This canon illustrates the strangely anomalous condition of the Church at the period of its adoption. It takes no notice of country elders, as the proceedings of such an humble class of functionaries probably awakened no jealousy; and it degrades country bishops, who unquestionably belonged to the episcopal order, by placing them in a position inferior to that of city presbyters. About sixty years before, or in the middle of the third century, three of these country bishops were deemed competent to ordain a bishop of Rome; [598:1] but now they are deprived of the right of ordaining even elders and deacons. It is easy to understand why city presbyters were still permitted, under certain conditions, to exercise this privilege. As they constituted the council of the city chief pastor, their influence was considerable; and as they had, until a recent date, been accustomed even to take part in his own consecration, it was deemed inexpedient to tempt so formidable a class of churchmen to make common cause with the country bishops by stripping both at once of their ancient prerogatives. The country bishops, as the weaker party, were first subjected to a process of spoliation. But the recognition of Christianity by Constantine gave an immense impulse to the progress of the hierarchy, and the city presbyters were soon afterwards deprived of the privilege now wrested from the country bishops.

The current of events had placed the Church, about the middle of the third century, in a position which it could not long maintain. As the growth of Christianity in towns was steady and rapid, the bishop there rose quickly into wealth and power; but, among the comparatively poor and thinly-scattered population of the country, his condition remained nearly stationary. When Cyprian, in A.D. 256, addressed the eighty-seven bishops assembled in the Council of Carthage, and told them that they were all on an equality, he might have felt that the doctrine of episcopal parity, as then understood, must be given up as indefensible if assailed by the skill of a vigorous logician. Who could believe that the bishop of Carthage held exactly the same official rank as every one of his episcopal auditors? He was the chief pastor of a flourishing metropolis; he had several congregations under his care, and several of his presbyters were preachers; [599:1] but many of the bishops before him were ministers of single congregations and without even one elder competent to deliver a sermon, [599:2] In point of ministerial gifts and actual influence some of the presbyters of Carthage were, no doubt, far superior to many of the bishops of the council. And who could affirm that Paul of Samosata, the chief pastor of the capital of the Eastern Empire, was quite on a level with every one of the village bishops around him whom he bribed to celebrate his praises? No wonder that it was soon found necessary to remodel the episcopal system. The city bishops had a show of equity in their favour when they asserted their superiority, and their brethren in rural districts were too feeble and dependent effectively to resist their own degradation.

The ecclesiastical title metropolitan came into use about the time of the Council of Nice in A.D. 325. [599:3] and there is reason to believe that the territorial jurisdiction it implied was then first distinctly defined and generally established; but the changes of the preceding three quarters of a century, had been preparing the way for the new arrangement. Many of the country bishops had meanwhile been reduced to a condition of subserviency, whilst a considerable number of the chief pastors in the great cities had been recognized as the constant presidents of the synods which met in their respective capitals. It is easy to see how these prelates acquired such a position. Talent, if exerted, must always assert its ascendency; and it is probable that the metropolitan bishops were generally more able and accomplished than the majority of their brethren. They could fairly plead that zeal for the good of the Church prompted them to take a lead in ecclesiastical affairs, and their place of residence supplied them with facilities for communicating with other pastors of which they often deemed it prudent to avail themselves. When the synod met in the metropolis, the bishop of the city was wont to entertain many of the members as his guests; and, as he was elevated above most, if not all, of those with whom he acted, in point of wealth, social standing, address, and knowledge of the world, he was usually called on to occupy the chair of the moderator. In process of time that which was originally conceded as a matter of courtesy passed into an admitted right. So long as the metropolitan bishop was inducted into office by mere presbyters, the circumstances of his investiture pointed out to him the duty of humility; but when the most distinguished chief pastors of the province deemed it an honour to take part in his consecration, he immediately increased his pretensions. Thus it is that the change in the mode of episcopal inauguration forms a new era in the history of ecclesiastical assumption.

About the middle of the third century various circumstances conspired to augment the authority of the great bishops. In the Decian and Valerian persecutions the chief pastors were specially marked out for attack, and the heroic constancy with which some of the most eminent encountered a cruel death vastly enhanced the reputation of their order. In a few years several bishops of Rome were martyred; Cyprian of Carthage endured the same fate: Alexander of Jerusalem, and Babylas of Antioch, also laid down their lives for their religion. [600:1] At the same time the schism of Novatian at Rome, and the schism of Felicissimus at Carthage threatened the Church with new divisions, and the same arguments which were used, upwards of a hundred years before, for increasing the power of the president of the eldership, could now be urged with equal pertinency for adding to the authority of the president of the synod. In point of fact perhaps the earliest occasion on which the bishop of Rome executed discipline in his archiepiscopal capacity was immediately connected with the schism of Novatian; for we have no record of any exercise of such power until Cornelius, at the head of a council held in the Imperial city, deposed the pastors who had officiated at the consecration of his rival. [601:1] From this date the Roman metropolitan probably presided at all the ordinations of the bishops in his vicinity.

To prevent the recurrence of schisms such as had now happened at Rome and Carthage, it was, in all likelihood, arranged about this period, at least in some quarters of the Church, that the presence or sanction of the stated president of the provincial synod should be necessary to the validity of all episcopal consecrations. There were still, however, many districts in which the provincial synod had no fixed chairman. Hence an ancient canon directs that at the ordination of a member of the hierarchy, "one of the principal bishops shall pray to God over the approved candidate." [601:2] By a "principal bishop" we are to understand the chief pastor of a principal or apostolic church; [601:3] but in some provinces several such churches were to be found, and this regulation attests that there no single ecclesiastic had yet acquired an unchallenged precedence. As the close of the third century approached, the ecclesiastical structure exhibited increasing uniformity; and one dignitary in each region began to be known as the stated president of the episcopal body. In one of the so-called apostolical canons, framed probably before the Council of Nice, this arrangement is embodied. "The bishops of every nation," says the ordinance, "ought to know who is the first among them, and him they ought to esteem as their head, and not do any great thing without his consent. ... But neither let him do anything without the consent of all." [602:1]

This canon is apparently couched in terms of studied ambiguity, for the expression "the first among the bishops of every nation" admits of various interpretations. In many cases it probably meant the senior bishop of the district; in others, it perhaps denoted the chief pastor of the chief city of the province; and in others again, it may have indicated the prelate of a great metropolis who had contrived to establish his authority over a still more extensive territory. The rise of the city bishops had completely destroyed that balance of power which originally existed in the Church; and much commotion preceded the settlement of a new ecclesiastical equilibrium. During the last forty years of the third century the Christians enjoyed almost uninterrupted peace; the chief pastors were meanwhile perpetually engaged in contests for superiority; and about this time the bishops of Rome, of Alexandria, and of Antioch, rapidly extended their influence. So rampant was the usurping spirit of churchmen that even the violence of the Diocletian persecution was not sufficient to check them in their career of ambition. A contemporary writer, who was himself a member of the episcopal order, bears testimony to this melancholy fact. "Some," said he, "who were reputed our pastors, contemning the law of piety, were, under the excitement of mutual animosities, fomenting nothing else but disputes and threatenings and rivalry and reciprocal hostility and hatred, as they contentiously prosecuted their ambitious designs for sovereignty." [601:2]

What a change had passed over the Christian commonwealth in the course of little more than two hundred years! When the Apostle John died, the city church was governed by the common council of the elders, and their president simply announced and executed the decisions of his brethren: now, the president was transformed into a prelate who, by gradual encroachments, had stripped the presbytery of a large share of its authority. At the close of the first century the Church of Rome was, perhaps, less influential than the Church of Ephesus, and the very name of its moderator at that period is a matter of disputed and doubtful tradition; but the Diocletian persecution had scarcely terminated when the bishop of the great metropolis was found sitting in a council in the palace of the Lateran, and claiming jurisdiction over eight or ten provinces of Italy! These revolutions were not effected without much opposition. The strife between the presbyters and the bishops was succeeded by a general warfare among the possessors of episcopal power, for the constant moderator of the synod was as anxious to increase his authority as the constant moderator of the presbytery. About the close of the third century the Church appears to have been sadly scandalised by the quarrels of the bishops, and Eusebius accordingly intimates that, in the reign of terror which so quickly followed, they suffered a righteous retribution for their misconduct.

Discussions respecting questions of Church polity are often exceedingly distasteful to persons of contracted views but of genuine piety, for they cannot understand how the progress of vital godliness can be influenced by forms of ecclesiastical government. [603:1] About this period such sentiments were probably not uncommon, and much of the apathy with which innovations were contemplated may thus be easily explained. Besides, if the early bishop was a man of ability and address, his influence in his own church was nearly overwhelming; for as he was the ordinary, if not the only, preacher, he thus possessed the most effective means of recommending any favourite scheme, and of giving a decided tone to public opinion. When a parochial charge became vacant by the demise of the chief pastor, the election of a successor was often vigorously contested; and when an influential presbyter was defeated, he sometimes exhibited his mortification by contending for the rights of his order, and by disputing the pretensions of his successful rival. But as such opposition was obviously dictated by the spirit of faction, it was commonly brief, ill-sustained, and abortive. The young, talented, and aspiring presbyters must have been strongly tempted to encourage the growth of episcopal prerogative, for each might one day hope to occupy the place of dignity, and thus to reap the fruits of present encroachments. The bishops seem to have resisted more strenuously the establishment of metropolitan ascendency. An ecclesiastical regulation of great antiquity, [604:1] condemned their translation from one parish to another, so that when the episcopate was gained, all farther prospects of promotion were extinguished, for the place of first among the bishops was either inherited by seniority or claimed by the prelate of the chief city. Hence it was that the pastors withstood so firmly all infringements on their theoretical parity; and hence those "ambitious disputes," [604:2] and those "collisions of bishops with bishops," [604:3] even amidst the fires of martyrdom, over which the historian of the Church professes his anxiety to cast the veil of oblivion.



CHAPTER XI.

SYNODS—THEIR HISTORY AND CONSTITUTION.

The apostles, and the other original heralds of the gospel, sought primarily the conversion of unbelievers. The commission given to Paul points out distinctly the grand design of their ministry. When the great persecutor of the saints was himself converted on his way to Damascus, our Lord addressed to him the memorable words—"I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me." [605:1]

When a few disciples were collected in a particular locality, it not unfrequently happened that they remained for a time without any proper ecclesiastical organization. [605:2] But the Christian cause, under such circumstances, could not be expected to flourish; and therefore, as soon as practicable, the apostles and evangelists did not neglect to make arrangements for the increase and edification of these infant communities. To provide, as well for the maintenance of discipline, as for the preaching of the Word, they accordingly proceeded to ordain elders in every city where the truth had gained converts. These elders afterwards ordained deacons in their respective congregations; and thus, in due time, the Church was regularly constituted.

In the first century Christian societies were formed only here and there throughout the Roman Empire; and, at its close, the gospel had scarcely penetrated into some of the provinces. It is not to be expected that we can trace any general confederation of the churches established during this period, and it would be vain to attempt to demonstrate their incorporation; as their distance, their depressed condition, and the jealousy with which they were regarded by the civil government, [606:1] rendered any extensive combination utterly impossible. At a time when the disciples met together for worship in secret and before break of day, it is not to be supposed that their pastors deemed it expedient to undertake frequent journeys on the business of the Church, or assembled in multitudinous councils. But though, in the beginning of the second century, there was no formal bond of union connecting the several Christian communities throughout the world, they meanwhile contrived in various ways to cultivate an unbroken fraternal intercourse. Recognising each other as members of the same holy brotherhood, they maintained an epistolary correspondence, in which they treated of all matters pertaining to the common interest. When the pastor of one church visited another, his status was immediately acknowledged; and even when an ordinary disciple emigrated to a distant province, the ecclesiastical certificate which he carried along with him secured his admission to membership in the strange congregation. Thus, all the churches treated each other as portions of one great family; all adhered to much the same system of polity and discipline; and, though there was not unity of jurisdiction, there was the "keeping of the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."

In modern times many ecclesiastical historians [607:1] have asserted that synods commenced about the middle of the second century. But the statement is unsupported by a single particle of evidence, and a number of facts may be adduced to prove that it is altogether untenable. There is no reason to doubt that synods, at least on a limited scale, met in the days of the apostles, and that the Church courts of a later age were simply the continuation and expansion of those primitive conventions. We know very little respecting the history of the Christian commonwealth during the former half of the second century, for the extant memorials of the Church of that period are exceedingly few and meagre; and as the proceedings of most of the synods which were then held did not perhaps attract much notice, [607:2] it is not remarkable that they have shared the fate of almost all the other ecclesiastical transactions of the same date, and that they have been buried in oblivion. [607:3] It is nowhere intimated by any ancient authority that synodical meetings commenced fifty years after the death of the beloved disciple, and the earliest writers who touch upon the subject speak of them as of apostolic original. Irenaeus, the pastor of Lyons, had probably reached manhood when, according to Mosheim and others, synods were at first formed; he enjoyed the instructions of Polycarp, the disciple of the Apostle John; he was beyond question one of the best informed Christian ministers of his generation; and yet he obviously considered that these ecclesiastical assemblies were in existence in the first century. Speaking of the visit of Paul to Miletus when he sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the Church, [608:1] he says that the apostle then convoked "the bishops and presbyters of Ephesus and of the other adjoining cities" [608:2]—plainly indicating that he summoned a synodical meeting. Had an assembly of this kind been a novelty in the days of Irenaeus, the pastor of Lyons would not have given such a version of a passage in the inspired narrative. Cyprian flourished shortly after the time when, according to the modern theory, councils began to meet in Africa, but the bishop of Carthage himself unquestionably entertained higher views of their antiquity. He declared that conformably to "the practice received from divine tradition and apostolic observance," [608:3] "all the neighbouring bishops of the same province met together" among the people over whom a pastor was to be ordained; [608:4] and he did not here merely give utterance to his own impressions, for a whole African synod concurred in his statement. Subsequent writers of unimpeachable credit refer to the canons of councils of which we otherwise know nothing, and though we cannot now ascertain the exact time when these courts assembled, there is no reason to doubt that at least some of them were convened before the middle of the second century. Thus, when Jerome ascribes the origin of Prelacy to an ecclesiastical decree, he alludes evidently to some synodical convention of an earlier date than any of the meetings of which history has preserved a record. [609:1]

Did we even want the direct testimony just adduced as to the government of synods in the former part of the second century, we might on other grounds infer that this species of polity then existed; for apostolic example suggested its propriety, and the spirit of fraternity so assiduously cherished by the early rulers of the Church must have prompted them to meet together for the discussion and settlement of ecclesiastical questions in which they felt a common interest. But whilst Christianity was still struggling for existence, it was not in a condition to form widely spread organizations. It is probable that the business of the early Church courts was conducted with the utmost secrecy, that they were attended by but few members, and that they were generally composed of those pastors and elders who resided in the same district and who could conveniently assemble on short notice. Their meetings, in all likelihood, were summoned at irregular intervals, and were held, to avoid suspicion, sometimes in one city and sometimes in another; and, except when an exciting question awakened deep and general anxiety, the representatives of the Churches of a whole province rarely, perhaps, ventured on a united convention. Our ignorance of the councils of the early part of the second century arises simply from the fact that no writer appeared during that interval to register their acts; and we have now no means of accurately filling up this blank in the history. But we have good grounds for believing that Gnosticism now formed the topic of discussion in several synods. [609:2] The errorists, we know, were driven out of the Church in all places; and how can we account for this general expulsion, except upon the principle of the united action of ecclesiastical judicatories? Jerome gives us to understand that their machinations led to a change in the ecclesiastical constitution, and that this change was effected by a synodical decree adopted all over the world [610:1]—thereby implying that presbyterial government was already in universal operation. Montanism appeared whilst Gnosticism was yet in its full strength, and this gloomy fanaticism created intense agitation. Many of the pastors, as well as of the people, were bewildered by its pretensions to inspiration, and by the sanctimony of its ascetic discipline. It immediately occupied the attention of the ecclesiastical courts, and its progress was, no doubt, arrested by their emphatic condemnation of its absurdities. It is certain that their interference was judicious and decided. "When the faithful held frequent meetings in many places throughout Asia on account of this affair, and examined the novel doctrines, and pronounced them profane, and rejected them as heresy," the Montanist prophets "were in consequence driven out of the Church and excluded from communion." [610:2]

The words just quoted are from the pen of an anonymous writer who flourished towards the end of the second or beginning of the third century; [610:3] and, though they supply the earliest distinct notice of synodical meetings, they do not even hint that such assemblies were of recent original. The Paschal controversy succeeded the Montanist agitation, and convulsed the whole Church from East to West by its frivolous discussions. The mode of keeping the Paschal festival had for nearly fifty years been a vexed question, but about the close of the second century it began to create bitter contention. Eusebius has given us an account of the affair, and his narrative throws great light upon the state of the ecclesiastical community at the time of its occurrence. "For this cause," says he, "there were synods and councils of bishops, and all, with according judgment, published in epistles an ecclesiastical decree.... There is still extant a letter from those who at that time were called together in Palestine, over whom presided Theophilus, bishop of the parish of Caesarea, and Narcissus, bishop of the parish of Jerusalem. There is also another letter from those who were convoked at Rome [611:1] concerning the same question, which shews that Victor was then bishop. There is too a letter from the bishops of Pontus, over whom Palmas, as the senior pastor, presided. There is likewise a letter from the parishes in Gaul of which Irenaeus was president. And another besides from the Churches in Osroene and the cities in that quarter." [611:2]

It is obvious from this statement that, before the termination of the second century, synodical government was established throughout the whole Church; for we here trace its operation in France, in Mesopotamia or Osroene, in Italy, Pontus, and Palestine. This passage also illustrates the progress of the changes which were taking place about the period under review in the constitution of ecclesiastical judicatories. As the president of the presbytery was at first the senior elder, so the president of the synod was at first the senior pastor. At this time the primitive arrangement had not been altogether superseded, for at the meeting of the bishops of Pontus, Palmas, as being the oldest member present, was called to occupy the chair of the moderator. But elsewhere this ancient regulation had been set aside, and in some places no new principle had yet been adopted. At the synod of Palestine the jealousy of two rivals for the presidency led to a rather awkward compromise. Caesarea was the seat of government, and on that ground its bishop could challenge precedence of every other in the district, but the Church of Jerusalem was the mother of the entire Christian community, and its pastor, now a hundred years of age, [612:1] considered that he was entitled to fill the place of dignity. For the sake of peace the assembled fathers agreed to appoint two chairmen, and accordingly Theophilus of Caesarea and Narcissus of Jerusalem presided jointly in the synod of Palestine. In the synod of Rome there was no one to dispute the pretensions of Bishop Victor. As the chief pastor of the great metropolitan Church, he seems, as a matter of course, to have taken possession of the presidential office.

A few years after the Paschal controversy the celebrated Tertullian became entangled in the errors of Montanism, and in vindication of his own principles published a tract "Concerning Fasts," in which there is a passing reference to the subject of ecclesiastical convocations. "Among the Greek nations," says he, "these councils of the whole Church are held in fixed places, in which, whilst certain important questions are discussed, the representation of the whole Christian name is also celebrated with great solemnity. And how worthy is this of a faith which expects to have its converts gathered from all parts to Christ? See how good and how pleasant a thing it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! You do not well know how to sing this, except when you are holding communion with many. But those conventions, after they have been first employed in prayers and fasting, know how to mourn with the mourners, and thus at length to rejoice with those that rejoice." [612:2]

Greek was now spoken throughout a great part of the Roman Empire, and at this period it continued to be used even by the chief pastors of the Italian capital, so that when Tertullian here mentions the Greek nations, [613:1] he employs an expression of somewhat doubtful significance. But it is probable that he refers chiefly to the mother country and its colonies on the other side of the Aegean Sea, or to Greece and Asia Minor. It is apparent from the apostolic epistles, most of which are addressed to Churches within their borders, that the gospel, at an early date, spread extensively and rapidly in these countries; and it is highly probable that, at least in some districts, its adherents would have now made a considerable figure in any denominational census. They were thus, perhaps, emboldened to erect their ecclesiastical courts upon a broader basis, as well as to hold their meetings with greater publicity, than heretofore; and, as these assemblies were attended, not only by the pastors and the elders, but also by many deacons and ordinary church members who were anxious to witness their deliberations, Tertullian alleges, in his own rhetorical style of expression, that in them "the representation of the whole Christian name was celebrated with great solemnity." [613:2] These Greek councils commenced with a period of fasting—a circumstance by which they seem to have been distinguished from similar meetings convened elsewhere, and as they thus supplied him with an argument in favour of one of the grand peculiarities of the discipline of Montanism, it is obviously for this reason they are here so prominently noticed. If, as he contends, these fasts were kept so religiously by the representatives of the Church when in attendance on some of their most solemn assemblies, there might, after all, be a warrant for the observance of that more rigid abstinence which he now inculcated. But though this passage of Tertullian is the only authority adduced to prove that councils originated in Greece, it is plain that it gives no sanction whatever to any such theory. Neither does it afford the slightest foundation for the inference that, at the time when it was written, these ecclesiastical convocations were unknown in Africa and Italy. We have direct proof that before this period they not only met in Rome, but that the bishop of the great city had been in the habit of requesting his brother pastors in other countries to hold such assemblies. [614:1] There is, too, satisfactory evidence that they were now not unknown at Carthage, [614:2] and Tertullian himself elsewhere apparently refers to the proceedings of African synods. [614:3] He must have been well aware that they had recently assembled in various parts of the West to pronounce judgment in the Paschal controversy; for the decisions of the Gallic and Roman synods mentioned by Eusebius seem to have been published all over the Church; and the reason why he refers to the convocations of the Greeks was, not because such meetings were not held in other lands, but because these, from their peculiar method of procedure in the way of fasting, [614:4] supplied, as he conceived, a very apposite argument in support of the discipline which he was so desirous to recommend.

If historians have erred in stating that synods commenced in Greece, they have been still more egregiously mistaken in asserting that the once famous Amphictyonic Council suggested their establishment, and furnished the model for their construction. In the second century of the Christian era the Council of the Amphictyons was shorn of its glory, and though it then continued to meet, [615:1] it had long ceased to be either an exponent of the national mind, or a free and independent assembly. It is not to be imagined that the Christian community, in the full vigour of its early growth, would all at once have abandoned its apostolic constitution, and adopted a form of government borrowed from an effete institute. Synods, which now formed so prominent a part of the ecclesiastical polity, could claim a higher and holier original. They were obviously nothing more than the legitimate development of the primitive structure of the Church, for they could be traced up to that meeting of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem which relieved the Gentile converts from the observance of the rite of circumcision.

The most plausible argument in support of the theory that the Amphictyonic Council suggested the establishment of synodical conventions is based upon the alleged fact that these ecclesiastical meetings were at first held in spring and autumn, or exactly at the times when the Greek political deputies were accustomed to assemble. [615:2] But this statement, when closely examined, is found to be quite destitute of evidence. Tertullian does not say that the Greek synods met twice a year, and we know that, at least half a century afterwards, they assembled only annually. This fact is attested by Firmilian of Cappadocia in his celebrated letter to Cyprian. "It is of necessity arranged among us," says he, "that we elders and presidents meet every year [616:1] to set in order the things entrusted to our charge, that if there be any matters of grave moment they may be settled by common advice." [616:2] The author of this epistle lived in the very country where synods are supposed to have assembled so much more frequently half a century before, so that his evidence demonstrates the fallacy of the hypothesis framed by some modern historians.

About the beginning of the third century, or at the time when Tertullian wrote, it would seem that the members of the Greek synods had an arrangement which was not then generally adopted. The Greek councils met together "in fixed places." There is reason to believe that these "fixed places" were, commonly speaking, the metropolitan cities of the respective provinces. But still, as we have seen, the pastors and elders had not yet generally agreed to the regulation that the chief pastor of the metropolitan city should be the constant moderator of the provincial synod. In the case of the bishop of Rome the rule was, no doubt, already established; but, in other instances, the senior pastor present was, as yet, invited to fill the office of president. The constant meeting of the synod in the principal town of the province tended, however, to increase the influence of its bishop; and he was at length almost everywhere acknowledged as the proper chairman. [616:3] At the Council of Nice in A.D. 325 his rights were formally secured by ecclesiastical enactment. About the same date synods appear to have commenced to assemble with greater frequency. "Let there be a meeting of the bishops twice a year," says the thirty-seventh of the so-called Apostolical Canons, "and let them examine amongst themselves the decrees concerning religion, and settle the ecclesiastical controversies which may have occurred. One meeting is to be held in the fourth week of the Pentecost, and the other on the 12th day of the month of October." [617:1]

As soon as the light of historical records begins to illustrate the condition of any portion of the ancient Church, its synodical government may be discovered; and though the literary memorials of the third century are comparatively few, they are abundantly sufficient to demonstrate that, as early as the middle of that period, ecclesiastical courts upon a tolerably extensive scale were everywhere established. About that time the controversy relative to the propriety of rebaptizing heretics created much agitation, and the subject was keenly discussed in the synods which met for its consideration. Nowhere is any hint given that these courts were of recent formation. Though meeting in so many places in the East and West, and in countries so far apart, they are invariably represented as the ancient order of ecclesiastical regimen. They all appear, too, as co-ordinate and independent judicatories; and though the Roman bishop, as the chief pastor of the Catholic Church, endeavoured to induce them to adopt uniform decisions, his attempts to dictate to the brethren in Spain, Africa, and other countries, were firmly and indignantly repulsed. There were fundamental principles which they were all understood to acknowledge; these principles were generally embodied in the divine Statute-book; it was admitted that the decisions of every council which adhered to them were entitled to universal reverence; but, though the reservation was scarcely compatible with the genius of catholicity, each provincial convention claimed the right of forming its own judgment of the acts of other courts, and of adopting or rejecting them accordingly.

The most influential synods which were held before the establishment of Christianity by Constantine were those which met in the latter part of the third century to try the case of the famous Paul of Samosata, the bishop of Antioch. The charge preferred against him was the denial of the proper deity of the Son of God, and as he was an individual of much ability and address, as well as, in point of rank, one of the greatest prelates in existence, his case awakened uncommon interest. Christianity had recently obtained the sanction of a legal toleration, [618:1] and therefore churchmen now ventured to travel from different provinces to sit in judgment on this noted heresiarch. In the councils which assembled at Antioch were to be found, not only the pastors of Syria, but also those of various places in Palestine and Asia Minor. Even Dionysius, bishop of the capital of Egypt, was invited to be present, but he pleaded his age and infirmities as an apology for his non-attendance. [618:2] In a council which assembled A.D. 269, [618:3] Paul was deposed and excommunicated; and the sentence, which was announced by letter to the chief pastors of Rome, Alexandria, and other distinguished sees, was received with general approbation.

All the information we possess respecting the councils of the first three centuries is extremely scanty, so that it is no easy matter exactly to ascertain their constitution; but we have no reason to question the correctness of the statement of Firmilian of Cappadocia, who was himself a prominent actor in several of the most famous of these assemblies, and who affirms that they were composed of "elders and presiding pastors." [619:1] We have seen that bishops and elders anciently united even in episcopal ordinations, and these ministers, when assembled on such occasions, constituted ecclesiastical judicatories. A modern writer, of high standing in connexion with the University of Oxford, has affirmed that "bishops alone had a definitive voice in synods," [619:2] but the testimonies which he has himself adduced attest the inaccuracy of the assertion. The presbyter Origen, at an Arabian synod held about A.D. 229, sat with the bishops, and was, in fact, the most important and influential member of the convention. About A.D. 230, Demetrius of Alexandria "gathered a council of bishops and of certain presbyters, which decreed that Origen should remove from Alexandria." [619:3] About the middle of the third century, "during the vacancy of the see of Rome, the presbyters of the city took part in the first Roman council on the lapsed." [619:4] At the council of Eliberis, held about A.D. 305, no less than twenty-six presbyters sat along with the bishops. [619:5] In some cases deacons, [619:6] and even laymen, were permitted to address synods, [619:7] but ancient documents attest that they were never regarded as constituent members. Whilst the bishops and elders sat together, and thus proclaimed their equality as ecclesiastical judges, [619:8] the people and even the deacons were obliged to stand at these meetings. The circular letter of the council of Antioch announcing the deposition of Paul of Samosata is written in the name of "bishops, and presbyters, and deacons, and the Churches of God," [620:1] but there is reason to believe that the latter are added merely as a matter of prudence, and in testimony of their cordial approval of the ecclesiastical verdict. The heresiarch had left no art unemployed to acquire popularity, and it was necessary to shew that he had lost the influence upon which he had been calculating. It is obvious that the pastors and elders alone were permitted to adjudicate, for why were they assembled from various quarters to uphold the doctrine and discipline of the Church, if the people who were themselves tainted with heresy or guilty of irregularity, had the liberty of voting? Under such circumstances, the decision would have been substantially, not the decree of the Church rulers, but of the multitude of the particular city in which they happened to congregate.

The theory of some modern ecclesiastical historians, who hold that all the early Christian congregations were originally independent, cannot bear the ordeal of careful investigation. Whilst it directly conflicts with the testimony of Jerome, who declares that the churches were at first "governed by the common council of the presbyters," it is otherwise destitute of evidence. As soon as the light of ecclesiastical memorials begins to guide our path, we find everywhere presbyteries and synods in existence. Congregationalism has no solid foundation either in Scripture or antiquity. The eldership, the most ancient court of the Church, commenced with the first preaching of the gospel; and in the account of the meeting of the Twelve to induct the deacons into office, we have the record of the first ordination performed by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery of Jerusalem. A few years afterwards the representatives of several Christian communities assembled in the holy city and "ordained decrees" for the guidance of the Jewish and Gentile Churches. The continuous development of the same form of ecclesiastical regimen has now been illustrated. This polity was obviously based upon the principle that "in the multitude of counsellors there is safety." [621:1] At the meetings of the elders, information was multiplied, the intellect was sharpened, the brethren were made better acquainted with each other, and the Christian cause enjoyed the benefit of the decisions of their collective wisdom. The members had been previously elected to office by the voice of the people, so that the Church had pre-eminently a free constitution. And it is no mean proof as well of the intrepidity as of the zeal of the early Christian ministers that, at a time when their religion was proscribed, they sometimes undertook lengthened journeys for the purpose of meeting in ecclesiastical judicatories. They thus nobly asserted the principle that Christ has established in His Church a government with which the civil magistrate has no right whatever to intermeddle. It has been said that the early Christian councils "changed nearly the whole form of the Church," and that by them "the influence and authority of the bishops were not a little augmented." [621:2] But this is obviously quite a mistaken view of their native tendency. The face of the Church was, indeed, changed at an early period, but it was simply because these councils yielded with too much facility to the spirit of innovation. Had they been always conducted in accordance with primitive arrangements, they could have crushed in the bud the aspirations of clerical ambition. But when the city ministers were rapidly accumulating wealth, their brethren in rural districts remained poor; and when councils began to meet on a scale of increased magnitude, the village and country pastors, who could not afford the expenses of lengthened journeys, were unable to attend. Meanwhile Prelacy established itself in the great towns, and the influence of the city bishops began gradually to preponderate in all ecclesiastical assemblies. When the prelates had once secured their ascendency in these conventions, they made use of the machinery for their own purposes. The people were deprived of many of their rights and privileges; the elders were stripped of their proper status; the village and rural bishops were extinguished; and at length the ancient presbytery itself disappeared. The city dignitaries became the sole depositories of ecclesiastical power, and the Church lost nearly every vestige of its freedom. But, long after the beginning of the fourth century, many remnants of the primitive polity still survived as memorials of its departed excellence.



CHAPTER XII.

THE CEREMONIES AND DISCIPLINE OP THE CHURCH AS ILLUSTRATED BY CURRENT CONTROVERSIES AND DIVISIONS.

Whilst the Christian community was contending against the Gnostics, it was not without other controversies which were fitted to prejudice its claims in the sight of the heathen. The destruction of the temple of Jerusalem by Titus had prevented the sticklers for the Mosaic law from practising many of their ancient ceremonies: but there were parts of their ritual, such as circumcision, to which they still adhered, as these could be observed when the altar and the sanctuary no longer existed. In the reign of Hadrian a division of sentiment relative to the continued obligation of the Levitical code led to a great change in the mother Church of Christendom. About A.D. 132, an adventurer, named Barchochebas, pretending to be the Messiah and aiming at temporal dominion, appeared in Palestine; the Jews, in great numbers, flocked to his standard; and the rebel chief contrived for three years to maintain a bloody war against the strength of the Roman legions. The Israelitish race, by their conduct at this juncture, grievously provoked the emperor; and when he had rebuilt Jerusalem, under the name of Aelia Capitolina, he threatened them with the severest penalties should they appear either in the city or the suburbs. Some of the Jewish Christians of the place, anxious, no doubt, to escape the proscription, now resolved to give up altogether the observance of circumcision. Others, however, objected to this course, and persisted in maintaining the permanent obligation of the Mosaic ritual. The dissentients, called Nazarenes, formed themselves into a separate community, which obtained adherents elsewhere, and which subsisted for several centuries. At first they differed from other Christians chiefly in their adherence to the initiatory ordinance of Judaism, but eventually they adopted erroneous principles in regard to the person of our Lord, and were in consequence ranked amongst heretics. [624:1]

In the history of the Church, the Nazarenes occupy a somewhat singular and unique position. Their name was one of the earliest designations by which the followers of our Saviour were known, [624:2] and though by many they have been called the First Dissenters, they might have very fairly pleaded that they were the lineal descendants of the most ancient stock of Christians in the world. The rite for which they contended had been practised in the Church of Jerusalem since its very establishment; the ministers by whom they had been taught had probably been instructed by the apostles themselves; and all the elders at the time connected with the holy city seem to have joined the secession. It is alleged that a number of Christians of Gentile origin, uniting with those of their brethren of Jewish descent who now agreed to relinquish the Hebrew ceremonies, chose an individual, named Marcus, for their chief pastor, and that at this period the succession in the line of the circumcision "failed." [624:3] This statement cannot signify that some dire calamity had at once swept away all the old presbytery of Jerusalem. It obviously indicates that none of its members had joined the party whose principles had obtained the ascendency. And yet, though the adherents of Marcus might have been charged with innovation, they acted under the sanction of apostolical authority. They very properly refused to continue any longer in bondage to the beggarly elements of a ritual which had long since been superseded. Though the seceders might have urged that they were of apostolical descent, and that they were supported by ancient custom, it must be admitted, after all, that they were but a company of deluded and narrow-minded bigots. The evangelical pastors of the primitive Church repudiated their zeal for ritualism, and gave the right hand of fellowship to Marcus and his newly-organized community. The history of the mother Church of Christendom in the early part of the second century is thus fraught with lessons of the gravest wisdom. We may see from it that the true successors of the apostles were not those who occupied their seats, or who were able to trace from them a ministerial lineage, but those who inherited their spirit, who taught their doctrines, and who imitated their example.

Though, in this instance, the disciples at Jerusalem nobly emancipated themselves from the yoke of circumcision, it appears, from a controversy which created much confusion about sixty years afterwards, that the whole Church was disposed, to some extent, to conform to another Judaic ordinance. The embers of this dispute had been for some time smouldering, before they attracted much notice; but, about the termination of the second century, they broke out into a flame which spread from Rome to Jerusalem. The name of Easter [625:1] was yet unknown, and the Paschal feast appears, at least in some places, to have been then only recently established; but at an early period there was a sprinkling of Jewish Christians in almost every Church throughout the Empire, and they had at length induced their fellow-disciples to mark the seasons of the Passover and Pentecost [626:1] by certain special observances. The Passover was regarded as the more solemn feast, and, strange as it may now appear, was kept at the time by the Christians in much the same way in which it had been celebrated by the Jews before the fall of Jerusalem. A lamb was shut up on a certain day; it was afterwards roasted; and then eaten by the brotherhood. [626:2] The time when this ceremony was to be observed, and some other circumstantials, now formed topics of earnest and protracted discussion. One party, known as the Quarto-decimans, or Fourteenth Day Men, held that the Paschal feast was to be kept exactly at the time when the Jews had been accustomed to eat the Passover, that is, on the fourteenth day of the first month of the Jewish year; [626:3] and they celebrated the festival of the resurrection on the seventeenth day of the month, that is, on the third day after partaking of the Paschal lamb, whether that happened to be the first day of the week or otherwise. The other party strenuously maintained that the eating of the Paschal lamb ought to be postponed until the night preceding the first Lord's day next following the fourteenth day of the first month. They considered that this next Lord's day should be recognized as the festival of our Saviour's resurrection, and that the whole of the preceding week until the close should be kept as a fast not to be interrupted by the eating of the Passover.

The most determined Quarto-decimans were to be found in Asia Minor, and at their head was Polycrates, the chief pastor of Ephesus. At the head of the other party was Victor, bishop of Rome. The Church over which he presided did not originally observe any such appointment, [627:1] but some of its members of Jewish extraction were probably, on that account, dissatisfied; and about the time of the establishment of the Catholic system, the matter seems to have been settled by a compromise. It appears to have been then arranged that the festival should be kept; but to avoid the imputation of symbolizing with the Jews, it was agreed that the Friday of the Paschal week and the Lord's day following, or the day on which our Saviour suffered and the day on which He rose from the dead, should be the great days of observance. This arrangement was pretty generally accepted by those connected with what now began to be called the Catholic Church: but some parties pertinaciously refused to conform. Victor, as the head of the Catholic confederation, no doubt deemed it his duty to exact obedience from all its members; and, deeply mortified because the Asiatic Churches persisted in their own usages, shut them out from his communion. But it was soon evident that the Church was not prepared for such an exercise of authority, for the Asiatics refused to yield; and as some of Victor's best friends protested against the imprudence of his procedure, the ecclesiastical thunderbolt proved an impotent demonstration.

The Paschal controversy was far from creditable to any of the parties concerned. The eating of a lamb on a particular day was a fragment of an antiquated ceremonial, and as the ordinance itself had been superseded, the time of its observance was not a legitimate question for debate. Each party is said to have endeavoured to fortify its own position by quoting the names of Paul or Peter or Philip or John; but had any one of these apostles risen from the dead and appeared in the ecclesiastical arena, he would, no doubt, have rebuked all the disputants for their trivial and unholy wrangling. We have here a notable proof of the absurdity of appealing to tradition. Within a hundred years after the death of the last survivor of the Twelve its testimony was most discordant, for the tradition of the Western Churches, as propounded by Victor, expressly contradicted the tradition of the Eastern Churches, as attested by Polycrates. It is clear that in this case the apostles must have been misrepresented. Peter and Paul certainly never taught the members of the Church of Rome to eat the Paschal lamb, for the Jewish temple continued standing until after both these eminent ministers had finished their career, and meanwhile the eating of the Passover was confined to those who went up to worship at Jerusalem. Philip and John may have continued to keep the feast according to the ancient ritual until shortly before the ruin of the holy city; and if, afterwards, they permitted the converts from Judaism to kill a lamb and to have a social repast at the same season of the year, they could have attached no religious importance to such an observance. But now that both parties were heated by the spirit of rivalry and contention, they extracted from tradition a testimony which it did not supply. Vague reports and equivocal statements, handed down from ages preceding, were compelled to convey a meaning very different from that which they primarily communicated; and thus the voice of one tradition could be readily employed to neutralize the authority of another.

It is a curious fact that the custom which now created such violent excitement gradually passed into desuetude. At present there are few places [629:1] where the eating of the Paschal lamb is continued. But otherwise the practice for which Victor contended eventually prevailed, as the Roman mode of celebration was established by the authority of the Council of Nice. What is called Easter Sunday is still observed in many Churches as the festival of the resurrection. But the institution of such a festival is unnecessary, as each returning Lord's day should remind the Christian that his Saviour has risen from the dead and become the first-fruits of them that sleep. [629:2]

This Paschal controversy generated no schism, but other disputes, which subsequently occurred, did not terminate so peacefully. About the middle of the third century disagreements respecting matters of discipline rent the Churches of Carthage and Rome. At Carthage, the malecontents sought for greater laxity; at Rome, they contended for greater strictness. At that time the confessors and the martyrs, or those who had persevered in their adherence to the faith under pains and penalties, and those who had suffered for it unto death, were held in the highest veneration. They had been even permitted in some places to dictate to the existing ecclesiastical rulers by granting what were called tickets of peace [629:3] to the lapsed, that is, to those who had apostatized in a season of persecution, and who had afterwards sought readmission to Church communion. These certificates, or tickets of peace, were understood to entitle the parties in whose favour they were drawn up to be admitted forthwith to the Lord's Supper. But it sometimes happened that a confessor or a martyr was himself far from a paragon of excellence, [630:1] as mere obstinacy, or pride, or self-righteousness, may occasionally hold out as firmly as a higher principle; and a man may give his body to be burned who does not possess one atom of the grace of Christian charity. There were confessors and martyrs in the third century who held very loose views on the subject of Church discipline, and who gave tickets of peace without much inquiry or consideration. [630:2] In some instances they did not condescend so far as to name the parties to whom they supplied recommendations, but directed that a particular individual "and his friends" [630:3] should be restored to ecclesiastical fellowship. Cyprian of Carthage at length determined to set his face against this system of testimonials. He alleged that the ticket of a martyr was no sufficient proof of the penitence of the party who tendered it, and that each application for readmission to membership should be decided on its own merits, by the proper Church authorities. The bishop was already obnoxious to some of the presbyters and people of Carthage; and, in the hope of undermining his authority, his enemies eagerly seized on his refusal to recognize these certificates. They endeavoured to create a prejudice against him by alleging that he was acting dictatorially, and that he was not rendering due honour to those who had so nobly imperilled or sacrificed their lives in the service of the gospel. To a certain extent their opposition was successful; and, as much sickness prevailed about the time, Cyprian was obliged to concede so far as to consent to give the Eucharist, on the tickets of peace, to those who had lapsed, and who were apparently approaching dissolution. But, soon afterwards, strengthened by the decision of an African Synod, he returned to his original position, and the parties now became hopelessly alienated. The leader of the secession was a deacon of the Carthaginian Church, named Felicissimus, and from him the schism which now occurred has received its designation. The Separatists chose a presbyter, named Fortunatus, as their bishop, and thus in the capital of the Proconsular Africa a new sect was organized. But the secession, which was based upon a principle thoroughly unsound, soon dwindled into insignificance, and rapidly passed into oblivion.

The schism which occurred about the same time at Rome was of a more formidable and permanent character. It had long been the opinion of a certain party in the Church that persons who had committed certain heinous sins should never again be readmitted to ecclesiastical fellowship. [631:1] Those who held this principle did not pretend to say that these transgressions were unpardonable; it was admitted that the offenders might obtain forgiveness from God, but it was alleged that the Church on earth could never feel warranted to receive them to communion. Cornelius, who was then the bishop of Rome, supported a milder system and contended that those who were not hopelessly excluded from the peace of God should not be inexorably debarred from the visible pledges of His affection. The leader of the stricter party was Novatian, a Roman presbyter of pure morals and considerable ability, who has left behind him one of the best treatises in defence of the Trinity which the ecclesiastical literature of antiquity can supply. This individual was ordained bishop in opposition to Cornelius; and, for a time, some of the most distinguished pastors of the age found it difficult to decide between these two claimants of the great bishopric. The high character of Novatian, and the supposed tendency of his discipline to preserve the credit and promote the purity of the Church, secured him considerable support: the sect which derived its designation from him spread into various countries; and, for several generations, the Novatians could challenge comparison, as to soundness in the faith and propriety of general conduct, with those who assumed the name of Catholics.

The agitation caused by the Novatian schism had not yet subsided when another controversy respecting the propriety of rebaptizing those designated heretics created immense excitement. Cyprian at the head of one party maintained that the baptism of heretical ministers was not to be recognized, and that the ordinance must again be dispensed to such sectaries as sought admission to catholic communion; whilst Stephen of Rome as strenuously affirmed that the rite was not to be repeated. It is rather singular that the Italian prelate, on this occasion, pleaded for the more liberal principle; but various considerations conspired to prompt him to pursue this course. When heresies were only germinating, and when what was afterwards called the Catholic Church was yet but in process of formation, no question as to the necessity of rebaptizing those to whom the ordinance had already been dispensed by any reputed Christian minister, seems to have been mooted. In the time of Hyginus of Rome, even the baptism of the leading ministers of the Gnostics was acknowledged by the chief pastor of the Western metropolis. [633:1] The Church of Rome had ever since continued to act upon the same system; and her determination to adhere to it had been fortified, rather than weakened, by recent occurrences. As the Novatians had set out on the principle of rebaptizing all who joined them, [633:2] Stephen recoiled from the idea of deviating from the ancient practice to follow in their footsteps. But Cyprian, who was naturally of a very imperious temper, and who had formed most extravagant notions of the dignity of the Catholic Church, could not brook the thought that the ministers connected with the schism of Felicissimus could dispense any baptism at all. He imagined that the honour of the party to which he belonged would be irretrievably compromised by such an admission, and he was sustained in these views by a strong party of African and Asiatic bishops. On this occasion Stephen repeated the experiment made about sixty years before by his predecessor Victor, and attempted to reduce his antagonists to acquiescence by excluding them from his fellowship. But this second effort to enforce ecclesiastical conformity was equally unsuccessful. It only provoked an outburst of indignation, as the parties in favour of rebaptizing refused to give way. This controversy led, however, to the broad assertion of a principle which might not otherwise have been brought out so distinctly, for it was frequently urged during the course of the discussion that all pastors stand upon a basis of equality, and that the bishop of a little African village had intrinsically as good a right to think and to act for himself as the bishop of the great capital of the Empire.

It is very clear that at this time the unity of the Church did not consist in the uniformity of its discipline and ceremonies. The believers at Jerusalem continued to practise circumcision nearly a century after the establishment of Gentile Churches in which such a rite was unknown. On the question of rebaptizing heretics the Churches of Africa and Asia Minor were diametrically opposed to the Church of Rome and other communities in the West. As to the mode of observing the Paschal feast a still greater diversity existed. According to the testimony of Irenaeus there was nothing approaching to uniformity in the practice of the various societies with which he was acquainted. "The dispute," said he, "is not only respecting the day, but also respecting the manner of fasting. For some think that they ought to fast only one day, some two, some more days; some compute their day as consisting of forty hours night and day; [634:1] and this diversity existing among those that observe it, is not a matter that has just sprung up in our times, but long ago among those before us." [634:2] When Cyprian refused to admit the lapsed to the Lord's Supper on the strength of the tickets of peace furnished by the confessors and the martyrs, he departed from the course previously adopted in Carthage; and when Novatian excluded them altogether from communion, he acted on a principle which was not then novel. There was at that time, in fact, quite as much diversity in discipline and ceremonies among Christians as is now to be found in evangelical Protestant Churches.

It must be admitted that, as we descend from the apostolic age, the spirit of the dominant body in the Church betrays a growing want of Christian charity. There soon appeared a disposition, on the part of some, to monopolize religion, and to disown all who did not adopt their ecclesiastical Shibboleth. When the great mass of Christians became organized into what was called the Catholic Church, the chief pastors branded with the odious name of heretics all who did not belong to their association. The Nazarenes originally held all the great doctrines of the gospel, but they soon found themselves in the list of the proscribed, and they gradually degenerated into abettors of very corrupt principles. Those members of the Church of Carthage who joined Felicissimus acted upon principles which the predecessors even of Cyprian had sanctioned, and yet the African prelate denounced them as beyond the pale of divine mercy. Novatian was not less orthodox than Cornelius; but because he contended for a system of discipline which, though not unprecedented, was deemed by his rival too austere, and because he organized a party to support him, he also was stigmatized with the designation of heretic. The Quarto-decimans, as well as those who contended for Catholic rebaptism, would doubtless have been classed in the same list, had they not formed numerous and powerful confederations. Thus it was that those called Catholics were taught to cherish a contracted spirit, and to look upon all, except their own party, as out of the reach of salvation. Their false conceptions of what properly constituted the Church involved them in many errors and tended to vitiate their entire theology. But this subject is too important to be discussed in a few cursory remarks, and must be reserved for consideration in a separate chapter.



CHAPTER XIII.

THE THEORY OF THE CHURCH, AND THE HISTORY OF ITS PERVERSION.

CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS.

"I am the good Shepherd," said Jesus: "the good Shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.... My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish." [636:1] The sheep here spoken of are the true children of God. They constitute that blessed community of which it is written—"Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish." [636:2]

The society thus described is, in the highest sense, "the holy Catholic Church." Its members are to be found wherever genuine piety exists, and they are all united to Christ by the bond of the Holy Spirit. Their Divine Overseer has promised to be with them "alway unto the end of the world," [636:3] to keep them "through faith unto salvation," [636:4] and to sustain them even against the violence of "the gates of hell." [636:5] Though they are scattered throughout different countries, and separated by various barriers of ecclesiastical division, they have the elements of concord. Could they be brought together, and divested of their prejudices, and made fully acquainted with each other's sentiments, they would speedily incorporate; for they possess "the unity of the Spirit," [637:1] "the unity of the faith," [637:2] and "the unity of the knowledge of the Son of God." [637:3] But these heirs of promise cannot be distinguished by the eye of sense; their true character can be known infallibly only to the Great Searcher of hearts; and for this, among other reasons, the spiritual commonwealth to which they belong is usually designated "the Church invisible." [637:4]

The visible Church is composed, to a considerable extent, of very different materials. It embraces the whole mixed multitude of nominal Christians, including not a few who exhibit no evidence whatever of vital godliness. Our Lord describes it in one of His parables when He says—"The kingdom of heaven is like unto a net which was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind; which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away. So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." [637:5]

In the first century the profession of Christianity was perilous as well as unpopular, so that the number of spurious disciples was comparatively small; and so long as the brethren enjoyed the ministrations of inspired teachers, all attempts to alienate them from each other, or to create schisms, had little success. But still, even whilst the apostles were on earth, some of the Churches planted and watered by themselves were involved in error and agitated by the spirit of division. "It hath been declared unto me of you," says Paul to the Corinthians, "that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ." [638:1] The same writer had occasion to mourn over the apostasy of the Churches of Galatia. "I marvel," said he, "that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel.... O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you that ye should not obey the truth?" [638:2] The Church of Sardis in the lifetime of the Apostle John had sunk into an equally deplorable condition, and hence he was commissioned to declare to it—"I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead." [638:3]

The circumstances which led to the organization of the Catholic system have already been detailed, and it has been shewn that the great design of the arrangement was to secure the visible unity of the ecclesiastical commonwealth. The Catholic confederation was supposed to comprehend all the faithful; and it was, no doubt, expected that, not long after its establishment, it would have rung the death knell of schism and sectarianism. According to its fundamental principle, whoever was not in communion with the bishop was out of the Church. To be out of the Church was soon considered as tantamount to be without God and without hope, so that this test condemned all who in any way dissented from the dominant creed as beyond the pale of salvation. Its assumptions, involving a decision of such grave importance and of such dubious authority, were acknowledged with some difficulty; and the question as to the extent and character of the Church seems to have led to considerable discussion; [639:1] but the horror of heresy which so generally prevailed strengthened the pretensions of the hierarchy, and at length every candidate for baptism was required to declare, as one of the articles of his faith—"I believe in the holy Catholic Church." [639:2]

According to one interpretation the sentiment embodied in this profession was perfectly unobjectionable. If by the holy Catholic Church we understand the Church invisible composed of all the true children of God, it must be conceded that every devout student of the Scriptures is bound to express his belief in its existence and its excellence. This Church is precious in the eyes of the Lord; it is the habitation of His Spirit; it is the heir of His great and glorious promises. But the holy Catholic Church, in the current ecclesiastical phraseology of the third century, had a very different signification. It denoted the great mass of disciples associated under the care of the Catholic bishops, as distinguished from all the minor sects throughout the Empire which made a profession of Christianity. A sincere and intelligent believer might well have scrupled to give such a title to the mixed society thus claiming its application.

It is quite true that there is no salvation out of the Church, if by the Church is meant that elect company which Christ died to redeem and sanctify; but the Word of God does not warrant us to assert that the eternal well-being of man depends on his connexion with any earthly society. Even in the days of the apostles, some who were subjected to a sentence of excommunication were the excellent of the earth. "I wrote unto the Church," says John, "but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the pre-eminence among them, receiveth us not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words, and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the Church." [640:1] This Diotrephes seems to have been some wayward and domineering presbyter who took the lead among his fellow-elders, and who induced them by the influence of commanding talent, combined, it may be, with superior worldly station, to support him in his wilfulness. [640:2] But it would be very foolish to suppose that the brethren who were thus cast out of the Church were thereby eternally undone, for such certainly was not the judgment of the beloved disciple. Faith in Christ, and not a relation to any visible society, secures a title to heaven. Thousands, as well as the thief on the cross, have been admitted into paradise who have never been baptized, [640:3] and we might point out numberless cases in which individuals, in the wonderful providence of God, have been led to a saving knowledge of the truth who have never had an opportunity of joining a congregation of Christian worshippers. But those who now assumed the name of Catholics were continually dwelling upon the importance of a connexion with their own association; and, assuming that they were the Church, they appropriated to themselves whatever they could find in Scripture in commendation of its excellence. The promises addressed to the Church in the book of inspiration refer, however, not to any local and visible community, but to the "Church of the first-born which are written in heaven;" [641:1] and the Catholics, by misapplying them, were led to form very extravagant notions of the advantages of the position which they occupied. The ascription of the attributes of the Church invisible to their own association was, in fact, the fundamental misconception on which a vast fabric of error was erected. By reason of the indwelling of the Spirit in all believers the Church invisible is catholic, or universal, that is, it is to be found wherever vital Christianity exists; for the same reason it is holy, every member of it being a living temple of Jehovah; it is also one, as one Spirit animates all the saints and unites them to God and to each other; and it is perpetual, or indestructible, for the Most High has promised never to leave Himself without witnesses among men, and all His redeemed ones shall remain as trophies of His grace throughout all eternity. But these attributes were represented as belonging to the Church visible, and this radical mistake became the parent of monstrous delusions. The ecclesiastical writers who flourished towards the end of the second and beginning of the third century exhibit a considerable amount of inconsistency and vacillation when they touch upon the subject; [641:2] but, half a century afterwards, the language currently employed is much bolder and more decided. At that time Cyprian does not hesitate to express himself in the strongest terms of high-church exclusiveness. "All," says he, "are adversaries of the Lord and antichrist who are found to have departed from the charity and unity of the Catholic Church." [641:3] "You ought to know that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if any be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church." [641:4] "The house of God is one, and there cannot be salvation for any except in the Church." [641:5] "He can no longer have God for a Father, who has not the Church for a mother." [642:1]

Though the Catholics were a compact body, forming the bulk of the Christian population, their system failed to absorb all the professors of the gospel, or perhaps even greatly to check the tendency towards ecclesiastical separation. In their controversies with seceders and schismatics, their own principles were more distinctly defined; and, as they soon found that they were quite an overmatch for any individual sect, their tone gradually became more decided and dictatorial. But the theological position from which they started was a sophism; and, like the movements of a traveller who has mistaken his way, every step of their progress was an advance in a wrong direction. Some of the more prominent errors to which their theory led may here be enumerated.

I. The theory of the Catholic Church recognized an odious ecclesiastical monopoly. Pastors and teachers are "for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ;" [642:2] and yet a sinner may be saved without their instrumentality. The truth when spoken by a layman, or when read in a private chamber, may prove quite as efficacious as when proclaimed from the pulpit of a cathedral. That kingdom of God which "cometh not with observation" is built up by "the Word of His grace;" [642:3] and so long as the Word exists, and so long as the Spirit applies it to enlighten and sanctify and comfort God's children, the Church is imperishable. The evangelical labours of the pious master of a merchant vessel have often been blessed abundantly; and among the tens of thousands afloat upon the broad waters, who seldom enjoy any ecclesiastical ministrations, may be found some of the highest types of Christian excellence. Though regularly ordained pastors are necessary to the growth and well-being of the Church, such facts shew that they are not essential to its existence. But, according to the Catholic system, they are the veins and arteries through which its very life-blood circulates. All grace belongs to the visible society called the Catholic Church, and of this grace the Catholic ministers have the exclusive distribution. Without their intervention, as the dispensers of divine ordinances, no one can hope to inherit heaven. No other ministers whatever can be instrumental in conferring any saving benefit. Was it extraordinary that individuals who were supposed to be entrusted with such tremendous influence soon began to be regarded with awful reverence? If the services which they rendered were necessary to salvation, and if these services could be performed by none else, they were possessed of absolute authority, and it was to be expected that they would forthwith begin to act as "lords over God's heritage."

Under the Mosaic economy none save the descendants of a single individual were permitted to present the sacrifices or to enter the holy place. In the celebration of the most solemn rites of their religion the Jewish people were kept at a mysterious distance from the presence of the Divine Majesty, and were taught to regard the officiating ministers as mediators between God and themselves. This arrangement was symbolical, as all the priests were types of the Great Intercessor. But every believer may now enjoy the nearest access to his Maker, for the Saviour has made all His people "kings and priests unto God." [643:1] The ministers of the gospel do not constitute a privileged fraternity entitled by birth to exercise certain functions and to claim certain immunities. They should be appointed by the people as well as for them, and no service which they perform implies that they have nearer access to the Divine Presence than the rest of the worshippers. In the New Testament they are never designated priests, [644:1] neither is their intervention between God and the sinner described as indispensable. But Catholicism invested them with a factitious consequence, representing them as inheriting peculiar rights and privileges by ecclesiastical descent from the apostles. According to Cyprian, "Christ says to the apostles, and thereby to all prelates who by vicarious ordination are successors of the apostles. 'He that heareth you, heareth me.'" [644:2] About the commencement of the third century the pastors of the Church began to be called priests, [644:3] and this change in the ecclesiastical nomenclature betokens the influence of Catholic principles on the current theology. The Jewish sacrificial system had now ceased, and the Hebrew Christians were perhaps disposed to transfer to their new ministers the titles of the sons of Levi; but, had not the alteration been in accordance with the spirit of the times, it could not have been accomplished. It was, however, justified by Catholicism, as that system set forth the clergy in the light of mediators between God and the people. This misconception of the nature of the Christian ministry generated a multitude of errors. If ministers are priests they must offer sacrifice, and must be entrusted with the work of atonement. It is true, indeed, that the monstrous dogma of transubstantiation was not yet broached, but it cannot be denied that forms of expression which were exceedingly liable to misinterpretation, now began to be adopted. Thus, the Eucharist was styled "a sacrifice," [645:1] and the communion-table "the altar." [645:2] At first such phraseology was not intended to be literally understood, [645:3] but its tendency, notwithstanding, was most pernicious, as it fostered false views of a holy ordinance, and laid the foundation of the most senseless superstition ever imposed on human credulity.

Every genuine pastor has a divine call to the sacred office, and no act of man can supply the place of this spiritual vocation. God alone can provide a true minister, [645:4] for He alone can bestow the gifts and the graces which are required. Ordination is simply the form in which the existing Church rulers endorse the credentials of the candidate, and sanction his appearance in the character of an ecclesiastical functionary. But these rulers may themselves be incompetent or profane, so that their approval may be worthless; or, by mistake, they may permit wolves in sheep's clothing to take charge of the flock of Christ. The simple fact, therefore, that an individual holds a certain position in any section of the visible Church, is no decisive evidence that he is a true shepherd. Such, however, was not the doctrine of Catholicism. Whoever was accredited by the existing ecclesiastical authorities was, according to this system, the chosen of the Lord. When certain parties who had joined Novatian were induced to retrace their steps, they made the following penitential declaration in presence of a large congregation assembled in the Western metropolis—"We acknowledge Cornelius bishop of the most holy Catholic Church chosen by God Almighty and Christ our Lord." [646:1] Cyprian asserted that, as he was bishop of Carthage, he must necessarily have a divine commission. Nothing, indeed, can exceed the arrogance with which this imperious prelate expressed himself when speaking of his ecclesiastical authority. To challenge his conduct was, in his estimation, tantamount to blasphemy; and, to dispute his prerogatives, a contempt of the Divine Majesty. Once, in a time of persecution, he retired from Carthage, and he was, in consequence, upbraided by some as a coward; but when a fellow-bishop, Papianus, ventured to ask an explanation of a course of proceeding which apparently betokened indecision, Cyprian treated the inquiry as an insult, and poured out upon his correspondent a whole torrent of invectives and reproaches. He is God's bishop, and no one is to attempt, by the breath of suspicion, to stain the lustre of his episcopal dignity. "I perceive by your letter," says he, "that you believe the same things of me, and persist in what you believed.... This is not to believe in God, this is to be a rebel against Christ and against His gospel.... Do you suppose that the priests of God are without His cognizance ordained in the Church? For if you believe that those who are ordained are unworthy and incestuous, what else is it but to believe that, not by God, or through God, are His bishops appointed in the Church." [646:2] After indulging at great length in the language of denunciation, he adds, in a strain of irony—"Vouchsafe at length and deign to pronounce on us, and to confirm our episcopate by the authority of your hearing, that God and Christ may give you thanks, that through you a president and ruler has been restored as well to their altar as to their people." [647:1]

II. The Catholic system encouraged its adherents to cultivate very bigoted and ungenerous sentiments. They were taught to regard themselves as the "peculiar people," and to look on all others, however excellent, as without claim to the title or privileges of Christians. How different the spirit of the inspired heralds of the gospel! When Peter saw that the Holy Ghost was poured out on men uncircumcised, he recognized the divine intimation by acknowledging the believing Gentiles as his brethren in Christ. Conceiving that God himself had thus settled the question of their Church membership, "he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." [647:2] But men who professed to derive their authority from the apostle, now showed how grievously they misunderstood the benign and comprehensive genius of his ecclesiastical polity. The dominant party among the disciples had not long assumed the name of Catholics when they sadly belied the designation, for nothing could be more illiberal or uncatholic than their Church principles. All evidences of piety, no matter how decided, if found among the Nazarenes, or the Novatians, or the friends of Felicissimus, were rejected by them as apocryphal. The brightest manifestations of godliness, if exhibited outside their own denomination, only roused their jealousy or provoked their uncandid and malicious criticisms. The Catholic bishops acted as if they moved within something like a charmed circle, and as if a curse rested upon everything not under their own influence. Their proceedings often displayed alike their folly and inconsistency. Tertullian, for example, was a Montanist, and yet he was the writer from whom Cyprian himself derived a large share of his theological instruction. "Give me the master," the bishop of Carthage is reported to have said, when he called for his favourite author. [648:1] Thus, an individual who, according to Cyprian's own principles, was beyond the pale of hope, was the teacher with whom he was daily holding spiritual fellowship! The bigotry of the party must appear all the more intolerable when we consider that some of those who differed from them taught the cardinal doctrines of the gospel, as zealously and as fully as themselves. The Novatians seceded from their communion merely on the ground of a question of discipline, and yet the Catholics could not believe that any grace could exist among these ancient Puritans. The Novatians in their lives might exhibit much of the beauty of holiness, and they might shed their blood in the cause of Christianity, [648:2] but all this availed them nothing in the estimation of their narrow-minded antagonists. "Let no one think," says Cyprian, "that they can be good men who leave the Church." [648:3] "He can never attain to the kingdom who leaves her with whom the kingdom shall be." [648:4] "He cannot be a martyr who is not in the Church." [648:5] Every man not blinded by prejudice might well have suspected the soundness of a theory which could only be sustained by such brazen recklessness of assertion.

III. Nothing, however, more clearly revealed the anti-evangelical character of the Catholic system than its interference with the claims of the Word of God. The gospel commends itself by the light of its own evidence. The official rank of the preacher cannot add to its truth, neither can the corrupt motives which may prompt him to proclaim it, impair its authority. As a revelation from heaven, it possesses a title to consideration irrespective of any individual, or any Church; and God honours His own communication even though it may be delivered by a very unworthy messenger. [649:1] "Some indeed," says Paul, "preach Christ even of envy and strife, and some also of good-will.... What then? Notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice." [649:2] But Catholicism taught its partizans to cherish very different feelings, for they were instructed to believe that the gospel itself was without efficacy when promulgated by a minister who did not belong to their own party. They could not challenge a single flaw in the creed of Novatian, [649:3] and yet they strongly maintained that his preaching was useless, and that the baptism he dispensed was worthless as the ablution of a heathen. "You should know," says Cyprian, "that we ought not even to be curious as to what Novatian teaches, since he teaches out of the Church. Whosoever he be, and whatsoever he be, he is not a Christian who is not in the Church of Christ." [649:4] "When the Novatians say—'Dost thou believe remission of sins and eternal life by the Holy Church?' they lie in their interrogatory, since they have no Church." [649:5]

Strange infatuation! Who could have anticipated that one hundred and fifty years after the death of the Apostle John, such miserable and revolting bigotry would have been current? The Scriptures teach us that, in the salvation of sinners, ministers are as nothing, and the gospel everything. "Whosoever," says Paul, "shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.... Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." [650:1] Cyprian did not understand such doctrine. He imagined that the Word of God had no power except when issuing from the lips of the ministers of his own communion. The Catholic Church must put its seal upon the gospel to give it currency. Without this stamp it was all in vain to announce it to a world lying in wickedness. The Catholic pastor might be a man without ability; he might be comparatively ignorant; and he might be of more than suspicious integrity; and yet the King of the Church was supposed to look down with complacency on all the official acts of this wretched hireling, whilst no dew of heavenly influence rested on the labours of a pious and accomplished Novatian minister! When men like Cyprian were prepared to acknowledge such folly, it was not strange that a darkness which might be felt soon settled down upon Christendom.

* * * * *

In the preceding pages the history of the ancient Church for the first three centuries has passed under review, and a few general observations may now be not inappropriately appended to this concluding chapter. The details here furnished supply ample evidence that Christianity was greatly corrupted long before the conversion of Constantine. It is true, indeed, that much of the superstition which has since so much disfigured the Church was yet unknown. During the first three centuries we find no recognition of the mediatorship of Mary, or of the dogma of her immaculate conception, [650:2] or of the worship of images, or of the celebration of divine service in an unknown tongue, or of the doctrine of the infallibility of the Roman bishop. But the germs of many dangerous errors were distinctly visible, and when the sun of Imperial favour began to shine upon the Christians, these errors rapidly reached maturity. The Eucharistic bread and wine were viewed with superstitious awe, and language was applied to them which was calculated to bewilder and to confound. A system of penitential discipline alien to the spirit of the New Testament was already in existence; rites and ceremonies unknown in the apostolic age had now made their appearance; and in the great towns a crowd of functionaries, whom Paul and Peter would have refused to own, added to the pomp of public worship. Some imagine that in the times of Tertullian and of Cyprian we may find the purest faith in the purest form, but a more intimate acquaintance with the history of the period is quite sufficient to dispel the delusion. A little consideration may, indeed, convince us that, in the second or third century, we could scarcely expect to see either the most brilliant displays of the light of truth or the most attractive exhibitions of personal holiness. The waters of life gushed forth, clear as crystal, from the Rock of Ages; but, as their course was through the waste wilderness of a degenerate world, they were soon defiled by its pollutions; and it was not until the desert began "to rejoice and blossom as the rose," that the stream flowed smoothly in the channel it had wrought, and partially recovered its native purity. At the present day we would not be warranted in expecting as high a style of Christianity in a convert from idolatry as in one who had been trained up from infancy under the care of enlightened and godly parents. By judicious culture the graces of the Spirit, as well as the fruits of the earth, may be improved; but when a section of the open field of immorality and ignorance is first added to the garden of the Lord, it may not forthwith possess all the fertility and loveliness of the more ancient plantation. [652:1] A large portion of the early disciples had once been heathens; they had to struggle against evil habits and inveterate prejudices; they were surrounded on all sides by corrupting influences; and, as they had not the same means of obtaining an exact and comprehensive knowledge of the gospel as ourselves, we cannot reasonably hope to find among them any very extraordinary measure either of spiritual wisdom or of consistent piety.

When the Church towards the middle of the second century was sorely harassed by divisions, its situation was extremely critical and embarrassing. Christianity had appeared among men bearing the olive branch of peace, and had proposed to supersede the countless superstitions of the heathen by a faith which would bind the human race together in one great and harmonious family. How mortified, then, must have been its friends when Basilides, Marcion, Valentine, Cerdo, Mark, and many others began to propagate their heresies, and when it appeared as if the divisions of the Church were to be as numerous as the religions of paganism! Had the ministers of the gospel girded themselves for the emergency; had they boldly encountered the errorists, and vanquished them with weapons drawn from the armoury of the Word; they would have approved themselves worthy of their position, and acquired strength for future conflicts. But whilst they did not altogether neglect an appeal to Scripture, they were tempted in an evil hour to think of sequestrating their own freedom that they might overwhelm heresy with the vigour of an ecclesiastical despotism. By investing their chairman with arbitrary power and by making communion with this functionary the criterion of discipleship, they at once sanctioned a perilous arrangement and endorsed a vicious principle. From this date we may trace the commencement of a career of defection. The bishop and the Church began to supplant Christ and a knowledge of the gospel. Bigotry advanced apace, and conscience found itself in bondage.