Though Tertullian may not have formally separated from the Church when he wrote the tract in which this passage occurs, it is evident that he had already adopted the principles of the Montanists. These errorists held that any one who had fallen into heinous sin after baptism could never again be admitted to ecclesiastical fellowship; and this little book itself supplies proof that its author now supported the same doctrine. He here declares that the man "who renews his sins after baptism" is "destined to fire;" and he intimates that martyrdom, or "the baptism of blood," can alone "restore" such an offender. [477:2] It was obviously the policy of the Montanists to discourage infant baptism, and to retain the mass of their adherents, as long as possible, in the condition of catechumens. Hence Tertullian here asserts that "they who know the weight of baptism will rather dread its attainment than its postponement." [477:3] But neither the apostles, nor the early Church, had any sympathy with such a sentiment. They represent baptism as a privilege—as a sign and seal of God's favour—which all should thankfully embrace. On the very day on which Peter denounced the Jews as having with wicked hands crucified his Master, he assisted in the baptism of three thousand of these transgressors. "Repent," says he, "and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, for the promise is unto you and to your children." [478:1] Tertullian would have given them no such encouragement. But the Montanists believed that their Phrygian Paraclete was commissioned to supersede the apostolic discipline. When the African father attacked infant baptism he obviously acted under this conviction; and whilst seeking to set aside the arrangements of the Church of his own age, he felt no scruple in venturing at the same time to subvert an institute of primitive Christianity.

We have the clearest evidence that, little more than twenty years after the death of Tertullian, the whole Church of Africa recognised the propriety of this practice. About the middle of the third century a bishop of that country, named Fidus, appears to have taken up the idea that, when administering the ordinance, he was bound to adhere to the very letter of the law relative to circumcision, [478:2] and that therefore he was not at liberty to baptize the child before the eighth day after its birth. When the case was submitted to Cyprian and an African Synod, consisting of sixty-six bishops, they unanimously decided that these scruples were groundless; and, in an epistle addressed to the pastor who entertained them, the Assembly thus communicated the result of its deliberations—"As regards the case of infants who, you say, should not be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that respect should be had to the law of the ancient circumcision, whence you think that one newly born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all in our council thought very differently.... If even to the most grievous offenders, ... when they afterwards believe, remission of sins is granted, and no one is debarred from baptism and grace, how much more ought not an infant to be debarred who, being newly born, has in no way sinned, except that being born after Adam in the flesh, he has by his first birth contracted the contagion of the old death; who is on this very account more easily admitted to receive remission of sins, in that, not his own, but another's sins are remitted to him." [479:1]

Whilst it is thus apparent that the baptism of infants was the established order of the Church, it is equally clear that the particular mode of administration was not considered essential to the validity of the ordinance. It was usually dispensed by immersion or affusion, [479:2] but when the health of the candidate might have been injured by such an ordeal, sprinkling was deemed sufficient. Aspersion was commonly employed in the case of the sick, and was known by the designation of clinic or bed baptism. Cyprian points out to one of his correspondents the absurdity of the idea that the extent to which the water is applied can affect the character of the institution. "In the saving sacrament," says he, "the contagion of sin is not washed away just in the same way as is the filth of the skin and body in the ordinary ablution of the flesh, so that there should be need of saltpetre and other appliances, and a bath and a pool in which the poor body may be washed and cleansed.... It is apparent that the sprinkling of water has like force with the saving washing, and that when this is done in the Church, where the faith both of the giver and receiver is entire, [480:1] all holds good and is consummated and perfected by the power of the Lord, and the truth of faith." [480:2]

Cyprian is here perfectly right in maintaining that the essence of baptism does not consist in the way in which the water is administered; but much of the language he employs in speaking of this ordinance cannot be commended as sober and scriptural. He often confounds it with regeneration, and expresses himself as if the mere rite possessed a mystic virtue. "The birth of Christians," says he, "is in baptism." [480:3] "The Church alone has the life-giving water." [480:4] "The water must first be cleansed and sanctified by the priest, that it may be able, by baptism therein, to wash away the sins of the baptized." [480:5] Tertullian and other writers of the third century make use of phraseology equally unguarded. [480:6] When the true character of the institute was so far misunderstood, it is not extraordinary that it began to be tricked out in the trappings of superstition. The candidate, as early as the third century, was exorcised before baptism, with a view to the expulsion of evil spirits; [480:7] and, in some places, after the application of the water, when the kiss of peace was given to him, a mixture of milk and honey was administered, [480:8] He was then anointed, and marked on the forehead with the sign of the cross. [480:9] Finally, the presiding minister, by the laying on of hands, bestowed the benediction. [480:10] Tertullian endeavours to explain some of these ceremonies. "The flesh," says he, "is washed, that the soul may be freed from spots; the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated; the flesh is marked (with the sign of the cross), that the soul may be guarded; the flesh is overshadowed by the imposition of hands, that the soul may be enlightened by the Spirit." [481:1]

It is not improbable that the baptismal service constituted the first germ of a Church liturgy. As the ordinance was so frequently celebrated, it was found convenient to adhere to the same form, not only in the words of administration, [481:2] but also in the accompanying prayers; and thus each pastor soon had his own baptismal office. But when heresies spread, and when, in consequence, measures were taken to preserve the unity of the Catholic faith, a uniform series of questions—prepared, perhaps, by councils and adopted by the several ministers—was addressed to all catechumens. Thus, the baptismal services were gradually assimilated; and, as the power of the hierarchy increased, one general office, in each district, superseded all the previously-existing formularies.

Baptism, as dispensed in apostolic simplicity, is a most significant ordinance; but the original rite was soon well-nigh hidden behind the rubbish of human inventions. The milk and honey, the unction, the crossing, the kiss of peace, and the imposition of hands, were all designed to render it more imposing; and, still farther to deepen the impression, it was already administered in the presence of none save those who had themselves been thus initiated. [481:3] But the foolishness of God is wiser than man. Nothing is more to be deprecated than any attempt to improve upon the institutions of Christ. Baptism, as established by the Divine Founder of our religion, is a visible exhibition of the gospel; but, as known in the third century, it had much of the character of one of the heathen mysteries. It was intended to confirm faith: but it was now contributing to foster superstition. How soon had the gold become dim, and the most fine gold been changed!



CHAPTER III.

THE LORD'S SUPPER.

Baptism and the Lord's Supper may be regarded as a typical or pictorial summary of the great salvation. In Baptism the gospel is exhibited subjectively—renewing the heart and cleansing from all iniquity: in the Lord's Supper it is exhibited objectively—providing a mighty Mediator, and a perfect atonement. Regeneration and Propitiation are central truths towards which all the other doctrines of Christianity converge, and in marking them out by corresponding symbols, the Head of the Church has been graciously pleased to signalize their importance.

The Scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation and thoroughly furnished unto all good works; but we are not at liberty to adulterate these records either by addition or subtraction. If they should be preserved exactly as they issued from the pen of inspiration, it is clear that the visible ordinances in which they are epitomized should also be maintained in their integrity. He who tampers with a divinely-instituted symbol is obviously to some extent obnoxious to the malediction [483:1] pronounced upon the man who adds to, or takes away from, the words of the book of God's prophecy.

Had the original form of administering the Lord's Supper been rigidly maintained, the Church might have avoided a multitude of errors; but very soon the spirit of innovation began to disfigure this institute. The mode in which it was observed, and the views which were entertained respecting it by the Christians of Rome, about the middle of the second century, are minutely described by Justin Martyr. "There is brought," says he, "to that one of the brethren who is president, bread and a cup of wine mixed with water. And he, having received them, gives praise and glory to the Father of all things.... And when he has finished his praises and thanksgiving, all the people who are present express their assent saying Amen, which in the Hebrew tongue signifies so be it. The president having given thanks, and the people having expressed their assent, those whom we call deacons give to each of those who are present a portion of the bread which has been blessed, and of the wine mixed with water; and carry away some for those who are absent. And this food is called by us the Eucharist, of which no one may partake unless he believes that which we teach is true, and is baptized, ... and lives in such a manner as Christ commanded. For we receive not these elements as common bread or common drink. But even as Jesus Christ our Saviour ... had both flesh and blood for our salvation, even so we are taught that the food which is blessed ... by the digestion of which our blood and flesh are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles in the memoirs composed by them, which are called gospels, have related that Jesus thus commanded them, that having taken bread and given thanks He said—'Do this in remembrance of me, this is my body;' and that, in like manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, 'This is my blood;' and that He distributed them to these alone." [484:1]

The writer does not here mention the posture of the disciples when communicating, but it is highly probable that they still continued to sit [485:1] in accordance with the primitive pattern. As they received the ordinance in the same attitude as that in which they partook of their common meals, the story that their religious assemblies were the scenes of unnatural feasting, may have thus originated. [485:2] For the first three centuries, kneeling at the Lord's Supper was unknown; and it is not until about a hundred years after the death of the Apostle John, that we read of the communicants standing. [485:3] Throughout the whole of the third century, this appears to have been the position in which they partook of the elements. [485:4]

The bread and wine of the Eucharist were now supplied by the worshippers, who made "oblations" according to their ability, [485:5] as well for the support of the ministers of the Church, as for the celebration of its ordinances. There is no reason to believe that the bread, used at this period in the holy Supper, was unfermented; for, though our Lord distributed a loaf, or cake, of that quality when the rite was instituted, the early Christians seem to have considered the circumstance accidental; as unleavened bread was in ordinary use among the Jews at the time of the Passover. The disciples appear to have had less reason for mixing the wine with water, and they could have produced no good evidence that such was the beverage used by Christ when He appointed this commemoration. In the third century superstition already recognized a mystery in the mixture. "We see," says Cyprian, "that in the water the people are represented, but that in the wine is exhibited the blood of Christ. When, however, in the cup water is mingled with wine, the people are united to Christ, and the multitude of the faithful are coupled and conjoined to Him on whom they believe." [486:1] The bread was not put into the mouth of the communicant by the administrator, but was handed to him by a deacon; and it is said that, the better to shew forth the unity of the Church, all partook of one loaf made of a size sufficient to supply the whole congregation. [486:2] The wine was administered separately, and was drunk out of a cup or chalice. As early as the third century an idea began to be entertained that the Eucharist was necessary to salvation, and it was, in consequence, given to infants. [486:3] None were now suffered to be present at its celebration but those who were communicants; [486:4] for even the catechumens, or candidates for baptism, were obliged to withdraw before the elements were consecrated.

The Passover was kept only once a year, but the Eucharist, which was the corresponding ordinance of the Christian dispensation, was observed much more frequently. Justin intimates that it was administered every Lord's day, and other fathers of this period bear similar testimony. Cyprian speaks even of its daily celebration. [486:5] The New Testament has promulgated no precise law upon the subject, and it is probable that only the more zealous disciples communicated weekly. On the Paschal week it was observed with peculiar solemnity, and by the greatest concourse of worshippers.

The term sacrament was now applied to both Baptism and the Lord's Supper; but it was not confined to these two symbolic ordinances. [487:1] The word transubstantiation was not introduced until upwards of a thousand years after the death of our Saviour; [487:2] and the doctrine which it indicates was not known to any of the fathers of the first three centuries. They all concur in describing the elements, after consecration, as bread and wine; they all represent them as passing through the usual process of digestion; and they all speak of them as symbols of the body and blood of Christ. In this strain Justin Martyr discourses of "that bread which our Christ has commanded us to offer in remembrance of His being made flesh, ... and of that cup which He commanded those that celebrate the Eucharist to offer in remembrance of His blood." [487:3] According to Clement of Alexandria the Scripture designates wine "a mystic symbol of the holy blood." [487:4] Origen, as if anticipating the darkness which was to overspread the Church, expresses himself very much in the style of a zealous Protestant. He denounces as "simpletons" [487:5] those who attributed a supernatural power to the Eucharistic elements, and repeatedly affirms that the words used at the institution of the Lord's Supper are to be interpreted spiritually. "The meat," says he, "which is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer, as it is material, goes into the stomach, ... but, by reason of prayer made over it, it is profitable according to the proportion of faith, and is the cause that the understanding is enlightened and attentive to what is profitable; and it is not the substance of bread, but the word pronounced upon it, which is profitable to him who eats it in a way not unworthy of the Lord." [488:1] Cyprian uses language scarcely less equivocal, for he speaks of "that wine whereby the blood of Christ is set forth," [488:2] and asserts that it "was wine which He called His blood." [488:3]

Christ has said—"Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them;" [488:4] and, true to His promises, He is really present with His people in every act of devotion. Even when they draw near to Him in secret, or when they read His word, or when they meditate on His mercy, as well as when they listen to His gospel preached in the great congregation, He manifests Himself to them not as He does unto the world. But in the Eucharist He reveals His character more significantly than in any of His other ordinances; for He here addresses Himself to all the senses, as well as to the soul. In the words of institution they "hear His voice;" when the elements are presented to them, they perceive as it were "the smell of His garments;" with their hands they "handle of the Word of Life;" and they "taste and see that the Lord is good." But some of the early Christian writers were by no means satisfied with such representations. They appear to have entertained an idea that Christ was in the Eucharist, not only in richer manifestations of His grace, but also in a way altogether different from that in which He vouchsafes His presence in prayer, or praise, or any other divine observance. They conceived that, as the soul of man is united to his body, the Logos, or Divine nature of Christ, pervades the consecrated bread and wine, so that they may be called His flesh and blood; and they imagined that, in consequence, the sacred elements imparted to the material frame of the believer the germ of immortality. [489:1] Irenaeus declares that "our bodies, receiving the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, but possessed of the hope of eternal life." [489:2] This misconception of the ordinance was the fruitful source of superstition. The mere elements began to be regarded with awful reverence; the loss of a particle of the bread, or of a drop of the wine, was considered a tremendous desecration; and it was probably the growth of such feelings which initiated the custom of standing at the time of participation. But still there were fathers who were not carried away with the delusion, and who knew that the disposition of the worshipper was of far more consequence than the care with which he handled the holy symbols. "You who frequent our sacred mysteries," says Origen, "know that when you receive the body of the Lord, you take care with all due caution and veneration, that not even the smallest particle of the consecrated gift shall fall to the ground and be wasted. [489:3] If, through inattention, any part thus falls, you justly account yourselves guilty. If then, with good reason, you use so much caution in preserving His body, how can you esteem it a lighter sin to slight the Word of God than to neglect His body?" [489:4]

"The words of the Lord are pure words, as silver tried in a furnace of earth purified seven times." [489:5] The history of Baptism and the Lord's Supper demonstrates that, when speaking of the ordinances of religion, it is exceedingly dangerous to depart, even from the phraseology, which the Holy Spirit has dictated. In the second century Baptism was called "regeneration" and the Eucharistic bread was known by the compendious designation of "the Lord's body." Such language, if typically understood, could create no perplexity; but all by whom it was used could scarcely be expected to give it a right interpretation, and thus many misconceptions were speedily generated. In a short time names, for which there is no warrant in the Word of God, were applied to the Lord's Supper; and false doctrines were eventually deduced from these ill-chosen and unauthorised designations. Thus, before the close of the second century, it was called an offering, and a sacrifice, [490:1] and the table at which it was administered was styled the altar. [490:2] Though these terms were now used rhetorically, in after-ages they were literally interpreted; and in this way the most astounding errors gradually gained currency. Meanwhile other topics led to keen discussion; but there was a growing disposition to shroud the Eucharist in mystery; and hence, for many centuries, the question as to the manner of Christ's presence in the ordinance awakened no controversy.



CHAPTER IV.

CONFESSION AND PENANCE.

When the Evangelist Matthew is describing the ministry of John the Baptist, he states that there "went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan; and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins." [491:1] The ministry of Paul at Ephesus produced similar results; for it is said that "fear fell" on all the Jews and Greeks dwelling in that great capital, "and many that believed came, and confessed, and shewed their deeds," [491:2]

The confession here mentioned obviously flowed spontaneously from deep religious convictions. It was not a private admission of guilt made to an ecclesiastical functionary; but a public acknowledgment of acts which weighed heavily on the consciences of individuals, and which they felt constrained to recapitulate and to condemn. Men awakened to a sense of their sins deemed it due to themselves and to society, to state how sincerely they deplored their past career; and, no doubt, their words often produced a profound impression on the multitudes to whom they were addressed. These confessions of sin were connected with a confession of faith in Christ, and were generally associated with the ordinance of baptism. They were not required from all, but were only tendered in cases where there had been notorious and flagrant criminality; and they must have been of a very partial character, only embracing such transgressions as the party had some urgent reason for specializing.

In the time of the apostles those who embraced the gospel were immediately baptized. Thus, the three thousand persons who were converted on the day of Pentecost, were forthwith received into the bosom of the Church; and the Philippian jailor, "the same hour of the night" [493:1] when he hearkened to "the word of the Lord," "was baptized, he and all his, straightway." But, soon, afterwards, the Christian teachers began to proceed with greater formality; and, about the middle of the second century, candidates were not admitted to the ordinance until they had passed through a certain course of probation. "As many," says Justin Martyr, "as are persuaded and believe that the things which we teach and declare are true, and promise that they are determined to live accordingly, are taught to pray, and to beseech God with fasting to grant them remission of their past sins, while we also pray and fast with them. We then lead them to a place where there is water, and there they are regenerated in the same manner as we also were; for they are then washed in that water in the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit." [493:2]

These confessions and penitential exercises were repeated and enlarged when persons who had lapsed into gross sin, and who had, in consequence, forfeited their position as members of the Church, sought readmission to ecclesiastical fellowship. It would be difficult, on scriptural grounds, to vindicate the system of discipline enforced on such occasions; and yet it is evident that it was established, at least in some quarters, as early as the beginning of the third century. Tertullian gives a very striking account of the course pursued by those called penitents about that period. "Confession of sins," says he, "lightens their burden, as much as the dissembling of them increases it; for confession savours of making amends, dissembling, of stubbornness. ..... Wherefore confession is the discipline of a man's prostrating and humbling himself, enjoining such a conversation as invites mercy. It restrains a man even as to the matter of dress and food, requiring him to lie in sackcloth and ashes, to hide his body in filthy garments, to afflict his soul with sorrow, to exchange for severe treatment the sins in which he indulged; for the rest to use simple things for meat and drink, that is, for the sake of the soul, and not to please the appetite: for the most part also to quicken prayer by fasts, to groan, to weep, and to moan day and night before the Lord his God; to throw himself on the ground before the presbyters, and to fall on his knees before the beloved of God; to enjoin all the brethren to bear the message of his prayer for mercy—all these things does confession that it may commend repentance." [493:1]

When a man is overwhelmed with grief, the state of his mind will often be revealed by the loss of his appetite. He will think little of his dress and personal accommodation; and though he may give no utterance to his feelings, his general appearance will betray to the eye of an observer the depths of his affliction. The mourner not unfrequently takes a melancholy satisfaction in surrounding himself with the symbols of sorrow; and we read, accordingly, in Scripture how, in ancient times and in Eastern countries, he clothed himself in sackcloth and sat in ashes. [493:2] There is a wonderful sympathy between the body and the mind; and as grief affects the appetite, so occasional abstinence from food may foster a serious and contrite spirit. Hence fasting has been so commonly associated with penitential exercises.

Fasting is not to be regarded as one of the ordinary duties of a disciple of Christ,[494:1] but rather as a kind of discipline in which he may feel called on to engage under special circumstances.[494:2] When oppressed with a consciousness of guilt, or when anxious for divine direction on a critical occasion, or when trembling under the apprehension of impending judgments, he may thus seek to "afflict his soul," that he may draw near with deeper humility and reverence into the presence of the Divine Majesty. But, in such a case, every one should act according to the dictates of his own enlightened convictions. As the duty is extraordinary, the self-denial to be practised must be regulated by various contingencies; and no one can well prescribe to another its amount or duration.

According to the Mosaic law, only one day in the year—the great day of atonement—was required to be kept as a national fast.[494:3] There is now no divine warrant for so observing any corresponding day, and for upwards of a hundred years after the death of our Lord, there is no evidence that any fixed portion of time was thus appropriated under the sanction of ecclesiastical authority. But towards the close of the second century the termination of the Paschal week was often so employed—the interval, between the hour on Friday when our Lord expired and the morning of the first day of the week, being spent in total abstinence.[494:4] About the same time some partially abstained from food on what were called stationary days, or the Wednesday and Friday of each week.[494:5] At this period some began also to observe Xerophagiae, or days on which they used neither flesh nor wine. [495:1] Not a few saw the danger of this ascetic tendency; but, whilst it betokened zeal, it had also "a show of wisdom," [495:2] and it silently made great progress. Towards the close of the third century the whole Church was already pervaded by its influence.

Fasting has been well described as "the outward shell" of penitential sorrow, and is not to be confounded with its spiritual elements. It is its accidental accompaniment, and not one of its true and essential features. A man may "bow down his head as a bulrush," or fast, or clothe himself in sackcloth, when he is an utter stranger to that "repentance to salvation not to be repented of." The hypocrite may put on the outward badges of mourning merely with a view to regain a position in the Church, whilst the sincere penitent may "anoint his head and wash his face," and reveal to the eye of the casual spectator no tokens of contrition. As repentance is a spiritual exercise, it can only be recognised by spiritual signs; and the rulers of the ancient Church committed a capital error when they proposed to test it by certain dietary indications. Their penitential discipline was directly opposed to the genuine spirit of the gospel; and it was the fountain from whence proceeded many of the superstitions which, like a river of death, soon overspread Christendom. Whilst repentance was reduced to a mechanical round of bodily exercises, the doctrine of a free salvation was practically repudiated.

In connexion with the appearance of a system of penitential discipline, involving in some cases a penance of several years' continuance, [495:3] the distinction of venial and mortal sins now began to be recognised. Venial sins were transgressions which any sincere believer might commit, whilst mortal sins were such as were considered incompatible with the genuine profession of Christianity. Penance was prescribed only to those who had been guilty of mortal sins. Its severity and duration varied with the character of the offence, and was soon regulated according to an exact scale arranged by the rulers of the Church in their ecclesiastical conventions.

About the middle of the third century a new arrangement was introduced, with a view to promote the more exact administration of penitential discipline. During the Decian persecution which occurred at this time, many were induced by fear to abandon the profession of the gospel; and, on the return of better days, those who sought restoration to Christian privileges were so numerous that, in the larger churches, it was deemed expedient to require the lapsed, in the first instance, to address themselves to one of the presbyters appointed for their special examination. The business of this functionary, who was known by the designation of the Penitentiary [496:1] was to hear the confessions of the penitents, to ascertain the extent and circumstances of their apostasy, and to announce the penance required from each by the existing ecclesiastical regulations. The disclosures made to the Penitentiary did not supersede the necessity of public confession; it was simply the duty of this minister to give to the lapsed such instructions as his professional experience enabled him to supply, including directions as to the fasts they should observe, and the sins they should openly acknowledge. Under the guidance of the Penitentiaries the system of discipline for transgressors seems to have been still farther matured; and at length, in the beginning of the fourth century, the penitents were divided into various classes, according to their supposed degrees of unworthiness. The members of each class were obliged to occupy a particular position in the place of worship when the congregation assembled for religious exercises. [497:1]

It must be obvious from these statements that the institution known as Auricular Confession had, as yet, no existence. In the early Church the disciples, under ordinary circumstances, were neither required nor expected, at stated seasons, to enter into secret conference with any ecclesiastical searcher of consciences. When a professing Christian committed a heinous transgression by which religion was scandalized, he was obliged, before being re-admitted to communion, to express his sorrow in the face of the congregation; and the revelations made to the Penitentiary did not relieve him from this act of humiliation. It must also be apparent that the whole system of penance is an unauthorized addition to the ordinances of primitive Christianity. Of such a system we do not find even a trace in the New Testament; and under its blighting influence, the religion of the Church gradually became little better than a species of refined heathenism.

The spiritual darkness now settling down upon the Christian commonwealth might be traced in the growing obscurity of the ecclesiastical nomenclature. The power and the form of godliness began to be confounded, and the same term was employed to denote penance and repentance. [497:2] Bodily mortification was mistaken for holiness, and celibacy for sanctity. [497:3] Other errors of an equally grave character became current, for the penitent was described as making satisfaction for his sins by his fasts and his outward acts of self abasement, [497:4] and thus the all-sufficiency of the great atonement was openly ignored. Thus, too, the doctrine of a free salvation to transgressors could no longer be proclaimed, for pardon was clogged with conditions as burdensome to the sinner, as they were alien to the spirit of the New Testament. The doctrine that "a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law," [498:1] reveals the folly of the ancient penitential discipline. Our Father in heaven demands no useless tribute of mortification from His children; He merely requires us to "bring forth fruits meet for repentance." [498:2] "Is not this the fast that I have chosen?" saith the Lord, "to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke? Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh? Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thine health shall spring forth speedily; and thy righteousness shall go before thee: the glory of the Lord shall be thy reward." [498:3]



CHAPTER V.

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH IN THE SECOND CENTURY.

Justin Martyr, who had travelled much, and who was probably as well acquainted with the state of the Church about the middle of the second century as most of his contemporaries, has left behind him an account of the manner in which its worship was then conducted. This account, which has already been submitted to the reader, [499:1] represents one individual as presiding over each Christian community, whether in the city or the country. Where the Church consisted of a single congregation, and where only one of the elders was competent to preach, it is easy to understand how the society was regulated. In accordance with apostolic arrangement, the presbyter, who laboured in the Word and doctrine, was counted worthy of double honour, [499:2] and was recognized as the stated chairman of the solemn assembly. His brother elders contributed in various ways to assist him in the supervision of the flock; but its prosperity greatly depended on his own zeal, piety, prudence, and ability. Known at first as the president, and afterwards distinguished by the title of the bishop, he occupied very much the same position as the minister of a modern parish.

Where a congregation had more than one preaching elder, the case was different. There, several individuals were in the habit of addressing the auditory, [500:1] and it was the duty of the president to preserve order; to interpose, perhaps, by occasional suggestions; and to close the exercise. When several congregations with a plurality of preaching elders existed in the same city, the whole were affiliated; and a president, acknowledged by them all, superintended their united movements.

It must be admitted that much obscurity hangs over the general condition of the Christian commonwealth in the first half of the second century; but it so happens that two authentic and valuable documents which still remain, one of which was written about the beginning and the other about the close of this period, throw much light upon the question of Church government. These documents are the "Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians," and the "Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians." As to the matters respecting which they bear testimony, we could not desire more competent witnesses than the authors of these two letters. The one lived in the West; the other, in the East. Clement, who is mentioned by the Apostle Paul, [500:2] was a presbyter of the Church of Rome; Polycarp, who, in his youth, had conversed with the Apostle John, was a presbyter of the Church of Smyrna. Clement died about the close of the first century, and his letter to the Corinthians was written three or four years before, that is, immediately after the Domitian persecution; Polycarp survived until a somewhat advanced period of the second century, and his letter to the Philippians was probably written fifty or sixty years after the date of the Epistle of Clement. [500:3]

Towards the termination of the first century a spirit of discord disturbed the Church of Corinth; and the Church of Rome, anxious to restore peace, addressed a fraternal letter to the distracted community. The Epistle was drawn up by Clement, who was then the leading minister of the Italian capital; but, as it is written in the name of the whole brotherhood, and as it had, no doubt, obtained their sanction, it obviously possesses all the authority of a public and official correspondence. From it the constitution of the Church of Corinth, and, by implication, of the Church of Rome, may be easily ascertained: and it furnishes abundant proof that, at the time of its composition, both these Christian societies were under presbyterial government. Had a prelate then presided in either Church, a circumstance so important would not have been entirely overlooked, more especially as the document is of considerable length, and as it treats expressly upon the subject of ecclesiastical polity. It appears that some members of the community to which it is addressed had acted undutifully towards those who were over them in the Lord, and it accordingly condemns in very emphatic terms a course of proceeding so disreputable. "It is shameful, beloved," says the Church of Rome in this letter, "it is exceedingly shameful and unworthy of your Christian profession, to hear that the most firm and ancient Church of the Corinthians should, by one or two persons, be led into a sedition against its elders." [501:1] "Let the flock of Christ be in peace with THE ELDERS THAT ARE SET OVER IT." [502:1] Having stated that the apostles ordained those to whom the charge of the Christian Church was originally committed, it is added, that they gave directions in what manner, after the decease of these primitive pastors, "other chosen and approved men should succeed to their ministry." [502:2] The Epistle thus continues—"Wherefore we cannot think that those may justly be thrown out of their ministry who were either ordained by them (the apostles), or afterwards by other approved men with the approbation of the whole Church, and who have, with all lowliness and innocency, ministered to the flock of Christ in peace and without self-interest, and have been for a long time commended by all. For it would be no small sin in us, should we cast off those from the ministry who holily and without blame fulfil the duties of it. Blessed are those elders who, having finished their course before these times, have obtained a fruitful and perfect dissolution." [502:3] Towards the conclusion of the letter, the parties who had created this confusion in the Church of Corinth have the following admonition addressed to them—"Do ye, therefore, who laid the foundation of the sedition, submit yourselves unto your elders, and be instructed unto repentance, bending the knees of your hearts." [502:4]

In the preservation of this precious letter we are bound to recognize the hand of Providence. [502:5] Its instructions were so highly appreciated by the ancient Christians that it continued to be publicly read in many of their churches for centuries afterwards. [502:6] It is universally acknowledged to be genuine; it breathes the benevolent spirit of a primitive presbyter; and it is distinguished by its sobriety and earnestness. It was written upon the verge of the apostolic age, and it is the production of a pious, sensible, and aged minister who preached for years in the capital of the Empire. The Church of Rome has since advanced the most extravagant pretensions, and has appealed in support of them to ecclesiastical tradition; but here, an elder of her own—one who had conversed with, the apostles—and one whom she delights to honour [503:1]—deliberately comes forward and ignores her assumptions! She fondly believes that Clement was an early Pope, but the good man himself admits that he was only one of the presbyters. Had there then been a bishop of Corinth, this letter would unquestionably have exhorted the malcontents to submit to his jurisdiction; or had there been a bishop of Rome, it would not have failed to dilate upon the benefits of episcopal government. But, as to the existence of any such functionary in either Church, it preserves throughout a most intelligible silence. It says that the apostles ordained the first-fruits of their conversions, not as bishops and presbyters and deacons, but as "bishops and deacons over such as should afterwards believe;" [503:2] and it is apparent that, when it was written, the terms bishop and presbyter were still used interchangeably. [503:3]

The Epistle of Polycarp bears equally decisive testimony. It was drawn up perhaps about the middle of the second century, [503:4] and though the last survivor of the apostles was now dead for many years, no general change had meanwhile taken place in the form of church government. This document purports to be the letter of "Polycarp and the elders who are with him [504:1] to the Church of God which is at Philippi;" but it does not recognize a bishop as presiding over the Christian community to which it is addressed. The Church was still apparently in much the same state as when Paul wrote to "the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons;" [504:2] for Polycarp was certainly not aware of the existence of any new office-bearers; and he accordingly exhorts his correspondents to be "subject to the presbyters and deacons." [504:3] "Let the presbyters," says he, "be compassionate, merciful to all, bringing back such as are in error, seeking out all those that are weak, not neglecting the widow or the fatherless, or the poor; but providing always what is good in the sight of God and men; abstaining from all wrath, respect of persons, and unrighteous judgment; being far from all covetousness; not ready to believe anything against any; not severe in judgment, knowing that we are all debtors in point of sin." [504:4]

It is stated by the most learned of the fathers of the fourth century that the Church was at first "governed by the common council of the, presbyters;" [504:5] and these two letters prove most satisfactorily the accuracy of the representation. They shew that, throughout the whole of the apostolic age, this species of polity continued. But the Scriptures ordain that "all things be done decently and in order;" [504:6] and, as a common council requires an official head, or mayor, to take the chair at its meetings, and to act on its behalf, so the ancient eldership, or presbytery, must have had a president or moderator. It would appear that the duty and honour of presiding commonly devolved on the senior member of the judicatory. We may thus account for those catalogues of bishops, reaching back to the days of the apostles, which are furnished by some of the writers of antiquity. From the first, every presbytery had its president; and as the transition from the moderator to the bishop was the work of time, the distinction at one period was little more than nominal. Hence, writers who lived when the change was taking place, or when it had only been recently accomplished, speak of these two functionaries as identical. But in their attempts to enumerate the bishops of the apostolic era, they encountered a practical difficulty. The elders who were at first set over the Christian societies were all ordained, in each church, on the same occasion, [505:1] and were, perhaps, of nearly the same age, so that neither their date of appointment, nor their years, could well determine the precedence; and it is probable that, in general, no single individual continued permanently to occupy the office of moderator. There may have been instances in which a stated president was chosen, and yet it is remarkable that not even one such case can be clearly established by the evidence of contemporary documents. When all the other apostles departed from Jerusalem, James appears to have remained in the holy city, so that we may reasonably presume he always acted, when present, as chairman of the mother presbytery; and accordingly, the writers of succeeding ages have described him as the first bishop of the Jewish metropolis; but so little consequence was originally attached to the office of moderator, [505:2] that, in as far as the New Testament is concerned, the situation held by this distinguished man can be inferred only from some very obscure and doubtful intimations. [505:3] In Rome, and elsewhere, the primitive elders at first, perhaps, filled the chair alternately. Hence the so-called episcopal succession is most uncertain and confused at the very time when it should be sustained by evidence the most decisive and perspicuous. The lists of bishops, commencing with the ministry of the apostles, and extending over the latter half of the first century, are little better than a mass of contradictions. The compilers seem to have set down, almost at random, the names of some distinguished men whom they found connected with the different churches, and thus the discrepancies are nearly as numerous as the catalogues. [506:1]

But when Clement dictated the Epistle to the Corinthians most of the elders, ordained by the apostles or evangelists about the middle of the first century, must have finished their career; and there is little reason to doubt that this eminent minister was then the father of the Roman presbytery. The superscription of the letter to the Philippians supplies direct proof that, at the time when it was written, Polycarp likewise stood at the head of the presbytery of Smyrna. [506:2] Other circumstances indicate that the senior presbyter now began to be regarded as the stated president of the eldership. Hilary, one of the best commentators of the ancient Church, [506:3] bears explicit testimony to the existence of such an arrangement. "At first," says he, "presbyters were called bishops, so that when the one (who was called bishop) passed away, the next in order took his place." [507:1] "Though every bishop is a presbyter, every presbyter is not a bishop, for he is bishop who is first among the presbyters." [507:2] As soon as the regulation, recognizing the claims of seniority was proposed, its advocates were, no doubt, prepared to recommend it by arguments which possessed at least considerable plausibility. The Scriptures frequently inculcate respect for age, and when the apostle says—"Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder," [507:3] he seems, from the connexion in which the words occur, to refer specially to the deportment of junior ministers. [507:4] In the lists of the Twelve to be found in the New Testament the name of Peter appears first; [507:5] and if, as is believed, he was more advanced in years than any of his brethren, [507:6] it is easy to understand why this precedence has been given to him; for, in all likelihood, he usually acted as president of the apostolic presbytery. Even the construction of corporate bodies in the Roman Empire might have suggested the arrangement; for it is well known that, in the senates of the cities out of Italy, the oldest decurion, under the title principalis, acted as president. [508:1] Did we, therefore, even want the direct evidence already quoted, we might have inferred, on other grounds, that, at an early date, the senior member generally presided wherever an eldership was erected.

As a point of such interest relating to the constitution of the ancient Church should be carefully elucidated, it may be necessary to fortify the statement of Hilary by some additional evidence. It is not to be supposed that this candid and judicious commentator ventured, without due authority, to describe the original order of succession in the presidential chair; and he had, no doubt, access to sources of information which have long ceased to be available; but the credit of the fact for which he vouches does not rest upon the unsustained support of his solitary attestation. Whilst his averment is recommended by internal marks of probability, and whilst it is countenanced by several scriptural intimations, it is also corroborated by a large amount of varied and independent testimony. We shall now exhibit some of the most striking portions of the confirmatory proof.

I. The language applied in ancient documents to the primitive presidents of the Churches illustrates the accuracy of this venerable commentator. In one of the earliest extant notices of these ecclesiastical functionaries, a bishop is designated "the old man." [508:2] The age of the individual who is thus distinguished was not a matter of accident; for each of his brethren in the same position, all over the Church, was called "father" [508:3] on the ground of his seniority. The official title "Pope," which has the same meaning, had also the same origin. It was given at first to every president of the eldership, because he was, in point of fact, the father, or senior member, of the judicatory. It soon, no doubt, ceased to convey this meaning, but it still remained as a memorial of the primitive regimen.

II. It is a remarkable fact that, in none of the great sees before the close of the second century, do we find any trace of the existence of a young, or even of a middle-aged bishop. When Ignatius of Antioch was martyred, he was verging on fourscore; Polycarp of Smyrna finished his career at the age of eighty-six; Pothinus of Lyons fell a victim to persecution when he was upwards of ninety; [509:1] Narcissus of Jerusalem must have been at least that age when he was first placed in the presidential chair; [509:2] one of his predecessors, named Justus, appears to have been about one hundred and ten when he reached the same dignity; [509:3] and Simeon of Jerusalem died when he had nearly completed the patriarchal age of one hundred and twenty. As an individual might become a member of the presbytery when comparatively young, [509:4] such extraordinary longevity among the bishops of the second century can be best explained by accepting the testimony of Hilary.

III. The number of bishops now found within a short period in the same see has long presented a difficulty to many students of ecclesiastical history. Thus, at Rome in the first forty years of the second century there were five or six bishops, [509:5] and yet only one of them suffered martyrdom. Within twelve or fifteen years after the death of Polycarp, there were several bishops in Smyrna. [510:1] But the Church of Jerusalem furnishes the most wonderful example of this quick succession of episcopal dignitaries. Simeon, one of the relatives of our Lord, is reported to have become the presiding pastor after the destruction of the city by Titus, and to have been martyred about the close of the reign of Trajan, or in A.D. 116; and yet, according to the testimony of Eusebius, [510:2] no less than thirteen bishops in succession occupied his place before the end of the year A.D. 134. He must have been set at the head of the Church when he was above threescore and ten; [510:3] and dying, as already stated, at the extreme age of one hundred and twenty, he probably left behind him a considerable staff of very aged elders. These may have become presidents in the order of their seniority; and as they would pass rapidly away, we may thus account for the extraordinary number of the early chief pastors of the ancient capital of Palestine. [510:4]

At this time, or about A.D. 135, the original Christian Church of Jerusalem was virtually dissolved. The Jews had grievously provoked Hadrian by their revolt under the impostor Barchochebas; and the Emperor, in consequence, resolved to exclude the entire race from the precincts of the holy city. The faithful Hebrews, who had hitherto worshipped there under the ministry of Simeon and his successors, still observed the Mosaic law, and were consequently treated as Jews, so that they were now obliged to break up their association, and remove to other districts. A Christian Church, composed chiefly of Gentile converts, was soon afterwards established in the same place; and the new society elected an individual, named Marcus, as their bishop, or presiding elder. Marcus was, probably, in the decline of life when he was placed at the head of the community; and on his demise, [511:1] as well as long afterwards, the old rule of succession seems to have been observed. During the sixty years immediately after his appointment, there were fifteen bishops at Jerusalem [511:2]—a fact which apparently indicates that, on the occurrence of a vacancy, the senior elder still continued to be advanced to the episcopal chair. This conclusion is remarkably corroborated by the circumstance that Narcissus, who was bishop of the ancient capital of Judea at the end of these sixty years, was, as has been already mentioned, upwards of fourscore and ten when he obtained his ecclesiastical promotion.

The episcopal roll of Jerusalem has no recorded parallel in the annals of the Christian ministry, for there were no less than twenty-eight bishops in the holy city in a period of eighty years. Even the Popes have never followed each other with such rapidity. The Roman Prelate, when elevated to St. Peter's chair, has almost invariably been far advanced in years, and the instances are not a few in which Pontiffs have fallen victims to poison or to open violence; and yet their history, even in the worst of times, exhibits nothing equal to the frequency of the successions indicated by this ancient episcopal registry. [512:1] It would appear from it that there were more bishops in Jerusalem in the second century than there have been Archbishops of Canterbury for the last four hundred years! [512:2] Such facts demonstrate that those who then stood at the head of the mother Church of Christendom, must have reached their position by means of some order of succession very different from that which is now established. Hilary furnishes at once a simple and an adequate explanation. The senior minister was the president, or bishop; and as, when placed in the episcopal chair, he had already reached old age, it was not to be expected that he could long retain a situation which required some exertion and involved much anxiety. Hence the startling amount of episcopal mortality.

As the Church of Jerusalem may be said to have been founded by our Lord himself, it could lay claim to a higher antiquity than any other Christian community in existence; and it long continued to be regarded by the disciples all over the Empire with peculiar interest and veneration. [512:3] When re-established about the close of the reign of Hadrian, it was properly a new society; but it still enjoyed the prestige of ancient associations. Its history has, therefore, been investigated by Eusebius with special care; he tells us that he derived a portion of his information from its own archives; [512:4] and, though he enters into details respecting very few of the early Churches, he notices it with unusual frequency, and gives an accredited list of the names of its successive chief pastors. [513:1] About this period it was obviously considered a model which other Christian societies of less note might very safely imitate. It is, therefore, all the more important if we are able to ascertain its constitution, as we are thus prepared to speak with a measure of confidence respecting the form of ecclesiastical government which prevailed throughout the second century. The facts already stated, when coupled with the positive affirmation of the Roman Hilary, place the solution of the question, as nearly as possible, upon the basis of demonstration; for, if we reject the conclusion that, during a hundred years after the death of the Apostle John, the senior member of the presbytery of Jerusalem was the president or moderator, we may in vain attempt to explain, upon any Round statistical principles, how so many bishops passed away in succession within so limited periods, and how, at several points along the line, and exactly where they might have been expected, [513:2] we find individuals in occupation of the chair who had attained to extreme longevity.

IV. The statement of Hilary illustrates the peculiar cogency of the argumentation employed by the defenders of the faith who flourished about the close of the second century. This century was pre-eminently the age of heresies, and the disseminators of error were most extravagant and unscrupulous in their assertions. The heresiarchs, among other things, affirmed that the inspired heralds of the gospel had not committed their whole system to written records; that they had entrusted certain higher revelations only to select or perfect disciples; and that the doctrine of Aeons, which they so assiduously promulgated, was derived from this hidden treasure of ecclesiastical tradition. [514:1] To such assertions the champions of orthodoxy were prepared to furnish a triumphant reply, for they could shew that the Gnostic system was inconsistent with Scripture, and that its credentials, said to be derived from tradition, were utterly apocryphal. They could appeal, in proof of its falsehood, to the tradition which had come down to themselves from the apostles, and which was still preserved in the Churches "through the successions of the elders." [514:2] They could farther refer to those who stood at the head of their respective presbyteries as the witnesses most competent to give evidence. "We are able," says Irenaeus, "to enumerate those whom the apostles established as bishops in the Churches, [514:3] together with their successors down to our own times, who neither taught any such doctrine as these men rave about, nor had any knowledge of it. For if the apostles had been acquainted with recondite mysteries which they were in the habit of teaching to the perfect disciples apart and without the knowledge of the rest, they would by all means have communicated them to those to whom they entrusted the care of the Church itself, since they wished that those whom they left behind them as their successors, and to whom they gave their own place of authority, should be quite perfect and irreproachable in all things." [514:4]

Had the succession to the episcopal chair been regulated by the arrangements of modern times, there would have been little weight in the reasoning of Irenaeus. The declaration of the bishop respecting the tradition of the Church over which he happened to preside would have possessed no special value. But it was otherwise in the days of this pastor of Lyons. The bishop was generally one of the oldest members of the community with which he was connected, and had been longer conversant with its ecclesiastical affairs than any other minister. His testimony to its traditions was, therefore, of the highest importance. In a few of the great Churches, as we have elsewhere shewn, [515:1] the senior elder now no longer succeeded, as a matter of course, to the episcopate; but age continued to be universally regarded as an indispensable qualification for the office, [515:2] and, when Irenaeus wrote, the law of seniority appears to have been still generally maintained. It was, therefore, with marked propriety that he appealed to the evidence of the bishops; as they, from their position, were most competent to expose the falsehood of the fables of Gnosticism.

V. It is well known that, in some of the most ancient councils of which we have any record, the senior bishop officiated as moderator [515:3] and, long after age had ceased to determine the succession to the episcopal chair, the recognition of its claims, under various forms, may be traced in ecclesiastical history. In Spain, so late as the fourth century, the senior chief pastor acted as president when the bishops and presbyters assembled for deliberation [515:4] In Africa the same rule was observed until the Church of that country was overwhelmed by the northern barbarians. In Mauritania and Numidia, even in the fifth century, the senior bishop of the province, whoever he might be, was acknowledged as metropolitan. [516:1] In the usages of a still later age we may discover vestiges of the ancient regulation, for the bishops sat, in the order of their seniority, in the provincial synods. [516:2] Still farther, where the bishop of the chief city of the province was the stated metropolitan, the ecclesiastical law still retained remembrancers of the primitive polity; as, when this dignitary died, the senior bishop of the district performed his functions until a successor was regularly appointed. [516:3]

Though the senior presbyter presided in the meetings of his brethren, and was soon known by the name of bishop, it does not appear that he originally possessed any superior authority. He held his place for life, but as he was sinking under the weight of years when he succeeded to it, he could not venture to anticipate an extended career of official distinction. In all matters relating either to discipline, or the general interests of the brotherhood, he was expected to carry out the decisions of the eldership, so that, under his presidential rule, the Church was still substantially governed by "the common council of the presbyters."

The allegation that presbyterial government existed in all its integrity towards the end of the second century does not rest on the foundation of obscure intimations or doubtful inferences. It can be established by direct and conclusive testimony. Evidence has already been adduced to shew that the senior presbyter of Smyrna continued to preside until the days of Irenaeus, and there is also documentary proof that meanwhile he possessed no autocratical authority. The supreme power was still vested in the council of the elders. This point is attested by Hippolytus, who was now just entering on his ecclesiastical career, and who, in one of his works, a fragment of which has been preserved, describes the manner in which the rulers of the Church dealt with the heretic Noetus. The transaction probably occurred about A.D. 190. [517:1] "There are certain others," says Hippolytus, "who introduce clandestinely a strange doctrine, being disciples of one Noetus, who was by birth a Smyrnean, and lived not long ago. This man, being puffed up, was led to forget himself, being elated by the vain fancy of a strange spirit. He said that Christ is himself the Father, and that the Father himself had been born, and had suffered and died....When the blessed presbyters heard these things, they summoned him and examined him before the Church. He, however, denied, saying at first that such were not his sentiments. But afterwards, when he had intrigued with some, and had found persons to join him in his error, he took courage, and at length resolved to stand by his dogma. The blessed presbyters again summoned him, and administered a rebuke. But he withstood them, saying—'Why, what evil am I doing in glorifying Christ?' To whom the presbyters replied—'We also truly acknowledge one God; we acknowledge Christ; we acknowledge that the Son suffered as He did suffer, that He died as He did die, and that He rose again the third day, and that He is at the right hand of the Father, and that He is coming to judge the quick and the dead; and we declare those things which we have been taught.' Then they rebuked him, and cast him out of the Church." [517:2]

About the time to which these words refer a change was made in the ecclesiastical constitution. The senior minister ceased to preside over the eldership; and the Church was no longer governed, as heretofore, by the "blessed presbyters." It would appear that the synods which were held all over the Church for the suppression of the Montanist agitation, and in connexion with the Paschal controversy, [518:1] adopted a modified episcopacy. As parties already in the presidential chair were, no doubt, permitted to hold office during life, this change could not have been accomplished instantaneously; but various circumstances concur to prove that it took place about the period now indicated. The following reasons, among others, may be adduced in support of this view of the history of the ecclesiastical revolution.

I. The Montanists, towards the termination of the second century, created much confusion by their extravagant doctrines and their claims to inspiration. These fanatics were in the habit of disturbing public worship by uttering their pretended revelations, and as they were often countenanced by individual elders, the best mode of protecting the Church from their annoyance soon became a question of grave and pressing difficulty. Episcopacy, as shall afterwards be shewn, [518:2] had already been introduced in some great cities, and about this time the Churches generally agreed to follow the influential example. It was, no doubt, thought that order could be more effectually preserved were a single individual armed with independent authority. Thus, the system of government by presbyters was gradually and silently subverted.

II. It is well known that the close of the second century is a transition period in the history of the Church. A new ecclesiastical nomenclature now appeared; [519:1] the bishops acquired increased authority; and, early in the third century, they were chosen in all the chief cities by popular suffrage. The alteration mentioned by Hilary may, therefore, have been the immediate precursor of other and more vital changes.

III. Though Eusebius passes over in suspicious silence the history of all ecclesiastical innovations, his account of the bishops of Jerusalem gives good reason for believing that the law abolishing the claim of seniority came into operation about the close of the second century. He classes together the fifteen chief pastors who followed each other in the holy city immediately after its restoration by Hadrian, [519:2] and then goes on to give a list of others, their successors, whose pastorates were of the ordinary duration. He mentions likewise that the sixteenth bishop was chosen by election. [519:3] May we not here distinctly recognize the close of one system, and the commencement of another? As the sixteenth bishop was appointed about A.D. 199, the law had, probably, been then only recently enacted.

IV. Eusebius professes to trace the episcopal succession from the days of the apostles in Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem; and it has often been shewn that the accuracy of these four lists is extremely problematical; but it is remarkable that in other Churches the episcopal registry cannot be carried up higher than the end of the second century. The roll of the bishops of Carthage is there discontinued, [519:4] and the episcopal registry of Spain there also abruptly terminates. But the history of the Church of Caesarea affords the most extraordinary specimen of this defalcation. Caesarea was the civil metropolis of Palestine, and a Christian Church existed in it from the days of Paul and Peter. [520:1] Its bishop in the early part of the fourth century was the friend of the Emperor Constantine and the father of ecclesiastical history. Eusebius enjoyed all needful facilities for investigating the annals of his own Church; and yet, strange to say, he commences its episcopal registry about the close of the second century! [520:2] What explanation can be given of this awkward circumstance? Had Eusebius taken no notice of any of the bishops of his own see, we could appreciate his modesty; but why should he overlook those who nourished before the time of Victor of Rome, and then refer to their successors with such marked frequency? [520:3] May we not infer, either that he deemed it inexpedient to proclaim the inconvenient fact that the bishops of Caesarea were as numerous as the bishops of Jerusalem; or that he found it impossible to recover the names of a multitude of old men who had only a nominal precedence among their brethren, and who had passed off the stage, one after another, in quick succession?

V. A statement of Eutychius, who was patriarch of Alexandria in the tenth century, and who has left behind him a history of his see from the days of the apostles, supplies a remarkable confirmation of the fact that, towards the close of the second century, a new policy was inaugurated. According to this writer there was, with the exception of the occupant of the episcopal chair of Alexandria, "no bishop in the provinces of Egypt" before Demetrius. [520:4] As Demetrius became bishop of Alexandria about A.D. 190, Christianity must have now made extensive progress in the country; [520:5] for it had been planted there perhaps one hundred and fifty years before; but it would seem that meanwhile, with the one exception, the Churches still remained under presbyterial government. Demetrius was a prelate of great influence and energy; and, during his long episcopate of forty-three years, [521:1] he succeeded in spreading all over the land the system of which he had been at one time the only representative.

It is not, indeed, to be supposed that the whole Church, prompted by a sudden and simultaneous impulse, agreed, all at once, to change its ecclesiastical arrangements. Another polity, as has already been intimated, at first made its appearance in places of commanding influence; and its advocates now, no doubt, most assiduously endeavoured to recommend its claims by appealing to the fruits of experience. The Church of Rome, as will subsequently appear, took the lead in setting up a mitigated form of prelacy; the Churches of Antioch and Alexandria followed; and, soon afterwards, other Christian communities of note adopted the example. That this subject may be fairly understood, a few chapters must now be employed in tracing the rise and progress of the hierarchy.



CHAPTER VI.

THE RISE OF THE HIERARCHY CONNECTED WITH THE SPREAD OF HERESIES.

Eusebius, already so often quoted, and known so widely as the author of the earliest Church history, flourished in the former half of the fourth century. This distinguished father was a spectator of the most wonderful revolution recorded in the annals of the world. He had seen Christianity proscribed, and its noblest champions cut down by a brutal martyrdom; and he had lived to see a convert to the faith seated on the throne of the Caesars, and ministers of the Church basking in the sunshine of Imperial bounty. He was himself a special favourite with Constantine; as bishop of Caesarea, the chief city of Palestine, he had often access to the presence of his sovereign; and in a work which is still extant, professing to be a Life of the Emperor, he has well-nigh exhausted the language of eulogy in his attempts to magnify the virtues of his illustrious patron.

Eusebius may have been an accomplished courtier, but certainly he is not entitled to the praise of a great historian. The publication by which he is best known would never have acquired such celebrity, had it not been the most ancient treatise of the kind in existence. Though it mentions many of the ecclesiastical transactions of the second and third centuries, and supplies a large amount of information which would have otherwise been lost, it must be admitted to be a very ill-arranged and unsatisfactory performance. Its author does not occupy a high position either as a philosophic thinker, a judicious observer, or a sound theologian. He makes no attempt to point out the germs of error, to illustrate the rise and progress of ecclesiastical changes, or to investigate the circumstances which led to the formation of the hierarchy. Even the announcement of his Preface, that his purpose is "to record the successions of the holy apostles," or, in other words, to exhibit some episcopal genealogies, proclaims how much he was mistaken as to the topics which should have been noticed most prominently in his narrative. It is somewhat doubtful whether his history was expressly written, either for the illumination of his own age, or for the instruction of posterity; and its appearance, shortly after the public recognition of Christianity by the State, [523:1] is fitted to generate a suspicion that it was intended to influence the mind of Constantine, and to recommend the episcopal order to the consideration of the great proselyte.

About six or seven years after the publication of this treatise a child was born who was destined to attain higher distinction, both as a scholar and a writer, than the polished Eusebius. This was Jerome—afterwards a presbyter of Rome, and a father whose productions challenge the foremost rank among the memorials of patristic erudition. Towards the close of the fourth century he shone the brightest literary star in the Church, and even the proud Pope Damasus condescended to cultivate his favour. At one time he contemplated the composition of a Church history, [523:2] and we have reason to regret that the design was never executed, as his works demonstrate that he was in possession of much rare and important information for which we search in vain in the pages of the bishop of Caesarea.

No ancient writer has thrown more light on the history of the hierarchy than Jerome. His remarks upon the subject frequently drop incidentally from his pen, and must be sought for up and down throughout his commentaries and epistles; but he speaks as an individual who was quite familiar with the topics which he introduces; and, whilst all his statements are consistent, they are confirmed and illustrated by other witnesses. As a presbyter, he seems to have been jealous of the honour of his order; and, when in certain moods, he is obviously very well disposed to remind the bishops that their superiority to himself was a mere matter of human arrangement. One of his observations relative to the original constitution of the Christian commonwealth has been often quoted. "Before that, by the prompting of the devil, there were parties in religion, and it was said among the people, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, the Churches were governed by the common council of the presbyters. But, after that each, one began to reckon those whom he baptized as belonging to himself and not to Christ, it was DECREED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE WORLD that one elected from the presbyters should be set over the rest, that he should have the care of the whole Church, that the seeds of schisms might be destroyed." [524:1]

Because Jerome in this place happens to use language which occurs in the First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, we are not to understand him as identifying the date of that letter with the origin of prelacy. Such a conclusion would be quite at variance with the tenor of this passage. The words, "I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas," [525:1] are used by him rhetorically; he was accustomed to repeat them when describing schisms or contentions; and he has employed them on one memorable occasion in relation to a controversy of the fourth century. [525:2] The divisions among the Corinthians, noticed by Paul, were trivial and temporary; the Church at large was not disturbed by them; but Jerome speaks of a time when the whole ecclesiastical community was so agitated that it was threatened with dismemberment. The words immediately succeeding those which we have quoted clearly shew that he dated the origin of prelacy after the days of the apostles. "Should any one think that the identification of bishop and presbyter, the one being a name of age and the other of office, is not a doctrine of Scripture, but our own opinion, let him refer to the words of the apostle saying to the Philippians-'Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons, Grace to you and peace,' [525:3] and so forth. Philippi is one city of Macedonia, and truly in one city, there cannot be, as is thought, more than one bishop; but because, at that time, they called the same parties bishops and presbyters, therefore he speaks of bishops as of presbyters without making distinction. Still this may seem doubtful to some unless confirmed by another testimony. In the Acts of the Apostles it is written [526:1] that when the apostle came to Miletus he 'sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the same Church,' to whom then, among other things, he said—'Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost has made you bishops, [526:2] to feed the Church of the Lord which He has purchased with His own blood.' And attend specially to this, how, calling the elders of the one city Ephesus, he afterwards addressed the same as bishops. Whoever is prepared to receive that Epistle which is written to the Hebrews under the name of Paul, [526:3] there also the care of the Church is divided equally among more than one, since he writes to the people—'Obey them that have the rule over you and submit yourselves, for they are they who watch for your souls as those who must give account, that they may not do it with grief, since this is profitable for you.' [526:4] And Peter, who received his name from the firmness of his faith, in his Epistle speaks, saying—'The elders, therefore, who are among you, I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and who am a partaker of his glory which shall be revealed, feed that flock of the Lord which is among you, not by constraint but willingly.' [527:1] We may thus shew that anciently bishops and presbyters were the same; but, by degrees, THAT THE PLANTS OF DISSENSION MIGHT BE ROOTED UP, all care was transferred to one. As, therefore, the presbyters know that, in accordance with the custom of the Church, they are subject to him who has been set over them, so the bishops should know that they are greater than the presbyters, rather by custom, than by the truth of an arrangement of the Lord." [527:2]

Jerome here explains himself in language which admits of no second interpretation; for all these proofs, adduced to shew that the Church was originally under presbyterial government, are of a later date than the First Epistle to the Corinthians. The Epistle to the Philippians contains internal evidence that it was dictated during Paul's first imprisonment at Rome; the Epistle to the Hebrews appeared after his liberation; and the First Epistle of Peter was written in the old age of the apostle of the circumcision. [527:3] Nor is this even the full amount of his testimony to the antiquity of the presbyterian polity. On another occasion, after mentioning some of the texts which have been given, he goes on to make quotations from the Second and Third Epistles of John—which are generally dated towards the close of the first century [527:4]—and he declares that prelacy had not made its appearance when these letters were written. Having produced authorities from Paul and Peter, he exclaims—"Do the testimonies of such men seem small to you? Let the Evangelical Trumpet, the Son of Thunder, whom Jesus loved very much, who drank the streams of doctrine from the bosom of the Saviour, sound in your ears—'The elder, unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth;' [528:1] and, in another epistle—'The elder to the very dear Caius, whom I love in the truth.' [528:2] But what was done afterwards, when one was elected who was set over the rest, was for a cure of schism; lest every one, insisting upon his own will, should rend the Church of God." [528:3]

We have already seen [528:4] that extant documents, written about the close of the first century and the middle of the second, bear similar testimony as to the original constitution of the Church. The "Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians" cannot be dated earlier than the termination of the reign of Domitian, for it refers to a recent persecution, [528:5] it describes the community to which it in addressed as "most ancient," it declares that others now occupied the places of those who had been ordained by the apostles, and it states that this second generation of ministers had been long in possession of their ecclesiastical charges. [528:6] Candid writers, of almost all parties, acknowledge that this letter distinctly recognizes the existence of government by presbyters. [528:7] The evidence of the letter of Polycarp [528:8] is not less explicit. Jerome, therefore, did not speak without authority when he affirmed that prelacy was established after the days of the apostles, and as an antidote against schism.

The apostolic Church was comparatively free from divisions; and, whilst the inspired heralds of the gospel lived, it could not be said that "there were parties in religion." The heretics who appeared were never able to organize any formidable combinations; they were inconsiderable in point of numbers; and, though not wanting in activity, those to whom our Lord had personally entrusted the publication of His Word, were ready to oppose them, so that all their efforts were effectually checked or defeated. The most ancient writers acknowledge that, during the early part of the second century, the same state of things continued. According to Hegesippus, who outlived Polycarp about fifteen or twenty years, [529:1] the Church continued until the death of Simeon of Jerusalem, in A.D. 116, [529:2] "as a pure and uncorrupted virgin." "If there were any at all," says he, "who attempted to pervert the right standard of saving doctrine, they were yet skulking in dark retreats; but when the sacred company of the apostles had, in various ways, finished their career, AND THE GENERATION OF THOSE WHO HAD BEEN PRIVILEGED TO HEAR THEIR INSPIRED WISDOM HAD PASSED AWAY, then at length the fraud of false teachers produced a confederacy of impious errors." [529:3] The date of the appearance of these parties is also established by the testimony of Celsus, who lived in the time of the Antonines, and who was one of the most formidable of the early antagonists of Christianity. This writer informs us that, though in the beginning the disciples were agreed in sentiment, they became, in his days, when "spread out into a multitude, divided and distracted, each aiming to give stability to his own faction." [530:1]

The statements of Hegesippus and Celsus are substantiated by a host of additional witnesses. Justin Martyr, [530:2] Irenaeus, [530:3] Clemens Alexandrinus, [530:4] Cyprian, [530:5] and others, all concur in representing the close of the reign of Hadrian, or the beginning of the reign of Antoninus Pius, as the period when heresies burst forth, like a flood, upon the Church. The extant ecclesiastical writings of the succeeding century are occupied chiefly with their refutation. No wonder that the best champions of the faith were embarrassed and alarmed. They had hitherto been accustomed to boast that Christianity was the cement which could unite all mankind, and they had pointed triumphantly to its influence in bringing together the Jew and the Gentile, the Greek and the barbarian, the master and the slave, the learned and the illiterate. They had looked forward with high expectation to the days of its complete ascendency, when, under its gentle sway, all nations would exhibit the spectacle of one great and happy brotherhood. How, then, must they have been chagrined by the rise and spread of heresies! They saw the Church itself converted into a great battle-field, and every man's hand turned against his fellow. In almost all the populous cities of the Empire, as if on a concerted signal, the errorists commenced their discussions. The Churches of Lyons, [531:1] of Rome, of Corinth, of Athens, of Ephesus, of Antioch, and of Alexandria, resounded with the din of theological controversy. Nor were the heresiarchs men whom their opponents could afford to despise. In point of genius and of literary resources, many of them were fully equal to the most accomplished of their adversaries. Their zeal was unwearied, and their tact most perplexing. Mixing up the popular elements of the current philosophy with a few of the facts and doctrines of the gospel, they produced a compound by which many were deceived. How did the friends of the Church proceed to grapple with these difficulties? They, no doubt, did their utmost to meet the errorists in argument, and to shew that their theories were miserable perversions of Christianity. But they did not confine themselves to the use of weapons drawn from their own heavenly armoury. Not a few presbyters were themselves tainted with the new opinions; some of them were even ringleaders of the heretics; [531:2] and, in an evil hour, the dominant party resolved to change the constitution of the Church, and to try to put down disturbance by means of a new ecclesiastical organization. Believing, with many in modern times, that "parity breedeth confusion," and expecting, as Jerome has expressed it, "that the seeds of schisms might be destroyed," they sought to invigorate their administration by investing the presiding elder with authority over the rest of his brethren. The senior presbyters, the last survivors of a better age, were all sound in the faith; and, as they were still at the head of the Churches in the great cities, it was thought that by enlarging their prerogatives, and by giving them the name of bishops, they would be the better able to struggle energetically with the dangers of their position. The principle that, whoever would not submit to the bishop should be cast out of the Church, was accordingly adopted; and it was hoped that in due time peace would be restored to the spiritual commonwealth.

About the same period arrangements were made in some places for changing the mode of advancement to the presidential chair, so that, in no case, an elder suspected of error could have a chance of promotion. [532:1] An immense majority of the presbyters were yet orthodox; and by being permitted to depart, as often as they pleased, from the ancient order of succession, and to nominate any of themselves to the episcopate, they could always secure the appointment of an individual representing their own sentiments. In some of the larger Churches, where their number was considerable, they appear to have usually selected three or four candidates; and then to have permitted the lot to make the ultimate decision. [532:2] But the ecclesiastical revolution could not stop here. Jealousy quickly appeared among the presbyters; and, during the excitement of elections, the more popular candidates would not long be willing to limit the voting to the presbytery. The people chose their presbyters and deacons, and now that the office of moderator possessed substantial power, and differed so much from what it was originally, why should not all the members of the Church be allowed to exercise their legitimate influence? Such a claim could not be well resisted. Thus it was that the bishops were ultimately chosen by popular suffrage. [533:1]

Some have imagined that they have discovered inconsistency in the statements of Jerome relative to prelacy. They allege, in proof, that whilst he describes the Church as governed, until the rise of "parties in religion," by the common council of the presbyters, he also speaks of bishops as in existence from the days of the apostles. "At Alexandria," says he, "from Mark the Evangelist, [by whom the Church there is said to have been founded] to Heraclas and Dionysius the bishops, [who flourished in the third century] the presbyters always named as bishop one chosen from among themselves and placed along with them [533:2] in a higher position." [533:3] It must appear, however, on due consideration, that here there is no inconsistency whatever. In the Epistle where this passage occurs Jerome is asserting the ancient dignity of presbyters, and shewing that they originally possessed prerogatives of which they had more recently been deprived. In proof of this he refers to the Church of Alexandria, one of the greatest sees in Christendom, where for upwards of a century and a half after the days of the Evangelist Mark, the presbyters appointed their spiritual overseers, and performed all the ceremonies connected with their official investiture. But it does not therefore follow that meanwhile these overseers had always possessed exactly the same amount of authority. The very fact mentioned by Jerome suggests a quite different inference, as it proves that whilst the power of the presbyters had been declining, that of the bishops had increased. In the second century the presbyters inaugurated bishops; in the days of Jerome they were not permitted even to ordain presbyters.

Jerome says, indeed, that, in the beginning, the Alexandrian presbyters nominated their bishops, but we are not to conclude that the parties chosen were always known distinctively by the designation which he here gives to them. He evidently could not have intended to convey such an impression, as in the same Epistle he demonstrates, by a whole series of texts of Scripture, that the titles bishop and presbyter were used interchangeably throughout the whole of the first century. By bishops he obviously understands the presidents of the presbyteries, or the officials who filled the chairs which those termed bishops subsequently occupied. In their own age these primitive functionaries were called bishops and presbyters indifferently; but they partially represented the bishops of succeeding times, and they always appeared in the episcopal registries as links of the apostolical succession, so that Jerome did not deem it necessary to depart from the current nomenclature. His meaning cannot be mistaken by any one who attentively marks his language, for he has stated immediately before, that episcopal authority properly commenced when the Church began to be distracted by the spirit of sectarianism. [534:1]

In this passage, however, the learned father bears unequivocal testimony to the fact that, from the earliest times, the presbytery had an official head or president. Such an arrangement was known in the days of the apostles. But the primitive moderator was very different from the bishop of the fourth century. He was the representative of the presbytery—not its master. Christ had said to the disciples—"Whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant." [535:1] Such a chief was at the head of the ancient presbytery. Without a president no Church court could transact business; and it was the duty of the chairman to preserve order, to bear many official burdens, to ascertain the sentiments of his brethren, to speak in their name, and to act in accordance with the dictates of their collective wisdom. [535:2] The bishop of after-times rather resembled a despotic sovereign in the midst of his counsellors. He might ask the advice of the presbyters, and condescend to defer to their recommendations; but he could also negative their united resolutions, and cause the refractory quickly to feel the gravity of his displeasure.

Though Jerome tells us how, for the destruction of the seeds of schisms, "it was decreed throughout the whole WORLD that one elected from the presbyters should be set over the rest," we are not to suppose that the decree was carried out, all at once, into universal operation. General councils were yet unknown, and the decree must have been sanctioned at different times and by distant Church judicatories. Such a measure was first thought of shortly before the middle of the second century, but it was not very extensively adopted until about fifty years afterwards. The history of its origin must now be more minutely investigated.



CHAPTER VII.

PRELACY BEGINS IN ROME.

Any attentive reader who has marked the chronology of the early bishops of Rome, as given by Eusebius, [537:1] may have observed that the pastorates of those who flourished during the first forty years of the second century were all of comparatively short duration. Clement is commonly reputed to have died about A.D. 100; [537:2] he was followed by Evaristus, Alexander, Xystus, and Telesphorus; and Hyginus, who was placed at the head of the Church in A.D. 139, and who died in A.D. 142, was the fifth in succession. Thus, the five ministers next in order after Clement occupied the post of president only forty-two years, and, with the exception of Hyginus, whose official career was very brief, each appears to have held the situation for nearly an equal period. [538:1] But, on the death of Hyginus, a pastorate of unusual length commences, as Pius, by whom he was followed, continued fifteen years in office—a term considerably more extended than that of any of his five predecessors. Reckoning from the date of the advancement of Pius, we find also a decided increase in the average length of the life of the president for the remainder of the century; as, of the ten individuals in all who were at the head of the Roman Church during its revolution, the five who followed next after Clement lived only forty-two years, whilst their five successors lived fifty-nine years. Thus, there is at least some ostensible ground for the inquiry whether any arrangement was made, about the time of Hyginus, which may account for these statistics.

The origin of the Church of Rome, like the origin of the city, is buried in obscurity; and a very few facts constitute the whole amount of our information respecting it during the first century of its existence. About the time of Hyginus the twilight of history begins to dawn upon it. Guided by the glimmerings of intelligence thus supplied, we shall endeavour to illustrate tins dark passage in its annals. The following statements may contribute somewhat to the explanation of transactions which have hitherto been rarely noticed by modern ecclesiastical writers.

I. A change in the organization of the Church about the time of Hyginus, will account for the increase in the average length of the lives of the Roman bishops. [539:1] If the alteration, mentioned by Hilary, was now made in the mode of succession to the presidential chair, such a result must have followed. Under the new regime, the recommendation of large experience would still have much weight in the choice of a bishop, but he would frequently enter on his duties at a somewhat earlier age, and thus the ordinary duration of his official career would be considerably extended. [539:2]