THE RISE OF THE HIERARCHY CONNECTED WITH THE SPREAD OF HERESIES.
Eusebius, already so often quoted, and known so widely as the author of
the earliest Church history, flourished in the former half of the fourth
century. This distinguished father was a spectator of the most wonderful
revolution recorded in the annals of the world. He had seen Christianity
proscribed, and its noblest champions cut down by a brutal martyrdom;
and he had lived to see a convert to the faith seated on the throne of
the Caesars, and ministers of the Church basking in the sunshine of
Imperial bounty. He was himself a special favourite with Constantine; as
bishop of Caesarea, the chief city of Palestine, he had often access to
the presence of his sovereign; and in a work which is still extant,
professing to be a Life of the Emperor, he has well-nigh exhausted the
language of eulogy in his attempts to magnify the virtues of his
illustrious patron.
Eusebius may have been an accomplished courtier, but certainly he is not
entitled to the praise of a great historian. The publication by which he
is best known would never have acquired such celebrity, had it not been
the most ancient treatise of the kind in existence. Though it mentions
many of the ecclesiastical transactions of the second and third
centuries, and supplies a large amount of information which would have
otherwise been lost, it must be admitted to be a very ill-arranged and
unsatisfactory performance. Its author does not occupy a high position
either as a philosophic thinker, a judicious observer, or a sound
theologian. He makes no attempt to point out the germs of error, to
illustrate the rise and progress of ecclesiastical changes, or to
investigate the circumstances which led to the formation of the
hierarchy. Even the announcement of his Preface, that his purpose is "to
record the successions of the holy apostles," or, in other words, to
exhibit some episcopal genealogies, proclaims how much he was mistaken
as to the topics which should have been noticed most prominently in his
narrative. It is somewhat doubtful whether his history was expressly
written, either for the illumination of his own age, or for the
instruction of posterity; and its appearance, shortly after the public
recognition of Christianity by the State, [523:1] is fitted to generate
a suspicion that it was intended to influence the mind of Constantine,
and to recommend the episcopal order to the consideration of the great
proselyte.
About six or seven years after the publication of this treatise a child
was born who was destined to attain higher distinction, both as a
scholar and a writer, than the polished Eusebius. This was
Jerome--afterwards a presbyter of Rome, and a father whose productions
challenge the foremost rank among the memorials of patristic erudition.
Towards the close of the fourth century he shone the brightest literary
star in the Church, and even the proud Pope Damasus condescended to
cultivate his favour. At one time he contemplated the composition of a
Church history, [523:2] and we have reason to regret that the design was
never executed, as his works demonstrate that he was in possession of
much rare and important information for which we search in vain in the
pages of the bishop of Caesarea.
No ancient writer has thrown more light on the history of the hierarchy
than Jerome. His remarks upon the subject frequently drop incidentally
from his pen, and must be sought for up and down throughout his
commentaries and epistles; but he speaks as an individual who was quite
familiar with the topics which he introduces; and, whilst all his
statements are consistent, they are confirmed and illustrated by other
witnesses. As a presbyter, he seems to have been jealous of the honour
of his order; and, when in certain moods, he is obviously very well
disposed to remind the bishops that their superiority to himself was a
mere matter of human arrangement. One of his observations relative to
the original constitution of the Christian commonwealth has been often
quoted. "Before that, by the prompting of the devil, there were parties
in religion, and it was said among the people, I am of Paul, and I of
Apollos, and I of Cephas, the Churches were governed by the common
council of the presbyters. But, _after that each, one began to reckon
those whom he baptized as belonging to himself_ and not to Christ, it
was DECREED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE WORLD that one elected from the
presbyters should be set over the rest, that he should have the care
of the whole Church, that _the seeds of schisms_ might be destroyed."
[524:1]
Because Jerome in this place happens to use language which occurs in the
First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, we are not to understand him
as identifying the date of that letter with the origin of prelacy. Such
a conclusion would be quite at variance with the tenor of this passage.
The words, "I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas," [525:1]
are used by him rhetorically; he was accustomed to repeat them when
describing schisms or contentions; and he has employed them on one
memorable occasion in relation to a controversy of the fourth century.
[525:2] The divisions among the Corinthians, noticed by Paul, were
trivial and temporary; the Church at large was not disturbed by them;
but Jerome speaks of a time when the whole ecclesiastical community was
so agitated that it was threatened with dismemberment. The words
immediately succeeding those which we have quoted clearly shew that he
dated the origin of prelacy after the days of the apostles. "Should any
one think that the identification of bishop and presbyter, the one being
a name of age and the other of office, is not a doctrine of Scripture,
but our own opinion, let him refer to the words of the apostle saying to
the Philippians-'Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to
all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, _with the bishops
and deacons_, Grace to you and peace,' [525:3] and so forth. Philippi is
one city of Macedonia, and truly in one city, there cannot be, as is
thought, more than one bishop; but because, at that time, they called
the same parties bishops and presbyters, therefore he speaks of bishops
as of presbyters without making distinction. Still this may seem
doubtful to some unless confirmed by another testimony. In the Acts of
the Apostles it is written [526:1] that when the apostle came to Miletus
he 'sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the same Church,' to whom
then, among other things, he said--'Take heed to yourselves and to all
the flock over which the Holy Ghost has made you bishops, [526:2] to
feed the Church of the Lord which He has purchased with His own blood.'
And attend specially to this, how, calling the elders of the one city
Ephesus, he afterwards addressed the same as bishops. Whoever is
prepared to receive that Epistle which is written to the Hebrews under
the name of Paul, [526:3] there also the care of the Church is divided
equally among more than one, since he writes to the people--'Obey _them_
that have the rule over you and submit yourselves, for they are they who
watch for your souls as those who must give account, that they may not
do it with grief, since this is profitable for you.' [526:4] And Peter,
who received his name from the firmness of his faith, in his Epistle
speaks, saying--'The _elders_, therefore, who are among you, I exhort,
_who am also an elder_, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and
who am a partaker of his glory which shall be revealed, feed that flock
of the Lord which is among you, not by constraint but willingly.'
[527:1] We may thus shew that anciently bishops and presbyters were the
same; but, _by degrees_, THAT THE PLANTS OF DISSENSION MIGHT BE ROOTED
UP, all care was transferred to one. As, therefore, the presbyters know
that, in accordance with _the custom of the Church_, they are subject to
him who has been set over them, so the bishops should know that they are
greater than the presbyters, rather _by custom_, than by the truth of an
arrangement of the Lord." [527:2]
Jerome here explains himself in language which admits of no second
interpretation; for all these proofs, adduced to shew that the Church
was originally under presbyterial government, are of a later date than
the First Epistle to the Corinthians. The Epistle to the Philippians
contains internal evidence that it was dictated during Paul's first
imprisonment at Rome; the Epistle to the Hebrews appeared after his
liberation; and the First Epistle of Peter was written in the old age of
the apostle of the circumcision. [527:3] Nor is this even the full
amount of his testimony to the antiquity of the presbyterian polity. On
another occasion, after mentioning some of the texts which have been
given, he goes on to make quotations from the Second and Third Epistles
of John--which are generally dated towards the close of the first
century [527:4]--and he declares that prelacy had not made its
appearance when these letters were written. Having produced authorities
from Paul and Peter, he exclaims--"Do the testimonies of such men seem
small to you? Let the Evangelical Trumpet, the Son of Thunder, whom
Jesus loved very much, who drank the streams of doctrine from the bosom
of the Saviour, sound in your ears--'The _elder_, unto the elect lady
and her children, whom I love in the truth;' [528:1] and, in another
epistle--'The _elder_ to the very dear Caius, whom I love in the truth.'
[528:2] But _what was done afterwards_, when one was elected who was set
over the rest, was _for a cure of schism_; lest every one, insisting
upon his own will, should rend the Church of God." [528:3]
We have already seen [528:4] that extant documents, written about the
close of the first century and the middle of the second, bear similar
testimony as to the original constitution of the Church. The "Epistle of
Clement to the Corinthians" cannot be dated earlier than the termination
of the reign of Domitian, for it refers to a recent persecution, [528:5]
it describes the community to which it in addressed as "most ancient,"
it declares that others now occupied the places of those who had been
ordained by the apostles, and it states that this second generation of
ministers had been _long_ in possession of their ecclesiastical charges.
[528:6] Candid writers, of almost all parties, acknowledge that this
letter distinctly recognizes the existence of government by presbyters.
[528:7] The evidence of the letter of Polycarp [528:8] is not less
explicit. Jerome, therefore, did not speak without authority when he
affirmed that prelacy was established after the days of the apostles,
and as an antidote against schism.
The apostolic Church was comparatively free from divisions; and, whilst
the inspired heralds of the gospel lived, it could not be said that
"there were parties in religion." The heretics who appeared were never
able to organize any formidable combinations; they were inconsiderable
in point of numbers; and, though not wanting in activity, those to whom
our Lord had personally entrusted the publication of His Word, were
ready to oppose them, so that all their efforts were effectually checked
or defeated. The most ancient writers acknowledge that, during the early
part of the second century, the same state of things continued.
According to Hegesippus, who outlived Polycarp about fifteen or twenty
years, [529:1] the Church continued until the death of Simeon of
Jerusalem, in A.D. 116, [529:2] "as a pure and uncorrupted virgin." "If
there were any at all," says he, "who attempted to pervert the right
standard of saving doctrine, they were yet skulking in dark retreats;
but when the sacred company of the apostles had, in various ways,
finished their career, AND THE GENERATION OF THOSE WHO HAD BEEN
PRIVILEGED TO HEAR THEIR INSPIRED WISDOM HAD PASSED AWAY, then at length
the fraud of false teachers produced a confederacy of impious errors."
[529:3] The date of the appearance of these parties is also established
by the testimony of Celsus, who lived in the time of the Antonines, and
who was one of the most formidable of the early antagonists of
Christianity. This writer informs us that, though in the beginning the
disciples were agreed in sentiment, they became, in his days, when
"spread out into a multitude, divided and distracted, each aiming to
give stability to his own faction." [530:1]
The statements of Hegesippus and Celsus are substantiated by a host of
additional witnesses. Justin Martyr, [530:2] Irenaeus, [530:3] Clemens
Alexandrinus, [530:4] Cyprian, [530:5] and others, all concur in
representing the close of the reign of Hadrian, or the beginning of the
reign of Antoninus Pius, as the period when heresies burst forth, like a
flood, upon the Church. The extant ecclesiastical writings of the
succeeding century are occupied chiefly with their refutation. No wonder
that the best champions of the faith were embarrassed and alarmed. They
had hitherto been accustomed to boast that Christianity was the cement
which could unite all mankind, and they had pointed triumphantly to its
influence in bringing together the Jew and the Gentile, the Greek and
the barbarian, the master and the slave, the learned and the illiterate.
They had looked forward with high expectation to the days of its
complete ascendency, when, under its gentle sway, all nations would
exhibit the spectacle of one great and happy brotherhood. How, then,
must they have been chagrined by the rise and spread of heresies! They
saw the Church itself converted into a great battle-field, and every
man's hand turned against his fellow. In almost all the populous cities
of the Empire, as if on a concerted signal, the errorists commenced
their discussions. The Churches of Lyons, [531:1] of Rome, of Corinth,
of Athens, of Ephesus, of Antioch, and of Alexandria, resounded with the
din of theological controversy. Nor were the heresiarchs men whom their
opponents could afford to despise. In point of genius and of literary
resources, many of them were fully equal to the most accomplished of
their adversaries. Their zeal was unwearied, and their tact most
perplexing. Mixing up the popular elements of the current philosophy
with a few of the facts and doctrines of the gospel, they produced a
compound by which many were deceived. How did the friends of the Church
proceed to grapple with these difficulties? They, no doubt, did their
utmost to meet the errorists in argument, and to shew that their
theories were miserable perversions of Christianity. But they did not
confine themselves to the use of weapons drawn from their own heavenly
armoury. Not a few presbyters were themselves tainted with the new
opinions; some of them were even ringleaders of the heretics; [531:2]
and, in an evil hour, the dominant party resolved to change the
constitution of the Church, and to try to put down disturbance by means
of a new ecclesiastical organization. Believing, with many in modern
times, that "parity breedeth confusion," and expecting, as Jerome has
expressed it, "that the seeds of schisms might be destroyed," they
sought to invigorate their administration by investing the presiding
elder with authority over the rest of his brethren. The senior
presbyters, the last survivors of a better age, were all sound in the
faith; and, as they were still at the head of the Churches in the great
cities, it was thought that by enlarging their prerogatives, and by
giving them the name of bishops, they would be the better able to
struggle energetically with the dangers of their position. The principle
that, whoever would not submit to the bishop should be cast out of the
Church, was accordingly adopted; and it was hoped that in due time peace
would be restored to the spiritual commonwealth.
About the same period arrangements were made in some places for changing
the mode of advancement to the presidential chair, so that, in no case,
an elder suspected of error could have a chance of promotion. [532:1] An
immense majority of the presbyters were yet orthodox; and by being
permitted to depart, as often as they pleased, from the ancient order of
succession, and to nominate any of themselves to the episcopate, they
could always secure the appointment of an individual representing their
own sentiments. In some of the larger Churches, where their number was
considerable, they appear to have usually selected three or four
candidates; and then to have permitted the lot to make the ultimate
decision. [532:2] But the ecclesiastical revolution could not stop here.
Jealousy quickly appeared among the presbyters; and, during the
excitement of elections, the more popular candidates would not long be
willing to limit the voting to the presbytery. The people chose their
presbyters and deacons, and now that the office of moderator possessed
substantial power, and differed so much from what it was originally, why
should not all the members of the Church be allowed to exercise their
legitimate influence? Such a claim could not be well resisted. Thus it
was that the bishops were ultimately chosen by popular suffrage. [533:1]
Some have imagined that they have discovered inconsistency in the
statements of Jerome relative to prelacy. They allege, in proof, that
whilst he describes the Church as governed, until the rise of "parties
in religion," by the common council of the presbyters, he also speaks of
bishops as in existence from the days of the apostles. "At Alexandria,"
says he, "from Mark the Evangelist, [by whom the Church there is said to
have been founded] to Heraclas and Dionysius the bishops, [who
flourished in the third century] the presbyters always named as bishop
one chosen from among themselves and placed along with them [533:2] in a
higher position." [533:3] It must appear, however, on due consideration,
that here there is no inconsistency whatever. In the Epistle where this
passage occurs Jerome is asserting the ancient dignity of presbyters,
and shewing that they originally possessed prerogatives of which they
had more recently been deprived. In proof of this he refers to the
Church of Alexandria, one of the greatest sees in Christendom, where for
upwards of a century and a half after the days of the Evangelist Mark,
the presbyters appointed their spiritual overseers, and performed all
the ceremonies connected with their official investiture. But it does
not therefore follow that meanwhile these overseers had always possessed
exactly the same amount of authority. The very fact mentioned by Jerome
suggests a quite different inference, as it proves that whilst the power
of the presbyters had been declining, that of the bishops had increased.
In the second century the presbyters inaugurated bishops; in the days of
Jerome they were not permitted even to ordain presbyters.
Jerome says, indeed, that, in the beginning, the Alexandrian presbyters
nominated their _bishops_, but we are not to conclude that the parties
chosen were always known distinctively by the designation which he here
gives to them. He evidently could not have intended to convey such an
impression, as in the same Epistle he demonstrates, by a whole series of
texts of Scripture, that the titles bishop and presbyter were used
interchangeably throughout the whole of the first century. By bishops he
obviously understands the presidents of the presbyteries, or the
officials who filled the chairs which those termed bishops subsequently
occupied. In their own age these primitive functionaries were called
bishops and presbyters indifferently; but they partially represented the
bishops of succeeding times, and they always appeared in the episcopal
registries as links of the apostolical succession, so that Jerome did
not deem it necessary to depart from the current nomenclature. His
meaning cannot be mistaken by any one who attentively marks his
language, for he has stated immediately before, that episcopal authority
properly commenced when the Church began to be distracted by the spirit
of sectarianism. [534:1]
In this passage, however, the learned father bears unequivocal testimony
to the fact that, from the earliest times, the presbytery had an
official head or president. Such an arrangement was known in the days of
the apostles. But the primitive moderator was very different from the
bishop of the fourth century. He was the representative of the
presbytery--not its master. Christ had said to the disciples--"Whosoever
will be great among you, let him be your minister; and whosoever will be
chief among you, let him be your servant." [535:1] Such a chief was at
the head of the ancient presbytery. Without a president no Church court
could transact business; and it was the duty of the chairman to preserve
order, to bear many official burdens, to ascertain the sentiments of his
brethren, to speak in their name, and to act in accordance with the
dictates of their collective wisdom. [535:2] The bishop of after-times
rather resembled a despotic sovereign in the midst of his counsellors.
He might ask the advice of the presbyters, and condescend to defer to
their recommendations; but he could also negative their united
resolutions, and cause the refractory quickly to feel the gravity of his
displeasure.
Though Jerome tells us how, for the destruction of the seeds of schisms,
"_it was decreed throughout the whole_ WORLD that one elected from the
presbyters should be set over the rest," we are not to suppose that the
decree was carried out, all at once, into universal operation. General
councils were yet unknown, and the decree must have been sanctioned at
different times and by distant Church judicatories. Such a measure was
first thought of shortly before the middle of the second century, but it
was not very extensively adopted until about fifty years afterwards. The
history of its origin must now be more minutely investigated.