PRELACY BEGINS IN ROME.
Any attentive reader who has marked the chronology of the early bishops
of Rome, as given by Eusebius, [537:1] may have observed that the
pastorates of those who flourished during the first forty years of the
second century were all of comparatively short duration. Clement is
commonly reputed to have died about A.D. 100; [537:2] he was followed by
Evaristus, Alexander, Xystus, and Telesphorus; and Hyginus, who was
placed at the head of the Church in A.D. 139, and who died in A.D. 142,
was the _fifth_ in succession. Thus, the five ministers next in order
after Clement occupied the post of president only forty-two years, and,
with the exception of Hyginus, whose official career was very brief,
each appears to have held the situation for nearly an equal period.
[538:1] But, on the death of Hyginus, a pastorate of unusual length
commences, as Pius, by whom he was followed, continued fifteen years in
office--a term considerably more extended than that of any of his five
predecessors. Reckoning from the date of the advancement of Pius, we
find also a decided increase in the average length of the life of the
president for the remainder of the century; as, of the ten individuals
in all who were at the head of the Roman Church during its revolution,
the five who followed next after Clement lived only _forty-two_ years,
whilst their five successors lived _fifty-nine_ years. Thus, there is at
least some ostensible ground for the inquiry whether any arrangement was
made, about the time of Hyginus, which may account for these statistics.
The origin of the Church of Rome, like the origin of the city, is buried
in obscurity; and a very few facts constitute the whole amount of our
information respecting it during the first century of its existence.
About the time of Hyginus the twilight of history begins to dawn upon
it. Guided by the glimmerings of intelligence thus supplied, we shall
endeavour to illustrate tins dark passage in its annals. The following
statements may contribute somewhat to the explanation of transactions
which have hitherto been rarely noticed by modern ecclesiastical
writers.
I. A change in the organization of the Church about the time of Hyginus,
will account for the increase in the average length of the lives of the
Roman bishops. [539:1] If the alteration, mentioned by Hilary, was now
made in the mode of succession to the presidential chair, such a result
must have followed. Under the new regime, the recommendation of large
experience would still have much weight in the choice of a bishop, but
he would frequently enter on his duties at a somewhat earlier age, and
thus the ordinary duration of his official career would be considerably
extended. [539:2]
II. The time of Hyginus exactly answers to the description of the period
when, according to the testimony of Jerome, prelacy commenced. The
heretics then exhibited extraordinary zeal, so that "parties in
religion" were springing up all over the Empire. The Church of Rome is
said to have hitherto escaped the contagion of false doctrine, [539:3]
but now errorists from all quarters began to violate its purity and to
disturb its peace. Valentine, Cerdo, Marcion, and Marcus appeared about
this time in the Western capital. [540:1] Some of these men were noted
for their genius and learning; and there is every reason to believe that
they created no common ferment. They were assiduous in the dissemination
of their principles, and several of them resorted to very extraordinary
and unwarrantable expedients for strengthening their respective
factions. An ancient writer represents them as conducting their
adherents to water, and as baptizing them "in the name of the Unknown
Father of the universe; in the Truth, the mother of all; and in Him who
descended on Jesus." "Others again," says the same authority, "repeated
Hebrew names to inspire the initiated with the greater awe." [540:2]
These attempts at proselytism were not unsuccessful. Valentine, in
particular, made many converts, and after his death, when Irenaeus wrote
a refutation of his heresy, his disciples must still have been numerous.
[540:3]
The account given by Jerome of the state of the Christian interest when
it was deemed necessary to set up episcopacy, is not so completely
supplemented by the condition of the Church at any other period. Never
certainly did the brethren at Rome more require the services of a
skilful and energetic leader, than when the Gnostic chiefs settled in
the great metropolis. Never could it be said with so much truth of their
community, in the language of the Latin father, that "every one reckoned
those whom he baptized as belonging to himself and not to Christ;"
[541:1] for, as we have just seen, some, when baptizing their disciples,
used even new forms of initiation. Never, assuredly, had the advocates
of expediency a better opportunity for pleading in favour of a decree
ordaining that "one chosen from among the presbyters should be put over
the rest, and that the whole care of the Church should be committed to
him, that the seeds of schisms should be taken away." [541:2]
III. The testimony of Hilary, who was contemporary with Jerome, exactly
accords with the views here promulgated as to the date of this
occurrence. This writer, who was also a minister of the Roman Church,
was obviously acquainted with a tradition that a change had taken place
at an early period in the mode of ecclesiastical government. His
evidence is all the more valuable as it contains internal proofs of
derivation from an independent source; for, whilst it corroborates the
statement of Jerome, it supplies fresh historical details. According to
his account, "after that churches were erected in all places and offices
established, an arrangement was adopted different from that which
prevailed at the beginning." [541:3] By "the beginning" he understands
the apostolic age, or the time when the New Testament was written.
[541:4] He then goes on to say, in explanation, that it was found
necessary to change the mode of appointing the chairman of the
eldership, and that he was now promoted to the office by election, and
not by seniority. [541:5] Whilst his language indicates distinctly that
this alteration was made after the days of the apostles, it also implies
a date not later than the second century; for, though it was "after the
beginning," it was at a time when churches had been only _recently_
"erected in all places, and offices established." The period of the
spread of heresies at Rome, at the commencement of the reign of
Antoninus Pius, and when Hyginus closed his career, answers these
conditions.
IV. As Rome was the head-quarters of heathenism, it was also the place
where the divisions of the Church must have proved most disastrous.
There, the worship of the State was celebrated in all its magnificence;
there, the Emperor, the Pontifex Maximus of the gods, surrounded by a
splendid hierarchy of priests and augurs, presided at the great
festivals; and there, thousands and tens of thousands, prompted by
interest or by prejudice, were prepared to struggle for the maintenance
of the ancient superstition. Already, the Church of Rome had often
sustained the violence of persecution; but, notwithstanding the bloody
trials it had undergone, it had continued steadily to gain strength; and
a sagacious student of the signs of the times might even now have looked
forward to the day when Christianity and paganism, on nearly equal
terms, would be contending for mastery in the chief city of the Empire.
But the proceedings of the heretics were calculated to dissipate all the
visions of ecclesiastical ascendency. If the Roman Christians were split
up into fragments by sectarianism, the Church, in one of its great
centres of influence, would be incalculably injured. And yet, how could
the crisis be averted? How could heresy be most effectually
discountenanced? How could the unity of the Church be best maintained?
In times of peril the Romans had formerly been wont to set up a
Dictator, and to commit the whole power of the commonwealth to one
trusty and vigorous ruler. During the latter days of the Republic, the
State had been almost torn to pieces by contending factions; and now,
under the sway of the Emperors, it enjoyed comparative repose. It seems
to have occurred to the brethren at Rome that they should try the
effects of a similar change in the ecclesiastical constitution. By
committing the government of the Church, in this emergency, almost
entirely into the hands of one able and resolute administrator, they,
perhaps, hoped to contend successfully against the dangers by which they
were now encompassed.
V. A recent calamity of a different character was calculated to abate
the jealousy which such a proposition might have otherwise awakened. It
appears that Telesphorus, the immediate predecessor of Hyginus, suffered
a violent death. [543:1] Telesphorus is the first bishop of Rome whose
title to martyrdom can be fairly established; and not one of his
successors during the remainder of the second century forfeited his life
for his religion. The death of the presiding pastor, as a victim to the
intolerance of heathenism, must have thrown the whole Church into a
state of confusion and perplexity; and when Hyginus was called upon to
occupy the vacant chair, well might he enter upon its duties with deep
anxiety. The appearance of heresy multiplied the difficulties of his
office. It might now be asked with no small amount of plausibility--Is
the presiding presbyter to have no special privileges? If his mind is to
be harassed continually by errorists, and if his life is to be
imperilled in the service of the Church, should he not be distinguished
above his brethren? Without some such encouragement will not the elders
at length refuse to accept a situation which entails so much
responsibility, and yet possesses so little influence? Such questions,
urged under such circumstances, must have been felt to be perplexing.
VI. As there was now constant intercourse between the seat of government
and all the provinces of the Empire, it would seem that the Church of
the metropolis soon contrived to avail itself of the facilities of its
position for keeping up a correspondence with the Churches of other
countries. [544:1] In due time the results became apparent. Every event
of interest which occurred in any quarter of the Christian world was
known speedily in the capital; no important religious movement could be
well expected to succeed without the concurrence and co-operation of the
brethren at Rome; and its ministers gradually acquired such influence
that they were able, to some extent, to control the public opinion of
the whole ecclesiastical community. On this occasion they, perhaps, did
not find it difficult to persuade their co-religionists to enter into
their views. In Antioch, in Alexandria, in Ephesus, and elsewhere, as
well as in Italy, the heretics had been displaying the most mischievous
activity; [544:2] and it is not improbable that the remedy now proposed
by the ruling spirits in the great city had already suggested itself to
others. During the summer months vessels were trading to Rome from all
the coasts of the Mediterranean, so that Christian deputies, without
much inconvenience, could repair to head-quarters, and, in concert with
the metropolitan presbyters, make arrangements for united action. If the
champions of orthodoxy were nearly as zealous as the errorists, [544:3]
they must have travelled much during these days of excitement. But had
not the idea of increasing the power of the presiding pastor originated
in Rome, or had it not been supported by the weighty sanction of the
Church of the capital, it is not to be supposed that it would have been
so readily and so extensively adopted by the Churches in other parts of
the Empire.
VII. Though we know little of the early history of the Roman see, it
would seem that, on the death of Hyginus, there was a vacancy of unusual
length; and circumstances, which meanwhile took place, argue strongly in
favour of the conclusion that, about this time, the change in the
ecclesiastical constitution indicated by Jerome actually occurred.
According to some, the interval between the death of Hyginus and the
commencement of the episcopate of Pius, his immediate successor, was of
several years' duration; [545:1] but it is clear that the chair must
have been vacant for at least about a twelvemonth. [545:2] How are we to
account for this interregnum? We know that subsequently, in the times of
Decius and of Diocletian, there were vacancies of quite as long
continuance; but then the Church was in the agonies of martyrdom, and
the Roman Christians were prevented by the strong arm of imperial
tyranny from filling up the bishopric. Now no such calamity appears to
have threatened; and the commotions created by the heretics supply
evidence that persecution was asleep. This long vacancy must be
otherwise explained. If Hyginus had been invested with additional
authority, and if he soon afterwards died, it is not to be wondered at
that his removal was the signal for the renewal of agitation. Questions
which, perhaps, had not hitherto been mooted, now arose. How was the
vacant place to be supplied? Was the senior presbyter, no matter how ill
adapted for the crisis, to be allowed to take quiet possession? If other
influential Churches required to be consulted, some time would thus be
occupied; so that delay in the appointment was unavoidable.
During this interval the spirit of faction was busily at work. The
heretic Marcion sought admission into the Roman presbytery; [546:1] and
Valentine, who appears to have been now recognized as an elder, [546:2]
no doubt supported the application. The presbytery itself was probably
divided, and there is good reason to believe that even Valentine had
hopes of obtaining the presidential chair! His pretensions, at this
period of his career, were sufficiently imposing. Though he may have
been suspected of unsoundness in the faith, he had not yet committed
himself by any public avowal of his errors; and as a man of literary
accomplishment, address, energy, and eloquence, he had few compeers. No
wonder, with so many disturbing elements in operation, that the see
remained so long vacant.
Some would willingly deny that Valentine was a candidate for the
episcopal chair of Rome, but the fact can be established by evidence the
most direct and conclusive. Tertullian, who had lived in the imperial
city, and who was well acquainted with its Church history, expressly
states that "Valentine hoped for the bishopric, because he excelled in
genius and eloquence, but indignant that another, who had the superior
claim of a confessor, obtained the place, he deserted the Catholic
Church" [546:3] The Carthaginian father does not, indeed, here name the
see to which the heresiarch unsuccessfully aspired, but his words shut
us up to the conclusion that he alluded to Rome. [546:4] And we can thus
discover at least one reason why the history of this vacancy has been
involved in so much mystery. In a few more generations the whole Church
would have felt compromised by any reflection cast upon the orthodoxy of
the great Western bishopric. [547:1] How sadly would many have been
scandalized had it been proclaimed abroad that the arch-heretic
Valentine had once hoped to occupy the chair of St Peter!
VIII. Two letters which are still extant, and which are supposed to have
been addressed by Pius, the immediate successor of Hyginus, to Justus,
bishop of Vienne in Gaul, supply corroborative evidence that the
presiding pastor had recently obtained additional authority. Though the
genuineness of these documents has been questioned, the objections urged
against them have not been sufficient to prevent critics and
antiquarians of all parties from appealing to their testimony. [547:2]
It is not improbable that they are Latin translations from Greek
originals, and we may thus account for a few words to be found in them
which were introduced at a later period. [547:3] Their tone and spirit,
which are entirely different from the spurious productions ascribed to
the same age, plead strongly in their favour as trustworthy witnesses.
The writer makes no lofty pretensions as a Roman bishop; he speaks of
himself simply as at the head of an humble presbytery; and it would be
difficult to divine the motive which could have tempted an impostor to
fabricate such unpretending compositions. Though given as the veritable
Epistles of Pius by the highest literary authorities of Borne, they are
certainly ill calculated to prop up the cause of the Papacy. If their
claims are admitted, they must be regarded as among the earliest
authentic records in which the distinction between the terms bishop and
presbyter is unequivocally recognized; and it is obvious that if
alterations in the ecclesiastical constitution were made under Hyginus,
they must have prepared the way for such a change in the terminology. In
one of these Epistles Pius gives the following piece of advice to his
correspondent:--"Let the elders and deacons respect you, _not as a
greater_, but as the servant of Christ." [548:1] This letter purports to
have been written when its author anticipated the approach of death; and
the individual to whom it is directed seems to have been just placed in
the episcopal chair. Had Pius believed that Justus had a divine right to
rule over the presbyters, would he have tendered such an admonition? A
hundred years afterwards, Cyprian of Carthage, when addressing a young
prelate, would certainly have expressed himself very differently. He
would, probably, have complained of the presumption of the presbyters,
have boasted of the majesty of the episcopate, and have exhorted the new
bishop to remember his apostolical dignity. But, in the middle of the
second century, such language would have been strangely out of place.
Pius is writing to an individual, just entering on an office lately
endowed with additional privileges, who could not yet afford to make an
arbitrary use of his new authority. He, therefore, counsels him to
moderation, and cautions him against presuming on his power. "Beware,"
says he, "in your intercourse with your presbyters and deacons, of
insisting too much on the duty of obedience. Let them feel that your
prerogative is not exercised capriciously, but for good and necessary
purposes. Let the elders and deacons regard you, not so much in the
light of a superior, as the servant of Christ."
In another portion of this letter a piece of intelligence is
communicated, which, as coming from Pius, possesses peculiar interest.
When the law was enacted altering the mode of succession to the
presidency, it may be supposed that the proceeding was deemed somewhat
ungracious towards those aged presbyters who might have soon expected,
as a matter of right, to obtain possession of the seat of the moderator.
The death of Telesphorus, the predecessor of Hyginus, as a martyr, was,
indeed, calculated to abate an anxiety to secure the chair; for the
whole Church was thus painfully reminded that it was a post of danger,
as well as of dignity; but still, when, on the occurrence of the first
vacancy, Pius was promoted over the heads of older men, he may, on this
ground, have felt, to some extent, embarrassed by his elevation. We may
infer, however, from this letter, that the few senior presbyters, with
whose advancement the late arrangement interfered, did not long survive
this crisis in the history of the Church; for the bishop of Rome here
informs his Gallic brother of their demise. "Those presbyters," says he,
"who were taught by the apostles, [549:1] and who have survived to our
own days, with whom we have united in dispensing the word of faith, have
now, in obedience to the call of the Lord, gone to their eternal
rest." [550:1] Such a notice of the decease of these venerable colleagues
is precisely what might have been expected, under the circumstances, in
a letter from Pius to Justus.
IX. The use of the word _bishop_, as denoting the president of the
presbytery, marks an era in the history of ecclesiastical polity. New
terms are not coined without necessity; neither, without an adequate
cause, is a new meaning annexed to an ancient designation. When the name
bishop was first used _as descriptive of the chief pastor_, there must
have been some special reason for such an application of the title; and
the rise of the hierarchy furnishes the only satisfactory
explanation.[550:2] If then we can ascertain when this new nomenclature
first made its appearance, we can also fix the date of the origin of
prelacy. Though the documentary proof available for the illustration of
this subject is comparatively scanty, it is sufficient for our purpose;
and it clearly shews that the presiding elder did not begin to be known
by the title of bishop until about the middle of the second century.
Polycarp, who seems to have written about that time,[550:3] still uses
the terminology employed by the apostles. Justin Martyr, the earliest
father who has left behind him memorials amounting in extent to anything
like a volume, often speaks of the chief minister of the Church, and
designates him, not the bishop, but _the president_. [551:1] His
phraseology is all the more important as he lived for some time in Rome,
and as he undoubtedly adopted the style of expression once current in
the great city. But another writer, who was his contemporary, and who
also resided in the capital, incidentally supplies evidence that the new
title was then just coming into use. The author of the book called
"Pastor," when referring to those who were at the head of the
presbyteries, describes them as "THE BISHOPS, _that is_, THE PRESIDENTS
OF THE CHURCHES." [551:2] The reason why he here deems it necessary to
explain what he means by bishops cannot well be mistaken. The name, in
its new application, was not yet familiar to the public ear; and it
therefore required to be interpreted by the more ancient designation.
Could we tell when this work of Hermas was written, we could also
perhaps name the very year when the president of the eldership was first
called bishop. [551:3] It is now pretty generally admitted that the
author was no other than the brother of Pius of Rome, [551:4] the
immediate successor of Hyginus, so that he wrote exactly at the time
when, as appears from other evidences, the transition from presbytery to
prelacy actually occurred. His words furnish a very strong, but an
undesigned, attestation to the novelty of the episcopal regimen.
X. But, perhaps, the most pointed, and certainly the most remarkable
testimony to the fact that a change took place in the constitution of
the Roman Church in the time of Hyginus is furnished from a quarter
where such a voucher might have been, least of all, anticipated. We
allude to the _Pontifical Book_. This work has been ascribed to Damasus,
the well-known bishop of the metropolis of the West, who flourished in
the fourth century, but much of it is unquestionably of later origin;
and though many of its statements are apocryphal, it is often quoted as
a document of weight by the most distinguished writers of the Romish
communion. [552:1] Its account of the early popes is little better than
a mass of fables; but some of its details are evidently exaggerations,
or rather caricatures, of an authentic tradition; and a few grains of
truth may be discovered here and there in a heap of fictions and
anachronisms. This part of the production contains one brief sentence
which has greatly puzzled the commentators, [552:2] as it is strangely
out of keeping with the general spirit of the narrative, and as it
contradicts, rather awkwardly, the pretensions of the popedom. According
to this testimony, Hyginus "ARRANGED THE CLERGY AND DISTRIBUTED THE
GRADATIONS." [552:3] Peter himself is described by Romanists as
organizing the Church; but here, one of his alleged successors, upwards
of seventy years after his death, is set forth as the real framer of the
hierarchy. [553:1] The facts already adduced prove that this obscure
announcement rests upon a sound historical foundation, and that it
vaguely indicates the alterations now introduced into the ecclesiastical
constitution. If Hilary and Jerome be employed as its interpreters, the
truth may be easily eliminated. At a synod held in Rome, Hyginus brought
under the notice of the meeting the confusion and scandal created by the
movements of the errorists; and, with a view to correct these disorders,
the council agreed to invest the moderator of each presbytery with
increased authority, to give him a discretionary power as the general
superintendent of the Church, and to require the other elders, as well
as the deacons, to act under his advice and direction. A new functionary
was thus established, and, under the old name of _bishop_ or _overseer_,
a third order was virtually added to the ecclesiastical brotherhood.
Hence Hyginus, who, no doubt, took a prominent part in the deliberations
of the convocation, is said to have "arranged the clergy and distributed
the gradations."
The change in the ecclesiastical polity which now occurred led to
results equally extensive and permanent, and yet it has been but
indistinctly noticed by the writers of antiquity. Nor is it so strange
that we have no contemporary account of this ecclesiastical revolution.
The history of other occurrences and innovations is buried in profound
obscurity. We can only ascertain by inference what were the reasons
which led to the general adoption of the sign of the cross, to the use
of the chrism in baptism, to standing at the Lord's Supper, to the
institution of lectors, acolyths, and sub-deacons, and to the
establishment of metropolitans. Though the Paschal controversy agitated
almost the whole Church towards the close of the second century, and
though Tertullian wrote immediately afterwards, he does not once mention
it in any of his numerous extant publications. [554:1] Owing to peculiar
circumstances the rise of prelacy can be more minutely traced than that
of, perhaps, any other of the alterations which were introduced during
the first three centuries. At the time the change which it involved was
probably considered not very important; but, as the remaining literary
memorials of the period are few and scanty, the reception which it
experienced can now only be conjectured. The alteration was adopted as
an antidote against the growth of heresy, and thus originating in
circumstances of a humiliating character, there would be little
disposition, on the part of ecclesiastical writers, to dwell upon its
details. Soon afterwards the pride of churchmen began to be developed;
and it was then found convenient to forget that all things originally
did not accord with existing arrangements, and that the hierarchy itself
was but a human contrivance. Prelacy soon advanced apace, and every
bishop had an interest in exalting "his order." It is only wonderful
that so much truth has oozed out from witnesses so prejudiced, and that
the Pontifical Book contains so decisive a deposition. And the momentous
consequences of this apparently slight infringement upon the primitive
polity cannot be overlooked. That very Church which, in its attempts to
suppress heresy, first departed from divine arrangements, was soon
involved in doctrinal error, and eventually became the great
foster-mother of superstition and idolatry.
It may at first seem extraordinary that the ecclesiastical
transformation was so rapidly accomplished; but, when the circumstances
are more attentively considered, this view of the subject presents no
real difficulty. At the outset, the principle now sanctioned produced
very little alteration on the general aspect of the spiritual
commonwealth. At this period a Church, in most places, consisted of a
single congregation; and as one elder labouring in the word and doctrine
was generally deemed sufficient to minister to the flock, only a slight
modification took place in the constitution of such a society. The
preaching elder, who was entitled by authority of Scripture [555:1] to
take precedence of elders who only ruled, had always been permitted to
act as moderator; but, on the ground of the new arrangement, the pastor
probably began to assume an authority over his session which he had
never hitherto ventured to exercise. In the beginning of the reign of
Antoninus Pius the number of towns with several Christian congregations
must have been but small; and if five or six leading cities approved of
the system now inaugurated at Rome, its general adoption was thus
secured. The statements of Jerome and Hilary attest that the matter was
submitted to a synod; and the remarkable interregnum which followed the
death of Hyginus can be best accounted for on the hypothesis that
meanwhile the ministers of the great metropolis found it necessary to
consult the rulers of other influential and distant Churches. If the
measure had the sanction of these foreign brethren, they were of course
prepared to resort to it at home on the demise of their presiding
presbyter. Heretics were now disturbing the Church all over the Empire,
so that the same arguments could be everywhere used in favour of the new
polity. We find, too, that there was a vacancy in the presidential chair
at Antioch about the time of the death of Hyginus; and that, in the
course of the next year, a similar vacancy occurred at Alexandria.
[555:2] If the three most important Churches then in Christendom, with
the sanction of a very few others of less note, almost simultaneously
adopted the new arrangement, the question was practically settled. There
were probably not more than twenty cities to be found with more than one
Christian congregation; and places of inferior consequence would
speedily act upon the example of the large capitals. But unquestionably
the system now introduced gradually effected a complete revolution in
the state of the Church. The ablest man in the presbytery was commonly
elevated to the chair, so that the weight of his talents, and of his
general character, was added to his official consequence. The bishop
soon became the grand centre of influence and authority, and arrogated
to himself the principal share in the administration of all divine
ordinances.
When this change commenced, the venerable Polycarp was still alive, and
there are some grounds for believing that, when far advanced in life, he
was induced to undertake a journey to Rome on a mission of remonstrance.
This view is apparently corroborated by the fact that his own Church of
Smyrna did not now adopt the new polity; for we have seen [556:1] that,
upwards of a quarter of a century after his demise, it still continued
under presbyterial government. Irenaeus was obviously well acquainted
with the circumstances which occasioned this extraordinary visit of
Polycarp to Rome; but had he not come into collision with the pastor of
the great city in the controversy relating to the Paschal Feast, we
might never have heard of its occurrence. Even when he mentions it, he
observes a mysterious silence as to its main design. The Paschal
question awakened little interest in the days of Polycarp, and among the
topics which he discussed with Anicetus when at Rome, it confessedly
occupied a subordinate position. [556:2] "When," says Irenaeus, "the
most blessed Polycarp came to Rome in the days of Anicetus, and when as
to _certain other matters_ they had a little controversy, they were
immediately agreed on this point (of the Passover) without any
disputation." [557:1] What the "certain other matters" were which
created the chief dissatisfaction, we are left obscurely to conjecture;
but we may presume that they must have been of no ordinary consequence,
when so eminent a minister as Polycarp, now verging on eighty years of
age, felt it necessary to make a lengthened journey by sea and land with
a view to their adjustment. He obviously considered that Anicetus was at
least influentially connected with arrangements which he deemed
objectionable; and he plainly felt that he could hope to obtain their
modification or abandonment only by a personal conference with the Roman
pastor. And intimations are not wanting that he was rather doubtful
whether Anicetus would be disposed to treat with him as his
ecclesiastical peer, for he seems to have been in some degree appeased
when the bishop of the capital permitted him to preside in the Church at
the celebration of the Eucharist. [557:2] This, certainly, was no
extraordinary piece of condescension; as Polycarp, on various grounds,
was entitled to take precedence of his Roman brother; [557:3] and the
reception given to the "apostolic presbyter" was only what might have
fairly been expected in the way of ministerial courtesy. [557:4] Why has
it then been mentioned as an exhibition of the episcopal humility of
Anicetus? Apparently because he had been previously making some arrogant
assumptions. He had been, probably, presuming on his position as a
pastor of the "new order," and his bearing had perhaps been so offensive
that Polycarp had been commissioned to visit him on an errand of
expostulation. But by prudently paying marked deference to the aged
stranger; and, it may be, by giving a plausible account of some
proceedings which had awakened anxiety; he appears to have succeeded in
quieting his apprehensions. That the presiding minister of the Church of
Smyrna was engaged in some such delicate mission is all but certain, as
the design of the journey would not otherwise have been involved in so
profound secrecy. The very fact of its occurrence is first noticed about
forty years afterwards, when the haughty behaviour of another bishop of
Rome provoked Irenaeus to call up certain unwelcome reminiscences which
it must have suggested.
Though the journey of Polycarp betokens that he must have been deeply
dissatisfied with something which was going forward in the great
metropolis, we can only guess at its design and its results; and it is
now impossible to ascertain whether the alterations introduced there
encountered any very formidable opposition: but it is by no means
improbable that they were effected without much difficulty. The
disorders of the Church imperatively called for some strong remedy; and
it perhaps occurred to not a few that a distracted presbytery, under the
presidency of a feeble old man, was but ill fitted to meet the
emergency. They would accordingly propose to strengthen the executive
government by providing for the appointment of a more efficient
moderator, and by arming him with additional authority. The people would
be gratified by the change, for, though in Rome and some other great
cities, where its effects would be felt most sensibly, they, no doubt,
met before this time in separate congregations, yet they had still much
united intercourse; and as, on such occasions, their edification
depended mainly on the gifts of the chairman of the eldership, they
would gladly join in advancing the best preacher in the presbytery to
the office of president. At this particular crisis the alteration may
not have been unacceptable to the elders themselves. To those of them
who were in the decline of life, there was nothing very inviting in the
prospect of occupying the most prominent position in a Church threatened
by persecution and torn by divisions, so that they may have been not
unwilling to waive any claim to the presidency which their seniority
implied; whilst the more vigorous, sanguine, and aspiring, would hail an
arrangement which promised at no distant day to place one of themselves
in a position of greatly increased dignity and influence. Whilst all
were agreed that the times demanded the appointment of the ablest member
of presbytery as moderator, none, perhaps, foresaw the danger of adding
permanently to the prerogatives of so potent a chairman. It was never
anticipated that the day would come when the new law would be regarded
as any other than a human contrivance; and when the bishops and their
adherents would contend that the presbyters, under no circumstances
whatever, had a right to reassume that power which they now surrendered.
The result, however, has demonstrated the folly of human wisdom. The
prelates, who were originally set up to save the Church from heresy,
became themselves at length the abetters of false doctrine; and whilst
they thus grievously abused the influence with which they were
entrusted, they had the temerity to maintain that they still continued
to be exclusively the fountains of spiritual authority.
It is not to be supposed that prelacy was set up at once in the
plenitude of its power. Neither is it to be imagined that the system was
simultaneously adopted by Christians all over the world. Jerome informs
us that it was established "by little and little;" [559:1] and he thus
apparently refers, as well to its gradual spread, as to the almost
imperceptible growth of its pretensions. We have shewn, in a preceding
chapter, [560:1] that in various cities, such as Smyrna, Caesarea, and
Jerusalem, the senior presbyter continued to be the president until
about the close of the second century; and there the Church seems to
have been meanwhile governed by "the common council of the presbyters."
[560:2] Evidence can be adduced to prove that, in many places, even at a
much later period, the episcopal system was still unknown. [560:3] But
its advocates were active and influential, and they continued to make
steady progress. The consolidation of the Catholic system contributed
vastly to its advancement. The leading features of this system must now
be illustrated.