Is There a Mother of God?

One very bold preacher I heard not too long ago challenged all his listeners to prove to him that Mary was the Mother of God rather than just the mother of Jesus the man. Anyone with any knowledge of church history would immediately recognize that his statement is one born of an ancient heresy, viz., Nestorianism.

This should not even have to be discussed by the Church if today’s Christians were not ahistorical. This subject was decided long ago at the Council of Ephesus in the year 431.

We confess, then, our lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God perfect God and perfect man of a rational soul and a body, begotten before all ages from the Father in his godhead, the same in the last days, for us and for our salvation, born of Mary the virgin, according to his humanity, one and the same consubstantial with the Father in godhead and consubstantial with us in humanity, for a union of two natures took place. Therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of the unconfused union, we confess the holy virgin to be the mother of God because God the Word took flesh and became man and from his very conception united to himself the temple he took from her. As to the evangelical and apostolic expressions about the Lord, we know that theologians treat some in common as of one person and distinguish others as of two natures, and interpret the god-befitting ones in connexion with the godhead of Christ and the lowly ones with his humanity. [from http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum03.htm#The%20judgment%20against%20Nestorius]

That should be quite sufficient to quiet any question as to whether it is appropriate to call Mary the Theotokos (Mother of God or God-Bearer). Of course for some, this council was some evil consortium of apostate bishops of the apostate Church. But we will consider if this decision was solely theirs or merely the crystallization of Early Christian thought.

St. Hippolytus of Rome writes in his A discourse by the most blessed Hippolytus, bishop and martyr, on the end of the world, and on Antichrist, and on the second coming of our lord Jesus Christ.

Thus, too, they preached of the advent of God in the flesh to the world, His advent by the spotless and God-bearing Mary in the way of birth and growth, and the manner of His life and conversation with men, and His manifestation by baptism, and the new birth that was to be to all men, and the regeneration by the laver…. [ANF 5: 232; sect. I]

Peter of Alexandria in speaking of his life in The Genuine Acts of Peter refers to Mary as both “Ever-Virgin” and “the Most Blessed Mother of God.”

[T]hey came to the church of the most blessed mother of God, and Ever-Virgin Mary, which, as we began to say, he had constructed in the western quarter, in a suburb, for a cemetery of the martyrs. [ANF 6: 267]

In speaking of Simeon, Methodius makes the following comment in his Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna .

While the old man was thus exultant, and rejoicing with exceeding great and holy joy, that which had before been spoken of in a figure by the prophet Isaiah, the holy mother of God now manifestly fulfilled. [ANF 6: 387; par. VII]

And later in the same oration

Hail to thee for ever, thou virgin mother of God, our unceasing joy, for unto thee do I again return. [ANf 6: 393; par. XIV]

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catechetical Lectures, tells us of the many witnesses concerning Christ.

Many, my beloved, are the true testimonies concerning Christ. The Father bears witness from heaven of His Son: the Holy Ghost bears witness, descending bodily in likeness of a dove: the Archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing good tidings to Mary: the Virgin Mother of God bears witness: the blessed place of the manger bears witness. [NPNF 2-07: 61; lect. X; par. 19]

In To Januarius, Bishop of Caralis (Cagliari), Saint Gregory the Great (aka Gregory the Dialogist) writes concerning a domestic disturbance that has been brought to him. Note his very matter-of-fact use of the term Mother of Our God and Lord since it indicates the general usage that had developed.

The Jews who have come hither from your city have complained to us that Peter, who has been brought by the will of God from their superstition to the worship of Christian faith, having taken with him certain disorderly persons, on the day after his baptism, that is on the Lord’s day of the very Paschal festival, with grave scandal and without your consent, had taken possession of their synagogue in Caralis, and placed there the image of the mother of our God and Lord, the venerable cross, and the white vestment (birrum) with which he had been clothed when he rose from the font. [NPNF 2-13: 3; epistle VI]

St. Ambrose also uses the term in Concerning Virgins.

The first thing which kindles ardour in learning is the greatness of the teacher. What is greater than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose? What more chaste than she who bore a body without contact with another body? [NPNF 2-10: 374; bk. II; ch. II; par. 7]

John Cassian, of Conferences fame, powerfully defends the title Mother of God as a safeguard for the divinity of Christ in The Seven Books of John Cassian on the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius.

And so you say, O heretic, whoever you may be, who deny that God was born of the Virgin, that Mary the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ ought not to be called Theotocos, i.e., Mother of God, but Christotocos, i.e., only the Mother of Christ, not of God. For no one, you say, brings forth what is anterior in time. And of this utterly foolish argument whereby you think that the birth of God can be understood by carnal minds, and fancy that the mystery of His Majesty can be accounted for by human reasoning, we will, if God permits, say something later on. In the meanwhile we will now prove by Divine testimonies that Christ is God, and that Mary is the Mother of God. [NPNF 2-11: 556; bk. II; ch. II]

And in the closing of the same chapter, he sums up his point.

And when the maiden understood not, he gave a reason for this great thing, saying: “Because the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and because the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee, therefore also that holy thing which shall be born shall be called the Son of God;” that is to say: That thou mayest not be ignorant of the provision for so great a work, and the mystery of this great secret, the majesty of God shall therefore come upon thee completely; because the Son of God shall be born of thee. What further doubt can there be about this? or what is there further to be said? He said that God would come upon her; that the Son of God would be born. Ask now, if you like, how the Son of God can help being God, or how she who brought forth God can fail to be Theotocos, i.e., the Mother of God? This alone ought to be enough for you; aye this ought to be amply sufficient for you. [NPNF 2-11: 557; bk. II; ch. II]

I can see no way in which I can make it any clearer than John Cassian already has!

What about the Brothers?

I am quite certain that the reader of the last post was left with a plethora of questions. The truth of the matter: I intended it to be that way. I wanted to present the beliefs of the Early Church Fathers without the reasoning that backed up these ideas.

The questions that I envision being asked are as follows:

1. What about the New Testament passages that speak of Jesus’ siblings?
2. What about the passage that says Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary “until” she brought forth her firstborn son?
3. What about the term “firstborn?” Does it not imply that there are more “borns?”

To answer these questions appropriately, we need to establish a foundation first. There are some things that must be clarified before we can dive into the foregoing.

First, the people who wrote the passages in the last post did read the Bible. It was, for the most part, the same as the one we read. They are not relying on some other books nor are they relying on the English translation (as many of us must do). Many of them could read it in the original Greek. And to make it perfectly clear: theirs said essentially the same things as ours does today. So, the answer to the question of whether they had read those proof passages that are generally offered is a resounding “Yes!”

Secondly, these men were not trying to invent doctrine nor were they attempting to falsify the things that had been handed down to them. To say otherwise would be to level a vicious accusation at some of the people who gave us, for instance, the Nicene Creed. To say they were purposefully trying to change doctrine or deceive is too daring for any but the boldest gap theorist to attempt.

Now let’s deal with the issues raised by the questions above. It should be obvious that the word “firstborn” does not necessarily imply that there are more children. Regardless of whether one has additional offspring or not, the firstborn is still the firstborn.

All the first-born in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first-born of Pharaoh who sits upon his throne, even to the first-born of the maidservant who is behind the mill; and all the first-born of the cattle. (Exodus 11:5 RSV)

It is clear that God was not referring solely to the people (and animals) that had more than one child but to all the persons who had even one child. The following verse gives us a definition of how the Scriptures define a firstborn.

"Consecrate to me all the first-born; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and of beast, is mine." (Exodus 13:2 RSV)

The use of firstborn when applied to Jesus does not necessitate that there be other children but Romans tells us about the other children of which Jesus is the firstborn.

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren. (Rom 8:29 RSV)

So if there were no other children of Mary (as the Fathers teach) who are these brothers and sisters of which the New Testament speaks?

Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him for the crowd. (Luke 8:19 RSV)

The Greek word for brothers used here is "adelphos." The range of meanings for this word covers much more than two boys born with the same parents. It can mean a half-brother, someone of the same nationality, a fellowman, a person in the same employment or office, or a fellow believer. It can be cousins, brothers, or even just a kinsman. (Note that the range of the word sisters is much the same.)

While many believe these brothers are either cousins or children of Joseph by a previous marriage, it makes no difference either way. Since the semantic range of the word leaves the possibility open that there were no other children of Mary, it is unnecessary for us to say dogmatically that she had other children because it contradicts the clear teaching of the Church through the ages. The words used do not narrowly define a “brother” and neither should we.

If there were other reasons to think that we should narrow the range of this word, then we would do so. The weight of the ancient evidence and of the Church’s tradition, however, militates against it.

But what about the word “until” in Matthew 1? Surely that shows us that after the birth of her firstborn, Mary was engaged in sexual relations with Joseph. Well, certainly we can say that the semantic range of the word leaves that as a possibility. But again, as with the word “brother,” it does not necessitate it.

When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus. (Mat 1:24-25 RSV)

But does the word until mean that it ceased being that way afterward?

Certainly not. For example, are we to assume that God the Father is speaking to Christ and telling Him to sit at His right hand only until His enemies are made His footstool and that thereafter Christ will be forced to get up or sit elsewhere in this verse?

But to what angel has he ever said, "Sit at my right hand, till I make thy enemies a stool for thy feet"? (Heb 1:13 RSV)

Or that Christ will stay with us until the end of the age and thereafter is he will leave us?

Teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to [same Greek word as until and till] the close of the age." (Mat 28:20 RSV)

The absurdity becomes clear. So why should we assume that there was some sort of change in the Blessed Virgin and Joseph’s relationship after she brought forth her firstborn? Let me say it again: the possibility exists within the words used but the necessity does not.

This makes me wonder why, then, do some insist that Mary had other children and that she had normal marital relations with Joseph. Is their reason Biblical or merely polemical? Do they reject the doctrine simply because the Catholic Church espouses it? Why if the semantic range of the words employed leaves us with ambiguity would we automatically gravitate toward the least historically attested way of believing? One needs to seriously question these things and come to some conclusions. Or maybe not. To do so, may very well change the way one believes irreversibly

Ever-Virgin?

One of the “big” issues for Protestants with the Catholic and Orthodox is their beliefs about Mary the Mother of Jesus. Quite frankly, this was a big issue for me also. When, however, I began to read the early fathers of the Church, my opinion changed. Today we will look at one facet of Marian doctrine: the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. (And before anyone goes off for me calling her the “Blessed,” he/she should consult Mary’s own words in Luke 1:48. I am just calling her what she prophesied that ALL generations would call her.)

What do the Fathers teach about Mary’s perpetual virginity? Do they teach, as the Protestants do, that she was the mother of a number of children after Jesus?

St. Hippolytus of Rome in Against Beron and Helix makes an unambiguous assertion of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

But the pious confession of the believer is that, with a view to our salvation, and in order to connect the universe with unchangeableness, the Creator of all things incorporated with Himself a rational soul and a sensible body from the all-holy Mary, ever-virgin, by an undefiled conception, without conversion, and was made man in nature, but separate from wickedness: the same was perfect God, and the same was perfect man; the same was in nature at once perfect God and man. [ANF 5: 234; fragment VIII]

The powerful defender of Nicene Christology, St. Athanasius gives us the following in his work Against the Arians:

Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His Essence, deny also that He took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin; for in neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Word were not true and naturally Son of God, or the flesh not true which He assumed. [NPNF 2-04: 386-7; ch. XXI; par. 70]

St. Ambrose of Milan makes the point very plainly in To the Church at Vercellæ.

Imitate her, holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of maternal virtue; for neither have you sweeter children, nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son. [NPNF 2-10: 473; Epistle LXIII; par. 111]

In referring to Ezekiel 44:2, Rufinus tells us that this prophecy applies to the Virgin Mary in his A Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed.

What could be said with such evident reference to the inviolate preservation of the Virgin’s condition? That Gate of Virginity was closed; through it the Lord God of Israel entered; through it He came forth from the Virgin’s womb into this world; and the Virgin-state being preserved inviolate, the gate of the Virgin remained closed for ever. [NPNF 2-03: 547; sect. 9]

In Peter of Alexandria’s That Up to the Time of the Destruction of Jerusalem, the Jews Rightly Appointed the Fourteenth Day of the First Lunar Month, he asserts the same thing as above.

[T]he Creator and Lord of every visible and invisible creature, the only-begotten Son, and the Word co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and of the same substance with them, according to His divine nature, our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, being in the end of the world born according to the flesh of our holy and glorious lady, Mother of God, and Ever-Virgin, and, of a truth, of Mary the Mother of God; and being seen upon earth, and having true and real converse as man with men, who were of the same substance with Him, according to His human nature…. [ANF 6: 282; frag. V, par. 7]

John Cassian speaks of the Virgin Mary’s perpetual virginity in The Seven Books of John Cassian on the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius.

For He did not begin to exist from the Virgin, but He who was already in existence, came into the Virgin.” Again on Christmas Day: “See the miracle of the mother of the Lord: A Virgin conceived, a Virgin brought forth. She was a Virgin when she conceived, a Virgin when with child, a Virgin after the birth. [NPNF 2-11: 617-8; bk. VII, ch. XXV]

In the introduction to Ecclesiastical History of Salaminius Hermias Sozomenus, written sometime before the middle of the Fifth Century, we find this very clear statement on this doctrine.

This clearly referred to the reign of Herod, who was an Idumean, on his father’s side, and on his mother’s, an Arabian, and the Jewish nation was delivered to him by the Roman senate and Augustus Cæsar. And of the rest of the prophets some declared beforehand the birth of Christ, His ineffable conception, the mother remaining a virgin after His birth, His people, and country. [NPNF 2-02: 239; bk. I, ch. I]

Finally the words of the Second Council of Constantinople (Fifth Ecumenical Council) in the Anathemas against the "Three Chapters" sets conciliar approval upon the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

The “nativity of these latter days when the Word of God came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her….” [from http://www.dailycatholic.org/history/5ecumen2.htm]

Again as with many of the other subjects which we have examined, it becomes pretty clear that the Early Church believed in something that we have since discounted totally. Strangely, even the Reformers of the Sixteenth Century believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. So the question arises as to why the modern Protestants don’t believe this. Why have we rejected the Early Church and even the Reformers who supposedly brought the Church back to where it was supposed to be? It would be interesting to hear the answers that would be proffered to this query.

Confessing our Sins Part 2

We will continue to look at the Early Church and what they have to tell us about confession before a priest or spiritual father.

First, we will take note of St. Cyprian of Carthage’s stern warning in his treatise On the Lapsed to those who dare partake of the Lord’s Body and Blood without confession.

All these warnings being scorned and contemned,—before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offence of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, violence is done to His body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord. [ANF 5:441, treatise III, par. 16]

The words “by the hand of the priest” clarify exactly what Cyprian means here: confession before God’s representative the priest. In paragraph 28 of the same treatise, he again spells out very clearly what confession means to him and the Early Church.

Moreover, how much are they both greater in faith and better in their fear, who, although bound by no crime of sacrifice to idols or of certificate, yet, since they have even thought of such things, with grief and simplicity confess this very thing to God’s priests, and make the conscientious avowal, put off from them the load of their minds, and seek out the salutary medicine even for slight and moderate wounds, knowing that it is written, “God is not mocked.God cannot be mocked, nor deceived, nor deluded by any deceptive cunning. [ANF 5: 446, treatise III, par. 28]

The great expositor and preacher of the Early Church, St. John Chrysostom informs us of the power and dignity that God has given his priest in dealing with sin in Treatise Concerning the Christian Priesthood.

For if any one will consider how great a thing it is for one, being a man, and compassed with flesh and blood, to be enabled to draw nigh to that blessed and pure nature, he will then clearly see what great honor the grace of the Spirit has vouchsafed to priests; since by their agency these rites are celebrated, and others nowise inferior to these both in respect of our dignity and our salvation. For they who inhabit the earth and make their abode there are entrusted with the administration of things which are in Heaven, and have received an authority which God has not given to angels or archangels. For it has not been said to them, “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.” They who rule on earth have indeed authority to bind, but only the body: whereas this binding lays hold of the soul and penetrates the heavens; and what priests do here below God ratifies above, and the Master confirms the sentence of his servants. For indeed what is it but all manner of heavenly authority which He has given them when He says, “Whose sins ye remit they are remitted, and whose sins ye retain they are retained?” What authority could be greater than this? “The Father hath committed all judgment to the Son?” But I see it all put into the hands of these men by the Son. [NPNF 1-08: 46, bk. III, par. 5]

St. Ambrose of Milan in Book II of On Repentance speaks in a very similar way to St. John Chrysostom.

Can any one endure that you should blush to entreat God, when you do not blush to entreat a man? That you should be ashamed to entreat Him Who knows you fully, when you are not ashamed to confess your sins to a man who knows you not? Do you shrink from witnesses and sympathizers in your prayers, when, if you have to satisfy a man, you must visit many and entreat them to be kind enough to intervene; when you throw yourself at a man’s knees, kiss his feet, bring your children, still unconscious of guilt, to entreat also for their father’s pardon? And you disdain to do this in the Church in order to entreat God, in order to gain for yourself the support of the holy congregation; where there is no cause for shame, except indeed not to confess, since we are all sinners, amongst whom he is the most praiseworthy who is the most humble; he is the most just who feels himself the lowest. [NPNF 1-10; 356; bk. II, par. 91]

Ambrose addresses the same subject and our mysterious Scripture verse in his treatise On the Holy Spirit.

Let us now see whether the Spirit forgives sins. But on this point there can be no doubt, since the Lord Himself said: “Receive ye the Holy Spirit. Whosesoever sins ye forgive they shall be forgiven.” See that sins are forgiven through the Holy Spirit. But men make use of their ministry for the forgiveness of sins, they do not exercise the right of any power of their own. For they forgive sins not in their own name but in that of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. They ask, the Godhead gives, the service is of man, the gift is of the Power on high. [NPNF 2-10: bk. III, ch. XVII, par. 137]

Firmillian, bishop of Caesarea, writes in his letter to Cyprian about confession.

But what is the greatness of his error, and what the depth of his blindness, who says that remission of sins can be granted in the synagogues of heretics, and does not abide on the foundation of the one Church which was once based by Christ upon the rock, may be perceived from this, that Christ said to Peter alone, “Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” And again, in the Gospel, when Christ breathed on the apostles alone, saying, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them, and whose soever sins ye retain they are retained.” Therefore the power of remitting sins was given to the apostles, and to the churches which they, sent by Christ, established, and to the bishops who succeeded to them by vicarious ordination. [ANF 5:395, Epistle LXXIV, par. 16]

Lastly, let us note the writing of Lactantius, who served as a tutor for Constantine’s son, Crispus. In The Divine Institutes he writes the following:

No one ought to flatter himself with persevering strife. For the contest is respecting life and salvation, which, unless it is carefully and diligently kept in view, will be lost and extinguished. But, however, because all the separate assemblies of heretics call themselves Christians in preference to others, and think that theirs is the Catholic Church, it must be known that the true Catholic Church is that in which there is confession and repentance, which treats in a wholesome manner the sins and wounds to which the weakness of the flesh is liable. [ANF 7: 133, bk. IV, ch. XXX]

There can be little or no doubt as to where the foregoing writers stood on the matter of confession to a priest. All the modern nay-sayers notwithstanding, we have see that the Early Church stands and speaks unanimously on this subject.

One has to ask: why don’t we follow this practice? Why have we thrown out what is demonstrably Scriptural and part of the practice of the Early Church? What possible reason can be proffered for our discarding this practice? I don’t have answers but the questions are certainly intriguing, are they not?

Confessing our Sins Part 1

There are Biblical texts that I, as a Pentecostal Protestant, have never understood and for which no satisfactory explanation has ever been offered. Let me say, these texts have been explained repeatedly by Protestant pastors and commentators but none of the explications has ever held water or made any real sense. This problem has been exacerbated by considering the contexts of the verses in question.

One such passage:

And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” (John 20:22-23 RSV)

It is certain that the first verse here has been quoted, preached, screamed and yelled by Pentecostals. Curiously, I have never heard them read the second verse at all and have never heard the passage explained in its context. Quite frankly, until I began to read the Fathers of the Church, I had no idea what the 23rd verse meant nor did I have any adequate explanation of it.

This passage which appeared so mysterious and inexplicable to me posed no predicament for the Early Church. In fact, they dealt with it easily and with complete confidence. Then I realized the reason they could do this and I couldn’t: they believed things that I didn’t. My tradition got in the way of interpreting this text because it was written and was to be interpreted in the context of the Apostolic/Early Church Tradition and not in the Early 20th Century/Pentecostal tradition.

The very idea of confessing to a priest/preacher/pastor is totally repugnant to the modern Pentecostal. One can almost hear him/her saying, “I don’t need to confess to some man; I confess straight to God.” But can he/she explain exactly what this verse means? What does Jesus mean about someone forgiving or retaining sins?

Let’s look to the Early Church for an explanation.

A portion of the ordination prayer for a bishop given us by St. Hippolytus in On The Apostolic Tradition gives us a solid clue as to what this verse meant to the Early Church.

You [God] who gave the rules of the Church through the word of your grace,
who predestined from the beginning the race of the righteous through Abraham,
who instituted princes and priests, and did not leave your sanctuary without a minister;
who from the beginning of the world has been pleased to be glorified by those whom you have chosen, pour out upon him the power which is from you, the princely Spirit, which you gave to your beloved Son Jesus Christ, which he gave to your holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place as your sanctuary, for the glory and endless praise of your name.
Grant, Father who knows the heart, to your servant whom you chose for the episcopate, that he will feed your holy flock, that he will wear your high priesthood without reproach, serving night and day, incessantly making your face favorable, and offering the gifts of your holy church; in the spirit of high priesthood having the power to forgive sins according to your command; to assign lots according to your command; to loose any bond according to the authority which you gave to the apostles…. [from http://www.bombaxo.com/hippolytus.html; translator Kevin P. Edgecomb; ch. 3; para. 2-5; emphasis mine]

And there was an answer that is wholly consistent and made more sense than any of the Protestant circumlocutions that I had ever encountered. God gave power to his Apostles to forgive sins but only according to his commands. In other words, they do not in themselves forgive sins (or retain them for that matter) but they are used as God’s agents to receive confession and announce to the penitent the forgiveness that God promises to those who repent.

When we turn to the Didache, one of the, if not the, oldest Christian writings outside the New Testament, we find the writer speaking of the place where confession is to be done.

In the church thou shalt acknowledge thy transgressions, and thou shalt not come near for thy prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. [ANF 7: 378, ch. 4]

The word “acknowledge” is translated by the word “confess” (see for instance Lightfoot and Harmer’s The Apostolic Fathers, Second Edition).

In St. Irenaeus of Lyons’ Against Heresies we read about some of the heretical sects and how they can come back from their heresy.

Such are the words and deeds by which, in our own district of the Rhone, they have deluded many women, who have their consciences seared as with a hot iron. Some of them, indeed, make a public confession of their sins; but others of them are ashamed to do this, and in a tacit kind of way, despairing of [attaining to] the life of God, have, some of them, apostatized altogether…. [ANF 1: 335; ch. XIII, para. 7]

Tertullian wrote a whole treatise called On Repentance. The following should be noted in relation to confession as a part of the whole scheme of repentance:

Yet most men either shun this work [of confession], as being a public exposure of themselves, or else defer it from day to day. I presume (as being) more mindful of modesty than of salvation; just like men who, having contracted some malady in the more private parts of the body, avoid the privity of physicians, and so perish with their own bashfulness. It is intolerable, forsooth, to modesty to make satisfaction to the offended Lord! to be restored to its forfeited salvation! Truly you are honourable in your modesty; bearing an open forehead for sinning, but an abashed one for deprecating! I give no place to bashfulness when I am a gainer by its loss; when itself in some son exhorts the man, saying, “Respect not me; it is better that I perish through you, i.e. than you through me.” At all events, the time when (if ever) its danger is serious, is when it is a butt for jeering speech in the presence of insulters, where one man raises himself on his neighbour’s ruin, where there is upward clambering over the prostrate. But among brethren and fellow-servants, where there is common hope, fear, joy, grief, suffering, because there is a common Spirit from a common Lord and Father, why do you think these brothers to be anything other than yourself? Why flee from the partners of your own mischances, as from such as will derisively cheer them? The body cannot feel gladness at the trouble of any one member, it must necessarily join with one consent in the grief, and in labouring for the remedy. In a company of two is the church; When, then, you cast yourself at the brethren’s knees, you are handling Christ, you are entreating Christ. In like manner, when they shed tears over you, it is Christ who suffers, Christ who prays the Father for mercy. What a son asks is ever easily obtained. Grand indeed is the reward of modesty, which the concealment of our fault promises us! to wit, if we do hide somewhat from the knowledge of man, shall we equally conceal it from God? Are the judgment of men and the knowledge of God so put upon a par? Is it better to be damned in secret than absolved in public? But you say, “It is a miserable thing thus to come to exomologesis:” yes, for evil does bring to misery; but where repentance is to be made, the misery ceases, because it is turned into something salutary. [ANF 3: 664-5; ch. X]

Tertullian seems to be very much in favor of the practice of exomologesis which is the full and usually public confession of one’s sins. (Why the translators chose to leave this word untranslated and instead just transliterated it is anyone’s guess.)

In our next post, we will consider more writings from the Early Church on this subject.

Who Is Your Father?

There has always been in Pentecostal circles an aversion to calling pastors “father.” In fact, I only know of one Pentecostal Pastor in our tradition that was called father and it was done derisively because of some things that he chose to do which were deemed “Catholic.”

The reason for this distaste for the title is twofold:

1. As stated, it is seen as a “Catholic” practice.
2. The words of Jesus in Matthew 23.

The latter of these two needs to be examined.

But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Christ. He who is greatest among you shall be your servant; whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. [Mat 23:8-12 RSV]

On the surface, it seems that the Pentes (and Protestants in general) have a good point. After all, it could hardly be clearer: Jesus said “call no man your father on earth.” But wait a minute. If this is a blanket prohibition, then why do these same churches have no qualms celebrating Father’s Day and asking all the “fathers in the congregation to stand?” This violates the letter of the command, doesn’t it?

Also, he tells us in this same passage that we should not be called “masters” which is being interpreted “teachers” or “guides.” So then why do these churches never demur at calling people “Sunday School TEACHERS” and the like?

Obviously, something is not as it appears or else these churches have selectively applied the portion of Jesus teaching that they wanted to and ignored the part they didn’t. The truth of the matter is they are applying it correctly in all but one area: calling their pastors and other religious leaders “father.” This is almost certainly a backlash against the Roman Catholic practice of doing so.

When taken in context this refers to the self-serving appropriation of titles by people who want to be glorified and recognized by others. It is similar to ministers who run around calling themselves “Apostle So-and-So” or “Prophet John Doe.” These are self-given and self-aggrandizing titles which they appropriate to trumpet their supposed status as highly spiritual people.

So the conferral of titles by a church on people to whom they are appropriate is not even in view here. Thus, calling someone a Bishop who has been placed in that office by the Church is not self-aggrandizing in any way. But someone who just decides that he wants to be termed “bishop” would be.

Just to make this point clearer, let us look at the New Testament itself for evidence that people were indeed referred to as fathers.

Out of 396 references to the word “father” (including “father’s”) at least 96 of them are in reference to someone besides God. So it is clear that the New Testament writers had no problem with using that title. And some of those were used in a religious context. For example,

I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment. (Philemon 1:10 RSV)

For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. (1Corinthians 4:15 RSV)

But Timothy's worth you know, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel. (Philippians 2:22 RSV)

And what of the Early Church?

St. Irenaeus of Lyons Against Heresies

For when any person has been taught from the mouth of another, he is termed the son of him who instructs him, and the latter [is called] his father. [ANF 1: 524, ch. XLI]

St. Clement of Alexandria in The Stromata

It is a good thing, I reckon, to leave to posterity good children. This is the case with children of our bodies. But words are the progeny of the soul. Hence we call those who have instructed us, fathers….And every one who is instructed, is in respect of subjection the son of his instructor. “Son,” says he, “forget not my laws.” [ANF 2: 299, Book I, ch. I]

Among the Epistles of Cyprian, we find the letter From the Roman Clergy to the Carthaginian Clergy, About the Retirement of the Blessed Cyprian. One should note the deference with which the clergy at Rome speak of Cyprian.

We have been informed by Crementius the sub-deacon, who came to us from you, that the blessed father Cyprian has for a certain reason withdrawn…. [ANF 5: 280, epistle II]

And the same can be noted in the letter The Confessors to Cyprian.

All the confessors to father Cyprian, greeting. [ANF 5: 296]

Phileas was the bishop of Thmuis who died a martyr’s death around the year 306. The passage below comes from The Epistle of the Same Phileas of Thmuis to Meletius, Bishop of Lycopolis.

For every one shall have enough to do in managing his own parish, and in finding with great care and many anxieties suitable subordinates among these with whom he has passed his whole life, and who have been trained under his hands. But thou, neither making any account of these things, nor regarding the future, nor considering the law of our sainted fathers and those who have been taken to Christ time after time, nor the honour of our great bishop and father, on whom we all depend in the hope which we have in the Lord Jesus Christ, nor softened by our imprisonments and trials, and daily and multiplied reproach, hast ventured on subverting all things at once. [ANF 6: 163-4]

Finally, let us close with a small excerpt of From an Epistle to Origen written by Alexander of Cappadocia.

For this, as thou knowest, was the will of God, that the friendship subsisting between us from our forefathers should be maintained unbroken, yea rather, that it should increase in fervency and strength. For we are well acquainted with those blessed fathers who have trodden the course before us, and to whom we too shall soon go: Pantænus, namely, that man verily blessed, my master; and also the holy Clement, who was once my master and my benefactor; and all the rest who may be like them, by whose means also I have come to know thee, my lord and brother, who excellest all. [ANF 6: 154, Epistle III]

There can be no doubt that the Early Christians interpreted Jesus’ words in a vastly different manner from the usual Protestant interpretation. They had no problem calling their beloved leaders “Father,” “Master,” or even “Benefactor.” We have also seen that the same is true of the Christian writers in the New Testament itself.

The question therefore begs to be asked: Why did we develop a problem with this obviously ancient practice? I think we have covered that above. It does set one’s mind to wondering if possibly we have rejected other things just because of their “Catholic” origin. It also makes me think that many of the things we have mockingly called “Catholic” may have better been called “ancient Christian” or “Early Church.”

A Pure Sacrifice

In some of my previous posts, I have discussed the Early Church’s view of the Eucharist. We found then that the Eucharist was looked upon as the Body and Blood of Christ in a real sense. Now I want to consider another aspect of the Early Church’s view of this Sacrament.

Generally, Protestants do not regard Communion as a sacrifice. It is viewed as a memorial and a reminder but the idea of sacrifice and of it being offered is completely foreign to their way of thinking. Was this the way the Early Christians believed? Or as in so many other things, did the Protestants somewhere along the way lose the tradition and heritage that had been passed on to them from their forebears?

In St. Justin Maryr’s Dialogue with Trypho, he speaks to the Jewish people in the person of Trypho about the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist.

“And the offering of fine flour, sirs,” I said, “which was prescribed to be presented on behalf of those purified from leprosy, was a type of the bread of the Eucharist, the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed, in remembrance of the suffering which He endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all iniquity, in order that we may at the same time thank God for having created the world, with all things therein, for the sake of man, and for delivering us from the evil in which we were, and for utterly overthrowing principalities and powers by Him who suffered according to His will. Hence God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands: for, from the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same, My name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure offering: for My name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord: but ye profane it.’ [So] He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist, affirming both that we glorify His name, and that you profane [it]." [ANF 1: 215, ch. XLI]

One finds this Malachi passage utilized repeatedly by the Early writers to demonstrate that the pure sacrifice of the Eucharist was predicted in the Old Testament. Another passage from the Dialogue hits on the same basic theme.

“Accordingly, God, anticipating all the sacrifices which we offer through this name, and which Jesus the Christ enjoined us to offer, i.e., in the Eucharist of the bread and the cup, and which are presented by Christians in all places throughout the world, bears witness that they are well-pleasing to Him. But He utterly rejects those presented by you and by those priests of yours, saying, ‘And I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles (He says); but ye profane it." [ANF 1: 257, ch. CXVII]

In St. Irenaeus of Lyon’s Against Heresies, we find a very similar passage about Communion.

Again, giving directions to His disciples to offer to God the first-fruits of His own, created things—not as if He stood in need of them, but that they might be themselves neither unfruitful nor ungrateful—He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks, and said, “This is My body.” And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood, and taught the new oblation of the new covenant; which the Church receiving from the apostles, offers to God throughout all the world, to Him who gives us as the means of subsistence the first-fruits of His own gifts in the New Testament, concerning which Malachi, among the twelve prophets, thus spoke beforehand: “I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord Omnipotent, and I will not accept sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun, unto the going down [of the same], My name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is My name among the Gentiles, saith the Lord Omnipotent;”—indicating in the plainest manner, by these words, that the former people [the Jews] shall indeed cease to make offerings to God, but that in every place sacrifice shall be offered to Him, and that a pure one; and His name is glorified among the Gentiles. [ANF 1: 484, book IV, ch. XVII]

And from the fragments of the lost writings of Ireaneus:

And therefore the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal. [ANF 1: 574, fragment XXXVII]

Saint Cyprian in his letter Cæcilius, on the Sacrament of the Cup of the Lord presents us with the idea that the priest who offers in the Church “offers a true and full sacrifice.”

[H]ow much rather is it forbidden to infringe such important ones, so great, so pertaining to the very sacrament of our Lord’s passion and our own redemption, or to change it by human tradition into anything else than what was divinely appointed! For if Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, is Himself the chief priest of God the Father, and has first offered Himself a sacrifice to the Father, and has commanded this to be done in commemoration of Himself, certainly that priest truly discharges the office of Christ, who imitates that which Christ did; and he then offers a true and full sacrifice in the Church to God the Father, when he proceeds to offer it according to what he sees Christ Himself to have offered. [ANF 5: 362, Epistle LXII, sect. XV]

These passages give us pretty clear picture of the Early Church’s belief that the Eucharist was truly and really a sacrifice to God. While it was viewed in this way, it is not to be construed that it was an addition to the sacrifice Christ made on Calvary. It was actually a part of the one sacrifice which Christ offers to the Heavenly Father.

Given these facts, it is odd that so many rail against Catholics who speak of the “holy sacrifice of the Mass.” This language is not outside the kind of language that the Early Church used. In fact it is much closer to the Early Church way of thinking than merely speaking of it as a “memorial meal.”

The Sign of the Cross

Most Protestants are quite uninformed about crossing themselves. They will even do it mockingly (as I regret to say I have) and make fun of people who cross themselves. One Baptist pastor in my area made a joke of the practice as if the person were looking for his/her cigarettes. To most this practice is so Catholic that it is written off completely as another of “inventions of the Catholic Church.” Even some websites have the temerity to claim that this practice is somehow of demonic origin and did not originate until the 8th or 9th Century.

The original practice seems to have involved simply making the sign of the cross on one’s own forehead with the thumb. There is no way to determine exactly when the larger crossing (forehead, navel or lower chest, and shoulders) came into use. But the leap from the smaller to the larger is of little consequence because the symbolism is still the same. Let’s observe the sign of the cross in the Early Church Fathers.

Tertullian, known as the founder of Latin Christianity, speaks of the sign of the cross in The Chaplet.

At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign. [ANF 3: 94-5, ch. 3]

St. Hippolytus of Rome speaks of the same in On the Apostolic Tradition.

If you are tempted, seal your foreheads reverently. For this is the Sign of the
Passion, displayed and made manifest against the devil, provided that you do it with faith,
not to be seen by men, but by presenting it with skill like a shield.
2Because the Adversary, when he sees the strength of the heart and when he sees the inner
man which is animated by the Word show, formed on the exterior, the interior image of the
Word, he is made to flee by the Spirit which is in you. 3This is symbolized by the Paschal
lamb which was sacrificed, the blood of which Moses sprinkled on the threshold, and
smeared on the doorposts. He told us of the faith which is now in us, which was given to
us through the perfect Lamb.
4By sealing the forehead and eyes with the hand, we turn aside the one who is seeking to destroy us. [from http://www.bombaxo.com/hippolytus.html, tr. Kevin P. Edgecomb, ch. 42]

The power of the sign is very powerfully spelled out by Hippolytus here. It is to be noted, however, that he is adamant that one must “do it with faith” to make it effectual. Then again, that is true of any religious action for as the Apostle Paul tells us, “whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.” (Romans 14: 23 RSV)

Saint Athanasius, the great defender of orthodox Christology, also speak of the power of this sign.

And let him come who would test by experience what we have now said, and in the very presence of the deceit of demons and the imposture of oracles and the marvels of magic, let him use the Sign of that Cross which is laughed at among them, and he shall see how by its means demons fly, oracles cease, all magic and witchcraft is brought to nought. [NPNF 2-04: 62, On the Incarnation of the Word, ch. 48]

And whereas formerly demons used to deceive men’s fancy, occupying springs or rivers, trees or stones, and thus imposed upon the simple by their juggleries; now, after the divine visitation of the Word, their deception has ceased. For by the Sign of the Cross, though a man but use it, he drives out their deceits. [NPNF 2-04: 62, On the Incarnation of the Word, ch. 47]

[W]hereas by the sign of the Cross all magic is stopped, and all witchcraft brought to nought, and all the idols are being deserted and left, and every unruly pleasure is checked, and every one is looking up from earth to heaven: Whom is one to pronounce dead? Christ, that is doing so many works? But to work is not proper to one dead. [NPNF 2-04: 53, On the Incarnation of the Word, ch. 41]

For me, the possibility that this great saint, who so ably formulated almost singlehandedly the doctrine of the Incarnation, is reason enough to employ this ancient sign in faith.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem speaks to this subject in his Catechetical Lectures.

If any disbelieve the power of the Crucified, let him ask the devils; if any believe not words, let him believe what he sees. Many have been crucified throughout the world, but by none of these are the devils scared; but when they see even the Sign of the Cross of Christ, who was crucified for us, they shudder. [NPNF 2-07:82, lecture XIII]

St. Basil’s powerful tome On the Holy Spirit contains the following:

Or were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more. For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is thence who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? [NPNF 2-08: 41, ch. XXVII]

This is also a compelling witness in behalf of the unwritten tradition of the church as being authoritative in the minds of the early Christians. One hopes that people who have rejected the sign of the Cross have not, as St. Basil says, “unintentionally injured the Gospel in its very vitals.”

While the Protestant attack on this as a mindless, powerless and even superstitious repetition has some validity if the sign is done thoughtlessly and without faith, that in no way invalidates the practice itself. If so, then we would also have to toss out prayer or singing of hymns which can also be done without any thinking. The fact is, if this is done reverently, it is not vain or useless. It is a humble way to remind oneself of the death of Christ and to “bear the cross” every day. How can anyone honestly stand against that? And if the Early Fathers are correct (as I believe) then we are depriving ourselves of a powerful weapon if we neglect the sign of the cross.

Prayer for the Departed

I vividly remember in my home church after one of the young teenagers shot and killed herself, her father was asking all of us to pray for his daughter. One of the ladies said, “No, I’m not going to pray for her, I’m going to pray for you!” There are two things that stick out in my mind about this incident:

1. Why did the father ask people to pray for his daughter? Coming from our tradition that would be absolutely ludicrous.
2. Why did the lady feel the need to make it so clear that she was not going to pray for the daughter, knowing this father had only hours earlier found his daughter after her suicide?

The reason I bring up this story at all is to segue into a discussion of prayers for the departed. I have taken two blogs to think about praying to the departed but what about praying for those who have departed?

There are some things that need to be stated immediately:

1. Nowhere does Scripture forbid us from praying for the departed.
2. There are no Christian churches or denominations (that I’m aware of) that believe that prayers for the departed can change their eternal destiny which was decided by them in life (that’s right—not even Roman Catholics).

There are two places in Scripture that indicate that prayer for the departed was practiced. The first is found in II Maccabees 12: 40-45 where Judas prays for his comrades in arms who have been killed in the battle that their sins might be forgiven. The second one is in II Timothy 1: 16-18 in which St. Paul prays for Onesiphorus.

The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain: But, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me. The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou knowest very well. (2 Timothy 1:16-18)

The house of Onesiphorus is also greeted in 2 Timothy 4: 19. From these passages it would seem that Onesiphorus is deceased and the Apostle prays from him to fin mercy of the Lord in the Day of Judgment. Some argue that he cannot be dead because Paul is praying for him (see for example Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible). This, however, is circular reasoning. These verses provide us a vague hint on an idea that will come to fruition in the writings of the Early Church.

Let us look first at the epitaph of a believer named Abercius written by him prior to 216 A.D.

"The citizen of a chosen city, this [monument] I made [while] living, that there I might have in time a resting-place of my body, [I] being by name Abercius, the disciple of a holy shepherd who feeds flocks of sheep [both] on mountains and on plains, who has great eyes that see everywhere….These things I, Abercius, having been a witness [of them] told to be written here. Verily I was passing through my seventy-second year. He that discerneth these things, every fellow-believer [namely], let him pray for Abercius.” [http://www.heiligenlexikon.de/CatholicEncyclopedia/Abericus_Marcellus.html]

Tertullian in speaking of a wife who has lost her husband outlines what here duties toward the departed would be in his treatise On Monogamy.

Indeed, she prays for his soul, and requests refreshment for him meanwhile, and fellowship (with him) in the first resurrection; and she offers (her sacrifice) on the anniversaries of his falling asleep. [ANF 4: 67, ch. X]

St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his Catechetical Lectures speaks of the benefit of praying for the departed.

Then on behalf also of the Holy Fathers and Bishops who have fallen asleep before us, and in a word of all who in past years have fallen asleep among us, believing that it will be a very great benefit to the souls, for whom the supplication is put up, while that holy and most awful sacrifice is set forth. [NPNF 2-07: 153-4, Lecture XXIII]

Saint John Chrysostom gives us a lengthy exposition on 1 Corinthians 15 that has direct bearing on the subject at hand.

But grant that he departed with sin upon him, even on this account one ought to rejoice, that he was stopped short in his sins and added not to his iniquity; and help him as far as possible, not by tears, but by prayers and supplications and alms and offerings. For not unmeaningly have these things been devised, nor do we in vain make mention of the departed in the course of the divine mysteries, and approach God in their behalf, beseeching the Lamb Who is before us, Who taketh away the sin of the world;—not in vain, but that some refreshment may thereby ensue to them. Not in vain doth he that standeth by the altar cry out when the tremendous mysteries are celebrated, “For all that have fallen asleep in Christ, and for those who perform commemorations in their behalf” For if there were no commemorations for them, these things would not have been spoken: since our service is not a mere stage show, God forbid! yea, it is by the ordinance of the Spirit that these things are done.

Let us then give them aid and perform commemoration for them. For if the children of Job were purged by the sacrifice of their father, why dost thou doubt that when we too offer for the departed, some consolation arises to them? since God is wont to grant the petitions of those who ask for others. And this Paul signified saying, “that in a manifold Person your gift towards us bestowed by many may be acknowledged with thanksgiving on your behalf.” Let us not then be weary in giving aid to the departed, both by offering on their behalf and obtaining prayers for them: for the common Expiation of the world is even before us. Therefore with boldness do we then intreat for the whole world, and name their names with those of martyrs, of confessors, of priests. For in truth one body are we all, though some members are more glorious than others; and it is possible from every source to gather pardonfor them, from our prayers, from our gifts in their behalf, from those whose names are named with theirs. Why therefore dost thou grieve? Why mourn, when it is in thy power to gather so much pardon for the departed? [NPNF 1-12: 253-4, Homily XLI]

In his Homilies on Philippians, St. John Chrysostom gives us an interesting piece of information about the prayers for the dead.

Not in vain did the Apostles order that remembrance should be made of the dead in the dreadful Mysteries. [NPNF 1-13: 197, Homily III]

Not only does he say that we should commemorate the dead in the Eucharistic service, but that this was given as a command of the Apostles. Whether we accept his word for it or not, it does say a lot about the practice of the Church in John Chrysostom’s time.

The Early Christian apologist Arnobius of Sicca (died c. 330) wrote on the same subject in his Seven Books of Arnobius against the Heathen.

For why, indeed, have our writings deserved to be given to the flames? our meetings to be cruelly broken up, in which prayer is made to the Supreme God, peace and pardon are asked for all in authority, for soldiers, kings, friends, enemies, for those still in life, and those freed from the bondage of the flesh; in which all that is said is such as to make men humane, gentle, modest, virtuous, chaste, generous in dealing with their substance, and inseparably united to all embraced in our brotherhood? [ANF 6: 488, ch. XXXVI]

In his moving funeral oration for his brother Satyrus, St. Ambrose of Milan prays as follows:

And now to Thee, Almighty God, I commend this guileless soul, to Thee I offer my sacrifice; accept favourably and mercifully the gift of a brother, the offering of a priest. I offer beforehand these first libations of myself. [NPNF 2-10:173, bk. I, ch. 80]

These few examples amply illustrate that the early believers held that praying for their departed brothers was possible and beneficial. In much the same way as praying to the departed saints, one might view this as something which, if indeed it can confer some benefit, should possibly not be neglected since it most certainly is not forbidden.

Early Fathers on the Intercession of the Saints

We have looked at some of the Scriptural support and rationale behind the doctrine of the intercession of the saints in the previous blog. Now we will consider what the Early Church Fathers had to say on this much-debated subject.

Our first text comes from St. Clement of Alexandria in his book The Stromata.

So is he always pure for prayer. He also prays in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of the saints standing with him. [ANF 2: 545, bk. 7, ch. 12]

In St. Cyprian of Carthage’s epistle To Cornelius in Exile, Concerning His Confession, written in the middle of the Third Century, one finds the following:

Let us remember one another in concord and unanimity. Let us on both sides always pray for one another. Let us relieve burdens and afflictions by mutual love, that if any one of us, by the swiftness of divine condescension, shall go hence the first, our love may continue in the presence of the Lord, and our prayers for our brethren and sisters not cease in the presence of the Father’s mercy. [ANF 5:352, Epistle LVI]

St. Cyprian believed in the intercession of the saints so much that he was willing to ask Pope Cornelius to remember him even after “go[ing] hence” to the “presence of the Lord.”

Writing in at the end of the Third and beginning of the Fourth Centuries, St. Methodius of Olympus penned Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna On the Day that They Met in the Temple. Notice the eloquent witness he gives to this doctrine.

Wherefore, we pray thee, the most excellent among women, who boastest in the confidence of thy maternal honours, that thou wouldest unceasingly keep us in remembrance. O holy mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our boast in thee, and who in hymns august celebrate the memory, which will ever live, and never fade away. And do thou also, O honoured and venerable Simeon, thou earliest host of our holy religion, and teacher of the resurrection of the faithful, be our patron and advocate with that Saviour God, whom thou wast deemed worthy to receive into thine arms. [ANF 6: 393]

St. Gregory of Nanzianzus in On the Death of His Father (late 300’s) gives the following beautiful description of his father’s prayerful activity from heaven.

Aye, I am well assured that his intercession is of more avail now than was his instruction in former days, since he is closer to God, now that he has shaken off his bodily fetters, and freed his mind from the clay which obscured it, and holds intercourse naked with the nakedness of the prime and purest Mind; being promoted, if it be not rash to say so, to the rank and confidence of an angel. [NPNF 2-07:256, Oration XVIII]

The Catechetical Lectures of St. Cyril of Jerusalem were written around 347 provide us with yet more evidence of the belief in the intercession of the departed saints.

Then we commemorate also those who have fallen asleep before us, first Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, that at their prayers and intercessions God would receive our petition. [NPNF 2-07: 153, Lecture XXIII]

We read a very explicit substantiation of this belief in St. Basil the Great’s letter Of the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, the invocation of Saints, and their Images

I acknowledge also the holy apostles, prophets, and martyrs; and I invoke them to supplication to God, that through them, that is, through their mediation, the merciful God may be propitious to me, and that a ransom may be made and given me for my sins. [NPNF 2-08: 326, Letter CCCLX]

One of the greatest preachers and Biblical scholars of any age lived in the early Fifth Century. His name was St. John Chrysostom (his last name was given him by his hearers who said he was “goldenmouthed”). Here is what he says in Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians:

And the tombs of the servants of the Crucified are more splendid than the palaces of kings; not for the size and beauty of the buildings, (yet even in this they surpass them,) but, what is far more, in the zeal of those who frequent them. For he that wears the purple himself goes to embrace those tombs, and, laying aside his pride, stands begging the saints to be his advocates with God, and he that hath the diadem implores the tent-maker and the fisherman, though dead, to be his patrons. Wilt thou dare then, tell me, to call the Lord of these dead; whose servants even after their decease are the patrons of the kings of the world? [NPNF 1-12: 402-3; Homily XXVI]

Lastly I want to include a list of inscriptions from the catacombs in Rome which were written in the Second and Third Centuries. Maybe this listing is the best proof of what the Christians of this era believed because it shows what they put into practice.

"Pray for thy parents, Matronata Matrona. She lived one year and 51 days."
"Januaria, take thy good refreshment, and make request for us."
"Atticus: sleep in peace, secure in thy safety, and pray anxiously for our sins;"
"Martyrs, holy, good, blessed, help Quiracus."
"Peter and Paul, help Primitivus, a sinner."
"Paul and Peter, have us in mind in your prayers, and more than us."
"Paul and Peter, pray for Victor." [from Prayer to the Saints at http://www.forthelife.org/a9.htm]

I believe these quotes from the Early Church are more than sufficient to demonstrate for us what they believed. Whether we choose to believe as they did or not is up to us but good sense and integrity prevents us from saying that they did not believe in the prayers of the departed saints.

Strangely, David Bercot in his A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, tries to make us believe that the Early Church did not believe in prayers to the departed saints. It is unfortunate that, rather than citing any of the above evidence, he chooses to cite some so-called evidence which, in fact, does not say what he would have us believe it says. Only by manipulating the evidence, can anyone come to such a fallacious conclusion.

I would much rather let the saints speak for themselves. While it is very easy to let theological bias direct our view of what was said, if we read the whole of their writings and take it as they demonstrably meant it, we can hardly help but come to the conclusion that these early Christians did indeed believe the prayers to the saints in heaven were efficacious and beneficial.

Someone's Praying for Me?

Along with the subject of infant baptism, the subject of this blog is one of the most controversial I have chosen to address. Many of the things that I have brought forward have been contrary to Protestant and Pentecostal doctrines but this one may well take the prize in that area. So let me say that these are still “conjectures”—my written thinking. One cannot be censured for at least trying to understand and grasp the cherished beliefs of others—even those with whom he/she may disagree.

I am speaking about the intercession of the saints. Briefly stated, the idea is that the saints who have already gone on to Heaven have the ability to pray for those who have not made it yet. They can “hear” the requests made to them and join the person in prayer for said requests. But where does such an idea come from and what does the Early Church tell us about this?

Two Biblical passages give us some hint at this doctrine. The first is found in Revelation 5:8:

And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints [RSV]

The other is found in Revelation 8: 3-4:

And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God. [RSV]

In each of these passages, we see the saints (24 elders) and the angels presenting prayers of the saints before the throne of God.

My Protestant comrades will then raise two objections—these are the knee-jerk reactions to this doctrine. First, they will say, “But the Scripture teaches that there is only one Mediator between God and man.” The quote from I Timothy 2: 5 is thought to be the deathblow to the intercession of the saints. But let’s consider if that is the case or not.

If this verse excludes the prayers of the saints in heaven then it also excludes the prayers of the saints on earth. If there is only one Mediator, then we shouldn’t be asking our fellow Christians to pray for us at all. Let’s look at this verse in context.

For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time. (1Timothy 2:5-6 RSV)

Two things become apparent: 1) The word “only” does not appear before mediator in this passage; and, 2) We can all agree that there is only one Mediator who gave Himself a ransom for all, the Man Christ Jesus. There is a huge difference between the One Mediator and the many intercessors.

The idea that others cannot intercede for us is directly contradicted by the verses that precede those above.

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. (1Ti 2:1-2 RSV)

Paul could not be telling us that we should do something that it is not permissible for us to do. If we are urged to pray, what would make us think that it is not right for the departed saints to do so?
The second objection is that the saints are dead and cannot hear our prayers. Really? That’s not what Jesus said. Look at what He said.

Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?" (John 11:25-26 RSV)

And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God said to him, 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not God of the dead, but of the living; you are quite wrong." (Mark 12:26-27 RSV)

So while there body is dead, their spirits are very much alive with God. They are still members of the One Body, the Church. As to whether they can hear us or not, there is no passage of Scripture that tells us this. Being in the spiritual realm, it would seem highly likely that they could indeed hear us.

When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne; they cried out with a loud voice, "O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before thou wilt judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell upon the earth?” (Revelation 6:9-10 RSV)

It is apparent from the above verse that the martyrs under the altar in heaven had some knowledge of what was going on in the earth. Why is it so hard to imagine that they can hear the prayers of those who ask for their intercession?

One more thing needs to be clarified. The word prayer confuses some people. They believe that prayer should only be offered to God. But Biblical use of the word does not indicate that. For example, Abraham’s servant prayed to Rebekah to give him water (Genesis 24:17) and Paul prayed to the people on ship with him to eat (Acts 27:34). So praying can simply mean asking, addressing or speaking to someone. It is, therefore, not wrong to pray to someone or to pray someone. In these cases as in the case of prayer to the saints, prayer is in no way construed as worship, only as talking to them and entreating their prayers.

While the very idea of this is immediately repulsive to many, it should be considered with care. because if the saints can hear us and pray for us, would it not be a great blessing to have these prayers? Would it not be a terrible omission for us not to avail ourselves of these powerful prayers of the righteous (James 5:16) if indeed they are available to us?

We will next consider the writings of the Early Fathers to see where they stood on this matter.

Random Thoughts on Infant Baptism

The last two blogs have no doubt been a source of consternation to Protestant readers (if there are any readers of any kind). We have been nursed on the illusion that the Early Church was exactly like our group (regardless of whichever group we happen to belong to). When we are confronted with the fact that such was not the case there are generally one of two rationalizations trotted out:

1. The Church had already “backslid” into Catholicism.
2. These people are not representative of the Early Christians.

Unfortunately, neither of these holds water and we are again confronted by the start reality that the Early Church was indeed very different from us and, dare I say, very Catholic.

When dealing with the subject of infant baptism one of the first retorts from people of my background would be: “But the Bible doesn’t teach it.” The problem for those who believe in IB is that nowhere is it explicitly stated that this was the practice of the Early Church. There are, however, some interesting places where one might logically infer that this was indeed their practice.

In the New Testament there are five texts that speak of household baptisms. It is reasonable to assume that somewhere in one or all of these five households there were some children of young age. But it says that all the house was baptized.

1. Acts 11:13-14 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

2. Acts 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

3. Acts 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

4. Acts 18:8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.

5. 1 Corinthians 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

Are these passages conclusive proof? Certainly not. But they do offer tantalizing clues which must be analyzed when dealing with the subject from a Biblical point of view.

As do other passages from early writers that do not say so much as suggest the possibility. When St. Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost, he gave this as his altar call:

And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him." (Act 2:38-39)

An article by Jordan Bajis entitled Infant Baptism offers the following observations concerning this prime Pentecostal passage:

It is also interesting to note that this quote from Peter's Pentecostal sermon does not merely state "... the promise is for you and children," but "for you and your children," which makes it clear that the children mentioned here were young enough to still be considered under the protection and authority of their parents. This is underscored when one understands that it was common for women and men to marry at the very young ages of twelve and thirteen, respectively. From this it becomes reasonable to assume that these children to whom Peter refers were young juveniles or, at the very least, in their preadolescence. (http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/bajis_infant_baptism.htm)

In a fascinating article Do Baptists Talk to their Babies? Peter J. Leithart (author of Against Christianity—a thought-provoking work) makes some salient points on this subject.

Let me take this a further step. If the child cannot understand what a parent is saying, is it rational for the parent to speak to him or her? Baptist parents as well as others speak to their infants, and do not expect the child to understand or to talk back for many months. They see nothing irrational in this. They speak to their children, that is, they employ symbols, not because they think the infant understands all that is being said or because they expect an immediate response. They speak to their children so that the child will learn to understand and talk back. So too, we baptize babies not because they can fully understand what is happening to them, nor because we expect them to undergo some kind of immediate moral transformation. We baptize them, and consistently remind them of their baptism and its implications, so that they will come to understanding and mature faith. (http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/rr/rr047.htm)

Dr. Dennis Johnson makes these three points in his article Infant Baptism: How My Mind Has Changed:

1. The book of Acts does not mention one instance of an adolescent or young adult from a Christian home who subsequently receive baptism after making a “personal decision.”
2. In speaking about household baptisms, the book of Acts never says explicitly that the young children and/or infants were disallowed from baptism because their age prevented them from expressing a personal commitment.
3. The New Testament gives us no example or instruction that indicates to us that children under the New Covenant were to be treated differently than children of the Old Covenant. The very opposite is true about the other changes from Old to New. [IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 3, Number 24, June 11 to June 17, 2001; http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/den_johnson/TH.Johnson.Baptism.pdf]

I am under no misapprehension that the things I have said will change anyone’s mind. But then again, that was not what I was aiming for to start with. I want to make people think and I want to think publicly in this written form so that others can at least be exposed to these things. Too often we tend to reject someone’s alternative beliefs out of hand without ever hearing them out as to why they believe as they do. By reading this, one might have his/her mind opened even the smallest bit. And that cannot necessarily be a bad thing—I hope.

Proper Candidates Part II

Another witness to speak on infant baptism was St. Hippolytus of Rome who wrote in the early part of the Third Century. Note the following passage from his On the Apostolic Tradition:

The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family. [from http://www.bombaxo.com/hippolytus.html; ch. 21]

Although the word children could be interpreted as children old enough to “get saved,” the rest of Hippolytus’ statement makes it clear that children who were not even old enough to speak for themselves were also considered appropriate recipients of the rite of baptism.

St. Gregory of Nanzainus gives a powerful testimony to infant baptism in his Oration on Holy Baptism

Have you an infant child? Do not let sin get any opportunity, but let him be sanctified from his childhood; from his very tenderest age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Fearest thou the Seal on account of the weakness of nature? O what a small-souled mother, and of how little faith! Why, Anna even before Samuel was born promised him to God, and after his birth consecrated him at once, and brought him up in the priestly habit, not fearing anything in human nature, but trusting in God. You have no need of amulets or incantations, with which the Devil also comes in, stealing worship from God for himself in the minds of vainer men. Give your child the Trinity, that great and noble Guard. [NPNF 2:365, ch. XVII]

Later in the same Oration, St. Gregory says the following:

Be it so, some will say, in the case of those who ask for Baptism; what have you to say about those who are still children, and conscious neither of the loss nor of the grace? Are we to baptize them too? Certainly, if any danger presses. For it is better that they should be unconsciously sanctified than that they should depart unsealed and uninitiated. [NPNF 2:370, ch. XXVIII].

By way of summary, let me quote extensively from Philip Schaff’s History of the Christian Church volume 2:

At the same time it seems an almost certain fact, though by many disputed, that, with the baptism of converts, the optional baptism of the children of Christian parents in established congregations, comes down from the apostolic age….Among the fathers, Tertullian himself not excepted—for he combats only its expediency—there is not a single voice against the lawfulness and the apostolic origin of infant baptism. No time can be fixed at which it was first introduced. Tertullian suggests, that it was usually based on the invitation of Christ: "Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not." The usage of sponsors, to which Tertullian himself bears witness, although he disapproves of it, and still more, the almost equally ancient abuse of infant communion, imply the existence of infant baptism. Heretics also practised it, and were not censured for it.

The apostolic fathers make, indeed, no mention of it. But their silence proves nothing; for they hardly touch upon baptism at all…

The only opponent of infant baptism among the fathers is the eccentric and schismatic Tertullian, of North Africa. He condemns the hastening of the innocent age to the forgiveness of sins, and intrusting it with divine gifts, while we would not commit to it earthly property. Whoever considers the solemnity of baptism, will shrink more from the receiving, than from the postponement of it. But the very manner of Tertullian’s opposition proves as much in favor of infant baptism as against it. He meets it not as an innovation, but as a prevalent custom; and he meets it not with exegetical nor historical arguments, but only with considerations of religious prudence….

Tertullian’s opposition, moreover, had no influence, at least no theoretical influence, even in North Africa. His disciple Cyprian differed from him wholly. In his day it was no question, whether the children of Christian parents might and should be baptized—on this all were agreed,—but whether they might be baptized so early as the second or third day after birth, or, according to the precedent of the Jewish circumcision, on the eighth day. [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.vii.xiv.html, ch. 5, sect. 73]

While these stunning facts are totally contrary to all that I have been taught or have believed, it is nearly certain that they adequately reflect the baptismal teaching of the Early Church. What we do with these facts is left up to us but merely dismissing them become problematic if we are indeed a part of the same Church of which these early Christians were a part.

Proper Candidates Part I

While I have written on baptism previously, there was one aspect of the subject that I skipped over purposefully. The reason is because it is one of the most controversial and contentious aspects of the subject (at least from my point of view).

As a Pentecostal Christian, I have always espoused the idea of believer’s baptism. That is, I have believed that the only proper candidate for baptism was the person who was of such an age as to have of his or her own free will chosen to be baptized after their conversion experience.

The second part (after their conversion) was demolished by the Fathers when I realized that to them baptism was not some post-conversion testimony to a prior experience of salvation; rather, it was the experience of salvation itself. Not that the water or the act of dipping (even three times as they did in that day) saves a person. But the acceptance of this rite was the manner in which a person “accepted Christ.” There was no protracted “altar call”; there was only a straightforward “baptism call.”

This can be clearly seen in the New Testament itself. For instance in the first sermon of the New Testament church preached by the Apostle Peter, when the crowd inquires as to what they must do to be saved, the Apostle does not tell them to come forward to the altar and “pray through”, nor does he tell them to come forward, sign the card and shake his hand. Instead he says, “Repent and be baptized.”

The first part of my belief as to the proper candidates for baptism was also challenged by the writings of the Early Church. What do they say? Who has the right to receive the rite? Their answer surprised and shocked me.

The first witness we will adduce is Irenaeus of Lyon who wrote near the end of the Second Century. In his magnum opus, Against Heresies he writes:

Being a Master, therefore, He also possessed the age of a Master, not despising or evading any condition of humanity, nor setting aside in Himself that law which He had appointed for the human race, but sanctifying every age, by that period corresponding to it which belonged to Himself. For He came to save all through means of Himself—all, I say, who through Him are born again to God—infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. [ANF 1:391, Bk. 2 ch. XXII]

From our previous posts, one will immediately recognize that the language used here (“born again to God”) referred in the Patristic period to baptism. Thus, infants are here included as candidates and indeed as recipients of saving grace through baptism.

An even more explicit endorsement of this practice is found in St. Cyprian’s epistle To Fidus, On the Baptism of Infants.

But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man….For in respect of the observance of the eighth day in the Jewish circumcision of the flesh, a sacrament was given beforehand in shadow and in usage; but when Christ came, it was fulfilled in truth. For because the eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, was to be that on which the Lord should rise again, and should quicken us, and give us circumcision of the spirit, the eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, and the Lord’s day, went before in the figure; which figure ceased when by and by the truth came, and spiritual circumcision was given to us. For which reason we think that no one is to be hindered from obtaining grace by that law which was already ordained, and that spiritual circumcision ought not to be hindered by carnal circumcision, but that absolutely every man is to be admitted to the grace of Christ, since Peter also in the Acts of the Apostles speaks, and says, “The Lord hath said to me that I should call no man common or unclean.” But if anything could hinder men from obtaining grace, their more heinous sins might rather hinder those who are mature and grown up and older. But again, if even to the greatest sinners, and to those who had sinned much against God, when they subsequently believed, remission of sins is granted—and nobody is hindered from baptism and from grace—how much rather ought we to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins—that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another. And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism and from the grace of God, who is merciful and kind and loving to all. Which, since it is to be observed and maintained in respect of all, we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons, who on this very account deserve more from our help and from the divine mercy, that immediately, on the very beginning of their birth, lamenting and weeping, they do nothing else but entreat [ANF 5: 353-4, Epistle LVIII].

Of note in this passage is the fact that, not only did Cyprian feel this way, but also the 66 bishops gathered with him at the Council of Carthage in 254. If this had been some new doctrine lately sprung up, it is hardly conceivable that the bishops in this council would have been unanimous in their acceptance of it. In fact, it is implausible that this doctrine would have been so widely received without great uproar had it not been a part of the tradition received from Apostolic times.

We will look at some other passages next time but as you may have already guessed, there is almost unanimous assent on this subject in the Early Church. But that's next time.

St. Cyprian on Church Government

We will now look at the writings of St. Cyprian of Carthage and what they will reveal to us about the governance of the Church. Cyprian wrote around the middle of the 3rd Century. Thascius Caecilius Cyprianus was born around the beginning of the Third Century and died a martyr’s death on September 14, 258.

One of Cyprian’s most powerful passages concerning church government is found in Cyprian to the Lapsed.

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 thee, That thou art 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 thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Thence, through the 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. [ANF 5: 305, Epistle XXVI]

Here Cyprian expresses plainly what the accepted belief of the Early Church was: the bishops ruled the church. There was no such thing as a “deacon board” that gave the Bishop orders and ran the business of the Church. The universal belief and practice of these early Christians was based on the Scriptures and tradition that had been handed down to them from the Apostles.

So how were the deacons to view the bishop and relate to him? St. Cyprian tells us in To Rogatianus, Concerning the Deacon Who Contended Against the Bishop.

But deacons ought to remember that the Lord chose apostles, that is, bishops and overseers; while apostles appointed for themselves deacons after the ascent of the Lord into heaven, as ministers of their episcopacy and of the Church. But if we may dare anything against God who makes bishops, deacons may also dare against us by whom they are made; and therefore it behooves the deacon of whom you write to repent of his audacity, and to acknowledge the honour of the priest, and to satisfy the bishop set over him with full humility. For these things are the beginnings of heretics, and the origins and endeavours of evil-minded schismatics;—to please themselves, and with swelling haughtiness to despise him who is set over them. Thus they depart from the Church—thus a profane altar is set up outside—thus they rebel against the peace of Christ, and the appointment and the unity of God. But if, further, he shall harass and provoke you with his insults, you must exercise against him the power of your dignity, by either deposing him or excommunicating him. For if the Apostle Paul, writing to Timothy, said, “Let no man despise thy youth, how much rather must it be said by your colleagues to you, “Let no man despise thy age? And since you have written, that one has associated himself with that same deacon of yours, and is a partaker of his pride and boldness, you may either restrain or excommunicate him also, and any others that may appear of a like disposition, and act against God’s priest. Unless, as we exhort and advise, they should rather perceive that they have sinned and make satisfaction, and suffer us to keep our own purpose; for we rather ask and desire to overcome the reproaches and injuries of individuals by clemency and patience, than to punish them by our priestly power. [ANF 5: 366, Epistle LXIV]

These bishops described by Cyprian are powerful individuals, as some have said “princes of the Church.” What can be done to ensure there is no abuse of power? Do away with the Episcopal office? Strip it of all its power and leave the Bishop as only a figurehead? None of these solutions would have suited the Early Church because of their unshakable belief that God had instituted the bishops, presbyters and deacons for the governance of His Church. Their solution was much more spiritual: keep the bishops but let them ever be reminded that they will answer to God for all their actions.

In which behalf we neither do violence to, nor impose a law upon, any one, since each prelate has in the administration of the Church the exercise of his will free, as he shall give an account of his conduct to the Lord. [ANF 5: 379, Epistle LXXI]

Rather than placing new landmarks just because things don’t work like we want them to, maybe we should follow the Scripture and “ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls.” (Jeremiah 6:16)