cerning Novatian, thus: 'Relieved by exorcists, he fell into an obstinate disease, and being supposed about to die, he having been poured around, on the bed where he lay, received [saving grace]; if, indeed, it be proper to say [it].' Eusebius does not express the object of the verb, but Crusé translates the rest of the passage thus: 'If, indeed, it be proper to say that one like him did receive baptisin.' Vales states, that clinics who recovered, were required by the rule to go to the bishop, to supply what was wanting in that baptism.' But failing to do this, Novatian insisted on entering the ministry, which persistence shook the nerves of Cornelius beyond endurance; yet, as Novatian was a remarkably talented man, he was made a presbyter without trine immersion.

Cave excuses this in the kindest manner, calling Novatian's 'A less solemn and perfect kind of baptism, partly because it was done not by immersion. . . . Persons are supposed at such a time to desire it chiefly out of a fear of death, and many times when not thoroughly masters of their understandings. For which reasons, persons so baptized (if they recovered) are by the fathers of the Neo-Cæsarean Council rendered ordinarily incapable of being admitted to the degree of presbyters in the Church. . . . They reckoned that no man could be saved without being baptized, and cared not much in cases of necessity, so they had it, how they came by it.'5 His reference is to Canon xii, which decrees, that no person baptized in time of sickness should be ordained a presbyter, 'because his faith was not voluntary.' Cornelius would not let them pass muster, even if they were masters of their understandings; but Chrysostom was a more notional immersionist still, and gave his reasons at length for doubting the salvation of such men at all! In general, the fathers sneered at these sick-bed baptisms, and named such professors, Clinics,' and not Christians, a levity which Cyprian solemnly rebuked, as implying their conversion in a fright. He says that it is a nickname which some have thought fit to fix upon those who have thus' been perfused upon their beds. "

The NOVATIANS demanded pure Churches which enforced strict discipline, and so were called Puritans. They refused to receive the 'lapsed' back into the Churches, and because they held the Catholics corrupt in receiving them, they re-immersed all who came to them from the Catholics. For this reason alone they were called Anabaptists,' although they denied that this was rebaptism, holding the first immersion null and void, because it had been received from corrupt Churches. Martyrs were held in such high honor at this time, that this dignity was sought with a furor. Merit was ascribed to them, in virtue of which they went so far as to give to other Christians, papers, in token of pardoned sin, a practice which it was necessary to prohibit, because it became so dangerous. The Novatians soon became a very powerful body, spread through the Empire, as Kurtz shows; and their Churches flourished for centuries, exerting a purifying and healthful influence. Adam Clarke states that one grave charge against them was: 'That they did not pay due reverence to the martyrs, nor allow that there was any virtue in their relics;' which he pronounces

a decisive mark of their 'good sense and genuine piety,' in keeping with their lives, which were in general simple and holy.' Lardner thinks: It is impossible to calculate the benefits of their services to mankind.'

We have no reliable data on which to state their views on the baptism of babes, beyond the fact, that as infant baptism had not become a general custom when they arose, there was no need to form a sect in opposition thereto. Then, these several facts indicate that they had no sympathy with the few who began to favor this innovation, namely: That Novatian, their founder, was an adult at the time of his illness and so-called baptism; that the difficulty of obtaining pardon of sin after baptism made men defer it as long as possible in this age; and further, that we have no record of one martyr, confessor, writer or member, in any Church being baptized as a babe, for the first two hundred and fifty years of Christianity. On the contrary, it is recorded that the two Clements, Justin, Athanagoras, Theophilus, Tertullian, Cyprian and a nameless host were baptized after reaching full manhood, and on their faith in Christ. When Novatian was a presbyter at Rome, infant baptism had not found its way there. More than a century after his day, Boniface, the Bishop of that Church, is found addressing Augustine on the question, asking his counsel, and expressing grave doubts on the subject, inasmuch as a child could not believe in Christ, and no one could warrant that he would believe thereafter. Socrates says, that Novatian was martyred A. D. 253–260.

This century was marked by the introduction of a centralized Church government, largely to the destruction of Congregationalism; and by a crystallization of the ideas and pretensions of Episcopacy. As to the first of these, Neander clearly shows, how a crude notion arose concerning the inward unity of a universal but unseen Church, and the outward unity of a Church dependent on outward forms. Out of this speculative idea came the purpose to form one great organic body, which should take the place of the Church-family idea, as Christ founded it on the social nature of man. The first step was to depress the individuality of the Church in this or that home locality, supplanting it with the Church of the district; then, of course, would follow that of the nation and of the world. Cyprian carried this thought to its sound, logical conclusion, in his remarkable book on the Unity of the Church' (De Unitate Ecclesia), written about the middle of this period, amid the confusion with which this innovation had to contend. The term 'Catholic Church' is first found in the Epistle of the Church at Smyrna, in which Polycarp prays for the godly throughout the world under that name, and Tertullian uses it for the same purpose. But the organic Catholic Church itself arose out of the ambitious scheme to sap the foundations of Congregational liberty, and to crush heretics. We read such folly as this from the pen of Cyprian: That man cannot have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. . . . Where there is no Church, sins cannot be put away.' He is also the father of that far-fetched and thread-bare 'coat' argument, in which so many complacently wrap themselves, till they split it

180

HIGH PREROGATIVES CLAIMED.

between the shoulders. He says of our Lord's 'seamless vest,' 'This coat possessed a unity which came down from the top, that is, from heaven, and which was not to be rent. He who parts and divides the Church cannot have Christ's garment.' As if Christ's Church is Christ's coat in any sense, and as if his woolen raiment, woven on some family loom in Palestine, and raffled for by soldiers at the foot of the cross, could be forced to do duty as the symbol of his ransomed body, the Church. There is not the slightest hint in the Bible that the bodily dress of Christ was the embodiment of any thing but its own threads, much less that it was made by him a holy symbol of his redeemed people. Yet, those who are shaking in their shoes all the time about some figment which they call the 'sin of schism,' but which they are careful never to define, are perpetually quoting Cyprian's nonsense, as if it were unanswerable Bible truth.

Again, Cyprian says: 'There is no salvation to any except in the Church;' which to him was true, by the dimensions of the Church as he measured it, which measurement, happily, differs several cubits from the enlarged fullness in which Jesus comprehends all who love and obey him, 'in sincerity and truth.' Cyprian also held that there was no true baptism outside of the Catholic ranks, and so, he rebaptized all heretics and schismatics who came to him, while Stephen contended that if the due forms had been observed in baptizing them, they should be re-admitted simply by the laying on of hands.

once.

As to the prerogatives of Episcopacy, the hierarchy was not established at Like all other perversions of great principles and institutions, the decadence was gradual, almost imperceptible, until the change became thorough and radical. When the 'priest' had taken the place of the teacher, and the 'Church' the place of the diffused congregations, then the Church' alone could confer salvation by its priesthood, ordinances and discipline; for the whole power of the 'Church' was merged into the clergy. New forms produced new laws and new offices. Division in the Churches had opened the way for one pagan practice after another in government, as well as doctrine, until the spirit of old Roman imperialism gradually formed a priestly hierarchy. What Westcott calls 'the local and dogmatic ideas of Catholicity' remained in germ, and were latent till new circumstances broke the force of public opinion. One emergency followed another in breaking up the system of separate Church action, and compelling the Churches to conform to one regime. Then the ecclesiastical form of the sin of schism was cautiously created as a bugbear, its seeds being planted in the restriction of free thought. Imperialism became the bulwark of Episcopacy, which, at first, operated gently; for after district prelacy was established, each district being independent for a time of all others, managed its own affairs by its provincial synod. The public mind had been educated to this form of government in civil affairs. This policy had failed in the Greek republic, and had been lost in her wider dominion; but when Rome conquered all States, its ideal of government was centered in one irresponsible will, and sought its golden age

THE CHURCHES IMPERIALIZED.

181

there. In like manner, these simple Christian communities passed step by step into the hands of their ambitious brethren, who sought to imperialize the Churches. The bent of the Roman Church was to adopt the policy of the Roman State, and to swallow up all these artless families into itself. The necessary result was, that the primitive sense of personal union with Christ was sunk into incorporation with the general Church, to be connected with which was salvation. After this, every thing savored of episcopal prerogative.

..

Nothing of this was known in the Apostolic Churches, for there no particular man was distinguished as a priest, much less as a high-priest of priests. Bishop Lightfoot says, in his 'Christian Ministry:' 'The sacerdotal title is never once conferred upon them. The only priests under the Gospel, designated as such in the New Testament, are the saints, the members of the Christian brotherhood. As individuals, all Christians are alike. The highest gift of the Spirit conveyed no sacerdotal right which was not enjoyed by the humblest member of the Christian community." Yet, the men of the third century reasoned, that as paganism had found strength in a centralized government, Christianity could not cope with it without using the same forces. Hence, in substance, if not in form, the rule of the Galilean Peasant was thrown aside, and the image of the Emperor put in his place by an Episcopacy, first to charm and then to govern. After that, a technical sense was attached to the term 'bishop' which never fell from Apostolic lips, the corruption of the term springing from the corruption of the office. The first grade of departure is found in the mutual consultation of the elders, as equals, concerning the welfare of a few Churches in their vicinity. Then, one of them began to exercise lordship over the other, till, in the opening of this age, the city elders assumed rank and authority over their suburban brethren, who were but common country folk. Because Rome was the mighty capital and the Church there strong, this Church early betrayed that feeling. Besides, the smaller Churches were often quite dependent upon those out of which they came, cherishing great love for them, and so were led by their influence. Roman society daily familiarized men with all grades and successions of power, and it required constant resistance to keep the Churches in their Christ-like simplicity of government.

The credulity of Cyprian, as to the almost miraculous effects of the ordinances, and the divine authority of Episcopacy, strengthened these tendencies in Africa, where he acted in a childish manner. In a letter to Pupianus he says: "The bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, he is not in the Church.' Neander thus expresses himself most freely: A candid consideration cannot fail to see in Cyprian, a man animated with true love to the Redeemer and to his Church. It is undeniable that he was honestly devoted as a faithful shepherd to his flock, and that it was his desire to use his episcopal authority for the maintenance of order and discipline. But it is also certain that . . . he was not watchful enough against self-will and pride. The very point he contended for, the supremacy of the episcopate, proved the rock whereon at times he made shipwreck.3

...

ΤΗ

CHAPTER III.

THE THIRD CENTURY.—Continued.

HE four men who figured most largely in this century were Tertullian, who labored for the purity of the Churches; Origen, who blended philosophy with revelation; Cyprian, who struggled for episcopal authority; and Hippolytus, who as stoutly resisted clerical wickedness. We may speak more fully of the last.

HIPPOLYTUS, A. D. 198–239, was Bishop, probably of the Church at Portus, at the mouth of the Tiber, and spent the most of his life in and about Rome. He was one of the greatest men of his age, a name,' says Cardinal Newman, which a breath of ecclesiastical censure has never even dimmed. . . . A man without any slur upon his character or conduct, and who stands, in point of orthodoxy, range of subject and ability, in the very front rank of theologians, in the ante-Nicene times.'1 Chrysostom calls him: A most holy doctor, and a man of sweetness and charity.' For twenty years he was active in the affairs of the Church at Rome, but was in no way under its authority, being elected bishop by his own flock, without episcopal consecration. He openly and boldly opposed the bishops of the capital in all their pretensions, exposing their gross iniquities. He refused all communion with the Church at Rome, calling it a 'school,' not a church, and laid bare the immoralities and crimes of its pastors, in what had been a scurrilous manner, had it not been true. A. D. 199-218, Zephyrinus was its pastor, whom he denounces as ignorant, corrupt and bribed to connive at the error of Noetus, namely, that Christ was the Father, and so that the Father was crucified, denying the proper personality of the Son. When Hippolytus exposed his error, he confessed his sin.

Callixtus was pastor at Rome from 219 to 223. He was originally a slave, nurtured in cunning, falsehood and vice. Having stolen money, he was sentenced first to the treadmill, and then to the mines in Sardinia, on the following proceedings: His master, a devout Christian of Cæsar's household, trusted him with large amounts of money for banking purposes. This business Callixtus followed in the Piscina, a public fish-market, one of the quarters of Rome, celebrated for its large financial transactions. His master's influence was so great that many Christians, widows and others, intrusted their deposits with the slave as with the master himself. But he soon made away with these, and fled for the sea. Being pursued and captured in the harbor of Portus, after an attempt at suicide by drowning, he was brought back to Rome and sent to the treadmill. He claimed that various persons held money to his credit; many kind-hearted Christians pleaded with his master to