It may be only fair to suppose that those good men, by whose means a new order of things was brought into the Church, and the free ministry of the Holy Spirit in the members of the body excluded, had the welfare of the Church at heart. It is evident that Ignatius, by this arrangement, hoped to avoid “divisions.” But, however good our motives may be, it is the height of human folly—if not worse—to interfere with or seek to change the order of God. This was Eve’s mistake, and we all know the consequences too well. It was also the original sin of the Church, and from which it has suffered these eighteen hundred years.
The Holy Ghost sent down from heaven is the only power of ministry; but the Lord must be left free to choose and employ His own servants. Human arrangements and appointments necessarily interfere with the liberty of the Spirit. They quench the Holy Spirit. He only knows where the ability is, and where, when, and how to dispense the gifts. Speaking of the Church as it was in the days of the apostles, it is said, “But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he [the Holy Ghost] will.” And again we read, “There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal,” or for the profit of all. (1 Cor. 12) Here all is in divine hands. The Holy Spirit dispenses the gift. It is to be exercised in acknowledgment of the lordship of Christ; and God gives efficacy to the ministry. What a ministry! Spirit, Lord and God: its source, power, and character. How great, how sad the change, to king, prelate, or people! Is not this apostasy? But while we object to mere human appointment to office, qualified or not qualified, we would contend most earnestly for the ministry of the word to both saints and shiners.
The Church, alas, soon found that to hinder ministry, as it is set before us in the word of God, and introduce a new order of things, did not hinder divisions, heresies, and false teachers springing up. True, the flesh, in the most real and gifted Christian, may manifest itself, but when the Spirit of God is acting hi power, and the authority of the word owned, the remedy is at hand: the evil will be judged in humility and faithfulness to Christ. From this time—the beginning of the second century, and before it—the Church was greatly disturbed by heresies; and as time rolled on, things never grew better, but always worse.
IRENÆUS, a Christian of great celebrity, who succeeded Pothinus as bishop of Lyons, A.D. 177, has left us much information on the subject of the early heresies. He is supposed to have written about the year 183. His great book “against heresies” is said to contain a defense of the holy catholic faith, and an examination and refutation of the false doctrines advocated by the principal heretics.
The Origin of The Distinction Between Clergy And Laity.
Christianity at the beginning had no separate priestly order. Its first converts went everywhere preaching the Lord Jesus. They were the first to spread abroad the glad tidings of salvation, even before the apostles themselves had left Jerusalem. (Acts 8:1111And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries. (Acts 8:11).) In course of time, when converts were found sufficient in any place to form an assembly, they came together in the name of the Lord on the first day of the week, to break bread, and to edify one another in love. (Acts 20:77And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. (Acts 20:7).) When the opportunity came for an apostle to visit such gatherings, he ordained elders to take the spiritual oversight of the little flock; deacons were chosen by the assembly. This was the entire constitution of the first churches. If the Lord raised up an evangelist and souls were converted, they were baptized into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. This was of course outside the assembly, and not a church act. After due examination by the spiritual as to the genuineness of the evangelist’s work, and the assembly being satisfied, they were received into communion.
It will be seen, from this brief sketch of the divine order of the churches, that there was no distinction such as “the clergy,” and “the laity.” All stood on the same ground as to priesthood, worship, and nearness to God. As the Apostles Peter and John say, “Ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.” And thus could the whole assembly sing, “Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood; and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.” The only priesthood then, in the Church of God, is the common priesthood of all believers. The humblest menial in the palace of the archbishop, if washed in the blood of Christ, is whiter than snow, and fitted to enter the most holy place and worship within the veil.
There is no outer court worship now. The separation of a privileged class—a sacerdotal order, is unknown in the New Testament. The distinction between clergy and laity was suggested by Judaism, and human invention soon made it great; but it was episcopal ordination that established the distinction and widened the separation. The bishop gradually assumed the title of Pontiff. The presbyters, and at length the deacons, became, as well as the bishops, a sacred order. The place of mediation and of greater nearness to God was assumed by the priestly caste, and also of authority over the laity. In place of God speaking direct to the heart and conscience by His own word, and the heart and conscience brought direct into the presence of God, it was priesthood coming in between them. Thus the word of God was lost sight of, and faith stood in the opinions of men. The blessed Lord Jesus, as the Great High Priest of His people, and as the one Mediator between God and men, was thus practically displaced and set aside.
Thus, alas, we see in the Church what has been true of man from Adam downwards. Everything that has been entrusted to man has failed. From the time that the responsibility of maintaining the Church as the pillar and ground of the truth fell into man’s hands, there has been nothing but failure. The word of God, however, remains the same, and its authority can never fail, blessed be His name. One of the main objects of these “Short Papers” is to recall the reader’s attention to the principles and order of the Church, as taught in the New Testament. “God is a Spirit; and they that worship him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.” That is, we must worship and serve Him according to the truth, and under the guidance and unction of the Holy Spirit, if we would glorify His name and worship and serve Him acceptably.
Almost all ecclesiastical writers affirm that neither the Lord Himself nor His apostles gave any distinct precepts as to the order and government of the Church—that such things were left to the wisdom and prudence of her office bearers and the character of the times. By this assumption the widest range was given to the human will. We know the consequences. Man sought his own glory. The simplicity of the New Testament, the lowly path of the Lord and His apostles, the zeal and self-denial of a Paid, all were overlooked, and worldly greatness soon became the object and ambition of the clergy. A brief sketch of the bishop’s office will set these things in a clear light, and, we doubt not, will greatly interest our readers.
WHAT WAS A BISHOP IN EARLY TIMES?
The humblest peasant is familiar with the grandeur and worldly greatness of a bishop; but he may not know how a minister of Christ and a successor of the humble fishermen of Galilee came to such dignity. In the days of the apostles, and for more than a hundred years after, the office of a bishop was a laborious but “good work.” He had the charge of a single church, which might ordinarily be contained in a private house. He was not then as a “lord over God’s heritage,” but in reality its minister and servant, instructing the people and attending on the sick and poor in person. The presbyters, no doubt, assisted in the management of the general affairs of the Church, and also the deacons; but the bishop had the chief part of the service. He had no authority, however, to decree or sanction anything without the approval of the presbytery and people. There was no thought then of “inferior clergy” under him. And at that time the churches had no revenues, except the voluntary contributions of the people, which, moderate as they doubtless were, would leave a very small emolument for the bishop, after the poor and needy were attended to.
But in those early times office-bearers in the Church continued, in all probability, to carry on their former trades and occupations, supporting themselves and their families in the same manner as before. A bishop, says Paul, “must be given to hospitality.” And this he could not have been had he depended for his income on the earnings of the poor. It was not until about the year 245 that the clergy received a salary, and were forbidden to follow their worldly employments; but towards the close of the second century, circumstances arose in the history of the Church which greatly affected the original humility and simplicity of its overseers, and which tended to the corruption of the priestly order. “This change began,” says Waddington, “towards the end of the second century; and it is certain that at this period we find the first complaints of the incipient corruption of the clergy.” From the moment that the interests of the ministers became at all distinguished from the interests of Christianity, many and great changes for the worse may be considered to have begun. We will notice some of these circumstances; and first,
THE ORIGIN OF DIOCESES.
The bishops who lived in cities, either by their own preaching or by the preaching of others—presbyters, deacons, or people—were the means of gathering new churches in the neighboring towns and villages. These young assemblies, very naturally, continued under the care and protection of the city churches, by whose means they had received the gospel and were formed into churches. Ecclesiastical provinces were thus gradually formed, winch the Greeks afterward denominated dioceses. The city bishops claimed the privilege of appointing office-bearers to these rural churches; and the persons to whom they committed their instruction and care were called district bishops. These formed a new class, coming in between the bishops and the presbyters, being considered inferior to the former and superior to the latter. Thus distinctions and divisions were created, and offices multiplied.
THE ORIGIN OF THE METROPOLITAN BISHOP.
Churches thus constituted and regulated rapidly increased throughout the empire. In the management of their internal affairs, every church was essentially distinct from every other, though walking in spiritual fellowship with all others, and considered as part of the one Church of God. But, as the number of believers increased and churches were extended, diversities in doctrine and discipline sprang up, which could not always be settled in the individual assemblies. This gave rise to councils or synods. These were composed chiefly of those who took part in the ministry. But when the deputies of the churches were thus assembled, it was soon discovered that the control of a president was required. Unless the government of the Holy Spirit in the Church be owned and submitted to, there must be anarchy without a president. The bishop of the capital of the province was usually appointed to preside, under the lofty title of the Metropolitan. On his return home it was hard to lay aside these occasional honors, so he very soon claimed the personal and permanent dignity of the Metropolitan.
The bishops and presbyters up till about this time were generally viewed as equal in rank, or the same thing; the terms being used synonymously; but now the former considered themselves as invested with supreme power in the guidance of the Church, and were determined to maintain themselves in this authority. The presbyters refused to concede to them this new and self-assumed dignity, and sought to maintain their own independence. Hence arose the great controversy between the presbyterian and the episcopalian systems, which has continued until this day, and of which we may speak more particularly hereafter. Enough has been said to show the reader the beginning of many things which still live before us in the professing church. In the consecrated order of clergy he will find the germ out of which sprang at length the whole mediaeval priesthood, the laws of celibacy, and the fearful corruptions of the dark ages.
Having thus glanced at what was going on inside the Church from the beginning, and especially amongst her rulers, we will now resume the general history from the death of M. Aurelius.