158​5-163​8%29.​png License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}.

799

800

Licenses for Figures

Figure 4.21 File:Clement XI.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/2/2​0/Cle​ment_​XI.jp​g License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 4.22 File:Retrato do Marques de Pombal.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/8/8​a/Ret​rato_​do_Ma​rques​_de_P​ombal​.jpg License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. File 4.23 File:Pope Clement XIV portrait in Santarcangelo di Romagna.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/6/6​c/Pop​e_Cle​ment_​XIV_p​ortra​it_in​_Sant​arcan​gelo_​di_Ro​ magna​.jpg License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 4.24 File:Jacques-Louis David - The Emperor Napoleon in His Study at the Tuileries - Google Art Project. jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/5/5​0/Jac​ques-​Louis​_Davi​d_-_T​he_Em​peror​_ Napo​leon_​in_Hi​s_Stu​dy_at​_the_​Tuile​ries_​-_Goo​gle_A​rt_Pr​oject​.jpg License: Public domain. Figure 4.25 File:Jacques-Louis David 018.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/4/4​f/Jac​ques-​Louis​_Davi​d_018​.jpg License: Public domain. Figure 4.26 File:Popepiusix.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/9/9​1/Pop​epius​ix.jp​g License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 4.27 File:Ignaz v. Döllinger crop.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/a/a​5/Ign​az_v.​_D%C3​%B6ll​inger​_crop​.jpg License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 4.28 File:Leo XIII..jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/b/b​2/Leo​_XIII​..jpg​ License: {{PD-US}}. Figure 4.29 File:GibbonsPhotoStanding.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/3/3​8/Gib​bonsP​hotoS​tandi​ng.jp​g License: Public domain. Figure 4.30 File:Pere Jacques Marquette 1637-1675.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/a/a​f/Per​e_Jac​ques_​Marqu​ette_​1637-​1675.​jpg License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 4.31 File:William Penn at 22 1666.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/4/4​8/Wil​liam_​Penn_​at_22​_1666​.jpg License: public domain. Figure 4.32 File:George Calvert, 1st Baron Baltimore.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/b/b​b/Geo​rge_C​alver​t%2C_​1st_B​aron_​Balti​more.​jpg License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}.

Licenses for Figures

801

Figure 4.33 File:Portrait of Cecil Calvert.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/0/0​4/Por​trait​_of_C​ecil_​Calve​rt.jp​g License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 4.34 File:Leonard Calvert by Florence MacKubin.png https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/e/e​f/Leo​nard_​Calve​rt_by​_Flor​ence_​MacKu​bin.p​ng License: Public domain. Figure 4.35 File:Pierre-Jean De Smet - Brady-Handy.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/6/6​2/Pie​rre-J​ean_D​e_Sme​t_-_B​rady-​Handy​.jpg License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 4.36 File:Theodore Frelinghuysen - Brady-Handy.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/3/3​2/The​odore​_Frel​inghu​ysen_​-_Bra​dy-Ha​ndy.j​pg License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 4.37 File:Jonathan Edwards (Princeton Portrait).jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/4/4​b/Jon​athan​_Edwa​rds_%​28Pri​nceto​n_Por​trait​%29.j​pg License: Public domain {{PD-US}}. Figure 4.38 File:SamuelDaviesOfPrinceton.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/7/7​a/Sam​uelDa​viesO​fPrin​ceton​.jpg License: Public domain {{PD-US}}. Figure 4.39 File:Charles Chauncy by MacKay.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/b/b​6/Cha​rles_​Chaun​cy_by​_MacK​ay.jp​g License: Public domain {{PD-US}}. Figure 4.40 File:MuhlenbergHM.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/a/a​e/Muh​lenbe​rgHM.​jpg License: Public domain {{PD-US}}. Figure 4.41 File:Timothy dwight.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/0/0​b/Tim​othy_​dwigh​t.jpg​ License: Public domain {{PD-US}}. Figure 4.42 File:Lyman Beecher - Brady-Handy.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/9/9​c/Lym​an_Be​echer​_-_Br​ady-H​andy.​jpg License: Public domain {{PD-US}}. Figure 4.43 File:John Paradise - Francis Asbury - NPG.90.82 - National Portrait Gallery.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/f/f​8/Joh​n_Par​adise​_-_Fr​ancis​_Asbu​ry_-_​NPG.9​0.82_​-_Nat​ional​ _Port​rait_​Galle​ry.jp​g License: Public domain. Figure 4.44 File:John Carroll Gilbert Stuart.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/5/5​b/Joh​n_Car​roll_​Gilbe​rt_St​uart.​jpg License: Public domain {{PD-US}}.

802

Licenses for Figures

Figure 4.45 File:John Murray Illus.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/3/3​b/Joh​n_Mur​ray_I​llus.​jpg License: Public domain {{PD-US}}. Figure 4.46 File:Thomas Campbell Theologe.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/a/a​e/Tho​mas_C​ampbe​ll_Th​eolog​e.jpg​ License: Public domain {{PD-US}}. Figure 4.47 File:Alexander Campbell Age 65.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/3/3​7/Ale​xande​r_Cam​pbell​_Age_​65.jp​g License: Public domain, {{US-PD}}. Figure 4.48 File:Walter Scott (Evangelist).jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/2/2​c/Wal​ter_S​cott_​%28Ev​angel​ist%2​9.jpg​ License: Public domain {{PD-US}}. Figure 4.49 File:Peter-Cartwright.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/0/0​0/Pet​er-Ca​rtwri​ght.j​pg License: Public domain {{PD-US}}. Figure 4.50 File:Charles g finney.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/9/9​6/Cha​rles_​g_fin​ney.j​pg License: Public domain {{PD-US}}. Figure 4.51 File:William Lloyd Garrison, abolitionist, journalist, and editor of The Liberator LCCN2017660623 (cropped).jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/c/c​6/Wil​liam_​Lloyd​_Garr​ison%​2C_ab​oliti​onist​%2C_ j​ourna​list%​2C_an​d_edi​tor_o​f_The​_Libe​rator​_LCCN​20176​60623​_%28c​roppe​d%29.​jpg License: Public domain. Figure 4.52 File:Unidentified Artist - Sojourner Truth - Google Art Project.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/b/b​8/Uni​denti​fied_​Artis​t_-_S​ojour​ner_T​ruth_​-_Goo​gle_ A​rt_Pr​oject​.jpg License: Public domain {{PD-US}}. Figure 4.53 File:Harriet Beecher Stowe by Francis Holl.JPG https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/8/8​f/Har​riet_​Beech​er_St​owe_b​y_Fra​ncis_​Holl.​JPG License: Public domain {{PD-US}}. Figure 4.54 File:WilliamElleryChanning.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/f/f​e/Wil​liamE​llery​Chann​ing.j​pg License: Public domain {{PD-US}}. Figure 4.55 File:Ralph Waldo Emerson ca1857 retouched.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/d/d​5/Ral​ph_Wa​ldo_E​merso​n_ca1​857_r​etouc​hed.j​pg License: Public domain {{PD-US}}. Figure 4.56 File:Elias Hicks engraving.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/1/1​a/Eli​as_Hi​cks_e​ngrav​ing.j​pg License: Public domain {{PD-US}}.

Licenses for Figures

Figure 4.57 File:Schaff P.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/6/6​b/Sch​aff_P​.jpg License: Public domain {{PD-US}}. Figure 4.58 File:Phoebe Palmer.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/e​n/2/2​0/Pho​ebe_P​almer​.jpg License: Public domain. Figure 4.59 File:Phineas F. Bresee.jp https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/c/c​3/Phi​neas_​F._Br​esee.​jpg \ License: Public domain {{PD-US}}. Figure 4.60 File:DSWarner.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/e​n/7/7​9/DSW​arner​.jpg License: Public domain. Figure 4.61 File:Bishop CH Mason.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/c/c​d/Bis​hop_C​H_Mas​on.jp​g License: Public domain. Figure 4.62 File:Joseph Smith, Jr. portrait owned by Joseph Smith III.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/8/8​6/Jos​eph_S​mith%​2C_Jr​._por​trait​_owne​d_by_​Josep​h_ Smi​th_II​I.jpg​ License: Public domain. Figure 4.63 File:Brigham Young.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/0/0​5/Bri​gham_​Young​.jpg License: Public domain {{PD-US}}. Figure 4.64 File:Charles Taze Russell sharp.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/1/1​8/Cha​rles_​Taze_​Russe​ll_sh​arp.j​pg License: Public domain {{PD-US}}. Figure 4.65 File:Dwight L. Moody cph.3a02057.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/5/5​7/Dwi​ght_L​._Moo​dy_cp​h.3a0​2057.​jpg License: Public domain {{PD-US}}. Figure 4.66 File:Ira D. Sankey cph.3a02058.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/a/a​e/Ira​_D._S​ankey​_cph.​3a020​58.jp​g License: Public domain {{PD-US}}. Figure 4.67 File:Francis Edward Clark.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/7/7​a/Fra​ncis_​Edwar​d_Cla​rk.jp​g License: Public domain {{PD-US}}. Figure 4.68 File:Mary Baker Eddy.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/6/6​8/Mar​y_Bak​er_Ed​dy.jp​g License: Public domain {{PD-US}}.

803

804

Licenses for Figures

Figure 4.69 File:WashingtonGladden.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/c/c​2/Was​hingt​onGla​dden.​jpg License: Public domain {{PD-US}}. Figure 4.70 File:Walter-Rauschenbusch.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/5/5​d/Wal​ter-R​ausch​enbus​ch.jp​g License: Public domain {{PD-US}}. Figure 4.71 File:John Stuart Mill by London Stereoscopic Company, c1870.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/9/9​9/Joh​n_Stu​art_M​ill_b​y_Lon​don_S​tereo​scopi​c_ Com​pany%​2C_c1​870.j​pg License: Public domain {{PD-US}}. Figure 4.72 File:Immanuel Kant 3.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/3/3​f/Imm​anuel​_Kant​_3.jp​g License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 4.73 File:Johann Gottfried von Herder by Johann Ludwig Strecker, 1775.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/1/1​e/Joh​ann_G​ottfr​ied_v​on_He​rder_​by_Jo​hann_​Ludwi​g_Str​ ecker​%2C_1​775.j​pgv License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 4.74 File:PSM V65 D278 F E D Schleiermacher.png https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/4/4​2/PSM​_V65_​D278_​F_E_D​_Schl​eierm​acher​.png License: Public domain {{PD-US}}. Figure 4.75 File:Hegel portrait by Schlesinger 1831.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/0/0​8/Heg​el_po​rtrai​t_by_​Schle​singe​r_183​1.jpg​ License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 4.76 File:Christoph F Dörr - Dr FC von Baur - Stahlstich 1830er.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/9/9​c/Chr​istop​h_F_D​%C3%B​6rr_-​_Dr_F​C_von​_ Baur​_-_St​ahlst​ich_1​830er​.jpg License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 4.77 File:1908 David-Friedrich-Strauss.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/a/a​0/190​8_Dav​id-Fr​iedri​ch-St​rauss​.jpg License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 4.78 File:Adolf Harnack.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/3/3​d/Ado​lf_Ha​rnack​.jpg License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 4.79 File:ErnstTroeltsch.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/8/8​e/Ern​stTro​eltsc​h.jpg​ License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 4.80 File:Abraham Kuyper 1905 (1).jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/3/3​1/Abr​aham_​Kuype​r_190​5_%28​1%29.​jpg License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}.

Licenses for Figures

805

Figure 4.81 File:Kierkegaard.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/8/8​9/Kie​rkega​ard.j​pg License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 4.82 File:SamuelTaylorColeridge.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/9/9​1/Sam​uelTa​ylorC​oleri​dge.j​pg License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 4.83 File:John Henry Newman (by Emmeline Deane).jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/f/f​0/Joh​n_Hen​ry_Ne​wman_​%28by​_Emme​line_​Deane​%29.j​pg License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 4.84 File:Edward Irving.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/a/a​5/Edw​ard_I​rving​.jpg License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 4.85 File:Williambooth.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/d/d​4/Wil​liamb​ooth.​jpg License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 4.86 File:Catherinebooth.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/2/2​1/Cat​herin​eboot​h.jpg​ License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 4.87 File:Rev Thomas Chalmers by Thomas Duncan, SNPG.JPG https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/a/a​9/Rev​_Thom​as_Ch​almer​s_by_​Thoma​s_Dun​can%2​C_SNP​ G.JPG​ License: Public domain (http​s://c​reati​vecom​mons.​org/l​icens​es/by​-sa/4​.0/de​ed.en​). Figure 4.88 File:Simón Bolívar by José Gil de Castro.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/6/6​b/Sim​%C3%B​3n_Bo​l%C3%​ADvar​_by_J​os%C3​%A9_G​il_de​_ Cast​ro.jp​g License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 4.89 File:José de San Martín (retrato, c.1828).jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/d/d​1/Jos​%C3%A​9_de_​San_M​art%C​3%ADn​_ %28r​etrat​o%2C_​c.182​8%29.​jpg License: Public domain. Figure 4.90 File:Bernardo O´higgins.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/2/2​7/Ber​nardo​_O%C2​%B4hi​ggins​.jpg License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 4.91 File:Portrait of Dom Pedro, Duke of Bragança - Google Art Project edited.jpeg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/2/2​f/Por​trait​_of_D​om_Pe​dro%2​C_Duk​e_of_​ Braga​n%C3%​A7a_-​_Goog​le_Ar​t_Pro​ject_​edite​d.jpe​g License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 4.92 File:Edward Gibbon Wakefield.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/d/d​8/Edw​ard_G​ibbon​_Wake​field​.jpg License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}.

806

Licenses for Figures

Figure 4.93 Table by Robert F. Rea Figure 4.94 File:David Livingstone -1.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/2/2​1/Dav​id_Li​vings​tone_​-1.jp​g License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 4.95 File:Robert Moffat.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/0/0​2/Rob​ert_M​offat​.jpg License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 4.96 File:Henry M Stanley 1872.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/d/d​6/Hen​ry_M_​Stanl​ey_18​72.jp​g License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 4.97 File:Mutesa I.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/6/6​e/Mut​esa_I​.jpg License: Pubic domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 4.98 File:Lott Cary.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/b/b​6/Lot​t_Car​y.jpg​ License: Pubic domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 4.99 Datoteka:Bishop Samuel Ajayi Crowther.png https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/8/8​8/Bis​hop_S​amuel​_Ajay​i_Cro​wther​.png License: Pubic domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 4.100 File:Arshiziakon Habib Gerges.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/9/9​6/Ars​hizia​kon_H​abib_​Gerge​s.jpg​ License: Public domain (http​s://c​reati​vecom​mons.​org/l​icens​es/by​-sa/4​.0/de​ed.en​). Figure 4.101 File:Ranavalona II (USC).jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/0/0​7/Ran​avalo​na_II​_%28U​SC%29​.jpg License: Pubic domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 4.102 File:William Carey.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/3/3​c/Wil​liam_​Carey​.jpg License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 4.103 File:​Rev-a​lexan​der-d​uff-1​806-1​878-m​issio​nary-​and-e​ducat​.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/3/3​b/Rev​-alex​ander​-duff​-1806​-1878​-miss​ionar​y-and​-educ​at.jp​g License: Public domain. Figure 4.104 File:Pandita Ramabai Sarasvati 1858-1922 front-page-portrait.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/a/a​1/Pan​dita_​Ramab​ai_Sa​rasva​ti_18​58-19​22_fr​ont-p​age-p​ortra​ it.jp​g License: Pubic domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 4.105 File:Adoniram Judson 1846.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/5/5​e/Ado​niram​_Juds​on_18​46.jp​g License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}.

Licenses for Figures

807

Figure 4.106 File:James Hudson Taylor und Maria geb. Dyer.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/6/6​3/Jam​es_Hu​dson_​Taylo​r_und​_Mari​a_geb​._Dye​r.jpg​ License: Pubic domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 4.107 File:Robert Morrison 1782-1834.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/8/8​2/Rob​ert_M​orris​on_17​82-18​34.jp​g License: Pubic domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 4.108 File:Hong Xiuquan.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/c/c​c/Hon​g_Xiu​quan.​jpg License: Pubic domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 4.109 File:Andrew Kim Tae-go ˇn.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/4/4​d/And​rew_K​im_Ta​e-g%C​5%8Fn​.jpg License: Public domain (http​s://c​reati​vecom​mons.​org/l​icens​es/by​/2.0/​deed.​en).

Chapter 5 Figure 5.1 File:Bundesarchiv Bild 194-1283-23A, Wuppertal, Evangelische Gesellschaft, Jahrestagung.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/d/d​6/Bun​desar​chiv_​Bild_​194-1​283-2​3A%2C​_Wupp​ertal​%2C_E​ vange​lisch​e_Ges​ellsc​haft%​2C_Ja​hrest​agung​.jpg License: Public domain. Figure 5.2 File:Rudolf Bultmann Portrait.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/a/a​0/Rud​olf_B​ultma​nn_Po​rtrai​t.jpg​ License: Public domain. Figure 5.3 File:Heidegger 2 (1960).jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/6/6​4/Hei​degge​r_2_%​28196​0%29.​jpg License: Public domain. Figure 5.4 File:Bust of Paul Johannes Tillich (daylight).JPG https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/7/7​4/Bus​t_of_​Paul_​Johan​nes_T​illic​h_%28​dayli​ght%2​9.JPG​ License: Public domain. Figure 5.5 File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1987-074-16, Dietrich Bonhoeffer.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/c/c​3/Bun​desar​chiv_​Bild_​146-1​987-0​74-16​%2C_D​ietri​ch_Bo​ nhoef​fer.j​pg License: Public domain. Figure 5.6 File:Martin Niemöller (1952).jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/2/2​1/Mar​tin_N​iem%C​3%B6l​ler_%​28195​2%29.​jpg License: Public domain from the Dutch National Archives.

808

Licenses for Figures

Figure 5.7 File:Tikhon of Moscow.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/b/b​5/Tik​hon_o​f_Mos​cow.j​pg License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 5.8 File:Mitr sergiy.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/7/7​8/Mit​r_ser​giy.j​pg License: Public domain. Figure 5.9 File:Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow.png https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/8/8​a/Pat​riarc​h_Ale​xy_II​_of_M​oscow​.png License: https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/2.​0/dee​d.en. Figure 5.10 File:Вручение портрета (cropped).jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/c/c​b/%D0​%92%D​1%80%​D1%83​%D1%8​7%D0%​B5%D0​ %BD%D​0%B8%​D0%B5​_%D0%​BF%D0​%BE%D​1%80%​D1%82​%D1%8​0%D0%​B5%D1​%82% D​0%B0_​%28cr​opped​%29.j​pg License: https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/4.​0/dee​d.en. Figure 5.11 File:Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky).jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/3/3​9/Met​ropol​itan_​Antho​ny_%2​8Khra​povit​sky%2​9.jpg​ License: Public domain {{PD-US-no notice}}. Figure 5.12 File: Iosif Trifa.png https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/b/b​b/Ios​if_Tr​ifa.p​ng License: https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/3.​0/dee​d.ro. Figure 5.13 File:Pope Pius X (Retouched).jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/b/b​a/Pop​e_Piu​s_X_%​28Ret​ouche​d%29.​jpg License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 5.14 File:Leo XIII..jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/b/b​2/Leo​_XIII​..jpg​ License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 5.15 File:Benedictus XV.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/3/3​2/Ben​edict​us_XV​.jpg License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 5.16 File:Piuspp.xi.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/1/1​d/Piu​spp.x​i.jpg​ License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 5.17 Yves Congar File:Congar concile 1964.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/8/8​7/Con​gar_c​oncil​e_196​4.jpg​ License: Public domain. Figure 5.18 File:Karl Rahner by Letizia Mancino Cremer.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/f/f​5/Kar​l_Rah​ner_b​y_Let​izia_​Manci​no_Cr​emer.​jpg Licnese: https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/4.​0/dee​d.en.

Licenses for Figures

809

Figure 5.19 File:Hans Küng en la UNED 01.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/b/b​9/Han​s_K%C​3%BCn​g_en_​la_UN​ED_01​.jpg License: https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by/​2.0/d​eed.e​n. Figure 5.20 File:Edward Schillebeeckx.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/7/7​5/Edw​ard_S​chill​ebeec​kx.jp​g License: https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/3.​0/nl/​deed.​en. Figure 5.21 File:Pope John XXIII - Time Magazine Cover - January 4, 1963.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/0/0​2/Pop​e_Joh​n_XXI​II_-_​Time_​Magaz​ine_C​over_​-_ Jan​uary_​4%2C_​1963.​jpg License: Public domain {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Figure 5.22 File:Paolovi.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/6/6​4/Pao​lovi.​jpg License: Public domain {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Figure 5.23 File:Pope John Paul I from window (cropped).jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/1/1​0/Pop​e_Joh​n_Pau​l_I_f​rom_w​indow​_%28c​roppe​d%29.​jpg License: https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/2.​0/dee​d.en. Figure 5.24 File:JohannesPaul2-portrait.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/4/4​6/Joh​annes​Paul2​-port​rait.​jpg License: Public domain. Figure 5.25 File:Benedykt XVI (2010-10-17) 4.jpg by Kancelaria Prezydenta RP https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/a/a​4/Ben​edykt​_XVI_​%2820​10-10​-17%2​9_4.j​pg License: Public domain, GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2, released August 2011 by President of the Republic of Poland. Figure 5.26 File:Charlesparham.png https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/c/c​f/Cha​rlesp​arham​.png License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 5.27 File:William J. Seymour (cropped).jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/2/2​a/Wil​liam_​J._Se​ymour​_%28c​roppe​d%29.​jpg License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 5.28 File:AFM on azusa street.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/3/3​b/AFM​_on_a​zusa_​stree​t.jpg​ License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 5.29 File:Thomas-Ball-Barratt-16year.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/3/3​b/Tho​mas-B​all-B​arrat​t-16y​ear.j​pg License: Public domain {{PD-US}}. Figure 5.30 File:Bishop CH Mason.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/c/c​d/Bis​hop_C​H_Mas​on.jp​g License: https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/4.​0/dee​d.en.

810

Licenses for Figures

Figure 5.31 File:LAPL ASM 1911 00024641.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/e​n/f/f​f/LAP​L_ASM​_1911​_0002​4641.​jpg License: Public domain. Figure 5.32 File:Billy Sunday 1921.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/6/6​8/Bil​ly_Su​nday_​1921.​jpg License: Public domain {{PD-US}}. Figure 5.33 File:JohnWilburChapman.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/3/3​4/Joh​nWilb​urCha​pman.​jpg License: Public domain {{PD-US}}. Figure 5.34 File:Harry Emerson Fosdick.jpg http:​//dig​italg​aller​y.nyp​l.org​/nypl​digit​al/dg​keyse​archd​etail​.cfm?​trg=1​&stru​cID=1​34938​&imag​eID=9​7363&​word=​ Harry​%20Em​erson​%20Fo​sdick​&s=1&​notwo​rd=&d​=&c=&​f=&lW​ord=&​lFiel​d=&sS​cope=​&sLev​el=&s​Label​ =&tot​al=1&​num=0​&imgs​=12&p​Num=&​pos=1​ License: Public domain from the New York Public Library Digital Gallery, # In: “The Pageant of America” Collection > v.10 - American idealism Item/Page/Plate Number: 10.531 Digital Image ID: 97363 Digital Record ID: 134938. Figure 5.35 File:BBWarfieldPhoto.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/5/5​c/BBW​arfie​ldPho​to.jp​g License: Public domain {{US-1923}}. Figure 5.36 File:J.G.Machen.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/f/f​1/J.G​.Mach​en.jp​g License: Public domain {{US-1923}}. Figure 5.37 Tennessee v. John T. Scopes Trial: John Thomas Scopes by: Smithsonian Institution, Watson Davis https​://ww​w.fli​ckr.c​om/ph​otos/​smith​sonia​n/289​82890​55/ License: Public domain. Figure 5.38 File:WilliamJBryan1902.png https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/f/f​a/Wil​liamJ​Bryan​1902.​png License: Public domain {{US-1923}}. Figure 5.39 File:ScofieldCI.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/5/5​1/Sco​field​CI.jp​g License: Public domain {{US-1923}}. Figure 5.40 File:Billy Graham bw photo, April 11, 1966.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/e/e​0/Bil​ly_Gr​aham_​bw_ph​oto%2​C_Apr​il_11​%2C_1​966.j​pg License: Public domain. Figure 5.41 File:Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F065001-0017, Bonn, CDU-Friedenskongress, Pannenberg.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/3/3​6/Bun​desar​chiv_​B_145​_Bild​-F065​001-0​017%2​C_Bon​n%2C_​ CDU-F​riede​nskon​gress​%2C_P​annen​berg.​jpg License: Public domain Attribution: Bundesarchiv, B 145 Bild-F065001-0017 / Reineke, Engelbert / CC-BY-SA 3.0.

Licenses for Figures

811

Figure 5.42 File:Jürgen Moltmann im Hospitalhof Stuttgart. März 2016.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/4/4​d/J%C​3%BCr​gen_M​oltma​nn_im​_Hosp​italh​of_St​uttga​rt._M​ %C3%A​4rz_2​016.j​pg License: Public domain https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/4.​0/dee​d.en. Figure 5.43 File:JamesHalCone.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/e​n/0/0​e/Jam​esHal​Cone.​jpg License: https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/3.​0/. Figure 5.44 File:Cornel West by Gage Skidmore.jpg by Gage Skidmore https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/7/7​4/Cor​nel_W​est_b​y_Gag​e_Ski​dmore​.jpg License: https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/3.​0/dee​d.en. Figure 5.45 Alice Walker signing autographs at the Zora Neale Hurston Festival of the Arts and Humanities: Eatonville, Florida by Florida Memory, Nusz, Nancy, Collector https​://ww​w.fli​ckr.c​om/ph​otos/​flori​damem​ory/3​36748​8745 License: Public domain. Figure 5.46 File:Martin Luther King, Jr..jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/0/0​5/Mar​tin_L​uther​_King​%2C_J​r..jp​g License: Public domain. Figure 5.47 File:Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F023138-0019, Frankfurt, Friedenspreis des Deutschen Buchhandels.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/2/2​5/Bun​desar​chiv_​B_145​_Bild​-F023​138-0​019%2​C_Fra​nkfur​ t%2C_​Fried​enspr​eis_d​es_De​utsch​en_Bu​chhan​dels.​jpg License: Attribution: Bundesarchiv, B 145 Bild-F023138-0019 / Gathmann, Jens / CC-BY-SA 3.0. Figure 5.48 Table by Robert F. Rea Figure 5.49 File:Aankomst Secretaris-Generaal van de Wereldraad van Kerken dr. Carson Blake op Sc, Bestanddeelnr 920-2210.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/7/7​b/Aan​komst​_Secr​etari​s-Gen​eraal​_van_​de_We​reldr​aad_v​ an_Ke​rken_​dr._C​arson​_Blak​e_op_​Sc%2C​_Best​andde​elnr_​920-2​210.j​pg License: Public domain. Figure 5.50 File:Gustavo gutierrez.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/a/a​5/Gus​tavo_​gutie​rrez.​jpg License: Public domain. Figure 5.51 Leonardo Boff - Conferencia de prensa por el Foro Internacional por la Emancipación y la Igualdad By Secretaría de Cultura de la Nación https​://ww​w.fli​ckr.c​om/ph​otos/​cultu​raarg​entin​a/161​75154​243 License: https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/2.​0/. Figure 5.52 File:Edir Macedo2007.jpg by Palácio do Planalto https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/8/8​d/Edi​r_Mac​edo20​07.jp​g Licen​se:ht​tps:/​/web.​archi​ve.or​g/web​/2009​10130​94913​/http​://ww​w.inf​o.pla​nalto​.gov.​br/st​atic/​inf_f​otono​rmas.​htm.

812

Licenses for Figures

Figure 5.53 File:R.R.Soares (03-02-2015).jpg edited by a photo from Michel Temer https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/0/0​0/R.R​.Soar​es_%2​803-0​2-201​5_%29​.jpg License: https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/0/0​0/R.R​.Soar​es_%2​803-0​2-201​5_%29​.jpg. Figure 5.54 File:Pastor Brian Houston 2008.jpg by Latreia https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/d/d​d/Pas​tor_B​rian_​Houst​on_20​08.jp​g License: https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/2.​5/dee​d.en. Figure 5.55 File:Isabelo de los Reyes, Sr..jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/9/9​5/Isa​belo_​de_lo​s_Rey​es%2C​_Sr..​jpg License: Public domain. Figure 5.56 File:Gregorio Aglipay.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/f/f​7/Gre​gorio​_Agli​pay.j​pg License: Public domain. Figure 5.57 File:Cardinal Jaime Sin in 1988.jpg by Ernmuhl https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/e/e​e/Car​dinal​_Jaim​e_Sin​_in_1​988.j​pg License: GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2. Figure 5.58 File:Nelson Mandela-2008 (edit).jpg by South Africa The Good News / www.sagoodnews.co.za https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/1/1​4/Nel​son_M​andel​a-200​8_%28​edit%​29.jp​g License: https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by/​2.0/d​eed.e​n. Figure 5.59 File:Archbishop-Tutu-medium.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/e/e​4/Arc​hbish​op-Tu​tu-me​dium.​jpg License: Public domain. Figure 5.60 File:Kenneth Kaunda 1983-03-30.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/4/4​c/Ken​neth_​Kaund​a_198​3-03-​30.jp​g License: Public domain. Figure 5.61 File:Julius Nyerere (1965).jpg by Eric Koch https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/d/d​4/Jul​ius_N​yerer​e_%28​1965%​29.jp​g License: https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/3.​0/nl/​deed.​en. Figure 5.62 File:Bishop Festo Kivengere.jpg by Korirk01 https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/2/2​e/Bis​hop_F​esto_​Kiven​gere.​jpg License: https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/4.​0/dee​d.en. Figure 5.63 File:Harris.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/f/f​5/Har​ris.j​pg License: Public domain. Figure 5.64 File:Mother Teresa.png By Suma Iyer https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/1/1​5/Mot​her_T​eresa​.png License: https​://cr​eativ​ecomm​ons.o​rg/li​cense​s/by-​sa/4.​0/dee​d.en. Figure 5.65 File:Jiang Jieshi2.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/1/1​9/Jia​ng_Ji​eshi2​.jpg License: Public domain {{PD-US-not renewed}}.

Licenses for Figures

Figure 5.66 File:Feng Yuxiang2.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/4/4​4/Fen​g_Yux​iang2​.jpg License: Public domain {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Figure 5.67 File:W Nee.jpg by Angus Kinnear https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/1/1​9/W_N​ee.jp​g License: GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2. Figure 5.68 File:Archbishop Peter Doi in 1938.jpg https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/0/0​5/Arc​hbish​op_Pe​ter_D​oi_in​_1938​.jpg License: Public domain {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Figure 5.69 File:KAGAWA Toyohiko young.JPG https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/c/c​8/KAG​AWA_T​oyohi​ko_yo​ung.J​PG License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}. Figure 5.70 File:GilSeonJu.gif https​://up​load.​wikim​edia.​org/w​ikipe​dia/c​ommon​s/a/a​1/Gil​SeonJ​u.gif​ License: Public domain {{PD-1923}}.

813

Index

Abbasid dynasty  115, 132 Abbot, abba  40, 41, 65, 90, 137, 159, 164, 193, 201, 248, 345, 576–8, 612, 628 Abdulaziz Ibn Adbul Rahman (Ibn Saud)  492 Abelard, Peter  181, 195, 196, 197, 199, 215 abortion  450, 465 Abyssinia, see Eritrea; Ethiopia Acadia, Canada  355 Accra, Ghana  467 Acosta, José de  315 Acre, city  174 Act of Supremacy (1534)  270, 301 Acts of Supremacy (1559)  279, 301 Acts of Thomas  125, 128 Adeodatus  69 advent  190 Aegean Sea  88, 97 aeon  15, 16, 519, 527 Aetius of Antioch  50 Afghanistan  416, 492 Africa, see particular countries Africa, Northern  74–6, 80–1, 129–32, 139, 141–2, 169, 197, 317 African Apostolic Church  483 African Methodist Episcopal Church  377, 410 African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church  377 African National Congress  482 Afrikaans, Boers  409, 480 age of reason, see Enlightenment, Aufklärung, age of reason Agilpay, Gregorio  478, 479 Agra, India  72 Ahmed III, sultan  309 Aidan of Lindisfarne  119, 576 Aistulf the Lombard, king  150 Aksum, Aksumite Empire  71, 132, 134–5, 414 Alaric, king  67 Alaska  426 Albania  118, 141, 308, 414, 433–5, 440 Albanian Orthodox Church  118, 308, 435, 440 Albany, United States  356

Albert of Brandenburg (Albrecht von Brandenburg)  234, 237 Albert the Great  200, 201 Albigensian Crusade  184 Albigensians  184–5, 187 Alcalá, Spain  290, 296 Aldersgate Street, London  337, 338 Aleander, Girolamo (also Aleandro)  242 Aleutian islands  426 Alexander of Alexandria  45, 46, 542 Alexander of Jerusalem  24 Alexander the Great  34, 37 Alexander VI, pope  210, 223, 286, 297, 310, 630 Alexandria, Egypt  4, 6, 8–10, 12, 23–4, 29, 31, 32, 34–9, 45–9, 51, 53, 59–7, 87, 106, 113, 118, 126, 130–6, 138, 308, 440, 526–7, 543, 559, 563, 565, 568, 572–3, 763 Alexius I Comneneus, emperor  94–5 Alexy I, patriarch  437 Alexy II, patriarch  437 Algeria  130, 317, 413, 488 Algonquin people  355 Alighieri, Dante  203, 210, 223, 621, 622 All Africa Conferences of Churches  468, 480 allegorical, see Scripture, exegesis Allen, Ethan  329 Allen, Horace Newton  426 All Saints’ Day  234 Alopen, missionary to China  119 Al-Qaeda  490–91 Ambroise, Louis Gabriel de Bonald  350 Ambrose of Milan  43, 57, 58, 63, 69, 644 Ameaux, Pierre  255 America, see particular countries American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions  370, 400 American Colonization Society  412 Americanism (Roman Catholic issue)  353 Amin, Idi  484–5 Amir Timur, emperor  115 Amsterdam, Netherlands  266, 335, 356, 467

Index

Anabaptists  246, 249–50, 257, 259–67, 274, 281, 286, 303, 356, 364, 366, 464, 651–3 anagogical/tropological/moral, see Scripture, exegesis Anatolius of Constantinople  66 Anchieta, José de  312–13 anchorites  40–1, 43, 108, 218, 576 Ancyra (modern Ankara), Turkey  46, 48 Andalusia  297 Andaman island  421 Andrade, Antonio de  322 Andrew, apostle  32, 115, 525, 531, 591 Andronicus II  97 Angels  13, 15–16, 80, 84, 88–9, 137, 141, 216, 247, 338, 510, 512, 516–17, 519, 523–4, 530, 544, 571, 578, 582, 586, 592–4, 601–2, 608–9, 621, 624, 634–5, 649, 652, 671, 712, 739 Anglican Church, see Church of England, Anglican Church Anglican Evangelicals  336, 338, 340, 394 Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission  469 Anglo-Catholic Movement, party  354, 396, 399 Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, see Libya; South Sudan; Sudan Angola  316, 410, 483 Ani, Armenia  119 Anicetus  30, 536 animism  320, 331, 407, 486 Anjirõ (Yajirõ) (also Paulo or Paul)  322–3 Annam, see Vietnam Anne of Austria  345 Anne of Cleves  272 annulment  270, 272 Anointing, chrism  27–8, 79, 190, 514, 541, 559, 599, 644, 649, 651, 664, 733, 756 anointing of the sick, see extreme unction Anselm of Canterbury  193–4, 196, 199–200, 226, 599–606, 724 Anthony (Alexei Pavlovich Khrapovitsky), metropolitan  437–8 anticlericalism  268 Antioch of Pisidia  4 Antioch of Syria  4, 6, 8–10, 12, 23–4, 28, 33, 34, 37–9, 42, 45–6, 48, 51, 60–7, 87, 106–7, 111, 115, 119, 308, 343, 440, 491, 511, 526, 542, 744–5 Antony of Egypt  40, 47, 539–40 apartheid  448, 480, 482 apocalypticism  9, 32, 223, 521, 526, 661, 727 apocrypha  32–3, 128, 536 Apollinarianism  37, 51, 63, 67, 567, 570 Apollinaris of Laodicea  59–60, 567, 570 Apollo, Sol Invictus (“Unconquered Sun”)  23–5, 534 apologists  7–13, 72, 513

815

Apology to the Augsburg Confession  245, 304, 649–50 apophatic (or negative) theology  99 apostles, the, and apostolicity  3, 4, 7–9, 13, 15, 17–18, 22, 24, 27, 30–1, 34, 40, 41, 45, 54, 60, 67, 72, 88, 90, 106, 115–16, 125–30, 132, 134, 137, 149, 165, 186, 209, 227, 230, 259, 318, 388, 396, 446, 508, 511, 513, 515–16, 519, 521–2, 525–6, 531–2, 535, 543, 545, 548, 549, 551, 554–6, 558–61, 567–9, 571–2, 574–5, 582–5, 591–4, 596–9, 612, 620, 626–9, 631, 636–7, 646, 652, 655–6, 659, 661–5, 671, 674, 682–5, 688, 691, 706, 715, 717, 719–20, 726, 732–3, 754, 756 Apostles Creed  54, 299, 304, 393 Apostolic Faith Church  451–2 Apostolic Fathers  7–9, 13, 31, 72, 135 Appenzell, Switzerland  259 Al-Aqsa mosque  177 Aquinas, Thomas, see Thomas Aquinas Aquitaine, France  164, 170, 182, 612 Arab Conquest  80, 114, 130, 133, 138, 141, 169 Arbela  108 Arcadius, emperor  38 archbishop  4, 151, 182, 193–4, 234, 268, 270, 279, 290, 319, 349, 354, 448, 450, 479, 482, 484, 499, 573, 612, 627, 658–9 Arctic ocean  426 Argentina  311, 315, 402, 471, 474 Arianism, see Arius, Arianism Ariq Böke  124 Aristides of Athens  10, 12 Aristo of Pella  10, 12 Aristotle, Aristotelianism  94, 196–203, 208, 211, 215, 222, 226, 344, 527, 616 Arius, Arianism  26, 33, 37, 45–51, 55, 57, 59, 73, 92, 129, 139, 141, 147, 155, 332, 537–8, 542, 562–4, 567, 745–6 Arkansas, United States  355 Ark of the Covenant  135–6, 624–5 Arles  30, 49 Armada, see Spanish Armada Armenia  12, 33, 74, 77, 95, 107, 115–19, 129, 344, 416–17, 421, 491, 501, 596 Armenian Apostolic Church, see Armenian Orthodox Church Armenian Orthodox Church  118, 417, 421, 440, 501, 596 Arminianism  306, 668–9 Arminius, Jacob  305–6, 309, 338 Armond, Gottfried  335 Arnauld, Antoine  345–6 Arnold, Thomas  395

816

Arouet, François-Marie, see Voltaire Artemon  45 Arthur (Henry VII’s son)  268, 270 Ascension island  415 asceticism  3, 6–7, 10–11, 15–16, 18, 27, 33, 36–7, 39–43, 50–1, 57, 69, 73, 77, 90, 95, 97, 106, 108, 119, 144, 164, 172, 186–7, 215, 219, 220, 223, 342, 578, 666, 718, 739, 741–2, 764 Asia, see particular countries Asia Minor  4, 9, 13, 18, 21–2, 24–5, 29–31, 50, 75, 80, 172–3, 416 Asian theology  471 Assemblies of God  500 Assembly Hall  497 Assumption of Mary  109, 113, 444 Astruc, Jean  333 Atahualpa, emperor  312 Athanasian Creed  54, 155, 304, 561 Athanasius II of Constantinople, patriarch  102 Athanasius of Alexandria, patriarch  32, 40, 46–7, 49, 51, 54, 60, 71, 130, 537–8, 539, 542–3, 568, 570, 723–4, 745–6 Athanasius the Athonite  89 Athelstan of England, king  153 Athenagoras I of Constantinople, patriarch  94 Athenagoras of Athens  12 Athens  10, 12, 37, 50, 51, 84, 88, 198, 344, 435, 527 Athos, Mount  88–90, 97–8, 101–2, 113, 342–3 atonement  6–7, 44, 95, 194, 196, 218, 234, 252, 256–7, 306, 366, 381, 430, 456, 511–12, 538, 549, 570–1, 582–3, 593, 595, 601–2, 607, 633, 636, 640, 668, 671–2, 715, 718–20, 723–4, 728, 742, 746–7, 754 Attila the Hun, emperor  64, 146–7 Aufklärung, see Enlightenment, Aufklärung, age of reason Augsburg  238, 245, 247, 260–1, 297, 299–301, 304, 307, 658, 663 Augsburg Confession  245, 247, 304, 649, 659, 663 Augustine of England  150 Augustine of Hippo  43, 57, 67–71, 129, 141, 148–14, 157, 159, 161, 187–8, 193, 197, 199–200, 202, 215, 345, 550–7, 619, 631, 644, 648, 657, 675, 698–9, 706, 709, 747, 763–4 Augustinian monasticism  187, 232–4, 237–8, 245, 250, 294, 311, 317 Augustinians, Austin Friars, see Augustinian monasticism Augustus, emperor  25, 79 Aurelian, emperor  23–4 Aurelius of Carthage, bishop  68 auricular confession, see confession

Index

Australia  404–5, 419, 467, 475–7, 502 Austral islands  406 Austria  141, 175, 180, 251, 345, 352, 354, 434–5, 598 Austria-Hungary  434–5 authorized version, see King James Version autocephalous churches  72, 308, 435, 440, 469 autonomous churches  308, 342, 435, 471 Averroes (or Ibn Rushd)  197 Avicenna (or Ibn Sina)  197 Avignon papacy  208–10, 214, 220 Azerbaijan  115–16, 416 Azores  310 Aztecs  311, 314 Azusa Street, Los Angeles  451–2 Babai the Great  111 Babylon, Babylonia  15, 17, 106, 173, 240, 568 Bacon, Francis  327 Bacon, Roger  203–4, 226 Badarak  117, 596–7 Bagradits Kingdom  119 Baha’i  318 Bahrain  416 Baldwin II of Jerusalem, king  177 Baldwin of Bouillon  172–13 Balien of Ibelin  174 Balkan League  435 Balkans  25, 75, 86, 93, 96–7, 309, 344, 433, 435 Balkan Wars  435 Ballou, Hosea  366 Balthasar, Hans Urs von  444 Baltics, Baltic Sea  89, 266, 434 Baltimore  354, 366 Bangalore, India  467 Bangkok  421 Bangladesh  416, 494 Bangweulu, lake  408–9 baptism  27–8, 78 Baptist Missionary Society  340, 399, 417 Baptist Young People’s Union  382 Barbarian invasions  75–7, 138–41, 162, 567 Barlaam of Seminara  98–9, 104 Barmen Declaration  433, 696–8 Barnabas, apostle  4, 8–9, 21, 34, 37, 592 Barnabites, see Clerics Regular of St. Paul Barratt, T. B.  452 Barth, Karl  429–30, 433, 694–5, 728, 730 Bartholemew, apostle  34, 72, 116, 591 Basel, city  102, 211, 248, 251, 260 Basel, Ferrara, and Florence, Council of  102, 211 Basilides, gnostic  15–16, 516, 526 Basil the Bogomil  95

Index

Basil the Great (or Basil of Caesarea)  42, 50–2, 77–8, 100, 102, 157, 543–4, 574, 594, 742–3 Baur, Ferdinand Christian  388–90, 727 Beaton, David, cardinal  279 Bec Abbey  193–4 Becket, Thomas  182–3, 226 Bede (or Venerable Bede)  153, 575–8, 597–8 Beecher, Lyman  363–4, 367, 370 Begin, Menachem  488 Beijing  322, 421, 425–6 Beirut University  491 Bekennende Kirche, see Confessing Church Belarussia  89, 434 Belgian Congo, see Democratic Republic of the Congo Belgic Confession, Confession of Faith  304, 659 Belgium  354, 409, 467, 483 Belize  465 Bellamy, Joseph  364 Bellavin, Vasily Ivanovich, see Tikhon (Vasily Ivanovich Bellavin), patriarch Benedictine monasticism, Benedictines  70, 145, 153, 159, 164, 180, 193, 201, 217–18, 223, 259 Benedict of Nursia  70, 86, 144–5, 155, 159, 176, 180, 573 Benedict XIII, pope  167 Benedict XV, pope  442–3 Benedict XVI, pope  217, 444, 449, 473, 762–4 Bengali, language  417 Bengel, Johann Albrecht  333 Benin  412, 486 Berbers  129–30, 310 Bergoglio, Jorge Mario, see Francis, pope Berkeley, George  329 Berkeley, John  356 Berlin  387, 388, 389, 400, 433–4, 461 Berlin Wall  433 Bermuda  366 Bern, canton  248, 251, 259 Bernard of Clairvaux  173–4, 180–1, 197, 199, 218, 599 Bern Disputation (in 1528)  251 Bérulle, Pierre de (Peter)  303 Bethel Bible College  450 Bethlehem, Israel  3, 33, 70 Bethlehem, Pennsylvania  335 Beziers  49 Bezpopovsty (Raskol subgroup)  342 Bible Union of China  496 Bibra  260 Biel  253, 259 Billy Graham Crusades  460 Birmingham, Alabama  464, 707–11

817

Birmingham, England  399 Bishop, patriarch  4, 9, 11–13, 16–18, 23, 26, 28–33, 34, 37–9, 42–54, 57–69, 71–3, 79, 86–7, 90, 92–8, 102, 106–8, 111, 113–16, 119, 121–2, 124, 126–7, 129–34, 136, 138, 146–51, 155, 165, 166, 176–7, 181, 182–8, 190, 193–4, 203, 208–11, 224, 227, 234, 249–50, 268, 270, 274–6, 279, 290, 294, 298–300, 308, 311–12, 315–16, 318–19, 323, 326, 341–3, 346, 349, 353–4, 364, 366, 404–5, 416, 421, 429, 435, 437, 439–40, 444, 446, 448, 450, 479, 482, 484, 485, 499, 509, 511, 513, 521, 525–6, 532–3, 535, 536, 542, 543, 561, 568–9, 572–3, 576–7, 584–5, 591, 594, 596–9, 610, 612, 619–20, 626–8, 633, 636, 638, 641, 644–5, 658–9, 663, 671, 717, 737 Bismarck, Otto von  353 Bismarck Archipelago  406 Black Death  206–8, 218, 226 Blake, Eugene Carson  468–9 Blandina, martyr  24 Blaurock, George  250, 259 Boers, see Afrikaans Boer War, Second  480 Boff, Leonardo  472–3, 744 Bogomils, Bogomilism  94–6, 184 Bogomoljac movement, God-Prayers movement  440 Bohemia  86, 210, 225, 239, 242, 303, 307 Bohemianism  239 Boleyn, Anne  270, 272 Bolivar, Simón  401–2 Bolivia  311, 402, 474 Bologna  192, 194, 299, 301, 346, 631 Bombay  419 Bonaventure  97, 202, 615–16, 658 Bonhoeffer, Dietrich  431–3 Boniface (or Winfrid, missionary to Germany)  151, 156 Boniface II, pope  71 Book of Common Order  279, 304 Book of Common Prayer, first  274 Book of Common Prayer, second and following  275, 285, 366, 632–4 Book of Discipline  279, 304 Book of Kells  152 Book of Mormon  379 Booth, Catherine  397–8 Booth, William  397–9 Bora, Katharina von  244–5 Borgia, Caesar  210 Borgia, Francis  296–7 Borgia’s of Venice  209–10 Boris of Bulgaria, king  86, 598–9 Borneo island  407

818

Bosnia-Herzegovina  434 Boston, Massachusetts  366, 372 Boston, Thomas  336 Botswana  410, 482 Bourbon family, dynasty  306–7 Bouwens, Leenaert  267 Bouyer, Louis  444 Boxer Rebellion  422, 424 Braaten, Carl  461 Brahman  735–6 Brahmins  126, 128, 319, 666 Braid, Garrick Sokari (also Braide)  486 Brainerd, David  359 Brandon, Charles  275 Brazil  297, 311–12, 404, 412, 467, 471–5, 483 Brescia  294 Bresee, Phineas F.  375–6 Bretons  141 Briggs, Charles A.  458 Bright, Bill  460 Britain  30, 74, 139, 141, 148, 150–1, 336–40, 361, 394, 399, 401, 404, 409, 412, 416, 417, 420, 422, 433–4, 465, 483–4, 486–95, 577, 597–8 British East Africa, see Kenya British Guiana, see Guyana British Hondras, see Belize British Somaliland, see Somalia broad-church party  395, 399 Brotherhood of St. Symeon, the New Theologian  440 Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulchre  343, 416 Brotherhood of Theologians Zoe (Zoe Brotherhood)  440 Brother Roger, see Schütz, Roger Brothers of the Common Life  221, 223 Broz, Josif (also Tito)  434 Brunei island  407 Brunner, Emil  430, 704, 739, 741–2 Bryan, William Jennings  458 Bucer, Martin  245, 255, 261, 274, 304 Buckminster, Joseph  366 Buddha, Buddhism  17, 119, 122–3, 318, 320, 477, 494, 615, 718, 735, 752–3 Buffalo Synod (Lutheran)  392 Buganda, see Uganda Bulgaria  86–7, 92, 95, 100, 107, 116, 184, 308, 343, 433–5, 440, 598–9, 673 Bulgarian Orthodox Church  86–7, 107, 343, 598–9 Bullinger, Heinrich  251, 304 Bultmann, Rudolf  430–1, 727, 729 Burgundians  141–2, 150 Burgundy  150, 162, 180, 227, 629 Burkina Faso  413, 486

Index

Burma, see Myanmar Burundi  411, 483–4 Busan, Korea  467 Bushnell, Horace  372 Butler, Joseph  329–30 Bwiti people  486 Byzantine Empire  74–104, 109, 112, 114–15, 129–30, 133, 136–9, 147, 150, 169, 173–6, 178–9, 197, 211, 222, 568, 572–3, 613–14 Byzantium, city  45, 75, see also Constantinople Cabo Verde, see Cape Verde Cáceres y Albor, José Núñez de  404 Caecilian (also Caecilianus)  30 Cajetan, Thomas (also Thomas de Vio)  238–9, 288, 290 Calcutta, India  417, 419, 493 California, United States  426, 460 Calixtus II, pope  628–9 Callixtus I (Callistus I), pope  45 Calvert, Cecil  356–8 Calvert, George  356–8 Calvert, Leonard  356–8 Calvin, John (or Jean Cauvin)  252–8, 268, 279, 345, 653–6, 672, 699, 730 Calvinism, or reformed theology or churches  71, 252–7, 268, 279–81, 283, 304, 306, 309, 315, 335–6, 337–8, 345, 356, 359, 361, 364, 366, 369, 377, 381, 384, 392–3, 398, 401–2, 404, 409–10, 414, 419, 421–2, 426, 458, 464–5, 468–9, 479–80, 480, 482, 486, 492, 494, 500–1, 653–6, 665, 670–72, 696, 699, 727, 730 Cambodia  320, 421, 494–5 Cambridge University  213, 268 Cameron, Richard, Cameronians, Covenanters  336 Cameroon  412–13, 485–6 Campbell, Alexander  368–9 Campbell, Thomas  367, 369 Camp David Accords  488 Campus Crusade for Christ  460 Canada  326, 364, 367, 384, 398, 419, 452, 465, 467–8 Canary islands  415, 489 Canberra, Australia  467 Cancuc movement, Tzendal rebellion  367 Candidian, Roman commander  63–4 Cane Ridge, camp meeting  367–8 Canisius, Peter  297 Cannon, Katie  464 canon law  48, 54, 64, 66–7, 230–1, 270, 543, 629, 637–8, 642, 657 Canossa  167 Canterbury, archbishop of  182, 193–4, 268, 270, 279, 599–606, 612, 627, 724, 757–8

Index

Canterbury, England  168 Canterbury Cathedral  182–3 Canton, see Guangzhou; Guangzhou, city Cape Cod, Massachusetts, United States  359 Cape Town, South Africa  409, 482 Cape Verde islands  316, 415 capital punishment  448, 450 Capito, see Koepfel, Wolfgang (Capito) Cappadocia  30, 42, 50–2 Cappadocian Fathers  42, 50–5, 59, 157, see also Basil the Great; Gregory of Nazianzus; Gregory of Nyssa Capuchins  322, 354 Carafa, Pietro Giavanni, see Paul IV, pope Carey, Lott  412 Carey, William  340, 399, 417–19 Caroline islands  406, 477 Carolingian renaissance  154–61 Carolingians, kingdom  142–3 Carroll, John  365–6 Carter, Jimmy  488 Carteret, George  356 Carthage  4, 5, 23, 27–30, 32, 68–9, 81, 531–3, 560 Carthusian monasticism  223 Cartwright, Peter  369 Cartwright, Thomas  279–80 caste  319, 417, 419–20, 492–3, 666, see also Brahmin Castel Gandolfo  352 Castellio, Sebastian  255 Castro, Fidel  473 Catedral Evangélica de Chile Jotabeche  473 Cathari  184 Cathedral schools  155, 193–5 Catherine de Medici (Catarina de Medici)  305–6 Catherine II, empress  426 Catherine of Aragon (Catalina de Aragón)  268 Catherine of Sienna  209, 219–20, 226 Catholic Action  443 Catholic Apostolic Church  398 Catholic-Lutheran Dialogue  469 Catholicosate of the Great House of Cilicia  118 Catholicos (or patriarch) of the East  107, 114, 122, 127, 132 Catholic Patriotic Association  496 Catholic Reformation  286–303 Caucasian Albania  118 Caucasus, see Armenia; Azerbaijan; Georgia Cauvin, Jean, see Calvin, John Cebu, island  320 CELAM, see Consejo Episcopal Latinoamericano Celebes  407

819

Celestial Church of Christ  486 Celestial flesh of Christ  266 Celestine I, pope  62–4 Celestius, pelagian  68, 567 celibacy  6, 22, 92, 106, 113, 148, 165–6, 190, 231, 249, 272, 450 Cenchrea  4 Cenobites  40–1, 43 cenobium  40–1 Central African Republic  412–13, 485–7 Central America, see particular countries Ceylon, see Sri Lanka Chad  412–13, 485 Chalcedon, city  64 Chalcedon, Council of (in 451)  64–7, 82, 94, 106–8, 111, 113–14, 118, 130–2, 134, 146, 566, 569–70, 573 Chalcis desert  33 Chalmers, Thomas  398–9 Champlain, Samuel de  355 Chang’an, China  121 Channing, William Ellery  372 Chapman, J. Wilbur  454–5 charismatic, see Pentecostal, charismatic Charlemagne (or Charles I the Great, emperor)  96, 143 Charles I, English king  283, 285, 301 Charles II, English king  285 Charles I the Great, emperor, see Charlemagne Charles Martel, chamberlain  142–3, 169 Charles the Bald, emperor  158–9 Charles the Fat, emperor  161 Charles University, Prague  225 Charles V, Holy Roman emperor  239, 242, 245, 260, 266, 270, 276, 298–301, 310, 314 Charles VIII of France, king  223 Chauncy, Charles  361–2 Chennai, India  126–7 Chenu, Marie Dominique  444 Chermis, people  309 Chiang Kai-shek  495, 498 Chicago, city  452 Chicago, University of  458 Childeric III the Stupid, king  142–3 children’s crusade  175 Chile  311, 402, 471–4 Chiliasm, see millennialism, chiliasm China  6, 72–4, 80, 104, 115, 119–25, 129, 308, 316, 320, 323–4, 400, 407–8, 421–8, 495–6, 497–8, 569, 614–15 China Centenary Missionary Conference  424 China Inland Mission  400, 422

820

Cho, David Yonggi  500 chrismation, see Confirmation, chrism, chrismation Christ Army Church of Nigeria  486 Christian Churches Together  469 Christian Civic League  251 Christian Coalition of America  465 Christian Council of Kenya (in 1943)  484 Christian Council of Northern Rhodesia  482 Christian Council of the Gold Coast  486 Christian Endeavor movement  381 Christian IV, Danish king  308 Christian Union  251 Christmas  86, 152, 156, 190, 366, 753 Christmas Conference  366 Christological controversies, see Apollinarianism; monophysitism Christology  3–4, 7, 26, 31, 33–4, 37, 39, 43–55, 57, 59–67, 73, 81–3, 87, 92, 94, 104, 106–8, 111, 113– 14, 116, 118, 129–32, 134, 139, 141, 146–7, 155, 157, 332, 387, 390, 430, 440, 510–14, 522–3, 528–9, 535–8, 542–3, 548, 559, 561–7, 569–70, 572–3, 579–81, 601–6, 607–9, 614, 623, 671–2, 682, 685–8, 694–5, 723–4, 726–30, 734–6, 745–5, 758–60 Christotokos  61, 72 Christ’s second coming  18, 74, 260–1, 264, 379, 398, 430, 459, 596, 742 Chrysopolis, battle  25 Church and Society Department  399, 405 Church calendar  190 Churches Uniting in Christ (CUIC)  469 Church Missionary Society  399, 405 Church of Christ (Holiness)  377, 452 Church of Christ (Scientist), Christian Science  382 Church of Christ in China  496 Church of Christ in Congo, see Église du Christ au Congo Church of England, Anglican Church, Anglican  218, 272, 275, 279, 281, 332, 336–8, 344, 353, 356, 359, 361, 364, 366, 384, 394, 396, 398–9, 404–7, 410–15, 419, 421, 426, 434, 448, 465, 469, 476, 482–6, 489–90, 492, 612, 653 Church of God (Anderson, IN)  375 Church of God (Cleveland, TN)  375, 454 Church of God in Christ  375, 452 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, see Mormons Church of North India  468 Church of Scotland  279, 336, 399, 468, 670–1 Church of South India  128, 493, 720–1 Church of the East  72, 105, 107–8, 111, 113–14, 119, 127, 319 Church of the Foursquare Gospel  454

Index

Church of the Nazarene  375, 464 Church of the Twenty-Six Martyrs  424 Cistercians  145, 180, 223 City of God  69, 555–7 civil rights movement  464, 708, 711 Clapham Sect  340 Clark, Francis E.  381 Clarke, Samuel  322 Claudius, emperor  22, 24 Cleage, Albert  464 Clement III, antipope  169 Clement of Alexandria  12, 31, 34–6, 126, 130, 527, 620 Clement of Ohrid  86 Clement of Rome, apostolic father, bishop  7–9, 24, 510–11, 535, 591 Clement V, pope  177, 208 Clement VI, pope  238 Clement VII, antipope  209 Clement XI, pope  346–7 Clement XIV, pope  348 clerical celibacy  22, 92, 113, 148, 166, 249, 272, 450 Clerics Regular of St. Paul  294 Clermont, Council of  169–70, 606–7 Cluniac monasticism  145, 164, 170 Cluny monastery  145, 164–5 Cochin-China, see Vietnam Cochlaeus, Johannes  292 COCU, see Consultation on Church Union Cold War  428, 433–4, 460–1 Coleridge, Samuel Taylor  394–5 Colet, John  268, 292 College of Cardinals  165, 449 College of New Jersey, see Princeton Collegia pietatis  333 Cologne, city  213, 240, 266 Colombia  312, 402, 472, 474 Columbanus of Ireland  145, 150 Columba of Iona  150, 152, 597–8 Columbus, Christopher (Cristobal Colón)  231, 310, 630 Communism, see socialism, communism, community of goods Comoro islands  415, 489 Conciliar movement (or Conciliarism, Conciliarists, Conciliar theology)  209–11, 225, 286, 301, 352, 450, 628 Concordat of Bologna  346 Cone, James H.  462, 464, 726 Cone, Steven D.  iii–v, xxv, xxviii, 74, 227 Conference of European Churches  468 Conference on World Cooperation for Development  468

Index

Confessing Church (Bekennende Kirche)  433 confession (or penance, or reconciliation)  78–9, 149, 177, 184–5, 188–90, 233–4, 240, 272, 290, 627, 637, 639, 656–7, 663–4, 681 Confessions  69 confessor (priest during confession), see confession (or penance, or reconciliation) confessor (under persecution)  30, 46, 60, 81, 104, 132, 157, 585, 594 confirmation, chrism, chrismation  27–8, 63–4, 78–9, 188–90 confucianism  119, 318 Congar, Yves  444 Congo  316, 411–13, 485–6, see also particular countries Congo River  316, 411 Congregação Cristã no Brasil  473 Congregational Christian Church  469 Congregationalists  279, 281, 283, 356, 364, 366–7, 369, 381, 384, 396, 404, 412, 419, 468, 479 Congregational Union of Canada  465 Congregation for Oriental Churches  490 Congregation of Orthodox Christian People  438–9 Congregation of Regular Clerics (or Somascan Regular Clerics)  294 Congregation of the Oratory  292 Congregation of the Oratory of Jesus and Mary Immaculate, Oratorians  303 Connecticut, United States  356, 366, 372 conquistadores, conquerors  231, 311 Conrad III of Germany, king  174 Consejo Episcopal Latinoamericano (CELAM)  472 Consistory (Geneva)  255–6 Constance  210–11, 225, 249, 251, 628 Constance, Council of  210–11, 225, 628 Constans I, emperor  56 Constans II, emperor  82 Constantine I the Great, emperor  24–6, 30, 48–9, 72–3, 75–7, 79, 125, 150, 534 Constantine’s visions  25–6 Constantine V, emperor  84–5 Constantine VI, emperor  84 Constantine XI Dragases Palaeologus, emperor  103 Constantinople (New Rome)  32–3, 38–9, 42, 47–8, 50–2, 55, 57, 59, 61, 63–7, 70, 75–7, 79, 81–4, 87–7, 90, 92–9, 102–4, 106, 114, 116, 130, 139, 141, 147, 155, 172, 185, 211, 308, 318, 323–4, 343, 435, 440, 444, 548, 569–70, 572, 575, 599, 620, see also Istanbul Constantinople, Council of (in 360)  50–1 Constantinople I, Council of (in 381)  33, 47, 51–2, 55, 57, 67, 106, 116, 139, 155, 548, 572

821

Constantinople II, Council of (in 553)  59, 79, 106, 114, 569–70 Constantinople III, Council of (in 680–81)  81, 106, 570 Constantius Chlorus, emperor  20–1 Constantius II, emperor  49–50, 56, 76, 563 Consulmer, Francesco, patriarch  102 Consultation on Church Union (COCU)  469 conversion  3, 17–18, 23–4, 26, 29, 35, 73, 87, 89–90, 92, 100, 110, 125–6, 134, 148, 162, 181, 187, 246, 249, 252–3, 261, 310, 313–14, 316–17, 319–20, 323, 335, 337–8, 340, 354–5, 361, 364, 369, 373, 393, 405–6, 413, 417, 421–2, 425, 450, 454, 477, 488, 496, 598–9, 704, 732 Cook, James  407 Cook islands  406, 477 Cop, Nicolas  253 Copernicus  327 Coptic Orthodox Church  107, 130–2, 138, 317, 414, 440, 488, 594–6 Copts (native Egyptians), Coptic  33, 37, 107, 129–31, 133–4, 138, 317, 344, 414, 440, 488, 540, 594–6 Corbie Monastery  159 Corinth, Greece  4, 6–9, 28, 343, 388, 525–6, 535, 641, 661, 756 Cornelius, pope  29, 591 Coro, Venezuela  312 Corsica, island  310 Cortés, Hernan  310–11 Cosmas Indicopleustes  127, 568–9 Costa Rica  401, 474 Costas, Orlando E.  472 Counter-Reformation  286–303 Covenanters, see Cameron, Richard Cracow, or Krakow  448 Cranmer, Thomas  270–1, 274–6 Crawford, Florence  452 Creed of Nicea  48–9, 54, 66–7 creeds  xxiv, 17, 48–50, 53–5, 66–7, 72–3, 87, 92–3, 102, 155, 226, 279, 299, 304, 322, 336, 342, 373, 392–3, 395, 398, 442, 535, 548, 561–4, 566, 572–3, 683, 717, 764 Croatia, Croats  33, 141, 434 Cromwell, Oliver  283–5 Cromwell, Richard  284–5 Cromwell, Thomas  270–1 Crowther, Samuel Ajayi  413 Crusader Princes  172 crusades  xxvi, 93–6, 104, 114, 116, 119, 125, 167 ff. 167–80, 184–5, 192, 198, 205, 224–6, 290, 295–6, 313–14, 606–7 Ctesiphon, Persia  114 Cuba, Cubans  404, 473

822

Cuban Revolution  473 CUIC, see Churches Uniting in Christ Cultural Revolution (China)  495, 497 Cur deus homo  194, 601–6 Curia  238, 240, 286, 294, 298 Cuthbert of Lindisfarne  153, 575–8 Cyprian of Carthage  23–4, 27–30, 129, 531–3, 550, 591, 644 Cyprus  4, 90, 103, 107, 308, 416, 440, 491 Cyril (or Constantine), missionary and Methodius  85–6, 104, 619–20 Cyrillic  86 Cyril Lucaris, patriarch  308 Cyril of Alexandria  61–7, 101, 106, 113, 118, 130–1, 559–60, 565–6, 569–70, 573 Cyril of Jerusalem  540–2 Czech, language  308–9 Czechoslovakia  433–4 Czech Republic  85, 434 Da Costa, Isaac  393 Da Gama, Vasco  318 Dahomey, see Benin Dale, Robert William  399 Daley, Mary  464 dalit, dalits see caste Dalmatia  33, 79 Damascus  4, 21, 84, 107–8, 173, 343 Damasus I, pope  33, 53, 57 Daniel, Old Testament prophet  133, 259, 560, 568, 661 Daniel, stylite  42 Daniel I of Moscow, grand duke  100 Daniélou, Jean  444 Danube  50 Daoism  318 Darby, John Nelson  398 Dark Ages  141, 150, 154, 162, 168, 178–9, 193, 205, 225 Darrow, Clarence  458 David IV of Georgia, king  115 Davies, Samuel  361 Dead Sea Scrolls  39 De Benneville, George  366 De Brès, Guido  304 Decius, emperor  23–4, 28 De Cock, Hendrik  393 De Groote, Gerhard  223 deification  159, 723–4, 741–2 Deism, deists  200, 329, 331–2, 340 Dei Verbum  446 Delaware River  356 De los Reyes, Isabelo  477–8

Index

De Lubac, Henri  444 Demetrius of Alexandria, patriarch  34, 37 Demiurge  15–17 Democratic Republic of the Congo  441, 485 Denck, Hans  258, 260 denominationalism  366, 398 Denys the Areopagite, see Pseudo-Dionysius depravity, see total depravity Derbe  4 De Sales, François (Francis)  304 Descartes, René  328 Desert Fathers  40–1, 47, 69–71, 77, 90, 102, 130, 218, 539–40 De Smet, Pierre-Jean  359 determinism, Augustinianism, Calvinism  71, 244, 252, 257, 281, 283, 304, 306, 309, 315, 335, 337–8, 364, 392–3, 464, 556–9, 665–6, 700 Deutsche Evangelische Kirchentag, see German Protestant Kirchentag devshirme  309 Didache  8–9, 27, 32, 507–9 Diego, Juan  311 Diet of Augsburg (in 1530), Holy Roman Empire  238, 245 Diet of Baden (in 1523), Swiss  250 Diet of Lucerne (in 1525), Swiss  250 Diet of Nurnberg (in 1522–23), Holy Roman Empire  245 Diet of Nurnberg (in 1524), Holy Roman Empire  245 Diet of Ratisbon (or Regensburg) (in 1541), Holy Roman Empire  301 Diet of Speyer (in 1526), Holy Roman Empire  245 Diet of Speyer (in 1529), Holy Roman Empire  245–6 Diet of Worms (in 1521), Holy Roman Empire  242, 642–3 Diocletian (Dioclos), emperor  19–21, 23–5, 28–30, 32, 75, 116, 533–4 Diodore of Tarsus  37–8, 60, 111, 739 Diognetus  12 Dionysius of Milan, bishop  49 Dionysius the Areopagite, see Pseudo-Dionysius Dioscorus I of Alexandria (patriarch or pope)  65–6, 131 Diospolis, synod of (in 415)  68 Disciples of Christ  369, 404 Dismal Papacy  164 dispensation, papal  234, 250 disruption  128, 399 Divine Comedy  203, 210, 621 divine economy  52 divine liturgy  78, 86, 90, 92, 117, 568 Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great  78, 594–6

Index

Divine Liturgy of St. James  582 Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom  78, 592–4 divine nature  6, 44, 52, 61–2, 65, 82, 113, 211, 214, 509, 528, 546, 563, 566, 570–1, 605, 636, 673, 694, 723, 744, 751 Djibouti  414, 489 Dogma of the Bodily Assumption of Mary  109, 444 Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin  213, 350 Dogma of the Infallibility of the Papacy  326, 352, 354, 381, 392, 444, 454, 688–90 Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, see Lumen gentium Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, see Dei Verbum Doi, Peter Tatsuo  499 Dõllinger, Johann Joseph Ignaz von  352 Dome of the Rock  172 Dominican Republic  385, 404, 473 Dominicans, order  124, 186–8, 201, 211, 219, 221, 231, 250, 290, 294, 311–12, 317–22, 354–5, 421 Dominic of Osma  186, 187 Domitian, emperor  22, 24 Domnus of Antioch  65–6 Donation of Constantine  150 Donatus, Donatism  30, 129, 567 Doquz Katun, queen, wife of Hulagu Kahn  125 Dorner, August (Isaac)  389 Dostoyevsky, Fyodor  342, 344 Dudley, John (Northumberland)  274 Duff, Alexander  399, 419 Dura-Europos  28 Dürer, Albrecht  154 Durham, William H.  452 Dutch East India Company  407 Dutch Guiana, see Suriname du Vergier, Jean, de Hauranne  345 Dvin, First Council of  118 Dwight, Timothy  364, 367 Dyamper  319 East Anglia, England  275 East Asia Christian Conference  468 Easter island  406 Eastern Orthodox Churches  xxvi, 79, 107, 131, 138, 342, 437, 440, 491 East Germany  433–4 East Indies, see Malay Archipelago East Pakistan, see Bangladesh Eck, Johann von  239–40, 250, 259, 292 Eckhart, Meister  223

823

Ecuador  311–12, 402, 474 Eddy, Mary Baker  382 Edesius  71, 567–8 Edessa  6, 33, 104, 108, 111, 129, 173–4, 568 Edict of Milan  24–5, 533–5 Edict of Nantes  307, 346, 664–5 Edict of Restitution  303 Edict of Toleration (by Kangxi emperor in 1692)  421 Edict of Toleration (Palinode of Galerius)  24–5 Edict of Worms  245 Edinburgh, Scotland  279, 466–7 Edwards, Jonathan  359–61, 364 Edwards, Jonathan Jr.  364 Edward VI, English king  274–6, 282, 285, 301 Église du Christ au Congo  485 Egypt, Egyptians  4, 6, 23, 33–4, 37–41, 43, 50, 62, 66, 69–70, 73–4, 77, 80, 90, 94, 102, 106, 119, 129–36, 138, 141, 143, 148, 175, 185–6, 218, 317, 414, 416, 488, 491, 517, 539–41, 550, 563, 568, 572, 622, 725 Eichhorn, Johann Gottfried  333 Einsiedeln  249 Eisleben  223, 231–2 elder  4, 9, 13, 41, 44, 90, 102, 125, 255–6, 531, 540, 576 Eleanor of Aquitaine, queen  182 Eleutherius, pope  18, 536 Elijah, prophet  264, 486, 655 Eliot, John  259 Elizabeth I, English queen  274–6, 278–9, 281–2, 285, 300–1 Elizabeth of York, queen  268 Elkesaites  17 Ellice islands  406 El Salvador  474 Emden  264 Emergency League  433 emerging nations  400, 471 Emerson, Ralph Waldo  373 Emiliani, Gerolamo (Jerome Emiliani)  294 Emlyn, Thomas  332 Emmanuel, Victor II (Vittorio Emanuele II)  352 Emmons, Nathaniel  364 encomienda system  320 England, Britain  30, 139, 141, 148, 150–2, 175, 182, 184, 205–6, 218, 223–5, 230, 268, 270, 272, 274–6, 279, 281–3, 285, 292, 300–1, 324, 326, 335–6, 338, 340, 354–6, 359, 361, 364, 381, 394, 398–9, 401, 404, 408–9, 412, 416–17, 420, 422, 433–4, 442, 452, 465, 467, 483–4, 486–9, 491–2, 494, 577, 597–8, 612, 626, 653, 669 English East India Company  417, 419 English Reformation  268–86

824

Enlightenment, Aufklärung, age of reason  326–7, 329, 331, 348, 390, 394, 727 entire sanctification  375 Ephesus (city)  4, 6, 30, 59, 61, 63–4, 66, 106–8, 111, 569–70, 573 Ephesus, Council of (431)  59, 61, 63, 106–7, 111, 114, 116 Ephesus, Council of (449), latrocinium, “robber synod,” 64, 66 Ephrem the Syrian  111, 113, 536 Epiphanius of Salamis  18, 59–60 Episcopalians  364, 375, 381, 464 Episcopal Inquisition, see inquisition Epworth League  382 Equatorial Guinea  412, 486 Erasmus of Rotterdam (Desiderius Erasmus)  244, 290, 292, 636 Erfurt, Germany  232–3 Eritrea  107, 317, 414, 440, 489 Eritrean Catholic Church  489 Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church  440, 489 Ernesti, Johann August  333 Erskine, Ebenezer  336 Erskine, Ralph  336 Escobar, Samuel  472 Essenes  39 Ethiopia  33, 71, 73, 107, 132, 134–8, 316–17, 324, 410, 414, 489, 567–8, 624–5 Ethiopian Church  410 Ethiopian movement  410 Ethiopian Orthodox Church, see Kebra Negast Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church  440, 489 Eucharist, Lord’s Supper, Holy communion  10, 28–9, 40, 57, 78–9, 92–3, 148, 159–60, 167, 184, 188–90, 220–1, 226, 244–5, 249–50, 254–6, 272, 299, 343, 393, 396, 401, 467, 507–8, 513, 515, 520, 542, 572, 589, 591–2, 594, 596, 632–4, 663–4, 674–5, 716, 721, 732, 736–7, 742–3, 755 Eugenius, emperor  58 Eugenius III, pope  173 Eugenius IV, pope  102 Eunomius of Cyzicus  50–1, 567 Euphrates River  28, 39 Europe, see particular countries Eusebios (or Matthopoulos), priest  440 Eusebius of Caesarea  9, 11–12, 18, 32, 34, 46, 48–9, 535, 562 Eusebius of Dorylaeum  65 Eusebius of Nicomedia  46, 48–9 Eusebius of Vercelli  43, 49 Eustathius of Antioch  48, 675 Eustochium  33

Index

Eutyches, priest, monk  65–6, 564, 573 Evagrius Ponticus  40 Evangelical and Reformed Church  469 Evangelicalism, evangelicals  394, 399, 450, 459, 461, 464–5 Evangelical Lutheran Church (Eritrea)  489 Evangelical Lutheran Church in Australia  476 Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA)  468–9 Evangelical Lutheran Synod in Australia  476 Evangelical Missionary Association (Mozambique)  472, 483–4 Evangelical United Brethren  469 Evanston, United States  467 Evolution, evolutionary science  448, 454, 458 Ewe Presbyterian Church  486 Ewostatewos of Ethiopia, abba  137 existentialism  394, 430, 710, 726–8, 737 Exsurge domine  240 extreme unction (or last rites, or anointing of the sick)  78–9, 167, 188, 190, 218, 664 Ezana of Aksum, king  71, 134 Ezana Stone  134 Fabian, pope  24, 29 faith alone, justification by faith alone  232, 234, 240, 247, 299, 646, 650, 663 Faith and Order Commission  467 Falwell, Jerry  465 Farel, Guillaume (William)  253–5 Farrar, Frederic William  395 Fascism, fascist  428–9, 443 Fasilides, emperor  317 fasting  18, 40, 85, 186, 190, 250, 507, 514, 525, 533, 539, 657, 719 Father, God the Father  6–7, 29, 43–6, 48–52, 54–5, 59, 67, 78, 87, 155, 196, 226, 231, 342, 507–8, 512–15, 519–23, 528–32, 535–7, 541–6, 548, 552–5, 558–66, 570, 573–5, 579–84, 586–8, 590–6, 605–6, 614, 633–5, 647–9, 672–3, 682, 684–7, 691–4, 697, 712, 715, 717–18, 720, 723, 725, 732–5, 742–6, 750–1, 753–7, 764 Favre, Franchequine  255 Favre, François  255 Favre, Gaspard  255 Favre, Jean  256 Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America  486 Federation of Malaysia, see Malaysia Félicité, Hugues  350 feminist theology  464, 740, 761–2 Feng Yuxiang  495–6 Ferdinand I, Holy Roman emperor  260–1, 301

Index

Ferdinand II, Holy Roman emperor  302–3, 307 Ferdinand II of Aragón, Spanish king  286–7, 297, 309–10, 630 Fernando Po island  412 Feste Coburg  245–6 feudalism, feudal  161, 167–8, 180, 192, 205, 286, 322, 665 fideism  200 Fiji  406, 477 Filaret (Feodor Nikitich Romanov), patriarch  341 filioque  86, 92–3, 102, 155 Filipinos, see Philippines, Filipinos Fillmore, Charles  382 Fillmore, Myrtle  382 Finland, Finnish  308, 356, 400, 410, 440 Finney, Charles Grandison  369–70 Finnian of Clonard  152 Firmilian of Cappadocia  30 First Crusade  168–73 First Enoch  135 First Great Awakening  326, 359–64, 372, 385 First Vatican Council, see Vatican I Fisher, John  292 Flavian, patriarch  38, 64–6 Florence  102, 165, 207, 209–11, 220–3, 744 Florida  312 Florovsky, Georges  439 Flossenbürg  433 Forbidden City  322 foreknowledge  244, 257, 306, 544 Formosa, see Taiwan Formula of Concord  304 Formula of Reunion  65 Fort Christina  256 Fort Nassau  356 Forward Movement  465 Fosdick, Harry Emerson  456, 458 Fourth Crusade  93–4 Fourth Lateran Council  161, 184 Fox, George  335 France, French  75–7, 139, 141–3, 164, 169, 172, 174–5, 177, 180, 184, 186–7, 193, 195, 205–6, 208–9, 220, 223, 230, 252–3, 255, 257, 276, 279, 286, 297–8, 300–1, 303–4, 306–9, 315, 319, 326, 328–9, 333, 345–6, 348–9, 352–5, 359, 364, 384–5, 392, 398–9, 400, 407, 409–10, 413–15, 417, 421–2, 424, 442, 452, 469–70, 485–9, 491, 494, 632, 664, see also Gaul Francis, pope (Jorge Mario Bergoglio)  450 Franciscans  124, 185–7, 202–3, 213–14, 231, 250, 290, 294, 311–12, 316, 318–20, 327, 354–5, 416, 421, 673, 699–700

825

Francis I (François I), French king  301 Francis II, Holy Roman emperor  349 Francis II (François II), French king  301, 306 Francis of Assisi  185–7, 610, 657 Francke, August Hermann  334–5 François-René de Chateubriand  350 Franco-Prussian War  12, 353 Frankfurt  279 Franklin, Benjamin  329 Frederick I Barbarossa, emperor  95, 175, 181 Frederick III, elector  304 Frederick the Wise, elector  234–5, 238–9, 242, 245 Frederick V, elector  307 Free Church of Scotland  399, 468 Free Church of Vaud  393 Freeman, James  366 Freemasons  348 free will  15, 67, 69, 71, 111, 158–9, 244, 519, 556–8, 563, 602, 604–5, 616, 624, 634, 640, 658, 668 Frelinghuysen, Theodore  359–60 French and Indian War  364 French Equatorial Africa, see Cameroon; Central African Republic; Chad; Gabon; Republic of Congo French Guinea, see Guinea French Indochina, see Cambodia; Laos; Vietnam French Revolution  164, 326, 348, 354 French Somaliland, see Djibouti French West Africa, see particular modern nations Fre Sayon of Ethiopia  137 Friars Minor, see Franciscans Friendly Islands  406 friends, see Society of Friends Frisians  155 Froude, Richard Hurrell  396, 693 Frumentius of Aksum  71, 134, 567–8 Fugger, banking family  234, 237 fundamentalism, fundamentalists  381, 450, 456, 458–9 fundamentalist-modernist controversy, see ModernistFundamentalist controversy Gabon  412–13, 485–6, 489 Gabriel, archangel  80, 84, 608 Gaetano dei Conti de Tiene  294 Galerius, emperor  25, 29, 533–4 Galileo  327 Gallicanism  346 Gallienus, emperor  23 Gambia  413, 487–8 Gambier islands  406, 477 Gandhi, Mohandas (Mahatma Gandhi)  429, 492 Gandia, duchy  297

826

Garden of Eden  159, 740 Garibaldi, Giuseppe  352 Gatũ, John G.  501 Gaul  13, 30, 33, 80 Geisshüsler, Oswald (Myconius)  251 Gelasius I, pope  129 General Baptists  335 General Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in North America  373 General Missionary Convention  400, 417 Geneva  131, 252–7, 279, 306, 467–8 Geneva Academy  257, 306 Genghis Kahn  100, 115, 122–4 Genoa, city  292 Genocide  119, 448, 494 Georgia, Georgian, country  33, 82, 115–16, 129, 308, 416, 440 Georgia, United States  338, 359 Georgian Orthodox Church  115–16, 118, 129, 435 Gepidae, people group  141 German East Africa, see Tanzania German Protestant Kirchentag (Deutsche Evangelische Kirchentag)  434 German Reformation  231–48, 259 Germanus, monk  41, 70 Germany, Germans  xxvi, 76, 141, 151, 155, 162, 166–7, 174–5, 180, 184, 201, 205, 218, 221, 223, 231–2, 237, 239, 245–8, 251, 253, 259–60, 264, 286, 292, 297–9, 301, 308, 324, 331–3, 335, 349, 353–4, 361, 366, 381, 385, 387, 389–90, 392, 394, 398–400, 407, 409–12, 416, 428–31, 433–5, 442–3, 452, 470, 475, 477, 483, 486, 598, 628, 643, 658, 663, 696, 698, 710 Ghana  412, 467, 486–7 Gibbon, Edward  331 Gibbons, James, cardinal  353–4 Giberti, Gian Matteo  292 Gilbert islands  406 Gillespie, Thomas  336 Gil Seon-ju (Kil Sun-joo)  500 Girgis, Habib  414 Gladden, Washington  382 Glagolitic, script  86 Glarus, Switzerland  248 Glas, John  336, 399 Glasgow Missionary Society  399 Glendalough, Ireland  163 Gnostics (and Gnosticism)  12–17, 19, 31, 37, 72, 94, 184, 516, 739, 742, 754, 758–60 Goa  316, 318–19 Godfrey of Bouillon  172–3 God-Prayers movement, see Bogomoljac movement

Index

Gold Coast, see Ghana Gómez de la Gloria, Sebastián  367 Gondophares I of India, king  128 Gore, Charles  399 Gottschalk of Orbais  161 grace, divine (incl. natural and supernatural)  14, 27–8, 67–71, 73, 78, 84, 149, 158–9, 188, 190, 213, 219, 226, 244, 252, 257, 268, 306, 337–8, 375, 392, 408, 467, 513, 518, 538, 540, 542, 544, 546, 548, 551, 556–8, 563, 566, 568, 574, 576, 578, 582, 585–9, 592, 595, 604, 606–9, 612, 626, 628–9, 634, 640–1, 644, 647, 650–2, 655, 657–8, 663–4, 668–9, 672–5, 678, 680, 682, 687–91, 698, 705, 714, 716–17, 720, 723, 729, 732, 750, 758–60 Graham, Billy (William Franklin)  460–1 Granada  289–90, 310, 630 Gran Colombia  402 Grant, Jacquelyn  464 Gratian, emperor  55–7 Great Lavra Monastery  89 Great Papal Schism  209–10, 220–1 Great Schism  90–4 Grebel, Conrad  249–50, 259 Greece, Greek, Greeks  4, 6–7, 10–12, 15, 31–5, 43–4, 57, 67, 70, 72, 75, 84, 88–9, 92, 94, 97–8, 102, 127, 130, 132, 157, 197, 198, 204, 222, 248–50, 259, 308, 333, 341–4, 435, 439–40, 469, 491, 527, 548, 550, 567–8, 579, 606, 627, 635, 675, 683, 691, 701, 740, 762–3 Greek Christianity (Eastern)  5–7 Greek Orthodox Church  107, 342, 416–17, 491 Greenland  335, 366, 384, 465 Gregorian calendar  435 Gregorian Reforms  165–6 Gregory II, pope  84, 150 Gregory III, pope  84, 150–1 Gregory I the Great, pope  147–50, 150, 164, 170, 577, 657 Gregory Lopez, see LuóWénza ˇo Gregory of Nazianzus (or Gregory the Theologian)  33, 50–4, 60, 81, 90, 157, 570, 723 Gregory of Nyssa  33, 51–3, 157, 159, 545, 547, 746, 764 Gregory Palamas  90, 98–9, 104 Gregory the Illuminator  33, 116 Gregory the Theologian, see Gregory of Nazianzus Gregory V, patriarch  342 Gregory VII, pope (or Hildebrand)  164–9, 183, 225 Gregory VIII, pope  175 Gregory X, pope  97 Gregory XI, pope  209, 220, 626 Gregory XIII, pope  167

Index

Gregory XVI, pope  350 Grey, Francis  275 Grey, Jane  275–6 Grisons, canton  259 Griswold, Alexander Viets  375 Grundtvig, Nicolai Frederick Severin  393 Grüningen  250 Guangzhou, city (Canton)  422 Guatemala  311, 401, 474 Guinea  413, 487–8 Guinea-Bissau  413, 487 Guise, family  306 Gulf War, First and Second  492 gunpowder  204, 206 Gurney, Joseph John  373 Gustav II (Gustavus Adolphus), Danish king  308 Gutiérrez, Gustavo  472, 721 Guyana  312, 384, 465 Habyarimana, Juvénal  483 Hadrian, emperor  10, 12, 23 Hagia Sophia, Saint Sophia, cathedral  38, 78–9, 90, 93, 103, 176 Haiti, Haitians  385, 404, 465 Haldane, James  336, 399 Haldane, Robert  336, 392, 399 Haller, Berthold  251 Hamilton, Patrick  279 Han, Kyung-Chik  500 Hanoi, Vietnam  319 Hanover, Germany  434 Harare, Zimbabwe  467 Harless, Gottlieb Christoph Adolf von  389 Harnack, Adolf von  390–1 Harris, Howell  336 Harris, William Wadé  487 Harvard  356, 366, 430, 747 Harvard Divinity School  370 Hätzer, Louis  258 Hauge, Hans Nielsen  393 Havana, Cuba  473 Hawaii  406, 477 Hayter, Mary  464, 739 heaven  7, 16, 41, 77–8, 84, 88, 90, 109, 159, 161, 170–2, 203, 210, 221, 223, 422, 444, 507, 510, 512, 514, 516–18, 520–5, 530–2, 534–5, 538, 540–1, 544, 547–9, 552, 562–3, 565, 570, 574, 577, 579, 582–3, 586–7, 589–90, 592–7, 599, 606–7, 611, 615, 622, 624–5, 633–5, 637–8, 642, 652–3, 671–3, 680–1, 682–3, 686–7, 701–2, 711, 715–17, 719–20, 723, 734, 737, 742–3, 755, 757, 763 Hebrides islands  152, 406

827

Hedge, Frederic Henry  373 Hedio, Kaspar  253 Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich  387–8, 394, 728 Hegesippus, apologist  12, 535 Heidelberg, Germany  307 Heidelberg Catechism, Palatinate Catechism  304 Helena, gnostic  13–15 hell  27, 108, 159, 161, 170–1, 210, 221, 223, 366, 518, 531–2, 541, 562, 566, 574, 584, 595, 621, 636, 638, 640, 642, 652, 667 Héloïse d’Argenteuil  197 Helvetic Confession, First and Second  304 Helwys, Thomas  335 Hemmenway, Moses  364 Hengstenberg, Ernst Wilhelm  388 henotheism  331 Henrician Revolution  270–2 Henry, Carl F. H.  461, 727 Henry II (Henri II), French king  301 Henry II of England, king  182, 306 Henry IV, Holy Roman emperor  166–7, 169, 306, 664 Henry IV (Henri IV), French king  307, 345 Henry V, Holy Roman emperor  628–9 Henry VII, English king  268, 282 Henry VIII, English king  268–70, 272–4, 279, 282, 285, 301 Heraclius of Constantinople, emperor  80 Herbert, Edward, of Cherbury  329 Hercules  20, 25 Herder, Johann Gottfried von  385–6 Here I stand  242 Hermas  9, 526 Hermes  17 Hermias  12 Hermits  33, 38, 40, 43, 47, 50, 144, 172, 317, 323, 343, 569, 572 Herod  512, 514 Herod’s Temple  173 Herrnhut  335 Hervey islands  406 Hesychasm, hesychasts  90, 92, 98–9, 104, 343 Hesychast controversy  98, 104 Hezbollah  491 Hibernian Church Missionary Society  399 Hicks, Elias  373–4 Hideyoshi, Toyotomi  323, 425 Hieronymus, see Jerome high-church party  395, 399 High Middle Ages  145, 179–80, 188, 190, 193, 205, 207–8, 226 Hilary, papal legate to Ephesus 449 council  66 Hilary of Poitiers  49, 550

828

Hildebrand, see Gregory VII, pope Hildegard of Bingen  216–18, 221, 610 Hillsong Church  476 Himalayas  322 Hinduism, Hindus  318, 320, 407, 417, 477, 718, 735 Hippolytus of Rome  18, 24, 45 Hippo Rhegius  43, 69, 141 Hiroshima, Japan  498 Hispaniola island  231, 310, 385, 473 Hitler, Adolf  428–9, 431, 433, 710 Hobart, John Henry  375 Hodge, Archibald Alexander  375, 688, 727 Hodge, Charles  375, 727 Hofmann, Johann Christian Konrad von  389 Hofmann, Melchior  264 Hohenlandenberg, Hugo von  249 holiness  6, 97, 172, 176, 292, 338, 342, 559, 582, 614–15, 649, 657, 690, 712, see also Holiness movement Holiness movement  338, 375, 377, 381, 385, 450, 452, 454 Holland, Henry Scott  399 Holocaust  443 Holstein  266 Holy Club  337–8 Holy Lavra of St. Sabbas  108 Holy Orders, (ordination)  29, 33, 38, 40, 50–1, 68–70, 78–9, 86, 147, 188, 190, 248, 338, 381, 448, 568, 574, 612, 627, 644, 663–4, 670, 674, 739, 761 Holy Roman emperor  85, 92, 95, 156–7, 159, 166, 169, 175, 181, 205, 214, 300, 310 Holy Roman Empire  86, 92, 154, 161–2, 168–9, 183, 192, 205, 225, 238, 248, 307–8, 349, 658 Holy Spirit, God the Holy Spirit  6–7, 13, 16, 18, 27, 29, 43–4, 48, 50–2, 54–5, 78–9, 87, 92, 111, 155, 165, 188–9, 227, 258, 266, 335, 375, 450, 452, 467, 507, 514, 521–3, 530–2, 543–6, 552–5, 559–60, 563–4, 570, 573, 577, 579–84, 586–8, 590–1, 593–5, 597, 628, 637, 649, 663–4, 668–9, 672, 681, 688, 690, 694, 697, 712–13, 721, 723–6, 729, 732–3, 742–5, 755–8, 760 Holy Spirit Fathers  354 Holy Synod  326, 342, 345 homoios  48, 50 homoiousios  48, 50 homoousios  48, 50, 535, 579 Honduras  366, 384, 401, 465, 474 Hong Kong  452, 497–8 Hongli, Aisin-Gioro, see Qianlong emperor Hong Xiuquan  422, 424 Honorius, emperor  68 Hopkins, Samuel  364

Index

Horb, city  259 Hort, Fenton John Anthony  395 Hosius of Córdoba  46, 48–9 Hospitallers, see Knights Hospitaller Hottentots, see Khoikhoi people house churches  473, 497 Houston, Bobbie  476 Houston, Brian  476 Houston, city  451 Howard, Catherine  272–3 Howard, John  340 Hubmaier, Balthasar  259–61 Hughes, Grace  417 Hughes, Hugh Price  399 Huguenots  301, 346, 355, 359 Hugues de Payens  177 Hulagu Khan  124–5 Humanae vitae  446 Hume, David  331 Hundred Years’ War  205–6, 324, 326 Hungary  95, 162, 304, 433–5, 710 Hurons  355 Hus, Jan (or John Huss)  210–11, 225, 239 Hussein, Saddam  492 Hussgen, Johann (Oekalampadius)  251 Hut, Hans  260–1 Hutten, Ulrich von  239, 241–2 Hutter, Jacob  261–2 hypostatic union  63, 575, 759–60 Iberia  115, 129, 310, see also particular countries Ibiam, Akanu (Francis Ibiam)  480 Ibn Rushd, see Averroes Ibn Sina, see Avicenna icon (image), iconoclasm, iconoclastic controversy  70, 82–6, 99, 104, 109–10, 131, 137, 250 Iconium  4 Iconoclastic Controversy, see Icon (image) Ieyasu, Tokugawa  323 Iglesia Filipina Independiente (Philippine Independent Church)  479 Ignatius of Antioch  4, 8–10, 23–4, 28, 511–12, 592, 723 Ignatius of Constantinople, patriarch  86–7 Ignatius of Loyola  295–7, 303, 656 Igreja Internacional da Graça de Deus  474 Igreja Universal do Reino de Deus  474, 483 Illini  355 Illinois, United States  355, 379, 467 illumination  13, 15, 210, 216, 515, 544, 553, 556, 573, 663, 673, 681, 702, 718, 729

Index

image, see icon (image) Incas  312 independence, Missouri  379 India  6, 34, 72–4, 80, 104, 106–7, 115, 123, 125–9, 136, 138, 178, 231, 297, 315–16, 318–19, 323–4, 327, 335, 344, 399, 407, 411, 416–20, 427, 440, 452, 467–8, 477, 492–4, 567–8, 666, 695–6, 720, 734–5 Indian Malankara Orthodox Church  107 Indians (New World)  313–15, 355–6, 361, 364, 384, 417 inductive method  203, 326–7, 340, see also scientific method indulgences  170–1, 224–5, 234, 237–8, 249–50, 299, 324, 627, 630–1, 638–42, 657 infallibility, biblical  381, 392, 454, 689–90 infallibility, papal  326, 352, 354, 444, 688, see also Dogma of the Infallibility of the Papacy infralapsarian  306 ingolstadt  259 injustice, human, see social justice Inner Mission  392–3 Innocent II, pope  180 Innocent III, pope  175, 183–7, 208, 226, 607, 612 Innocent X, pope  346 Innocent XI, pope  346 Innsbruck  300 inquisition, the (or Episcopal Inquisition)  184, 286, 301, 327 Institutes of the Christian Religion  252, 254, 257, 653–6 integral mission  472 interdict  166–7, 182, 184, 636 International Congress on World Evangelism  461 International Missionary Council  466 Investiture controversy  165–7, 169, 181, 629 Iona Abbey (and Iona)  152 Iran  72, 111, 416, 492, 735 Iraq  416, 448, 490, 492, 735 Ireland, Irish  43, 71, 145, 150–2, 157, 213, 225, 338, 340, 354, 359, 398, 405, 598, 612, 669 Irenaeus of Lyons  13–15, 17–18, 27–8, 30–1, 34, 516–24, 536, 683 Irene of Athens, empress  84 Irish monasticism  43, 145, 164 Irkutsk  426 Iron Curtain  433 Iroquois  355 Irresistible grace, see TULIP Irtysh River  426 Irving, Edward  396, 398 Isaac of Ninevah  108, 578

829

Isabella I of Castile and León, Spanish queen  286, 288, 290, 310, 630 ISIL, see Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant ISIS, see Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant Islam (or Muslims)  7, 80, 84, 86, 88, 90, 94–6, 102–4, 108–10, 114–16, 119, 123–5, 127, 130, 132–3, 135–6, 138, 141–2, 150, 168–9, 172–5, 178–9, 184–5, 191, 197–8, 290, 308–10, 316–18, 320, 399, 407, 413–14, 416, 421, 429, 448, 477, 486–92, 494, 501, 692, 719, 736 Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant  490, 492 Islas Canarias, see Canary Islands Israel, Israelis, Israelites  3, 39, 135, 138, 153, 414, 416, 488, 490–1, 550, 622, 624–5, 692, 724, 728, 730–1, 740, 757–9, 763 Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace  491 Istanbul  435, see also Constantinople Italian Eritrea, see Eritrea Italian Somaliland, see Somalia Italy, Italians  32, 50, 64, 66, 75–7, 79, 84, 93, 98, 103–4, 136–7, 139, 141, 144, 147, 149–50, 155, 162, 165, 180, 184, 186, 193, 201–2, 205, 209–10, 219–21, 223, 292, 296–9, 322, 348, 352–3, 399, 414, 428–9, 435, 442–3, 448, 488–9, 494, 629 Ivory Coast  412–13, 486–7 Jacob, Henry  335 Jacobites  416, 420 Jacobite Syrian Church  420 Jacob of Nisibis  111 Jaffa  174 Jainism  318 Jamaica  366, 384, 465 James I, English king (James VI of Scotland)  279–83 James the Just, stepbrother of Jesus  106 Jamestown, Virginia  326, 335 James V, Scottish king  279 James VI, Scottish king, see James I, English king Jänicke, Johann  400 Jan of Leyden (Leiden)  263–4 Jansen, Cornelius  345–6 Jansenism, Jansenists  345–6 Japan, Japanese  297, 308, 316, 320, 322–3, 407, 424–6, 428, 468, 475–7, 479, 494–6, 498–500 Java  407, 477 Jefferson, Thomas  329 Jehovah’s Witnesses  379, 483 Jensi, Muganwa Nsiu  484 Jeremias II, patriarch  308, 663 Jerome (Hieronymus)  33, 42, 50, 59, 204, 548, 550, 657, 660 Jerusalem, Christian Kingdom of  174

830

Jerusalem, city  4, 6, 21, 34, 37, 39, 48, 63, 66, 68, 87, 106–7, 110, 169–77, 179, 184–5, 295–6, 308, 343, 416, 440, 490, 527, 540, 582, 599, 624–5, 672, 719 Jesus, Jesus Christ  xxiv, 3–4, 6, 16–17, 27–8, 31–2, 34, 43–5, 47, 59–65, 67, 72, 81–3, 106, 113, 121, 131, 147, 153, 159, 219–20, 224, 227, 257, 266, 295–6, 303, 332–3, 342, 373, 379, 381, 389–90, 422, 430, 440, 456, 467, 485, 507–8, 510–17, 522, 527, 529, 535, 541–3, 548, 551, 556, 558, 561, 563–6, 570–3, 582, 584–6, 588, 590–2, 594–5, 597, 611–12, 630, 632–4, 637, 643, 645, 647, 649, 651–2, 661, 668–71, 674–5, 678, 682–3, 687, 691, 693–7, 700, 704, 706, 715, 717, 719, 724–5, 727–33, 736, 738, 746–53, 755–60 Jews, see Judaism, Jews Jihad, jihadist  80, 136, 316 Jiménez, Francisco de Cisneros (Ximenes), cardinal  290, 314 Jin dynasty, China  123 Joan of Arc  206 Johann the Steadfast (John)  245 John, apostle  13, 22, 24, 30–2, 90, 521, 525–6, 545, 548, 554, 559, 561, 591, 651, 661–2, 689, 716, 725, 760, 762 John, count (emissary of Theodosius II)  64 John Cassian  xxviii, 40–1, 43, 63, 67, 69–71, 143–4, 159, 176, 558–9 John Chrysostom  37–9, 51, 59, 70, 78, 592, 664, 675, 739, 742 John II Comnenus, emperor  95 John Italos  94 John Mark (evangelist)  4 John of Antioch  61, 63–6 John of Damascus  84, 108–10 John of England, prince  184–5, 612 John of the Cross, see Juan de la Cruz John Paul I, pope  448 John Paul II, pope  86, 213, 448–9, 473, 753–7 John Scotus Eriugena  83 Johnson, Gisle  393 John the Baptist  27, 84, 176, 512, 538, 592, 597, 732 John VIII, pope  87 John VIII Palaeologus, emperor  102 John V Palaeologus, emperor  97 John XII, pope  164 John XXII, pope  203, 215, 626 John XXIII, pope  444, 447 Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches  469 Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church  469

Index

Jones, Charles Price  377, 452 Jones, Jim (James Warren Jones)  465 Jordan, Jordanians  416, 491 Jordan River  584, 732, 755 Joseph de Maistre  350 Joseph I (José I), Portuguese king  348 Juan de Ávila  290 Juan de la Cruz (John of the Cross)  290–1 Juárez, Benito  401 Judaism, Jews  4, 6, 9–13, 15–17, 21–4, 30, 32–4, 37, 39, 61, 84, 90, 106, 110, 123, 130, 135, 152, 172, 197, 246, 309, 344, 388, 392, 399, 416, 433, 443, 448, 469, 490–1, 512, 514, 517–18, 520, 536, 619, 674, 702, 709–10, 715, 719–20, 734–5, 757, 761 Judson, Adoniram  400, 417, 420 Julian calendar  435 Julian I (the Apostate), emperor  50, 56 Julian of Eclanum  62 Julian of Norwich  218–19, 221, 226 Julius I, pope  49, 542 Julius II, pope  286–7 Julius III, pope  299–301 Jupiter  14, 20, 636 justification by faith alone, see faith alone Justinian Code  79 Justinian I, emperor  59, 79–80, 104, 114, 133, 147, 597 Justin II, emperor  597 Justin Martyr  10–12, 24, 513 just shall live by faith  234, 324 just war  314 Juvenal of Jerusalem  63, 66 Kagawa, Toyohiko  499 Kakure Karishitan  343, 424 Kamchatka  426 Kamungu, Leonard  482 Kangxi emperor (Xuanye)  421 Kansas, United States  450 Kansas City, Missouri, United States  382 Kant, Immanuel  385–6, 394 Kanyane Napo, Joseph Mathunye  410 Kanyoro, M. R. A.  464, 737 Karens  421 Karlovski, city  439 Karlstadt, Andreas Bodenstein von  239, 241, 244, 259 Kasatkin, Ivan (Nikolai)  425 Kazakhstan  114, 501 Keble, John  396 Kebra Negast (The Glory of the Kings)  136, 623 Keelville, Kansas  450 Kentucky, United States  367, 369 Kenya, Kenyans  316–17, 411, 467, 484, 501

Index

Kerala, India  196, 493 Kessler, John  251 Khmer Rouge  494 Khoikhoi people (Hottentots)  409 Khomyakov, Aleksei Stepanovich  344 Khrapovitsky, Alexei Pavlovich  437–8, see also Anthony (Alexei Pavlovich Khrapovitsky), metropolitan Khrushchev, Nikita  437 Kierkegaard, Søren Aaby  393–4, 686–8, 699 Kiev  89–90, 100, 102, 341, 437 King, Martin Luther Jr.  464, 468, 707–11 Kingdom of God Movement  499 Kingdom of Great Peace, see Taiping tianguo King James Version (Authorized Version)  283 Kinnaird, Mary Jane  486 Kirill, patriarch  437–8 Kirtland, Ohio  379 Kivengere, Festo  485 Klausen, city  259 Kliefoth Theor  488 Knight George  242 Knights Hospitaller (or Hospitallers)  176–7 Knights Templar (or Templars)  176–7, 180 Knox, John  274, 279 Kodiak island  426 Koepfel, Wolfgang (Capito)  251, 255 Kollyvades  343 Koran (or Qur’an)  80–1, 198, 750 Korea  425–7, 467, 490, 499–501 Korean Awakening, see Pyongyang Revival Korean War  499 Kosmas the Aetolian  343 Krakow, see Cracow Kremlin of Moscow  102 Kublai Kahn  115, 123–4 Küng, Hans  444 Kurdistan  108 Kursherer, Conrad (Pellicanus)  252–3 Kuyper, Abraham  392–3 Kyo-dan, see Nihon Kirisuto Kyo-dan Kyrgyzstan  501 Kyushu island  322 Labrador  366, 384, 465 Lactantius  23, 25, 533–5, 550 Lady Huntingdon’s Connection, Welsh Methodists, Welsh Methodist Church  336–7 Lagos, Nigeria  412 Lake Tana, Ethiopia  137–8 Lancaster, House of  268 Lanfranc of Pavia  193

831

Langegger, Hans  259 Laos  320, 421, 494–5 LaPiana, Giorgio  442–3 lapsed  29–30, 48, 532–3 Las Casas, Bartolomé de  314–15 Laski, Jan  292 last rites, see Extreme unction Lateran  161, 180, 184, 189, 286, 352, 443, 612, 763 Lateran council, Fifth  286 Lateran council, Fourth  161, 184, 189, 612, 763 Lateran council, Second  180 Latin, Latins  5–7, 32–4, 48, 57, 63, 66, 70, 72, 75, 83, 92, 94, 96, 102, 129, 142, 155–7, 173–4, 176–7, 197–8, 204, 210, 218, 222, 248, 296, 299, 341, 448, 648, 662 Latin America, Latin Americans  326–7, 400–2, 426, 461, 464, 471–5, 501–2, 723, see also particular countries Latin Christianity (Western)  5–7 Latin Kingdom of Constantinople  176 Latin Vulgate  33, 75, 299, 662 Lausanne, Switzerland  461, 467 Lausanne Covenant  461 Laval (François-Xavier de Montmorency-Laval)  355 Law, William  329 lay investiture, see Investiture Controversy Lazarists  354 League of Nations  475 League of Schmalkalden  246 Lebanon  416, 491 Lee, Young Hoon  500 Legate, papal, see papal legate Le Goff, Jacques  74 Leibniz, Gottfried  328, 385 Leinster  150 Leipzig, Germany  335, 519 Leipzig Debate  519 Lenin, Vladimir  428, 437, 486 Lenshina, Alice  483 Lent  85, 249, 657 Leo III, pope  156 Leo III of Constantinople, emperor  84–5 Leo I the Great, pope  63–7, 146–7, 150, 164, 564–5, 570 Leo IX, pope  93, 104 Leo V of Constantinople, emperor  85 Leo X, pope  234, 237–40 Leo XII, pope  350 Leo XIII, pope  352–3, 441–2 Le Réveil  392–3 Lessing, Gotthold  332 Leszczynski, Filofei  426 Libanius of Antioch  38–9

832

liberalism, liberals  356, 381, 390, 395, 449, 454, 458, 461, 465, 483, 727, 729 liberation theology  448, 464, 471–2 Liberia, Liberians  412, 452, 487 Liberius of Rome, pope  49 Libya  130, 413–14, 488, 572 Lichtenstein  261 Licinius I, emperor  24–5, 534 Liele, George  366 Life and Work Commission  466–7 Lightfoot, Joseph B.  395 Lima, Peru  467 Lima Text  467 limited atonement, see atonement; TULIP Lindisfarne, island, abbey  119, 151, 153, 576–7 Lindisfarne Gospel  151 Lindsey, Theophilus  332 Lithuania  426 little flock, see Assembly Hall liturgy  3, 27–8, 77–8, 86, 90, 92, 102–3, 106–7, 115–17, 121, 127, 132, 135–7, 148–9, 155, 190–1, 226, 249, 272, 275, 343, 392–3, 437, 443, 568, 582–97, 632–4, 658, 673–4, 715, 732, 742–3 Livingstone, David  408–9, 411, 422 Livingstone Inland Mission  411 Locke, John  328–9 Logos  6–7, 15–16, 35, 47, 60–1, 63–4, 516, 548, 762–3 Loisy, Alfred  442–3 Lombards  141, 147, 150, 155, 165, 205 London  268, 275, 332, 335, 337–8, 398–9, 466, 627, 659, 679 London Missionary Society  399, 409 Longo, Maria Laurentia  294 López, Dominica  367 López de Legazpi, Miguel  320 López de Villalobos, Ruy  320 Lord’s Prayer  233, 322, 507, 633, 681 Lord’s Supper, see Eucharist Lossky, Vladimir  439, 723 Louis VII of France, king  174 Louis XIII, French king  345 Louis XIV, French king  301–2, 345–6, 354 Louvain, Belgium  240, 467 low-church party  395, 399 loyalty islands  406 Luanda (in Algeria)  317–18 Lucian of Antioch  45 Lucifer, angel  652 Lucifer of Cagliari  49 Lucius I, pope  29 Lucius III, pope  184 Ludwig, Nicholas (Count Zinzendorf)  335

Index

Luís de Granada  289–90 Lumen gentium  446, 715–18 Lumpa Church  483 Lund, Sweden  467 LuóWénza ˇ o, Gregory Lopez  421 Luoyang, China  121 Luther, Hans  231, 233 Luther, Margarethe  231, 233 Luther, Martin  210, 231–4, 236–40, 242–8, 250, 258, 268, 279, 286, 299, 301, 304, 324, 637–49, 688, 699–700, 706, 730 Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod  392, 469 Lutherans  218, 232, 245–6, 250, 259–60, 264, 268, 304, 308, 324, 333, 335, 356, 361, 366, 382, 388, 392–3, 416, 419, 430–1, 461, 468–9, 476–7, 483, 489, 696, 730 Lutheran World Federation  469 Luther League  382 Luwum, Janani  485 Luxemburg  151 Luzon  405 Lyons  5, 13–14, 354, 632 Lyons, Second Council of  97 Lystra  4 McAlister, R. E.  452 Macau  316, 322–3, 421 Macaulay, Zachary  340 Macedo, Edir  474 Macedonia  4, 85, 98, 568, 631, 762 McGiffert, Arthur Cushman  458 Machen, J. Gresham  457–8 Machiavelli, Niccolò  209–10, 223 McPherson, Aimee Semple  454 Madagascar  317, 415, 489 Madeira island  316 Madras, India  419, 720 Madura, India  319, 419 Magaspelaion, monastery  342 Magellan, Ferdinand (Magalhães, Fernão de)  310, 320 Magna Carta  184–5, 640 Magyars  162 Mainline denominations  459, 461, 465 Mainz  151, 234 Majorinus  30 Makarios of Corinth  343 Makrakis, Apostolos  344 Malacca, see Malaysia Malan, H. A. César  392–3 Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church  107, 440 Malawi  408, 411, 482 Malaya, see Malaysia

Index

Malay Archipelago  320, 404, 407, 477, see also particular countries Malaysia  316, 421, 494 Mali  413, 487–8 Malta, island  310 Mamluk dynasty  119 Manchuria  426, 496, 498 Mandela, Nelson  481–2 Mandra, mandrite  40, 440, 572 Mani, Manicheism (also Manichaeism), Manicheans (also Manichaeans)  17, 64, 69, 551 Manila, Philippines  479 Mantua  298, 301 Manuel I Comnenus the Great, emperor  95 Manuel II Palaeologus, emperor  97, 102, 763 Manz, Felix  249–50, 259 Ma-oris  405, 476 Mao Zedong (Chairman Mao)  428, 460, 495–6 Mar Aba I the Great, patriarch  114, 568 Maranke, Johane  483 Marburg Colloquy  245, 250 Marcellinus, pope  30, 592 Marcellus II, pope  301 Marcellus of Ancyra  46, 48, 542–3 March 1st Movement for Korean Independence  500 Marcian, emperor  66–7 Marcion (gnostic), Marcionites  16, 27, 32, 526–7 Marcos, Ferdinand  479 Marcus Aurelius, emperor  11–12, 23–4 Margaret, Scottish queen  282 Maria de la Candelaria  367 Mariana islands  406, 477 Marists  354 Mark (or John Mark), evangelist  4, 9, 34, 130, 317, 531, 661 Maronite  491 Marpeck, Pilgram (or Pilgrim)  261 Marquesas islands  406, 477 Marquette, Jacques  355 Marriage, matrimony  10–11, 17–18, 22, 25–6, 51, 78–9, 92, 106, 113, 124, 127, 188, 190, 219, 245–6, 249–50, 255, 265, 268, 270, 272–6, 279, 281, 286, 299, 385, 398, 417, 450, 634, 644, 656, 663–5, 674, 701, 703, 740 Marrow Men  336 Marsden, Samuel  405 Marseilles  5, 70–1, 632 Marshall islands  406, 477 Mar Thoma Church  128, 344 Mar Thoma Syrian Church  420 Martin I, pope  82, 92 Martin of Tours  43

833

Martin V, pope  102, 210 martyrdom  5, 9–13, 18, 22–4, 37, 45, 72, 126–30, 151, 186, 206, 209, 226, 246, 258, 261, 265, 307, 316, 323, 406, 421, 424, 425–6, 435, 477, 488, 492, 499, 513–14, 524–5, 530, 536, 545, 550, 567, 569, 582, 585, 591–2, 594, 597, 606, 671, 745 Mary Stuart, Scottish queen  279, 282, 300–1 Mary the Mother of Jesus  30, 60–3, 67, 72, 83–4, 109, 137, 181, 213, 218–19, 266, 296, 303, 311, 322, 350, 367, 444, 446, 484, 521, 537–8, 548, 563–4, 566, 569, 572–3, 582, 585, 590–1, 595, 597, 608–9, 682, 719, 755 Mary Tudor, English queen  268, 274–6, 282, 285 Mason, Charles H.  377, 452–3 Massachusetts, United States  356, 361, 366 Mathews, Shailer  458 matrimony, see marriage Matthew, apostle, evangelist  9, 34, 72, 151, 249, 388, 531, 591, 647, 651, 661, 732 Matthpoulos, priest, see Eusebios Matthys, Jan  263–4 Maurice, John Frederick Denison  395 Maurice of Saxony  300 Mauritania  413, 488 Mauritius island  415, 489 Maxentius, emperor  25 Maximian, emperor  20–1, 25 Maximian (Maximianus), patriarch  64 Maximilian, Ferdinand  401 Maximilian, Holy Roman emperor  239 Maximilla, prophetess  18 Maximinus I, emperor  23–4 Maximinus II (Maximinus Daia), emperor  25 Maximus the Confessor (or Maximus of Constantinople)  81–3, 104, 157, 575 Mayhew, Jonathan  372 Mazarin, Jules, cardinal  345 Mbiti, John  484 Mecca  80 Mechthild of Magdeburg  223, 611 Medellín, Colombia  472 Medici family of Florence  209, 221, 223, 305–6 Medina  80 Meghalaya, India  493 Mehmed I Çelebi, sultan  97 Melanchthon, see Philip Melanchthon Melanesia  404, 475, 477, see also particular islands Melchites, see Melkites Meletian schism  33 Melito of Sardis  12, 18, 30, 32 Melkites, Melchites  341, 491 Memnon of Ephesus  64

834

Menander, gnostic  14 Menelik I, emperor  136 Menelik II, emperor  414 Menezes, Aleixo de  319 Mennonites, Menists  265–6, 356, 464 Menno Simons  264–7, 651–3 Mensurius, bishop  30 Mercersburg  373–4 Merici, Angela  294 Merits (good works)  161, 233, 249, 335, 566, 574, 591–2, 606, 634, 638, 640, 646, 650–1, 695, 724 Merovingians  142 Mesopotamia  6, 41, 50, 73, 108, 111, 416 Mesrop Mashtots, monk  117 Mestizos  405 Methodios I of Constantinople, patriarch  83 Methodist Church, Canada  465 Methodist Church, The  469 Methodist Episcopal Church  366, 377 Methodist Episcopal Church South  377 Methodist Evangelical Church  184 Methodists, Wesleyan Methodists  336–8, 340, 361, 366–7, 369, 373, 377, 381–2, 384, 396, 399, 404–5, 407, 409–10, 412–13, 421, 426, 434, 452, 465, 468–9, 471–2, 477, 479, 483, 486, 500 Methodius, missionary  85–6, 104, 619–20 Metropolitan (church office)  4, 66, 122, 323, 341–2, 346, 435–7, 448, 629 Mexico, Mexicans  311, 367, 401, 472–3 Mexico City  311 Meyendorff, John  439 Miaphysitism, miaphysites  106, 113, 440 Michael (archangel)  84 Michael Cerularius, patriarch  93, 104 Michael I, emperor  86 Michael III, emperor  85–7 Michael I Romanov, tsar  341 Michael VIII Palaeologus, emperor  96–7 Micronesia  404, 406, 475, 477, see also particular islands Milan  5, 24–5, 43, 49, 57–8, 69, 146, 294, 533–4 Military monastic orders  176–7, 225 Mill, John  333 millennialism, millenarian, chiliasm  260–1, 264 Miller, William  379 Mills, Samuel J.  400 Miltades, pope  30, 129 Miltiades, apologist  11–12, 18, 526 Miltitz, Karl von  239 Milvian Bridge, Rome  25 Mindanão island  405 Ming dynasty, China  125, 421

Index

miracles  18, 45, 115, 137, 149, 259, 329, 331–3, 389, 430, 517, 565, 573, 577, 613, 623, 634, 636, 663, 692–3, 715, 725, 730, 750 Mississippi River  355 Missouri, United States  382, 450 Missouri River  355, 359 Missouri Synod (Lutheran), see Lutheran Church— Missouri Synod Mizoram, India  493 Modernist-Fundamentalist controversy  381, 451 modern science, see scientific method Moffat, Robert  409–10 Mogrovejo, Toribio Alfonso de  315 Mokone, Mangena M.  410 Molay, Jacques de  177 Moldova  434 Moltmann, Jürgen  461–2 Molucca islands  310 Mombasa kingdom (in Kenya)  317 monarchianism, dynamic  44–5 monarchianism, modal  44–5 monarchical bishop  4 Monastery of the Holy Trinity (in Sergiev Posad)  102 monasticism, monk  3, 7, 33, 37–43, 61–2, 66, 69–71, 77, 79, 81, 84, 86–90, 92, 97–9, 101–3, 106, 108, 111, 117, 119–20, 122, 124, 130, 137, 143–5, 147, 150–1, 153, 156, 158–9, 161, 164, 176–7, 179–82, 186–7, 192–3, 201–3, 205, 215, 218–19, 221, 223, 225–7, 231, 233, 245, 249–50, 259, 268, 272, 276, 292, 294, 300, 323, 341–3, 355, 401, 440, 442, 469, 539–40, 569, 572, 574, 576–7, 597–8, 644–5, 648, 739 Möngke Khan  124 Mongolia, Mongols  96–7, 100, 115–17, 119, 122–5, 127, 129, 207, 426, 615n. 7 Monica (mother of Augustine)  69 Monk, see monasticism, monk monophysitism  64–5, 67, 73, 94, 113, 118, 440 monotheism  26, 80, 84, 111, 331, 692 Montanus, Montanism  13, 18, 27, 31 Monte Cassino  144–5 Montesinos, Antonio de  314 Montreal, Canada  355, 467 Moody, Dwight L.  380–1, 398, 400 Moral Majority  465 Moravia  85–6, 260, 620 Moravians-United Brethren, Unitas Fratrum, Moravians  261, 335, 337–8, 366, 377, 387, 409, 419, 421, 483 Mordvins, Mordvinians  309 More, Hannah  338, 340 More, Sir Thomas  268, 292

Index

Mor Hananyo Monastery  108 moriscos  310 Mormons  406 Morocco  71, 130, 413, 488 moros  310 Morrison, Robert  422–3 Morse, Jedidiah  364 Moscow  99–100, 102, 104, 323–4, 341–2, 435, 437 Moses  17, 51, 111, 537–8, 541, 550–1, 634, 661, 664, 683, 689, 719 Moses Maimonides  197 Mosheim, Johann von  332 Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin  118–19 Mother Teresa (Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu)  429, 493 Mount Athos, see Athos, Mount Mozambique  316–17, 411, 483 Muhammad  80, 84, 132 Muhlenberg, Henry Melchior Muhlenberg  361–2 Munich, Germany  352, 439 Münster, Münsterites  259, 264 Müntzer, Thomas  244, 258–9 Muratorian Canon  32, 525 Murner, Thomas  292 Murray, John  365–6 Muslims, see Islam Mussolini, Benito  352, 428, 431 Mutesa I, king  411 Mweru, lake  408 Myanmar  429, 494 Myconius, see Geisshüsler, Oswald mystery, sacrament, see Sacrament, mystery mysticism, mystics  15, 90, 215–17, 223–4, 294, 739, 748 Nagaland, India  493 Nagasaki  323, 424, 498–9 Nag Hammadi  14 Nagpur, India  419 Nairobi, Kenya  467 Nanking, China  421 Napoléon Bonaparte  349, 354 Napoleón III  352 Narcissus of Neronias  46 Narsai of Nisibis  111 National Baptist Convention  377 National Catholic War Council, see National Catholic Welfare Conference National Catholic Welfare Conference  442 National Christian Council (in China)  424 National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA  467 nationalism  92, 125, 205–6, 208–9, 226, 230, 239, 323, 342, 428, 435, 477, 488, 491, 494, 498

835

National Missionary Council, Philippines, see Philippine Federation of Evangelical Churches National Missionary Council of Australia  476 National Socialist Party, see Nazi, Nazi Party, National Socialist Party Naum of Preslav  86 Nauvoo, Illinois, United States  379 Navigator islands  406 Nazareth  3, 608, 651, 694, 725, 732, 751, 756–7 Nazi, Nazi Party, National Socialist Party  428–9, 431, 433, 443, 469 Neander, Johann August Wilhelm  389 Near East Christian Council  490 Negative theology, see Apophatic Negomo Chirisamhuru  316 neo-orthodoxy  429–30, 450, 460–1 neo-Platonism  81, 88, 94, 158, 224, see also Plato, Platonism Neri, Philip  292–3 Nero, emperor  22, 24 Nestorianism, Nestorians  39, 61, 64–5, 73, 106, 107–8, 111, 119–22, 124, 129, 569, 614 Nestorian Stele  119–22, 129, 569 Nestorius of Syria  39, 64–4, 66, 106–7, 111, 113–14, 119, 559, 567, 569–70, 573 Netherlands  151, 230, 306, 348, 354, 366, 392–3, 407, 417, 465, 467 Netherlands Missionary Society  400 Nevin, John W.  375 New Amsterdam, see New York City New Caledonia  406 New Delhi, India  467 New Divinity theology, New England theology  364 New England  283, 356, 359, 364, 366–7, 373 New Granada (later Colombia)  312, 402 New Guinea, see Papua New Guinea New Haven  356 New Jersey  356, 359, 361 New Jerusalem  18, 223, 264, 715, 755 new lights  361 Newman, John Henry  395–6 New Netherlands, see New York New Orleans, United States  355, 710 Newport  356 New Rome, see Constantinople New South Wales  404 New Sweden  356 Newton, Isaac  328 Newton, John  338 New World  27, 181, 231, 281, 286, 294, 297, 311, 313–16, 318, 324, 326, 354, 366, 400, 402, 471, 630, see also particular countries

836

New York, New Netherlands  335, 356, 359, 366, 381, 439, 466 New York City, New Amsterdam  356, 439 New Zealand  404–5, 419, 475–7 New Zealand Company  405 Ngami, lake  408 Nguema, Francisco Macías  488 Nicaea, Council of, see Nicea, Council of Nicaea II, Council of  84, 89, 107, 570 Nicaragua  311, 474 Nicea, Council of (325)  31, 34, 45–9, 67, 106–7, 116, 139, 535, 542, 564, 572, 682, 745 Nicea II, Council of, see Nicaea II, Council of Nicene Creed, Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed  45–9, 53–5, 66, 87 Nicephorus Phocas, emperor  89 Nicholas I, pope  86, 598 Nicobar island  421 Niebuhr, H. Richard  461 Niebuhr, Reinhold  460, 698, 708 Niemõller, Martin  433 Niger  413 Nigeria  412–13, 486 nihilism  344 Nihon Kirisuto Kyo-dan  499 Nikita Minin, see Nikon Nikodimos of the Holy Mountain  343 Nikolsburg  260 Nikon (Nikita Minin)  341 Nile River  6, 40–1, 407–8 Nil Sorsky (or Nilus of Sora)  101 Ninety-Five Theses  232, 236–7 Nisan 14 (Passover)  30–1 Nisibis  106–7, 111 Nitria, Nitrium, desert  40, 70 Nobel Peace Prize  482, 493 Nobili, Roberto de (Robert)  319, 323, 666 Nóbrega, Manoel de  312 Nobunaga, Oda  323 Noetus  44 nominalism  215 non-possessors  323 Normandy  162, 168, 193, 612 Normans  93, 95, 162 North Africa  23, 28–30, 32, 79–80, 129–30, 138, 290, 310, 413–14, 428, 488, see also particular countries North America  281, 283, 315, 354–5, 364, 373, 381, 439, 450, 461, 501–2, see also particular countries North Avenue Mission, Chicago  452 North Carolina  359 Northern Rhodesia, see Zambia Northern Territory  404

Index

North Korea  500 Northumberland, see Dudley, John Northumbria  119, 151, 153 North Yemen, see Yemen Norway  393, 410, 452 Nouvelle Théologie  444 Nova Scotia  412 Novatian, Novatianism  6, 27–9, 31, 61, 567 Novgorod  341 Ntaryamira, Cyprien  483 Nubia  132–3, 135, 138 Nurnberg, Germany  245, 250, 260 Nyasaland, see Malawi Nyerere, Julius  483–4 Nzinga a Nkuwu, João I  316–17 Nzinga Henrique  316 Nzinga Mbemba (Mvemba Nzinga), Afonso I  316 Obama, Barak  460 obeah  385 Oberlin College  369 oblates  345 Ob River  426 Oceania  327, 402, 427, 475, 480, 501, see also particular countries Ochino, Bernardino  258, 274 Oden, Thomas  464 Oduyoye, M. A.  464 Oekalampadius, see Hussgen, Johann O’Higgins, Bernardo  402–3 Ohio, United States  160, 367 Oklahoma, United States  450 Old Believers, see Raskols old lights  361 Old Lutherans  392 Old Ritualists, see Raskols Old Roman Creed  54 Old Scottish Independents  336 Olga of Kiev, queen  89–90, 100 Oman  416, 492 Ontario, Canada  384 ontological argument for God’s existence  194, 601 Orange, Council of  71 Oratorians, see Congregation of the Oratory of Jesus and Mary Immaculate Oratory of Divine Love  292 Orbais Abbey  160–1 Order of Discalced Carmelitesses  294 Order of Discalced Franciscans  294 Order of Preachers, see Dominicans ordination, see holy orders Oregon, United Sates  311

Index

Oriental Orthodox Churches  6, 107, 113, 118, 131, 416, 440, 469, 489, 491–2 Origenism  33, 38, 70 Origen of Alexandria  9, 24, 31–2, 35–7, 45, 58–9, 81, 130, 157, 159, 529–30, 764 original sin  27, 67, 213, 366, 372, 389, 536, 648, 699–700, 723 Orissa, India  419 Orleans  206, 253 Orontes River  37 Orthodox Churches  341–4, 435–40, see also other sections Orthodox Church in America (Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in North America)  439 Orthodox Syrian Church  128, 440 Ostrogoths  139, 150 Ostyaks  426 Ottoman Empire (or Ottoman Turks)  97, 102, 116, 119, 211, 309, 318, 416, 428, 435 Our Lady of Guadalupe  311 Oxford, England  467, see also Oxford University Oxford, Massachusetts, United States  366 Oxford movement  396, 399 Oxford University  194, 203, 213–14, 224, 337–8, 396, 626 Pachomius (Pachum), Rule of Pachomius  38, 41 Pacific School of Religion  471 pacifism  246, 259, 261, 264–5, 364, 460, 499 Packer, J. I.  464 Padilla, C. René  472 Paine, Thomas  319 Pakistan  416, 493–4 Pal, Krishna  417–18 Palaeologian dynasty  96–7, 102–3 Palatinate Catechism, see Heidelberg Catechism Palayur church, India  128 Palestine, Palestinians  xxiv, 32–3, 37, 41–2, 50–1, 68, 80, 108, 169, 173–5, 246, 416, 490–1, 702, see also Israel; Jordan Palestine Liberation Organization  491 Paley, William  330–1 Palmer, Elihu  329 Palmer, Phoebe  375 Panamá  311, 402, 474 Pannenburg, Wolfhart  461 Pantaenus of Alexandria  34–5, 72, 126 papacy (or Bishop of Rome)  48, 64, 66, 93, 96, 102, 146–51, 155, 161, 164–8, 177, 183–4, 205, 208–10, 214, 220–1, 225–6, 230–1, 234, 238–40, 242, 250, 268, 270, 276, 286, 294, 298, 301, 326, 346, 349–50, 352–4, 443–4, 448, 450, 469, 599, 607, 628–30, 641, 688

837

papal authority, see papal supremacy papal infallibility, see Dogma of the Infallibility of the Papacy papal legate  64, 66, 238, 242, 268, 270, 276 Papal States (or Republic of St. Peter)  150, 155, 183–4, 205, 298, 349, 352–3, 443 papal supremacy  48, 64, 87, 93, 96, 102, 147, 149, 150, 156, 183, 250, 276, 298, 301, 350, 450, 607, 628–30, 688 Papias of Hierapolis  9, 531 Papua New Guinea  406–7, 477 Paraguay  402, 474 Parham, Charles Fox  450–1 Paris  98, 179, 188, 194–5, 200–3, 211, 213, 253, 296, 307, 400, 439, 665 Paris Evangelical Missionary Society, see Société des missions évangéliques de Paris Parker, Matthew  278–9 Parliament, English  225, 270, 272, 274–6, 279, 283, 285, 356, 384, 653, 669 Parliament, Scottish  279 Parr, Catherine  272 Pascal, Blaise  345, 676–9 Paschal controversy, Quartodeciman controversy  12, 30–1, 48 Pastor, Adam  258, 266 Patricius  69, 568 Patrick of Ireland  43 patripassianism, see Sabellius, Sabellianism Paul (Saul of Tarsus, apostle)  3–5, 13, 16–17, 21, 24, 28, 30–4, 37, 46, 60, 88, 149, 164, 209, 294, 333, 388, 390, 519–20, 522, 525–6, 532, 543, 547, 549, 551, 555, 561, 571, 591, 629, 636, 644–8, 650, 656–7, 659, 661, 663, 671, 683–4, 689, 691–2, 698–9, 720, 725, 745–6, 751–2, 754–6, 762–3 Paul, hermit  40 Paula  33 Paulicians  94 Paul III, pope  294, 296, 298–9, 301 Paulinus  33, 46, 562 Paul IV, pope  276, 294, 301 Paul of Samosata  45 Paulus, Heinrich Eberhard Gottlob  388 Paul VI, pope  94, 131, 138, 444, 447–8 Paumotu islands  406 Pbou  41 Peace of Augsburg  300–1, 307, 658 Peace of the Church  346 Peace of Westphalia  308, 324, 326 Peasant’s crusade  172 Peasants Revolt  245, 259, 264 Pedro I, Portuguese king  403–4

838

Pelagius, Pelagianism  33, 62–4, 67–9, 71, 159, 557, 567 Pelagius II, pope  147 Pellicanus, see Kursherer, Conrad penance, see confession Penhryn islands  406 Penn, William  356–7 Pennsylvania  335, 356, 366 Pentecost  4, 27, 63–4, 110, 584, 725, 733 Pentecostal, charismatic  375, 377, 385, 429, 434, 450–2, 454, 465, 469–76, 479, 483, 485–7, 489, 493, 497, 500, 502 Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada  452 Pentecostal Assemblies of the World  454 Pentecostal Holiness Church  454 People’s Republic of China  495 People’s Temple  465 Pepin the Short, king  142–3, 150, 154–5 Pepuza  18 Perpetua, martyr  24, 592 persecution  18, 21–6, 28–32, 34, 37, 48, 72, 80, 84, 94, 110, 114, 119, 122, 125, 127–9, 132, 137–8, 141, 184, 225, 227, 239, 246, 258–9, 265, 274, 279, 283, 285–6, 301, 308, 310, 323, 328, 342, 346, 356, 392, 398, 411, 415, 421–2, 424, 426, 433–5, 443, 469, 479, 488, 490, 494, 496, 500–1, 524, 533–5, 550, 651, 717–18, 720, 735, 757 perseverance of the saints, see TULIP Persia  19, 34, 72, 75, 79, 81, 104, 106–7, 110–15, 119–20, 122–4, 126–7, 132, 169, 198, 418, 492, 568–9, 634, see also Iran Persian Gulf  106, 492 Peru  311–12, 402, 467, 471–2 Peshitta  33, 106 Peter, apostle  5, 9, 12–13, 24, 29–32, 67, 130, 147, 150, 164–5, 209, 512, 525, 531–2, 537, 540, 543, 545, 561, 591–2, 599, 629, 636–7, 641, 644, 651–2, 661, 688, 717, 720, 754 Peter II, patriarch of Alexandria  53 Peter I the Great (Pyotr I), tsar  326, 342–3, 345, 426 Peter Lombard  188 Peter Mogila, metropolitan (Pyotr Mogila)  341 Peter of Alcántara (Pedro de Alcántara)  290, 294 Petersburg  342 Peter the Hermit  172 Pew Research Center, Pew Forum  470–1, 497 Philadelphia, Asia Minor  8–9, 18 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States  366 Philip, apostle  30, 591 Philip, evangelist  134, 531, 652 Philip II (Felipe II), Spanish king  276, 279, 281, 300–1 Philip II Augustus of France, king  175

Index

Philip II of Macedon  631 Philip IV of France, king  177 Philip Melanchthon  237–8, 245, 304, 649–50 Philip of Hesse  245–6 Philippi, Asia Minor  4, 8–9, 520, 526, 591, 661 Philippi, F. A.  388 Philippine Federation of Evangelical Churches  479 Philippine Independent Church, see Iglesia Filipina Independiente Philippines, Filipinos  310, 320, 404–5, 476–7, 479, 490 Philips, Dirk  264, 267 Philips, Obbe  264, 266 Philogonius of Antioch  46 Philokalia  343 Philo of Alexandria  34 Photian Schism  86–7, 92 Photinus  567 Photius of Constantinople  86–7, 93, 104, 599 Phrygia  18 Picardy  159 Pietism  333, 335–6, 340, 361, 392–3, 416 Pilate, or Pontius Pilate  233, 512, 514–15, 548 pilgrimage, pilgrims  78, 168–9, 171, 173, 175–6, 178, 183, 249–50, 292, 296, 416, 611, 657, 710, 716 Pimen, partriarch  437, 750 Pinnock, Clark  464, 751–3 Pinufius, monk  41 Pisa, Council of  210 Pitcairn island  406 Pius IV, pope  300–1 Pius IX, pope  350–3, 448 Pius V, pope  279 Pius VI, pope  349 Pius VII, pope  349–50 Pius X, pope  441–3 Pius XI, pope  443 Pius XII, pope  431, 443 Pizarro, Francisco  311–12 Plato, Platonism  17, 59, 81, 179–200, 202, 208, 215, 527, 548, 550, 557, 671, 699, 739–40, see also Neoplatonism Platon II (Platon Levshim)  342, 681 plenary indulgence  171, 631 Pliny the Younger  22–4, 509–10 PLO, see Palestine Liberation Organization pluralism (holding multiple dioceses)  230, 234, 299 Pluralism (religious)  734–6, 746–53 Plütschau, Heinrich  416 Pole, Reginald  276–7, 292 Polemon, gnostic disciple of Noetus  44 Pol Pot  494

Index

Polycarp of Smyrna  8–11, 13, 24, 30, 524–5 Polycrates of Ephesus  30 Polynesia  404, 475, 477, see also particular islands polytheism  133, 331, 692, 724, 748 Pombal, Marquis of (Sebastião José de Carvalho e Melo)  347–8 Pontus  16 Popovsty (Raskol subgroup)  342 Porfirio Díaz, José de la Cruz Mori  401 Porto Alegre, Brazil  467 Portsmouth, Massachusetts  356 Portugal, Portuguese  xxvii, 126, 128, 141, 230–1, 281, 286, 297, 309–10, 312, 316–20, 322–4, 348, 400–1, 407, 409, 411, 413, 416–17, 483, 487, 489 Portuguese East Africa, see Mozambique Portuguese Guinea, see Guinea-Bissau Possessors  323 Praxeus, disciple of gnostic Noetus  44 Prayer Union  466 preaching, preachers  xxiv, xxvi, 4, 13, 16–17, 27, 33–4, 37–9, 45, 51, 57, 61–2, 69, 72, 80, 133, 137, 153, 155, 171, 173, 180, 186–7, 217–18, 221, 223, 225, 232, 242, 245, 247, 249–51, 254–5, 260, 264–5, 275, 279, 296, 299, 304, 310, 314–15, 327, 332, 335–8, 340, 343, 355, 359, 361, 364, 366–7, 369–70, 379, 381–3, 399, 407–8, 416, 419, 422, 426, 450–2, 454, 458, 460, 465, 468, 471, 473, 487, 511, 522, 536, 549–50, 568, 570, 580–1, 594, 598, 626–8, 637–42, 644, 649, 651–2, 661, 670, 680, 715, 720–22, 753, 756 Preaching of Peter  12 predestination  15, 17, 71, 158–9, 161, 244, 306, 372, 521, 620–57, 672–3 Presbyterian Church, Presbyterians  279, 283, 336, 359, 361, 364, 366, 377, 381, 398, 401, 404, 409, 414, 419, 421–2, 426, 458, 464–5, 468, 479–80, 486, 492, 494, 500–1 Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States of America, see Presbyterian Church in the United States Presbyterian Church in the United States  377 Presbyterian Church in the United States of America  377 Presbyterian Church of Canada  465 Presbyterian Church of East Africa  501 Prester John, king  125 Prierias, Sylvester  238 Priestley, Joseph  332 Primera Junta, La  402 Princeton, College of New Jersey  361, 370, 375, 727 Principe island  415, 489 Prisca, Montanist prophetess  18

839

prophesy  17–18, 27, 31, 44–5, 54, 80, 136, 203, 223, 257, 259, 264, 331, 343, 398, 484–7, 508–9, 519, 521–2, 524, 526, 536–7, 548–9, 560, 566–7, 576, 582, 584–5, 594–5, 597–8, 642–3, 651, 655, 660–1, 663, 682–4, 689–90, 703, 715, 719, 722, 724–6, 729–30, 750, 754, 756, 762 protectorate, protector (for England)  274–5, 285, 669 Protestant Episcopal Church  364, 375 providence, divine  219, 221, 527, 545, 546, 680, 682, 689, 718 providence, Rhode Island, United States  356 Provoost, Samuel  366 Prussia  12, 348, 353, 390, 392 Pseudipigrapha  32 Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (or Dionysius, or Denys)  81, 88, 98, 157, 224 Puebla, Mexico  472 Puerto Rico  404, 473 Pulcheria, regent  63, 66–7 purgatory  148, 170–2, 210, 221, 233–4, 237 Puritan Commonwealth  285–6 Puritans  279, 283, 285–6, 356 Pusey, Edward Bouverie  396 Putnam, George  373 Pyongyang Revival (Korean Awakening)  500 Qatar  416 Qianlong emperor (Aisin-Gioro Hongli)  421 Qing dynasty  421, 425, 496 Quadratus  10, 12 Quakers  356, 359, 364, 366, 373, 377, 398, 404, see also Society of Friends Quebec  355, 384, 465 Queensland  404 Qumran  39 Quran  310, see also Koran Radbertus, Paschasius  159 Radical Reformation  xxvi, 250, 257–67, 324 Radio  429, 471 Ragot, Mariam  484 Rahner, Karl  444 Raikes, Robert  340 Ramabai, Pandita  419 Ranavalona II, queen  415 Rangoon  420, see also Yangon Raphael Sanzio da Urbino  146 Rapture, the  398, 459 Raskols, Old Ritualists, Old Believers  342 Rastislav of Moravia, king  85, 598, 620 rationalism  200, 327–8, 349, 359 Ratramnus of Corbie  159, 161

840

Ratzinger, Joseph  217, 444, 448–9, 473, 762, see also Benedict XVI, pope Rauschenbusch, Walter  382 Ravenna  5, 66, 146, 210 Rea, Robert F.  xxx–v, xxv, xxviii, 3, 230, 326, 428 real presence of Christ in Communion 159, 167, 184, 244, 393, 627 recapitulation, doctrine of  13, 34 reconciliation  57, 136, 189, 387, 395, 650, 655, 692, 715, 747, see also confession Red Sea 106, 541 Reimarus, Hermann Samuel 333 Reinhard, Anna 249 relics  78, 126, 149, 171, 178, 224, 234, 237, 242, 244, 620 Relief Presbyterian Church 336 Religion of Mary church 484 Reliquary of Antiquity 150, 157 Remonstrants 306, 668–9 Renaissance  74, 97–8, 104, 150, 159, 169, 179, 205, 222, 230, 630 Republic of Congo 411–13, 485–6 respectful silence 346 Reublin, William 261 Réunion island 489 Revolutionary War (United States) 364 Reyes, Gabriel M. 479 Rhine River 260 Rhode Island 356, 366 Rhodes, Alexandre de 319 Rhodes, Greece 369 Ricci, Matteo (Matthew) 322 Richard III Lionheart of England, king 175 Richelieu (Armand Jean du Plessis), cardinal 345 Rimini 50 Ritschl, Albrecht 390 Robart, Emma 466 Robertson, Frederick William 395 Robertson, Pat (Marion Gordon Robertson) 465 Rodriques island 415 Rogerius, Abraham 416 Rogers, John 276 Roman Catholic Church, Roman Catholics  xxvi, 6, 79, 84, 102, 110, 124, 131, 217, 251, 258, 265, 268, 272–81, 286, 290, 296–313, 316, 319–22, 324, 326–9, 342–56, 366, 384–5, 396, 401–17, 420–4, 426–7, 429, 434, 440–50, 465, 469–501 Roman Empire  4–7, 16, 19, 21, 23–6, 41, 43, 59, 71–2, 74, 76–7, 79–80, 84, 96, 102–4, 111, 114, 118–19, 129, 131, 134, 138–41, 146, 150, 173–4, 179–80, 248, 331, 597, 614, 710 Romania 308, 343, 433–5, 439–40

Index

Romanian Orthodox Church 435 Roman Missal  77, 92, 148, 591 Romanov, Feodor Nikitich 341, see also Filaret (Feodor Nikitich Romanov), patriarch romanticism 349, 385, 395, 728 Rome, city  4–9, 11–13, 16, 18, 20–4, 28–33, 37, 42, 44–8, 53–9, 63–72, 75–7, 79, 82, 85, 87, 93, 102–4, 111, 114, 118, 130, 136, 138, 141, 143, 146–50, 154–7, 161, 167, 169, 173, 183, 208–10, 220, 231, 233, 234, 238–40, 247, 270–2, 276, 281, 286, 292, 294–6, 300, 308, 319, 323–4, 331, 341–2, 346, 349, 352, 509–10, 525–6, 535–6, 548, 598, 620, 625–7, 631 Rose, Hugh James 396 Rotuma island 406 Rowlands, Daniel 336 Ruanda 483, see also Rwanda Ruether, Rosemary Radford 464 Rufinus of Aquileia  33, 42, 59, 134, 567 Rule of Augustine 69 Rule of St. Benedict  70, 144, 155 Rum Millet  309 Russell, Charles Taze 379 Russell, Letty M. 364, 761 Russia  74, 86, 89–90, 92, 100–2, 104, 115, 123, 308–9, 323, 326, 341–2, 344, 348, 353, 390, 414, 416, 422, 425, 426, 428, 434, 437, 439–40, 471, 492, 496, 499–501, 682 Russian Orthodox Church  90, 323, 342, 414, 435, 437, 439, 681 Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia 438–39 Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in America, see Orthodox Church in America Ruysbroeck, John 223 Rwanda 411, 483–4 Ryuku islands 424 Sabellius, Sabellianism  44–5, 48–9, 567, see also Monarchianism, modal sacrament, mystery  18, 28–9, 31, 78–9, 149, 159, 167, 188–90, 226, 230–1, 240, 268, 313, 364, 393, 450, 507–9, 515, 532, 540–2, 557, 587, 589–90, 610, 612, 627, 637, 639, 645–8, 652, 656, 663–4, 670–1, 673–5, 683–4, 697–8, 701, 716, 721, 732, 742–3, 755, 757–8 Sadat, Anwar 488 Sahara  74, 407, 480, 488, 490 St. Andrews, Scotland 279 St. Augustine, Florida, United States 312 St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre 307 St. Basil’s Cathedral, Moscow 100, 102 St. Cyril’s Monastery, Vologda Oblast 101

Index

Saint-Denis chapel 296 Saint—for names of places that begin with Saint, see St. St. Gall, canton 251 St. Helena island 415, 489 St. Mammas Monastery 90 St. Peter’s Basilica, Rome 156, 234, 640, 642 Saints, cult of 78 Saints’ days  78, 83–4, 86–7, 90, 104, 110–11, 137, 149, 153, 183, 190–1, 203, 206, 217–19, 234, 249–50, 311, 493, 571, 585, 590–2, 597–8, 640, 657, see also Saints, cult of St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute 439 St. Theodore, Switzerland 248 St. Thomas, island 366 St. Thomas Christians 318, 417 St. Thomas Mountain 126 St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary 439 Saladin of Egypt 174–5 Salamanca, Spain 296 Samaria  11–13 Samoa 406, 477 Samson, Bernardino 249 Samuel the Confessor, patriarch 132 Sandeman, Robert 336 Sankey, Ira 380–1 San Martín, José de 402 Sanskrit, language 319, 417, 666 Santa Cruz islands 406 Santa Fé, United States 312 Santiago, Chile 473 Santiago de Compostela, Spain 467 São João (Shangchuan) island 320–2 São Paulo, Brazil 473 São Salvador (modern M’banza-Kongo), Angola 316 São Tomé and Príncipe 415, 489 Sardica 49 Sardinia 310, 352 Sassanid dynasty  72, 79, 112 Sattler, Michael 259 Saturninus (or Satornil), gnostic  15–16 Saudi Arabia  72, 80, 416, 492 Savage islands, Selvagens islands 406 Savonarola, Girolamo 221, 223, 292–3 Saxony, Saxons 141, 150, 155, 161, 223, 234, 245–6, 300 Scandinavia 100, 162, 180, 335, 393–4, 399, see also particular countries Schaeffer, Francis 464 Schaff, Philip 374–5 Scharau, Henrik 393 Schell, Hermann 442

841

Schillebeeckx, Edward 444, 446, 722, 751 Schleiermacher, Friedrich 387, 394–5, 685–6, 728 Schleitheim Confession 259 Schmalkaldic Articles  246, 304 Schmemann, Dimitrievich (Alexander Schmemann) 439, 742–3 Schmidt, George 409 Schmucker, Samuel Simon 373 Scholastica of Nursia 144 scholasticism 180–1, 191, 193, 196–7, 205, 208, 211, 215–16, 218, 222, 224, 226, 657 School of Nisibis 111 Schüssler-Fiorenza, Elisabeth 464 Schütz, Roger (Brother Roger) 469, 760–1 Schwarz, Christian Friedrich 416 Schweizer, Albert 412 Schwyz, canton 249, 251 scientific method, inductive method, modern science 203, 326–7, 340 Scofield, C. I. 459 Scofield Reference Bible 459 Scopes, John T. 457–8 Scotland, Scots, Scottish 141, 150–2, 182, 213, 279–83, 304, 324, 331, 336, 340, 354, 359, 392, 398–9, 404, 411, 419, 467, 598, 669–71 Scots Confession 304 Scott, Walter, evangelist 368–9 Scottish Missionary Society 399 Scotus, John Duns 213–14, 216, 290, 763 Scripture, canon of  3–4, 9, 17–18, 31–3, 39, 47, 72, 135, 138, 227, 525–6, 560–1, 567, 660–2, 679 Scripture, exegesis, interpretation (incl. literal, allegorical, typological, anagogical/tropological/ moral) 3, 10, 12, 27, 31, 34–9, 45, 57, 61, 69, 72, 95, 111, 159, 181, 430, 446, 464, 550, 567, 662–3, 726–31, 739, 752–3, 761–2 Scripture, exegetical schools (incl. Alexandrian and Antiochene/Antiochian)  34–9 Scripture, translations of  32–4 Scrooby, England 356 Scythia Minor 70 Seabury, Samuel 366 Second Adam  6–7, 13, 34, 61 Second Council of Constantinople (or Constantinople II, or the Fifth Ecumenical Council), see Constantinople II, Council of Second Council of Lyon, see Lyon, Second Council of Second Council of Nicaea (or Nicaea II, or the Seventh Ecumenical Council), see Nicaea II, Council of Second Crusade  95, 173–4 Second Great Awakening 326, 364, 367, 370, 385, 417

842

Second Lateran Council 180 Second Vatican Council, see Vatican II Secundus, fourth century bishop 48 Segundo, Juan Luís 472 Seleucia  50–1, 107, 114 Selim I, sultan 318 Selina, Countess of Huntingdon 337, 339 Semler, Johann Salomo 333, 338, 727 Senegal 413, 487–8 Separatists 281, 335, 356 Septimus Severus, emperor  23–4, 34 Septuagint  31, 763 Serampore, Serampore College 417, 419 Seraphim of Sarov 343–4 Serbia  95, 308, 343, 434–5, 439–40 Serbia and Montenegro 434 Serbian Orthodox Church 434–5, 440 Sergius, metropolitan 435–6, 439 Servetus, Michael 256–8 Seventh-Day Adventists 379, 406, 483 Severus (Valerius Severus), tetrarchy emperor 25 Severus Alexander, emperor 23 Seychelles islands 415, 489 Seymour, Claude 450 Seymour, Edward (Somerset) 273–4 Seymour, Jane 272 Seymour, William J. 451–2 Shakespeare, William 206 Shapur II, shah 72 Sharp, Granville 413 Sheba 136, 414 Sheen, Fulton 429 Shelekhov, Grigory I. 426 Shenouda III of Alexandria, patriarch 131, 138 Shi’a 491 Shorter, Aylward 484 Siam, see Thailand Siberia 102, 426 Sic et Non  196 Sicily  34, 79, 93, 95, 162, 297, 310 Sickingen, Franz von 239, 242 Sierra Leone 412, 487 Sikhism 318 Silas (evangelist)  4 Silveira, Gonçalo da 316 Simeon, Jesus’s brother  23–4 Simeon, stylite 42 Simon Bar Kokhba 23 Simon Magus (Simon the Magician)  13–15, 165, 231 Simon of Cyrene  16, 517 Simons, Gertrude 266–7 Simons, Menno, see Menno Simons

Index

Simon the Magician, see Simon Magus Simony 165, 231, 294, 628 Sin, Jaime, cardinal 479 Sinai, Mount  82, 308 Sino-Japanese War, Second 495 Sirmium  50, 563 Six-Day War 490–91 Sixtus I (Xystus I), pope  30, 591 Sixtus II (Xystus II), pope 24 Sixtus III (Xystus III), pope  64–5 Sixtus IV (Xystus VI), pope 630–1 slavery, slaves  9, 13, 23–4, 26, 33, 304, 309, 313–17, 324, 337–8, 340, 361, 366, 369–70, 377, 400, 408–9, 411–12, 499, 510, 517, 529, 547, 551, 564–5, 584, 607, 643, 691, 699, 703, 717, 732, 740, 745, 756 Slavophile movement 344 Slovakia, Slovak 433–4, 440 Slovenia 141, 434 Smith, John 635–6 Smith, Joseph Jr. 378–9 Smyrna  8–9, 11, 30, 44, 511–13 Smyth, John 335 Soares, R. R. 474–5 Sobrino, Jon 472 social gospel 382, 385, 454, 465 socialism, communism, community of goods 261, 428, 433–4, 437, 444, 460, 494 social justice, human injustice 353, 382, 399, 465, 468, 471, 719 Societas Jesu, Society of Jesus, Jesuits 294–7, 300, 303, 311–12, 316–20, 322–3, 346, 348, 350, 354–5, 359, 366, 407, 421, 425, 450, 472 Société des missions évangéliques de Paris (Paris Evangelical Missionary Society) 400, 421 Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge 359 Society for the Propagation of the Faith 354 Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts 359 Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in New England 359 Society islands 477 Society of Friends, Quakers, Friends 335, 356, 359, 364, 366, 373, 377, 398, 404, 464 Socino, Faustus 258 Socrates, philosopher 671, 708, 710, 763 Socrates Scholasticus  45, 134 Sofala and Tete, see Mozambique Sohyeon (or So-hyun) 425 Solomon, king  32, 135–6, 172–3, 176–7, 414, 520, 526–7, 536, 559–60, 623–6, 660 Solomon islands 406, 477 Solovyov, Vladimir 344

Index

Somalia, Somalis 414, 489 Somascan Regular Clerics, see Congregation of Regular Clerics Somerset, see Seymour, Edward Song, C. S. (Choan-Seng Song) 421, 703–4 Songhai Empire 316 Son of God, God the Son 3, 7, 43–6, 48–52, 54–5, 59, 62, 71, 78, 87, 92, 155, 507, 512, 515, 519–20, 522–3, 528–9, 532, 535, 537, 541–2, 545–6, 548, 552–5, 561–6, 573, 579–81, 588, 595–6, 605–7, 635, 646–7, 661, 668–9, 672, 682, 694, 715–16, 723–4, 732–3, 744–6, 753, 755–6, 758 Soong Mei-ling 495 Sophia, gnostic myth figure  14–16, 516 Sorghoghtani (princess, wife of Tolui) 124 South Africa 400, 409–10, 452, 480, 482 South America 311–12, 366, 384, 402, 404, 471, 474, 710, see also particular countries Southampton, Massachusetts, United States 361 South Carolina, United States 359 Southern Rhodesia, see Zimbabwe South Korea 490, 499–501 South Sudan 133, 488 South Vietnam, see Vietnam South Yemen, see Yemen Soviet Union 428, 433–5, 492, 499, 501 Spain, Spanish  xxvi, 74, 76, 80, 92, 139, 141–2, 148, 155, 162, 169, 175, 180, 184–6, 205, 230–1, 239, 242, 268, 270, 276, 279, 281, 286, 290, 296–7, 299–301, 303, 309–10, 312–16, 318, 320, 323–4, 326, 348, 355, 367, 385, 400–2, 404, 407, 415, 426–7, 467, 472, 474, 486, 489, 525, 630–2 Spalatin, George 238 Spanish–American War 404 Spanish Armada  281, 286, 309, 324, 355 Spanish Guiana, see Guyana Spener, Philipp Jakob  333–5 Speyer, Germany  245–6 spice trade  136, 178, 630 Spinoza, Baruch 328 Spiritual Exercises  295–6, 656–8 Spirituality, asceticism  xxvi, xxviii, 3, 6–7, 27, 33, 39–43, 47, 50–1, 67–70, 73, 84, 88–9, 90, 95, 97–8, 101–2, 106, 117, 120, 130, 135, 137, 144, 147, 152, 159, 164, 167, 180–1, 186–7, 209, 215, 219–21, 223, 234, 247, 286, 290–1, 294–6, 326, 338, 342–4, 435, 437, 465, 469, 497, 544, 578, 610, 635, 656–8, 671, 679, 686, 703–4, 722, 734, 740, 742 Sri Lanka  72, 127, 316, 319, 420, 494 Standonck, Jan  292 Stanley, Arthur Penrhyn  395 Stanley, Henry M.  410–11

843

Startsi (Russia)  90 Staupitz, Johann von  234, 238 Stephanou, Eusebius A. 440 Stephen, martyr 37, 190, 545, 592 Stephen I, bishop of Rome  29 Stockbridge, Massachusetts, United States 361 Stockholm, Sweden  466–7 Stone, Barton W. 369 Stone-Campbell Movement 369 Stoudios, monastery  84 Straits of Magellan 311 Strauss, David Friedrich  389–90, 727 Stuart, John  384 Stuart, Mary, see Mary Stuart, Scottish queen Student Volunteer Movement  400 stylite  41–3, 77 Sucre, Antonio José de 402 Sudan 71, 133, 413–14, 487–8 Suez Canal  414, 488 Sumatra 407 Summa Theologica  202, 616–19 Sunday, Billy  454–5 Sunni 491 supralapsarian 306 Supreme Court, United States  464–5, 709–10 Suriname 384, 465 Susenyos I, emperor 317 Svatoslav of Kiev, king  89 Swaziland 482 Sweden, Swedes, Swedish  308, 356, 393, 400, 410, 452, 466–7 Swiss Confederation  250–51 Swiss Reformation  248–57, 259 Switzerland, Swiss  xxvi, 141, 245, 248–57, 259, 286, 304, 324, 348, 392, 398–9, 400, 410, 461, 468 Sydney, Australia  404 Symeon the New Theologian  90, 104, 440 Symeon the Studite 90 Symmachus, fourth century Roman senator 57–8 syncretism 313, 316, 318, 322, 405, 486, 488, 737–9 Synod of the Oak  38, 61 Synoptic gospels, synoptic problem  36, 755 Syria, Syrians  6, 9, 11–12, 16, 28, 33, 37, 39, 41–3, 50, 74, 77, 80, 104, 106–11, 113–15, 119–21, 125, 189–90, 319, 341, 343–4, 416–17, 420, 425, 435, 440, 490–1, 536, 569, 578, 582 Syriac, language 6–7, 10, 12, 33, 72, 106–7, 109, 111, 119–20, 127, 440 Syriac Christianity (Jewish) 5–7, 40 Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch  107, 440 Syrian Christians of Malabar, Chaldean Catholic Church, Syro-Malabar Catholic Church  319

844

Tabennisi 41 Tahiti  406 Taiping tianguo, Kingdom of Great Peace  422 Taiwan 322, 495, 498 Taizé Community  469 Tajikistan  501 Tamar the Great, queen 116, 537 Tamil, language  319 Tanganyika, see Tanzania Tanganyika, lake  408 Tang (or T’ang) dynasty, China  119–22, 129, 569, 615n. 9 Tanner, Kathryn 464, 758 Tanzania 411, 483 Taoism 123, 735 Tarsus 3, 21, 37–8, 60, 107, 111, 739 Tasmania, Australia  404 Tatars  100 Tatian the Syrian 11–12, 33, 106 Taylor, James Hudson  422–3 Taylor, Jeremy  671 Taylor, Maria Dyer  423 Taylor, Nathaniel W. 364, 367 Teague, Colin  412 Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre  444 Telanissa (modern Taladah, Syria) 42 Templars, see Knights Templar Temple of Solomon 135, 172–3, 176–7, 527, 623 Tennent, Gilbert  361 Tennent, William Sr.  361 Tennessee, United States 367, 454 Tennyson, Alfred (Lord Tennyson)  395 Teresa, Mother, see Mother Teresa Teresa de Ávila  290–1, 294 territorial principle 245, 248 Tertullian of Carthage  18, 27–8, 30–1, 45, 59, 129, 527–9 Tetrarchy 20–1 Tetzel, Johann  234–5, 237 Texas  450 Tha Byu, Ko  421 Thadden, Reinhold von  434 Thaddeus, apostle  106, 116, 591 Thagaste 69 Thailand 320, 421, 494 Theatine Order  294 Thebaid, desert  70, 539 Theodora (empress, wife of Justinian I)  79, 83, 85–6 Theodore of Mopsuestia  39, 60, 111, 113–14, 569–70 Theodoret of Cyrrhus  63–6, 570 Theodosius I, emperor  53, 55–9, 77 Theodosius II, emperor 63

Index

Theodotus of Laodicea 46 Theodotus the Banker 45 Theodotus the Tanner 45 Theoleptus I, patriarch  318 theological controversies, see Arius, Arianism; monarchianism, dynamic; monarchianism, modal theological liberalism, see liberalism, liberals theology of hope  461 Theonas, bishop 48 Theophilus of Alexandria, patriarch  38, 61, 70 Theophilus of Antioch  12, 526, 744 Theosis, see deification theotokos  61–3, 67, 72 Thessalonica, Thessalonians 4, 57, 66, 90, 97–8, 526, 661 Third Council of Constantinople (or Constantinople III, or the Sixth Ecumenical Council), see Constantinople III, Council of Third Reich  431 Third Rome, see Moscow Third World, see emerging nations Thirty Years War  303, 307, 324, 326, 335 Tholuck, Friedrich August Gottreu  389 Thomas (apostle)  32, 72, 125–9, 531, 591 Thomas à Becket, see Becket, Thomas Thomas à Kempis  221 Thomas Aquinas  97, 201–3, 211, 213–15, 290, 304, 353, 616–19, 657, 709, 763 Thomas Christians  126, 128, 318 Thomas of Edessa  568 Thompson, Thomas  412 Three-Self Patriotic Movement  496 Tiananmen Square  495 Tibet 322, 416, 498 Tikhon (Vasily Ivanovich Bellavin), patriarch  435–7 Tikhon of Zadonsk, monk  342 Tillich, Paul 430, 432, 710, 729 Timor island  407 Tindal, Matthew  329 Tiridates III of Armenia, king  116 Tito, see Broz, Josif Tobolsk  426 Togo  412–13, 486 Togoland, see Togo Tokelau islands  406 Tokyo  499 Toland, John  329 Tolédo, Spain  92, 290 Toledo VIII, Council of (or Eighth Council of Toledo) 92 Toledo XI, Council of (or Eleventh Council of Toledo)  579 Tome of Leo I  64, 66–7, 146, 564–5

Index

Tomicki, Piotr (Peter)  292 Tonga islands  406, 477 Tonkin, see Vietnam Topeka, Kansas, United States  450 Torres, Tomás de  315 total depravity, see TULIP Tours, France  43, 143, 158 Tower of London  276 Trajan, emperor 8–9, 22–4 transcendalism  373 Transjordan, see Jordan transubstantiation 161, 184, 189, 224, 250, 265, 272, 612, see also Eucharist Treaty of Edinburgh  279 Trebonianus Gallus, emperor 23–4 Trent, Council of  297–304, 350, 661–2 Trexo y Senabria, Fernanco  315 Trifa, Iosif (Joseph)  439–40 Trinh Tráng  319 Trinidad 384, 465 trinity (doctrine of) 3, 27, 43–55, 59, 67, 83, 92, 102, 256, 258, 332, 366, 530, 546–7, 551–55, 561, 573, 579–81, 587, 593, 595, 605, 615, 629, 682, 725, 744–46, 750, 758–60, 764 Tristan de Cunha island 415, 489 Triumph of Orthodoxy  83, 85 Troas  8–9 Troeltsch, Ernst  390–1, 727 Troyes, Council of  180 Trueblood, Elton  464 Truman, Harry S.  460 trusteeism  353 Tübingen 388, 663–4 TULIP 257 Tunisia 130, 413, 488 Turkey, Turks  46, 97, 102, 169, 172–4, 211, 222, 309, 416, 491, 606 Turkmenistan  72, 501 Tutu, Desmond  481–2 Tuvalu islands  406 Tymion 18 Tyndale, William  268 typological, see Scripture, exegesis Tyre  13, 15, 134, 542, 567–8 Tyrell, George  442–3 Tyrol  259 Tzendal rebellion, see Cancuc movement Uganda 411, 484–5 Ukraine  89, 434 Ulfilas 34 Ulster  150

845

ultramontanism 350, 352 unconditional grace, see TULIP Union Church of Nigeria  486 Union Theological Seminary 381, 458 Unitarian Church  323 Unitarianism, Unitarians 366, 381, 398, 372–3 Unitas Fratrum, see United Brethren United Arab Emirates 416, 492 United Arab Republic, see Egypt; Syria United Brethren, Unitas Fratrum, Moravians 261, 335, 337–8, 366, 377, 387, 409, 419, 421, 469, 479, 483 United Church of Canada 465, 468 United Church of Christ  469 United Church of Christ in Japan, see Nihon Kirisuto Kyo-dan United Church of Christ in the Philippine  479 United Free Church of Scotland  468 United Methodist Church 469, 483 United Missionary Council of Syria and Palestine  490 United States  311–12, 326, 338, 353–4, 361, 367, 369–70, 377, 384–5, 392, 398, 400–1, 404–5, 407, 416, 419, 422, 425, 428, 433, 439–40, 442, 452, 454, 459, 464–8, 470–1, 473, 477, 479, 483, 490, 493–4, 498–500, 707 Unity School of Christianity  382 Universal Christian Council for Life and Work  466–7 universalism, universalists 159, 366, 380 Universalist Society of Boston  366 universities 180, 191, 193–5, 197, 200, 205, 216, 226, 230, 238, 240, 250, 296–7, 381, 400, 454, 470, 665 University of Bologna  192 University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) 460 University of Cologne  213 University of Naples  201 University of Paris 194, 200, 202, 253, 296 Uppsala, Sweden  467 Ural mountains  426 Urban II, pope  169–71, 606 Urban VI, pope  209, 220, 627 Ursulines  294 Uruguay 402, 471–2, 474 Urundi, see Burundi Utah  379 Utrecht  151 Uvea  406 Uzbekistan 198, 501 Vadianus, see Watt, Joachim von Valens, emperor 51–2 Valentinian I, emperor  51, 57 Valentinian II, emperor 57–8 Valentinian III, emperor  64, 146

846

Valentinus, gnostic  15, 526–8 Valerius, bishop 69 Valignano, Alessandro  323 Valois  306 Valparaíso, Chile  472 Van Clichtove, Josse  292 Vancouver, Canada  467 Vandals 129, 139, 141, 147, 150, 155 Van der Kemp, Johannes Theodorius  400 Van der Weyden, Rogier  189 Van Eyck, Jan  227 Vanuatu islands, New Hebriders islands  406 Vatican City 352, 442–3, 449, 489, 496 Vatican I, or First Vatican Council 327, 350, 352, 354, 444, 688 Vatican II, or Second Vatican Council 444, 446, 448–50, 712, 715, 718 Vatican Network  429 Velichkovsky, Paisie  342 Venerable Bede, see Bede Venezuela 312, 402, 474 Venice, city  94, 209, 296, 298 Venn, Henry  340 Venn, John  340 Vernazza, Ettore  292 viceroy 313, 402 vices  40–1, 70, 83–4, 268, 574 Victor I, pope  30, 129 Victoria, Australia state  404 Victoria Falls  408–9 Vieira, António  312 Vienna 248, 260 Vietnam  319–20, 421, 461, 494–5 Vikings  95, 157, 162, 164 Vincent of Lérins  31, 566 Vinet, Alexandre  393 Virgil, poet 210, 621 virtues 6, 21, 40–1, 221–2, 574–7 Visigoths 141, 148, 150 Visser’t Hooft, Willem A.  467 Vitoria, Francisco de  314 Vladimir I the Great, king 89 Vodou, voodoo  383 Voguls  426 Voltaire (François-Marie Arouet)  329 Wakatama, Pius  401 Wakefield, Edward Gibbon  405 Waldensians 184, 253 Waldshut  260 Wales 336, 404 Walker, Alice  464

Index

Walter the Penniless  172 Wanli emperor, Zhu Yijun  322 Ware, Henry  366 Ware, Kallistos (Timothy Ware)  439 Warfield, B. B. 458, 727 Warmund of Jerusalem, patriarch  177 Warner, David Sidney  375 War of Restoration (Dominican Republic)  404 Wars of the Roses  206 Wartburg castle  242 Watchman Nee (Ni Tuosheng)  497 Waterloo, Battle of  349 Watt, Joachim von (Vadianus)  251 WCC, see World Council of Churches Welsh Methodists, see Lady Huntingdon’s Connection Wesley, Charles  338 Wesley, John  337–8, 361, 684 Wesleyan Methodist Missionary Society  399 Wesleyan Methodists, see Methodists, Wesleyan Methodists West, Cornel  464 West Bank  491 Westcott, Brooke Foss 395, 399 Western Europe, see individual countries Western Sahara, see Morocco West Germany  433–4 West Indies, see particular countries Westminster Assembly 283, 304 Westminster Confession of Faith  283, 304, 680 West Pakistan  494, see also Pakistan Wettstein, Johann Jakob  333 White, William  364 White Fathers  354 Whitefield, George  337–8, 361 Wichern, Johann Hinrich  392 Wiedemann, Jacob (Wideman, Widman)  261 Wilberforce, William  340 Wiley, H. Orton  464 William and Mary, College of  356 William of Aquitaine  164 William of Ockham  214–16 Williams, Delores  364 Williams, George  466 Williams, Roger 356, 359 William the Conquerer, king  162 Willibrord of Northumbria  151 Winchester, Elhanan  366 Winfrid, missionary, see Boniface Wishart, George  279 Wittenberg 232, 234–45, 259, 279, 335, 637 Wojtyla, Karol Jósef, see John Paul II, pope Wolff, Christian  331–2, 385

Index

Wolsey, Thomas  270 Womanist theology  464 World Conference on Faith and Order, First and Second  467 World Conference on Life and Work, First and Second  466–7 World Congress on Evangelism  461 World Council of Christian Education and Sunday School Association  466 World Council of Churches (WCC)  267–8, 467–8 World Missionary Conference, see International Missionary Council World’s Sunday School Association, see World Council of Christian Education and Sunday School Association World Sunday School Union, see World Council of Christian Education and Sunday School Association World War I  419–20, 424–6, 425–9, 428–31, 435, 440, 443, 470, 475–7, 480, 482–3, 486, 488, 489–94, 498 World War II  428–33, 435–9, 443, 459–61, 465, 471, 474, 476–86, 488–96, 498–500 Worms 245, 260, 627, 642 Wycliffe, John 224, 226, 626–7 Wyttenback, Thomas  253 Xavier, Francis  320–2, 355 Xia dynasty, China  123 Ximenes, cardinal, see Jiménez, Francisco de Cisneros (Ximenes), cardinal Xuanye, see Kangxi emperor Xu Guangqu (Paul)  322 Yale 256, 367, 370 Yangon (formerly Rangoon)  420 Yazdegird I, shah 72 Yekuno Amlak of Ethiopia, king  136 Yemen 416, 492

847

Yi Byeok  425–6 Yinzhen, emperor, see Yongzheng emperor Yi Seung-Hun  425–6 Yoder, John Howard  464 Yoido Full Gospel Church  500 Yong Nak Presbyterian Church  500 Yongzheng emperor (Yinzhen)  421 York, city  142 York, House of  268 Young, Brigham  379 Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA)  466 Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA)  466 Yuan dynasty, China  125 Yugoslavia 434, 439, 493 Zaccaria, Antonio Maria  294 Zachary II, pope  143 Za Dengel  317 Zaîre, see Democratic Republic of the Congo Zambesi River  316 Zambia  408–10, 482–3 Zanzibar, see Tanzania Zar’a Ya‘eqob of Ethiopia, emperor  137 Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome 45 Ziegenbalg, Bartholomäs  416 Zimbabwe 316, 410, 467, 483 Zinzendorf, see Ludwig, Nicholas Zion Christian Church  482–3 Zionism, Zionists  490 Zizioulas, John 439, 736 Zoe Brotherhood, see Brotherhood of Theologians Zoe Zoroastrianism and Zoroaster  111 Zumárraga, Juan de  311 Zurich Disputation, First  249–51, 253, 257 Zurich Disputation, Second  249–51, 257 Zwickau prophets  259 Zwinglians  245–6, 250