The Ancient Church: Its History, Doctrine, Worship, and Constitution

by W. D. Killen

The most plausible argument in support of the theory that the Amphictyonic Council suggested the establishment of synodical conventions is based upon the alleged fact that these ecclesiastical meetings were at first held in spring and autumn, or exactly at the times when the Greek political deputies were accustomed to assemble. [615:2] But this statement, when closely examined, is found to be quite destitute of evidence. Tertullian does not say that the Greek synods met twice a year, and we know that, at least half a century afterwards, they assembled only annually. This fact is attested by Firmilian of Cappadocia in his celebrated letter to Cyprian. "It is of necessity arranged among us," says he, "that we elders and presidents meet every year [616:1] to set in order the things entrusted to our charge, that if there be any matters of grave moment they may be settled by common advice." [616:2] The author of this epistle lived in the very country where synods are supposed to have assembled so much more frequently half a century before, so that his evidence demonstrates the fallacy of the hypothesis framed by some modern historians.

About the beginning of the third century, or at the time when Tertullian wrote, it would seem that the members of the Greek synods had an arrangement which was not then generally adopted. The Greek councils met together "in fixed places." There is reason to believe that these "fixed places" were, commonly speaking, the metropolitan cities of the respective provinces. But still, as we have seen, the pastors and elders had not yet generally agreed to the regulation that the chief pastor of the metropolitan city should be the constant moderator of the provincial synod. In the case of the bishop of Rome the rule was, no doubt, already established; but, in other instances, the senior pastor present was, as yet, invited to fill the office of president. The constant meeting of the synod in the principal town of the province tended, however, to increase the influence of its bishop; and he was at length almost everywhere acknowledged as the proper chairman. [616:3] At the Council of Nice in A.D. 325 his rights were formally secured by ecclesiastical enactment. About the same date synods appear to have commenced to assemble with greater frequency. "Let there be a meeting of the bishops twice a year," says the thirty-seventh of the so-called Apostolical Canons, "and let them examine amongst themselves the decrees concerning religion, and settle the ecclesiastical controversies which may have occurred. One meeting is to be held in the fourth week of the Pentecost, and the other on the 12th day of the month of October." [617:1]

As soon as the light of historical records begins to illustrate the condition of any portion of the ancient Church, its synodical government may be discovered; and though the literary memorials of the third century are comparatively few, they are abundantly sufficient to demonstrate that, as early as the middle of that period, ecclesiastical courts upon a tolerably extensive scale were everywhere established. About that time the controversy relative to the propriety of rebaptizing heretics created much agitation, and the subject was keenly discussed in the synods which met for its consideration. Nowhere is any hint given that these courts were of recent formation. Though meeting in so many places in the East and West, and in countries so far apart, they are invariably represented as the ancient order of ecclesiastical regimen. They all appear, too, as co-ordinate and independent judicatories; and though the Roman bishop, as the chief pastor of the Catholic Church, endeavoured to induce them to adopt uniform decisions, his attempts to dictate to the brethren in Spain, Africa, and other countries, were firmly and indignantly repulsed. There were fundamental principles which they were all understood to acknowledge; these principles were generally embodied in the divine Statute-book; it was admitted that the decisions of every council which adhered to them were entitled to universal reverence; but, though the reservation was scarcely compatible with the genius of catholicity, each provincial convention claimed the right of forming its own judgment of the acts of other courts, and of adopting or rejecting them accordingly.

The most influential synods which were held before the establishment of Christianity by Constantine were those which met in the latter part of the third century to try the case of the famous Paul of Samosata, the bishop of Antioch. The charge preferred against him was the denial of the proper deity of the Son of God, and as he was an individual of much ability and address, as well as, in point of rank, one of the greatest prelates in existence, his case awakened uncommon interest. Christianity had recently obtained the sanction of a legal toleration, [618:1] and therefore churchmen now ventured to travel from different provinces to sit in judgment on this noted heresiarch. In the councils which assembled at Antioch were to be found, not only the pastors of Syria, but also those of various places in Palestine and Asia Minor. Even Dionysius, bishop of the capital of Egypt, was invited to be present, but he pleaded his age and infirmities as an apology for his non-attendance. [618:2] In a council which assembled A.D. 269, [618:3] Paul was deposed and excommunicated; and the sentence, which was announced by letter to the chief pastors of Rome, Alexandria, and other distinguished sees, was received with general approbation.

All the information we possess respecting the councils of the first three centuries is extremely scanty, so that it is no easy matter exactly to ascertain their constitution; but we have no reason to question the correctness of the statement of Firmilian of Cappadocia, who was himself a prominent actor in several of the most famous of these assemblies, and who affirms that they were composed of "elders and presiding pastors." [619:1] We have seen that bishops and elders anciently united even in episcopal ordinations, and these ministers, when assembled on such occasions, constituted ecclesiastical judicatories. A modern writer, of high standing in connexion with the University of Oxford, has affirmed that "bishops alone had a definitive voice in synods," [619:2] but the testimonies which he has himself adduced attest the inaccuracy of the assertion. The presbyter Origen, at an Arabian synod held about A.D. 229, sat with the bishops, and was, in fact, the most important and influential member of the convention. About A.D. 230, Demetrius of Alexandria "gathered a council of bishops and of certain presbyters, which decreed that Origen should remove from Alexandria." [619:3] About the middle of the third century, "during the vacancy of the see of Rome, the presbyters of the city took part in the first Roman council on the lapsed." [619:4] At the council of Eliberis, held about A.D. 305, no less than twenty-six presbyters sat along with the bishops. [619:5] In some cases deacons, [619:6] and even laymen, were permitted to address synods, [619:7] but ancient documents attest that they were never regarded as constituent members. Whilst the bishops and elders sat together, and thus proclaimed their equality as ecclesiastical judges, [619:8] the people and even the deacons were obliged to stand at these meetings. The circular letter of the council of Antioch announcing the deposition of Paul of Samosata is written in the name of "bishops, and presbyters, and deacons, and the Churches of God," [620:1] but there is reason to believe that the latter are added merely as a matter of prudence, and in testimony of their cordial approval of the ecclesiastical verdict. The heresiarch had left no art unemployed to acquire popularity, and it was necessary to shew that he had lost the influence upon which he had been calculating. It is obvious that the pastors and elders alone were permitted to adjudicate, for why were they assembled from various quarters to uphold the doctrine and discipline of the Church, if the people who were themselves tainted with heresy or guilty of irregularity, had the liberty of voting? Under such circumstances, the decision would have been substantially, not the decree of the Church rulers, but of the multitude of the particular city in which they happened to congregate.

The theory of some modern ecclesiastical historians, who hold that all the early Christian congregations were originally independent, cannot bear the ordeal of careful investigation. Whilst it directly conflicts with the testimony of Jerome, who declares that the churches were at first "governed by the common council of the presbyters," it is otherwise destitute of evidence. As soon as the light of ecclesiastical memorials begins to guide our path, we find everywhere presbyteries and synods in existence. Congregationalism has no solid foundation either in Scripture or antiquity. The eldership, the most ancient court of the Church, commenced with the first preaching of the gospel; and in the account of the meeting of the Twelve to induct the deacons into office, we have the record of the first ordination performed by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery of Jerusalem. A few years afterwards the representatives of several Christian communities assembled in the holy city and "ordained decrees" for the guidance of the Jewish and Gentile Churches. The continuous development of the same form of ecclesiastical regimen has now been illustrated. This polity was obviously based upon the principle that "in the multitude of counsellors there is safety." [621:1] At the meetings of the elders, information was multiplied, the intellect was sharpened, the brethren were made better acquainted with each other, and the Christian cause enjoyed the benefit of the decisions of their collective wisdom. The members had been previously elected to office by the voice of the people, so that the Church had pre-eminently a free constitution. And it is no mean proof as well of the intrepidity as of the zeal of the early Christian ministers that, at a time when their religion was proscribed, they sometimes undertook lengthened journeys for the purpose of meeting in ecclesiastical judicatories. They thus nobly asserted the principle that Christ has established in His Church a government with which the civil magistrate has no right whatever to intermeddle. It has been said that the early Christian councils "changed nearly the whole form of the Church," and that by them "the influence and authority of the bishops were not a little augmented." [621:2] But this is obviously quite a mistaken view of their native tendency. The face of the Church was, indeed, changed at an early period, but it was simply because these councils yielded with too much facility to the spirit of innovation. Had they been always conducted in accordance with primitive arrangements, they could have crushed in the bud the aspirations of clerical ambition. But when the city ministers were rapidly accumulating wealth, their brethren in rural districts remained poor; and when councils began to meet on a scale of increased magnitude, the village and country pastors, who could not afford the expenses of lengthened journeys, were unable to attend. Meanwhile Prelacy established itself in the great towns, and the influence of the city bishops began gradually to preponderate in all ecclesiastical assemblies. When the prelates had once secured their ascendency in these conventions, they made use of the machinery for their own purposes. The people were deprived of many of their rights and privileges; the elders were stripped of their proper status; the village and rural bishops were extinguished; and at length the ancient presbytery itself disappeared. The city dignitaries became the sole depositories of ecclesiastical power, and the Church lost nearly every vestige of its freedom. But, long after the beginning of the fourth century, many remnants of the primitive polity still survived as memorials of its departed excellence.

CHAPTER XII.

THE CEREMONIES AND DISCIPLINE OP THE CHURCH AS ILLUSTRATED BY CURRENT CONTROVERSIES AND DIVISIONS.

Whilst the Christian community was contending against the Gnostics, it was not without other controversies which were fitted to prejudice its claims in the sight of the heathen. The destruction of the temple of Jerusalem by Titus had prevented the sticklers for the Mosaic law from practising many of their ancient ceremonies: but there were parts of their ritual, such as circumcision, to which they still adhered, as these could be observed when the altar and the sanctuary no longer existed. In the reign of Hadrian a division of sentiment relative to the continued obligation of the Levitical code led to a great change in the mother Church of Christendom. About A.D. 132, an adventurer, named Barchochebas, pretending to be the Messiah and aiming at temporal dominion, appeared in Palestine; the Jews, in great numbers, flocked to his standard; and the rebel chief contrived for three years to maintain a bloody war against the strength of the Roman legions. The Israelitish race, by their conduct at this juncture, grievously provoked the emperor; and when he had rebuilt Jerusalem, under the name of Aelia Capitolina, he threatened them with the severest penalties should they appear either in the city or the suburbs. Some of the Jewish Christians of the place, anxious, no doubt, to escape the proscription, now resolved to give up altogether the observance of circumcision. Others, however, objected to this course, and persisted in maintaining the permanent obligation of the Mosaic ritual. The dissentients, called Nazarenes, formed themselves into a separate community, which obtained adherents elsewhere, and which subsisted for several centuries. At first they differed from other Christians chiefly in their adherence to the initiatory ordinance of Judaism, but eventually they adopted erroneous principles in regard to the person of our Lord, and were in consequence ranked amongst heretics. [624:1]

In the history of the Church, the Nazarenes occupy a somewhat singular and unique position. Their name was one of the earliest designations by which the followers of our Saviour were known, [624:2] and though by many they have been called the First Dissenters, they might have very fairly pleaded that they were the lineal descendants of the most ancient stock of Christians in the world. The rite for which they contended had been practised in the Church of Jerusalem since its very establishment; the ministers by whom they had been taught had probably been instructed by the apostles themselves; and all the elders at the time connected with the holy city seem to have joined the secession. It is alleged that a number of Christians of Gentile origin, uniting with those of their brethren of Jewish descent who now agreed to relinquish the Hebrew ceremonies, chose an individual, named Marcus, for their chief pastor, and that at this period the succession in the line of the circumcision "failed." [624:3] This statement cannot signify that some dire calamity had at once swept away all the old presbytery of Jerusalem. It obviously indicates that none of its members had joined the party whose principles had obtained the ascendency. And yet, though the adherents of Marcus might have been charged with innovation, they acted under the sanction of apostolical authority. They very properly refused to continue any longer in bondage to the beggarly elements of a ritual which had long since been superseded. Though the seceders might have urged that they were of apostolical descent, and that they were supported by ancient custom, it must be admitted, after all, that they were but a company of deluded and narrow-minded bigots. The evangelical pastors of the primitive Church repudiated their zeal for ritualism, and gave the right hand of fellowship to Marcus and his newly-organized community. The history of the mother Church of Christendom in the early part of the second century is thus fraught with lessons of the gravest wisdom. We may see from it that the true successors of the apostles were not those who occupied their seats, or who were able to trace from them a ministerial lineage, but those who inherited their spirit, who taught their doctrines, and who imitated their example.