THE CEREMONIES AND DISCIPLINE OP THE CHURCH AS ILLUSTRATED BY CURRENT
CONTROVERSIES AND DIVISIONS.
Whilst the Christian community was contending against the Gnostics, it
was not without other controversies which were fitted to prejudice its
claims in the sight of the heathen. The destruction of the temple of
Jerusalem by Titus had prevented the sticklers for the Mosaic law from
practising many of their ancient ceremonies: but there were parts of
their ritual, such as circumcision, to which they still adhered, as
these could be observed when the altar and the sanctuary no longer
existed. In the reign of Hadrian a division of sentiment relative to the
continued obligation of the Levitical code led to a great change in the
mother Church of Christendom. About A.D. 132, an adventurer, named
Barchochebas, pretending to be the Messiah and aiming at temporal
dominion, appeared in Palestine; the Jews, in great numbers, flocked to
his standard; and the rebel chief contrived for three years to maintain
a bloody war against the strength of the Roman legions. The Israelitish
race, by their conduct at this juncture, grievously provoked the
emperor; and when he had rebuilt Jerusalem, under the name of Aelia
Capitolina, he threatened them with the severest penalties should they
appear either in the city or the suburbs. Some of the Jewish Christians
of the place, anxious, no doubt, to escape the proscription, now
resolved to give up altogether the observance of circumcision. Others,
however, objected to this course, and persisted in maintaining the
permanent obligation of the Mosaic ritual. The dissentients, called
Nazarenes, formed themselves into a separate community, which obtained
adherents elsewhere, and which subsisted for several centuries. At first
they differed from other Christians chiefly in their adherence to the
initiatory ordinance of Judaism, but eventually they adopted erroneous
principles in regard to the person of our Lord, and were in consequence
ranked amongst heretics. [624:1]
In the history of the Church, the Nazarenes occupy a somewhat singular
and unique position. Their name was one of the earliest designations by
which the followers of our Saviour were known, [624:2] and though by
many they have been called the First Dissenters, they might have very
fairly pleaded that they were the lineal descendants of the most ancient
stock of Christians in the world. The rite for which they contended had
been practised in the Church of Jerusalem since its very establishment;
the ministers by whom they had been taught had probably been instructed
by the apostles themselves; and all the elders at the time connected
with the holy city seem to have joined the secession. It is alleged that
a number of Christians of Gentile origin, uniting with those of their
brethren of Jewish descent who now agreed to relinquish the Hebrew
ceremonies, chose an individual, named Marcus, for their chief pastor,
and that at this period the succession in the line of the circumcision
"failed." [624:3] This statement cannot signify that some dire calamity
had at once swept away all the old presbytery of Jerusalem. It obviously
indicates that none of its members had joined the party whose principles
had obtained the ascendency. And yet, though the adherents of Marcus
might have been charged with innovation, they acted under the sanction
of apostolical authority. They very properly refused to continue any
longer in bondage to the beggarly elements of a ritual which had long
since been superseded. Though the seceders might have urged that they
were of apostolical descent, and that they were supported by ancient
custom, it must be admitted, after all, that they were but a company of
deluded and narrow-minded bigots. The evangelical pastors of the
primitive Church repudiated their zeal for ritualism, and gave the right
hand of fellowship to Marcus and his newly-organized community. The
history of the mother Church of Christendom in the early part of the
second century is thus fraught with lessons of the gravest wisdom. We
may see from it that the true successors of the apostles were not those
who occupied their seats, or who were able to trace from them a
ministerial lineage, but those who inherited their spirit, who taught
their doctrines, and who imitated their example.
Though, in this instance, the disciples at Jerusalem nobly emancipated
themselves from the yoke of circumcision, it appears, from a controversy
which created much confusion about sixty years afterwards, that the
whole Church was disposed, to some extent, to conform to another Judaic
ordinance. The embers of this dispute had been for some time
smouldering, before they attracted much notice; but, about the
termination of the second century, they broke out into a flame which
spread from Rome to Jerusalem. The name of Easter [625:1] was yet
unknown, and the Paschal feast appears, at least in some places, to have
been then only recently established; but at an early period there was a
sprinkling of Jewish Christians in almost every Church throughout the
Empire, and they had at length induced their fellow-disciples to mark
the seasons of the Passover and Pentecost [626:1] by certain special
observances. The Passover was regarded as the more solemn feast, and,
strange as it may now appear, was kept at the time by the Christians in
much the same way in which it had been celebrated by the Jews before the
fall of Jerusalem. A lamb was shut up on a certain day; it was
afterwards roasted; and then eaten by the brotherhood. [626:2] The time
when this ceremony was to be observed, and some other circumstantials,
now formed topics of earnest and protracted discussion. One party, known
as the Quarto-decimans, or _Fourteenth Day Men_, held that the Paschal
feast was to be kept exactly at the time when the Jews had been
accustomed to eat the Passover, that is, on the fourteenth day of the
first month of the Jewish year; [626:3] and they celebrated the festival
of the resurrection on the seventeenth day of the month, that is, on the
third day after partaking of the Paschal lamb, whether that happened to
be the first day of the week or otherwise. The other party strenuously
maintained that the eating of the Paschal lamb ought to be postponed
until the night preceding the first Lord's day next following the
fourteenth day of the first month. They considered that this next Lord's
day should be recognized as the festival of our Saviour's resurrection,
and that the whole of the preceding week until the close should be kept
as a fast not to be interrupted by the eating of the Passover.
The most determined Quarto-decimans were to be found in Asia Minor, and
at their head was Polycrates, the chief pastor of Ephesus. At the head
of the other party was Victor, bishop of Rome. The Church over which he
presided did not originally observe any such appointment, [627:1] but
some of its members of Jewish extraction were probably, on that account,
dissatisfied; and about the time of the establishment of the Catholic
system, the matter seems to have been settled by a compromise. It
appears to have been then arranged that the festival should be kept; but
to avoid the imputation of symbolizing with the Jews, it was agreed that
the Friday of the Paschal week and the Lord's day following, or the day
on which our Saviour suffered and the day on which He rose from the
dead, should be the great days of observance. This arrangement was
pretty generally accepted by those connected with what now began to be
called the Catholic Church: but some parties pertinaciously refused to
conform. Victor, as the head of the Catholic confederation, no doubt
deemed it his duty to exact obedience from all its members; and, deeply
mortified because the Asiatic Churches persisted in their own usages,
shut them out from his communion. But it was soon evident that the
Church was not prepared for such an exercise of authority, for the
Asiatics refused to yield; and as some of Victor's best friends
protested against the imprudence of his procedure, the ecclesiastical
thunderbolt proved an impotent demonstration.
The Paschal controversy was far from creditable to any of the parties
concerned. The eating of a lamb on a particular day was a fragment of an
antiquated ceremonial, and as the ordinance itself had been superseded,
the time of its observance was not a legitimate question for debate.
Each party is said to have endeavoured to fortify its own position by
quoting the names of Paul or Peter or Philip or John; but had any one of
these apostles risen from the dead and appeared in the ecclesiastical
arena, he would, no doubt, have rebuked all the disputants for their
trivial and unholy wrangling. We have here a notable proof of the
absurdity of appealing to tradition. Within a hundred years after the
death of the last survivor of the Twelve its testimony was most
discordant, for the tradition of the Western Churches, as propounded by
Victor, expressly contradicted the tradition of the Eastern Churches, as
attested by Polycrates. It is clear that in this case the apostles must
have been misrepresented. Peter and Paul certainly never taught the
members of the Church of Rome to eat the Paschal lamb, for the Jewish
temple continued standing until after both these eminent ministers had
finished their career, and meanwhile the eating of the Passover was
confined to those who went up to worship at Jerusalem. Philip and John
may have continued to keep the feast according to the ancient ritual
until shortly before the ruin of the holy city; and if, afterwards, they
permitted the converts from Judaism to kill a lamb and to have a social
repast at the same season of the year, they could have attached no
religious importance to such an observance. But now that both parties
were heated by the spirit of rivalry and contention, they extracted from
tradition a testimony which it did not supply. Vague reports and
equivocal statements, handed down from ages preceding, were compelled to
convey a meaning very different from that which they primarily
communicated; and thus the voice of one tradition could be readily
employed to neutralize the authority of another.
It is a curious fact that the custom which now created such violent
excitement gradually passed into desuetude. At present there are few
places [629:1] where the eating of the Paschal lamb is continued. But
otherwise the practice for which Victor contended eventually prevailed,
as the Roman mode of celebration was established by the authority of the
Council of Nice. What is called Easter Sunday is still observed in many
Churches as the festival of the resurrection. But the institution of
such a festival is unnecessary, as each returning Lord's day should
remind the Christian that his Saviour has risen from the dead and become
the first-fruits of them that sleep. [629:2]
This Paschal controversy generated no schism, but other disputes, which
subsequently occurred, did not terminate so peacefully. About the middle
of the third century disagreements respecting matters of discipline rent
the Churches of Carthage and Rome. At Carthage, the malecontents sought
for greater laxity; at Rome, they contended for greater strictness. At
that time the _confessors_ and the _martyrs_, or those who had
persevered in their adherence to the faith under pains and penalties,
and those who had suffered for it unto death, were held in the highest
veneration. They had been even permitted in some places to dictate to
the existing ecclesiastical rulers by granting what were called _tickets
of peace_ [629:3] to the _lapsed_, that is, to those who had apostatized
in a season of persecution, and who had afterwards sought readmission to
Church communion. These certificates, or tickets of peace, were
understood to entitle the parties in whose favour they were drawn up to
be admitted forthwith to the Lord's Supper. But it sometimes happened
that a confessor or a martyr was himself far from a paragon of
excellence, [630:1] as mere obstinacy, or pride, or self-righteousness,
may occasionally hold out as firmly as a higher principle; and a man may
give his body to be burned who does not possess one atom of the grace of
Christian charity. There were confessors and martyrs in the third
century who held very loose views on the subject of Church discipline,
and who gave tickets of peace without much inquiry or consideration.
[630:2] In some instances they did not condescend so far as to name the
parties to whom they supplied recommendations, but directed that a
particular individual "and his friends" [630:3] should be restored to
ecclesiastical fellowship. Cyprian of Carthage at length determined to
set his face against this system of testimonials. He alleged that the
ticket of a martyr was no sufficient proof of the penitence of the party
who tendered it, and that each application for readmission to membership
should be decided on its own merits, by the proper Church authorities.
The bishop was already obnoxious to some of the presbyters and people of
Carthage; and, in the hope of undermining his authority, his enemies
eagerly seized on his refusal to recognize these certificates. They
endeavoured to create a prejudice against him by alleging that he was
acting dictatorially, and that he was not rendering due honour to those
who had so nobly imperilled or sacrificed their lives in the service of
the gospel. To a certain extent their opposition was successful; and, as
much sickness prevailed about the time, Cyprian was obliged to concede
so far as to consent to give the Eucharist, on the tickets of peace, to
those who had lapsed, and who were apparently approaching dissolution.
But, soon afterwards, strengthened by the decision of an African Synod,
he returned to his original position, and the parties now became
hopelessly alienated. The leader of the secession was a deacon of the
Carthaginian Church, named Felicissimus, and from him the schism which
now occurred has received its designation. The Separatists chose a
presbyter, named Fortunatus, as their bishop, and thus in the capital of
the Proconsular Africa a new sect was organized. But the secession,
which was based upon a principle thoroughly unsound, soon dwindled into
insignificance, and rapidly passed into oblivion.
The schism which occurred about the same time at Rome was of a more
formidable and permanent character. It had long been the opinion of a
certain party in the Church that persons who had committed certain
heinous sins should never again be readmitted to ecclesiastical
fellowship. [631:1] Those who held this principle did not pretend to say
that these transgressions were unpardonable; it was admitted that the
offenders might obtain forgiveness from God, but it was alleged that the
Church on earth could never feel warranted to receive them to communion.
Cornelius, who was then the bishop of Rome, supported a milder system
and contended that those who were not hopelessly excluded from the peace
of God should not be inexorably debarred from the visible pledges of His
affection. The leader of the stricter party was Novatian, a Roman
presbyter of pure morals and considerable ability, who has left behind
him one of the best treatises in defence of the Trinity which the
ecclesiastical literature of antiquity can supply. This individual was
ordained bishop in opposition to Cornelius; and, for a time, some of the
most distinguished pastors of the age found it difficult to decide
between these two claimants of the great bishopric. The high character
of Novatian, and the supposed tendency of his discipline to preserve the
credit and promote the purity of the Church, secured him considerable
support: the sect which derived its designation from him spread into
various countries; and, for several generations, the Novatians could
challenge comparison, as to soundness in the faith and propriety of
general conduct, with those who assumed the name of Catholics.
The agitation caused by the Novatian schism had not yet subsided when
another controversy respecting the propriety of rebaptizing those
designated heretics created immense excitement. Cyprian at the head of
one party maintained that the baptism of heretical ministers was not to
be recognized, and that the ordinance must again be dispensed to such
sectaries as sought admission to catholic communion; whilst Stephen of
Rome as strenuously affirmed that the rite was not to be repeated. It is
rather singular that the Italian prelate, on this occasion, pleaded for
the more liberal principle; but various considerations conspired to
prompt him to pursue this course. When heresies were only germinating,
and when what was afterwards called the Catholic Church was yet but in
process of formation, no question as to the necessity of rebaptizing
those to whom the ordinance had already been dispensed by any reputed
Christian minister, seems to have been mooted. In the time of Hyginus of
Rome, even the baptism of the leading ministers of the Gnostics was
acknowledged by the chief pastor of the Western metropolis. [633:1] The
Church of Rome had ever since continued to act upon the same system; and
her determination to adhere to it had been fortified, rather than
weakened, by recent occurrences. As the Novatians had set out on the
principle of rebaptizing all who joined them, [633:2] Stephen recoiled
from the idea of deviating from the ancient practice to follow in their
footsteps. But Cyprian, who was naturally of a very imperious temper,
and who had formed most extravagant notions of the dignity of the
Catholic Church, could not brook the thought that the ministers
connected with the schism of Felicissimus could dispense any baptism at
all. He imagined that the honour of the party to which he belonged would
be irretrievably compromised by such an admission, and he was sustained
in these views by a strong party of African and Asiatic bishops. On this
occasion Stephen repeated the experiment made about sixty years before
by his predecessor Victor, and attempted to reduce his antagonists to
acquiescence by excluding them from his fellowship. But this second
effort to enforce ecclesiastical conformity was equally unsuccessful. It
only provoked an outburst of indignation, as the parties in favour of
rebaptizing refused to give way. This controversy led, however, to the
broad assertion of a principle which might not otherwise have been
brought out so distinctly, for it was frequently urged during the course
of the discussion that all pastors stand upon a basis of equality, and
that the bishop of a little African village had intrinsically as good a
right to think and to act for himself as the bishop of the great capital
of the Empire.
It is very clear that at this time the unity of the Church did not
consist in the uniformity of its discipline and ceremonies. The
believers at Jerusalem continued to practise circumcision nearly a
century after the establishment of Gentile Churches in which such a rite
was unknown. On the question of rebaptizing heretics the Churches of
Africa and Asia Minor were diametrically opposed to the Church of Rome
and other communities in the West. As to the mode of observing the
Paschal feast a still greater diversity existed. According to the
testimony of Irenaeus there was nothing approaching to uniformity in the
practice of the various societies with which he was acquainted. "The
dispute," said he, "is not only respecting the _day_, but also
respecting the _manner_ of fasting. For some think that they ought to
fast only one day, some two, some more days; some compute their day as
consisting of forty hours night and day; [634:1] and this diversity
existing among those that observe it, is not a matter that has just
sprung up in our times, but long ago among those before us." [634:2]
When Cyprian refused to admit the lapsed to the Lord's Supper on the
strength of the tickets of peace furnished by the confessors and the
martyrs, he departed from the course previously adopted in Carthage; and
when Novatian excluded them altogether from communion, he acted on a
principle which was not then novel. There was at that time, in fact,
quite as much diversity in discipline and ceremonies among Christians as
is now to be found in evangelical Protestant Churches.
It must be admitted that, as we descend from the apostolic age, the
spirit of the dominant body in the Church betrays a growing want of
Christian charity. There soon appeared a disposition, on the part of
some, to monopolize religion, and to disown all who did not adopt their
ecclesiastical Shibboleth. When the great mass of Christians became
organized into what was called the Catholic Church, the chief pastors
branded with the odious name of heretics all who did not belong to their
association. The Nazarenes originally held all the great doctrines of
the gospel, but they soon found themselves in the list of the
proscribed, and they gradually degenerated into abettors of very corrupt
principles. Those members of the Church of Carthage who joined
Felicissimus acted upon principles which the predecessors even of
Cyprian had sanctioned, and yet the African prelate denounced them as
beyond the pale of divine mercy. Novatian was not less orthodox than
Cornelius; but because he contended for a system of discipline which,
though not unprecedented, was deemed by his rival too austere, and
because he organized a party to support him, he also was stigmatized
with the designation of heretic. The Quarto-decimans, as well as those
who contended for Catholic rebaptism, would doubtless have been classed
in the same list, had they not formed numerous and powerful
confederations. Thus it was that those called Catholics were taught to
cherish a contracted spirit, and to look upon all, except their own
party, as out of the reach of salvation. Their false conceptions of what
properly constituted the Church involved them in many errors and tended
to vitiate their entire theology. But this subject is too important to
be discussed in a few cursory remarks, and must be reserved for
consideration in a separate chapter.