CHAPTER VI.

THE RISE OF THE HIERARCHY CONNECTED WITH THE

SPREAD OF HERESIES.

EUSEBIUS, already so often quoted, and known so widely as the author of the earliest Church history, flourished in the former half of the fourth century. This distinguished father was a spectator of the most wonderful revolution recorded in the annals of the world. He had seen Christianity proscribed, and its noblest champions cut down by a brutal martyrdom; and he had lived to see a convert to the faith seated on the throne of the Cæsars, and ministers of the Church basking in the sunshine of Imperial bounty. He was himself a special favourite with Constantine; as bishop of Cæsarea, the chief city of Palestine, he had often access to the presence of his sovereign; and in a work which is still extant, professing to be a Life of the Emperor, he has well-nigh exhausted the language of eulogy in his attempts to magnify the virtues of his illustrious patron.

Eusebius may have been an accomplished courtier, but certainly he is not entitled to the praise of a great historian. The publication by which he is best known would never have acquired such celebrity, had it not been the most ancient treatise of the kind in existence. Though it mentions many of the ecclesiastical transactions of the second and third centuries, and supplies a large amount of information

which would have otherwise been lost, it must be admitted to be a very ill-arranged and unsatisfactory performance. Its author does not occupy a high position either as a philosophic thinker, a judicious observer, or a sound theologian. He makes no attempt to point out the germs of error, to illustrate the rise and progress of ecclesiastical changes, or to investigate the circumstances which led to the formation of the hierarchy. Even the announcement of his Preface, that his purpose is "to record the successions of the holy apostles," or, in other words, to exhibit some episcopal genealogies, proclaims how much he was mistaken as to the topics which should have been noticed most prominently in his narrative. It is somewhat doubtful whether his history was expressly written, either for the illumination of his own age, or for the instruction of posterity; and its appearance, shortly after the public recognition of Christianity by the State, is fitted to generate a suspicion that it was intended to influence the mind of Constantine, and to recommend the episcopal order to the consideration of the great proselyte.

About six or seven years after the publication of this treatise a child was born who was destined to attain higher distinction, both as a scholar and a writer, than the polished Eusebius. This was Jerome afterwards a presbyter of Rome, and a father whose productions challenge the foremost rank among the memorials of patristic erudition. Towards the close of the fourth century he shone the brightest literary star in the Church, and even the proud Pope Damasus condescended to cultivate his favour. At one time he contemplated the composition of a Church history, and we have reason to regret that the design was

* It would appear that the "Ecclesiastical History" of Eusebius was published shortly after Constantine first publicly recognized Christianity. That event took place in A.D. 324, and with that year the history terminates.. + "Vita Malchi," Opera, iv. pp. 90, 91. Edit. Paris, 1706.

never executed, as his works demonstrate that he was in possession of much rare and important information for which we search in vain in the pages of the bishop of Cæsarea.

No ancient writer has thrown more light on the history of the hierarchy than Jerome. His remarks upon the subject frequently drop incidentally from his pen, and must be sought for up and down throughout his commentaries and epistles; but he speaks as an individual who was quite familiar with the topics which he introduces; and, whilst all his statements are consistent, they are confirmed and illustrated by other witnesses. As a presbyter, he seems to have been jealous of the honour of his order; and, when in certain moods, he is obviously very well disposed to remind the bishops that their superiority to himself was a mere matter of human arrangement. One of his observations relative to the original constitution of the Christian commonwealth has been often quoted. "Before that, by the prompting of the devil, there were parties in religion, and it was said among the people, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, the Churches were governed by the common council of the presbyters. But, after that each one began to reckon those whom he baptized as belonging to himself and not to Christ, it was DECREED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE WORLD that one elected from the presbyters should be set over the rest, that he should have the care of the whole Church, that the seeds of schisms might be destroyed."*

* "Antequam Diaboli instinctu, studia in religione fierent, et diceretur in populis, Ego sum Pauli, ego Apollo, ego autem Cephæ, communi presbyterorum consilio ecclesiæ gubernabantur. Postquam vero unusquisque eos quos baptizaverat suos putabat esse, non Christi, in toto orbe decretum est, ut unus de presbyteris, electus superponeretur cæteris, ad quem omnis ecclesiæ cura pertineret, et schismatum semina tollerentur."-Comment. in Titum. The language here used bears a strong resemblance to that employed by Lactantius long before when treating of the same subject-" Multæ hæreses extiterunt, et instinctibus dæmonum populus Dei scissus est."—Instit. Divin., lib. iv. c. 30.

Because Jerome in this place happens to use language which occurs in the First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, we are not to understand him as identifying the date of that letter with the origin of prelacy. Such a conclusion would be quite at variance with the tenor of this passage. The words, "I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas," are used by him rhetorically; he was accustomed to repeat them when describing schisms or contentions; and he has employed them on one memorable occasion in relation to a controversy of the fourth century. The divisions among the Corinthians, noticed by Paul, were trivial and temporary; the Church at large was not disturbed by them; but Jerome speaks of a time when the whole ecclesiastical community was so agitated that it was threatened with dismemberment. The words immediately succeeding those which we have quoted clearly shew that he dated the origin of prelacy after the days of the apostles. "Should any one think that the identification of bishop and presbyter, the one being a name of age and the other of office, is not a doctrine of Scripture, but our own opinion, let him refer to the words of the apostle saying to the Philippians-Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons, Grace to you and peace,' and so forth. Philippi is one city of Macedonia,

* 1 Cor. i. 12.

"Hic locus vel maxime adversum Hæreticos facit qui pacis vinculo dissipato atque corrupto, putant se tenere Spiritus unitatem; quum unitas Spiritus in pacis vinculo conservetur. Quando enim non idipsum omnes loquimur, et alius dicit Ego sum Pauli, Ego Apollo, Ego Cephe, dividimus Spiritus unitatem, et eam in partes ac membra discerpimus."—Comment. in Ephes., lib. ii. cap. 4. Again, we find him saying "Necnon et dissensiones opera carnis sunt, quum quis nequaquam perfectus, eodem sensu, et eadem sententia dicit. Ego sum Pauli, et ego Apollo, et ego Cepha, et ego Christi. ... Nonnumquam evenit, ut et in expositionibus Scripturarum oriatur dissensio, e quibus hæreses quoque quæ nunc in carnis opere ponuntur, ebulliunt."-Comment. in Epist. ad Galat., cap. 5.

Philip. i. 1, 2.

and truly in one city, there cannot be, as is thought, more than one bishop; but because, at that time, they called the same parties bishops and presbyters, therefore he speaks of bishops as of presbyters without making distinction. Still this may seem doubtful to some unless confirmed by another testimony. In the Acts of the Apostles it is written* that when the apostle came to Miletus he 'sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the same Church,' to whom then, among other things, he said-Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost has made you bishops,† to feed the Church of the Lord which He has purchased with His own blood.' And attend specially to this, how, calling the elders of the one city Ephesus, he afterwards addressed the same as bishops. Whoever is prepared to receive that Epistle which is written to the Hebrews under the name of Paul, there also the care of the Church is divided equally among more than one, since he writes to the people-Obey them that have the rule over you and submit yourselves, for they are they who watch for your souls as those who must give account, that they may not do it with grief, since this is profitable for you.'§ And Peter, who received his name from the firmness of his faith, in his Epistle speaks, saying-The elders, therefore, who are among you, I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and who am a partaker of his glory which shall be revealed, feed that flock of the Lord which is

*Acts xx. 17, 28.

+ Our translators, as it would appear acting under instructions from James I., here render the word "overseers.”

The Church of Rome, of which Jerome was a presbyter, long hesitated to receive the Epistle to the Hebrews. Its opposition to ritualism seems, in the third and fourth centuries, to have been offensive to the ecclesiastical leaders in the Western metropolis. In the first century no such doubts respecting it existed among the Roman Christians. See Period I. sec. ii. chap. i. p. 183.

§ Heb. xiii. 17. The reading of Jerome, here, as well as in the case of other texts quoted, differs somewhat from that of our authorized version. He seems to have often quoted from memory.