-The Church in The Ante-Nicene Period

The Church in The Ante-Nicene Period THE CHURCH IN THE ANTE-NICENE PERIOD
Homer Hailey

Brethren and friends: It is the purpose of this study to cover the first two hundred fifty years of the history of the church, following the apostles, in the short time of thirty minutes or an hour. As we now find ourselves in the second century of the great Res­toration movement, let us consider carefully the his­tory of the early church, that it’s mistakes may become lessons to us, in steering us around the pitfalls into which it fell. The period discussed tonight will begin with the close of apostolic Christianity, and conclude with the council of Nice, 325 A. B'. Let us approach it from five points: (1) The Roman world when Christianity just out of its swaddling-cloth, faced it; socially, mor­ally, and politically. (2) Persecutions of the Christians. (3) The departure from apostolic organization, and the rise of ecclesiasticism. (4) Heresies versu orthodoxy. (5) Constantine, and the Council of Nice, 325 A. D. The Roman World
Rome had completed her conquests of the world, She was now making a desperate effort to hold what she had gained. The two most prominent groups of people were the wealthy and the slaves; with a third, or middle class of free citizens, which had lost its moral and phy­sical vigor, and had sunk to an inerfj mass. The wealthy, made rich by the conquests of foreign coun­tries, reveled in vice and luxury, spending fortunes on dress and tables. Their homes were large and luxuri­ous, surrounded by extensive gardens, kept by slaves.
The poorer classes only lived for the “bread and circuses,” which were supplied out of the public treas­ury. The circuses were brutal, debasing, and bloody; hundreds of animals from all parts of the world, and many men, were slain annually in them for the amuse­ment of a debased people. During persecutions, Chris­tians were supplied to the animals during the shows. The nation groaned under heavy taxation, that went for such a waste and extravagance. Slaves supplied the labor, which forced into exclusion healthy middle class wage earning; these often revolted in time of trouble, to join the enemy. The state came first, the home had little place in Paganism. Women were considered as chattel prop­erty ; and little children were often cruelly mistreated; and if born deformed, or the parents did not want them, they were exposed to die, or killed. A father might so punish a child as to cause its death without molesta­tion. Divorces were unknown in the early days of Roman growth, but by this period very common. It is said that during the days of Augustus it was difficult to find virgin priestesses for the Temple of Vesta; while in Athens there was the Temple of Aphrodite, one of vice and shame. The vices, cruelty, and extravagance of most of the emperors are enough to make us shudder. Nero, the synonym for cruelty; Commodus, with his two hundred concubines, and who lavished a large fortune to bring animals to Rome from all parts of the world that he might slay them; the effeminate Elagabalus, who wore women’s attire, and married a profligate youth like himself. To crown the folly of it all, the vice and folly of them was immortalized at their death by the Senate, by statues and temples being erected and dedi­cated to their memory; and placed among those of the gods, to be worshipped. Of course, not all were immortalized in such a way, but most were. The cruelty and wickedness of the wives of the Emperors fell little behind that of their husbands. There were exceptions, such as Antonius Pius and Marcus Aurel­ius ; but these were rare. The Empire was ruled by men placed at its head by the army, which was made up of the most brutal of the Empire, the head of the government falling into a military despostism. For near two hundred years, the throne became a prize to the favorite or most powerful general. One might be raised to the place of Empeior, slain, and replaced, as the whims of the soldiers directed. Of course the soldiers gen­erally received large donations from the man whom they elevated. The senate gradually declined into a mere figure and shadow. The philosophers and religion of the gods offered no hope, nor comfort, to such a condition. Both were void of such characteristics as love, hope, kindness, etc. The religions deified the base and sensual; the philosophies were gloomy and uncertain in their tenets. Little that was elevating or calculated to inspire hap­piness was found in either; the crimes of Romans the first chapter, were practiced in both Rome and Greece; the gods even being guilty of them.

It was into such a morally degenerate, sensual, and cruel world that Christianity was thrust, to conquer and raise to a fit place in which to live; freeing it from the clutches of sin and the power of darkness and superstition; with its only power to conquer resting in its faith in a “crucified and raised Savior,” which was “foolishness to the gentiles, and a stumblingblock to the Jews.”

Persecutions of the Church
The persecution of the church had its origin in mis­taking Christianity as a form of Judaism, and an off­spring of Jewish fanaticism, by the Emperors. Chris­tians are first heard of in the history of Suetonius, 52 A. D., when they were driven out of Rome by Claudius, who evidently mistook them for Jews. The first great persecution was under Nero, the last of the family of Julius Caesar, about the year 64. Such a persecution was consistent with his nature: he had murdered his brother, mother Agrippina, and teacher, Seneca; with many eminent Roman citizens. He was suspected of the origin of the great fire of Rome in 64, which lasted nine days, but he charged it to the Christians to avert suspicion. In the persecution multitudes were killed for the faith, and it was wound up by Nero nailing Christians to pine posts, covering them with oil, pitch, and resin, and lighting fire to them while he, dressed as a charioteer, rode among them in mockery, as at a circus.

Vespasian was sent to Palestine by Nero, in the year 67, with 60,000 men, to subdue the Jews, but upon the death of Nero, he was recalled and made Emperor in 69. This lifting of the siege gave the Chris­tians of Jerusalem an opportunity to flee, as they had been instructed by the Savior. Vespasian sent his son, Titus, in the year 70, who destroyed the city and temple. Josephus graphically describes the hor­rors of the siege; with its famine and deep misery.

After the death of Nero, the Christians suffered little at the hands of Rome, until Domitian (89-96), who was extremely bitter against them, confiscating their property, and putting many to death. Tradi­tion holds that it was during his persecution that John was banished to Patmos; but some scholars differ, affirming from internal evidence of the Revelation that it was under Nero that he was banished. Nerva followed Domitian, who humanely allowed the ban­ished Christians to return to their homes.

It was the opposition of Trajan who followed Nerva, that occasioned the letters between Pliny, governor of Bithynia, and the Emperor, as to just how to handle the Christians. These letters reveal the humility, purity, and simplicity of the Christian life and worship, from the pen of a pagan persecutor.

It is impossible in this short time to mention all, but will just touch the high spots in the persecu­tions: Hadrian (117-138) erected pagan temples over the sites of the temple and the crucifixion in Jerusa­lem, thereby insulting both Christianity and Juda­ism, in his zeal for state religion. Marcus Aurelius (161-180), was the most kind, benevolent, and hu­man of the Roman Emperors, but despised Chris­tianity. This feeling resulted in a most bloody per­secution; it was in this that Justin Martyr perished. Some of the fairest flowers of martyrdom, and most heart rending stories, are discovered in the perse­cution of Septimus Severus (193-211).

Persecutions continued under most of the Emper­ors, some extremely severe, others milder, until the reign of Gallienus (260-268), at the beginning of which the church had peace, which lasted about forty years, until 303.

It was during this period of peace that large church edifices began being built; and the church became quarrelsome, worldly, and rich. The first two cen­turies, the church met in homes, caves, and wher­ever they could, for worship; but they now began to build large and costly Du doings over the country. One of the finest was erected at Nocomedia, the de­struction of which was the introduction of the per­secution of Diocletian. The last and most severe great persecution was that of Diocletian from 303 to 311. Diocletian was persuaded by his co-regent, Galerius, to begin it}. Ihe burning of the church building at Nocomedia was the introduction of this fiercest of persecutions, which proved to be the life and death struggle be­tween Christianity and Paganism, resulting in the triumph of Christianity. But the triumph proved to be the beginning of its “Babylonian captivity,” as it became popular, being made the state religion under Constantine who succeeded Diocletian and Max- entius. He restored the churches, and gave every man freedom of worship. The “freedom” granted might not imply what we think of now, but it was freedom as compared to what the church had been going through.

Another great battle the church was fighting at the same time, was that against pagan and heathen philos­ophy; this is to be discussed by another speaker. The Rise of Ecclesiasticism
In organization, the church passed from apostolic, with its bishops or presbyters, and deacons over the local eongiogation to the olid Catholic episcopal system; this passed into the Metropolitan; and this into the patriarchal after the fourth century. Here the Greek Catholic church stopped; the Latin went a step farther to the papal monarchy. The earliest church fathers use the terms “bishop” and “presbyter” indiscriminately"; but a distinction between the two can be traced to the second century. The exclusiveness of the term “bishop” grew out of the presidency or chairmanship of the presbytery; the next step was to consider the episcopate as successors to the apostles. Some endeavor to trace the distinction to John at Ephesus, but the Bible conveys no such dis­tinction. In the writings of Ignatius, (d. 107 or 115), episco­pacy is connected with the local congregation, not the diocese. It is seen as a new and growing institution, not of apostolic origin.

Irenaeus, about 180, represents the institution as dio­cesan ; and a continuation of the Apostolate. But even he does not clearly distinguish the two names.

Old Catholic episcopacy reached its maturity in Cyp­rian, Bishop of Carthage, who was martyred 258. He is, by some historians, called “the father of the hier­archy.” He conceded that the Bishop of Romo held the chair of St. Peter; yet he addressed him as a “col­league,” and later took issue with him over the subject of heretical baptism; clearly showing that he did not consider him greater than himself in the church. This system placed the Bishop over a diocese. The next step was the “Metropolitans,” or large city Bishops, who were higher than the “country bishops,” who in turn came between the metropolitans and the presbyters. The churches planted by the apostles stood highest especially Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, and Corinth. The bishops of such large cities being known as “Metropolitans.” The “Patriarchs” grew out of the bishops of the capitols of the world, Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch; and a short time later, Jerusalem and Constantinople. These were bishops of the large dioceses, the “Patri­archs” constituting the head. Rome later took the only step left, that to the papacy, with universal authority. The Greek church retained the rule of the Patriarchs.

Rome, by the middle of the third century, had one bishop, forty-six presbyters, seven deacons, seven sub­deacons, forty-two acolyths, and readers, exorcists, and doorkeepers, fifty-two; and more than fifteen hundred widows, needy and afflicted. The distinction between clergy and laity had its rise in the third century, but Cyprian may be called the father of the Sacredotal conception of ministers as the mediating agency between God and man. He also applied the term “priest” to the ministers. There is, however, no trace of clerical vestures till the fourth century. The rise of ecclesiastical power and councils go hand in hand. There is no distinct trace of councils till the middle of the second century. From that time synods are found varying in size from diocesan on Oecumen­ical ; the first (and last) oecumenical council being that of Nice, in 325, called by Constantine. The earliest were small, gradually growing larger, till they culmi­nate in the one at Nice.

Discipline, which was very strict in the church of this period, gave rise to many schisms; most of these beginning with the question of what to do with the “lapsed,” those who had denied Christ during the se­vere persecutions. These disputes resulted in two groups, the extremely rigid, and the lax. The Rise of Heresies
Before studying the various heresies, let us notice briefly Asceticism, which had its rise in this period. Asceticism in general is a rigid outward self-discipline, by which the spirit strives after full dominion over the flesh, and a superior grade of virtud. Paul of Thebes, who is traced back to the middle of the third century, is the oldest. St. Anthony may be called the real father of the Monks, but he belongs to the age of Constantine. Heretical asceticism has its beginning in heathen philosophy; while “orthodox” asceticism finds its support in the over-straining of certain scrip­tures. Martyrdom, poverty, and celibacy became marks of piety.

Celibacy of the clergy was preferred in the Ante- Nicene period, but was not enforced by law; many of the prominent church fathers being married. The catacombs testify to the marriage of the clergy down to the fifth century. Clerical celibacy was not instan- aneous, but like other departures, gradual. The first step toward it was the prohibition of second marriage; the second step, the prohibition of conjugal intercourse “after” ordination, (councils of 304 to 314); the third step, the “absolute prohibition” of clerical marriage. The Roman church here took the lead, by “popes” from 385 to 590. The Council of Nice did forbid the living together of clergy and unmarried women, which was being practiced by many.

MONTANISM, which was born in the villages of Asia Minor, and spread west, found its leading light in Tertullian, who was converted to its teaching about 201 or 202. It lasted till the sixth century. In its doctrine, it agreed in all essential points with “orthodoxy,” but its peculiarities made it heretical. It taught that the church at this time was in the “Paraclete” stage, with revelation, miracles, miracu­lous gifts, and prophesy; with the millennium, which they made very materialistic, and the end of the world near. Rigorous fasting and ascetic exercises were rigidly practiced. These also went to the extreme in legalism and discipline; holding seven sins as unpardonable; and refusing fallen penitents back into their fellowship. Their reputation was badly hurt because of the failure of a number of their prophesies to materialize.

NAZARENES AND EBIONITES. The Naza- renes were a sect of Jewish Christians who also observed the law. The Ebionites were a sect of the Nazarenes. These considered Jesus as the promised Messiah; yet a mere man like Moses and David, springing from Joseph and Mary by natural genera­tion. Circumcision and the observance of the law were made essential to salvation. Paul was rejected as an apostate and heretic; and his epistles disre­garded. These taught that Christ was soon to return and introduce the Millennial reign, wih Jerusalem as the seat of power. There were many sects of tjhese, holding widely differing doctrines on many points, but generally united on these.

GNOSTICISM. “As to its substance, Gnosticism is chiefly of heathen decent” (Schaff). It is a pecu­liar translation of heathen philosophies into Chris­tianity; and an attempt to reconcile these altogether differing philosophies into one. It is a mixture of Oriental mysticism, Greek philosophy, Judaism, and Christian ideas of salvation. Its flourishing period was the second century.

There are many schools and sects of the Gnos­tics mentioned in history, but there are a few char­acteristics common to all gnosticism: (1) Dualism: the assumption of an eternal antagonism between God and matter. (2) The demiurgic notion; that is, the separation of the creator of the world, or the demiurgos, from the proper God. Jehovah of the Old Covenant was held as only a demiurgos. There were a number between the Supreme God and man. (3) Doeetism; the resolution of the human element of the Savior into mere deceptive appearance, i. e., there was no matter associated with him, that was only an appearance. Gnosticism is an attempt to answer the origin of God, the world, etc., and to cor­relate the existence of good and evil. I do not have time here to enter in its theology.

Tradition traces the origin of this sect to Simon MJagus of Acts 8; which paints a very ugly picture of him and his later life. Cerinthus, said to have lived contemporarily with John at Ephesus, is claimed as one of the early fathers of the sect. These are the earliest. Many others flourished later. Mani, the father of the latest school of them, and the most dan­gerous sect, is said to have been flayed alive by the order of the Persian Emperor, skinned, and his hide stuffed and placed by the gate of the city; but his religion spread all the more rapidly.

CATHOLIC THEOLOGY. The rise of Gnosticism and heresies, and the fight with the pure paganism, gave rise to apologetics and polemics; with a wide difference in views within the church itself. The Greek theology was speculative and idealistic; deal­ing with the objective doctrines of God, the incar­nation, the trinity, and Christology. The Latin, es­pecially that of North Africa, is more realistic and practical, concerned witjh the doctrines of human nature and salvation. (Questions of disipline, the “trinity,” and the hereafter, were all questions that gave rise to many heated disputes and arguments; and went far in giving shape to the doctrines and dogmas of the Catholic church. We shall only give time to the discussion of one, the “trinity”, which led to the Council of Nice.

Constantine, and the Council of Nice
The Arian controversy, which had its beginning in Alexandria over the question of the equality and co-existence of the members of the “trinity,” led to the first Oecumenical Council, and the universal “or­thodox” Nicene Creed.

Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, was asking his presbyters questions concerning the co-existence of the Father and the Son, claiming the “Son was unbe­gotten as the Father,” having been with him through all eternity. Arius disputed with him, claiming “the Father existed before the Son, being without begin­ning.” The dispute became warm and bitter, result­ing in the anathematizing and excommunicating of Arius by Alexander about 320 or 321. Arius and his followers went to Caesarea, to Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea and also the noted historian; and from thence to Nicomedia, to another Eusebius, Bishop of that city. These two noted bishops espoused his cause, and exchanged many letters with other bish­ops. Feelings began to run high, churches w'ere divided; and Christianity became a joke ;among the Pagans.

Constantine, upon the death of his father in 306, had gradually risen by victory after victory over his enemies and opponents, to the place of Emperor over the whole empire, by the year 323. The character of this Emperor, and champion of the Christian faith, is many sided and complex. In his younger years he had been very favorable toward the new and grow­ing religion; claiming in later years to have been converted to the faith by a vision of a cross in the sky, with these words in Greek under it, “By this conquer,” which appeared to him with another vision in his sleep, on the eve of one of his most important battles. However, the monarch did not submit to baptism until he was on his dying bed, the year 337. Nevertheless, during life, he was permitted to all the privileges of a member of the church, without being formally recognized as one.

Desirous of the peace of his people, and the church, he was induced to write letters to Alexander con­cerning the trouble in the church, which culminated in the Council of Nice, called by himself. Constan­tine sent invitations to the bishops of the Empire, inviting them to come at the expense of the govern­ment. The great assembly convened about the mid­dle of June, with about 318 bishops present, accord­ing to the best authorities, and a large multitude of presbyters, deacons, and attendants. Athanasisus, a young and aspiring deacon in the church at Alexan­dria, became known as the “Father of orthodoxy” by his opposition to Arius in the controversy. (He was made Bishop of Alexandria at the death of Alex­ander.)

Constantine presided; pomp and splendor pre­vailed ; a marked contrast to the position of the church in former years. The Emperor publicly burned the letters sent him by the bishops previous to the meet­ing, with the statement that he was no judge. Creeds were introduced as bases of compromise, but the accusers of Arius wanted one that he and his follow­ers, known as “Arians,” would oppose; it was found in the word “consubstantial,” which he opposed on the ground that it was not scriptural. It was just what
the “orthodox” wanted, hence put in the creed. All but five signed it; many under force from fear; it was a forced union. Arius and his followers were ex-com­municated; and his books burned; but Constantine later became favorable to him, and forced the Bishop of Alexandria to recognize him. This is the first in­stance of civil punishment in the church; but the fore­runner of the church of the dark ages.

Another question settled at this council, was the question of Easter. Previous to this time the Eastern and Western churches had been observing the season at different times, and with no particular Sunday on which to observe it. The time was definitely deter­mined at this council. The Council adjourned about the middle of August. “The Creed of Creeds” had been born; Christianity had become the state religion; “orthodoxy” had taken definite form; and civil and ecclesiastical governments were joining hands.

Just a few words remain to be said. In this period of history we see the dying embers of paganism and heathenism as they are fanned into a few flickering flames, to be extinguished by the onrushing flood of Christianity; but we also see the. bright light of a pure simple faith, in its conquest, becoming contami­nated and defiled by the world it is conquering; to supplant in later years with “Papal” Rome, what it was conquering in “Pagan” Rome. We see a world bathed in the blood of innocent men and women, as their life is poured out for the faith of their hearts in the “death and resurrection” of their Savior; and denial of the “gods.” We should learn the lesson of the ease and patience with which apostasy creeps upon the “faithful”; and the absolute necessity of “speaking as the oracles of God”; retaining the simplicity, beauty, and purity of Christianity, as delivered by the apos­tles, guided by the Holy Spirit. Let each one “Con­tend earnestly for the faith, once for all delivered unto the saints” (Jude 1:3), that in “all things” God may be glorified.

(Authorities relied upon for the facts of this article: “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” Gibbons, Vols. 1, 2. “History of the Christian Church,” Philip Schaff, Vols. 1, 2, 3. “Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical His­tory,” Christian Frederick Cruse, translator. And “Church of the First Three Centuries,” Lamson).