THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH IN THE SECOND CENTURY.
Justin Martyr, who had travelled much, and who was probably as well
acquainted with the state of the Church about the middle of the second
century as most of his contemporaries, has left behind him an account of
the manner in which its worship was then conducted. This account, which
has already been submitted to the reader, [499:1] represents one
individual as presiding over each Christian community, whether in the
city or the country. Where the Church consisted of a single
congregation, and where only one of the elders was competent to preach,
it is easy to understand how the society was regulated. In accordance
with apostolic arrangement, the presbyter, who laboured in the Word and
doctrine, was counted worthy of double honour, [499:2] and was
recognized as the stated chairman of the solemn assembly. His brother
elders contributed in various ways to assist him in the supervision of
the flock; but its prosperity greatly depended on his own zeal, piety,
prudence, and ability. Known at first as _the president_, and afterwards
distinguished by the title of _the bishop_, he occupied very much the
same position as the minister of a modern parish.
Where a congregation had more than one preaching elder, the case was
different. There, several individuals were in the habit of addressing
the auditory, [500:1] and it was the duty of the president to preserve
order; to interpose, perhaps, by occasional suggestions; and to close
the exercise. When several congregations with a plurality of preaching
elders existed in the same city, the whole were affiliated; and a
president, acknowledged by them all, superintended their united
movements.
It must be admitted that much obscurity hangs over the general condition
of the Christian commonwealth in the first half of the second century;
but it so happens that two authentic and valuable documents which still
remain, one of which was written about the beginning and the other about
the close of this period, throw much light upon the question of Church
government. These documents are the "Epistle of Clement to the
Corinthians," and the "Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians." As to
the matters respecting which they bear testimony, we could not desire
more competent witnesses than the authors of these two letters. The one
lived in the West; the other, in the East. Clement, who is mentioned by
the Apostle Paul, [500:2] was a presbyter of the Church of Rome;
Polycarp, who, in his youth, had conversed with the Apostle John, was a
presbyter of the Church of Smyrna. Clement died about the close of the
first century, and his letter to the Corinthians was written three or
four years before, that is, immediately after the Domitian persecution;
Polycarp survived until a somewhat advanced period of the second
century, and his letter to the Philippians was probably written fifty or
sixty years after the date of the Epistle of Clement. [500:3]
Towards the termination of the first century a spirit of discord
disturbed the Church of Corinth; and the Church of Rome, anxious to
restore peace, addressed a fraternal letter to the distracted community.
The Epistle was drawn up by Clement, who was then the leading minister
of the Italian capital; but, as it is written in the name of the whole
brotherhood, and as it had, no doubt, obtained their sanction, it
obviously possesses all the authority of a public and official
correspondence. From it the constitution of the Church of Corinth, and,
by implication, of the Church of Rome, may be easily ascertained: and it
furnishes abundant proof that, at the time of its composition, both
these Christian societies were under presbyterial government. Had a
prelate then presided in either Church, a circumstance so important
would not have been entirely overlooked, more especially as the document
is of considerable length, and as it treats expressly upon the subject
of ecclesiastical polity. It appears that some members of the community
to which it is addressed had acted undutifully towards those who were
over them in the Lord, and it accordingly condemns in very emphatic
terms a course of proceeding so disreputable. "It is shameful, beloved,"
says the Church of Rome in this letter, "it is exceedingly shameful and
unworthy of your Christian profession, to hear that the most firm and
_ancient Church_ of the Corinthians should, by one or two persons, be
led into a sedition against _its elders._" [501:1] "Let the flock of
Christ be in peace with THE ELDERS THAT ARE SET OVER IT." [502:1] Having
stated that the apostles ordained those to whom the charge of the
Christian Church was originally committed, it is added, that they gave
directions in what manner, after the decease of these primitive pastors,
"other chosen and approved men should succeed to their ministry."
[502:2] The Epistle thus continues--"Wherefore we cannot think that
those may justly be thrown out of their ministry who were either
ordained by them (the apostles), or _afterwards by other approved men_
with the approbation of the whole Church, and who have, with all
lowliness and innocency, ministered to the flock of Christ in peace and
without self-interest, and have been _for a long time_ commended by all.
For it would be no small sin in us, should we cast off those from the
ministry who holily and without blame fulfil the duties of it. Blessed
are _those elders who, having finished their course before these times_,
have obtained a fruitful and perfect dissolution." [502:3] Towards the
conclusion of the letter, the parties who had created this confusion in
the Church of Corinth have the following admonition addressed to
them--"Do ye, therefore, who laid the foundation of the sedition, submit
yourselves unto your _elders_, and be instructed unto repentance,
bending the knees of your hearts." [502:4]
In the preservation of this precious letter we are bound to recognize
the hand of Providence. [502:5] Its instructions were so highly
appreciated by the ancient Christians that it continued to be publicly
read in many of their churches for centuries afterwards. [502:6] It is
universally acknowledged to be genuine; it breathes the benevolent
spirit of a primitive presbyter; and it is distinguished by its sobriety
and earnestness. It was written upon the verge of the apostolic age, and
it is the production of a pious, sensible, and aged minister who
preached for years in the capital of the Empire. The Church of Rome has
since advanced the most extravagant pretensions, and has appealed in
support of them to ecclesiastical tradition; but here, an elder of her
own--one who had conversed with, the apostles--and one whom she delights
to honour [503:1]--deliberately comes forward and ignores her
assumptions! She fondly believes that Clement was an early Pope, but the
good man himself admits that he was only one of the presbyters. Had
there then been a bishop of Corinth, this letter would unquestionably
have exhorted the malcontents to submit to his jurisdiction; or had
there been a bishop of Rome, it would not have failed to dilate upon the
benefits of episcopal government. But, as to the existence of any such
functionary in either Church, it preserves throughout a most
intelligible silence. It says that the apostles ordained the
first-fruits of their conversions, not as bishops _and presbyters_ and
deacons, but as "_bishops and deacons_ over such as should afterwards
believe;" [503:2] and it is apparent that, when it was written, the
terms bishop and presbyter were still used interchangeably. [503:3]
The Epistle of Polycarp bears equally decisive testimony. It was drawn
up perhaps about the middle of the second century, [503:4] and though
the last survivor of the apostles was now dead for many years, no
general change had meanwhile taken place in the form of church
government. This document purports to be the letter of "Polycarp and the
elders who are with him [504:1] to the Church of God which is at
Philippi;" but it does not recognize a bishop as presiding over the
Christian community to which it is addressed. The Church was still
apparently in much the same state as when Paul wrote to "the saints in
Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the _bishops and deacons;_"
[504:2] for Polycarp was certainly not aware of the existence of any new
office-bearers; and he accordingly exhorts his correspondents to be
"_subject to the presbyters and deacons._" [504:3] "Let _the
presbyters_," says he, "be compassionate, merciful to all, bringing back
such as are in error, seeking out all those that are weak, not
neglecting the widow or the fatherless, or the poor; but providing
always what is good in the sight of God and men; abstaining from all
wrath, respect of persons, and _unrighteous judgment_; being far from
all covetousness; not ready to believe anything against any; _not severe
in judgment_, knowing that we are all debtors in point of sin." [504:4]
It is stated by the most learned of the fathers of the fourth century
that the Church was at first "governed by the common council of the,
presbyters;" [504:5] and these two letters prove most satisfactorily the
accuracy of the representation. They shew that, throughout the whole of
the apostolic age, this species of polity continued. But the Scriptures
ordain that "all things be done decently and in order;" [504:6] and, as
a common council requires an official head, or mayor, to take the chair
at its meetings, and to act on its behalf, so the ancient eldership, or
presbytery, must have had a president or moderator. It would appear that
the duty and honour of presiding commonly devolved on the senior member
of the judicatory. We may thus account for those catalogues of bishops,
reaching back to the days of the apostles, which are furnished by some
of the writers of antiquity. From the first, every presbytery had its
president; and as the transition from the moderator to the bishop was
the work of time, the distinction at one period was little more than
nominal. Hence, writers who lived when the change was taking place, or
when it had only been recently accomplished, speak of these two
functionaries as identical. But in their attempts to enumerate the
bishops of the apostolic era, they encountered a practical difficulty.
The elders who were at first set over the Christian societies were all
ordained, in each church, on the same occasion, [505:1] and were,
perhaps, of nearly the same age, so that neither their date of
appointment, nor their years, could well determine the precedence; and
it is probable that, in general, no single individual continued
permanently to occupy the office of moderator. There may have been
instances in which a stated president was chosen, and yet it is
remarkable that not even one such case can be clearly established by the
evidence of contemporary documents. When all the other apostles departed
from Jerusalem, James appears to have remained in the holy city, so that
we may reasonably presume he always acted, when present, as chairman of
the mother presbytery; and accordingly, the writers of succeeding ages
have described him as the first bishop of the Jewish metropolis; but so
little consequence was originally attached to the office of moderator,
[505:2] that, in as far as the New Testament is concerned, the situation
held by this distinguished man can be inferred only from some very
obscure and doubtful intimations. [505:3] In Rome, and elsewhere, the
primitive elders at first, perhaps, filled the chair alternately. Hence
the so-called episcopal succession is most uncertain and confused at the
very time when it should be sustained by evidence the most decisive and
perspicuous. The lists of bishops, commencing with the ministry of the
apostles, and extending over the latter half of the first century, are
little better than a mass of contradictions. The compilers seem to have
set down, almost at random, the names of some distinguished men whom
they found connected with the different churches, and thus the
discrepancies are nearly as numerous as the catalogues. [506:1]
But when Clement dictated the Epistle to the Corinthians most of the
elders, ordained by the apostles or evangelists about the middle of the
first century, must have finished their career; and there is little
reason to doubt that this eminent minister was then the father of the
Roman presbytery. The superscription of the letter to the Philippians
supplies direct proof that, at the time when it was written, Polycarp
likewise stood at the head of the presbytery of Smyrna. [506:2] Other
circumstances indicate that the senior presbyter now began to be
regarded as the stated president of the eldership. Hilary, one of the
best commentators of the ancient Church, [506:3] bears explicit
testimony to the existence of such an arrangement. "At first," says he,
"presbyters were called bishops, so that when the one (who was called
bishop) passed away, the next in order took his place." [507:1] "Though
every bishop is a presbyter, every presbyter is not a bishop, for he is
bishop who is first among the presbyters." [507:2] As soon as the
regulation, recognizing the claims of seniority was proposed, its
advocates were, no doubt, prepared to recommend it by arguments which
possessed at least considerable plausibility. The Scriptures frequently
inculcate respect for age, and when the apostle says--"Likewise, ye
younger, submit yourselves unto the elder," [507:3] he seems, from the
connexion in which the words occur, to refer specially to the deportment
of junior ministers. [507:4] In the lists of the Twelve to be found in
the New Testament the name of Peter appears _first_; [507:5] and if, as
is believed, he was more advanced in years than any of his brethren,
[507:6] it is easy to understand why this precedence has been given to
him; for, in all likelihood, he usually acted as president of the
apostolic presbytery. Even the construction of corporate bodies in the
Roman Empire might have suggested the arrangement; for it is well known
that, in the senates of the cities out of Italy, the oldest decurion,
under the title _principalis_, acted as president. [508:1] Did we,
therefore, even want the direct evidence already quoted, we might have
inferred, on other grounds, that, at an early date, the senior member
generally presided wherever an eldership was erected.
As a point of such interest relating to the constitution of the ancient
Church should be carefully elucidated, it may be necessary to fortify
the statement of Hilary by some additional evidence. It is not to be
supposed that this candid and judicious commentator ventured, without
due authority, to describe the original order of succession in the
presidential chair; and he had, no doubt, access to sources of
information which have long ceased to be available; but the credit of
the fact for which he vouches does not rest upon the unsustained support
of his solitary attestation. Whilst his averment is recommended by
internal marks of probability, and whilst it is countenanced by several
scriptural intimations, it is also corroborated by a large amount of
varied and independent testimony. We shall now exhibit some of the most
striking portions of the confirmatory proof.
I. The language applied in ancient documents to the primitive presidents
of the Churches illustrates the accuracy of this venerable commentator.
In one of the earliest extant notices of these ecclesiastical
functionaries, a bishop is designated "the old man." [508:2] The age of
the individual who is thus distinguished was not a matter of accident;
for each of his brethren in the same position, all over the Church, was
called "father" [508:3] on the ground of his seniority. The official
title "_Pope_," which has the same meaning, had also the same origin. It
was given at first to every president of the eldership, because he was,
in point of fact, the father, or senior member, of the judicatory. It
soon, no doubt, ceased to convey this meaning, but it still remained as
a memorial of the primitive regimen.
II. It is a remarkable fact that, in none of the great sees before the
close of the second century, do we find any trace of the existence of a
young, or even of a middle-aged bishop. When Ignatius of Antioch was
martyred, he was verging on fourscore; Polycarp of Smyrna finished his
career at the age of eighty-six; Pothinus of Lyons fell a victim to
persecution when he was upwards of ninety; [509:1] Narcissus of
Jerusalem must have been at least that age when he was first placed in
the presidential chair; [509:2] one of his predecessors, named Justus,
appears to have been about one hundred and ten when he reached the same
dignity; [509:3] and Simeon of Jerusalem died when he had nearly
completed the patriarchal age of one hundred and twenty. As an
individual might become a member of the presbytery when comparatively
young, [509:4] such extraordinary longevity among the bishops of the
second century can be best explained by accepting the testimony of
Hilary.
III. The number of bishops now found within a short period in the same
see has long presented a difficulty to many students of ecclesiastical
history. Thus, at Rome in the first forty years of the second century
there were five or six bishops, [509:5] and yet only one of them
suffered martyrdom. Within twelve or fifteen years after the death of
Polycarp, there were several bishops in Smyrna. [510:1] But the Church
of Jerusalem furnishes the most wonderful example of this quick
succession of episcopal dignitaries. Simeon, one of the relatives of our
Lord, is reported to have become the presiding pastor after the
destruction of the city by Titus, and to have been martyred about the
close of the reign of Trajan, or in A.D. 116; and yet, according to the
testimony of Eusebius, [510:2] no less than _thirteen bishops_ in
succession occupied his place before the end of the year A.D. 134. He
must have been set at the head of the Church when he was above
threescore and ten; [510:3] and dying, as already stated, at the extreme
age of one hundred and twenty, he probably left behind him a
considerable staff of very aged elders. These may have become presidents
in the order of their seniority; and as they would pass rapidly away, we
may thus account for the extraordinary number of the early chief pastors
of the ancient capital of Palestine. [510:4]
At this time, or about A.D. 135, the original Christian Church of
Jerusalem was virtually dissolved. The Jews had grievously provoked
Hadrian by their revolt under the impostor Barchochebas; and the
Emperor, in consequence, resolved to exclude the entire race from the
precincts of the holy city. The faithful Hebrews, who had hitherto
worshipped there under the ministry of Simeon and his successors, still
observed the Mosaic law, and were consequently treated as Jews, so that
they were now obliged to break up their association, and remove to other
districts. A Christian Church, composed chiefly of Gentile converts, was
soon afterwards established in the same place; and the new society
elected an individual, named Marcus, as their bishop, or presiding
elder. Marcus was, probably, in the decline of life when he was placed
at the head of the community; and on his demise, [511:1] as well as long
afterwards, the old rule of succession seems to have been observed.
During the sixty years immediately after his appointment, there were
_fifteen_ bishops at Jerusalem [511:2]--a fact which apparently
indicates that, on the occurrence of a vacancy, the senior elder still
continued to be advanced to the episcopal chair. This conclusion is
remarkably corroborated by the circumstance that Narcissus, who was
bishop of the ancient capital of Judea at the end of these sixty years,
was, as has been already mentioned, upwards of fourscore and ten when he
obtained his ecclesiastical promotion.
The episcopal roll of Jerusalem has no recorded parallel in the annals
of the Christian ministry, for there were no less than _twenty-eight_
bishops in the holy city in a period of eighty years. Even the Popes
have never followed each other with such rapidity. The Roman Prelate,
when elevated to St. Peter's chair, has almost invariably been far
advanced in years, and the instances are not a few in which Pontiffs
have fallen victims to poison or to open violence; and yet their
history, even in the worst of times, exhibits nothing equal to the
frequency of the successions indicated by this ancient episcopal
registry. [512:1] It would appear from it that there were more bishops
in Jerusalem in the second century than there have been Archbishops of
Canterbury for the last four hundred years! [512:2] Such facts
demonstrate that those who then stood at the head of the mother Church
of Christendom, must have reached their position by means of some order
of succession very different from that which is now established. Hilary
furnishes at once a simple and an adequate explanation. The senior
minister was the president, or bishop; and as, when placed in the
episcopal chair, he had already reached old age, it was not to be
expected that he could long retain a situation which required some
exertion and involved much anxiety. Hence the startling amount of
episcopal mortality.
As the Church of Jerusalem may be said to have been founded by our Lord
himself, it could lay claim to a higher antiquity than any other
Christian community in existence; and it long continued to be regarded
by the disciples all over the Empire with peculiar interest and
veneration. [512:3] When re-established about the close of the reign of
Hadrian, it was properly a new society; but it still enjoyed the
prestige of ancient associations. Its history has, therefore, been
investigated by Eusebius with special care; he tells us that he derived
a portion of his information from its own archives; [512:4] and, though
he enters into details respecting very few of the early Churches, he
notices it with unusual frequency, and gives an accredited list of the
names of its successive chief pastors. [513:1] About this period it was
obviously considered a model which other Christian societies of less
note might very safely imitate. It is, therefore, all the more important
if we are able to ascertain its constitution, as we are thus prepared to
speak with a measure of confidence respecting the form of ecclesiastical
government which prevailed throughout the second century. The facts
already stated, when coupled with the positive affirmation of the Roman
Hilary, place the solution of the question, as nearly as possible, upon
the basis of demonstration; for, if we reject the conclusion that,
during a hundred years after the death of the Apostle John, the senior
member of the presbytery of Jerusalem was the president or moderator, we
may in vain attempt to explain, upon any Round statistical principles,
how so many bishops passed away in succession within so limited periods,
and how, at several points along the line, and exactly where they might
have been expected, [513:2] we find individuals in occupation of the
chair who had attained to extreme longevity.
IV. The statement of Hilary illustrates the peculiar cogency of the
argumentation employed by the defenders of the faith who flourished
about the close of the second century. This century was pre-eminently
the age of heresies, and the disseminators of error were most
extravagant and unscrupulous in their assertions. The heresiarchs, among
other things, affirmed that the inspired heralds of the gospel had not
committed their whole system to written records; that they had entrusted
certain higher revelations only to select or perfect disciples; and that
the doctrine of Aeons, which they so assiduously promulgated, was
derived from this hidden treasure of ecclesiastical tradition. [514:1]
To such assertions the champions of orthodoxy were prepared to furnish a
triumphant reply, for they could shew that the Gnostic system was
inconsistent with Scripture, and that its credentials, said to be
derived from tradition, were utterly apocryphal. They could appeal, in
proof of its falsehood, to the tradition which had come down to
themselves from the apostles, and which was still preserved in the
Churches "through the successions of the elders." [514:2] They could
farther refer to those who stood at the head of their respective
presbyteries as the witnesses most competent to give evidence. "We are
able," says Irenaeus, "to enumerate those whom the apostles established
as bishops in the Churches, [514:3] together with their successors down
to our own times, who neither taught any such doctrine as these men rave
about, nor had any knowledge of it. For if the apostles had been
acquainted with recondite mysteries which they were in the habit of
teaching to the perfect disciples apart and without the knowledge of the
rest, they would by all means have communicated them to those to whom
they entrusted the care of the Church itself, since they wished that
those whom they left behind them as their successors, and to whom they
gave their own place of authority, should be quite perfect and
irreproachable in all things." [514:4]
Had the succession to the episcopal chair been regulated by the
arrangements of modern times, there would have been little weight in the
reasoning of Irenaeus. The declaration of the bishop respecting the
tradition of the Church over which he happened to preside would have
possessed no special value. But it was otherwise in the days of this
pastor of Lyons. The bishop was generally one of the oldest members of
the community with which he was connected, and had been longer
conversant with its ecclesiastical affairs than any other minister. His
testimony to its traditions was, therefore, of the highest importance.
In a few of the great Churches, as we have elsewhere shewn, [515:1] the
senior elder now no longer succeeded, as a matter of course, to the
episcopate; but age continued to be universally regarded as an
indispensable qualification for the office, [515:2] and, when Irenaeus
wrote, the law of seniority appears to have been still generally
maintained. It was, therefore, with marked propriety that he appealed to
the evidence of the bishops; as they, from their position, were most
competent to expose the falsehood of the fables of Gnosticism.
V. It is well known that, in some of the most ancient councils of which
we have any record, the senior bishop officiated as moderator [515:3]
and, long after age had ceased to determine the succession to the
episcopal chair, the recognition of its claims, under various forms, may
be traced in ecclesiastical history. In Spain, so late as the fourth
century, the senior chief pastor acted as president when the bishops and
presbyters assembled for deliberation [515:4] In Africa the same rule
was observed until the Church of that country was overwhelmed by the
northern barbarians. In Mauritania and Numidia, even in the fifth
century, the senior bishop of the province, whoever he might be, was
acknowledged as metropolitan. [516:1] In the usages of a still later age
we may discover vestiges of the ancient regulation, for the bishops sat,
in the order of their seniority, in the provincial synods. [516:2] Still
farther, where the bishop of the chief city of the province was the
stated metropolitan, the ecclesiastical law still retained remembrancers
of the primitive polity; as, when this dignitary died, the senior bishop
of the district performed his functions until a successor was regularly
appointed. [516:3]
Though the senior presbyter presided in the meetings of his brethren,
and was soon known by the name of bishop, it does not appear that he
originally possessed any superior authority. He held his place for life,
but as he was sinking under the weight of years when he succeeded to it,
he could not venture to anticipate an extended career of official
distinction. In all matters relating either to discipline, or the
general interests of the brotherhood, he was expected to carry out the
decisions of the eldership, so that, under his presidential rule, the
Church was still substantially governed by "the common council of the
presbyters."
The allegation that presbyterial government existed in all its integrity
towards the end of the second century does not rest on the foundation of
obscure intimations or doubtful inferences. It can be established by
direct and conclusive testimony. Evidence has already been adduced to
shew that the senior presbyter of Smyrna continued to preside until the
days of Irenaeus, and there is also documentary proof that meanwhile he
possessed no autocratical authority. The supreme power was still vested
in the council of the elders. This point is attested by Hippolytus, who
was now just entering on his ecclesiastical career, and who, in one of
his works, a fragment of which has been preserved, describes the manner
in which the rulers of the Church dealt with the heretic Noetus. The
transaction probably occurred about A.D. 190. [517:1] "There are certain
others," says Hippolytus, "who introduce clandestinely a strange
doctrine, being disciples of one Noetus, who was by birth a Smyrnean,
and lived not long ago. This man, being puffed up, was led to forget
himself, being elated by the vain fancy of a strange spirit. He said
that Christ is himself the Father, and that the Father himself had been
born, and had suffered and died....When the _blessed presbyters_ heard
these things, they _summoned him and examined him before the Church_.
He, however, denied, saying at first that such were not his sentiments.
But afterwards, when he had intrigued with some, and had found persons
to join him in his error, he took courage, and at length resolved to
stand by his dogma. The _blessed presbyters again summoned him, and
administered a rebuke_. But he withstood them, saying--'Why, what evil
am I doing in glorifying Christ?' To whom _the presbyters replied_--'We
also truly acknowledge one God; we acknowledge Christ; we acknowledge
that the Son suffered as He did suffer, that He died as He did die, and
that He rose again the third day, and that He is at the right hand of
the Father, and that He is coming to judge the quick and the dead; and
we declare those things which we have been taught.' _Then they rebuked
him, and cast him out of the Church._" [517:2]
About the time to which these words refer a change was made in the
ecclesiastical constitution. The senior minister ceased to preside over
the eldership; and the Church was no longer governed, as heretofore, by
the "blessed presbyters." It would appear that the synods which were
held all over the Church for the suppression of the Montanist agitation,
and in connexion with the Paschal controversy, [518:1] adopted a
modified episcopacy. As parties already in the presidential chair were,
no doubt, permitted to hold office during life, this change could not
have been accomplished instantaneously; but various circumstances concur
to prove that it took place about the period now indicated. The
following reasons, among others, may be adduced in support of this view
of the history of the ecclesiastical revolution.
I. The Montanists, towards the termination of the second century,
created much confusion by their extravagant doctrines and their claims
to inspiration. These fanatics were in the habit of disturbing public
worship by uttering their pretended revelations, and as they were often
countenanced by individual elders, the best mode of protecting the
Church from their annoyance soon became a question of grave and pressing
difficulty. Episcopacy, as shall afterwards be shewn, [518:2] had
already been introduced in some great cities, and about this time the
Churches generally agreed to follow the influential example. It was, no
doubt, thought that order could be more effectually preserved were a
single individual armed with independent authority. Thus, the system of
government by presbyters was gradually and silently subverted.
II. It is well known that the close of the second century is a
transition period in the history of the Church. A new ecclesiastical
nomenclature now appeared; [519:1] the bishops acquired increased
authority; and, early in the third century, they were chosen in all the
chief cities by popular suffrage. The alteration mentioned by Hilary
may, therefore, have been the immediate precursor of other and more
vital changes.
III. Though Eusebius passes over in suspicious silence the history of
all ecclesiastical innovations, his account of the bishops of Jerusalem
gives good reason for believing that the law abolishing the claim of
seniority came into operation about the close of the second century. He
classes together the fifteen chief pastors who followed each other in
the holy city immediately after its restoration by Hadrian, [519:2] and
then goes on to give a list of others, their successors, whose
pastorates were of the ordinary duration. He mentions likewise that the
sixteenth bishop was chosen by _election_. [519:3] May we not here
distinctly recognize the close of one system, and the commencement of
another? As the sixteenth bishop was appointed about A.D. 199, the law
had, probably, been then only recently enacted.
IV. Eusebius professes to trace the episcopal succession from the days
of the apostles in Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem; and it has
often been shewn that the accuracy of these four lists is extremely
problematical; but it is remarkable that in other Churches the episcopal
registry cannot be carried up higher than the end of the second century.
The roll of the bishops of Carthage is there discontinued, [519:4] and
the episcopal registry of Spain there also abruptly terminates. But the
history of the Church of Caesarea affords the most extraordinary
specimen of this defalcation. Caesarea was the civil metropolis of
Palestine, and a Christian Church existed in it from the days of Paul
and Peter. [520:1] Its bishop in the early part of the fourth century
was the friend of the Emperor Constantine and the father of
ecclesiastical history. Eusebius enjoyed all needful facilities for
investigating the annals of his own Church; and yet, strange to say, he
commences its episcopal registry about the close of the second century!
[520:2] What explanation can be given of this awkward circumstance? Had
Eusebius taken no notice of any of the bishops of his own see, we could
appreciate his modesty; but why should he overlook those who nourished
before the time of Victor of Rome, and then refer to their successors
with such marked frequency? [520:3] May we not infer, either that he
deemed it inexpedient to proclaim the inconvenient fact that the bishops
of Caesarea were as numerous as the bishops of Jerusalem; or that he
found it impossible to recover the names of a multitude of old men who
had only a nominal precedence among their brethren, and who had passed
off the stage, one after another, in quick succession?
V. A statement of Eutychius, who was patriarch of Alexandria in the
tenth century, and who has left behind him a history of his see from the
days of the apostles, supplies a remarkable confirmation of the fact
that, towards the close of the second century, a new policy was
inaugurated. According to this writer there was, with the exception of
the occupant of the episcopal chair of Alexandria, "no bishop in the
provinces of Egypt" before Demetrius. [520:4] As Demetrius became bishop
of Alexandria about A.D. 190, Christianity must have now made extensive
progress in the country; [520:5] for it had been planted there perhaps
one hundred and fifty years before; but it would seem that meanwhile,
with the one exception, the Churches still remained under presbyterial
government. Demetrius was a prelate of great influence and energy; and,
during his long episcopate of forty-three years, [521:1] he succeeded in
spreading all over the land the system of which he had been at one time
the only representative.
It is not, indeed, to be supposed that the whole Church, prompted by a
sudden and simultaneous impulse, agreed, all at once, to change its
ecclesiastical arrangements. Another polity, as has already been
intimated, at first made its appearance in places of commanding
influence; and its advocates now, no doubt, most assiduously endeavoured
to recommend its claims by appealing to the fruits of experience. The
Church of Rome, as will subsequently appear, took the lead in setting up
a mitigated form of prelacy; the Churches of Antioch and Alexandria
followed; and, soon afterwards, other Christian communities of note
adopted the example. That this subject may be fairly understood, a few
chapters must now be employed in tracing the rise and progress of the
hierarchy.