THE PROGRESS OF PRELACY.
We cannot tell when the president of the presbytery began to hold office
for life; but it is evident that the change, at whatever period it
occurred, must have added considerably to his power. The chairman of any
court is the individual through whom it is addressed, and, without whose
signature, its proceedings cannot be properly authenticated. He acts in
its name, and he stands forth as its representative. He may,
theoretically, possess no more power than any of the other members of
the judicatory, and he may be bound, by the most stringent laws, simply
to carry out the decisions of their united wisdom; but his very position
gives him influence; and, if he holds office for life, that influence
may soon become formidable. If he is not constantly kept in check by the
vigilance and determination of those with whom he is associated, he may
insensibly trench upon their rights and privileges. In the second
century the moderator of the city eldership was invariably a man
advanced in years, who, instead of being watched with jealousy, was
regarded with affectionate veneration; and it is not strange if he was
often permitted to stretch his authority beyond the exact range of its
legitimate exercise.
Evidence has already been adduced to shew that, on the rise of Prelacy,
the presidential chair was no longer inherited by the members of the
city presbytery in the order of seniority. The individuals considered
most competent for the situation were now nominated by their brethren;
and as the Church, especially in great towns, was sadly distracted by
the machinations of the Gnostics, it was deemed expedient to arm the
moderator with additional authority. As a matter of necessity, the
official who was furnished with these new powers required a new name;
for the title of _president_ by which he was already known, and which
continued long afterwards in current use, [590:1] did not now fully
indicate his importance. It was, therefore, gradually supplanted by the
designation of _bishop_, or overseer. Whilst this functionary was
nominated by the presbyters, he might be also set aside by them, so that
he felt it necessary to consult their wishes and to use his
discretionary power with modesty and moderation; but, when he began to
be elected by general suffrage, his authority was forthwith established
on a broader and firmer foundation. He was now emphatically the man of
the people; and from this date he possessed an influence with which the
presbytery itself was incompetent to grapple.
As early as the middle of the second century the bishop, at least in
some places, was entrusted with the chief management of the funds of the
Church; [590:2] and probably, about fifty years afterwards, a large
share of its revenues was appropriated to his personal maintenance.
[590:3] His superior wealth soon added immensely to his influence. He
was thus enabled to maintain a higher position in society than any of
his brethren; and he was at length regarded as the great fountain of
patronage and preferment. Long before Christianity enjoyed the sanction
of the state, the chief pastors of the great cities began to attract
attention by their ostentatious display of secular magnificence. Origen,
who flourished in the former half of the third century, strongly
condemns their vanity and ambition; and though perhaps his ascetic
temperament prompted him to indulge somewhat in the language of
exaggeration, the testimony of so respectable a witness cannot be
rejected as untrue. "We," says he, "proceed so far in the affectation of
pomp and state, as to outdo even bad rulers among the pagans; and, like
the emperors, surround ourselves with a guard that we may be feared and
made difficult of access, particularly to the poor. And in many of our
so-called Churches, _especially in the large towns_, may be found
presiding officers of the Church of God who would refuse to own even the
best among the disciples of Jesus while on earth as their equals."
[591:1] In these remarks the writer had doubtless a particular reference
to his own Church of Alexandria; but it is well known that elsewhere
some bishops in the third century assumed a very lofty bearing. It is
related of the celebrated Paul of Samosata, the bishop of Antioch, that
he acted as a secular judge, that he appeared in public surrounded by a
crowd of servants, and that he took special pleasure in pomp and parade;
and yet, had he not lapsed into heresy, there is no evidence that his
overweening pride would have brought down upon him the vengeance of
ecclesiastical discipline. In the third century the chief pastor of the
Western metropolis must have been known to the great officers of
government, and perhaps to the Emperor himself. Decius must have
regarded the Roman bishop as a somewhat formidable personage when he
declared that he would sooner tolerate a rival candidate for the throne,
and when he proclaimed his determination to annihilate the very office.
[591:2]
It was not strange that dignitaries who affected so much state soon
contrived to surround themselves with a whole host of new officials.
Within little more than a century after the rise of Prelacy the number
of grades of ecclesiastics was nearly trebled. In addition to the
bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons, there were also, in A.D. 251,
in the Church of Rome lectors, sub-deacons, acolyths, exorcists, and
janitors. [592:1] The lectors, who read the Scriptures to the
congregation [592:2] and who had charge of the sacred manuscripts,
attract our attention as distinct office-bearers about the close of the
second century. The sub-deacons are said to have had the care of the
sacramental cups; the acolyths attended to the lamps of the sacred
edifice; the exorcists [592:3] professed by their prayers to expel evil
spirits out of the bodies of those about to be baptized; and the
janitors performed the more humble duties of porters or door-keepers. At
a subsequent period each of these functionaries was initiated into
office by a special form of ordination or investiture. It was laid down
as a principle that no one could regularly become a bishop who had not
previously passed through all these inferior orders; [592:4] but when
the multitude wished all at once to elevate a layman to the rank of a
bishop or a presbyter, ecclesiastical routine was compelled to yield to
the pressure of popular enthusiasm. [592:5]
The great city in which Prelacy originated appears to have been the
place where these new offices made their first appearance. Rome, true to
her mission as "the mother of the Catholic Church," conceived and
brought forth nearly all the peculiarities of the Catholic system. The
lady seated on the seven hills was already regarded with great
admiration, and surrounding Churches silently copied the arrangements of
their Imperial parent. In the East, at least one of the orders now
instituted by the great Western prelate, that is, the order of acolyths,
was not adopted for centuries afterwards. [593:1]
The city bishops were well aware of the vast accession of influence they
acquired in consequence of their election by the people, and did not
fail to insist upon the circumstance when desirous to illustrate their
ecclesiastical title. Any one who peruses the letters of Cyprian may
remark the frequency, as well as the transparent satisfaction, with
which he refers to the mode of his appointment. Who, he seems to say,
could doubt his right to act as bishop of Carthage, seeing that he had
been chosen by "the suffrage of the whole fraternity"--by "the vote of
the people?" [593:2] The members of the Church enthusiastically
acknowledged such appeals to their sympathy and support, and in cases of
emergency promptly rallied round the individuals whom they had
themselves elevated to power. But as all the other church officers were
meanwhile likewise chosen by common suffrage, the bishops soon betrayed
an anxiety to appropriate the distinction, and began, under various
pretexts, to interfere with the free exercise of the popular franchise.
In one of his epistles Cyprian excuses himself to the Christians of
Carthage because he had ventured to ordain a reader without their
approval. He pleads that the peculiar circumstances of the case and the
extraordinary merits of the candidate must be accepted as his apology.
"In clerical ordinations," says he, "my custom is to _consult you
beforehand_, dearest brethren, _and in common deliberation_ to weigh the
character and merits of each. But testimonies of men need not be awaited
when anticipated by the sentence of God." [593:3] The sanction of the
people should have been obtained before the ordination; but, as
persecution now raged, it is suggested that it would have been
inconvenient to lay the matter before them; and Cyprian argues that the
informality was pardonable, inasmuch as the Almighty himself had given
His suffrage in favour of the new lector; for Aurelius, though only a
youth, had nobly submitted to the torture rather than renounce the
gospel.
The ordination of Aurelius under such circumstances was not, however, a
solitary case; and there is certainly something suspicious in the
frequency with which the bishop of Carthage apologizes to the clergy and
people for neglecting to consult them on the appointment of church
officers. In another of his letters he announces to the presbyters and
deacons that, "on an _urgent occasion_" he had "made Saturus a reader,
and Optatus the confessor a sub-deacon." [594:1] Again, he tells the
same parties, and "the whole people," that "Celerinus, renowned alike
for his courage and his character, has been joined to the clergy, _not
by human suffrage, but by the divine favour;_" [594:2] and at another
time he informs them that he had been "admonished and instructed by a
_divine vouchsafement_ to enrol Numidicus in the number of the
Carthaginian presbyters." [594:3] These cases were, no doubt, afterwards
quoted as precedents for the non-observance of the law; and from time to
time new pretences were discovered for evading its provisions. In this
way the rights of the people were gradually abridged; and in the course
of two or three centuries, the bishops almost entirely ignored their
interference in the election of presbyters and deacons, as well as of
the inferior clergy.
New canons relative to ordination were promulgated probably about the
time when the city presbyters ceased to have the exclusive right of
electing their own bishop. The altered circumstances of the Church led
to the establishment of these regulations. The election of the chief
pastor of a great town was often a scene of much excitement, and as
several of the elders might be regarded as candidates for the office, it
was obviously unseemly that any of them should preside on the occasion.
It was accordingly arranged that some of the neighbouring bishops should
be present to superintend the proceedings. The successful candidate now
began to be formally invested with his new dignity by the imposition of
hands; and at first, perhaps, one of the bishops, assisted by one of the
presbyters of the place, performed this ceremony. [595:1] But the elders
soon ceased to take part in the ordination. At the election, the people
and the clergy sometimes took opposite sides; and, in the contest, the
ecclesiastical party was not unfrequently completely overborne. It
occasionally happened, as in the case of Cyprian, [595:2] that one of
the elders was chosen in opposition to the wishes of the majority of the
presbytery; or, as in the case of Fabian of Rome, [595:3] that a layman
was all at once elevated to the episcopal chair; and, at such times, the
disappointed presbyters did not care to join in the inauguration. The
bishops availed themselves of the pretexts thus furnished to dispense
with their services altogether. At length the power of admitting to the
ministry by the laying on of hands began to be challenged as the
peculiar prerogative of the episcopal order.
In many places, perhaps before the middle of the third century, elders
were no longer permitted to take part in the consecration of bishops;
but Prelacy had not yet completely established itself upon the ruins of
the more ancient polity. Sometimes the presbytery itself still
discharged the functions of the bishop. After the martyrdom of Fabian in
A.D. 250, the Church of Rome remained upwards of a year under its care,
[596:1] as the see was meanwhile vacant; and about the same period we
find Cyprian, when in exile, requesting his presbyters and deacons to
execute both _his duties_ and their own. [596:2] It was still admitted
that elders were competent to ordain elders and deacons, as well as to
confirm and to baptize; and the bishop continued to recognise them as
his "_colleagues_" and his "_fellow-presbyters_." [596:3] It is clear,
however, that the relations between them and their episcopal chief were
now very vaguely defined, and that the ambiguous position of the parties
led to mutual complaints of ambition and usurpation. The Epistles of
Cyprian supply evidence that the bishop of Carthage, during a great part
of his episcopate, was engaged with his presbyters in a struggle for
power; [596:4] and though he asserted that he was contending for nothing
more than his legitimate authority, he was sometimes obliged to abate
his pretensions. In one case he complains that, "without his permission
or knowledge," his presbyter Novatus "of his own factiousness and
ambition" had "made Felicissimus his follower a deacon;" [596:5] but
still he does not venture to impeach the validity of the act, or refuse
to recognise the standing of the new ecclesiastic. Felicissimus seems to
have been ordained in a small meeting-house in the neighbourhood of
Carthage; and as Novatus, who probably presided on the occasion, appears
to have proceeded in conjunction with the majority of the presbytery,
they no doubt considered that, under these circumstances, the sanction
of the bishop was by no means indispensable. The manifestation of such a
spirit of independence was, however, exceedingly galling to their
imperious prelate.
From the manner in which Cyprian expresses himself we may infer that he
would not have been dissatisfied had Novatus and the elders who acted
with him obtained his _permission_ to ordain the deacon Felicissimus.
But about this period the bishops were beginning to look with extreme
jealousy on all presbyterian ordinations, and were commencing a series
of encroachments on the rights of their episcopal brethren in rural
districts. These country bishops, [597:1] who wore simply ministers of
single congregations, and who were generally poor and uninfluential,
soon succumbed to the great city dignitaries. By a council held at
Ancyra in A.D. 314, or very shortly after the close of the Diocletian
persecution, they were forbidden to perform duties which they had
hitherto been accustomed to discharge, for one of its canons declares
that "country bishops must not ordain presbyters or deacons; neither
must city presbyters in another parish without the written permission of
the bishop." [597:2]
This canon illustrates the strangely anomalous condition of the Church
at the period of its adoption. It takes no notice of _country elders_,
as the proceedings of such an humble class of functionaries probably
awakened no jealousy; and it degrades country bishops, who
unquestionably belonged to the episcopal order, by placing them in a
position inferior to that of city presbyters. About sixty years before,
or in the middle of the third century, three of these country bishops
were deemed competent to ordain a bishop of Rome; [598:1] but now they
are deprived of the right of ordaining even elders and deacons. It is
easy to understand why city presbyters were still permitted, under
certain conditions, to exercise this privilege. As they constituted the
council of the city chief pastor, their influence was considerable; and
as they had, until a recent date, been accustomed even to take part in
his own consecration, it was deemed inexpedient to tempt so formidable a
class of churchmen to make common cause with the country bishops by
stripping both at once of their ancient prerogatives. The country
bishops, as the weaker party, were first subjected to a process of
spoliation. But the recognition of Christianity by Constantine gave an
immense impulse to the progress of the hierarchy, and the city
presbyters were soon afterwards deprived of the privilege now wrested
from the country bishops.
The current of events had placed the Church, about the middle of the
third century, in a position which it could not long maintain. As the
growth of Christianity in towns was steady and rapid, the bishop there
rose quickly into wealth and power; but, among the comparatively poor
and thinly-scattered population of the country, his condition remained
nearly stationary. When Cyprian, in A.D. 256, addressed the eighty-seven
bishops assembled in the Council of Carthage, and told them that they
were all on an equality, he might have felt that the doctrine of
episcopal parity, as then understood, must be given up as indefensible
if assailed by the skill of a vigorous logician. Who could believe that
the bishop of Carthage held exactly the same official rank as every one
of his episcopal auditors? He was the chief pastor of a flourishing
metropolis; he had several congregations under his care, and several of
his presbyters were preachers; [599:1] but many of the bishops before
him were ministers of single congregations and without even one elder
competent to deliver a sermon, [599:2] In point of ministerial gifts and
actual influence some of the presbyters of Carthage were, no doubt, far
superior to many of the bishops of the council. And who could affirm
that Paul of Samosata, the chief pastor of the capital of the Eastern
Empire, was quite on a level with every one of the village bishops
around him whom he bribed to celebrate his praises? No wonder that it
was soon found necessary to remodel the episcopal system. The city
bishops had a show of equity in their favour when they asserted their
superiority, and their brethren in rural districts were too feeble and
dependent effectively to resist their own degradation.
The ecclesiastical title _metropolitan_ came into use about the time of
the Council of Nice in A.D. 325. [599:3] and there is reason to believe
that the territorial jurisdiction it implied was then first distinctly
defined and generally established; but the changes of the preceding
three quarters of a century, had been preparing the way for the new
arrangement. Many of the country bishops had meanwhile been reduced to a
condition of subserviency, whilst a considerable number of the chief
pastors in the great cities had been recognized as the constant
presidents of the synods which met in their respective capitals. It is
easy to see how these prelates acquired such a position. Talent, if
exerted, must always assert its ascendency; and it is probable that the
metropolitan bishops were generally more able and accomplished than the
majority of their brethren. They could fairly plead that zeal for the
good of the Church prompted them to take a lead in ecclesiastical
affairs, and their place of residence supplied them with facilities for
communicating with other pastors of which they often deemed it prudent
to avail themselves. When the synod met in the metropolis, the bishop of
the city was wont to entertain many of the members as his guests; and,
as he was elevated above most, if not all, of those with whom he acted,
in point of wealth, social standing, address, and knowledge of the
world, he was usually called on to occupy the chair of the moderator. In
process of time that which was originally conceded as a matter of
courtesy passed into an admitted right. So long as the metropolitan
bishop was inducted into office by mere presbyters, the circumstances of
his investiture pointed out to him the duty of humility; but when the
most distinguished chief pastors of the province deemed it an honour to
take part in his consecration, he immediately increased his pretensions.
Thus it is that the change in the mode of episcopal inauguration forms a
new era in the history of ecclesiastical assumption.
About the middle of the third century various circumstances conspired to
augment the authority of the great bishops. In the Decian and Valerian
persecutions the chief pastors were specially marked out for attack, and
the heroic constancy with which some of the most eminent encountered a
cruel death vastly enhanced the reputation of their order. In a few
years several bishops of Rome were martyred; Cyprian of Carthage endured
the same fate: Alexander of Jerusalem, and Babylas of Antioch, also laid
down their lives for their religion. [600:1] At the same time the schism
of Novatian at Rome, and the schism of Felicissimus at Carthage
threatened the Church with new divisions, and the same arguments which
were used, upwards of a hundred years before, for increasing the power
of the president of the eldership, could now be urged with equal
pertinency for adding to the authority of the president of the synod. In
point of fact perhaps the earliest occasion on which the bishop of Rome
executed discipline in his archiepiscopal capacity was immediately
connected with the schism of Novatian; for we have no record of any
exercise of such power until Cornelius, at the head of a council held in
the Imperial city, deposed the pastors who had officiated at the
consecration of his rival. [601:1] From this date the Roman metropolitan
probably presided at all the ordinations of the bishops in his vicinity.
To prevent the recurrence of schisms such as had now happened at Rome
and Carthage, it was, in all likelihood, arranged about this period, at
least in some quarters of the Church, that the presence or sanction of
the stated president of the provincial synod should be necessary to the
validity of all episcopal consecrations. There were still, however, many
districts in which the provincial synod had no fixed chairman. Hence an
ancient canon directs that at the ordination of a member of the
hierarchy, "_one of the principal bishops_ shall pray to God over the
approved candidate." [601:2] By a "principal bishop" we are to
understand the chief pastor of a principal or apostolic church; [601:3]
but in some provinces several such churches were to be found, and this
regulation attests that there no single ecclesiastic had yet acquired an
unchallenged precedence. As the close of the third century approached,
the ecclesiastical structure exhibited increasing uniformity; and one
dignitary in each region began to be known as the stated president of
the episcopal body. In one of the so-called apostolical canons, framed
probably before the Council of Nice, this arrangement is embodied. "The
bishops of every nation," says the ordinance, "ought to know who is the
_first among them_, and him they ought to esteem as their head, and not
do any great thing _without his consent_. ... But neither let him do
anything without the consent of all." [602:1]
This canon is apparently couched in terms of studied ambiguity, for the
expression "the first among the bishops of every nation" admits of
various interpretations. In many cases it probably meant the senior
bishop of the district; in others, it perhaps denoted the chief pastor
of the chief city of the province; and in others again, it may have
indicated the prelate of a great metropolis who had contrived to
establish his authority over a still more extensive territory. The rise
of the city bishops had completely destroyed that balance of power which
originally existed in the Church; and much commotion preceded the
settlement of a new ecclesiastical equilibrium. During the last forty
years of the third century the Christians enjoyed almost uninterrupted
peace; the chief pastors were meanwhile perpetually engaged in contests
for superiority; and about this time the bishops of Rome, of Alexandria,
and of Antioch, rapidly extended their influence. So rampant was the
usurping spirit of churchmen that even the violence of the Diocletian
persecution was not sufficient to check them in their career of
ambition. A contemporary writer, who was himself a member of the
episcopal order, bears testimony to this melancholy fact. "Some," said
he, "who were reputed our pastors, contemning the law of piety, were,
under the excitement of mutual animosities, fomenting nothing else but
disputes and threatenings and rivalry and reciprocal hostility and
hatred, as they contentiously prosecuted their ambitious designs for
sovereignty." [601:2]
What a change had passed over the Christian commonwealth in the course
of little more than two hundred years! When the Apostle John died, the
city church was governed by the common council of the elders, and their
president simply announced and executed the decisions of his brethren:
now, the president was transformed into a prelate who, by gradual
encroachments, had stripped the presbytery of a large share of its
authority. At the close of the first century the Church of Rome was,
perhaps, less influential than the Church of Ephesus, and the very name
of its moderator at that period is a matter of disputed and doubtful
tradition; but the Diocletian persecution had scarcely terminated when
the bishop of the great metropolis was found sitting in a council in the
palace of the Lateran, and claiming jurisdiction over eight or ten
provinces of Italy! These revolutions were not effected without much
opposition. The strife between the presbyters and the bishops was
succeeded by a general warfare among the possessors of episcopal power,
for the constant moderator of the synod was as anxious to increase his
authority as the constant moderator of the presbytery. About the close
of the third century the Church appears to have been sadly scandalised
by the quarrels of the bishops, and Eusebius accordingly intimates that,
in the reign of terror which so quickly followed, they suffered a
righteous retribution for their misconduct.
Discussions respecting questions of Church polity are often exceedingly
distasteful to persons of contracted views but of genuine piety, for
they cannot understand how the progress of vital godliness can be
influenced by forms of ecclesiastical government. [603:1] About this
period such sentiments were probably not uncommon, and much of the
apathy with which innovations were contemplated may thus be easily
explained. Besides, if the early bishop was a man of ability and
address, his influence in his own church was nearly overwhelming; for as
he was the ordinary, if not the only, preacher, he thus possessed the
most effective means of recommending any favourite scheme, and of giving
a decided tone to public opinion. When a parochial charge became vacant
by the demise of the chief pastor, the election of a successor was often
vigorously contested; and when an influential presbyter was defeated, he
sometimes exhibited his mortification by contending for the rights of
his order, and by disputing the pretensions of his successful rival. But
as such opposition was obviously dictated by the spirit of faction, it
was commonly brief, ill-sustained, and abortive. The young, talented,
and aspiring presbyters must have been strongly tempted to encourage the
growth of episcopal prerogative, for each might one day hope to occupy
the place of dignity, and thus to reap the fruits of present
encroachments. The bishops seem to have resisted more strenuously the
establishment of metropolitan ascendency. An ecclesiastical regulation
of great antiquity, [604:1] condemned their translation from one parish
to another, so that when the episcopate was gained, all farther
prospects of promotion were extinguished, for the place of _first among
the bishops_ was either inherited by seniority or claimed by the prelate
of the chief city. Hence it was that the pastors withstood so firmly all
infringements on their theoretical parity; and hence those "ambitious
disputes," [604:2] and those "collisions of bishops with bishops,"
[604:3] even amidst the fires of martyrdom, over which the historian of
the Church professes his anxiety to cast the veil of oblivion.