Page images
PDF
EPUB

BUT MANY INFERIOR CLERGY.

259

There is, however, one exception to this, that of assistant Bishops. The first instance on record of the translation of a Bishop, was about A. D. 250, when Alexander, Bishop of Capadocia, was elected assistant to Narcissus, Bishop of Jerusalem. This is also the first recorded instance of an assistant Bishop.* There is also another instance in early times of two Bishops in one city, that of Novatian, who procured himself to be ordained Bishop of Rome, while Cornelius held the Episcopate, for which he was condemned by a large council, and excommunicated as a schismatic.t

But though there was never but one Bishop in a Church, there were, when the Church was completely organized, many Presbyters and Deacons. We have already seen that in the Apostolic Church, there was a plurality of Presbyters and Deacons under every Apostle, or Apostolic Bishop. This arrangement also continued in the succeeding age. That there were a number of Presbyters in the Church of Corinth, when Clement wrote his Epistle to the Corinthians, is evident from his language, for he speaks of " Presbyters that have been driven out of the ministry;" of "a sedition against the Presbyters," and exhorts them to be "at peace with the Presby ters." There were too a number of Presbyters and Deacons in the Church in Smyrna when Polycarp wrote his Epistle to the Philippians, A. D. 107; a number of both in the Church at Philippi ;** as also at the same time in the Church in Ephesus;tt in Magnesia ;‡‡ in Trallia,§§ and in Philadelphia.|||| So A. D. 176, there were many Presbyters in the Church at Lyons.¶¶ And at A. D. 252, there were no less than forty-six Presbyters and seven Deacons in the Church in Rome.***

[blocks in formation]

The number of Presbyters and Deacons would of course depend upon the number of Christians. The consideration of this point will be resumed in its proper place.

CHAPTER XXI.

INDEPENDENCE OF THE BISHOPS.

THE original independence of each Bishop, of every other Bishop, may be inferred, (1,) from the very nature of the constitution of the Church, for we have seen that the language of the Apostle, giving to every Church a head, negatives the idea of a head over a head. (2.) From the nature of the Apostolic commission, which confers equal authority upon all; and (3) from the fact, that in every Apostolic Church there was one Apostle or Apostolic Bishop, having under him a plurality of Presbyter-bishops and Deacons. The same inference might also be drawn from the fact, that the earliest Fathers make no mention of any superiority of one Bishop over another. This conclusion is also sustained by the course pursued by the Eastern and Western Bishops, relative to the time of keeping Easter. In the Eastern Churches it was customary to keep the fourteenth day of the moon, as the festival of CHRIST's resurrection; while in the Western Churches the Sunday following the fourteenth day of the moon was observed for this purpose. This difference of practice gave rise to much discussion and controversy; and Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, and Anicetus, Bishop of Rome, about A. D. 166, held a conference on the subject. About A. D. 200, several Councils were held, one at Cæsarea, at which Theophilus, Bishop of that Church, presided; one at Jerusalem, at which Narcissus presided; one in Pontus, at which Palmas presided;

ORIGINAL INDEPENDENCE OF BISHOPS.

261

and another in Gaul, at which Irenæus presided; all of which recommended the practice of the Western Churches.* Another Council of Asiatic Bishops was convened at Ephesus, at which Polycrates, Bishop of that city, presided, which adhered to the custom of the Eastern Churches, defending it by reference to the practice of the Apostle St. John. At the same time Victor, Bishop of Rome, interposed his influence, first to persuade, and second, to compel the Bishops of Asia to come into the practice of the Western Churches, but without effect. To all this Polycrates replied in an epistle, from which we make the following extract.

'I, therefore, brethren, am sixty-five years in the LORD, [i. e. have been a Christian sixty-five years,] who having conferred with the brethren throughout the world, and having studied the whole sacred Scriptures, am not at all alarmed at those things with which I am threatened to intimidate me." The language of St. Cyprian is equally pertinent and decisive. "Our LORD gives to all the Apostles an equal power, and says: 'As my Father sent me, even so send I you; receive ye the HOLY GHOST; whosoever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted to him, and whosoever sins ye retain, they shall be retained.' . . . Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endowed with an equal fellowship of honor and power."§

...

A custom, however, was early introduced into the Church, of holding Synods in the principal or Metropolitan cities, at which the Bishops of those cities presided. In this way the Bishops of such cities came to be considered as presiding Bishops, and hence were called Metropolitans, and sometimes Primates. This arrangement was in existence as early as the second century, and the Apostolical Canons directed that two such Synods should be held each year, at which the

*Euseb. vi. 23.
Apud Euseb. vi. 24.

+ Euseb. iii. c. 31. Ep. Polycr. Euseb. vi. c. 24 § Unity Church, c. 3. || Can. 30.

Bishops were to examine each other concerning their religious faith, to settle all ecclesiastical difficulties, and to confer with each other on subjects of the most weighty importance. They also directed that no Bishop should undertake any thing of general interest, without consent of his Metropolitan. Nor might the Metropolitan himself undertake any thing of general interest, without the consent of the Synod.* But each Bishop was permitted to do whatever pertained to his own Diocese, without consulting any other Bishop. The existence of Metropolitans or Primates, about A. D. 250, is testified to by Cyprian; and their authority and precedence was regulated by the Council of Antioch, A. D. 341. There is abundant evidence that the independence of every Bishop continued many years later, and in many places continues to the present day. We are authorized, therefore, to assert the original independence of each Bishop, of every other Bishop.

Such an independence is also necessarily supposed, by the very theory of the Apostolical system. The primitive Christians, as we have seen, regarded the Church as one, with a visible organization, typical of the invisible and spiritual kingdom, in which CHRIST is the Great and only Head. Since, then, there is but one invisible Bishop, so, theoretically, there is but one visible Bishop. Consequently, every Bishop at the time of his consecration, becomes by virtue of that consecration, a Bishop, not of any particular Church, but of the whole Church Catholic. Each Bishop is, therefore, strictly speaking, Bishop of the Universal Church. But since it is impossible that any one man should perform all the duties devolving upon a Bishop, the Church within a particular region is regarded, for certain purposes, as the Church, and its Bishop is limited in the exercise of his power to that particular territory. But, his power extending originally to the whole Church, he

* Can. 27.

+ Can. 27.

+ Ep. 45.

§ Can. 9.

PRIMITIVE RULES CONCERNING BISHOPS.

*

263

may still perform the functions of his office, in places not within his territory, when properly called upon to do so. It follows from this, that every Bishop in the Church Militant, is a type of the Head of the Church Triumphant, so that each individual Bishop is but a reiteration of the same type, the Episcopate itself being but one.* The language of St. Cyprian upon this point is striking and pertinent: "The Episcopate is one; it is a whole, in which each enjoys a full possession."† If, then, the Episcopate be one," in which each enjoys a full possession," it is impossible there should be any Bishop on earth over other Bishops. The Romanists, therefore, have made a fourth order in the ministry, in the person of the Pope, a thing that was unknown to all the ancients.

CHAPTER XXII.

CUSTOMS OF THE CHURCH.

HAVING considered the most important points touching the order and organization of the primitive Church, we shall glance hastily at some customs and practices which prevailed in the Church at the close of the second century. References are occasionally made to later authorities, as showing the continuance of the same regulations.

BISHOPS.-To the powers and duties elsewhere enumerated, as pertaining to the Bishop, we may add the following. They were to superintend and take care of the property belonging to the Church, but were not permitted to apply any of it

* See on this subject, Thornton's note to Cyprian, De Unit. Ecc. in Cyp. Treat. 8vo. Oxford, 1839, p. 150.

+ De Unit. Ecc. c. 4.

Apos. Can. 31, 33, 34.

« EelmineJätka »