II. The time of Hyginus exactly answers to the description of the period when, according to the testimony of Jerome, prelacy commenced. The heretics then exhibited extraordinary zeal, so that "parties in religion" were springing up all over the Empire. The Church of Rome is said to have hitherto escaped the contagion of false doctrine, [539:3] but now errorists from all quarters began to violate its purity and to disturb its peace. Valentine, Cerdo, Marcion, and Marcus appeared about this time in the Western capital. [540:1] Some of these men were noted for their genius and learning; and there is every reason to believe that they created no common ferment. They were assiduous in the dissemination of their principles, and several of them resorted to very extraordinary and unwarrantable expedients for strengthening their respective factions. An ancient writer represents them as conducting their adherents to water, and as baptizing them "in the name of the Unknown Father of the universe; in the Truth, the mother of all; and in Him who descended on Jesus." "Others again," says the same authority, "repeated Hebrew names to inspire the initiated with the greater awe." [540:2] These attempts at proselytism were not unsuccessful. Valentine, in particular, made many converts, and after his death, when Irenaeus wrote a refutation of his heresy, his disciples must still have been numerous. [540:3]

The account given by Jerome of the state of the Christian interest when it was deemed necessary to set up episcopacy, is not so completely supplemented by the condition of the Church at any other period. Never certainly did the brethren at Rome more require the services of a skilful and energetic leader, than when the Gnostic chiefs settled in the great metropolis. Never could it be said with so much truth of their community, in the language of the Latin father, that "every one reckoned those whom he baptized as belonging to himself and not to Christ;" [541:1] for, as we have just seen, some, when baptizing their disciples, used even new forms of initiation. Never, assuredly, had the advocates of expediency a better opportunity for pleading in favour of a decree ordaining that "one chosen from among the presbyters should be put over the rest, and that the whole care of the Church should be committed to him, that the seeds of schisms should be taken away." [541:2]

III. The testimony of Hilary, who was contemporary with Jerome, exactly accords with the views here promulgated as to the date of this occurrence. This writer, who was also a minister of the Roman Church, was obviously acquainted with a tradition that a change had taken place at an early period in the mode of ecclesiastical government. His evidence is all the more valuable as it contains internal proofs of derivation from an independent source; for, whilst it corroborates the statement of Jerome, it supplies fresh historical details. According to his account, "after that churches were erected in all places and offices established, an arrangement was adopted different from that which prevailed at the beginning." [541:3] By "the beginning" he understands the apostolic age, or the time when the New Testament was written. [541:4] He then goes on to say, in explanation, that it was found necessary to change the mode of appointing the chairman of the eldership, and that he was now promoted to the office by election, and not by seniority. [541:5] Whilst his language indicates distinctly that this alteration was made after the days of the apostles, it also implies a date not later than the second century; for, though it was "after the beginning," it was at a time when churches had been only recently "erected in all places, and offices established." The period of the spread of heresies at Rome, at the commencement of the reign of Antoninus Pius, and when Hyginus closed his career, answers these conditions.

IV. As Rome was the head-quarters of heathenism, it was also the place where the divisions of the Church must have proved most disastrous. There, the worship of the State was celebrated in all its magnificence; there, the Emperor, the Pontifex Maximus of the gods, surrounded by a splendid hierarchy of priests and augurs, presided at the great festivals; and there, thousands and tens of thousands, prompted by interest or by prejudice, were prepared to struggle for the maintenance of the ancient superstition. Already, the Church of Rome had often sustained the violence of persecution; but, notwithstanding the bloody trials it had undergone, it had continued steadily to gain strength; and a sagacious student of the signs of the times might even now have looked forward to the day when Christianity and paganism, on nearly equal terms, would be contending for mastery in the chief city of the Empire. But the proceedings of the heretics were calculated to dissipate all the visions of ecclesiastical ascendency. If the Roman Christians were split up into fragments by sectarianism, the Church, in one of its great centres of influence, would be incalculably injured. And yet, how could the crisis be averted? How could heresy be most effectually discountenanced? How could the unity of the Church be best maintained? In times of peril the Romans had formerly been wont to set up a Dictator, and to commit the whole power of the commonwealth to one trusty and vigorous ruler. During the latter days of the Republic, the State had been almost torn to pieces by contending factions; and now, under the sway of the Emperors, it enjoyed comparative repose. It seems to have occurred to the brethren at Rome that they should try the effects of a similar change in the ecclesiastical constitution. By committing the government of the Church, in this emergency, almost entirely into the hands of one able and resolute administrator, they, perhaps, hoped to contend successfully against the dangers by which they were now encompassed.

V. A recent calamity of a different character was calculated to abate the jealousy which such a proposition might have otherwise awakened. It appears that Telesphorus, the immediate predecessor of Hyginus, suffered a violent death. [543:1] Telesphorus is the first bishop of Rome whose title to martyrdom can be fairly established; and not one of his successors during the remainder of the second century forfeited his life for his religion. The death of the presiding pastor, as a victim to the intolerance of heathenism, must have thrown the whole Church into a state of confusion and perplexity; and when Hyginus was called upon to occupy the vacant chair, well might he enter upon its duties with deep anxiety. The appearance of heresy multiplied the difficulties of his office. It might now be asked with no small amount of plausibility—Is the presiding presbyter to have no special privileges? If his mind is to be harassed continually by errorists, and if his life is to be imperilled in the service of the Church, should he not be distinguished above his brethren? Without some such encouragement will not the elders at length refuse to accept a situation which entails so much responsibility, and yet possesses so little influence? Such questions, urged under such circumstances, must have been felt to be perplexing.

VI. As there was now constant intercourse between the seat of government and all the provinces of the Empire, it would seem that the Church of the metropolis soon contrived to avail itself of the facilities of its position for keeping up a correspondence with the Churches of other countries. [544:1] In due time the results became apparent. Every event of interest which occurred in any quarter of the Christian world was known speedily in the capital; no important religious movement could be well expected to succeed without the concurrence and co-operation of the brethren at Rome; and its ministers gradually acquired such influence that they were able, to some extent, to control the public opinion of the whole ecclesiastical community. On this occasion they, perhaps, did not find it difficult to persuade their co-religionists to enter into their views. In Antioch, in Alexandria, in Ephesus, and elsewhere, as well as in Italy, the heretics had been displaying the most mischievous activity; [544:2] and it is not improbable that the remedy now proposed by the ruling spirits in the great city had already suggested itself to others. During the summer months vessels were trading to Rome from all the coasts of the Mediterranean, so that Christian deputies, without much inconvenience, could repair to head-quarters, and, in concert with the metropolitan presbyters, make arrangements for united action. If the champions of orthodoxy were nearly as zealous as the errorists, [544:3] they must have travelled much during these days of excitement. But had not the idea of increasing the power of the presiding pastor originated in Rome, or had it not been supported by the weighty sanction of the Church of the capital, it is not to be supposed that it would have been so readily and so extensively adopted by the Churches in other parts of the Empire.

VII. Though we know little of the early history of the Roman see, it would seem that, on the death of Hyginus, there was a vacancy of unusual length; and circumstances, which meanwhile took place, argue strongly in favour of the conclusion that, about this time, the change in the ecclesiastical constitution indicated by Jerome actually occurred. According to some, the interval between the death of Hyginus and the commencement of the episcopate of Pius, his immediate successor, was of several years' duration; [545:1] but it is clear that the chair must have been vacant for at least about a twelvemonth. [545:2] How are we to account for this interregnum? We know that subsequently, in the times of Decius and of Diocletian, there were vacancies of quite as long continuance; but then the Church was in the agonies of martyrdom, and the Roman Christians were prevented by the strong arm of imperial tyranny from filling up the bishopric. Now no such calamity appears to have threatened; and the commotions created by the heretics supply evidence that persecution was asleep. This long vacancy must be otherwise explained. If Hyginus had been invested with additional authority, and if he soon afterwards died, it is not to be wondered at that his removal was the signal for the renewal of agitation. Questions which, perhaps, had not hitherto been mooted, now arose. How was the vacant place to be supplied? Was the senior presbyter, no matter how ill adapted for the crisis, to be allowed to take quiet possession? If other influential Churches required to be consulted, some time would thus be occupied; so that delay in the appointment was unavoidable.

During this interval the spirit of faction was busily at work. The heretic Marcion sought admission into the Roman presbytery; [546:1] and Valentine, who appears to have been now recognized as an elder, [546:2] no doubt supported the application. The presbytery itself was probably divided, and there is good reason to believe that even Valentine had hopes of obtaining the presidential chair! His pretensions, at this period of his career, were sufficiently imposing. Though he may have been suspected of unsoundness in the faith, he had not yet committed himself by any public avowal of his errors; and as a man of literary accomplishment, address, energy, and eloquence, he had few compeers. No wonder, with so many disturbing elements in operation, that the see remained so long vacant.

Some would willingly deny that Valentine was a candidate for the episcopal chair of Rome, but the fact can be established by evidence the most direct and conclusive. Tertullian, who had lived in the imperial city, and who was well acquainted with its Church history, expressly states that "Valentine hoped for the bishopric, because he excelled in genius and eloquence, but indignant that another, who had the superior claim of a confessor, obtained the place, he deserted the Catholic Church" [546:3] The Carthaginian father does not, indeed, here name the see to which the heresiarch unsuccessfully aspired, but his words shut us up to the conclusion that he alluded to Rome. [546:4] And we can thus discover at least one reason why the history of this vacancy has been involved in so much mystery. In a few more generations the whole Church would have felt compromised by any reflection cast upon the orthodoxy of the great Western bishopric. [547:1] How sadly would many have been scandalized had it been proclaimed abroad that the arch-heretic Valentine had once hoped to occupy the chair of St Peter!

VIII. Two letters which are still extant, and which are supposed to have been addressed by Pius, the immediate successor of Hyginus, to Justus, bishop of Vienne in Gaul, supply corroborative evidence that the presiding pastor had recently obtained additional authority. Though the genuineness of these documents has been questioned, the objections urged against them have not been sufficient to prevent critics and antiquarians of all parties from appealing to their testimony. [547:2] It is not improbable that they are Latin translations from Greek originals, and we may thus account for a few words to be found in them which were introduced at a later period. [547:3] Their tone and spirit, which are entirely different from the spurious productions ascribed to the same age, plead strongly in their favour as trustworthy witnesses. The writer makes no lofty pretensions as a Roman bishop; he speaks of himself simply as at the head of an humble presbytery; and it would be difficult to divine the motive which could have tempted an impostor to fabricate such unpretending compositions. Though given as the veritable Epistles of Pius by the highest literary authorities of Borne, they are certainly ill calculated to prop up the cause of the Papacy. If their claims are admitted, they must be regarded as among the earliest authentic records in which the distinction between the terms bishop and presbyter is unequivocally recognized; and it is obvious that if alterations in the ecclesiastical constitution were made under Hyginus, they must have prepared the way for such a change in the terminology. In one of these Epistles Pius gives the following piece of advice to his correspondent:—"Let the elders and deacons respect you, not as a greater, but as the servant of Christ." [548:1] This letter purports to have been written when its author anticipated the approach of death; and the individual to whom it is directed seems to have been just placed in the episcopal chair. Had Pius believed that Justus had a divine right to rule over the presbyters, would he have tendered such an admonition? A hundred years afterwards, Cyprian of Carthage, when addressing a young prelate, would certainly have expressed himself very differently. He would, probably, have complained of the presumption of the presbyters, have boasted of the majesty of the episcopate, and have exhorted the new bishop to remember his apostolical dignity. But, in the middle of the second century, such language would have been strangely out of place. Pius is writing to an individual, just entering on an office lately endowed with additional privileges, who could not yet afford to make an arbitrary use of his new authority. He, therefore, counsels him to moderation, and cautions him against presuming on his power. "Beware," says he, "in your intercourse with your presbyters and deacons, of insisting too much on the duty of obedience. Let them feel that your prerogative is not exercised capriciously, but for good and necessary purposes. Let the elders and deacons regard you, not so much in the light of a superior, as the servant of Christ."

In another portion of this letter a piece of intelligence is communicated, which, as coming from Pius, possesses peculiar interest. When the law was enacted altering the mode of succession to the presidency, it may be supposed that the proceeding was deemed somewhat ungracious towards those aged presbyters who might have soon expected, as a matter of right, to obtain possession of the seat of the moderator. The death of Telesphorus, the predecessor of Hyginus, as a martyr, was, indeed, calculated to abate an anxiety to secure the chair; for the whole Church was thus painfully reminded that it was a post of danger, as well as of dignity; but still, when, on the occurrence of the first vacancy, Pius was promoted over the heads of older men, he may, on this ground, have felt, to some extent, embarrassed by his elevation. We may infer, however, from this letter, that the few senior presbyters, with whose advancement the late arrangement interfered, did not long survive this crisis in the history of the Church; for the bishop of Rome here informs his Gallic brother of their demise. "Those presbyters," says he, "who were taught by the apostles, [549:1] and who have survived to our own days, with whom we have united in dispensing the word of faith, have now, in obedience to the call of the Lord, gone to their eternal rest." [550:1] Such a notice of the decease of these venerable colleagues is precisely what might have been expected, under the circumstances, in a letter from Pius to Justus.

IX. The use of the word bishop, as denoting the president of the presbytery, marks an era in the history of ecclesiastical polity. New terms are not coined without necessity; neither, without an adequate cause, is a new meaning annexed to an ancient designation. When the name bishop was first used as descriptive of the chief pastor, there must have been some special reason for such an application of the title; and the rise of the hierarchy furnishes the only satisfactory explanation.[550:2] If then we can ascertain when this new nomenclature first made its appearance, we can also fix the date of the origin of prelacy. Though the documentary proof available for the illustration of this subject is comparatively scanty, it is sufficient for our purpose; and it clearly shews that the presiding elder did not begin to be known by the title of bishop until about the middle of the second century. Polycarp, who seems to have written about that time,[550:3] still uses the terminology employed by the apostles. Justin Martyr, the earliest father who has left behind him memorials amounting in extent to anything like a volume, often speaks of the chief minister of the Church, and designates him, not the bishop, but the president. [551:1] His phraseology is all the more important as he lived for some time in Rome, and as he undoubtedly adopted the style of expression once current in the great city. But another writer, who was his contemporary, and who also resided in the capital, incidentally supplies evidence that the new title was then just coming into use. The author of the book called "Pastor," when referring to those who were at the head of the presbyteries, describes them as "THE BISHOPS, that is, THE PRESIDENTS OF THE CHURCHES." [551:2] The reason why he here deems it necessary to explain what he means by bishops cannot well be mistaken. The name, in its new application, was not yet familiar to the public ear; and it therefore required to be interpreted by the more ancient designation. Could we tell when this work of Hermas was written, we could also perhaps name the very year when the president of the eldership was first called bishop. [551:3] It is now pretty generally admitted that the author was no other than the brother of Pius of Rome, [551:4] the immediate successor of Hyginus, so that he wrote exactly at the time when, as appears from other evidences, the transition from presbytery to prelacy actually occurred. His words furnish a very strong, but an undesigned, attestation to the novelty of the episcopal regimen.

X. But, perhaps, the most pointed, and certainly the most remarkable testimony to the fact that a change took place in the constitution of the Roman Church in the time of Hyginus is furnished from a quarter where such a voucher might have been, least of all, anticipated. We allude to the Pontifical Book. This work has been ascribed to Damasus, the well-known bishop of the metropolis of the West, who flourished in the fourth century, but much of it is unquestionably of later origin; and though many of its statements are apocryphal, it is often quoted as a document of weight by the most distinguished writers of the Romish communion. [552:1] Its account of the early popes is little better than a mass of fables; but some of its details are evidently exaggerations, or rather caricatures, of an authentic tradition; and a few grains of truth may be discovered here and there in a heap of fictions and anachronisms. This part of the production contains one brief sentence which has greatly puzzled the commentators, [552:2] as it is strangely out of keeping with the general spirit of the narrative, and as it contradicts, rather awkwardly, the pretensions of the popedom. According to this testimony, Hyginus "ARRANGED THE CLERGY AND DISTRIBUTED THE GRADATIONS." [552:3] Peter himself is described by Romanists as organizing the Church; but here, one of his alleged successors, upwards of seventy years after his death, is set forth as the real framer of the hierarchy. [553:1] The facts already adduced prove that this obscure announcement rests upon a sound historical foundation, and that it vaguely indicates the alterations now introduced into the ecclesiastical constitution. If Hilary and Jerome be employed as its interpreters, the truth may be easily eliminated. At a synod held in Rome, Hyginus brought under the notice of the meeting the confusion and scandal created by the movements of the errorists; and, with a view to correct these disorders, the council agreed to invest the moderator of each presbytery with increased authority, to give him a discretionary power as the general superintendent of the Church, and to require the other elders, as well as the deacons, to act under his advice and direction. A new functionary was thus established, and, under the old name of bishop or overseer, a third order was virtually added to the ecclesiastical brotherhood. Hence Hyginus, who, no doubt, took a prominent part in the deliberations of the convocation, is said to have "arranged the clergy and distributed the gradations."

The change in the ecclesiastical polity which now occurred led to results equally extensive and permanent, and yet it has been but indistinctly noticed by the writers of antiquity. Nor is it so strange that we have no contemporary account of this ecclesiastical revolution. The history of other occurrences and innovations is buried in profound obscurity. We can only ascertain by inference what were the reasons which led to the general adoption of the sign of the cross, to the use of the chrism in baptism, to standing at the Lord's Supper, to the institution of lectors, acolyths, and sub-deacons, and to the establishment of metropolitans. Though the Paschal controversy agitated almost the whole Church towards the close of the second century, and though Tertullian wrote immediately afterwards, he does not once mention it in any of his numerous extant publications. [554:1] Owing to peculiar circumstances the rise of prelacy can be more minutely traced than that of, perhaps, any other of the alterations which were introduced during the first three centuries. At the time the change which it involved was probably considered not very important; but, as the remaining literary memorials of the period are few and scanty, the reception which it experienced can now only be conjectured. The alteration was adopted as an antidote against the growth of heresy, and thus originating in circumstances of a humiliating character, there would be little disposition, on the part of ecclesiastical writers, to dwell upon its details. Soon afterwards the pride of churchmen began to be developed; and it was then found convenient to forget that all things originally did not accord with existing arrangements, and that the hierarchy itself was but a human contrivance. Prelacy soon advanced apace, and every bishop had an interest in exalting "his order." It is only wonderful that so much truth has oozed out from witnesses so prejudiced, and that the Pontifical Book contains so decisive a deposition. And the momentous consequences of this apparently slight infringement upon the primitive polity cannot be overlooked. That very Church which, in its attempts to suppress heresy, first departed from divine arrangements, was soon involved in doctrinal error, and eventually became the great foster-mother of superstition and idolatry.

It may at first seem extraordinary that the ecclesiastical transformation was so rapidly accomplished; but, when the circumstances are more attentively considered, this view of the subject presents no real difficulty. At the outset, the principle now sanctioned produced very little alteration on the general aspect of the spiritual commonwealth. At this period a Church, in most places, consisted of a single congregation; and as one elder labouring in the word and doctrine was generally deemed sufficient to minister to the flock, only a slight modification took place in the constitution of such a society. The preaching elder, who was entitled by authority of Scripture [555:1] to take precedence of elders who only ruled, had always been permitted to act as moderator; but, on the ground of the new arrangement, the pastor probably began to assume an authority over his session which he had never hitherto ventured to exercise. In the beginning of the reign of Antoninus Pius the number of towns with several Christian congregations must have been but small; and if five or six leading cities approved of the system now inaugurated at Rome, its general adoption was thus secured. The statements of Jerome and Hilary attest that the matter was submitted to a synod; and the remarkable interregnum which followed the death of Hyginus can be best accounted for on the hypothesis that meanwhile the ministers of the great metropolis found it necessary to consult the rulers of other influential and distant Churches. If the measure had the sanction of these foreign brethren, they were of course prepared to resort to it at home on the demise of their presiding presbyter. Heretics were now disturbing the Church all over the Empire, so that the same arguments could be everywhere used in favour of the new polity. We find, too, that there was a vacancy in the presidential chair at Antioch about the time of the death of Hyginus; and that, in the course of the next year, a similar vacancy occurred at Alexandria. [555:2] If the three most important Churches then in Christendom, with the sanction of a very few others of less note, almost simultaneously adopted the new arrangement, the question was practically settled. There were probably not more than twenty cities to be found with more than one Christian congregation; and places of inferior consequence would speedily act upon the example of the large capitals. But unquestionably the system now introduced gradually effected a complete revolution in the state of the Church. The ablest man in the presbytery was commonly elevated to the chair, so that the weight of his talents, and of his general character, was added to his official consequence. The bishop soon became the grand centre of influence and authority, and arrogated to himself the principal share in the administration of all divine ordinances.

When this change commenced, the venerable Polycarp was still alive, and there are some grounds for believing that, when far advanced in life, he was induced to undertake a journey to Rome on a mission of remonstrance. This view is apparently corroborated by the fact that his own Church of Smyrna did not now adopt the new polity; for we have seen [556:1] that, upwards of a quarter of a century after his demise, it still continued under presbyterial government. Irenaeus was obviously well acquainted with the circumstances which occasioned this extraordinary visit of Polycarp to Rome; but had he not come into collision with the pastor of the great city in the controversy relating to the Paschal Feast, we might never have heard of its occurrence. Even when he mentions it, he observes a mysterious silence as to its main design. The Paschal question awakened little interest in the days of Polycarp, and among the topics which he discussed with Anicetus when at Rome, it confessedly occupied a subordinate position. [556:2] "When," says Irenaeus, "the most blessed Polycarp came to Rome in the days of Anicetus, and when as to certain other matters they had a little controversy, they were immediately agreed on this point (of the Passover) without any disputation." [557:1] What the "certain other matters" were which created the chief dissatisfaction, we are left obscurely to conjecture; but we may presume that they must have been of no ordinary consequence, when so eminent a minister as Polycarp, now verging on eighty years of age, felt it necessary to make a lengthened journey by sea and land with a view to their adjustment. He obviously considered that Anicetus was at least influentially connected with arrangements which he deemed objectionable; and he plainly felt that he could hope to obtain their modification or abandonment only by a personal conference with the Roman pastor. And intimations are not wanting that he was rather doubtful whether Anicetus would be disposed to treat with him as his ecclesiastical peer, for he seems to have been in some degree appeased when the bishop of the capital permitted him to preside in the Church at the celebration of the Eucharist. [557:2] This, certainly, was no extraordinary piece of condescension; as Polycarp, on various grounds, was entitled to take precedence of his Roman brother; [557:3] and the reception given to the "apostolic presbyter" was only what might have fairly been expected in the way of ministerial courtesy. [557:4] Why has it then been mentioned as an exhibition of the episcopal humility of Anicetus? Apparently because he had been previously making some arrogant assumptions. He had been, probably, presuming on his position as a pastor of the "new order," and his bearing had perhaps been so offensive that Polycarp had been commissioned to visit him on an errand of expostulation. But by prudently paying marked deference to the aged stranger; and, it may be, by giving a plausible account of some proceedings which had awakened anxiety; he appears to have succeeded in quieting his apprehensions. That the presiding minister of the Church of Smyrna was engaged in some such delicate mission is all but certain, as the design of the journey would not otherwise have been involved in so profound secrecy. The very fact of its occurrence is first noticed about forty years afterwards, when the haughty behaviour of another bishop of Rome provoked Irenaeus to call up certain unwelcome reminiscences which it must have suggested.

Though the journey of Polycarp betokens that he must have been deeply dissatisfied with something which was going forward in the great metropolis, we can only guess at its design and its results; and it is now impossible to ascertain whether the alterations introduced there encountered any very formidable opposition: but it is by no means improbable that they were effected without much difficulty. The disorders of the Church imperatively called for some strong remedy; and it perhaps occurred to not a few that a distracted presbytery, under the presidency of a feeble old man, was but ill fitted to meet the emergency. They would accordingly propose to strengthen the executive government by providing for the appointment of a more efficient moderator, and by arming him with additional authority. The people would be gratified by the change, for, though in Rome and some other great cities, where its effects would be felt most sensibly, they, no doubt, met before this time in separate congregations, yet they had still much united intercourse; and as, on such occasions, their edification depended mainly on the gifts of the chairman of the eldership, they would gladly join in advancing the best preacher in the presbytery to the office of president. At this particular crisis the alteration may not have been unacceptable to the elders themselves. To those of them who were in the decline of life, there was nothing very inviting in the prospect of occupying the most prominent position in a Church threatened by persecution and torn by divisions, so that they may have been not unwilling to waive any claim to the presidency which their seniority implied; whilst the more vigorous, sanguine, and aspiring, would hail an arrangement which promised at no distant day to place one of themselves in a position of greatly increased dignity and influence. Whilst all were agreed that the times demanded the appointment of the ablest member of presbytery as moderator, none, perhaps, foresaw the danger of adding permanently to the prerogatives of so potent a chairman. It was never anticipated that the day would come when the new law would be regarded as any other than a human contrivance; and when the bishops and their adherents would contend that the presbyters, under no circumstances whatever, had a right to reassume that power which they now surrendered. The result, however, has demonstrated the folly of human wisdom. The prelates, who were originally set up to save the Church from heresy, became themselves at length the abetters of false doctrine; and whilst they thus grievously abused the influence with which they were entrusted, they had the temerity to maintain that they still continued to be exclusively the fountains of spiritual authority.

It is not to be supposed that prelacy was set up at once in the plenitude of its power. Neither is it to be imagined that the system was simultaneously adopted by Christians all over the world. Jerome informs us that it was established "by little and little;" [559:1] and he thus apparently refers, as well to its gradual spread, as to the almost imperceptible growth of its pretensions. We have shewn, in a preceding chapter, [560:1] that in various cities, such as Smyrna, Caesarea, and Jerusalem, the senior presbyter continued to be the president until about the close of the second century; and there the Church seems to have been meanwhile governed by "the common council of the presbyters." [560:2] Evidence can be adduced to prove that, in many places, even at a much later period, the episcopal system was still unknown. [560:3] But its advocates were active and influential, and they continued to make steady progress. The consolidation of the Catholic system contributed vastly to its advancement. The leading features of this system must now be illustrated.



CHAPTER VIII.

THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM.

The word catholic, which signifies universal or general, came into use towards the end of the second century. Its introduction indicates a new phase in the history of the ecclesiastical community. For upwards of a hundred years after its formation, the Church presented the appearance of one great and harmonious brotherhood, as false teachers had hitherto failed to create any considerable diversity of sentiment; but when many of the literati began to embrace the gospel, the influence of elements of discord soon became obvious. These converts attempted to graft their philosophical theories on Christianity; not a few of the more unstable of the brethren, captivated by their ingenuity and eloquence, were tempted to adopt their views; and though the great mass of the disciples repudiated their adulterations of the truth, the Christian commonwealth was distracted and divided. Those who banded themselves together to maintain the unity of the Church were soon known by the designation of Catholics. "After the days of the apostles," says one of the fathers, "when heresies had burst forth, and were striving under various names to tear piecemeal and divide the Dove and the Queen of God, [561:1] did not the apostolic people require a name of their own whereby to mark the unity of those that were uncorrupted? .... Therefore our people, when named Catholic, are separated by this title from those denominated heretics." [562:1]

The Catholic system, being an integral portion of the policy which invested the presiding elder with additional authority, rose contemporaneously with Prelacy. When Gnosticism was spreading so rapidly, and creating so much scandal and confusion, schism upon schism appeared unavoidable. How was the Church to be kept from going to pieces? How could its unity be best conserved? How could it contend most successfully against its subtle and restless disturbers? Such were the problems which now occupied the attention of its leading ministers. It was thought that all these difficulties would be solved by the adoption of the Catholic system. Were the Church, it was said, to place more power in the hands of individuals, and then to consolidate its influence, it could bear down more effectively upon the errorists. Every chief pastor of the Catholic Church was the symbol of the unity of his own ecclesiastical district; and the associated bishops represented the unity of the whole body of the faithful. According to the Catholic system when strictly carried out, every individual excommunicated by one bishop was excommunicated by all, so that when a heresiarch was excluded from fellowship in one city, he could not be received elsewhere. The visible unity of the Church was the great principle which the Catholic system sought to realise. "The Church," says Cyprian, "which is catholic and one, is not separated or divided, but is in truth connected and joined together by the cement of bishops mutually cleaving to each other." [562:2]

The funds of the Church were placed very early in the hands of the president of the eldership, [563:1] and though they may not have been at his absolute disposal, he, no doubt, soon found means of sustaining his authority by means of his monetary influence. But the power which he possessed, as the recognized centre of ecclesiastical unity, to prevent any of his elders or deacons from performing any official act of which he disapproved, constituted one of the essential features of the Catholic system. "The right to administer baptism," says Tertullian, "belongs to the chief priest, that is, the bishop: then to the presbyters and the deacons, [563:2] yet not without the authority of the bishop, for the honour of the Church, which being preserved, peace is preserved." [563:3] Here, the origin of Catholicism is pretty distinctly indicated; for the prerogatives of the bishop are described, not as matters of divine right, but of ecclesiastical arrangement. [563:4] They were given to him "for the honour of the Church," that peace might be preserved when heretics began to cause divisions.

Though the bishop could give permission to others to celebrate divine ordinances, he was himself their chief administrator. He was generally the only preacher; he usually dispensed baptism; [563:5] and he presided at the observance of the Eucharist. At Rome, where the Catholic system was maintained most scrupulously, his presence seems to have been considered necessary to the due consecration of the elements. Hence, at one time, the sacramental symbols were carried from the cathedral church to all the places of Christian worship throughout the city. [564:1] With such minute care did the Roman chief pastor endeavour to disseminate the doctrine that whoever was not in communion with the bishop was out of the Church.

The establishment of a close connexion, between certain large Christian associations and the smaller societies around them, constituted the next link in the organization of the Catholic system. These communities, being generally related as mother and daughter churches, were already prepared to adapt themselves to the new type of ecclesiastical polity. The apostles, or their immediate disciples, had founded congregations in most of the great cities of the Empire; and every society thus instituted, now distinguished by the designation of the principal [564:2] or apostolic Church, became a centre of ecclesiastical unity. Its presiding minister sent the Eucharist to the teachers of the little flocks in his vicinity, to signify that he acknowledged them as brethren; [564:3] and every pastor who thus enjoyed communion with the principal Church was recognized as a Catholic bishop. This parent establishment was considered a bulwark which could protect all the Christian communities surrounding it from heresy, and they were consequently expected to be guided by its traditions. "It is manifest," says Tertullian, "that all doctrine, which agrees with these apostolic Churches, THE WOMBS AND ORIGINALS OF THE FAITH, [564:4] must be accounted true, as without doubt containing that which the Churches have received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God: and that all other doctrine must be judged at once to be false, which savours of things contrary to the truth of the Churches, and of the apostles, and of Christ, and of God....Go through the apostolic Churches, in which the very seats of the apostles, at this very day, preside over their own places, [565:1] in which their own authentic writings are read, speaking with the voice of each, and making the face of each present to the eye. Is Achaia near to you? You have Corinth. If you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi, you have the Thessalonians. [565:2] If you can travel into Asia, you have Ephesus. But if you are near to Italy you have Rome, where we also have an authority close at hand." [565:3]

But the Catholic system was not yet complete. In every congregation the bishop or pastor was the centre of unity, and in every district the principal or apostolic Church bound together the smaller Christian societies; but how were the apostolic Churches themselves to be united? This question did not long remain without a solution. [565:4] Had the Church of Jerusalem, when the Catholic system was first organized, still occupied its ancient position, it might have established a better title to precedence than any other ecclesiastical community in existence. It had been, beyond all controversy, the mother Church of Christendom. But it had been recently dissolved, and a new society, composed, to a great extent, of new members, was now in process of formation in the new city of Aelia. Meanwhile the Church of Rome had been rapidly acquiring strength, and its connexion with the seat of government pointed it out as the appropriate head of the Catholic confederation. If the greatest convenience of the greatest number of Churches were to be taken into account, it had claims of peculiar potency, for it was easily accessible by sea or land from all parts of the Empire, and it had facilities for keeping up communication with the provinces to which no other society could pretend. Nor were these its only recommendations. It had, as was alleged, been watered by the ministry of two or three [556:1] of the apostles, so that, even as an apostolic Church, it had high pretensions. In addition to all this, it had, more than once, sustained with extraordinary constancy the first and fiercest brunt of persecution; and if its members had so signalized themselves in the army of martyrs, why should not its bishop lead the van of the Catholic Church? Such considerations urged in favour of a community already distinguished by its wealth, as well as by its charity, were amply sufficient to establish its claim as the centre of Catholic unity. If, as is probable, the arrangement was concocted in Rome itself, they must have been felt to be irresistible. Hence Irenaeus, writing about A.D. 180, speaks of it even then as the recognized head of the Churches of the Empire. "To this Church," says he, "because it is more potentially principal, it is necessary that every Catholic Church should go, as in it the apostolic tradition has by the Catholics been always preserved." [567:1]

Many Protestant writers have attempted to explain away the meaning of this remarkable passage, but the candid student of history is bound to listen respectfully to its testimony. When we assign to the words of Irenaeus all the significance of which they are susceptible, they only attest the fact that, in the latter half of the second century, the Church of Rome was acknowledged as the most potent of all the apostolic Churches. And in the same place the grounds of its pre-eminence are enumerated pretty fully by the pastor of Lyons. It was the most ancient Church in the West of Europe; it was also the most populous; like a city set upon a hill, it was known to all; and it was reputed to have had for its founders the most illustrious of the inspired heralds of the cross, the apostle of the Gentiles, and the apostle of the circumcision. [567:2] It was more "potentially principal," because it was itself the principal of the apostolic or principal Churches.

It has been already stated that every principal bishop, [567:3] or presiding minister of an apostolic Church, sent the Eucharist to the pastors around him as a pledge of their ecclesiastical fellowship; and it would appear that the bishop of Rome kept up intercourse with the other bishops of the apostolic Churches by transmitting to them the same symbol of catholicity. [567:4] The sacred elements were doubtless conveyed by confidential churchmen, who served, at the same time, as channels of communication between the great prelate and the more influential of his brethren. By this means the communion of the whole Catholic Church was constantly maintained.

When the Catholic system was set up, and the bishop of Rome recognized as its Head, he was not supposed to possess, in his new position, any arbitrary or despotic authority. He was simply understood to hold among pastors the place which had previously been occupied by the senior elder in the presbytery—that is, he was the president or moderator. The theoretical parity of all bishops, the chief pastor of Rome included, was a principle long jealously asserted. [568:1] But the prelate of the capital was the individual to whom other bishops addressed themselves respecting all matters affecting the general interests of the ecclesiastical community; he collected their sentiments; and he announced the decisions of their united wisdom. It was, however, scarcely possible for an official in his circumstances either to satisfy all parties, or to keep within the limits of his legitimate power. When his personal feelings were known to run strongly in a particular channel, the minority, to whom he was opposed, would at least suspect him of attempting domination. Hence it was that by those who were discontented with his policy he was tauntingly designated, as early as the beginning of the third century, The Supreme Pontiff, and The Bishop of Bishops. [568:2] These titles cannot now be gravely quoted as proofs of the existence of the claims which they indicate; for they were employed ironically by malcontents who wished thus either to impeach his partiality, or to condemn his interference. But they supply clear evidence that his growing influence was beginning to be formidable, and that he already stood at the head of the ministers of Christendom.

The preceding statements enable us to understand why the interests of Rome and of the Catholic Church have always been identified. The metropolis of Italy has, in fact, from the beginning been the heart of the Catholic system. In ancient times Roman statesmen were noted for their skill in fitting up the machinery of political government: Roman churchmen have laboured no less successfully in the department of ecclesiastical organization. The Catholic system is a wonderful specimen of constructive ability; and there is every reason to believe that the same city which produced Prelacy, also gave birth, about the same time, to this masterpiece of human contrivance. The fact may be established, as well by other evidences, as by the positive testimony of Cyprian. The bishop of Carthage, who flourished only about a century after it appeared, was connected with that quarter of the Church in which it originated. We cannot, therefore, reasonably reject the depositions of so competent a witness, more especially when he speaks so frequently and so confidently of its source. When he describes the Roman bishopric as "the root and womb of the Catholic Church," [569:1] his language admits of no second interpretation. He was well aware that the Church of Jerusalem was the root and womb of all the apostolic Churches; and when he employs such phraseology, he must refer to some new phase of Christianity which had originated in the capital of the Empire. In another place he speaks of "the see of Peter, and the principal Church, whence the unity of the priesthood took its rise." [569:2] Such statements shut us up to the conclusion that Rome was the source and centre from which Catholicism radiated.

This system could have been only gradually developed, and nearly half a century appears to have elapsed before it acquired such maturity that it attained a distinctive designation. [570:1] But, as it was currently believed to be admirably adapted to the exigencies of the Church, it spread with much rapidity; and, in less than a hundred years after its rise, its influence may be traced in almost all parts of the Empire. We may thus explain a historical phenomenon which might otherwise be unaccountable. Towards the close of the second and throughout the whole of the third century, ecclesiastical writers connected with various and distant provinces refer with peculiar respect to the Apostle Peter, and even appeal to Scripture [570:2] with a view to his exaltation. Their misinterpretations of the Word reveal an extreme anxiety to obtain something like an inspired warrant for their catholicism. The visible unity of the Church was deemed by them essential to its very existence, and the Roman see was the actual key-stone of the Catholic structure. Hence every friend of orthodoxy imagined it to be, as well his duty as his interest, to uphold the claims of the supposed representative of Peter, and thus to maintain the cause of ecclesiastical unity. It might have been anticipated under such circumstances that Scripture would be miserably perverted, and that the see, which was believed to possess as its heritage the prerogatives of the apostle of the circumcision, would be the subject of extravagant laudation.

Ambition has been often represented as the great principle which guided the policy of the early Roman bishops, but there is no evidence that, as a class, they were inferior in piety to other churchmen, and the readiness with which some of them suffered for the faith attests their Christian sincerity and resolution. Ambition, doubtless, soon began to operate; but their elevation was not so much the result of any deep-laid scheme for their aggrandizement, as of a series of circumstances pushing them into prominence, and placing them in a most influential position. The efforts of heretics to create division led to a reaction, and tempted the Church to adopt arrangements for preserving union by which its liberties were eventually compromised. The bishop of Rome found himself almost immediately at the head of the Catholic league, and there is no doubt that, before the close of the second century, he was acknowledged as the chief pastor of Christendom. About that time we see him writing letters to some of the most distinguished bishops of the East [571:1] directing them to call councils; and it does not appear that his epistles were deemed unwarranted or officious. Unity of doctrine was speedily connected with unity of discipline, and an opinion gradually prevailed that the Church Catholic should exhibit universal uniformity. When Victor differed from the Asiatic bishops relative to the mode of observing the Paschal festival, he was only seeking to realize the idea of unity; and, as the Head of the Catholic Church, he might have carried out against them his threat of excommunication, had he not in this particular case been moving in advance of public opinion. When Stephen, sixty years afterwards, disputed with Cyprian and others concerning the rebaptism of heretics, he was still endeavouring to work out the same unity; and the bishop of Carthage found himself involved in contradictions when he proceeded at once to assert his independence, and to concede to the see of Peter the honour which, as he admitted, it could legitimately challenge. [572:1]

The theory of Catholicism is based on principles thoroughly fallacious. Assuming that visible unity is essential to the Church on earth, it sanctions the startling inference that whoever is not connected with a certain ecclesiastical society must be out of the pale of salvation. The most grinding spiritual tyranny ever known has been erected on this foundation. And yet how hollow is the whole system! It is no more necessary that all the children of God in this world should belong to the same visible Church than that all the children of men should be connected with the same earthly monarchy. All believers are "one in Christ;" they have all "one Lord, one faith, one baptism;" but "the kingdom of God cometh not with observation," and the unity of the saints on earth can be discerned only by the eye of Omniscience. They are all sustained by the same living bread which cometh down from heaven, but they may receive their spiritual provision as members of ten thousand separated Churches. All who truly love the Saviour are united to Him by a link which can never be broken; and no ecclesiastical barrier can either exclude them from His presence here, or shut them out from His fellowship hereafter. But a number of men might as well propose to appropriate all the light of the sun or all the winds of heaven, as attempt to form themselves into a privileged society with a monopoly of the means of salvation.

The Church of Rome is understood to be the spiritual Babylon of the Apocalypse, and yet one point of correspondence between the type and the antitype seems to have been hitherto overlooked. The great city of Babylon commenced with the erection of Babel, and the builders said—"Go to, let us build us a city, and a tower whose top may reach unto heaven, and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth." [573:1] Civil unity was avowedly the end designed by these architects. Amongst other purposes contemplated by the famous tower, it appears to have been intended to serve as a centre of catholicity—a great rallying point or landmark—by which every citizen might be guided homewards when he lost his way in the plain of Shinar. It is a curious fact that in the "Pastor of Hermas," perhaps the first work written in Rome after the establishment of Prelacy, the Church is described under the similitude of a tower! [573:2] When Hyginus "established the gradations," the hierarchy at once assumed that appearance. And the see of Peter, the centre of Catholic unity, was now to be the great spiritual landmark to guide the steps of all true churchmen. The ecclesiastical builders prospered for a time, but when Constantine had finished a new metropolis in the East, some symptoms of disunion revealed themselves. When the Empire was afterwards divided, jealousies increased; the builders could not well understand one another's speech; and the Church at length witnessed the great schism of the Greeks and the Latins. In due time the Reformation interfered still more vexatiously with the building of the ecclesiastical Babel. But this more recent schism has given a mighty impulse to the cause of freedom, of civilization, and of truth; for the Protestants, scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth, have been spreading far and wide the light of the gospel. The builders of Babel still continue their work, but their boasted unity is gone for ever; and now, with the exception of their political manoeuvring, their highest achievements are literally in the department of stone and mortar. They may found costly edifices, and they may erect spires pointing, like the tower of Babel, to the skies, but they can no longer reasonably hope to bind together the liberated nations with the chains of a gigantic despotism, or to induce worshippers of all kindreds and tongues to adopt the one dead language of Latin superstition. The signs of the times indicate that the remnant of the Catholic workmen must soon "leave off to build the city." The final overthrow of the mystical Babylon will usher in the millennium of the Church, and the present success of Protestant missions is premonitory of the approaching doom of Romish ritualism. It is written—"I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication." [574:1]



CHAPTER IX.

PRIMITIVE EPISCOPACY AND PRESBYTERIAN ORDINATION.

It has been already stated that, except in a few great cities where there were several Christian congregations, the introduction of Episcopacy produced a very slight change in the appearance of the ecclesiastical community. In towns and villages, where the disciples constituted but a single flock, they had commonly only one teaching elder; and as, in accordance with apostolic rule, [575:1] this labourer in the word and doctrine was deemed worthy of double honour, he was already the most prominent and influential member of the brotherhood. The new arrangement merely clothed him with the name of bishop, and somewhat augmented his authority. Having the funds of the Church at his disposal, he had special influence; and though he could not well act without the sanction of his elders, he could easily contrive to negative any of their resolutions which did not meet his approval.

It is abundantly clear that this primitive dignitary was ordinarily the pastor of only a single congregation. "If, before the multitude increase, there should be a place having a few faithful men in it, to the extent of twelve, who shall be able to make a dedication to pious uses for a bishop, let them write to the Churches round about the place," says an ancient canon, "that three chosen men.... may come to examine with diligence him who has been thought worthy of this degree.... If he has not a wife, it is a good thing; but if he has married a wife, having children, let him abide with her, continuing steadfast in every doctrine, able to explain the Scriptures well." [576:1] This humble functionary was assisted in the management of his little flock by two or three elders. "If the bishop has attended to the knowledge and patience of the love of God," says another regulation, "let him ordain two presbyters, when he has examined them, or rather three." [576:2] The bishop, the elders, and the deacons, all assembled in one place every Lord's day for congregational worship. An old ecclesiastical law accordingly prescribes the following arrangement—"Let the seat of the bishop be placed in the midst, and let the presbyters sit on each side of him, and let the deacons stand by them,... and let it be their care that the people sit a with all quietness and order in the other part of the church." [576:3] Thus, except in the case of a few large towns, the primitive bishop was simply the parochial minister. Towards the close of the second century, the bishop and the teacher were designations of the same import. Speaking of those at the head of the Churches, Irenaeus describes them as distinguished by their superior or inferior ability in sermonizing; [576:4] and a well-informed writer, who flourished as late as the fourth century, mentions preaching as the bishop's peculiar function. [576:5] In the apostolic age every one who had popular gifts was permitted to edify the congregation by their exercise; [576:6] and, long afterwards, any elder, who was qualified to speak in the Church, was at liberty to address his fellow-worshippers. When Origen, prior to his ordination as a presbyter, ventured to expound the Scriptures publicly at the request of the bishops of Palestine, Demetrius, his own ecclesiastical superior, denounced his conduct as irregular; but the parties, by whom the learned Alexandrian had been invited to lecture, boldly vindicated the proceeding. He (Demetrius) has asserted, said they, "that this was never before either heard or done, that laymen should deliver discourses in the presence of bishops. We know not how it happens that he is here evidently so far from the truth. For, indeed, wherever there are found those qualified to benefit the brethren, they are exhorted by the holy bishops to address the people." [577:1] But still the bishop himself was the stated and ordinary preacher; and when he was sick or absent, the flock could seldom expect a sermon. When present, he always administered the Lord's Supper with his own hands, and dispensed in person the rite of baptism. He also occupied the chair at the meetings of the presbytery, and presided at the ordination of the elders and deacons of his congregation.

Though Christians formed but a fraction, and often but a small fraction of the population, their bishops were thickly planted. Thus, Cenchrea, the port of Corinth, had an episcopal overseer, [577:2] as well as Corinth itself; the bishop of Portus and the bishop of Ostia were only two miles asunder; [577:3] and, of the eighty-seven bishops who met at Carthage, about A.D. 256, to discuss the question of the rebaptism of heretics, many, such as Mannulus, Polianus, Dativus, and Secundinus, [577:4] were located in small towns or villages. Though, probably, some of these pastors had not the care of more than twenty or thirty Christian families, each had the same rank and authority as the bishop of Carthage. "It remains," said Cyprian at the opening of the council, "that we severally declare our opinion on this same subject, judging no one, nor depriving any one of the right of communion if he differ from us. For no one of us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or by tyrannical terror forces his colleagues to a necessity of obeying; inasmuch as every bishop in the free use of his liberty and power has the right of forming his own judgment." [578:1] In other quarters of the Church its episcopal guardians were equally numerous. Hence it is said of the famous Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch, that, to sustain his reputation, he instigated "the bishops of the adjacent rural districts and towns" to praise him in their addresses to the people. [578:2] Even so late as the middle of the third century, the jurisdiction of the greatest bishops was extremely limited. Cyprian of Carthage, in point of position the second prelate in the Western Church, presided over only eight or nine presbyters; [578:3] and Cornelius of Rome, confessedly the most influential ecclesiastic in Christendom, had the charge of probably not more than fourteen congregations. [578:4]

There were commonly several elders and deacons connected with every worshipping society, and though these, as well as the bishops, began, towards the close of the second century, to be called clergymen, [578:5] and were thus taught to cherish the idea that the Lord was their inheritance, it would be quite a mistake to infer that they all subsisted on their official income. Not a few of them probably derived their maintenance from secular employments, some of them being tradesmen or artizans, and others in stations of greater prominence. Hyacinthus, an elder of the Church of Rome in the time of bishop Victor, appears to have held a situation in the Imperial household, [579:1] and Tertullian complains that persons engaged in trades directly connected with the support of idolatry were promoted to ecclesiastical offices. [579:2] There was a time when even an apostle laboured as a tent-maker, but as the hierarchical spirit acquired strength, and as the Church increased in wealth and numbers, there was a growing impression that all its office-bearers were degraded by such services. Cyprian speaks with extreme bitterness of a deceased elder who had appointed a brother elder the executor of his will, declaring that the clergy "should in no way be called off from their holy ministrations nor tied down by secular troubles and business." [579:3] But the common sense of the Church revolted against such high-flown spiritualism, as in many districts where the disciples were still few and indigent, they could not afford a suitable support for all entrusted with the performance of ecclesiastical duties. Hence, before the recognition of Christianity by Constantine, even bishops in some countries were permitted by trade to eke out a scanty maintenance. "Let not bishops, elders, and deacons leave their places for the sake of trading," says a council held in the beginning of the fourth century, "nor travelling about the provinces let them be found dealing in fairs. However, to provide a living for themselves, let them send either a son, or a freedman, or a servant, or a friend, or any one else: and if they wish to trade, let them do so within their province." [580:1]

It is clear, from the New Testament, that, in the apostolic age, ordination was performed by "the laying on of the hands of the presbytery," and this mode of designation to the ministry appears to have continued until some time in the third century. We are informed by the most learned of the fathers, in a passage to which the attention of the reader has already been invited, [580:2] that "even at Alexandria, from Mark the Evangelist until Heraclas and Dionysius the bishops, the presbyters were always in the habit of naming bishop one chosen from among themselves and placed in a higher degree, in the same manner as if an army should make an emperor, or the deacons choose from among themselves one whom they knew to be industrious and call him archdeacon." [580:3] As Jerome here mentions various important facts of which we might have otherwise remained ignorant, and as this statement throws much light upon the ecclesiastical history of the early Church, it is entitled to special notice.

In the letter where this passage occurs the writer is extolling the dignity of presbyters, and is endeavouring to shew that they are very little inferior to bishops. He admits, indeed, that, in his own days, they had ceased to ordain; but he intimates that they once possessed the right, and that they retained it in all its integrity until the former part of the preceding century. Some have thought that Jerome has here expressed himself indefinitely, and that he did not know the exact date at which the arrangement he describes ceased at Alexandria. But his testimony, when fairly analysed, can scarcely be said to want precision; for he obviously speaks of Heraclas and Dionysius as bishops by anticipation, alleging that a custom which anciently existed among the elders of the Egyptian metropolis was maintained until the time when these ecclesiastics, who afterwards successively occupied the episcopal chair, sat together in the presbytery. The period, thus pointed out, can be easily ascertained. Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria, after a long official life of forty-three years, died about A.D. 232, [581:1] and it is well known that Heraclas and Dionysius were both members of his presbytery towards the close of his episcopal administration. It was, therefore, shortly before his demise that the new system was introduced. In certain parts of the Church the arrangement mentioned by Jerome probably continued somewhat longer. Cyprian apparently hints at such cases of exception when he says that in "almost all the provinces," [581:2] the neighbouring bishops assembled, on the occasion of an episcopal vacancy, at the new election and ordination. It may have been that, in a few of the more considerable towns, the elders still continued to nominate their president.

When the erudite Roman presbyter informs us that "even at Alexandria" [581:3] the elders formerly made their own bishop, his language obviously implies that such a mode of creating the chief pastor was not confined to the Church of the metropolis of Egypt. It existed wherever Christianity had gained a footing, and he mentions this particular see, partly, because of its importance—being, in point of rank, the second in the Empire—and partly, perhaps, because the remarkable circumstances in its history, leading to the alteration which he specifies, were known to all his well-informed contemporaries. Jerome does not say that the Alexandrian presbyters inducted their bishop by imposition of hands, [582:1] or set him apart to his office by any formal ordination. His words apparently indicate that they did not recognize the necessity of any special rite of investiture; that they made the bishop by election; and that, when once acknowledged as the object of their choice, he was at liberty to enter forthwith on the performance of his episcopal duties. When the Roman soldiers made an emperor they appointed him by acclamation, and the cheers which issued from their ranks as he stood up before the legions and as he was clothed with the purple by one of themselves, constituted the ceremony of his inauguration. The ancient archdeacon was still one of the deacons; [582:2] as he was the chief almoner of the Church, he required to possess tact, discernment, and activity; and, in the fourth century, he was nominated to his office by his fellow-deacons. Jerome assures us that, until the time of Heraclas and Dionysius, the elders made a bishop just in the same way as in his own day the soldiers made an emperor, or as the deacons chose one whom they knew to be industrious, and made him an archdeacon.

In one of the letters purporting to have been written by Pius, bishop of Rome, to Justus of Vienne, shortly after the middle of the second century, there is a passage which supplies a singularly striking confirmation of the testimony of Jerome. Even were we to admit that the genuineness of this epistle cannot be satisfactorily established, it must still be acknowledged to be a very ancient document, and were it of somewhat later date than its title indicates, it should at least be received as representing the traditions which prevailed respecting the ecclesiastical arrangements of an early antiquity. In this communication Pius speaks of his episcopal correspondent of Vienne as "constituted by the brethren and clothed with the dress of the bishops." [583:1] By "the brethren," as is plain from another part of the letter, [583:2] he understands the presbytery. And as the soldiers made a sovereign by saluting him emperor, and arraying him in the purple; so the elders made a president by clothing him with a certain piece of dress, and calling him bishop. Thus, the statement of Jerome is exactly corroborated by the evidence of this witness.

We may infer from the letter of Pius that in Gaul and Italy, as well as in Egypt, the elders were in the habit of making their own bishop. [583:3] There is not a particle of evidence to shew that any other arrangement originally existed. The declaration of so competent an authority as Jerome backed by the attestation of this ancient epistle may be regarded as perfectly conclusive. [583:4] But other proofs of the same fact are not wanting. For a long period the bishop continued to be known by the title of "the elder who presides"-a designation which obviously implies that he was still only one of the presbyters. When the Paschal controversy created such excitement, and when Victor of Rome threatened to renounce the communion of those who held views different from his own, Irenaeus of Lyons wrote a letter of remonstrance to the haughty churchman in which he broadly reminded him of his ecclesiastical position. "Those, presbyters before Soter who governed the Church over which you now preside, I mean," said he, "Anicetus, and Pius, Hyginus with Telesphorus and Xystus, neither did themselves observe, nor did they permit those after them to observe it.... But those very presbyters before you who did not observe it, sent the Eucharist to those of Churches which did." [584:1] Irenaeus here endeavours to teach the bishop of Rome a lesson of humility by reminding him repeatedly that he and his predecessors were but presbyters.

The pastor of Lyons speaks even still more distinctly respecting the status of the bishops who flourished in his generation. Thus, he says—"We should obey those presbyters in the Church who have the succession from the apostles, and who, with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father: but we should hold as suspected or as heretics and of bad sentiments the rest who depart from the principal succession, and meet together wherever they please.... From all such we must keep aloof, but we must adhere to those who both preserve, as we have already mentioned, the doctrine of the apostles, and exhibit, with the order of the presbytery, sound teaching and an inoffensive conversation." [585:1] "The order of the presbytery" obviously signifies the official character conveyed by "the laying on of the hands of the presbytery," and yet such was the ordination of those who, in the time of Irenaeus, possessed "the succession from the apostles" and "the succession of the episcopate."

Some imagine that no one can be properly qualified to administer divine ordinances who has not received episcopal ordination, but a more accurate acquaintance with the history of the early Church is all that is required to dissipate the delusion. The preceding statements clearly shew that, for upwards of one hundred and fifty years after the death of our Lord, all the Christian ministers throughout the world were ordained by presbyters. The bishops themselves were of "the order of the presbytery," and, as they had never received episcopal consecration, they could only ordain as presbyters. The bishop was, in fact, nothing more than the chief presbyter. [585:2] A father of the third century accordingly observes—"All power and grace are established in the Church where elders preside, who possess the power, as well of baptizing, as of confirming and ordaining." [585:3]

An old ecclesiastical law, recently presented for the first time to the English reader, [586:1] throws much light on a portion of the history of the Church long buried in great obscurity. This law may well remind us of those remains of extinct classes of animals which the naturalist studies with so much interest, as it obviously belongs to an era even anterior to that of the so-called apostolical canons. [586:2] Though it is part of a series of regulations once current in the Church of Ethiopia, there is every reason to believe that it was framed in Italy, and that its authority was acknowledged by the Church of Rome in the time of Hippolytus. [586:3] It marks a transition period in the history of ecclesiastical polity, and whilst it indirectly confirms the testimony of Jerome relative to the custom of the Church of Alexandria, it shews that the state of things to which the learned presbyter refers was now superseded by another arrangement. This curious specimen of ancient legislation treats of the appointment and ordination of ministers. "The bishop," says this enactment, "is to be elected by all the people.... And they shall choose ONE OF THE BISHOPS AND ONE OF THE PRESBYTERS, ... AND THESE SHALL LAY THEIR HANDS UPON HIS HEAD AND PRAY." [586:4] Here, to avoid the confusion arising from a whole crowd of individuals imposing hands in ordination, two were selected to act on behalf of the assembled office-bearers; and, that the parties entitled to officiate might be fairly represented, the deputies were to be a bishop and a presbyter. [587:1] The canon illustrates the jealousy with which the presbyters in the early part of the third century still guarded some of their rights and privileges. In the matter of investing others with Church authority, they yet maintained their original position, and though many bishops might be present when another was inducted into office, they would permit only one of the number to unite with one of themselves in the ceremony of ordination. Some at the present day do not hesitate to assert that presbyters have no right whatever to ordain, but this canon supplies evidence that in the third century they were employed to ordain bishops.

It thus appears that the bishop of the ancient Church was very different from the dignitary now known by the same designation. The primitive bishop had often but two or three elders, and sometimes a single deacon, [587:2] under his jurisdiction: the modern prelate has frequently the oversight of several hundreds of ministers. The ancient bishop, surrounded by his presbyters, preached ordinarily every Sabbath to his whole flock: the modern bishop may spend an entire lifetime without addressing a single sermon, on the Lord's day, to many who are under his episcopal supervision. The early bishop had the care of a parish: the modern bishop superintends a diocese. The elders of the primitive bishop were not unfrequently decent tradesmen who earned their bread by the sweat of their brow: [587:3] the presbyters of a modern prelate have generally each the charge of a congregation, and are supposed to be entirely devoted to sacred duties. Even the ancient city bishop had but a faint resemblance to his modern namesake. He was the most laborious city minister, and the chief preacher. He commonly baptized all who were received into the Church, and dispensed the Eucharist to all the communicants. He was, in fact, properly the minister of an overgrown parish who required several assistants to supply his lack of service.

The foregoing testimonies likewise shew that the doctrine of apostolical succession, as now commonly promulgated, is utterly destitute of any sound historical basis. According to some, no one is duly qualified to preach and to dispense the sacraments whose authority has not been transmitted from the Twelve by an unbroken series of episcopal ordinations. But it has been demonstrated that episcopal ordinations, properly so called, originated only in the third century, and that even the bishops of Rome, who flourished prior to that date, were "of the order of the presbytery." All the primitive bishops received nothing more than presbyterian ordination. It is plain, therefore, that the doctrine of the transmission of spiritual power from the apostles through an unbroken series of episcopal ordinations flows from sheer ignorance of the actual constitution of the early Church.

But the arrangements now described were gradually subverted by episcopal encroachments, and a separate chapter must be devoted to the illustration of the progress of Prelacy.



CHAPTER X.

THE PROGRESS OF PRELACY.

We cannot tell when the president of the presbytery began to hold office for life; but it is evident that the change, at whatever period it occurred, must have added considerably to his power. The chairman of any court is the individual through whom it is addressed, and, without whose signature, its proceedings cannot be properly authenticated. He acts in its name, and he stands forth as its representative. He may, theoretically, possess no more power than any of the other members of the judicatory, and he may be bound, by the most stringent laws, simply to carry out the decisions of their united wisdom; but his very position gives him influence; and, if he holds office for life, that influence may soon become formidable. If he is not constantly kept in check by the vigilance and determination of those with whom he is associated, he may insensibly trench upon their rights and privileges. In the second century the moderator of the city eldership was invariably a man advanced in years, who, instead of being watched with jealousy, was regarded with affectionate veneration; and it is not strange if he was often permitted to stretch his authority beyond the exact range of its legitimate exercise.

Evidence has already been adduced to shew that, on the rise of Prelacy, the presidential chair was no longer inherited by the members of the city presbytery in the order of seniority. The individuals considered most competent for the situation were now nominated by their brethren; and as the Church, especially in great towns, was sadly distracted by the machinations of the Gnostics, it was deemed expedient to arm the moderator with additional authority. As a matter of necessity, the official who was furnished with these new powers required a new name; for the title of president by which he was already known, and which continued long afterwards in current use, [590:1] did not now fully indicate his importance. It was, therefore, gradually supplanted by the designation of bishop, or overseer. Whilst this functionary was nominated by the presbyters, he might be also set aside by them, so that he felt it necessary to consult their wishes and to use his discretionary power with modesty and moderation; but, when he began to be elected by general suffrage, his authority was forthwith established on a broader and firmer foundation. He was now emphatically the man of the people; and from this date he possessed an influence with which the presbytery itself was incompetent to grapple.

As early as the middle of the second century the bishop, at least in some places, was entrusted with the chief management of the funds of the Church; [590:2] and probably, about fifty years afterwards, a large share of its revenues was appropriated to his personal maintenance. [590:3] His superior wealth soon added immensely to his influence. He was thus enabled to maintain a higher position in society than any of his brethren; and he was at length regarded as the great fountain of patronage and preferment. Long before Christianity enjoyed the sanction of the state, the chief pastors of the great cities began to attract attention by their ostentatious display of secular magnificence. Origen, who flourished in the former half of the third century, strongly condemns their vanity and ambition; and though perhaps his ascetic temperament prompted him to indulge somewhat in the language of exaggeration, the testimony of so respectable a witness cannot be rejected as untrue. "We," says he, "proceed so far in the affectation of pomp and state, as to outdo even bad rulers among the pagans; and, like the emperors, surround ourselves with a guard that we may be feared and made difficult of access, particularly to the poor. And in many of our so-called Churches, especially in the large towns, may be found presiding officers of the Church of God who would refuse to own even the best among the disciples of Jesus while on earth as their equals." [591:1] In these remarks the writer had doubtless a particular reference to his own Church of Alexandria; but it is well known that elsewhere some bishops in the third century assumed a very lofty bearing. It is related of the celebrated Paul of Samosata, the bishop of Antioch, that he acted as a secular judge, that he appeared in public surrounded by a crowd of servants, and that he took special pleasure in pomp and parade; and yet, had he not lapsed into heresy, there is no evidence that his overweening pride would have brought down upon him the vengeance of ecclesiastical discipline. In the third century the chief pastor of the Western metropolis must have been known to the great officers of government, and perhaps to the Emperor himself. Decius must have regarded the Roman bishop as a somewhat formidable personage when he declared that he would sooner tolerate a rival candidate for the throne, and when he proclaimed his determination to annihilate the very office. [591:2]

It was not strange that dignitaries who affected so much state soon contrived to surround themselves with a whole host of new officials. Within little more than a century after the rise of Prelacy the number of grades of ecclesiastics was nearly trebled. In addition to the bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons, there were also, in A.D. 251, in the Church of Rome lectors, sub-deacons, acolyths, exorcists, and janitors. [592:1] The lectors, who read the Scriptures to the congregation [592:2] and who had charge of the sacred manuscripts, attract our attention as distinct office-bearers about the close of the second century. The sub-deacons are said to have had the care of the sacramental cups; the acolyths attended to the lamps of the sacred edifice; the exorcists [592:3] professed by their prayers to expel evil spirits out of the bodies of those about to be baptized; and the janitors performed the more humble duties of porters or door-keepers. At a subsequent period each of these functionaries was initiated into office by a special form of ordination or investiture. It was laid down as a principle that no one could regularly become a bishop who had not previously passed through all these inferior orders; [592:4] but when the multitude wished all at once to elevate a layman to the rank of a bishop or a presbyter, ecclesiastical routine was compelled to yield to the pressure of popular enthusiasm. [592:5]

The great city in which Prelacy originated appears to have been the place where these new offices made their first appearance. Rome, true to her mission as "the mother of the Catholic Church," conceived and brought forth nearly all the peculiarities of the Catholic system. The lady seated on the seven hills was already regarded with great admiration, and surrounding Churches silently copied the arrangements of their Imperial parent. In the East, at least one of the orders now instituted by the great Western prelate, that is, the order of acolyths, was not adopted for centuries afterwards. [593:1]

The city bishops were well aware of the vast accession of influence they acquired in consequence of their election by the people, and did not fail to insist upon the circumstance when desirous to illustrate their ecclesiastical title. Any one who peruses the letters of Cyprian may remark the frequency, as well as the transparent satisfaction, with which he refers to the mode of his appointment. Who, he seems to say, could doubt his right to act as bishop of Carthage, seeing that he had been chosen by "the suffrage of the whole fraternity"—by "the vote of the people?" [593:2] The members of the Church enthusiastically acknowledged such appeals to their sympathy and support, and in cases of emergency promptly rallied round the individuals whom they had themselves elevated to power. But as all the other church officers were meanwhile likewise chosen by common suffrage, the bishops soon betrayed an anxiety to appropriate the distinction, and began, under various pretexts, to interfere with the free exercise of the popular franchise. In one of his epistles Cyprian excuses himself to the Christians of Carthage because he had ventured to ordain a reader without their approval. He pleads that the peculiar circumstances of the case and the extraordinary merits of the candidate must be accepted as his apology. "In clerical ordinations," says he, "my custom is to consult you beforehand, dearest brethren, and in common deliberation to weigh the character and merits of each. But testimonies of men need not be awaited when anticipated by the sentence of God." [593:3] The sanction of the people should have been obtained before the ordination; but, as persecution now raged, it is suggested that it would have been inconvenient to lay the matter before them; and Cyprian argues that the informality was pardonable, inasmuch as the Almighty himself had given His suffrage in favour of the new lector; for Aurelius, though only a youth, had nobly submitted to the torture rather than renounce the gospel.

The ordination of Aurelius under such circumstances was not, however, a solitary case; and there is certainly something suspicious in the frequency with which the bishop of Carthage apologizes to the clergy and people for neglecting to consult them on the appointment of church officers. In another of his letters he announces to the presbyters and deacons that, "on an urgent occasion" he had "made Saturus a reader, and Optatus the confessor a sub-deacon." [594:1] Again, he tells the same parties, and "the whole people," that "Celerinus, renowned alike for his courage and his character, has been joined to the clergy, not by human suffrage, but by the divine favour;" [594:2] and at another time he informs them that he had been "admonished and instructed by a divine vouchsafement to enrol Numidicus in the number of the Carthaginian presbyters." [594:3] These cases were, no doubt, afterwards quoted as precedents for the non-observance of the law; and from time to time new pretences were discovered for evading its provisions. In this way the rights of the people were gradually abridged; and in the course of two or three centuries, the bishops almost entirely ignored their interference in the election of presbyters and deacons, as well as of the inferior clergy.

New canons relative to ordination were promulgated probably about the time when the city presbyters ceased to have the exclusive right of electing their own bishop. The altered circumstances of the Church led to the establishment of these regulations. The election of the chief pastor of a great town was often a scene of much excitement, and as several of the elders might be regarded as candidates for the office, it was obviously unseemly that any of them should preside on the occasion. It was accordingly arranged that some of the neighbouring bishops should be present to superintend the proceedings. The successful candidate now began to be formally invested with his new dignity by the imposition of hands; and at first, perhaps, one of the bishops, assisted by one of the presbyters of the place, performed this ceremony. [595:1] But the elders soon ceased to take part in the ordination. At the election, the people and the clergy sometimes took opposite sides; and, in the contest, the ecclesiastical party was not unfrequently completely overborne. It occasionally happened, as in the case of Cyprian, [595:2] that one of the elders was chosen in opposition to the wishes of the majority of the presbytery; or, as in the case of Fabian of Rome, [595:3] that a layman was all at once elevated to the episcopal chair; and, at such times, the disappointed presbyters did not care to join in the inauguration. The bishops availed themselves of the pretexts thus furnished to dispense with their services altogether. At length the power of admitting to the ministry by the laying on of hands began to be challenged as the peculiar prerogative of the episcopal order.

In many places, perhaps before the middle of the third century, elders were no longer permitted to take part in the consecration of bishops; but Prelacy had not yet completely established itself upon the ruins of the more ancient polity. Sometimes the presbytery itself still discharged the functions of the bishop. After the martyrdom of Fabian in A.D. 250, the Church of Rome remained upwards of a year under its care, [596:1] as the see was meanwhile vacant; and about the same period we find Cyprian, when in exile, requesting his presbyters and deacons to execute both his duties and their own. [596:2] It was still admitted that elders were competent to ordain elders and deacons, as well as to confirm and to baptize; and the bishop continued to recognise them as his "colleagues" and his "fellow-presbyters." [596:3] It is clear, however, that the relations between them and their episcopal chief were now very vaguely defined, and that the ambiguous position of the parties led to mutual complaints of ambition and usurpation. The Epistles of Cyprian supply evidence that the bishop of Carthage, during a great part of his episcopate, was engaged with his presbyters in a struggle for power; [596:4] and though he asserted that he was contending for nothing more than his legitimate authority, he was sometimes obliged to abate his pretensions. In one case he complains that, "without his permission or knowledge," his presbyter Novatus "of his own factiousness and ambition" had "made Felicissimus his follower a deacon;" [596:5] but still he does not venture to impeach the validity of the act, or refuse to recognise the standing of the new ecclesiastic. Felicissimus seems to have been ordained in a small meeting-house in the neighbourhood of Carthage; and as Novatus, who probably presided on the occasion, appears to have proceeded in conjunction with the majority of the presbytery, they no doubt considered that, under these circumstances, the sanction of the bishop was by no means indispensable. The manifestation of such a spirit of independence was, however, exceedingly galling to their imperious prelate.

From the manner in which Cyprian expresses himself we may infer that he would not have been dissatisfied had Novatus and the elders who acted with him obtained his permission to ordain the deacon Felicissimus. But about this period the bishops were beginning to look with extreme jealousy on all presbyterian ordinations, and were commencing a series of encroachments on the rights of their episcopal brethren in rural districts. These country bishops, [597:1] who wore simply ministers of single congregations, and who were generally poor and uninfluential, soon succumbed to the great city dignitaries. By a council held at Ancyra in A.D. 314, or very shortly after the close of the Diocletian persecution, they were forbidden to perform duties which they had hitherto been accustomed to discharge, for one of its canons declares that "country bishops must not ordain presbyters or deacons; neither must city presbyters in another parish without the written permission of the bishop." [597:2]