Follow

We continue this week with our analysis of Mr. Joshua T. Charles’ claim that he had found “profoundly [Roman] Catholic doctrine” in Ignatius of Antioch’s seven letters from 107 AD.  Mr. Charles, a former Protestant who converted to Roman Catholicism because Ignatius “red pilled” him into the truth, repeatedly claims to have read “tens of thousands of pages” of the Early Church Fathers, finding Roman Catholicism “absolutely everywhere,” and was particularly surprised by Ignatius.

Of the 10 points he listed, we have covered eight so far — the sacrifice of the Eucharist and the Real Presence of Christ in Part 2, the New Testament priesthood, Episcopal Succession and Episcopal Authority in Part 3, Roman Primacy in Part 4, and Baptismal Regeneration and Losing Salvation in Part 5.  As we showed last week, Ignatius’ reference to Jesus purifying the water in His baptism and breathing immortality into the Church in His anointing was not a nuanced affirmation of baptismal or confirmational regeneration. It was rather a rejection of the Gnostic teaching that Jesus could not come in contact with created matter. His call to “let your baptism endure as your arms” was not an affirmation of baptismal regeneration but was rather an imitation of the Pauline “whole armour of God” narrative in Ephesians 6. As for Mr. Charles’ claim that Ignatius taught that a Christian could lose his salvation, we found that Ignatius rather warned the congregations not to stumble into error lest they demonstrate that they had never received grace at all and had never been Christian. He did not warn them that they might “lose” their salvation.

We now address the last two of his “10 points”:

9. Schism and heresy from the one true Church possessing the one true Faith is not of Christ, and always unacceptable;

10. This one true Church is called the “Catholic Church.”

Let us begin with point 9, division in the mind of Ignatius as well as division in the early Church, and then move on to point 10, the use of Catholic to describe the Church in its early days.

Schism and Heresy

Regarding his rejection of schism and heresy, Ignatius only mentions each once in his letters:

“I therefore, yet not I, but the love of Jesus Christ, entreat you that you use Christian nourishment only, and abstain from herbage of a different kind; I mean heresy (αιρεσις)” (to the Trallians, 6 [Migne PG 5, 680])

“Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism (σχιζοντι) in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion [of Christ.]” (to the Philadelphians, 3 [Migne PG 5, 700])

As we observed last week, the words “in the Church” (in bold) do not occur in Ignatius’ original Greek letter to the Philadelphians but have been added by the translators to give the impression that to disagree with a fellow Christian, or a deacon, or a bishop, is a sin by which a man loses his salvation. Such an interpolation gives the appearance that any disagreement (schism) at all within the Church is error (heresy), resulting in damnation. Not only did Ignatius not believe that, but as we shall demonstrate below, nobody else in the ancient church believed that either.

As we have observed repeatedly, Ignatius’ precisely targeted admonition against “schism,” “division” and “heresy” was intended to correct the teachings found in the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter then circulating in Asia Minor. The Gnostic Apocalypse taught that Jesus was not really incarnated, could not save both body and soul, could not come in contact with created matter, and that the impostor “bishops” and “deacons” preaching the Gospel were not really appointed by God. In short, the division he abjured was the false gospel and deceptive “revelation” of the Gnostics.

Thus, when Ignatius warns against “division” or partitioning (gr: merisma), he is not warning against worshiping with other people who also teach the gospel and also abide by the teachings of the Scriptures. Rather he is warning against gathering and worshiping with those who deny the incarnation, passion and resurrection of Christ and teach evil, wicked doctrines:

“Wherefore, as children of light and truth, flee from division (μερισμον, merismon) and wicked doctrines” (to the Philadelphians, 2 [Migne PG 5, 697])

“Keep yourselves from those evil plants which Jesus Christ does not tend, …  Not that I have found any division (μερισμον, merismon) among you” (to the Philadelphians, 3 [Migne PG 5, 700])

“…love unity; avoid divisions (μερισμους, merismous)” (to the Philadelphians, 7 [Migne PG 5, 704])

“For where there is division (μερισμος, merismos) and wrath, God does not dwell. … do nothing out of strife, but according to the doctrine of Christ. … His cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith which is by Him” (to the Philadelphians, 8 [Migne PG 5, 704])

“… you should keep aloof from such persons … But avoid all divisions (μερισμους, merismous), as the beginning of evils.” (to the Smyrnæans 7 [Migne PG 5, 713])

Ignatius was worried about “many wolves that appear worthy of credit” (to the Philadelphians, 2), and “ravening dogs, who bite secretly” and “in wicked guile” carry about the name of Christ (to the Ephesians, 7). Of such there was no shortage among the “apostolic successors” of Ignatius’ day (to the Ephesians, 9; Revelation 2:2), nor within Rome today, to the great chagrin of Mr. Charles. Ignatius’ prescription to inoculate the sheep, therefore, was to study the Scriptures and go to church to learn what the apostles actually taught:

“Study, therefore, to be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles” (to the Magnesians, 13);

“… continue in intimate union with Jesus Christ our God, and the bishop, and the enactments of the apostles.” (to the Trallians, 7)

“…flee to the Gospel as to the flesh of Jesus, and to the apostles as to the presbytery of the Church. And let us also love the prophets, because they too have proclaimed the Gospel, and placed their hope in Him, and waited for Him” (to the Philadelphians, 5)

“…you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.” (to the Smyrnæans, 7)

The ultimate safeguard against false shepherds was for the sheep to be familiar with the Scriptures. After all, Paul had warned the Ephesian bishops that “of your own selves” these ravenous wolves would arise (Acts 20:30). If Christians were familiar with the Prophets, the Law, the Gospel and the teachings of the Apostles, division would still manifest, and there was plenty of it, but at least they could avoid heresy.

Division Was Unsurprisingly Normal, and Frequently Caused by Rome

Such men as Mr. Charles implore Protestants to heed Ignatius’ command to submit to the bishop, while they choose for themselves which bishops to obey. They recite Irenæus’ words that “it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with” Rome (Against Heresies, Book 3.3.2), while they themselves vehemently disagree with their own Pope. What they display for us is not their promised “Roman unity” but the very division and disagreement that “Roman unity” was supposed to solve. Anyone familiar with the ancient Church knows that even back then nobody actually believed what modern Roman Catholics claim Ignatius meant, and nobody, not even Irenæus himself, believed every church must “agree with Rome.”

The Bishop of Rome was Often a Silly Little Fish in a Big Serious Pond

As we have shown in this series, Ignatius’ focus on obedience to the bishops and deacons was a very precisely tailored response to the Gnostics. It was not about abject submission to the offices and their occupants. Additionally, as we have shown elsewhere, Irenæus’ original Greek work, Against Heresies, is lost to us except in a few rare fragments. Although Against Heresies is ostensibly “preserved” for us in a Latin translation, where Greek fragments exist, the Latin translation is shown to be highly unreliable, and “of the most barbarous character.” The Latin translator was unequal to the task and often got the translation wrong. Therefore, Irenæus’ claim that “all churches must agree with Rome” comes to us not from his original Greek, but from a Latin rendering known to be barbaric.

Fortunately, we know from other much more reliable sources that Irenæus did not think all churches had to agree with Rome. How do we know this? Because Irenæus did not agree with Rome! When “Pope” Victor of Rome attempted to force the Asian churches to celebrate the Resurrection on the same day he did, “this did not please all the bishops” who responded by “sharply rebuking Victor. Among them was Irenæus” (Eusebius, Church History, Book 5.24.10-11). It certainly did not please Polycrates of Ephesus and “a great multitude” of Asian bishops who joined him. He responded to Victor, “I, therefore,  … have gone through every Holy Scripture … [and] am not affrighted by terrifying words” (Eusebius, Church History, Book 5.24.7-8). What is more, Irenæus himself lauds the visit of Bishop Polycarp of Smyrna to bishop Anicetus of Rome, highlighting their inability to agree with each other: “[T]hey disagreed a little about certain other things,” including the Eucharist, but “as a mark of respect,” Anicetus of Rome “conceded the administration of the eucharist” to Polycarp (Eusebius, Church History, Book 5.24.17). Apparently, even the Bishop of Rome did not believe that all churches must agree with Rome!

While eastern and western councils were busy condemning the Montanist heresy (Eusebius, Church History, Book 5.3.4 & 5.16.10), the Roman episcopate under Eleutherius (174 – 189 AD) was writing letters in support of it (Tertullian, Against Praxeas 1). Tertullian of Carthage (c. 215 AD) derisively called Pope Eleutherius “Pontifex Maximus” for claiming to have the power to “remit … the sins both of adultery and of fornication” (Tertullian of Carthage, On Modesty, chapter 1). Hippolytus of Rome (c. 225 AD) recalls that he “frequently” opposed the bishops of Rome, “refuted them, and … forced them reluctantly to acknowledge the truth.” He called Bishop Zephyrinus (199 – 217 AD.) of Rome “an uninformed and shamefully corrupt man”  who “imagines that he administers the affairs of the Church.” As Bishop of Rome, Zephyrinus “hurried headlong” into heresy, and after correction, he and his successor Callistus (218 – 222 AD) together would “wallow once again in the same mire” (Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, Book 9, chapter 2).

Felix of Spain wrote to Carthage to ask if “Pope” Stephen’s direction to restore lapsed bishops was valid. Cyprian wrote back not only to “approve, but applaud” the Spanish congregation for ignoring Stephen’s advice and electing and installing a more respectable bishop on their own. Stephen could be ignored, Cyprian wrote, because he had been “deceived” and “taken … by surprise” and “surprised by fraud” (Epistle 67, to Cyprian).

Firmilian of Cæsarea (256 AD) complained that, under Bishop Stephen, “they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles.” In fact, Stephen had “disagreed with … many bishops throughout the whole world, breaking peace with each one of them in various kinds of discord” both in the east and the south (Epistle 74, to Cyprian). The problem, in Firmilian’s mind, was not that churches were disagreeing with Rome, but that Rome was disagreeing with all the churches!

Dionysius of Alexandria (256 AD) rebuked Stephen for claiming falsely that his novelties originated with the apostles (Dyonysius, to Stephen of Rome). As Cyprian also observed, “Pope” Stephen’s “error in endeavouring to maintain the cause of heretics against Christians,” was egregious, for “Pope” Stephen was “forgetful of unity,” adopting “lies” and “contagion” instead. Bishop Stephen of Rome had demonstrated “obstinacy” and “presumption” by preferring “human tradition to divine ordinance,” and his “blindness of soul” and “degradation of faith” had caused him “to refuse to recognize the unity” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 73).

Felix of Spain, Dionysius of Alexandria, Polycarp of Smyrna, Polycrates of Ephesus, Firmilian of Cæsarea, Cyprian of Carthage, Tertullian of Carthage, Hippolytus of Rome; “a great multitude” of Asian bishops with Polycrates, and many European bishops with Irenæus — that is a lot of bishops who were “of necessity” supposed to “agree with Rome” but apparently were completely unaware of that obligation! We suspect rather that Irenæus’ hapless Latin translator completely misunderstood the original Greek, and thought Irenæus meant everyone had to agree with Rome. (More likely, Irenæus wrote that all churches had to keep Rome in check, as the ancient evidence surely bears out.) Clearly, neither Ignatius of Antioch nor Irenæaus — nor anyone else on the planet — believed they had to agree with Rome in order to avoid division. The church surely believed that “schism and heresy were unacceptable,” but the Bishop of Rome was more often the cause than the solution!

Disagreements Were Varied, Frequent and Expansive

When Polycarp refused to yield to Anicetus, Eusebius provided Irenæus’ very candid explanation of the extent of the disagreement: a lot of people disagreed about a lot of things, but that did not prevent unity. Notice that in his explanation, Irenæus observed that “apostolic succession” had its limits. Polycarp was unwilling to yield to Anicetus because of what he had learned from John and the other apostles, and Anicetus was unwilling to yield to Polycarp based on what he had learned from “the presbyters that had preceded him” (Eusebius, Church History, Book 5.24.16). Both were claiming “apostolic succession” and yet neither would yield to the other. Clearly Polycarp was completely unaware of what Mr. Joshua T. Charles thinks he has discovered in Ignatius — namely, the primacy of the Roman Petrine apostolic successors, and their authority to maintain truth and resolve disputes. Eusebius quotes Irenæus’ summary of the encounter:

“For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him.” (Eusebius (quoting Irenæus), Church History, Book 5.24.16).

“For the controversy is not only concerning the day, but also concerning the very manner of the fast. For some think that they should fast one day, others two, yet others more; some, moreover, count their day as consisting of forty hours day and night.  And this variety in its observance has not originated in our time; but long before in that of our ancestors. It is likely that they did not hold to strict accuracy, and thus formed a custom for their posterity according to their own simplicity and peculiar mode. Yet all of these lived none the less in peace, and we also live in peace with one another; and the disagreement in regard to the fast confirms the agreement in the faith.” (Eusebius (quoting Irenæus), Church History, Book 5.24.12-13).

Firmilian, for his part, also observed that the diversity of practices was expansive indeed:

“But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles; any one may know also from the fact, that concerning the celebration of Easter, and concerning many other sacraments of divine matters (circa multa alia divinae rei sacramenta), he may see that there are some diversities among them, and that all things are not observed among them alike, which are observed at Jerusalem, just as in very many other provinces also many things are varied because of the difference of the places and names. And yet on this account there is no departure at all from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church, such as Stephen has now dared to make” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 74.6 (from Firmilian) [Cæcilii Cypriani Carthaginiensis Episcopi ac Tandem Martyris: Epistolæ XXCIII (Lucæ Friedrerici Reinharti, Theol. In Universit. Altdorfina P.P. et Ecclesiæ Ibid. Ministri. (1681) p. 238])

Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho also acknowledged that there were various practices within Christendom, but so long as the practice did not violate the gospel, and was not uncharitably imposed on others, it was tolerated. Regarding those Christians who, for the sake of virtue, but not for the sake of justification, adhered to various aspects of the law of Moses, Justin insists that they are within the fold and are entitled to our fellowship, as long as they acknowledge that such practices are not necessary for salvation:

“In my opinion, Trypho, such an one will be saved, if he does not strive in every way to persuade other men — I mean those Gentiles who have been circumcised from error by Christ, to observe the same things as himself, telling them that they will not be saved unless they do so. … There are such people, Trypho, and these do not venture to have any intercourse with or to extend hospitality to such persons; but I do not agree with them. But if some, through weak-mindedness, wish to observe such institutions as were given by Moses, from which they expect some virtue, but which we believe were appointed by reason of the hardness of the people’s hearts, along with their hope in this Christ, and [wish to perform] the eternal and natural acts of righteousness and piety, yet choose to live with the Christians and the faithful, as I said before, not inducing them either to be circumcised like themselves, or to keep the Sabbath, or to observe any other such ceremonies, then I hold that we ought to join ourselves to such, and associate with them in all things as kinsmen and brethren.” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 47).

We see here in Justin (150 AD), Polycarp (150), Irenæus (189 AD), Firmilian (250 AD), and Cyprian (250 AD) evidence of expansive “division” and “disagreement” about “many other sacraments of divine matters.” This was quite common, and Rome’s attempts to establish uniformity by coercion were often rebuffed and rejected. What was missing from these early accounts of division and disagreement was any appeal to a central authority to deal with them. Justin, Irenæus & Firmilian merely observed the status quo and were apparently unaware that it was within any one person’s jurisdiction to change it, except by persuasion.

What is ironic is that Mr. Charles would have us believe not only that the ancient Church was unified under a monolithic Roman administration with the same liturgy, customs and teachings, but also that if we just join him in his new, religion we shall find relief from all the many practices, varieties, differences and diversities within Protestantism. However, the ancient Church sounds more like the Protestants of today than the idealized Roman monolith of Mr. Charles’ imagination.

Where did Ignatius fall on this matter? With the Protestants. Each bishop had as his bishop Christ the Lord, not a Bishop in Rome. Ignatius believed the Smyrnæan bishop had “as his own bishop God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (to Polycarp, greeting) and the Magnesian “bishop that is visible” had as his bishop “Him that is invisible” (to the Magnesians, 3). In Ignatius’ own absence from Antioch, “the Church in Syria … now has God for its shepherd, instead of me,” for “Jesus Christ alone will oversee it” (to the Romans, 9).

In this, Ignatius is consistent with similar beliefs held throughout the world. Mathetes (second century) observed that the scattered congregations did not “inhabit cities of their own” (Epistle to Diognetes, 5) and though unified, the source of their unity “remains invisible” (Epistle to Diognetes, 6). Such a unified group of people who call themselves Christians and yet find among themselves any number of practices, varieties, differences and diversities — claiming allegiance to no earthly chief shepherd and owning no earthly chief metropolis — is not the One Holy Roman Catholic Church Mr. Charles thinks he has found in Ignatius or the early church Fathers. But it is a fair description of an ancient Church in which various interpretations, divisions and disciplines were tolerated, so long as they were not inconsistent with the Scriptures, did not violate the Gospel and were not forced upon other congregations.

The “Everywhere” Church

Mr. Charles claims that the name of this Church, with its many, diverse and varied congregations, was “the Catholic Church.” Not “the Church that is catholic” but rather “the Catholic Church.” He says it was “the Big ‘C’ Catholic Church,” and focuses a great deal of his energy on that particular claim. As a Protestant the idea that we are all “small ‘c’ catholics” was of great consternation to him:

Despite the fact that all the protestant sects I belonged to at various points disagreed on many important doctrines, they all agreed on one negative point: they were not Catholics. But they had an out. “Oh, I’m catholic—the small ‘c’ catholic.” Everyone tried this because they knew that “Catholic” meant “universal,” and what Christian would want to believe doctrines that weren’t “universal”? I heard this from everyone I knew: non-denominational, presbyterians, baptists, reformed, etc. It was everyone’s “get out of jail free” card. No matter how different, peculiar, or novel they may have been on every issue under the sun, they all afforded themselves this out: they were “small ‘c’” catholics. Intelligent people I respected asserted it (and still do), so I accepted it as a given.

Mr. Charles claims that the Church Fathers opened his eyes to the truth that there can only be, and has only ever been, one “Big ‘C'” Catholic Church from the beginning:

Until I read the Church Fathers. There is no trace of this [small ‘c’ catholic] idea in their writings. There was only Catholic (“Big ‘C’”), and non-Catholic (that is, heretics—little ‘h’). That is all. Many of the Fathers make this explicit. They had a particular, visible, authoritative society of Christians in mind when they used the word “Catholic.” (emphasis added)

To drive home the significance of his claim, Mr. Charles cites protestant J.N.D. Kelly who says, “Catholic” came to be used “in the latter half of the second century at latest” to distinguish between the true church and heretical gatherings (emphasis added by Mr. Charles).

“Big C” vs. “small c” Catholicism in the Early Writers

There are several matters about which we must quibble with Mr. Charles, and with J.N.D. Kelly as well. Mr. Charles has the transition to Big ‘C’ Catholic no later than Ignatius (beginning of the second century) while Kelly has the transition taking place no later than the end of the second century. And, in Mr. Charles’ words, there was “no trace” of the “small ‘c'” usage. Yet it is easy to demonstrate from the ancient writers that they were using “little ‘c'” catholicism extensively, not to differentiate between truth and falsehood but rather to denote the “everywhere-ness” of Christ’s Church. They considered it a matter of prophetic fulfillment and an appropriate adjective rather than an authoritative title.

Justin, for example, quotes Malachi 1:11 “My name shall be great among the Gentiles” (Dialogue with Trypho, 117) and Zechariah 2:11, “many nations shall betake themselves to the Lord in that day for a people: and they shall dwell in the midst of all the earth” (Dialogue with Trypho, 119). According to those prophecies, Jesus’ Church would be world-wide. In that particular ecclesiastical context, “small ‘c'” catholic was a perfectly appropriate term.

That fact is cast in clear relief when we see that those same early writers also used “catholic” to describe things that were universal but decidedly not Christian. It will be illustrative first to show how those early writers were using the term in its non-ecclesial “small ‘c'” secular sense in order to show that they meant it in the same way when they ascribed catholicity to the Church.

The Secular Small “c” Catholicism

Dionysius of Alexandria (262 AD)

In his Epistle to Hermammon, Dionysius uses the word “catholic” to describe that which is “general,” whether he is referring to the common good, to God’s Providence, or to His Church. Describing Macrianus’ lackluster performance as finance minister, “he did nothing praiseworthy or of general (καθολικον, katholikon) benefit (Eusebius (quoting Dionysius), Church History, Book 7.10.5 [Migne PG 20, 660)]

In the very next paragraph, decrying Macrianus’ disregard for the “general (καθολου, katholou) good” or God’s “general (καθολου, katholou) providence,” Dionysius complains that Macrianus thus became an enemy of God’s general church:

“Wherefore he became an enemy of His catholic (καθολικης, katholikis) Church, and alienated and estranged himself from the compassion of God, and fled as far as possible from his salvation. (Eusebius (quoting Dionysius), Church History, Book 7.10.6 [Migne PG 20, 661])

His use of “catholic” is clearly “small ‘c’,” as he promiscuously applies it simultaneously to the common good, God’s providence, and God’s widespread Church. What is more, it was church historian Eusebius, in 325 AD, who quoted Dionysius’ promiscuous use of “καθολικης” without apology, explanation, objection or caveat, showing that even in the Nicæan era, the “small ‘c'” use was still the vernacular. In fact, even as late as the Council of Sardica in 343 AD, that use was still common, as seen in Canon 17: “All that has been decreed the Catholic Church spread abroad throughout all the world will preserve and maintain.”

Such was the continued use of “small ‘c'” catholic to describe the resurrection of the damned, the generally informed but fallen estate of pagans, the principal winds of the heavens, the common good of Roman citizenry, God’s common providence toward both the just and the unjust (Matthew 5:45), and the expansive worldwide presence of God’s Church. This is all well beyond the alleged end of its use at the end of the second century, “at latest,” as J.N.D. Kelly claimed.

The Ecclesial Small “c” Catholicism

Mr. Charles starts with Ignatius’ letter to the Smyrnæans: “wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (to the Smyrnæans, 8). But in this context, Ignatius is simply reasoning to the local particular (the Smyrnæan Church and its bishop) from the global general (the world-wide Church and its Bishop): “Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (to the Smyrnæans, 8). On the other hand, Ignatius repeatedly calls each local church either “the Church of God” or calls the plurality of churches “the Churches of God” when he addresses them (to the Trallians, 2 & 12; to the Philadelphians, greeting & 10; to the Smyrnæans, greeting).

That his singular use of “cathlolic” was in the “small ‘c'” sense is evident from  his epistle to the Ephesians where he emphasizes the widespread presence of Christ’s Church:

“For even Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the [manifested] will of the Father; as also bishops, settled everywhere to the utmost bounds [of the earth], are so by the will of Jesus Christ.” (to the Ephesians, 3)

Thus when he says to the Smyrnæans, “wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church,” the contrast is between a local Smyrna congregation, and the worldwide “settled everywhere” catholic Church. In this context it refers to “small ‘c'” catholicism, as he was plainly emphasizing its “everywhere-ness.”

The Martyrdom of Polycarp (156 AD)

In Mr. Charles’ next citation he appeals to the use of “catholic” in a letter circulated to inform people of Polycarp’s death. But it is again clear that the emphasis is on the “everywhere-ness” of Christ’s Church: “the Catholic Church throughout the world” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 19). The document is from “the Church of God” at Smyrna, and to “the Church of God” at Philomelium and to the worldwide “everywhere” church.

“The Church of God which sojourns at Smyrna, to the Church of God sojourning in Philomelium, and to all the congregations of the Holy and Catholic Church in every place” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, greeting).

Indeed, except for one reference to Polycarp, “bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16), every reference to the Catholic Church is made explicitly in the context of its “everywhere-ness”:

“…the whole Catholic Church throughout the world” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 8)

“…our Lord Jesus Christ, … the Shepherd of the Catholic Church throughout the world.” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 19)

When such a document is addressed “to all the congregations of the Holy and Catholic Church,” it is clear that “catholic” refers to the fact that the “Church of God” is “in every place.” In this context that is “small ‘c'” catholicism.

Muratorian Fragment (178 AD)

Mr. Charles’ next datum point lists the New Testament books that “are held sacred in the esteem of the Catholic Church” (Muratorian fragment). But again, a cursory reading of the fragment indicates that the context is the “worldwide-ness” of the Church, not its central or authoritative administration. Before any mention of “catholic,” the fragments states, “it is yet clearly recognizable that over the whole earth one church is spread,” and observes that the book of Revelation was written “to seven churches, yet speaks to all.”

Thus when the fragment refers to a New Testament canon that is sacred to the catholic Church, it is clear that “catholic” refers to the fact that the “Church of God” is spread “over the whole earth.” In such a context it is “small ‘c'” catholicism.

Tertullian of Carthage (205 AD)

Here, Mr. Charles cites Tertullian’s observation that the gnostic heretics, “at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus” (Prescription Against Heretics, 30).

And yet, before Tertullian ever mentions “the doctrine of the Catholic Church” he first clarifies that by “catholic” he means the churches “are so many and so great”, established throughout the world, in every city, in all the nations:

“… after first bearing witness to the faith in Jesus Christ throughout Judæa, and founding churches (there), they next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations. They then in like manner founded churches in every city … . Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church” (Prescription Against Heretics, 20)

Thus when Tertullian refers to “the doctrine of the Catholic Church,” it is clear that “catholic” refers to the fact that the “Church of God” has spread from the apostles in Judæa “into the world,” “to the nations,” “in every city,”  being a collection of churches that are “so many and so great.” In such a context it is “small ‘c'” catholicism.

Cyprian of Carthage (254 AD)

Mr. Charles next cites Cyprian who wrote, “the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another” (Epistle 68, 8). And yet, in the preceding paragraph, before he calls the church “catholic,” he first refers to “all the churches throughout the whole world who are associated with us in the bond of unity” (Epistle 68, 7).

Thus when Cyprian refers to “the Church, which is Catholic and one,” it is clear that “catholic” refers to the fact that the Church is “throughout the whole world” and united. In such a context it is “small ‘c'” catholicism.

Council of Nicaea (AD 325)

Mr. Charles’ next citation is from the Council of Nicæa which refers in several of its canons to the Catholic Church. It must be remembered that the Council was called to address two issues — one doctrinal (Arius), the other administrative (Meletius) — both of which issues were raised by the Egyptian bishops Peter and Alexander of Alexandria. Before the council was called, Peter informed the worldwide church of the excommunication of Arius: “it was everywhere published far and wide that Arius” had been cut off from “the Catholic unity”, and that his impiety arose at a time when Christian persecution “raged, that not only in one region of the universe, but even throughout the whole world” (Acts of Peter of Alexandria). Likewise, Alexander addressed a letter on the same topic, “To our beloved and most reverend fellow-ministers of the Catholic Church in every place” (Alexander of Alexandria, Catholic Epistle, 1). When the assembled bishops in Nicæa had considered these two matters, they published the 20 Canons of the Council, as well as a summary response to the Egyptians: “First of all the affair of the impiety and lawlessness of Arius and his followers was discussed” and then, “the question of the presumption of Meletius and the men whom he had ordained” (Synodical Letter to the Egyptians).

Thus when the Council refers to the “catholic church” in its canons, the contemporary usage of the term “catholic” still refers to the fact that the Church is dispersed “in every place” “throughout the whole world.” Their use of “catholic” was plainly in the “small ‘c'” sense, which, as we showed with Eusebius, above, was the vernacular even in the Nicæan era.

When the “C” Got Big

Mr. Charles claimed that there was “no trace” of any use of “small ‘c'” catholicism in the early church, which is plainly false. Small ‘c’ catholicism was used well beyond even the council of Nicæa, intending to convey the “everywhere-ness” of Christ’s Church rather than its power and authority. But it did eventually take on the “Big ‘C'” meaning Mr. Charles claims.

Cyril of Jerusalem  (c. AD 350)

In his appeal to Cyril, Mr. Charles refers to his Catechetical Lecture 18, in which he explains why the Church is called Catholic. Here, at first, Cyril is still relying still on the “small ‘c'” usage:

“It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other.” (Catechetical Lecture 18, 23)

With this we do not disagree, for it certainly falls within the bounds of the Great Commission. However, as he continued, Cyril went well beyond the scope of that Commission, claiming that the church is also called Catholic “because it brings into subjection to godliness the whole race of mankind, governors and governed, learned and unlearned” for “while the kings of particular nations have bounds set to their authority, the Holy Church Catholic alone extends her power without limit over the whole world” (Catechetical Lecture 18, 23, 27).

That the Church was commissioned to go forth and teach all nations, we do not deny, but that the Church was to “bring into subjection” “the whole race of men” and to extend “power without limit” we absolutely deny. Christ insisted that the heavenly kingdom He had come announcing was not of this world (John 18:36). Jesus had not commanded the apostles to go forth and bring the world under submission to their unlimited power over it, but to teach the Word He had received from His Father:

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations … Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” (Matthew 28:19-20)

As we have written elsewhere, it is only when Christ returns on His white horse that He sets up an Earthly Kingdom and rules “with a rod of iron” and unlimited power:

“And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. … : and he shall rule them with a rod of iron.” (Revelation 19:11-15)

That time is not yet even now, and certainly had not arrived at the time of Cyril’s Catechetical Lectures. But surely, at the dawn of the latter half of the fourth century, the carnal ambition of the newly and politically powerful church began to hold sway, and the temptation of unlimited power was irresistible.

That is when “small ‘c'” catholicism began to take on its “larger than life” “big ‘C'” domineering Catholicism, well beyond what Christ had commanded. That is when Rome began to think it was to rule over the world rather than simply to minister the Gospel to it and await the return of the Lord to rule over it. So, to that end, we agree with Mr. Charles’ assessment that eventually, “big ‘C'” Catholicism prevailed as Revelation 13 had foreseen. Just not as early as he claims.

For the first three centuries of the church, “catholicism” was “little ‘c'” catholicism. It was simply an adjective applied generally to the church, generally informed pagans, the winds, the resurrection of the damned, the general welfare of all men, and God’s generous providence toward them all — sometimes in the same breath. It was never intended as the brand name of a global conglomerate with unlimited power. And that means “Big ‘C'” Catholicism prevailed three centuries too late to be an apostolic or even a sub-apostolic tradition. Ignatius certainly would have recognized neither Cyril’s overreach nor Mr. Charles’ attempt to back-load that novel “Big ‘C'” Catholicism onto the early Church.

The Discontinuity Problem

It is striking to compare Cyril’s language with Justin’s from just two centuries earlier. Of the name “Catholic,” Cyril wrote, “this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church” (Catechetical Lecture 18, 26). But Justin appeared to be completely unaware of that, for he thought the peculiar name of Christ’s Church was “Christian”:

 “For, indeed, a commonwealth and a church, though many individuals in number, are in fact as one, called and addressed by one appellation … the church which has sprung from His name and partakes of His name (for we are all called Christians).”(Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 42, Chapter 63)

We find this pattern repeatedly in the data that Mr. Charles has submitted as evidence. We note, revisiting Cyril, what a significant change it was for the adjective “catholic” to go from describing the Church’s place in the world (i.e., “in every place”), to describing its global domination (i.e., “her power without limit over the whole world”).

Compare as well Ignatius’ letter to the Trallians in 107 AD. He insists, in accordance with Acts 6:3, that “It is fitting also that the deacons … should in every respect be pleasing to all” (to the Trallians, 2 [shorter recension]). That is plainly scriptural. But in the longer recension, dating to the late fourth century (upon which Mr. Charles relies for his arguments), Ignatius is said to turn that biblical teaching on its head, requiring the people to be pleasing to the deacon!

“It behoves you also, in every way, to please the deacons, who are [ministers] of the mysteries of Christ Jesus” (to the Trallians, 2 [longer recension]).

The idealogical shift is quite palpable. The church had somehow changed from an organism made up of Christians worldwide whose ministers served the flock, to an organization made up of Catholics whose clergy lorded authority over the flock and enjoyed “power without limit over the whole world.” What a shift had occurred! The change from the first three centuries was not a gradual unfolding of the blossoming authoritative “Catholic” church as Mr. Charles imagines, but was rather a quantum shift, an observable departure from the Church Jesus had founded. The new religion had emerged quite suddenly and had turned the world, and Scripture, and the Gospel on its head.

When it came to heresy in the early Church, it was not the Bishop of Rome who resolved it, for he was frequently the one advancing the heresy. The diverse congregations corrected such nonsense by their application of the Scriptures. The Arians, after all, were not excommunicated for speaking contrary to Catholicism, but because “the novelties they have invented and put forth [were] contrary to the Scriptures” (Deposition of Arius, 2). Adherence to Scripture was the ultimate measure of truth. When it came to division and disagreement in the early church it was often tolerated or at least dealt with collegially and fraternally, leading to excommunications when necessary. Ironically, the Bishop of Rome was often the disagreeable one who had to be reprimanded. In Ignatius’ case, his objection to division, heresy and schism was clearly limited to the Gnostic rejection of the Gospel and the Gnostic rejection of church offices. These, too, he corrected with the Scriptures.

When it came to identifying the Church, we find for three hundred years that the church identified as a “small ‘c'” catholic church made up of Christians. Only with the rise of Roman Catholicism in the latter half of the fourth century was the Church identified as a global conglomerate of “Big ‘C'” Catholics who possessed “power without limit over the whole world.” Until then the Church was catholic in the same way the four winds are “catholic,” general revelation is “catholic,” the resurrection of the damned is “catholic,” and God’s providence toward both the just and the unjust is “catholic.” It had always been “small ‘c'” catholic until the rise of Roman Catholicism as the Fifth Empire of Daniel’s visions.

And thus, in his last two points of “profoundly Roman Catholic” doctrine in Ignatius, Mr. Charles has again come away empty handed. The evidence simply does not support his claims. We shall conclude our analysis of Mr. Charles next week.

Follow