SYNODS--THEIR HISTORY AND CONSTITUTION.
The apostles, and the other original heralds of the gospel, sought
primarily _the conversion of unbelievers_. The commission given to Paul
points out distinctly the grand design of their ministry. When the great
persecutor of the saints was himself converted on his way to Damascus,
our Lord addressed to him the memorable words--"I have appeared unto
thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of
these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I
will appear unto thee; delivering thee from the people, and from the
Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, _to open their eyes, and to turn
them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God_, that
they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which
are sanctified by faith that is in me." [605:1]
When a few disciples were collected in a particular locality, it not
unfrequently happened that they remained for a time without any proper
ecclesiastical organization. [605:2] But the Christian cause, under such
circumstances, could not be expected to flourish; and therefore, as soon
as practicable, the apostles and evangelists did not neglect to make
arrangements for the increase and edification of these infant
communities. To provide, as well for the maintenance of discipline, as
for the preaching of the Word, they accordingly proceeded to ordain
elders in every city where the truth had gained converts. These elders
afterwards ordained deacons in their respective congregations; and thus,
in due time, the Church was regularly constituted.
In the first century Christian societies were formed only here and there
throughout the Roman Empire; and, at its close, the gospel had scarcely
penetrated into some of the provinces. It is not to be expected that we
can trace any general confederation of the churches established during
this period, and it would be vain to attempt to demonstrate their
incorporation; as their distance, their depressed condition, and the
jealousy with which they were regarded by the civil government, [606:1]
rendered any extensive combination utterly impossible. At a time when
the disciples met together for worship in secret and before break of
day, it is not to be supposed that their pastors deemed it expedient to
undertake frequent journeys on the business of the Church, or assembled
in multitudinous councils. But though, in the beginning of the second
century, there was no formal bond of union connecting the several
Christian communities throughout the world, they meanwhile contrived in
various ways to cultivate an unbroken fraternal intercourse. Recognising
each other as members of the same holy brotherhood, they maintained an
epistolary correspondence, in which they treated of all matters
pertaining to the common interest. When the pastor of one church visited
another, his status was immediately acknowledged; and even when an
ordinary disciple emigrated to a distant province, the ecclesiastical
certificate which he carried along with him secured his admission to
membership in the strange congregation. Thus, all the churches treated
each other as portions of one great family; all adhered to much the same
system of polity and discipline; and, though there was not unity of
jurisdiction, there was the "keeping of the unity of the Spirit in the
bond of peace."
In modern times many ecclesiastical historians [607:1] have asserted
that synods commenced about the middle of the second century. But the
statement is unsupported by a single particle of evidence, and a number
of facts may be adduced to prove that it is altogether untenable. There
is no reason to doubt that synods, at least on a limited scale, met in
the days of the apostles, and that the Church courts of a later age were
simply the continuation and expansion of those primitive conventions. We
know very little respecting the history of the Christian commonwealth
during the former half of the second century, for the extant memorials
of the Church of that period are exceedingly few and meagre; and as the
proceedings of most of the synods which were then held did not perhaps
attract much notice, [607:2] it is not remarkable that they have shared
the fate of almost all the other ecclesiastical transactions of the same
date, and that they have been buried in oblivion. [607:3] It is nowhere
intimated by any ancient authority that synodical meetings commenced
fifty years after the death of the beloved disciple, and the earliest
writers who touch upon the subject speak of them as of apostolic
original. Irenaeus, the pastor of Lyons, had probably reached manhood
when, according to Mosheim and others, synods were at first formed; he
enjoyed the instructions of Polycarp, the disciple of the Apostle John;
he was beyond question one of the best informed Christian ministers of
his generation; and yet he obviously considered that these
ecclesiastical assemblies were in existence in the first century.
Speaking of the visit of Paul to Miletus when he sent to Ephesus and
called the elders of the Church, [608:1] he says that the apostle then
convoked "the bishops and presbyters of Ephesus and of the other
adjoining cities" [608:2]--plainly indicating that he summoned a
synodical meeting. Had an assembly of this kind been a novelty in the
days of Irenaeus, the pastor of Lyons would not have given such a
version of a passage in the inspired narrative. Cyprian flourished
shortly after the time when, according to the modern theory, councils
began to meet in Africa, but the bishop of Carthage himself
unquestionably entertained higher views of their antiquity. He declared
that conformably to "the practice received from _divine tradition_ and
_apostolic observance_," [608:3] "all the neighbouring bishops of the
same province met together" among the people over whom a pastor was to
be ordained; [608:4] and he did not here merely give utterance to his
own impressions, for a whole African synod concurred in his statement.
Subsequent writers of unimpeachable credit refer to the canons of
councils of which we otherwise know nothing, and though we cannot now
ascertain the exact time when these courts assembled, there is no reason
to doubt that at least some of them were convened before the middle of
the second century. Thus, when Jerome ascribes the origin of Prelacy to
an ecclesiastical decree, he alludes evidently to some synodical
convention of an earlier date than any of the meetings of which history
has preserved a record. [609:1]
Did we even want the direct testimony just adduced as to the government
of synods in the former part of the second century, we might on other
grounds infer that this species of polity then existed; for apostolic
example suggested its propriety, and the spirit of fraternity so
assiduously cherished by the early rulers of the Church must have
prompted them to meet together for the discussion and settlement of
ecclesiastical questions in which they felt a common interest. But
whilst Christianity was still struggling for existence, it was not in a
condition to form widely spread organizations. It is probable that the
business of the early Church courts was conducted with the utmost
secrecy, that they were attended by but few members, and that they were
generally composed of those pastors and elders who resided in the same
district and who could conveniently assemble on short notice. Their
meetings, in all likelihood, were summoned at irregular intervals, and
were held, to avoid suspicion, sometimes in one city and sometimes in
another; and, except when an exciting question awakened deep and general
anxiety, the representatives of the Churches of a whole province rarely,
perhaps, ventured on a united convention. Our ignorance of the councils
of the early part of the second century arises simply from the fact that
no writer appeared during that interval to register their acts; and we
have now no means of accurately filling up this blank in the history.
But we have good grounds for believing that Gnosticism now formed the
topic of discussion in several synods. [609:2] The errorists, we know,
were driven out of the Church in all places; and how can we account for
this general expulsion, except upon the principle of the united action
of ecclesiastical judicatories? Jerome gives us to understand that their
machinations led to a change in the ecclesiastical constitution, and
that this change was effected by a synodical decree adopted all over the
world [610:1]--thereby implying that presbyterial government was already
in universal operation. Montanism appeared whilst Gnosticism was yet in
its full strength, and this gloomy fanaticism created intense agitation.
Many of the pastors, as well as of the people, were bewildered by its
pretensions to inspiration, and by the sanctimony of its ascetic
discipline. It immediately occupied the attention of the ecclesiastical
courts, and its progress was, no doubt, arrested by their emphatic
condemnation of its absurdities. It is certain that their interference
was judicious and decided. "When the faithful held frequent meetings in
many places throughout Asia on account of this affair, and examined the
novel doctrines, and pronounced them profane, and rejected them as
heresy," the Montanist prophets "were in consequence driven out of the
Church and excluded from communion." [610:2]
The words just quoted are from the pen of an anonymous writer who
flourished towards the end of the second or beginning of the third
century; [610:3] and, though they supply the earliest distinct notice of
synodical meetings, they do not even hint that such assemblies were of
recent original. The Paschal controversy succeeded the Montanist
agitation, and convulsed the whole Church from East to West by its
frivolous discussions. The mode of keeping the Paschal festival had for
nearly fifty years been a vexed question, but about the close of the
second century it began to create bitter contention. Eusebius has given
us an account of the affair, and his narrative throws great light upon
the state of the ecclesiastical community at the time of its occurrence.
"For this cause," says he, "there were synods and councils of bishops,
and all, with according judgment, published in epistles an
ecclesiastical decree.... There is still extant a letter from those who
at that time were called together in Palestine, over whom presided
Theophilus, bishop of the parish of Caesarea, and Narcissus, bishop of
the parish of Jerusalem. There is also another letter from those who
were convoked at Rome [611:1] concerning the same question, which shews
that Victor was then bishop. There is too a letter from the bishops of
Pontus, over whom Palmas, as the senior pastor, presided. There is
likewise a letter from the parishes in Gaul of which Irenaeus was
president. And another besides from the Churches in Osroene and the
cities in that quarter." [611:2]
It is obvious from this statement that, before the termination of the
second century, synodical government was established throughout the
whole Church; for we here trace its operation in France, in Mesopotamia
or Osroene, in Italy, Pontus, and Palestine. This passage also
illustrates the progress of the changes which were taking place about
the period under review in the constitution of ecclesiastical
judicatories. As the president of the presbytery was at first the senior
elder, so the president of the synod was at first the senior pastor. At
this time the primitive arrangement had not been altogether superseded,
for at the meeting of the bishops of Pontus, Palmas, as being the oldest
member present, was called to occupy the chair of the moderator. But
elsewhere this ancient regulation had been set aside, and in some places
no new principle had yet been adopted. At the synod of Palestine the
jealousy of two rivals for the presidency led to a rather awkward
compromise. Caesarea was the seat of government, and on that ground its
bishop could challenge precedence of every other in the district, but
the Church of Jerusalem was the mother of the entire Christian
community, and its pastor, now a hundred years of age, [612:1]
considered that he was entitled to fill the place of dignity. For the
sake of peace the assembled fathers agreed to appoint two chairmen, and
accordingly Theophilus of Caesarea and Narcissus of Jerusalem presided
jointly in the synod of Palestine. In the synod of Rome there was no one
to dispute the pretensions of Bishop Victor. As the chief pastor of the
great metropolitan Church, he seems, as a matter of course, to have
taken possession of the presidential office.
A few years after the Paschal controversy the celebrated Tertullian
became entangled in the errors of Montanism, and in vindication of his
own principles published a tract "Concerning Fasts," in which there is a
passing reference to the subject of ecclesiastical convocations. "Among
the Greek nations," says he, "these councils of the whole Church are
held in fixed places, in which, whilst certain important questions are
discussed, the representation of the whole Christian name is also
celebrated with great solemnity. And how worthy is this of a faith which
expects to have its converts gathered from all parts to Christ? See how
good and how pleasant a thing it is for brethren to dwell together in
unity! You do not well know how to sing this, except when you are
holding communion with many. But those conventions, after they have been
first employed in prayers and fasting, know how to mourn with the
mourners, and thus at length to rejoice with those that rejoice."
[612:2]
Greek was now spoken throughout a great part of the Roman Empire, and at
this period it continued to be used even by the chief pastors of the
Italian capital, so that when Tertullian here mentions _the Greek
nations_, [613:1] he employs an expression of somewhat doubtful
significance. But it is probable that he refers chiefly to the mother
country and its colonies on the other side of the Aegean Sea, or to
Greece and Asia Minor. It is apparent from the apostolic epistles, most
of which are addressed to Churches within their borders, that the
gospel, at an early date, spread extensively and rapidly in these
countries; and it is highly probable that, at least in some districts,
its adherents would have now made a considerable figure in any
denominational census. They were thus, perhaps, emboldened to erect
their ecclesiastical courts upon a broader basis, as well as to hold
their meetings with greater publicity, than heretofore; and, as these
assemblies were attended, not only by the pastors and the elders, but
also by many deacons and ordinary church members who were anxious to
witness their deliberations, Tertullian alleges, in his own rhetorical
style of expression, that in them "the representation of the whole
Christian name was celebrated with great solemnity." [613:2] These Greek
councils commenced with a period of _fasting_--a circumstance by which
they seem to have been distinguished from similar meetings convened
elsewhere, and as they thus supplied him with an argument in favour of
one of the grand peculiarities of the discipline of Montanism, it is
obviously for this reason they are here so prominently noticed. If, as
he contends, these fasts were kept so religiously by the representatives
of the Church when in attendance on some of their most solemn
assemblies, there might, after all, be a warrant for the observance of
that more rigid abstinence which he now inculcated. But though this
passage of Tertullian is the only authority adduced to prove that
councils originated in Greece, it is plain that it gives no sanction
whatever to any such theory. Neither does it afford the slightest
foundation for the inference that, at the time when it was written,
these ecclesiastical convocations were unknown in Africa and Italy. We
have direct proof that before this period they not only met in Rome, but
that the bishop of the great city had been in the habit of requesting
his brother pastors in other countries to hold such assemblies. [614:1]
There is, too, satisfactory evidence that they were now not unknown at
Carthage, [614:2] and Tertullian himself elsewhere apparently refers to
the proceedings of African synods. [614:3] He must have been well aware
that they had recently assembled in various parts of the West to
pronounce judgment in the Paschal controversy; for the decisions of the
Gallic and Roman synods mentioned by Eusebius seem to have been
published all over the Church; and the reason why he refers to the
convocations of the Greeks was, not because such meetings were not held
in other lands, but because these, from their peculiar method of
procedure in the way of fasting, [614:4] supplied, as he conceived, a
very apposite argument in support of the discipline which he was so
desirous to recommend.
If historians have erred in stating that synods commenced in Greece,
they have been still more egregiously mistaken in asserting that the
once famous Amphictyonic Council suggested their establishment, and
furnished the model for their construction. In the second century of the
Christian era the Council of the Amphictyons was shorn of its glory, and
though it then continued to meet, [615:1] it had long ceased to be
either an exponent of the national mind, or a free and independent
assembly. It is not to be imagined that the Christian community, in the
full vigour of its early growth, would all at once have abandoned its
apostolic constitution, and adopted a form of government borrowed from
an effete institute. Synods, which now formed so prominent a part of the
ecclesiastical polity, could claim a higher and holier original. They
were obviously nothing more than the legitimate development of the
primitive structure of the Church, for they could be traced up to that
meeting of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem which relieved the
Gentile converts from the observance of the rite of circumcision.
The most plausible argument in support of the theory that the
Amphictyonic Council suggested the establishment of synodical
conventions is based upon the alleged fact that these ecclesiastical
meetings were at first held in spring and autumn, or exactly at the
times when the Greek political deputies were accustomed to assemble.
[615:2] But this statement, when closely examined, is found to be quite
destitute of evidence. Tertullian does not say that the Greek synods met
twice a year, and we know that, at least half a century afterwards, they
assembled only annually. This fact is attested by Firmilian of
Cappadocia in his celebrated letter to Cyprian. "It is of necessity
arranged among us," says he, "that we elders and presidents meet _every
year_ [616:1] to set in order the things entrusted to our charge, that
if there be any matters of grave moment they may be settled by common
advice." [616:2] The author of this epistle lived in the very country
where synods are supposed to have assembled so much more frequently half
a century before, so that his evidence demonstrates the fallacy of the
hypothesis framed by some modern historians.
About the beginning of the third century, or at the time when Tertullian
wrote, it would seem that the members of the Greek synods had an
arrangement which was not then generally adopted. The Greek councils met
together "in fixed places." There is reason to believe that these "fixed
places" were, commonly speaking, the metropolitan cities of the
respective provinces. But still, as we have seen, the pastors and elders
had not yet generally agreed to the regulation that the chief pastor of
the metropolitan city should be the constant moderator of the provincial
synod. In the case of the bishop of Rome the rule was, no doubt, already
established; but, in other instances, the senior pastor present was, as
yet, invited to fill the office of president. The constant meeting of
the synod in the principal town of the province tended, however, to
increase the influence of its bishop; and he was at length almost
everywhere acknowledged as the proper chairman. [616:3] At the Council
of Nice in A.D. 325 his rights were formally secured by ecclesiastical
enactment. About the same date synods appear to have commenced to
assemble with greater frequency. "Let there be a meeting of the bishops
twice a year," says the thirty-seventh of the so-called Apostolical
Canons, "and let them examine amongst themselves the decrees concerning
religion, and settle the ecclesiastical controversies which may have
occurred. One meeting is to be held in the fourth week of the Pentecost,
and the other on the 12th day of the month of October." [617:1]
As soon as the light of historical records begins to illustrate the
condition of any portion of the ancient Church, its synodical government
may be discovered; and though the literary memorials of the third
century are comparatively few, they are abundantly sufficient to
demonstrate that, as early as the middle of that period, ecclesiastical
courts upon a tolerably extensive scale were everywhere established.
About that time the controversy relative to the propriety of rebaptizing
heretics created much agitation, and the subject was keenly discussed in
the synods which met for its consideration. Nowhere is any hint given
that these courts were of recent formation. Though meeting in so many
places in the East and West, and in countries so far apart, they are
invariably represented as the ancient order of ecclesiastical regimen.
They all appear, too, as co-ordinate and independent judicatories; and
though the Roman bishop, as the chief pastor of the Catholic Church,
endeavoured to induce them to adopt uniform decisions, his attempts to
dictate to the brethren in Spain, Africa, and other countries, were
firmly and indignantly repulsed. There were fundamental principles which
they were all understood to acknowledge; these principles were generally
embodied in the divine Statute-book; it was admitted that the decisions
of every council which adhered to them were entitled to universal
reverence; but, though the reservation was scarcely compatible with the
genius of catholicity, each provincial convention claimed the right of
forming its own judgment of the acts of other courts, and of adopting or
rejecting them accordingly.
The most influential synods which were held before the establishment of
Christianity by Constantine were those which met in the latter part of
the third century to try the case of the famous Paul of Samosata, the
bishop of Antioch. The charge preferred against him was the denial of
the proper deity of the Son of God, and as he was an individual of much
ability and address, as well as, in point of rank, one of the greatest
prelates in existence, his case awakened uncommon interest. Christianity
had recently obtained the sanction of a legal toleration, [618:1] and
therefore churchmen now ventured to travel from different provinces to
sit in judgment on this noted heresiarch. In the councils which
assembled at Antioch were to be found, not only the pastors of Syria,
but also those of various places in Palestine and Asia Minor. Even
Dionysius, bishop of the capital of Egypt, was invited to be present,
but he pleaded his age and infirmities as an apology for his
non-attendance. [618:2] In a council which assembled A.D. 269, [618:3]
Paul was deposed and excommunicated; and the sentence, which was
announced by letter to the chief pastors of Rome, Alexandria, and other
distinguished sees, was received with general approbation.
All the information we possess respecting the councils of the first
three centuries is extremely scanty, so that it is no easy matter
exactly to ascertain their constitution; but we have no reason to
question the correctness of the statement of Firmilian of Cappadocia,
who was himself a prominent actor in several of the most famous of these
assemblies, and who affirms that they were composed of "elders and
presiding pastors." [619:1] We have seen that bishops and elders
anciently united even in episcopal ordinations, and these ministers,
when assembled on such occasions, constituted ecclesiastical
judicatories. A modern writer, of high standing in connexion with the
University of Oxford, has affirmed that "bishops alone had a definitive
voice in synods," [619:2] but the testimonies which he has himself
adduced attest the inaccuracy of the assertion. The presbyter Origen, at
an Arabian synod held about A.D. 229, sat with the bishops, and was, in
fact, the most important and influential member of the convention. About
A.D. 230, Demetrius of Alexandria "gathered a council of bishops _and of
certain presbyters_, which _decreed_ that Origen should remove from
Alexandria." [619:3] About the middle of the third century, "during the
vacancy of the see of Rome, _the presbyters of the city_ took part in
the first Roman council on the lapsed." [619:4] At the council of
Eliberis, held about A.D. 305, no less than _twenty-six presbyters_ sat
along with the bishops. [619:5] In some cases deacons, [619:6] and even
laymen, were permitted to address synods, [619:7] but ancient documents
attest that they were never regarded as constituent members. Whilst the
bishops and elders _sat_ together, and thus proclaimed their equality as
ecclesiastical judges, [619:8] the people and even the deacons were
obliged to _stand_ at these meetings. The circular letter of the council
of Antioch announcing the deposition of Paul of Samosata is written in
the name of "bishops, and presbyters, _and deacons, and the Churches of
God_," [620:1] but there is reason to believe that the latter are added
merely as a matter of prudence, and in testimony of their cordial
approval of the ecclesiastical verdict. The heresiarch had left no art
unemployed to acquire popularity, and it was necessary to shew that he
had lost the influence upon which he had been calculating. It is obvious
that the pastors and elders alone were permitted to _adjudicate_, for
why were they assembled from various quarters to uphold the doctrine and
discipline of the Church, if the people who were themselves tainted with
heresy or guilty of irregularity, had the liberty of voting? Under such
circumstances, the decision would have been substantially, not the
decree of the Church rulers, but of the multitude of the particular city
in which they happened to congregate.
The theory of some modern ecclesiastical historians, who hold that all
the early Christian congregations were originally independent, cannot
bear the ordeal of careful investigation. Whilst it directly conflicts
with the testimony of Jerome, who declares that the churches were at
first "governed by the _common council of the presbyters_," it is
otherwise destitute of evidence. As soon as the light of ecclesiastical
memorials begins to guide our path, we find everywhere presbyteries and
synods in existence. Congregationalism has no solid foundation either in
Scripture or antiquity. The eldership, the most ancient court of the
Church, commenced with the first preaching of the gospel; and in the
account of the meeting of the Twelve to induct the deacons into office,
we have the record of the first ordination performed by the laying on of
the hands of the presbytery of Jerusalem. A few years afterwards the
representatives of several Christian communities assembled in the holy
city and "ordained decrees" for the guidance of the Jewish and Gentile
Churches. The continuous development of the same form of ecclesiastical
regimen has now been illustrated. This polity was obviously based upon
the principle that "in the multitude of counsellors there is safety."
[621:1] At the meetings of the elders, information was multiplied, the
intellect was sharpened, the brethren were made better acquainted with
each other, and the Christian cause enjoyed the benefit of the decisions
of their collective wisdom. The members had been previously elected to
office by the voice of the people, so that the Church had pre-eminently
a free constitution. And it is no mean proof as well of the intrepidity
as of the zeal of the early Christian ministers that, at a time when
their religion was proscribed, they sometimes undertook lengthened
journeys for the purpose of meeting in ecclesiastical judicatories. They
thus nobly asserted the principle that Christ has established in His
Church a government with which the civil magistrate has no right
whatever to intermeddle. It has been said that the early Christian
councils "changed nearly the whole form of the Church," and that by them
"the influence and authority of the bishops were not a little
augmented." [621:2] But this is obviously quite a mistaken view of their
native tendency. The face of the Church was, indeed, changed at an early
period, but it was simply because these councils yielded with too much
facility to the spirit of innovation. Had they been always conducted in
accordance with primitive arrangements, they could have crushed in the
bud the aspirations of clerical ambition. But when the city ministers
were rapidly accumulating wealth, their brethren in rural districts
remained poor; and when councils began to meet on a scale of increased
magnitude, the village and country pastors, who could not afford the
expenses of lengthened journeys, were unable to attend. Meanwhile
Prelacy established itself in the great towns, and the influence of the
city bishops began gradually to preponderate in all ecclesiastical
assemblies. When the prelates had once secured their ascendency in these
conventions, they made use of the machinery for their own purposes. The
people were deprived of many of their rights and privileges; the elders
were stripped of their proper status; the village and rural bishops were
extinguished; and at length the ancient presbytery itself disappeared.
The city dignitaries became the sole depositories of ecclesiastical
power, and the Church lost nearly every vestige of its freedom. But,
long after the beginning of the fourth century, many remnants of the
primitive polity still survived as memorials of its departed excellence.