EARLY HISTORICAL CHARACTERISTICS. 249 for other organizations, and for other modes of transmitting authority, must seek elsewhere than in the practice or principles of the primitive Church. CHAPTER XIX. HISTORICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FIRST AND SECOND CENTURIES. HAVING seen that the Primitive Christians, in the first and second centuries, considered the Church as a divine institution, and its ministry of divine appointment and of perpetual obligation, and that the Bishops of the Churches were considered, at that time, as the successors of the Apostles in the government of the Churches, we shall consider several other questions immediately connected therewith. But before we do this, we ought to remark, that although much has been said and written concerning the organization of the Church in the first and second centuries, we fear little is generally known concerning it. And this, we apprehend, is not so much because it has not been studied, as because it has not been properly studied. Writers on this subject have been too apt to regard the whole period as one, and have not sufficiently attended to the different circumstances which have characterized different periods, and have not made sufficient difference between the statements of early and later writers. Hence, many have accused the Fathers of confusion and contradiction, when the whole blame was on the reader, and not on the writer. Thus, a writer of a later age may contradict one of a much earlier period, without affecting the authority of the early writer at all. Much difficulty and confusion has been made in that way. This was wrong. There have been great and striking differences at different times, producing an almost entire change of ecclesiastical phraseology, in reference to ecclesiastical organization, which we should never lose sight of. What the most important of these differences were, and the influences they have exerted on the history of the Church, within the first and second centuries, it is our design briefly to point out. Our first remark is, that the history of the Church in this period, may be divided into four divisions, each characterized by something, which, in reference to the account given of its organization, was peculiar to that time, and which ought to be regarded, when considering the history of that period. The first of these periods reaches from the crucifixion to the death of St. Paul, A. D. 67, being 33 years, which was properly and emphatically the Apostolic period; the second, extending from the death of St. Paul to the death of St. John, A. D. 100, being 33 years, and including that period when the gov ernment of the Church was passing from the hands of the Apostles into those of their successors, and may, therefore, be called the transition period; the third, reaching from A. D. 100 to 150, and the fourth, from A. D. 150 to 200, each of which we propose to examine by itself. 1. The peculiar characteristic of the first period, was the general superintendency of the Churches by the Apostles in person, having Presbyters and Deacons under them, as ministers and rulers in the Church. Out of this relation grew three orders of ministers in the Church, called at this time, Apostles, Presbyters or Bishops, and Deacons, but with the death. of St. Paul, as far as history informs us, ended this relation, and of consequence, this phraseology. After his death, there * *During this period, all the governors of the Churches were called Apostles. (Theod. Com. Phil. i. 1; ii. 25. 1 Tim. iii. 1. Ambrose, Com. Eph. 4. Gal. i. 1. Bing. B. ii. c. 2, § 1.) FIRST AND SECOND CENTURIES. 251 fore, we hear but little more of the existence of Apostles in the Church, in any capacity, either as officers or not, although St. John remained thirty-three years longer. 2. The second, or, as it may properly be called, the transition period of the Church, was characterized by a peculiar unsettled state of ecclesiastical phraseology, consequent on the unsettled state of things in the Church itself. It was at this time, when the government of the Churches was passing from the Apostles, into the hands of their successors, that the spirit of pride and insubordination, which even the authority of the Apostles had not been wholly able to restrain, would be likely to break out with the greatest violence, and rage with the greatest fury. And the unsettled and confused state of things, thus produced, would naturally produce a confusion of terms. Besides, though the power and duty of the officers of the Church may have been well defined, and generally understood, there was a difficulty not easily surmounted. Most of the Apostles had gone to their rest, but some remained, and of course the name was still in existence and use. To such, therefore, all appeals must be made, and heresy and schism would rear itself under the pretense of Apostolic sanction. This state of things was peculiar to this period, and ended at the death of St. John, A. D. 100. While this state of things continued, the three orders of ministers were designated by different names from those used in the preceding period. The first and highest was called by St. John, the Angel of the Church, while Clement, Bishop of Rome, the only writer of this period whose works have been preserved, calls them the High Priest, the Priests, and the Levites, and the people or members of the Church were, for the first time, denominated by him laymen, a name by which they have ever since been known. The language of Clement is clear to this point. "God hath himself ordained by his su◄ preme will, both where and BY WHAT PERSONS We should perform our service and offerings unto him. They, therefore, who make their oblations at the appointed seasons, are accepted and happy, for they sin not, inasmuch as they obey the commandments of the Lord; for to the Chief Priest, (Bishop,) his peculiar offices are given, and to the Priests, (Presbyters,) their own place is appointed, and to the Levites, (Deacons,) appertain their proper ministries; and the layman is confined within the bounds of what is commanded to laymen."* It will be evident to every one who examines the epistle of Clement with any attention, that he not only considered the ministry of the Church as divinely instituted, but that it was also made by the same authority, to consist of three orders. Similar language is occasionally used by still later writers. Thus Tertullian speaks of the " High Priest, who is the Bishop." And Jerome tells us, that the Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, hold the same place in the Christian Church, that the High Priest, Priests, and Levites did, in the Jewish Church. This language also occurs at a still later period. Thus, in the Liturgy of St. Basil,§ "Grant, therefore, that we, thy servants, my Fathers and Brethren, the Priests and Levites, and all thy faithful people, may all be freed," etc. The Bishop is also called the "High Priest," and his office the "High Priesthood," in the Apostolical Constitutions, in the third or fourth century;|| in the ancient Ordinal of the Greek Church, for consecrating a Bishop; also, in the Ordinals of the Gothic Churches, before A. D. 550 ;** in the Pontifical of Egbert, Archbishop of York, A. D. 800 ;†† and occasionally by other writers. 3. The peculiar characteristic of the third period, consisted in ascertaining the extent of authority appertaining to the clerical office, and in settling the meaning of the ecclesiastical phraseology as it remains to the present day. Thus, +Ep. Evang. * Ep. Cor. c. 40. § Brett. p. 79. † De Bap. c. 17. Goar. Ritual, Græc. pp. 302—4. + Martene Ant. Ecc. Rit. L. i. c. 8, Art. 11, Ord. 2 **Murator. vol. II. p. 670. FIRST AND SECOND CENTURIES. 253 within seven years after the death of St. John, we find that the three orders of ministers were denominated Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon, and to each was assigned the same office, together with nearly or quite the same power and duty, as appertains to those offices to the present day. This distinction of name and office was made by Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch,* and by Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, A. D. 107;† by the account given of the martyrdom of Ignatius, by eye witnesses of the event, about A. D. 108 or 109 ;‡ by the Church at Smyrna, in the Circular Epistle which they addressed to the other Churches, on the martyrdom of Polycarp, about 167 or 168, which properly belongs to this period, though written a little later. A good and sufficient reason for the strong language of Ignatius, in reference to the various orders of ministers, and the obligation of obedience to them, may be found in the peculiar evils of those times. The presence, and of course, much of the influence of the Apostles, was withdrawn; the enemies of the Church were untiring in their opposition; heresies, foul and dark, sprung up in the hearts, and were manifested in the lives of hypocritical friends and misguided devotees, while schisms and discords|| were originated by the envy of *Ep. Eph. cc. 2, 4, 5, 20. 7, 12. Phil. Intd. cc. 4, 7, 10. Ep. Phil. cc. 5, 6, 13. Martyr. Pol. c. 16. Martyr. Ign. cc. 1, 3. Mag. cc. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 13. Trall. cc. 2, 3, § Martyr. Pol. c. 16, The first attempt to corrupt the faith of the Church in Jerusalem, was by Thebuthis, who was disappointed in not having been elected Bishop, în place of Simeon, the second Bishop of that city. (Heg. Com. in Euseb. iv. 22.) One of the earliest heresies in the Roman Church, the Novatian, arose A. D. 252, from a similar cause. (Euseb. vi. 43.) Many similar cases are mentioned in the early history of the Church, fully verifying the prediction of the Apostles, that dissension should arise on account of the ministry. (Clem. Rom. Ep. Cor. c. 44.) |