Schisms Connected With Questions of Discipline

IV.--SCHISMS CONNECTED WITH QUESTIONS OF DISCIPLINE.

The schism of Damasus and Ursinus, at Rome, merits but a passing glance. It was prepared by the banishment and subsequent restoration of Liberius; this double change in the fortunes of Liberius involving the installation and then the removal of a rival bishop, and so giving rise to a division of parties. On the death of Liberius, in 366, one party elected Damasus, and the other Ursinus. Damasus won the victory, though at the expense of disgraceful violence on the part of his adherents. In a church that was stormed, as Ammianus reports, one hundred and thirty-seven dead bodies were found. [Lib. XXVII.] The Meletian schism at Antioch, near the same time, had a somewhat more substantial ground. It grew out of the complications of the struggle with Arianism. Meletius, who was installed by the Arians, afterwards professed the orthodox faith, and secured the support of most of the Catholic bishops of the East; while the West supported his orthodox rival, Paulinus. The division lasted about half a century. Neither of these schisms has special relation to the subject of the section. The great schism on the score of discipline was that of the Donatists in North Africa.

At the close of the Diocletian persecution, a large party in this region cherished a fanatical zeal for martyrdom, scorned all use of prudential means to escape the persecutors' vengeance, and wanted no fellowship with those who had used such means. Opposed to these was a moderate party, who refused all praise to rash and needless sacrifice of life. Mensurius, Bishop of Carthage, and his archdeacon Cæcilian, were conspicuous representatives of this class. Upon the death of the former (about 311), Cæcilian was installed as his successor. His opponents, however, determined to have their own bishop. They declared that the bishop who had consecrated Cæcilian was a traditor, --that is, one who had delivered up the sacred books to heathen officers, --and maintained that this fact, added to the haste of his election, altogether nullified his title. A certain Majorinus was then installed as their bishop. Upon his death, in 315, the man from whom the party derived its name, the fiery and energetic Donatus, took his place. The schism spread to wide limits, and there was a struggle between the Donatists and the Catholics for the churches. Tribunals appointed by Constantine, as also the Emperor himself, decided against the schismatics. [Augustine, Epist., xliii., lxxxviii.] Penal laws were issued, but their effect was only to inflame the zeal of the sectaries; and Constantine finally settled upon the policy of toleration. Persecution, however, was resumed and urged on by Constans and others. Fed with such fuel, Donatist zeal became in many instances a burning fanaticism. A party of ascetics, in particular, the so-called Circumcelliones, in their crazy enthusiasm went so far as to plunder and to murder their opponents; and some of them, as Augustine testifies, cast themselves down from rocks, as if, forsooth, a death secured in this way might merit the crown of martyrdom. [Cont. Litteras Petil., i. 24; Epist., xliii. 24.] Augustine tried the virtue of argument upon the schismatics, but effected little. The Donatists lived on as a powerful faction until the invasion of the Vandals, and a remnant survived even that inundation. Reference to them is found as late as the end of the sixth century.

Like the Montanists, the Donatists insisted that the Church is to be regarded as the assembly of the holy, and that its discipline must be such as to preserve to it this character. They gave little or no place to the policy of sparing the tares lest the wheat be at the same time pulled up, and laid the whole stress upon the idea that unless the tares are eliminated the wheat will be spoiled. They ran into the extreme of affirming that insincere and unworthy members can prejudice the standing of those animated by the most sincere and righteous purposes, that the virtue of the sacraments depends upon the character of the administrator. The Donatist Petilian, as quoted by Augustine, says, "What we look to is the conscience of the giver, to cleanse that of the recipient. He who receives faith from the faithless receives not faith, but guilt. For every thing consists of an origin and root; and, if it have not something for a head, it is nothing; nor does any thing well receive second birth, unless it be born again of good seed." [Cont. Litteras Petil., ii. 3-5.] Thus, in emphasizing inconsiderately so spiritual an attribute as holiness, Donatism ran upon the very unspiritual tenet of dependence upon human rather than upon divine connections.

Augustine showed the fallacy and impracticability of Donatism. He convicted its advocates of departing from their own principles in practice, and showed that there was no possibility of administering the Church in strict accordance with their standard, since no human discernment can distinguish with certainty between the worthy and the unworthy. But Augustine, on his part, indulged a one-sided theory. While he allowed that men might be in the general, or Catholic, Church, who were not truly of it, not members of the mystical body of Christ, he disallowed that any members of Christ's body could be outside of the visible Catholic Church, unless perchance necessity, as opposed to their own will, should keep them out. By the Catholic Church he understood the Church spread through all lands and continuing in communion with the apostolic seats. Augustine's conclusions followed logically from his premises. He assumed that no one can break away from the outward unity of the Church except under the promptings of a spirit contrary to love. To continue in schism involved, in his view, a continued violation of the love which is the very essence of the gospel. "Those," says he, "are wanting in God's love who do not care for the unity of the Church, and consequently we are right in understanding that the Holy Spirit may be said not to be received except in the Catholic Church. Whatever may be received by heretics and schismatics, the charity which covers the multitude of sins is the especial gift of Catholic unity and peace." [DeBap. cont. Donat., iii. 16.] "The Catholic Church alone is the body of Christ. Outside this body, the Holy Spirit giveth life to no one." [De Correct. Donat., § 50.] Augustine ignored the fact, so emphatically taught by history, that a minority may be in the right, and may be assailed with such intolerance by the majority as to have no way of saving the interests of truth, except by breaking the bond of outward unity. His indiscriminate emphasis upon the external unity of the Church was indeed fitted to serve as a corner-stone in the edifice of spiritual despotism. Schism on slight grounds Play be a great crime; but absolutely to disallow schism is to license a corrupt Church to perpetuate an universal apostasy from the truth. Augustine, with all his spiritual conceptions, elaborated maxims supremely fitted to turn the Church into a kingdom of this world.

Discipline: Confession of Sins

III. - DISCIPLINE.

In accordance with the increase of polemic zeal and the decrease of moral earnestness, the tendency of the age was to sharpen the penalties against heresy, and to lessen those against immorality. In some cases the rigor of earlier canons was formally modified. Thus the council of Nicæa set forth the principle that every penitent, whatever his crime, might be admitted to communion in the dying hour, provided he had given previously a suitable exhibition of contrition. [Canon 13.] There was a general endeavor to proportion the period of penance to the guilt of the penitent. According to the scheme of Basil, based on the preceding legislation of the Church, the period of penance for apostates was to be life-long; for murder, twenty years; for adultery or violation of the vow of virginity, fifteen years; for perjury or robbing of graves, ten years; for communicating with diviners, six years; for theft, when not confessed two years, when confessed one year. [Epist., ccxvii.] In practice, the differing tempers of church officials had much to do with the degree of severity employed. Not a few were inclined to laxity, especially in dealing with culprits of rank. This unworthy concession was strongly denounced by Chrysostom, as appears from his exhortation to those administering the communion. "Though a captain," says he, "or a governor, nay, even one adorned with the imperial crown, approach unworthily, prevent him: you have greater authority than he. Fear God, not man. If you fear man, he will treat you with scorn; if you fear God, you will appear venerable even to men." [Hom. in Matt., lxxxii.]

As respects confession, two points should be considered; namely, the ground of its importance, as commonly apprehended, and the extent to which it was formally prescribed. As the whole tenor of reference to the subject indicates, the need of confession (to bishop or priest) was an inference from the necessity of penance. According to a notion quite thoroughly developed in the preceding period, sins committed after baptism are not easily forgiven: a special atonement must be made for them; a penance proportionate to the transgression must be fulfilled. As the priests were the proper advisers in respect to penance, there was a standing occasion for those who were conscious of misdeeds to open to them the nature of their offences. This was the motive for the confession of secret sins. The penitent came not to a judge for a sentence of absolution, but to a spiritual director to be see upon the path of a proper atonement. The absolution came at the end of the atonement, or penance, and then was not a judicial sentence, except so far as concerns the penitent's relation to the Church; as respects his relation to God, it was of the nature of a benediction or prayer. Augustine indicates this sense when he says, "The laying on of hands in reconciliation to the Church is not, like baptism, incapable of repetition; for what is it more than a prayer offered over a man?" [De Bap. cont. Donat., iii. 16. Compare the following from Leo the Great Epist., clxviii.: "Sufficit illa confessio quæ primum Deo offertur, tum etiam sacerdoti, qui pro delictis pœnitentium precator accedit."]

In considering the extent to which there was a formal requirement of confession, the following specifications are pertinent: (1) There was no rule requiring all Christians to confess at recurring intervals. "In this period," says Neander, "there was no law requiring confession of sins before the priest at a stated time. Either the bishop excluded from the fellowship of the Church those whose sins had become sufficiently known, and allowed their restoration only on condition of submission to the discipline ordained by him and accommodated to the case; or they voluntarily confessed their sins to the bishop, thus giving him a token of their penitence, which worked to the softening of the penance imposed." [Kirchengeschichte, iii. 266.] (2) Very largely, participation in the eucharist was left to the conscience of the individual, and he was not required to confess as a condition of participation. On this subject we have information from Socrates and Sozomen. The former says, "When the Novatians separated themselves from the Church because they would not communicate with those who had lapsed during the persecution under Decius, the bishops added to the ecclesiastical canon a presbyter whose duty it should be to receive the confession of penitents who had sinned after baptism. And this mode of discipline is still maintained, among other heretical institutions, by all the rest of the sects; the Homoousians [Orthodox Trinitarians] only, together with the Novatians who hold the same doctrinal views, having rejected it. The latter, indeed, would never admit its establishment; and the Homoousians, who are now in the possession of the churches, after retaining the function for a considerable period, abrogated it in the time of Nectarius, in consequence of what occurred in the church of Constantinople [namely, a, scandal respecting a woman of noble family]. When, in consequence of this, ecclesiastics were subjected to taunting and reproach, Eudæmon, a presbyter of the church, persuaded Nectarius the bishop to abolish the office of penitentiary presbyter, and to leave every one to his own conscience with regard to the participation of the sacred mysteries." Hist Eccl., v. 19. According to Sozomen, the act of Nectarius, in abrogating the office of peniteritiary presbyter, was followed generally by the bishops of the East; and he adds language which indicates that, for a time at least, there was a general absence of confession in any form. "From that period," he says, "the performance of penance fell into disuse; and it seems to me that extreme laxity of principle was substituted for the severity and rigor of antiquity. Under the ancient system, I think, offences were of rarer occurrence for people were deterred from their commission by the dread of confessing them, and exposing them to the scrutiny of a severe judge." [Hist. Eccl.,vii. 16.] A state of things in which "the scrutiny of a severe judge" was no longer encountered, implies, of course, an extensive remission of confession, whether private or public. But this liberty could not well continue a great length of time. The prevailing notions respecting the necessity of satisfaction for sins committed after baptism, and the growing emphasis upon priestly rank and mediation, could hardly fail to bring in the complete machinery of the confessional as known in later times.

Election, Education, and Celibacy of the Clergy

I.--ELECTION, EDUCATION, AND CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY.

IN the mode of filling ecclesiastical positions, there was exhibited a mixture of the popular and of the hierarchical principle. The tendency, no doubt, was to withdraw the suffrage wholly from the people; but it was only by slow advances that this result was reached. While the presbyters and deacons were appointed by the bishops, the custom remained quite generally in vogue to ask the people if the candidate was acceptable. In the election of a bishop, the bishops of the province were the principal factors; but the will of the people was more or less consulted, and sometimes, especially in the West, asserted itself with determining force. In the elevation, for example, of Ambrose to the bishopric of Milan, the popular choice and enthusiasm bore down every thing else. This rather mixed suffrage, in places where the people were given to violent partisanship, and the clergy were imbued with a worldly and political temper, could easily give rise to unseemly disorders. All abuse, in an age of hierarchical tendencies, was naturally turned to the prejudice of the popular principle. It was after the close of the present period, however, before the people were legislated out of all participation in the choice of bishops. To be sure, we find the council of Laodicea, in the latter part of the fourth century, prescribing in general terms that the prerogative of electing to the priesthood should no longer be conceded to the people. [Canon 13. See Helele, § 93. The canon is understood by eminent expositors to refer to the episcopal office as well as to that of priests.] But, as a matter of fact, such a prerogative was not yet fully cancelled, even in the East to which the canon in question more especially applied. As for the West, we meet at the middle of the next century, from so eminent an authority as Leo the Great, the broad statement that "he who is to preside over all should be elected by all."

Epist. x. 6. "Teneatur subscriptio clericorum, honoratorum testimonium, ordinis consensus at plebis. Qui præfuturus est omnibus, ab omnibus eligatur." Compare Epist.xiii. It is interesting to note that this most aggressive champion of the monarchy of the Roman see strongly asserted in another form a democratic principle. Expressing the theory of the common priesthood of believers, he says: "Omnes in Christo regeneratos crucis signum efficit reges, sancti vero Spiritus unctio consecrat sacerdotes " (Serm., iv. 1).

Different plans of episcopal election were finally adopted by the East and the West respectively. The former based its practice upon the fourth canon of the first council of Nicæa, which reads as follows: "The bishop shall be appointed by all [the bishops] in the eparchy [or province]; if this is not possible on account of pressing necessity, or on account of the length of journeys, three at the least shall meet and proceed to the imposition of hands, with the permission of those absent, in writing. The confirmation of what has been done belongs by right, in each eparchy, to the metropolitan." The seventh and eighth ecumenical councils (787 and 869) interpeted this canon as meaning that a bishop should be elected only by bishops, and the practice of the Eastern Church was conformed to this interpretation. The Latin Church, on the other hand, regarded the canon as applying only to ordination and confirmation; and while, it too, excluded the people from episcopal elections (about the eleventh century), it excluded likewise the bishops of the province, and confined the suffrage to the clergy of the cathedral Church. [Hefele, § 42.] As respects confirmation, also, Latin custom ultimately became distinguished from Greek, in that the Pope took the place of the metropolitan in the West, and was credited with the sole determining power to confirm the choice of a bishop. These regulations were in general successful in excluding the mass of the people, but secular princes still had it in their power to exercise much influence over episcopal elections. Even the papal throne itself was sometimes made to represent the overshadowing effect of secular power and patronage.

The isolation of the clergy from ordinary rank and occupation, and the multiplication of theological controversies, naturally turned attention to ministerial education. On the other hand, the growth of ceremonialism, and the attractions which ecclesiastical positions had from a worldly stand-point, tended to qualify the emphasis laid upon the teaching function of the clergy and their own apprehension of the need of thorough culture. As a resultant of these different tendencies, we find special efforts and provisions in the direction of ministerial education, but, at the same time, a widespread neglect of the same. The latter fact is indicated by the following complaint of Gregory Nazianzen: "Only he can be a physician who has examined into the nature of diseases; he a painter, who has had much experience in mixing colors and drawing forms; but a clergyman may readily be found, not laboriously wrought, but brand-new, sown and full blown in a moment, as the legend says of the giants." [Orat., xliii. 26.] Among theological schools, that of Alexandria took the lead at the beginning of the period, but was soon rivalled by that of Antioch. Casaræa in Palestine was quite an eminent seat of theological culture. A school founded at Edessa in the fourth century, by Ephraem the Syrian, flourished about a hundred years, and educated ministers for Mesopotamia and Persia. A seminary founded at Nisibis in Mesopotamia, in the fifth century, was the chief source of theological culture among the Nestorians. The West could boast of no such noted educational centres, but enterprising bishops in that region in part supplied the lack by personal attention to the training of those within or preparing for the ministry. In both East and West the cloisters were a factor in the education of the clergy; they were, however, relatively less conspicuous in this office in the present than in the subsequent era.

Before the close of the third century there was quite a general preference for clerical celibacy. But still for a time no tribunal, having anything more than provincial jurisdiction, imposed a celibate life upon the three orders of the ministry. The Spanish council of Elvira stood alone, in the first part of the fourth century, in making this requisition. The council of Ancyra in 314 licensed the deacons, under certain conditions, to live in married relations. The following is the canon which it issued upon the subject: "If deacons, at the time of their appointment, declare that they must marry, and that they cannot lead a celibate life, and if accordingly they marry, they may continue their office, as having the permit of the bishop; but if at the time of their election they have not spoken, and have agreed in taking holy orders to lead a celibate life, and if later they marry, they shall lose their diaconate." The council of Neo-Cæsarea, held about the same time, appears not to have exceeded the above restrictions. While it ordained, "if a priest [or presbyter] marry, he shall be removed from the ranks of the clergy," it said nothing about deacons who might claim the same license. At the council of Nicæa, the question of enforcing celibacy was agitated; but the assembled bishops were persuaded to leave the matter where they found it. "It seemed fit to the bishops," says Socrates, "to introduce a new law into the Church, that those in holy orders (I speak of bishops, presbyters, and deacons) should have no intercourse with the wives whom they had married prior to ordination. And, when it was proposed to deliberate on this matter, Paphnutius, having arisen in the midst of the assembly of bishops, earnestly entreated them not to impose so heavy a yoke upon the ministers of religion." [Hist. Eccl., i. ii. Compare Sozomen, i. 23.] This exhortation of Paphnutius, since he was a distinguished confessor, and had himself lived a strictly celibate life, had great influence; and the proposed law was abandoned. The third canon of Nicæa, which has sometimes been interpreted as a sanction for celibacy, has an entirely different application. It forbids in the houses of the clergy, not wives, but the class of persons called sorores; that is, women undertaking, according to a perilous custom of which there are some earlier traces, [The council of Ancyra, Canon 19, had already condemned the custom.] to live with men in familiar companionship, and at the same time to keep the vow of virginity. That the canon has no reference to wives proper, is clear, from the fact that the prohibition is extended to every grade of the clergy; whereas legislation, at the very acme of its stringency, never attempted to impose the law of celibacy upon the lower ranks of ecclesiastics.

In the Greek Church, the requirement of celibacy on the part of the entire clergy was never insisted upon. The synod of Gangra (in Paphlagonia), in the latter part of the fourth century, declared it a proper ground for excommunication, if any one should refuse to share in divine service when a married priest was ministering at the altar. Even bishops at this period occasionally lived in married relations after consecration. Such was the case with the father of Gregory Nazianzen, who had children born in his family after assuming the episcopal office, one of them being the distinguished theologian himself. Socrates states that in his time abstinence from marriage was a matter of choice among the clergy of the East, there being no binding law upon the subject. [Hist. Eccl., v. 22.] "It was gradually," says one of the most learned, as well as most candid, of Roman-Catholic writers, "that in the Greek Church it became the practice to require the bishops and all the higher clergy to abstain from married life. The apostolic canons know nothing of such a requirement. They speak, on the contrary, of married bishops; and church history also gives examples of the same, such as Synesius in the fifth century." [Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, § 43.] In the case of Synesius, the privilege of retaining his wife was made by him a positive condition of accepting the episcopal office. The Greek Church, however, came finally to insist upon celibate bishops. Those who had wives prior to entering upon the office of bishop were put under obligation to part from them. A law to this effect was promulgated by the so-called Trullan council, held at Constantinople in 692. As regards priests and deacons, on the other hand, the ultimate custom of the Greek Church made a single marriage no barrier against consecration, and placed no restriction upon a continuance in married relations consummated prior to consecration. In respect to bishops also, it became usual to avoid an interference with the marriage bond by selecting monks or widower priests to fill vacancies.

In the Latin Church, legislation assumed a more stringent tone. The Roman bishop Siricius, in 385, in answer to inquiries from Spain, issued a decretal letter, in which the position of the council of Elvira was re-affirmed, and married life was disallowed to bishops, presbyters, and deacons.

[Epist. i. Compare Epist. x. Henry C. Lea, in his learned work on Sacerdotal Celibacy, calls attention to the lack of historical warrant which the decretals of Siricius exhibit. "It is observable," he says, "that in these decretals no authority is quoted later than the apostolic texts, which, as we have seen, have but little bearing on the subject. No canons of councils, no epistles of earlier popes, no injunctions of the Fathers are brought forward to strengthen the position assumed, whence the presumption is irresistible, that none such existed, and we may rest satisfied that no evidence has been lost that would prove the pre-existence of the rule."]

Leo the Great, in the next century, included the sub-deacons under the same requisition. Numerous synods in the fifth century, as that of Carthage in 401, that held under the Roman bishop Innocent I. in 402, that of Orange in 441, prohibited the three orders from living with wives. From the council of Tours, in 461, it appears that those violating the rule of celibacy had been subject to excommunication; but that council modified the penalty, and decreed that priests and Levites continuing in intercourse with their wives should be debarred from promotion, and from officiating in the public service, the communion meanwhile being granted them. In the succeeding centuries, also, the celibate rule received many formal declarations. All this may be taken as evidence that clerical celibacy became well established in this period in the theory of the Latin Church. At the same time, however, the very frequency with which the requirement of it was asserted is a clear hint that there were many exceptions to it in practice. Moreover, the strict safeguards which it was thought necessary to provide for the purity of the clergy indicate that the prohibition of family relations was often the occasion of immorality. In synod after synod it was ordained that no women, other than near relatives, even for the performance of necessary service, should be found in the houses of the clergy. [So the Synods of Aries in 443 or 452, Angers in 453, Agde in 506, Toledo in 527-531, Clermont in 535, Orleans in 549, Elusa in 551, Tours in 567, and Macon in 581.]

The causes by which the policy of celibacy was especially urged on were the hierarchical and monastic tendencies of the times. The unmarried state served to distinguish the clergy. It widened the gulf between them and the ordinary classes of men. Monasticism encouraged the idea that a special sanctity pertains to the unwedded life. It was felt that the sacred order of the clergy ought not to fall below the highest standard. Hence, the growing warfare against the domestic instincts of those in holy orders.

Nature and Results of the Alliance Between Church and State

V.-NATURE AND RESULTS OF THE ALLIANCE BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE.

Under the first Christian emperors, the Church was not distinctly assigned the place and character of a State Church. There was no definite acknowledgment of ecclesiastical headship in the sovereign, such, for example, as was declared by the "Act of Supremacy" to belong to Henry VIII. over the Church of England. It was rather an informal alliance, that, in the first instance, was contracted. Church and State felt the uniting bond of common interests. The emperor saw that a measure of influence and agency in the affairs of the State might profitably be conceded to the Church. The Church felt that so useful an ally as the emperor ought to be allowed considerable prerogatives in her domain, that he might the more perfectly forward her interests. The extent to which imperial interference might properly go was not stated or understood; but in an age of despotic rule the concession to the temporal prince to interfere at all, in a sovereign capacity, would naturally enable him in a short time to become a most powerful factor in the affairs of the Church. The tendency of such a concession is amply illustrated by the very first Christian reign.

Though it was not a case of the most positive union of Church and State, it was much more than a simple moral alliance between two independent factors which occurred under Constantine. He acknowledged, indeed, that it was no prerogative of his to determine the doctrinal standards of the Church; but he soon made it evident that he was not minded to assume a passive attitude toward the management of ecclesiastical interests. "He assumed," writes Eusebius, "as it were, the functions of a general bishop, constituted by God and convened synods of His ministers." [Vita Cons., i. 44.] The same author reports him as having said to a company of bishops: "You are bishops whose jurisdiction is within the Church; I, also, am a bishop, ordained by God to overlook whatever is external to the Church." [Ibid., iv. 24.] If by things external he meant simply the temporalities of the Church, he much transcended the bounds here stated. He published decrees confirming the decisions of the bishops on questions of doctrine and worship, banished ecclesiastics who refused to subscribe the standard creed, ordered the restoration of excommunicated persons in the face of episcopal opposition,

[According to Socrates (Hist. Eccl., i. 27), he sent to Athanasius the following peremptory demand for the restoration of Arius and his partisans: "Since you have been apprised of my will, afford unhindered access into the Church to all who are desirous of entering it. For if it shall be intimated to me that you have prohibited any of those claiming to be re-united to the Church, or have hindered their admission, I will forthwith send some one, who, at my command, shall depose you, and drive you into exile." Evidently a power which assumed to meddle with a prerogative so vitally related to ecclesiastical supremacy as this of managing the keys did not feel any strong obligation to keep off from any part of the ecclesiastical domain.]

and prohibited the assemblies of various heretical and schismatic parties. [Euseb., Vita Cons., iii. 64; Sozomen, Hist. Eccl., ii. 32; Codex Theodos., Lib. XVI., Tit. v.]

How far the Church was drawn into the circle of the State is also seen in some of the privileges and functions that were assigned to ecclesiastics. The clergy were made, if not as respects their appointment, as respects their support, officers of the State; at least, a part of their support was ordered by Constantine to be paid out of the public treasury. "He wrote," says Theodoret, "to the governors of the provinces, directing that money should be given in every city to widows, orphans, and to those who were consecrated to the divine service; and he fixed the amount of their annual allowance more according to the impulse of his own generosity, than to the exigencies of their condition. The third part of the same is distributed to this day. Julian impiously withheld the whole; his successor distributed the sum which is now dispensed, the famine which then prevailed compelling him to do little." [Hist. Eccl., i. 11.]

A legal standing, within certain limits, was awarded the bishops as judges or arbitrators. In the previous centuries it had been a principle in the Church to prohibit brethren from carrying their disputes before the heathen tribunals. Hence the bishops had frequent occasion to act as arbitrators. Constantine recognized this function in them, and provided by law that parties agreeing to submit their case to a bishop should abide by his decision. [Sozomen, Hist. Eccl., i. 9.]

The successors of Constantine were not inclined to claim a less share in the management of the Church than was arrogated by him. Not content merely to follow up the action of the bishops, and to raise their decisions on doctrine and discipline to the character of imperial laws, they often, in addition to this, asserted their own will in ecclesiastical matters. Constantius, even more freely than his father, exercised a lordship over episcopal thrones, driving out one incumbent, setting up another, and bringing cogent means to bear for the overawing of bishops assembled in council. Others who followed claimed an equal license. Some even went so far as to issue authoritative decrees, in their own name, upon questions of dogma. This was notably the case, in the present period, with Basiliscus, Zeno, and Justinian. [Evagrius, Hist. Eccl., iii. 4, iii. 14, iv. 39.] In this assumption, however, these lay popes were none too successful. The current of thought and feeling in the Church had too much force and momentum to be easily diverted by any individual, with whatever official majesty he might be armed. More than one emperor found himself powerless to carry through a favorite scheme in relation to ecclesiastical affairs.

Evidently these new relations involved serious dangers. But they embraced, also, grand opportunities. The danger was that the Church should become pervaded with too much of a secular and political spirit, and also suffer, at the hands of its ally, an abridgment of its liberty. The opportunity was the chance to sanctify worldly dominion, the open door through which the Church was invited to carry the influence of the gospel into all the departments of the State and of society. The radical isolation from the State, which Christianity had been compelled to assume in the previous centuries, was an unnatural position. Perilous as are riches and power, its office is not so much to renounce, as to sanctify them. Christianity was only coming to its rightful position when it came where it could lay its hand upon the throne, the sceptre, and the resources of empire. Church and State are never in proper relations, save as an intimate moral alliance subsists between them; that is, an attitude of mutual respect, sympathy, and well-wishing as respects the prosperity of each in its own sphere, an alliance which promotes the good of both without unduly sacrificing the independence of either. If, then, the new relations were detrimental to the Church, it was because the alliance was not a normal one, and because the Church failed in the task of sanctifying its added resources. As a matter of fact, both good and evil resulted, inasmuch as the alliance was in part abnormal, and inasmuch as the Church in part fulfilled, and in part failed to fulfil, its appointed task of sanctifying the worldly estate upon which it entered. Among the chief results to the Church, the following may be enumerated:--

1. A mass of half-converted heathen. The mere force of imperial example was enough to draw multitudes into the Church. The prospect of imperial favor and worldly promotion caused many more to assume the Christian name. Even Eusebius testifies to the broad scope which Constantine's administration allowed to the operation of this corrupt motive, and denounces "the scandalous hypocrisy of those who crept into the Church, and assumed the name and character of Christians." [Vita Cons., iv. 54.] Augustine testifies to the force which similar considerations had in his day. "How many," he says, "seek Jesus for no other object but that he may bestow on them a temporal benefit! One has a business on hand: he seeks the intercession of the clergy. Another is oppressed by a more powerful than himself: he dies to the Church. Another desires intervention in his behalf with one with whom he has little influence. One in this way, one in that, the Church is daily filled with such people. Jesus is scarcely sought after for Jesus' sake." [Tract. in Joan., xxv. 10.] Chrysostom uses this strong language: "The Lord commanded not to give that which is holy to the dogs, or to cast pearls before swine. We, however, moved by senseless vanity and ambition, have violated this command, in that we have admitted to a participation of the sacraments corrupt and unbelieving men, who are full of evil, before they have given us a definate proof of their disposition." [Quoted by Neander from the treatise addressed to Demetrius.] As the extracts may serve to intimate, the nobler and more earnest bishops sought to make the best possible use of the influx, and spared no pains to lead applicants for church-membership into a true understanding and inner acceptance of Christianity. But those of more worldly temper were content to swell numbers irrespective of moral consequences. The inevitable result of such a policy was a mass of unassimilated material. Men came into the Church without any previous discipline in Christian morals, or training in the monotheistic faith. A lowered tone of Christian life, and an acceleration of tendencies toward polytheism, followed, as natural consequences. Those who had been accustomed to a long list of gods could easily be inclined to an idolatrous veneration of the Virgin and the saints.

2. Encroachments of worldliness. The transformation of the imperial court from the headquarters of heathen opposition into a principal asylum and defence of Christianity was a fact that gave by itself quite a new aspect to secular glory. Earthly splendor was made by this change to appear less foreign, less exclusively an attribute of the wicked Babylon. The personal customs of the early Christian emperors tended to re-enforce the impression thus initiated. Constantine did not hesitate to adopt the usual standard of Oriental magnificence, and he was quite outstripped in this respect by some of his successors. Arcadius, one of the sons of the great Theodosius, and his successor in the East, cultivated a pomp scarcely exceeded by any representative of heathen dominion. "When, on rare occasions," writes Milman, "Arcadius condescended to reveal to the public the majesty of the sovereign, he was preceded by a vast multitude of attendants, dukes, tribunes, civil and military officers, their horses glittering with golden ornaments, with shields of gold set with precious stones, and golden lances. They proclaimed the coming of the Emperor, and commanded the ignoble crowd to clear the streets before him. The Emperor stood or reclined in a gorgeous chariot, surrounded by his immediate attendants, distinguished by shields with golden bosses, set round with golden eyes, and drawn by white mules with gilded trappings. The chariot was set with precious stones; and golden fans vibrated with the movement, and cooled the air. The multitude contemplated at a distance the snow-white cushions, the silken carpets with dragons inwoven upon them in rich colors. Those who were fortunate enough to catch a glimpse of the Emperor beheld his ears loaded with golden rings, his arms with golden chains, his diadem set with gems of all hues, his purple robes in all their sutures embroidered with precious stones. The wondering people, on their return to their homes, could talk of nothing but the splendor of the spectacle, --the robes, the mules, the carpets, the size and splendor of the jewels." [Hist. of Christianity, Book IV., chap. i]

But it speedily became unnecessary to turn the eyes toward the imperial court to see a spectacle of wealth and magnificence within the bounds of a professed Christianity. The Church itself became possessed of great riches. The increasing of its revenues by gifts and legacies was regarded as a decided indication of religious zeal. Many also thought to purchase special grace to their souls by such means. So far was legacy-hunting and legacy-giving carried, in behalf of church purposes, that Valentinian I. thought it necessary to impose certain restrictions. [Codex Theod., Lib. XVI., Tit. ii. 20.] Jerome allowed that there was adequate occasion for the restrictive legislation. [Epist., lii.] The bishops of the principal cities, were they so disposed, easily found the means of living in princely estate. The historian Ammianus speaks, for example, of the costly equipage of the Roman bishops, and of their feasts surpassing kings' tables. [Lib. XXVII.] Not unfrequently the attractions of the chief ecclesiastical positions excited the desires of men of a thoroughly worldly temper, and many were more than content to receive such as their spiritual overseers. "The people," said Gregory Nazianzen in his farewell address to the council at Constantinople, "seek now not priests, but rhetoricians; not pastors of souls, but managers of money; not those who offer with pure hearts, but powerful champions." [Orat., xlii. 24.]

It is not to be inferred, however, that the whole Church was swamped in this worldliness. There was a host of Christians in these centuries who stood nobly above the plane of avarice and ostentation. The same Ammianus who condemns the episcopal pomp of Rome praises the example afforded by some of the provincial bishops, "whose slender diet, humble apparel, and downcast eyes commend them, as pure and modest persons, to the eternal God and his true servants." [Lib. XXVII.] There were men in the foremost positions, like Athanasius, Basil, Augustine, and Chrysostom, who lived after a very abstinent mode, and gave their income to charitable purposes. Augustine even protested against hasty and imprudent donations to the Church. Being complained of for not enriching the Church more, he replied: "He who will disinherit his son to make the Church his heir may seek another, not Augustine, to receive the inheritance: nay, God grant rather that he may find no one." The whole phenomenon of monasticism, also, though a one-sided protest against worldliness, shows that it was only a part of the Church that became enthralled with secular ambitions.

3. A mixture of hierarchical pride and subserviency. Apart from any connection between Church and State, the leading prelates would have experienced temptations to pride and ambition, incentives to magnify their office, and to pursue with vigor the race for episcopal pre-eminence. The new relations increased the tendencies in this direction only as increased resources and lessened spirituality were adapted to intensify an unsanctified thirst after distinction and power. The very same temper, however, which inclined ambitious prelates to strive after a pre-eminence over their associates in the Church, could move them to assume a very subservient attitude toward the sovereign. Few bishops had, as yet, the boldness to rebuke an emperor, and to discipline him ecclesiastically, -- to say nothing about an endeavor to domineer over him in his own sphere. There were, indeed, many instances in which they refused, for conscience' sake, to obey his mandates. But, even while disobeying, they recognized their inability to cope with so powerful a rival, and contented themselves, for the most part, with a passive resistance to obnoxious decrees. The tendency, on the whole, was not so much to strive after superiority to the secular power, as to seek for support and advancement through imperial favor and patronage. This was especially the case in the East; the development here was toward an emphatic subordination of Church to State. In the West, a higher degree of executive ability in Church officials, the early dissolution of the State, the remoteness of Rome from the Byzantine court, and the final abolition of all connection between the two, favored ecclesiastical independence, and prepared the way for a successful rivalry of the civil power. The more positive developments, however, in this direction, were subsequent to the present period.

4. Limitation of religious freedom, both in theory and in practice. Excommunication is the extreme penalty which the Church, by itself and as a purely religious organization, is competent to inflict. The co-operation or connivance of the State is needed for the visiting of any severer penalty. The presence of a Christian emperor upon the throne gave to the Church, for the
first time, the opportunity to have force employed as a motive power in religion. Unhappily there was not enough of deep and enlightened conviction on the subject of tolerance thoroughly to discard the opportunity.

We find, it is true, very positive maxims concerning liberty of conscience. The strong utterances of eminent Fathers of the preceding period have their parallels in this. "It belongs to true piety," says Athanasius, "not to compel, but to convince, since the Lord Himself compelled no one, but left the decision to the free will of each, in that He said to all, 'If any man will come after me;' to His disciples, however, "Will ye also go away?" [Hist. Arian., § 67.] "It is not permitted Christians," urged Chrysostom, "to overthrow error by constraint and violence: they are to work the salvation of men by persuasion, by reasoning, by gentleness." [In Sanct. Babylam.] From Hilary we have this earnest plea for religious liberty, addressed to the persecuting Constantius: "Watch," therefore, " and be intent that all your subjects may enjoy sweet freedom. In no way can disturbances be composed, and divisions healed, unless every one, free from all servile constraint, has full liberty to follow his own convictions. God is Lord of the universe, and does not need an enforced obedience, does not require an enforced confession." [Ad Constant., Lib. I., §§ 2, 6.] Augustine, likewise, in his earlier utterances, advocated very distinctly the principles of tolerance. He urged that, in respect of the heathen, the great concern of Christians should be to destroy the idols in their hearts, since then of their own accord they would banish the outward abominations. We have also from him this compact statement of the sole efficiency of moral means in concerns of the soul: "Non vincit nisi veritas; victoria veritatis est caritas" [Quoted by Schaff, Church Hist., vol. iii., § 27.] ("Nothing conquers but truth; the victory of truth is love").

It may, perhaps, be suggested, as a qualifying fact, that some of these statements came from a persecuted party. This is true. But some of them, on the other hand, came from men who had at the time no interest in tolerance, on personal grounds; and, as respects Athanasius and Hilary, it would be contrary to charity, perhaps also to reason, not to credit them with a genuine and unselfish regard for religious liberty, at least to the extent of discountenancing force. Still, it is plain that the principle of religious tolerance had no such settled basis in the consciousness of the Church of that age as it finds to-day in the consciousness of Protestant Christendom. The same Chrysostom who so clearly urged the duty of loving heathen and heretics thought it allowable and incumbent upon himself to confiscate the churches of the Novatians and Quartodecimans. [Socrates, Hist. Eccl., vi. 11. ] Augustine in his later years, instigated by his failure to convert the Donatists by logic, as well as by the violent and miserable excesses of a fanatical wing of that party, virtually recalled his theory of freedom of conscience. His change of view is thus recorded by himself: "Originally my opinion was, that no one should be coerced into the unity of Christ, that we must act only by words, fight only by arguments, and prevail by force of reason, lest we should have those whom we knew as avowed heretics feigning themselves to be Catholics. But this opinion of mine was overcome, not by the words of those who controverted it, but by the conclusive instances to which they could point." [Epist., xciii., § 17.] The "conclusive instances" referred to were instances of the practical efficiency of the imperial edicts in making Catholics of those who were previously Donatists. This revised theory was supported by Augustine with unhesitating zeal. Persecution, he argued, gains its character from its source and aim. For the good to persecute the wicked in order to make them good, serves a beneficent end. In the former age, Christianity suffered persecution from the ungodly; now it is her prerogative and duty to chastise the ungodly. Nebuchadnezzar casting those into the furnace who refused to worship the image which he had set up is the type of the unrighteous power which formerly held the throne of the Roman Empire; this same Nebuchadnezzar commanding the extermination of those who should speak slightingly of the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego is the type of righteous power in the hands of Christian emperors. [Epist., xciii., § 9.] Augustine also appealed to the New Testament, claiming that the words in Luke xiv. 23, about compelling the invited guests to come in, authorizes the use of external pressure upon the refractory. [De Correctione Donat., § 24; Epist., xciii., § 5; Epist., clxxiii., § 10.] The conversion of Paul, he maintained, was an illustration of the policy inculcated in this passage, since the stubborn Pharisee was first struck down and blinded, before he received the comforting message of grace. [Epist., xciii., clxxiii. It is strange that Augustine did not see that prerogatives of discipline which are safe in the hands of infinite wisdom and love cannot safely be put into the hands of fallible, selfish, passionate mortals.] Augustine, indeed, had too much sense to imagine that genuine faith can be evolved by mere force. His idea was, that the rod of temporal severity may bring men to that subdued and considerate state of mind which tends to make them receptive of the rational evidences of truth. It was understood by him, moreover, that coercive measures must be dictated by the principle of love; and he seems to have advised that they should stop short of capital inflictions. [Epist., c.] His theory, nevertheless, was an open door to the abuse of power. The most remorseless bigot could not wish for a more ample dogmatic basis of spiritual despotism than that supplied by the great theologian. "Augustine founded," says Neander, "the theory of the coge or compelle intrare in ecclesiam. It is true, that Augustine always explains that every thing must proceed solely from the feeling of love; but what availed this principle in connection with a theory which gave free play to all manner of caprice? How often has the holy name of love been misused by fanaticism and thirst for dominion! A theory was asserted and founded by Augustine, which, although ameliorated in practice by his pious and benevolent disposition, contained, nevertheless, the germ of the whole system of spiritual despotism, intolerance, and persecution, even to the tribunal of the Inquisition." [Kirchengeschichte, iii. 314.]

The statute-book of the Empire early corresponded with the final theory of Augustine. The Theodosian and Justinian codes record successive acts by which religious privileges were denied to heretics, and civil disabilities were imposed upon them. [See Codex Theod., Lib. XVI., Tit. v., and Codex Justin., Lib. I., Tit. v. Justinian even thought it necessary to make a special discrimination against female heretics, and ordained that they should have no part in the enlarged privileges which his laws secured to women. (Novella cix.)] Legislation was especially severe against the Manichæans: the teaching and practice of their religion was made a capital offence.

The extent to which these intolerant principles were carried out in practice depended largely upon the temper of the emperor. Constantine was personally inclined to a liberal policy; but even he set the example of banishing heretical and refractory ecclesiastics, and gave schismatic parties to understand that they were to expect no countenance from the government. Constantius and others carried out proscriptive measures on a wider scale. Still there was a shrinking from the execution of heretics. The main endeavor was to constrain them to submission by threats and hardships. Instances in which the death penalty was formally and judicially visited for the simple crime of heresy were not numerous in the present period. According to Sozomen, Valens ordered a deputation of eighty ecclesiastics, who came to him to complain of grievances, to be executed, and their death was actually compassed; though the prefect had the prudence to disguise the atrocity by putting them on board a ship which might appear to perish by an accidental ignition. [Hist. Eccl., vi. 14.] Gibbon suspects that this account has been colored by the strong abhorrence which many entertained for Valens, and that it was really an accident by which the unfortunate ecclesiastics perished. [Chap. xxv.] Be this as it may, we can hardly point to this as a case of the judicial infliction of capital punishment for religious beliefs, though the victims may have been obnoxious to Valens largely on the score of their theological affiliations. The capital sentence, if indeed he issued such in the case, was but the offspring of a sudden and passionate freak of a tyrant. Perhaps the first deliberate execution on the mere ground of heresy was that of the Spanish bishop Priscillian, and six adherents of his, at Treves in 385. These were charged with holding Manichæan tenets; and Maximus, who was then ruling in the West, at the instigation of the bishop Ithacius, caused them to be put to death. The bloody deed found for the time being little applause in the Church. Ambrose of Milan and Martin of Tours entered against it their emphatic protest. [Ambrose, Epist., xxiv., xxvi.; Sulpicius Severus, Hist. Sacra, ii. 50.] Less than a century after their day, however, Leo the Great referred with seeming approbation to this crude and detestable method of guarding the faith. [Epist., xv.]

The State, on its part, was not a little modified by its alliance with the Church. Among the principal results were the following:--

(1) An associate power capable of restraining, though sometimes encouraging, despotism. Custom early awarded to the bishops a kind of tribune function. They were expected to serve as patrons of the suffering and defenceless, thus supplementing the office of the churches as asylums for those threatened with sudden violence. Sometimes a resolute prelate was able to interpose successfully against the violence of the sovereign himself. The aged Flavian, for example, saved Antioch from the intemperate vengeance which it was expected a recent uproar would call down upon the city from the hand of Theodosius. Still more noteworthy was the tribute to spiritual authority which Ambrose obtained from the same emperor. Theodosius, with all his magnanimity, entertained a slumbering element of savage ferocity, which was liable, under great provocation, to break forth with volcanic energy. Such a provocation was offered when the populace of Thessalonica engaged in an utterly causeless sedition, and murdered officers highly esteemed by the Emperor. In the fury of his vengeance, Theodosius allowed his soldiers to fall upon the defenceless people; and several thousands, irrespective of guilt or innocence, were cut down. It was an occasion for the voice of a Nathan to be heard. In Ambrose the Church had its Nathan. He directed the Emperor to the crime of David, and exhorted him, as he had rivalled the sin of Israel's king, to imitate also his deep penitence. [Epist., li.] For eight months the intrepid bishop kept the door of the Church closed against the imperial transgressor. Theodosius, on his part, humbly accepted the required penance for his cruel deed, and, moreover, passed a law which should stand as a safeguard against the sacrifice of the innocent by requiring the death-sentence to be delayed a certain interval. The fearless prelate had his reward even in the estimate of the humbled Emperor. "It is not easy to find," remarked Theodosius on a subsequent occasion, "a man capable of teaching me the truth. Ambrose alone deserves the title of bishop." [Theodoret, Hist. Eccl., v. 18] Chrysostom in Constantinople was another example of moral fearlessness in the face of imperial misdeeds. His daring, perhaps to a degree inconsiderate, arraignment of court practices, was one cause of the misfortunes which clouded the end of his life. Other instances might be noted; such as the excommunication by Synesius, Bishop of Ptolemais in Upper Libya, of an arbitrary and obdurate governor. Indeed, while the hierarchy may be charged with having provoked many excesses, it must be allowed the praise, to some extent, of having put a beneficent curb upon the temporal power.

(2) Improved laws. During the first three centuries, some noteworthy reforms occurred in the Roman laws. These, though largely such as heathen statesmanship by its own interior development might gradually have wrought, were likely due in some degree to the indirect influence of Christianity. Moral forces are exceedingly subtle; and it is not at all incredible that the influence
of the gospel should have penetrated, in some measure, even to the legislation of a hostile empire.

Under the Christian emperors, though reform stopped short of the proper goal, there was from the outset an impulse toward a higher justice and a more thorough respect for human rights. Greater privileges were accorded to women. An edict of Constantine granted them the same right in respect to the control of property as was enjoyed by males, with the exception that they could not sell landed estates without a special permission. Theodosius ordained that the mother should have the prerogative of guardianship in certain cases; namely, when there was no legal guardian at hand, and she, being of age, was willing to bind herself not to marry. [Codex Justin., Lib. V., Tit. xxxv. 2.]

Laws were passed at various times designed to limit, and ultimately to abolish, the infamous trade in female virtue. [Codex Theod., XV., viii. 1, 2,] Attempts in this direction, however, were only partially successful. The same may be said of the endeavors to give better security to the sanctity of the marriage relation. Laws were passed against concubinage; [Codex Justin., V., xxvi.] severe penalties were attached to the crime of rape and adultery; [Codex Justin., I., iii. 54; Codex Theod., IX., xxiv., xxv.] and attempts were made at different times to limit the practice of divorce by making it allowable only on occasion of gross crimes. [Codex Theod., III., xvi.] But the current of a corrupt society was too strong for the legislator, and, instead of being held in check by the laws, caused them in more than one instance to be relaxed.

Laws were passed in favor of children, carrying still farther the limitation of the old paternal absolutism which preceding heathen emperors had begun to restrict. The exposing of children was forbidden. The right to sell them on the ground of poverty, or any other plea, was abolished by Theodosius. [Ibid., III., iii.] Children thus sold into slavery were declared free, and the purchaser who had used a free child as a slave could claim no recompense. In this relation, however, he had largely been anticipated by heathen legislation. The stealing of children for the purpose of enslaving them was made by Constantine a capital offense. [Ibid, IX., xvii.]

Slaves failed to receive the same honor before the State as before the Church. Laws unjustly discriminating against them were left upon the statute-book. Still, their condition was ameliorated in various respects. The laws aimed to relieve them from the necessity of taking a degrading part in certain public amusements. The general policy of the government was favorable to their manumission. Even in the time of Constantine, as already indicated, a solemn religious sanction was given to the act of manumission by the provision that it might take place in church and on Sunday. [Codex Theod., II., viii. 1.] Certain services to the State were allowed to establish a title to freedom. Ordination to the ministry, with the consent of a master, was counted a declaration of emancipation. [Justinian, Novella cxxiii.] Jews and pagans were denied legal right to hold a Christian slave. [Codex Justin., I., iii. 56.] As to the number who received their liberty, we have the testimony of Salvianus, in the fifth century, that manumission was of daily occurrence. [Adv. Avaritiam, iii. 7.]

Laws were passed designed to prevent unnecessary suffering on the part of criminals. An edict against gladiatorial combats was issued by Constantine in 325, [Codex Theod., XV., xii. 1.] but no decisive progress was made toward their suppression till the early pare of the fifth century, when a decree was re-enforced and made effective by the blood of the martyr. The circumstances, as given by Theodoret, were these: "A certain man named Telemachus, who had embraced a monastic life, came from the East to Rome at a time when these cruel spectacles were being exhibited. After gazing upon the combat from the amphitheatre, he descended into the arena, and tried to separate the gladiators. The sanguinary spectators, possessed by the demon who delights in the effusion of blood, were irritated at the interruption of their cruel sports, and stoned him who had occasioned the cessation. On being apprised of this circumstance, the admirable Emperor [Honorius] numbered him with the victorious martyrs, and abolished these iniquitous spectacles. " [Hist. Eccl., v. 26.]

As an estimate, by a very careful and well-informed writer, of the laws of the Empire under Christian rule, we may quote the following: "The legislation exhibits not yet the character of a complete whole, of a scientific unity; still, the reformatory action of Christianity is clearly apparent. It left therein indelible traces of the spirit of love and equity which God, through Jesus Christ, has disseminated in the world. At the time of the fall of the Empire of the Occident, the relations of civil society have already become fundamentally changed; the pitiless egoism and the aristocratic asperity of heathen antiquity have been eliminated from most of the laws. If these progressive victories of love allowed traces of the old jurisprudence still to remain, this was due to the fact that the last days of a world in process of downfall were not favorable to the revision of the statute-book. Justinian carried forward the remodeling of the jurisprudence, as far as this was possible in a time of stormy transition. He fixed the code for a series of centuries; and so the Roman jurisprudence survived, not as Roman jurisprudence in the old sense, but as Roman jurisprudence modified by Christianity. The Middle Ages, and later the immortal author of the civil code [the first Napoleon], completed the reform." [C. Schmidt, Essai Historique sur la Société Civile dans le Monde Romain.]

Main Features of Early Christian Life

III.--MAIN FEATURES OF CHRISTIAN LIFE.

The pen of an unknown writer of the second century has given us, in the Letter to Diognetus, the following vivid description of early Christian life: "The Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. They display to us, nevertheless, a wonderful and confessedly striking method of life. They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they share all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners: Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives. They love all men, and are persecuted by all. They are insulted, and repay the insult with honor. They do good, yet are punished as evil-doers. . .

"To sum up all in one word: what the soul is in the body, that are Christians in the world. The soul is dispersed through all the members of the body, and Christians are scattered through all the cities of the world. The soul dwells in the body, yet is not of the body; and Christians dwell in the world, yet are not of the world. The flesh hates the soul, and wars against it, though itself suffering no injury, because it is prevented from enjoying pleasures; the world also hates the Christians, though in no wise injured, because they abjure pleasures. The soul loves the flesh that hates it, and the members; Christians likewise love those that hate them. The soul is imprisoned in the body, yet preserves that very body; and Christians are confined in the world as in a prison, and yet they are the preservers of the world. The immortal soul dwells in a mortal tabernacle; and Christians dwell as sojourners in corruptible bodies, looking for an incorruptible dwelling in the heavens. God has assigned them this illustrious position, which it were unlawful for them to forsake." [Chaps. v., vi.]

This is, no doubt, somewhat of an idealization of the life of the early Christians. Due account must be made of detracting elements. There were unworthy members in the Church from the beginning. In the intervals between persecutions, worldly minded men found a place among the Christians. The ignorance and credulity of many afforded a congenial soil for the growth of superstitions. Still, the atmosphere of Christian life in the first centuries was very largely an atmosphere of spirituality and consecration. The description quoted corresponds, in no small degree, to the real position and life of the early Christians. While in the world, they were not of the world; that is, the old heathen world, with its social and moral maxims and tendencies. They represented a new creation, were bearers of the principles of a new social and moral dominion.

To begin with the most outward respect, the Christians distinguished themselves by their abstinence from the pleasures and amuseruents which engrossed the minds of their heathen neighbors. Tertullian, indeed, speaks as though there were Christians in his day who coveted participation in certain classes of current amusements. But the Church at large looked upon such indulgence as contaminating, and especially unworthy of the Christian community in its season of solemn trial and arduous warfaie. Attendance not only upon the abhorrent exhibitions of the amphitheatre, but upon the games of the circus and the plays of the theatre, was regarded as inconsistent with the Christian vocation; while a professional connection with such spectacles was counted ample cause for a refusal of all fellowship. Tertullian appeals to the tender and peaceful nature of the Holy Spirit as utterly out of harmony with the noise and passion incident to the heathen diversions, and declares that one ought not to be willing to hear what one would not be willing to speak. From this lower order of pleasures, he points to the higher ones of the Christian inheritance. "What greater pleasure," he exclaims, "than distaste of pleasure itself, than contempt of all that the world can give, than true liberty, than a pure conscience, a contented life? what nobler than to tread under foot the gods of the nations, to exorcise evil spirits, to perform cures, to seek divine revealings, to live to God? These are the pleasures, these the spectacles, that befit Christian men --holy, everlasting, pure." [De Spectaculis. Compare Clement of Alexandria, Pæd., iii. 11.] A like train of thought appears in a writing attributed to Cyprian. In the Scriptures, it is argued, the Christian finds an exhibition which throws all worldly display into the shade. "This is a spectacle which is beheld even when eight is lost. This is an exhibition which is given by neither prætor nor consul, but by Him who is alone and above all things, and before all things, yea, and of whom are all things, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

One of the most signal distinctions of the early Christians was their exhibition of humanitarian virtues. They gave an illustration of benevolence and brotherhood that was unknown to the classic world. We find, indeed, among the Stoics, as already noted, the conception of a universal brotherhood; but the true bond of that brotherhood was not grasped and exemplified by this or any other school of classic heathenism. Love in the Christian sense, as a heart-impelling power, carrying the affections across all bounds of class and distinctions of nationality, was a new thing in the world.

Christianity put a new estimate upon the worth of man, overthrowing the classic rule that the individual is to be estimated according to his worth to the State, and teaching that he is to be valued according to his worth in the sight of Him who created and redeemed him. The Christians started out from the principle of the essential equality of all men in the sight of God. Lactantius gave expression to a principle oft repeated in the previous centuries when he wrote: "Should any say, Are there not also among you poor and rich, servents and masters, distinctions among individuals? No: we call ourselves brethren for no other reason than that we hold ourselves all equal. For since we measure every thing human, not by its outward appearance, but by its intrinsic value, we have, notwithstanding the difference of outward relations, no slaves; but we call them brethren in the Spirit and fellow-servants in religion." [Instit. Div., v. 16.] A very explicit statement of the same sentiment had been given by Clement of Alexandria. "Domestics," he writes, "are to be treated like ourselves; for they are human beings, as we are. For God is the same to free and bond." [Pæd., iii. 12.] Ignatius gives this exhortation: "Despise not slaves, either male or female." [Epist. ad Polycarp., iv.] "Am I a slave," says Tatian, "I endure servitude. Am I free, I do not make a vaunt of my good birth. I see that the same sun is for all, and one death for all, whether they live in pleasure or destitution." [Orat. ad Græcos, xi.]

Christianity did not make direct war upon slavery as an institution, for that would have been to engage in social and political revolution at an unseasonable era. But it greatly ameliorated slavery in practice, and inculcated principles whose logical issue could be nothing less than emancipation. There is, it is true, only scanty reference to the practice of manumission before the time of Constantine; but it may be inferred that there was a growing sentiment in its favor.

In pursuance of this principle of equality, all classes received a proper share in the offices of brotherly love. The poor in each congregation were provided for by weekly contributions. The rendering of these offerings, according to Irenæus, was esteemed not so much a burdensome requirement, as a free and welcome fulfilment of a high and holy vocation. "The Jews," he says, "had the tithes of their goods consecrated to Him; but those who have received liberty set aside all their possessions for the Lord's purposes, bestowing joyfully and freely, not the less valuable portions of their property, since they have the hope of better things."

Cont. Hær., iv. 18. 2. It should be noticed, however, that the spontaneous character of Christian giving was not kept up to its proper standard throughout the period. With Cyprian and Origen we find a disposition to favor the Jewish idea of the binding obligation of tithes. At the same time, there was a more serious deterioration, in that the relief of the recipient was no longer made the sole consideration, and almsgiving was held up as a work of merit, a means of special benefits to the giver. See Uhlhorn, Christian Charity in the Early Church.

Strangers were awarded free hospitality. From however distant a quarter a brother might come, he had only to show a certificate from his bishop to secure attention to his wants. Duties of hospitality and charity were made by Tertullian a strong argument against mixed marriages. "Who [being a heathen]," he asks, "would suffer his wife, for the sake of visiting the brethren, to go round from street to street to other men's, and indeed to all the poorer cottages? Who will suffer her to creep into prison to kiss a martyr's bonds? If a pilgrim brother arrive, what hospitality for him in an alien home? If bounty is to be distributed to any, the granaries, the storehouses, are foreclosed." [Ad Uxorem, ii. 4.] One reason for fasting, as regarded by Hermas, was the saving of means which might be bestowed upon "a widow or an orphan, or some person in want." [Simil., v. 3. Compare Origen, Hom. in Lev., x.] For the same end, Clement of Alexandria inculcated plainness of dress. While Christian simplicity, he argues, inculcates that "our life ought to be any thing rather than a pageant," Christian charity is likewise positive in its prohibition of needless display. "It is monstrous for one to live in luxury while many are in want. How much more glorious is it to do good to many than to live sumptuously! How much wiser to spend money on human beings than on jewels and gold! How much more useful to acquire decorous friends than lifeless ornaments!" [Pæd., ii. 13.]

The strong contrast between the Christians and the heathen, in respect of the offices of brotherly love, was strikingly exhibited amid the ravages of a pestilence in Carthage and in Alexandria. While the latter deserted their sick friends and left the dead unburied, the former cared for their plague-stricken brethren with all tenderness, and paid due respect to the remains of the dead. At the same time an illustration was given of how easy it was for Christian benevolence to overflow the bounds of the Church. Cyprian exhorted his people to extend their ministrations to their heathen neighbors, reminding them, that as children of God they ought to imitate that divine clemency which bestows blessings upon the just and upon the unjust. [Life of Cyprian by Pontius. Compare the language of Dionysius of Alexandria in Eusebius, vii. 22.]

Another marked application of Christian principles appeared in the domestic field. We find, it is true, the beginnings of that abnormal asceticism which finally culminated in monastic extremes. The feeling of dualism so strongly characteristic of the age came, in spite of theoretical inconsistency, to influence in a measure the thought and practice of the Church. "The heathen Gnostic principle," says Schaff, "of separation from the world and from the body as a means of self-redemption, after being theoretically exterminated, stole into the Church by a back-door of practice, directly in face of the Christian doctrine of the high destiny of the body and perfect redemption through Christ." [Church History, ii. § 105.] This growing tendency toward asceticism naturally affected the conception of marriage. Before the end of the second century a strong prejudice had arisen against second marriages. This, however, may have been due in the first instance to a desire to emphasize the sacredness of the marriage relation, rather than to any contrary motive. It was helped on also by a very natural disposition to regard as a proper ideal for the laity the same restraint which a current interpretation of 1 Tim. iii. 2 imposed upon the clergy, this passage being thought to prohibit second marriages. [Origen, Cont. Celsum., iii. 48.] From this objection to a renewal of the conjugal relation, some went on to a species of disparagement even of a first marriage, at least to the extent of praising the superior virtue of the virginal state. As early a writer as Athenagoras not only reprobates second marriage as a "specious adultery,'' but bestows a special commendation upon those who choose the unmarried state as a means of living in closer communion with God. [Legat., xxxiii.] A similar exaltation of virginity appears with Tertullian, Cyprian, and Origen. Their theoretical preference on this point, however, is not to be overestimated. They did not question the propriety of marriage: that extreme was left to the heretics. It was not till the latter part of the period, that the right even of the clergy to marry began to be seriously questioned. As already indicated, the first synodal restriction in this direction, that is on record, came from the Council of Elvira. This was only a provincial council, and adopted a rigor that was not yet insisted upon by the entire Church.

As respects Christians generally, no more radical principle found acceptance in the Church than appears in the following utterance of Tertullian: "There is no place at all where we read that nuptials are prohibited, of course on the ground that they are a 'good thing.' What, however, is better than this 'good,' we learn from the apostle, who permits marrying indeed, but prefers abstinence." [Ad Uxorem, i. 3.] And even this much of preference would seem not to have been universally entertained at the close of the second century. At least, we find Clement of Alexandria giving his preference to the man who enters into family relations, and makes a good use of the discipline which they impose. Speaking of the true Gnostic, or the ideal Christian, he says, "He eats and drinks and marries, not as principal ends of existence, but as necessary. I name marriage even, if the Word prescribe, and as is suitable. For having become perfect, he has the apostles for examples. And one is not really shown to be a man in the choice of a single life; but he surpasses men, who, disciplined by marriage, procreation of children, and care for the house, without pleasure or pain, in his solicitude for the house, has been inseparable from God's love, and withstood all temptation arising through children and wife and domestics and possessions." [Strom., vii. 12.] It is to be noted also that those who exalted the virginal above the married state intended by this verdict no disparagement of woman. The basis of their preference for the single life was its freedom from distraction, and also the idea that fleshly indulgence was opposed to the greatest advance in holiness.

If monastic tendencies encouraged a special praise of virginity, there were at the same time in the Church those high ideas of marriage which ultimately assigned to it the character of a sacrament. Such aberrations on the side of ascetic theories, as have been noted, by no means prevented a beautiful ideal of home life from being commonly entertained. In fine, it was a positive and glorious regeneration which Christianity wrought in the domestic sphere. It raised woman from a position of comparative slavery to a position of dignity, sanctity, and comparative equality. The words of an ancient formula for the initiation of a deaconess, "Thou didst not disdain that thy only begotten Son should be born of a woman," [Const. Apost., viii. 20.] are one among many significant indications of a transformed estimate of woman's position. She was regarded as a candidate for the same spiritual ideal as man. "In this perfection," wrote Clement of Alexandria, "it is possible for man and woman equally to share." [Strom., iv. 19.] Childhood received in like manner an augmented sanctity and importance, and the abuses of the parental relation current among the heathen are mentioned by the early Christian writers only with abhorrence. The bonds of family were regarded as cemented and sanctified by the common relations of its members to the same God and Saviour. "We must regard the woman's crown," says Clement of Alexandria, " to be her husband, and the husband's crown to be marriage, and the flowers of marriage the children of both. The glory of children is their fathers, and our glory is the Father of all, and the crown of the whole Church is Christ." [Pæd., ii. 8.] " Whence are we to find words enough," asks Tertullian, "to tell the happiness of that marriage which the Church cements, and the oblation confirms, and the benediction signs and seals; which the angels report back to heaven, which the Father holds for ratified? What kind of a yoke is that of two believers of one hope, one desire, one discipline, one and the same service ? Both brethren, both fellow-servants; no difference of spirit or of flesh. Together they pray, together prostrate themselves, together perform their fasts; mutually teaching, mutually exhorting, mutually sustaining." [Ad Uxorem, ii. 8.] As Tertullian's description indicates, the home was counted a sanctuary, and united worship of its inmates one of the great privileges of the home life. Tertullian even lays down the rule, that a Christian brother who has chanced to call ought not to be dismissed from the house without prayer. [De Orat., xxvi.]

Christianity gave also to labor a new sanctity. The old theory that manual toil was unworthy of a freeman was cast aside. This was a great stride forward. Indeed, St. Paul's principle, that, "if a man work not, neither shall he eat" (2 Thess. iii. 10), was really the corner-stone of a new civilization. It involved conditions essential to Christian democracy and brotherhood. In the theory of Christians, the dignity of labor found a hearty acceptance. With the lives of their illustrious leaders before them, they could not do otherwise than honor all honest employment. Hence, the Apostolic Constitutions points to the example of the apostles, who labored as tentmakers, fishermen, and husbandmen, and exhorts to labor, saying, "The Lord our God hates the slothful." [ii. 63.]

Finally, we may mention, as characteristic of early Christianity in the sphere of life and practice, the cheerful and hopeful temper which it breathed into its adherents. A line of sombre hue began indeed to be drawn across that life by the asceticism which, from the rise of Montanism, made increasing progress in the Church. There was a tendency thereafter to put a greater discount upon the natural order of things, than is in harmony with the spirit of the New Testament. One manifestation of this was in the imposition of fasts.

["In the time of Tertullian," says Pressensé, "the Church still used large liberty in this respect. There was no compulsory fast, except that of the great Easter week, on the night commemorative of the entombment of Christ. The rules for fasting, however, were soon multiplied; and the custom of observing as days of vigil the Wednesday and Friday in each week, in memory of the Passion, become more and more general." (See Tertullian De Jejun., ii.)]

But even back of this asceticism there was a freshness and enthusiasm which tempered the element of gloom in it; and taking Christian life as a whole, in the first three centuries, it was peculiarly buoyant, cheerful, and hopeful. There was a sense of enrichment at the hands of Christ, and an expectancy of eternal fruition, which in a marked degree conquered adversity and banished heaviness of heart. Many a convert from the darkness and emptiness of paganism could enter heartily into the triumphant refrain of Clement of Alexandria: "He hath changed sunset into sunrise, and through the cross brought death to life; and, having wrenched man from destruction, He hath raised him to the skies, transplanting mortality into immortality, and translating earth to heaven." [Cohort., xi.] Joy was considered not only the birthright,but the duty, of Christians. "Remove grief from you," says the Pastor of Hermas, "and crush not the Holy Spirit which dwells in you. For the Spirit of God which has been granted to us to dwell in this body does not endure grief or straitness. Wherefore put on cheerfulness, which always is agreeable and acceptable to God." [Command, x. 2.] Nor was it merely while looking at the life beyond that the eyes of Christians were able to discern brightness. They dwelt, no doubt, mainly upon God's supernatural order; but they were not by any means wholly blinded to the revelation of God in nature. We find, for example, Clement of Rome, indulging a glowing description of the Divine harmony and beneficence stamped upon nature. [Epist. ad Corinth., xx.] The regular worship also of the Christian congregations paid tribute to God as the God of nature. "The eucharistic prayer never fails to unite in one act of thanksgiving both the natural and supernatural gifts of God, -- the bountiful providence which makes the harvest ripen, and the gracious forgiveness with which the prodigal is welcomed home." [Pressensé, Christian Life, Book II., chap. i.]

The Clerical Hierarchy

I --THE CLERICAL HIERARCHY

1. EMPHASIZING THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CLERGY AND LAITY. -- While the Church had its special officers from the outset, these were not at first, with the exception of the apostles, widely distinguished from the general body of believers. A priesthood in the more emphatic sense was not congenial to the thought of the first generations of Christians. The ministry were not set up as the sole dispensers of grace, over against whom all other Christians must take the place of children still in their minority and incapable of any independent agency. "The distinction," says Ritschl, "between the active and the passive members of the congregation,--in dther words, the Catholic conception of priesthood,--is foreign to the first two centuries." [Albrecht Ritschl, Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche.] The fact that a majority of ecclesiastical officers continued, after their election, to pursue their worldly callings, was adverse to very wide distinctions in the Church. Still more adverse was the high conception taken of the common privilege of believers. All were regarded as partakers of the Spirit. Post-apostolic writers evince something of the same consciousness of the high privilege pertaining to the ordinary Christian standing as appears in the writings of Peter, John, and Paul. The Apostolic Constitutions, notwithstanding their hierarchical tone, use this language: "Though a man be a layman, if skilful in the word and grave in his manners, let him teach." [viii. 32.] That this principle was sometimes acted upon, we know from the Palestinian bishops who employed Origen to interpret the Scriptures before their congregations, and defended themselves against the objections of the Bishop of Alexandria by affirming that they were guilty of no innovation, that "wheresoever there are found those qualified to benefit the brethren, these are exhorted by the holy bishops to address the people." [Hist. Eccl., vi. 19.] Tertullian declares, in very plain and emphatic terms, that all Christians are priests by inherent right; though, for the sake of order and convenience, certain ones are, under ordinary circumstances, to be set apart for the administration of ordinances and for directing in government and discipline. He asks, "Are not even we laics priests?" "Where three are," he says, "a church is, albeit they be laics. For each individual lives by his own faith, nor is there exception of persons with God." [De Exhort. Cast., vii.] While he protests, in the name of the peace and unity of the Church, against a layman's assuming to baptize in a case where a clergyman is accessible, he says with equal positiveness, "Even laymen have the right; for what is equally received can be equally given. Unless bishops or priests or deacons be on the spot, disciples are called. The word of the Lord ought not to be hidden by any; in like manner, too, baptism, which is equally God's property, can be administered by all." [De Bapt., xvii. See also De Monog., vii., xii.] Irenæus says in one place, "All the righteous possess the sacerdotal rank." [Cont. Hær., iv. 8. 3.] The same representation appears with Origen. [Hom. in Lev., ix. 1. 9; Tom. in Joan., i. 3.] "All Christians," as he teaches, "are priests, not merely or preeminently the office-bearers, but all according to the measure of their knowledge and their services in the kingdom of the Lord." [Redepenning, Origenes, ii. 436, 437.] In practice, also, the right and power of the laity were recognized. It was the general custom that the selection of the bishops should be submitted to their approval. [Cons. Apost., viii. 4.] Even Cyprian, the vigorous champion of order and authority, did not think it fitting to exclude the laity from a share in the management of the Church. He speaks of himself as having made up his mind from the commencement of his episcopacy to take no important step without asking the consent of the people as well as the advice of his clergy. [Epist., v. 4, in Ante-Nicene Lib., in Oxford ed., epist. xiv.] There is abundant evidence, therefore, that the more radical idea of priesthood did not dominate the Church in the first stages of its history.

Still, from the apostolic age onwards, there was an increasing tendency to widen the distance between clergy and laity. It was felt necessary to guard against the growing dangers of heresy and schism by emphasizing the dignity of the standing officers and leaders of the Church. As numbers and wealth increased, there was both more occasion and more opportunity for the ministry to abandon secular callings, and to give themselves wholly to their sacred vocation. Jewish ideas upon the subject of the priesthood unduly colored the thinking of some minds. As the heathen world had also its sacrificing priesthood, converts from within its borders not unnaturally were inclined to seek in Christianity for a counterpart to their old system of altars and officiating priests. From these several causes, there resulted a positive growth of priestly ideas and customs. As early as the closing part of the second century, there was a noticeable drift towards sacerdotalism, or the high-church theory of Christ's kingdom on earth. The freer stand-point was not yet forgotten, as appears from the statements which have been quoted from leading writers. The Church remained still, in the main, at no small distance from the full Romish conception of priestly rank and mediation. Nevertheless, the more liberal position was not maintained with clear understanding and entire consistency. Some of the writers who strongly asserted the common priesthood of believers employed also at times a phraseology which might be interpreted in favor of sacerdotalism. The convenience of a high ecclesiastical power, as a safeguard against the forces of disorder and anarchy, began so to engross the vision of many Christians, that they gave no proper attention to the dangers to personal freedom which such a power, unchecked, would be sure to involve. [The second book of the Apostolic Constitutions contains some statements well suited to serve as a basis of hierarchical pride and theocratic rule. Such, for example, is the declaration that the priestly office excels the kingly by as much as the soul is more excellent than the body (ii. 34).]

2. GROWTH OF EPISCOPACY.-- Five different stages in the growth of the episcopal system may be noticed: (1) the establishment of the distinction between presbyters and bishops; (2) the emphasizing of the bishop's importance; (3) the rise of metropolitans, or archbishops; (4) the rise of patriarchs, or bishops having jurisdiction over important divisions of the Empire; (5) a striving after a common episcopal centre, a bishop of all bishops. These different stages were not successive in the sense that one was fully completed before another was begun: they were in part contemporaneous. Still, the order given expresses the logical succession of developments within the episcopacy.

As regards the first stage, there is much obscurity. It was probably accomplished in some regions earlier than in others. Clement of Rome, whose writings cannot well be placed earlier than the closing years of the first century, indicates no consciousness of any distinction between bishops and presbyters in the Corinthian church. He speaks of sedition, not against the authority of a bishop, but against the presbyters, and exhorts to submission to the presbyters. [Epist. ad Corinth., xlvii., lvii.] The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles in like manner implies but two orders in the ministry. One of its directions is this, "Appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord." [Chapter xv. This is regarded as one of the evidences in favor of the early origin of this document.] The epistles of Ignatius, on the other hand, show that in the early part of the second century, a considerable portion of the Church, especially that in Asia Minor, recognized a clear distinction between bishops and presbyters, and regarded the former as individual heads of the different churches. How much of the Church had adopted this régime at that time, cannot be determined. Certainly, it was soon thereafter the common régime of the Church. The adoption of the new system, however, did not abolish all traces of the original identity of bishops and presbyters. Later writers now and then used terms not accurately descriptive of the ecclesiastical constitution of their own times, terms indicative of a different and more primitive order. Irenæus, for example, calls those who possessed "the succession from the apostles" presbyters in some instances, [Cont. Hær., iii. 2. 2; iv. 26. 2.] while in other connections he names them bishops. Even Cyprian, in one of his epistles, names the presbyters under him compresbyteros; and the Ambrosian Hilary in the fourth century wrote, "He is bishop, qui inter presbyteros primus est."

By what authority was this change, which elevated one man in each local church above the board of presbyters, and caused him to be known distinctively as the bishop, effected? Was it the product of a positive apostolic appointment, or was it simply a natural outcome from the conditions, and finding its principal sanction in general consent? It would be difficult to prove that no one of the apostles, especially the Apostle John, whose administration of the churches of Asia Minor extended nearly to the close of the first century, had any thing to do with the change. On the other hand, the proof of any apostolic supervision of the matter is equally wanting. To be sure, ill the time of Irenæus, it was somewhat customary to speak of a regular succession of bishops from the apostles onwards; but this habit may have resulted in large part from a disposition to judge past by existing conditions, and might very naturally have been indulged if the connecting links with the great majority of the apostles were not bishops proper, but only leading and influential presbyters. In fact, the language of Irenæus, as cited above, suggests that the connection may have been made in this way.

It is easily conceivable that the office of bishop grew up by a gradual development, which had its starting-point in the board of presbyters. This board in the several churches would naturally come to have its presiding otlicer. Men of the greatest energy and ability would be called to fill this position. The interests of unity and efficient management would cause more and more power to be delegated to them, until they should become really the chiefs of the churches, or bishops proper. Analogy also may be quoted in favor of this theory. Other stages in the growth of the hierarchy were effected much in the manner here indicated for the first stage. By gradual advances, one bishop overtopped the other bishops in his neighborhood, and finally assumed toward them the relation of archbishop. Even among the deacons distinctions grew up, and one of the body in the different churches became known as the archdeacon. Surely it is no far-fetched suggestion, that a similar development raised one of the early presbyters in the various congregations to the rank of archpresbyter, and then carried him over the short interval between that and the primitive bishop. That episcopacy originated in this way, is the conclusion of not a few scholars, even in a Church which has made much of apostolic succession. Bishop Lightfoot says of the evidences in the case, "They show that the episcopate was created out of the presbytery. They show that this creation was not so much an isolated act as a progressive development, not advancing everywhere at a uniform rate, but exhibiting at one and the same time different stages of growth in different churches. [Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, Dissertation I.] Dean Stanley indorses the same view. The exigencies of the times, as he teaches, gave origin to the episcopal system by re-enforcing "the almost universal law, which, even in republics, engenders a monarchical element." Christian Institutions.

The first bishops were generally bishops of individual churches. Tn the larger cities, a number of congregations my have been under a single bishop, but these congregations were regarded as branches of the one city church. Each separate community had, as a rule, its own bishop. This is sufficiently proved by the great number of bishops found within a given territory. "From the small province of proconsular Asia, forty-two bishops were present at an early council; in the only half-converted province of North Africa, four hundred and seventy episcopal towns are known by name." [Edwin Hatch, Organization of Early Christian Churches. In the view of Hatch, management of the finances was a large part of the function of the primitive bishop.] "Sometimes a bishopric," says Pressensé "comprised only a hamlet. We read in the Coptic Constitution: 'Is there a spot where the little company of believers, competent to elect a bishop, does not amount to twelve, lee them write to the neighboring churches, if these are populous, andlet three delegates be sent to ascertain with care who is worthy to undertake this oflice.'" [Christian Life and Practice, Book I., chap, ii.]

Already, in the infancy of the episcopate, began the second stage of development, that of express emphasis upon its importance. Ignatius of Antioch was the first to represent this stage. Again and again, in his epistles, he urges obedience to the bishop, warns against doing any thing without the bishop, represents the bishop as standing to the congregation as the vicegerent of Christ. At the same time, he regarded each bishop as limited to his own congregation, and recognized no essential distinctions within the episcopal body. Ignatius, however, appears to have been an exception to his age, in the degree of emphasis which he put upon the episcopal dignity. He stands so nearly alone in this respect, that some have been disposed to question the genuineness of the epistles attributed to him. Baur declares it impossible that any writer of so early an age could have uttered such high episcopal notions as appear in the so-called Ignatian Epistles. But this is extreme. Ignatius, though not a representative of his age as a whole in this matter, was no impossible phenomenon for that era. He was a man of vigorous personality, naturally in favor of strong rule and centralized power. The churches in his region were threatened, to an alarming degree, by the spirit of heresy and schism. No better antidote against this spirit seemed to him available, than an obedient temper toward that central authority which in each church was vested in the bishop. Where all the members of a congregation obey one person, there is little chance for schism in that congregation Church unity was his great motive in emphasizing the importance of the bishop. He was not interested to disparage the presbyters, and, indeed, speaks of the honor due to them in conjunction with the bishop. "Do nothing," he writes, "without the bishop and presbyters." [Epist. ad Magnes., vii.] Among Inter writers, Irensus and Cyprian, the latter in particular, were conspicuous for the advocacy of the episcopal dignity. The motives with them were the same as with Ignatius. They were lovers of law and order. Disrupting forces were at work in the Church. By a natural reaction, they emphasized the elements of central control. To this they were, to a degree, exponents of the tendencies of their times. The reaction awakened by Gnosticism and Montanism contributed much to the growth of the hierarchy.

The third stage, the rise of archbishops, was effected by obvious causes, but required a considerable time for its completion. Since the gospel was first preached in the large cities, these became centers of evangelization for the surrounding districts. Naturally, a very close relation subsisted between the mother church and the congregations organized by her missionary efforts. The high responsibilities of the episcopal office in the great cities tended to bring to such positions men of stamp and reputation. Apart from their personal qualities, their very position would give them a certain authority. Nothing was more natural, then, than to appeal to them in case of dispute. Prerogatives, awarded in the first instance by mere custom, could easily acquire in time a constitutional force. Hence, a kind of jurisdiction over the surrounding territory became attached to the bishops of large cities, and the rank of archbishop more or less definitely established.

The patriarchal system was only a further illustration of the tendencies just described. Among the large cities, a few held by far the superiority, and their bishops were able to claim in course of time a corresponding importance and breadth of jurisdiction. Of the five patriarchates that were ultimately acknowledged, three had become established by the year 325; namely, those of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch.

To complete the hierarchical scheme, it only remained to fix upon an episcopal centre, to assign to one bishop a constitutional supremacy over all the rest. This result was riot reached in the first centuries, and, indeed, has never been reached. While the theory of such a supremacy wits finally worked out, and asserted in behalf of the Roman bishop, Christendom has at no time been united in its acceptance. As regards the first three centuries, we have to deal only with tendencies toward this species of episcopal supremacy. We shall find here no pope, in the Inter sense of that term. The claim for that dignity, and the acknowledgment of it. are both wanting.

By the close of the second century, the Roman bishops began to magnify their position. An endeavor was made, in case of controverted questions, to force their preferences upon the Church at large. [It is quite obvious that this might transpire apart from any theory of constitutional prerogatives. Even were the bishops constitutionally on a precise equality, one favored with outward means of superior influence would be very likely, especially if he were by nature of an aggessive temper, to press his views upon his colleagues. Indeed, no more instances of this kind are on reoord for the Roman bishops of the second and third centuries than might have been expected on any view of their constitutional powers.] Somewhat later, there are indications that they took pride in calling themselves the successors of Peter. [Epist., lxxiv. (in works of Cyprian), by Firmilian.] All this, however, was far from a claim to universal sovereignty of a constitutional sort. To be a successor of Peter in that age, by no means implied a constitutional supremacy over the whole Church. As applied to the Roman bishop, it ascribed to him a peculiar prestige in virtue of his following the great apostle in the government of the church of the imperial city. The language of Chrysostom at a later day, when he spoke of the Bishop of Antioch as possessing the chair of Peter, is not a little significant of the sense in which similar terms were primarily applied to the Bishops of Rome. Even in their highest assumptions in the first centuries, they confessed, in effect, their lack of constitutional sovereignty over Christendom. For example, Victor, in contrast with the moderation of his predecessors, assumed to excommunicate the churches of proconsular Asia and its neighborhood, on account of their position on the Easter question. He "endeavored," says Eusebius, " to cut off the churches of all Asia, together with the neighboring churches, as heterodox, from the common unity. And he publishes abroad by letters, and proclaims, that all the brethren there are wholly excommunicated." [Hist. Eccl., v. 24.] But what did this excommunication imply? In the absence of the acquiescence and corroboration of other churches, it simply denied to the churches of Asia Minor communion with the local church of Rome. Victor may have presumed upon the acquiescence of the other churches, whose views were like his upon the Easter question. If so, he presumed wrongly. Other churches felt free to maintain communion with those from whom Victor had withdrawn. When matters were brought to the test, the Roman bishop found that he could decide only for himself on the policy of excommunication, and, so far as can be judged, ceased to press the case. The outcome indicates that he was by no means assured of his right and competency to exercise sovereign authority over the whole Church.

While some concessions were made to the dignity of the Roman bishop, none of these, when taken in their connections, reveal a conviction that any constitutional supremacy was inherent in him. Among the early writers, Irensus and Cyprian used the terms most flattering to Rome. Tertullian, to be sure, in one instance applied to the Roman bishop higher epithets than are anywhere else found in the literature of the first three centuries, calling him the "sovereign pontiff, the bishop of bishops." But he used these terms in bitter irony, and with reference to a decree of the Roman prelate which he declared could not be posted with propriety, except "on the very gates of the sensual appetites." [De Pudicitia, i.]

The most emphatic concession from Irenæus is expressed in the following language: Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam. [Cont Hær., iii, 3. 2.] The proper translation of the phrase, propter potiorem principalitatem, is rendered very doubtful by the difficulty of conjecturing what was the Greek original. Gieseler thinks the sentence should read, "For with this Church [at Rome], on account of its superior originality, or primitiveness, [, vorzüglicher Ursprünglichkeit. (Kirchengeschichte, § 49.)] every Church must agree." This looks like a very strong statement. But observe the wording of the sentence, and especially its connections. Irenæus does not say that it is necessary to agree with the Roman bishop, but with the Roman Church. Very likely he had the bishop in mind more than any single officer beside; there is nothing, however, to enforce the conclusion that he would have attached more weight to his decision than to a decision generally agreed upon by the board of presbyters. Even if it be granted that he spoke with special reference to the bishop, the connection shows that he had no reference at all to his official prerogatives. The reference is solely to the precedence which came from superior means of correct information upon the doctrinal contents of Christianity. Irenæus was arguing against the Gnostic heretics. He wished to set forth a corrective to their arbitrary interpretations. He, therefore, pointed to the fact that there were numerous churches in which the apostles had labored, and in which the truths which they had preached had been handed down by a continuous line of successors. Since it would be tedious to mention all these churches, and prove a continuous succession in each of them, he said that he would fix upon one that had enjoyed special advantages for understanding and perpetuating Christian doctrine,--"the very great, the very ancient, and universally known church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul." He mentioned this church as an eminent example of a class, not as one occupying a wholly exceptional position. He assumed that other apostolic churches were, as a matter of fact, in doctrinal agreement with this. For churches less favored, he indicated that the surest and most convenient way to arrive at pure traditions was to appeal to Rome. Very likely he fixed upon Rome in particular because he wrote in the West, and Rome was the only apostolic church in the West. The animus of his language is indicated by the parallel passage from Tertullian, who asserts that the final appeal, outside of the Scriptures, must be to the churches of apostolic origin and associations; Christians in the East appealing to Smyrna,Corinth, Philippi, and Ephesus, while Christians in Italy could most conveniently refer to Rome. [De Præscript Hærat., xxxii., xxxvi.] By the obligation to agree with Rome, Irenæus meant, as is shown by his whole line of thought, not a constitutional, but a moral, obligation. The obligation which he affirms was simply the duty to seek for truth at a source where it was most likely to be found, at least infinitely more likely to be found than in the chaotic domain of the Gnostics. Irenaeus nowhere concedes a constitutional supremacy to the Roman bishop. He does not even call him the successor of Peter. "The blessed apostles," he says, "having founded and built up the church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy." [Cont. Hær., iii 3, 3.] In one instance he applies the very modest title of presbyters to the succession of Roman bishops. [Euseb., v. 24.] Finally he gave evidence by his conduct that he acknowledged no constitutional supremacy in the Roman prelate, writing a letter of rebuke to the headstrong and intolerant Victor, assuming the same right as he to address the churches, and addressing them counter to his policy. "Not only to Victor," says Eusebius, "but likewise to most of the other rulers of the churches, he sent letters of exhortation on the agitated question." [Ibid.]

As the most flattering tribute from Cyprian to Roman dignity, the following expression may be cited: Petri cathedra atque ecclesia principalis unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est ("the throne of Peter and the chief church, whence sacerdotal unity has arisen"). [Epist. liv., Ad Cornelium.] A commentary on the meaning of this sentence is provided for us in a more extended passage, which, omitting the fraudulent items interpolated near the end of the sixth century, reads as follows (the reference being to Matt. xvi. 18-19; John xxi. 15, xx. 21): "Although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, 'As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whosesoever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;'yet that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honor and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity, which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says,'My dove, my spotless one, is but one." [De Unitat. Ecclesiæ.] Had we only these passages before us, the intelligent conclusion would be, that Cyprian was dealing in types and figures when he connected the idea of ecclesiastical unity with Peter and the Roman Church; that he was speaking of them, not as factors in the actual constitution and government of the Church, but as the chosen means of a symbolical representation of Church unity. His line of thought amounts to this: Peter received no more authority than the other apostles, but Christ made an earlier mention of his authority in order that he might serve as an image of ecclesiastical unity. The worth of the whole representation is well expressed by Barrow, who says, "I can discern little solidity in this conceit, and as little harm." [Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy.] But if the passages in Cyprian which lean most toward Rome are thus void of any real acknowledgment of a constitutional supremacy in the Roman bishop or Church, the unimpaired force of other passages must convince a candid mind, beyond all shadow of doubt, that Cyprian did not even dream of such a supremacy. He plainly regarded the bishops as one great fraternity, appointed to conserve the unity of the Church; each, while having his own more definite sphere of labor, inhering in the whole body, and all standing upon a substantial equality. His language in immediate connection with that quoted above is suggestive of this standpoint. "This unity," he says, "we ought firmly to hold and assert, especially those of us that are bishops who preside in the Church, that we may also prove the episcopate itself to be one and undivided. The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole." The statement, however, most clearly setting forth the equality of bishops, is found in his address to a council convened at Carthage to consider the question of the re-baptism of heretics. In this he says to his brother bishops: “It remains, that upon this same matter each one of us should bring forward what we think, judging no man, nor rejecting any one from the right of communion, if he should think differently from us. For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another.” This language, since it was uttered with special reference to the attempts of the Roman bishop Stephen [Hefele is forced to suspect here an "Anspielung auf Papst Stephan." (Conciliengeschichte, § 6.)] to force his views upon the North African Church, is a clear and absolute denial of any constitutional supremacy in the Roman bishop over the Church at large. And Cyprian's conduct throughout was in harmony with his address to the council. On the question of re-baptism, he refused to yield an iota to the demands of Stephen. In connection with another matter, also, he denied ally superior jurisdiction in the Roman bishop, and counselled the Spanish Church not to reverse their action and restore some unworthy bishops (Basilides and Martialis) who had betrayed the authorities at Rome into espousing their cause. "Neither can it rescind," he wrote, "an ordination rightly perfected, that Basilides, after the detection of his crimes, and the baring of his conscience even by his own confession, went to Rome and deceived Stephen our colleague, placed at a distance, and ignorant of what had been done, and of the truth, to canvas that he might be replaced unjustly in the episcopate from which he had been righteously deposed." [Epist., lxvii.] Evidently the Bishop of Rome was to Cyprian only that which he names him in the above communication,--a colleague; a colleague possessing high honor on account of his eminent position, but nothing more than a colleague.

Some of the contemporaries of Cyprian gave as conspicuous a denial of the authority of the Roman bishop as that which we have from him. For example, Firmilian, Bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, in a letter written to Cyprian, charged Stephen with pride and audacity, accused him of rebelling against the sacrament and the faith with the madness of contumacious discord, and declared that he had cut himself off from the unity of love, and made himself a stranger in all respects from his brethren. [Epist., lxxiv., in Works of Cyprian.]

A very decisive example of denial of universal jurisdiction in the Roman bishop occurred also in connection with the Easter controversy already mentioned. Polycrates, the venerable Bishop of Ephesus, replying to the demands of Victor, in the name of a synod of bishops, declared plainly that he was not at all alarmed by the things threatened against him, and had no intention whatever of departing from the custom which bad been handed down by his predecessors. [Euseb., v. 24.]

Taking the Church at large, the only primacy accorded to the Roman bishop in the first three centuries was a primacy of honor, or a certain precedence as regards the respect rendered. This was due in some degree to the fact that the Roman was an apostolic church, founded, according to current belief, by the two eminent apostles Peter and Paul. It was due in a much larger degree to the political pre-eminence of Rome. It is no exaggeration to say, that the political importance, the grandeur, and the imperial associations of the city of Rome were the pre-eminent factors in giving origin to the papacy. In the race for episcopal honor and power, the political importance of the various cities outweighed by far every other factor. Jerusalem, the mother of all churches, was for a long time the seat of a subordinate bishopric. The bishop there was of small account because the city was of small account, and rose to importance only as the city rose to importance, and became a favorite pilgrim resort. Antioch, though the first Christian centre after Jerusalem, and the scene of the labors of the very chief of apostles, was compelled to yield the palm to Alexandria. The importance of the see of Antioch became second to that of Alexandria because the city was second. Constantinople, built on the site of an obscure bishopric, overtopped both Antioch and Alexandria in episcopal honor; and her patriarch became well-nigh a rival for the Bishop of Rome, simply because Constantinople rose to the greatest political importance of any city in the East. There is no mystery, therefore, about the genesis of the papacy. Before the building of Constantinople, Rome was what no city has been since, -- the capital of the civilized world. From her prestige the Roman bishop derived prestige. In the midst of tendencies toward ecclesiastical monarchy, he had a start and an advantage enjoyed by no other. The first three centuries, however, witnessed only growing ambition and pretension: they did not witness the beginning of the papacy in the sense of any acknowledgment of a constitutional supremacy in the Roman bishop over the Church at large.