No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Heresy and schism in the later Roman empire
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 March 2016
Extract
Few Paris theologians like Beda’s bitterness. How can you win if you drive those who disagree with Luther into his camp? Hatred like this made Arius a heresiarch, drove Tertullian out of the Church. This is the way to make heretics.’ So Erasmus, and elsewhere he reflects how he exposed himself to the charge of heresy by trying to be just to heretics. He was kinder than Tertullian who had no mercy for them. Heresy is the devil’s work, one of the manifold ways he attacks truth. It is evil, it is sin; it is worse than schism, it is blasphemy, a kind of adultery, close to idolatry. Heresy brings eternal death, while persecution at least gives birth to martyrs. Heretics are the ravening wolves who attack Christ’s flock. Humanly considered, heresy is a sin of the flesh for, as an act of choice, it is self-assertion against God, and so the heretic is self-condemned. More properly it is demonic, the spiritual wickednesses from which it comes were sent by the devil.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 1972
References
page no 1 note 1 Erasmus, , Opus Epistolarum, ed Allen, P. S., VI: 1721, VIII: 2136 (Oxford 1926, 1934)Google Scholar.
page no 1 note 2 Tertullian, Adversus Praxean 1, De Praescriptionibus 1-6 and passim.
page no 1 note 3 Irenaeus, , [Adversus Haereses], ed Harvey, W. W. (Cambridge 1857), I ix, II viii, IV xl. Origen, Commentariorum Series, 100 Google Scholar.
page no 4 note 1 I Clement 40-4; Ignatius, for example Ephesians 3-6, Smymaeans 8.
page no 4 note 2 Irenaeus, 1 praefatio, ii; 111 i-iv; v xx. Tertullian, De Praescriptiombus 14, 28 and passim. See Origen, De Principiis 1 praefatio.
page no 5 note 1 Tertullian, , De Pudicitia 21 Google Scholar.
page no 6 note 1 Cyprian, Ep 66: 4; Sententiae 79. For Cyprian’s ecclesiology see Walker, G. S.M., The Churchmanship of St Cyprian (London 1968)Google Scholar and my Schism [in the Early Church] (2nd ed London 1964).
page no 8 note 1 Cyprian, Ep 55:24; Augustine, Contra Cresconium 11 4.
page no 8 note 2 Frend, W. H. C., The Donatist Church (2nd ed Oxford 1971)Google Scholar with the bibliography and introductory note.
page no 8 note 3 Cyprian, Epp 69-75, especially 75:8-15.
page no 8 note 4 Cyprian, Ep 67.
page no 9 note 1 Acta Saturnini, PL 8 (1844) cols 690-703. See Schism, pp 117-20.
page no 10 note 1 I have tried to work out the implications of Donatism and Augustine’s reply in Schism. On the subsequent history of reordination consult Saltet, L., Les Réordinations (Paris 1907)Google Scholar and Cowdrey, H. E. J., ‘The Dissemination of St Augustine’s Doctrine of Holy Orders during the later Patristic Age’, JTS, new series, XX (1969) pp 448-81CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
page no 11 note 1 D. Petavius, De Theologicis Dogmatibus, 1644-50; G. Bull, Defensio Fidei Nicaenae, 1685. See also Chadwick, O., From Bossuel to Newman (Cambridge 1957)Google Scholar.
page no 11 note 2 Cyprian, Ep 75; Eusebius, HE v 24; Julius in Athanasius,” Apologia contra Arianos, 21-35.
page no 12 note 1 On the nature and authority of early councils see G. Kretschmar’s chapter in The Councils of the Church, ed Margull, H. J. (Philadelphia 1966)Google Scholar and P. Camelot’s in Botte, B. etc, Le Concile et les Conciles (Paris 1960)Google Scholar; also Councils and the Ecumenical Movement, ed Vischer, L. (World Council of Churches, Geneva 1968)Google Scholar.
page no 14 note 1 Most of the legislation is in Codex Theodosianus XVI, chs 1, 2, 5. On Theodosius I, King, N. Q., The Emperor Tlteodosius and the Establishment of Christianity (London 1961)Google Scholar.
page no 15 note 1 Peter, Brown, ‘The Patrons of Pelagius’, JTS, new series, XXI (1970) pp 56–72 Google Scholar; see Evans, R. F., Pelagius: Inquiries and Reappraisals (London 1968), ch 2Google Scholar: ‘Pelagius and the Revival of the Origenist Controversy’.
page no 18 note 1 On the Antiochene schism: Cavaliere, F., Le schisme d’Antioche (Paris 1905)Google Scholar; Schwartz, E., Gesammelte Schriften, IV (Berlin 1960) pp 39–110 Google Scholar; Ritter, A. M., Das Konzil von Konstantinopel (Göttingen 1965) pp 57–68 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
page no 19 note 1 Anon, An Apology of Private Mass, p 10, in the Parker Society edition of T. Cooper’s Answer (Cambridge 1850).