{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_38537/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_38537","id":"gutenberg_38537","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38537","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Other","Category: History - Religious","Church and state","Church history -- Primitive and early church, ca. 30-600","Religion and state"],"text":"E-text prepared by Steven Giacomelli, Jeannie Howse, and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net) from page images\ngenerously made available by Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries\n(http://www.archive.org/details/toronto)\n\n\n\nNote: Images of the original pages are available through\n Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries. See\n http://www.archive.org/details/a544970500alliuoft\n\n\n\n\n\nCHURCH AND STATE AS SEEN IN THE FORMATION OF CHRISTENDOM.\n\nby\n\nT. W. ALLIES, M.A.\n\nAuthor of\n\"Per Crucem ad Lucem, The Result of a Life,\"\n\"A Life's Decision,\" \"Journal in France and Letters from Italy,\"\n\"The Formation of Christendom,\" etc.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nLondon: Burns and Oates.\n1882.\n\n\n\n\nTABLE OF CONTENTS.\n\n\n\n\n PROLOGUE.\n\n PAGE\n THE KINGDOM AS PROPHESIED AND AS FULFILLED, xix\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER I.\n\n RELATION BETWEEN THE CIVIL AND THE SPIRITUAL POWERS FROM ADAM\n TO CHRIST.\n\n\n 1. _The Divine and the Human Society, founded in Adam, refounded\n in Noah._\n\n The origin of man, of woman, of marriage, and of the human family, 1\n Archetypal character of the fact that man is created a Race, 3\n Sole creation of Adam in the maturity of thought and speech and\n the perfection of knowledge, as shown in the naming of\n creatures, 4\n Subsequent building of woman from man, 5\n The divine Image and Likeness in the individual man, 5\n A further Image of the ever-blessed Trinity in the Race, 6\n Indication of the Headship and the Passion of Christ in the\n original creation, 8\n Beauty and splendour of the divine plan, 9\n The part in the divine plan which belongs to man's free-will, 10\n The divine treatment of man as a Race not broken by the Fall, 11\n Adam after the Fall the head of the civil and the religious\n order, 12\n Bearing of man's condition before the Fall upon his subsequent\n state, 13\n Adam receives in a great promise a disclosure of the future, 14\n He becomes the Teacher and likewise the Priest of his Race, 15\n The rite of sacrifice, 15\n Triple dignity of Adam in this first society, 16\n Man breaks up this society by the misuse of his free-will, 17\n Resumption of the unity of the Race and its reparation in Noah, 18\n Condition of man, individual and collective, at this new beginning\n of the race; marriage and sacrifice, 19\n Express establishment of civil government by divine authority, 20\n Union of religion with civil government from the beginning, 21\n Parallel between Adam and Noah, 22\n\n\n 2. _The Divine and Human Society in the Dispersion._\n\n Unity of human language withdrawn on account of a great sin, 24\n Coeval with which the various nations spring forth out of the one\n original society, 26\n Injury to human society by the degradation of the conception of\n God, 28\n Loss of belief in the divine unity followed by loss of the sense\n of man's brotherhood, 29\n Proof of this brotherhood recovered by science in the case of the\n Aryan family of nations, 31\n The one universal society becomes many nations at enmity with\n each other, 32\n Their state after a long lapse of time, when their several histories\n begin, 33\n Original goods of the race still remaining--\n 1. Marriage, 35\n 2. Religion as centered in the rite of sacrifice, 37\n 3. Civil government, 38\n 4. Alliance between government and religion, 41\n Cumulative testimony of the four in their contrast with slavery\n to the unity of man's Race, as its origin is recorded\n by Moses, 43\n Summary of the course of mankind from the Dispersion to Christ, 44\n\n\n 3. _Further Testimony of Law, Government, and Priesthood in the\n Dispersion._\n\n The fiction of universal savagery, or different races, or simial\n descent, 45\n The author of \"Ancient Law\" upon original society, 46\n Proof from comparative jurisprudence of the patriarchal theory, 47\n Law and government in their commencement, 48\n Family the ancient unit of society, 49\n Universal belief or assumption of blood-relationship, 50\n The Roman Patria Potestas a relic of the original rule, 52\n Family everything, the individual unknown, 52\n Original union of religion with government, 53\n Origin of law and property, 54\n Summary of the foregoing witness, 55\n The Two Powers from the beginning, 56\n Degradation of worship and degradation of society in Gentilism, 57\n Deification of the State, 58\n Which, however, remains a lawful power, 59\n The distinction between sacerdotal and civil power in the Roman\n republic, 60\n The power of the Pontifex Maximus united to that of the\n Principate, 62\n The College of Pontifices reversing a tribunitial law, 63\n The distinction between Sacerdotal and Civil Power running\n through all ancient nations, 64\n Witness of the heathen priesthood to the unity of man's Race, 65\n The providence of Abraham's call, 66\n Relation of the Two Powers in the Mosaic law, 67\n The actual result of the coming of Christ, 68\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER II.\n\n RELATION BETWEEN THE SPIRITUAL AND THE CIVIL POWERS AFTER CHRIST.\n\n\n 1. _The Spiritual Power in its Source and Nature._\n\n The Spiritual Power not only allied but subordinate to the Civil\n throughout the Gentile world at the death of Christ, 70\n 1. Its independence in Israel alone, as acknowledged by the\n people, a result of the creation of the Aaronic\n priesthood, 72\n Special offices of the High Priest, 73\n 2. The part of the High Priest through the whole history from\n Moses to Christ, 75\n 3. The actual jurisdiction of the High Priest under the Roman\n Empire, 77\n 4. The High-priesthood and the system of worship over which\n it presided viewed as a prophecy and preparation for\n Christ, 80\n Bearing of the High-priesthood to Christ at His coming, 82\n The undisputed circumstances of Christ's death, 83\n Extreme antecedent improbability of what followed, 84\n Its dependence upon a supernatural and miraculous fact, 85\n As the Race springs from Adam in Paradise, so the Spiritual Power\n from Christ at His Resurrection, 86\n The inward cohesion of Priesthood, Teaching, and Jurisdiction, 87\n The two forces of the Primacy and the Hierarchy from the\n beginning, 90\n The unity and triplicity of power in the regimen of the Church\n an image of the Divine Unity and Trinity, 92\n\n\n 2. _The Spiritual Power a Complete Society._\n\n The supernatural society exists for a supernatural end, 93\n To which the present life is subordinated, 94\n And which is beyond the provision of temporal government, 95\n Analogy between the Two Powers, 96\n Complete philosophical basis on which the Spiritual Power rests, 98\n How the inward life which it imparts is united with the Person of\n Christ, 99\n From whom, in worship, belief, and conduct, the Christian people\n derives, 101\n The King and the Kingdom not of this world but in it, fulfilled\n in thirteen particulars, 103\n 1. A kingdom ruling all the relations of man Godward, 103\n 2. Having an end outside this life, 103\n 3. Deriving all authority from Christ as Apostle and High\n Priest, 103\n 4. Producing its people from its King, 103\n 5. Imparting grace from the King in its sacraments, 104\n 6. Transmitting the King's truth by the order of its regimen, 104\n 7. Having a complete analogy with civil government, 104\n 8. Fulfilling man's need of supernatural society, 105\n 9. Generating an universal law for all relations of public and\n private life, 105\n 10. Possessing independence of the Temporal Power, 106\n 11. Not limited in space, 106\n 12. Not limited in time, 107\n 13. A kingdom of charity through union with its King, 107\n\n\n 3. _Relation of the Two Powers to each other._\n\n Principles which ruled the relation between the Two Powers before\n Christ, 108\n A new basis given to the Spiritual Power by Christ, from which\n every relation to the Temporal Power springs, 110\n 1. All Christians subject to the Spiritual Power, 112\n 2. And likewise to the Temporal Power as God's Vicegerent, 112\n 3. The relation between the Two Powers intended by God is\n amity, 114\n 4. A separate action of the Two Powers, without regard to\n each other, not intended, 115\n 5. Persecution of the Spiritual by the Temporal not intended, 119\n 6. Contrast between human kingdoms and the divine kingdom, 120\n The _end_ the ground of the subordination of the one to the\n other, 122\n Doctrine of St. Thomas to that effect, 123\n The indirect power over temporal things, 124\n Sum of the foregoing chapter; Orders of Nature and Grace, 125\n Co-operation of the Two Powers as stated by St. Gregory VII., 126\n The image of marriage, as describing the ideal relation and the\n various deflections from it, 128\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER III.\n\n TRANSMISSION OF SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY FROM THE PERSON OF OUR LORD TO\n PETER AND THE APOSTLES, AS SET FORTH IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.\n\n\n The Church a kingdom subsisting from age to age by its own force,\n but its original records to be considered, 131\n Institution of the Priesthood; St. Paul's and St. Luke's\n testimony, 132\n St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. John, 133\n Transmission of Spiritual Power as recorded by St. Matthew, 136\n The same according to St. Mark, 138\n The same according to St. Luke in his Gospel, 139\n And in the Acts, 139\n His record of a peculiar promise made to Peter, 141\n Conversation which forms his main addition to the narrative, 141\n Contrast between Gentile and Christian rule, 143\n The kingdom disposed to the Apostles, 144\n The confirmation of the brethren, 145\n The time of the confirming marked out, 146\n St. Luke distinguishes Peter as markedly as St. Matthew and St.\n John, 148\n Testimony of St. John as to the promises made to the Apostles, 149\n And as to the universal pastorship bestowed on St. Peter, 152\n Two classes of passages, 153\n Comparison of the two, 154\n And of the testimony of the four Evangelists, 156\n Caution that what is recorded is not all that passed, 157\n Perfect instruction of the Apostles in the forty days, 158\n The powers comprising the Apostolate, 159\n The powers bestowed on Peter, 160\n Testimony of St. Paul; conception of the Church as the Body of\n Christ, 161\n Of the one ministry by which the Body is compacted together, 162\n Of mission from this Body as necessary to every herald of the\n gospel, 164\n Of the grace given by ordination, 165\n Mow the unity set forth by St. Paul bears witness to the Primacy\n of St. Peter, 166\n Of the inseparable bond of unity, truth, and government in St.\n Paul's mind, 167\n Six names by which he designates the principle of his own\n authority, 168\n The great vision of our Lord and His Church in the Apocalypse in\n accordance with St. Paul and the Evangelists, 171\n Four qualities of Spiritual Power in this Scriptural testimony, 175\n 1. The coming from above, 175\n 2. Its completeness, 176\n 3. Its unity, 179\n 4. Its independence, 181\n How the idea of perpetuity pervades all these qualities, 182\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER IV.\n\n TRANSMISSION OF SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY, AS WITNESSED IN THE HISTORY\n OF THE CHURCH FROM A.D. 29 TO A.D. 325.\n\n\n The letter of St. Clement of Rome, 184\n Description of this letter by St. Iren\u00e6us, 185\n St. Clement urges the Roman military discipline as an example for\n Christian obedience, 186\n Minute regulations given by Christ as to religious ordinances, 187\n The descent of all spiritual order from above, 188\n Example of Moses in establishing the Jewish Pontificate, 189\n How the Apostles appointed everywhere Bishops with a rule of\n succession, 190\n St. Clement fills up details omitted in the Gospel record, 190\n How he attests the continuation of the Mosaic hierarchy of high\n priest, priest, and levite in the Christian Church, 191\n How he says that Christian ordinances are to be observed more\n accurately than Mosaic, 193\n How the Apostles carried out the descent of power from above, 194\n Why St. Clement instances the origin of the Jewish hierarchy, 195\n How St. Clement exercises the Primacy, 197\n St. Ignatius of Antioch supplements St. Clement of Rome, 200\n His statement as to Bishops throughout the world, combined with\n his statement as to the authority of the local Bishop, 201\n The complete testimony of St. Clement and St. Ignatius, 203\n The historian Eusebius notes three periods in the first ninety\n years, 205\n Sum of his testimony as to the great Sees and the Episcopate, 206\n How Tertullian describes the first propagation of the Church, 211\n And how Iren\u00e6us, 213\n Concordance with the Gospels of these statements of St. Clement,\n St. Ignatius, Eusebius, St. Iren\u00e6us, and Tertullian, 215\n Bishops in every city and town of the Empire before the peace of\n the Church, 216\n St. Peter, St. Paul, and the Apostles appointed everywhere local\n Bishops, 217\n The Bishop universally said to wield a government, 218\n Bishops sent out from Rome to convert the nations, 219\n Episcopal government universal, 220\n But the One Episcopate much more than this, 222\n St. Cyprian's One Episcopate illustrated by St. Leo the Great, 223\n What the One Episcopate adds to the universal establishment of\n Bishops, 224\n The special character of the miracle which St. Chrysostom and St.\n Augustine proclaimed, 227\n St. Augustine's criterion in the fourth century applied to the\n nineteenth, 229\n St. Chrysostom's epitome of the Church's course preceding his\n time, 230\n Christ's special miracle is that He founds the race of\n Christians, 231\n Contrast of the race with that out of which it was formed, 232\n The incessant conflict amid which it was done, 233\n A reflection upon this picture of the Church, 236\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER V.\n\n THE ONE EPISCOPATE RESTING UPON THE ONE SACRIFICE.\n\n\n St. Clement's assertion of the care with which our Lord instituted\n the government of His Church, 238\n Christ's High-priesthood consisting in two acts, 239\n 1. The assumption of a created nature, 240\n 2. The offering that nature in sacrifice, 241\n His union of these two acts in instituting the Priesthood of His\n Church, 242\n The institution of bloody sacrifice in the world before Christ, 243\n Lasaulx's statement how it enters into all the acts of human\n life, 245\n What the ceremonial of Gentile sacrifice was, 250\n Union and correspondence of prayer and sacrifice, 253\n The sense of guilt in bloody sacrifice, 254\n Bloody sacrifice a positive divine enactment, 254\n Statement of St. Augustine to this effect, 255\n St. Thomas on sacrifice as offered to God alone, 256\n Bloody sacrifice the most characteristic fact of the pre-Christian\n world, 257\n The practice of human sacrifices running through the history of\n ancient nations, 259\n Conclusion as to the divine appointment of sacrifice, 261\n The Christian Sacrifice the counterpart of the original\n institution, 263\n And the compendium of the whole dispensation, 265\n Containing in itself all the original force of sacrifice, 267\n But besides it is guardian of the Divine Unity, 268\n And of the Divine Trinity, 268\n And of the Incarnation, 269\n And of the Redemption, 270\n And of the adoption to Sonship, 271\n It contains also the fountain of spiritual life, 272\n And the source of sanctification, 273\n And the medicine of immortality, 274\n The presence of Christ's physical body, St. Chrysostom, 275\n The unity of the Christian people its result, St. Augustine, 276\n How our Lord impressed His High-priesthood on the world, 276\n Jurisdiction necessary to constitute a kingdom, 278\n Jurisdiction in the diocese and in the whole Church, 279\n The fulfilment of the parable, \"I am the true vine,\" 280\n The Eucharistic Sacrifice the centre of life in the Church during\n eighteen hundred years, 283\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VI.\n\n INDEPENDENCE OF THE ANTE-NICENE CHURCH SHOWN IN HER ORGANIC GROWTH.\n\n\n The Church's triple independence in government, teaching, and\n worship as actually carried out, 287\n Occasion of the Nicene Council's convocation, 289\n The Emperor thereby recognised the Church as a divine kingdom, 290\n This kingdom, as it appeared in A.D. 29 and in A.D. 325, 291\n The Emperor also acknowledged the solidarity of the Episcopate, 292\n The Christian Council and the Roman Senate, 293\n Force of the Council as to the relation between Church and State, 294\n A. Independence of the Church's government shown in five\n points, 295\n 1. The ordered gradation of the hierarchy in mother and\n daughter churches, 296\n Recognised as original in the 6th canon of the Council, 297\n This principle carried through the whole structure of the\n Church, 298\n Symbolised in the building of the great medieval\n cathedrals, 301\n 2. Development of Provincial Councils, 302\n 3. Action of the Church in hearing and deciding causes, 303\n Her proper jurisdiction in the exterior and interior forum, 304\n The episcopal magistracy exercised in a fourfold gradation, 306\n 4. Election of Bishops and the inferior ministers, 307\n St. Cyprian's testimony, 308\n Outcome of the three centuries in this respect, 309\n The principle upon which all this practice was built, 310\n 5. Administration of temporal goods, 311\n Three states as to these goods in the early Church, 312\n Acquisition and usage of temporal goods, 313\n Temporal goods in A.D. 29 and in A.D. 325, 315\n B. Independence of the Church's teaching, 316\n The first teaching purely oral, based upon authority, 317\n Three classes of truths forming the divine and the apostolical\n tradition, 319\n Importance in this period of exclusively oral teaching in\n exhibiting the Church's office of teacher, 320\n Seen in the rite of baptism, 321\n In the Eucharistic Liturgy, 322\n Picture of the Eucharistic Sacrifice by an Apostle, 324\n Further exhibition in the rite of Ordination, 328\n Fullness of the Magisterium expressed in these rites, 329\n The Church's teaching office neither changed nor diminished by\n the writings of the New Testament, 331\n Shown by the nature of the office in itself, 331\n By the circumstances under which these writings came, 331\n By their internal arrangement, 332\n By their own positive testimony, 335\n The living personal authority an unchangeable principle, 335\n Things in the Church which preceded the publication of the\n New Testament, 336\n The written record of our Lord's words and acts, 337\n The various parts of ecclesiastical tradition, 338\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VII.\n\n INDEPENDENCE OF THE ANTE-NICENE CHURCH SHOWN IN HER MODE OF POSITIVE\n TEACHING AND IN HER MODE OF RESISTING ERROR.\n\n\n Germ of the Church in the missionary circuits of our Lord, 340\n The mission carried on by the Apostles, 341\n Its two parts: work of positive teaching and defence against\n error, 343\n As to the first--\n 1. The system of catechesis, 344\n 2. The employment of a Creed, 347\n 3. The dispensing of Sacraments, 349\n 4. The system of Penance, 351\n 5. The Scriptures carried in the Church's hand, 352\n This mode of promulgation continued during fifteen centuries, 355\n Substitution of a private interpretation of Scripture by the\n individual attempted in the sixteenth century, 356\n Summary of the mode in which the Church promulgated the faith, 358\n As to the second, the Church's defence against error lay in the\n principle of her own authority, 360\n The first conflict with unbelieving Judaism, 362\n Three incidents of it--\n The proclaiming Jesus to be the Christ, 362\n The receiving the Gentiles without Circumcision, 363\n The protection of being Jews enjoyed by the first preachers of\n Christ, 364\n Gradual severance of the Christian Church from the Synagogue, 369\n Circumstances and peculiar difficulties of the Ante-Nicene\n Church, 371\n The first condition of Christians one of simple faith, 376\n The two opposed principles of orthodoxy and heresy, 378\n Contest between them indicated in the Apostolic writings, 380\n Character of the first writings after the Apostles, 381\n Christian learning in the second century; conversions of heathens\n who became Christian apologists, 382\n Extension of education given in great catechetical schools, 385\n The defence against error lodged in the Magisterium, 387\n The Magisterium lies in the Church's divine government and concrete\n life, 388\n Athanasius as the expounder of it; his fundamental idea, 389\n His Statement as to the authority of Scripture, 391\n As to the Rule of Faith, 392\n As to private judgment, 393\n His tests of heresy, 393\n Definitions, 394\n How the Magisterium embraces Scripture and Tradition, and employs\n them as a joint rule, 395\n Testimony of the Council of Arles to the above principles, 397\n And Constantine's public recognition that the Magisterium of\n Christ is lodged in the Bishops, 398\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VIII.\n\n THE CHURCH'S BATTLE FOR INDEPENDENCE OVER AGAINST THE ROMAN EMPIRE.\n\n\n Alliance of the Two Powers in the Roman Empire at the Advent of\n Christ, 400\n The Emperor official guardian of all religions, 401\n The Christian religion a singular exception, 403\n Its cause the position of Christians towards heathendom, 404\n Contradiction in belief, worship, and government, 405\n The Christian people as the outcome of these three constituents, 411\n The course of the Roman Empire and the Christian Church in three\n hundred years, 414\n The ten persecutions from Nero to Diocletian, 417\n The Martyrs champions of a great army, 421\n St. Paul's account of this army's creation, 422\n The wonder of this creation, 424\n Supernatural character of the conversion wrought in these times, 426\n Accounted for only by the internal action of the Holy Ghost, 427\n Power of the k\u00earugma insisted on by Clement of Alexandria, 429\n Contrasted by him with the impotence of philosophy, 430\n Sufferings which followed on conversion according to Tertullian, 431\n Martyrs enduring or God what heroes endured for goods of nature, 432\n Origen insists on the divine power shown in converting sinners, 434\n On miracles of conversion as greater than bodily miracles, 435\n The spread of the Church and the conversion of sinners viewed\n together, 436\n Miracles only could account for the spread of the Church, 437\n Statement of Iren\u00e6us as to miraculous powers exercised in his\n time, 438\n Athanasius on the cessation of idolatry, oracles, and magic, 440\n And on the greatness of the conversion wrought by Christ, 442\n The necessity of miracles in proof of our Lord's mission, 444\n The connection between miracles and martyrdom, 445\n Parallel between them as to their principle, witness, power, and\n perpetuity, 449\n How the liberty of the Church was gained against the empire, 455\n How the Martyrs constructed a basis for civil liberty, 456\n The five conflicts of the Church with Judaism, Heresy, Idolatry,\n Philosophy, and the Roman State, 459\n\n\n\n\nPROLOGUE.\n\nTHE KINGDOM AS PROPHESIED AND AS FULFILLED.\n\n\nThis volume, though entire in itself, is also the continuation of a\nformer work, the \"Formation of Christendom,\" already written and\npublished by me in three volumes. It is, in fact, the further unfolding\nof the subject under a particular aspect. In truth, the relation between\nChurch and State leads perhaps more directly than any other to the heart\nof Christendom; for Christendom, both in word and idea, means not only\none and the same Church subsisting in all civil governments, but also a\ncommunity of Christian governments, having a common belief and common\nprinciples of action, grounded upon the Incarnation of the Son of God,\nand the Redemption wrought thereby. For this reason, the Formation of\nChristendom can hardly be described, unless the relation which ought by\nthe institution of God to subsist between the two great Powers, the\nSpiritual and Civil, appointed to rule human society, is first clearly\nestablished.\n\nIn this volume, therefore, I treat first of the relation of these two\nPowers before the coming of Christ. Secondly, of their relation as it was\naffected by that coming, in order to show what position the Church of\nChrist originally took up in regard to the Civil Power, and what the\nbehaviour of the Civil Power towards the Church was. And, thirdly, the\nquestion of principles being thus laid down, the remainder of the volume\nis occupied with the historical exhibition of the subject during the\nfirst three centuries; that is, from the Day of Pentecost to the Nicene\nCouncil. The supreme importance of that period will appear to all who\nreflect that the Church from the beginning, and in the first centuries of\nher existence, must be the same in principles with the Church of the\nnineteenth and every succeeding century. And this volume is, in fact, a\nprelude to the treatment of the same subject in the last three centuries,\ndown to the Ecumenical Council of the Vatican.\n\nThe subject which I am treating is, then, strictly historical, being the\naction of a King in the establishment of a kingdom; the action of a\nLawgiver in the legislation which He gave to that kingdom; the action of\na Priest in founding a hierarchy, whereby that kingdom consists; but,\nmoreover, which is something much more--the action of One who is Priest,\nLawgiver, and King at once and always, and therefore whose work is at\nonce one and triple, and indivisible in its unity and triplicity, and\nissuing in the forming of a people which is simply the creation of its\nKing.\n\n\n1.--_The Kingdom as Prophesied._\n\nAs an introduction to it, let me refer to the distinct and explicit\nprediction of such an event at a point of time six centuries before it\ntook effect, as well as now distant from us almost 2500 years, under\ncircumstances upon which it is most instructive to look back. For not\nonly did the secular and the religious histories of mankind then meet\ntogether, as they had met before, but they began to stand in a certain\nrelation to each other, which continues from that time to this. The\nintersection of two societies which work themselves out in the one human\nhistory became permanent. At that moment a revelation was given, which is\nperhaps the most definite detailed and absolute prophecy concerning the\nwhole compass of human society, as viewed in its relation to God, which\nis to be found in the Old Testament. And the occasion upon which it was\ngiven makes it even more significant, for it was like a burst of sunlight\nsuddenly scattering the darkness of a storm and bathing the whole\nlandscape in radiance.\n\nThat darkness indeed was terrible, for the ancient people chosen by God\nto support His name among apostate nations no longer lived apart from\nthose nations in their own land which God had provided for them, with an\nindependence based upon the law especially given to them, but lay\nprostrate under the feet of a heathen invader, who had placed a vassal\nupon the diminished throne of Solomon, and the royal line of David seemed\non the eve of expiring in a degenerate descendant. For the continued\ninfidelities of four hundred years had worn out even the divine patience.\nIn vain had the ten tribes of schismatic Israel been carried into\ncaptivity by Assyria. It needed that the remaining kingdom of Judah\nshould be broken up and its chiefs deported to Babylon, whose monarch was\nnow the heir of Assur's great empire, the king of kings, the sceptred\nhead of heathendom. Moreover, in a few years he was to punish the vassal,\nrebellious to himself, but yet more faithless to the God of Israel, whom\nhe had placed on David's seat, and to burn that glorious Temple which the\nwisest of kings had erected to the majesty of the one true God. And with\nthat fall of Zedekiah the line of David would cease for ever to sit upon\na temporal throne.\n\nA darker moment in the history of the chosen people could not be found,\nnor a more hopeless prospect, to all seeming, for the carrying out the\npromises made to Abraham and his seed. What was a divine judgment on the\nbreakers of a special covenant with the one true God appeared to be the\ntriumph of a heathendom which had set up many false gods. Yet it was the\nmoment chosen to send to that very king, who was the executor of the\ndivine chastisements upon a faithless people, a revelation which\ncontained the future lot not only of the people which he had humbled, but\nof the heathendom of which he was the crown. As he lay upon his bed,\nNabuchodonosor had a dream, \"and his spirit was terrified, and the dream\nwent out of his mind.\" He strove in vain to recover it, either by the\nefforts of his own memory or by the skill of the wise men and soothsayers\nof Babylon. But among the captives in the imperial city was a youth of\nDavid's lineage, nourished at the king's court, and a member of his\nhousehold. And when Daniel heard the decree of the great king ordering\nthe death of the wise men who failed to interpret a dream which the king\ncould not disclose to them, Daniel turned himself and his three\nfellow-captives and companions to prayer and supplication, \"to the end\nthat they should ask mercy at the face of the God of heaven concerning\nthis secret. Then was the mystery revealed to Daniel by a vision in the\nnight: and Daniel blessed the God of heaven, and speaking he said:\nBlessed be the name of the Lord from eternity and for evermore: for\nwisdom and fortitude are His. And He changeth times and ages: taketh away\nkingdoms and establisheth them, giveth wisdom to the wise, and knowledge\nto them that have understanding: He revealeth deep and hidden things, and\nknoweth what is in darkness, and light is with Him. To Thee, O God of our\nfathers, I give thanks, and I praise Thee; because Thou hast given me\nwisdom and strength: and now Thou hast shown me what we desired of Thee,\nfor Thou hast made known to us the king's discourse. After this Daniel\nwent in to Arioch, to whom the king had given orders to destroy the wise\nmen of Babylon, and he spoke thus to him: Destroy not the wise men of\nBabylon: bring me in before the king, and I will tell the solution to the\nking. Then Arioch in haste brought in Daniel to the king, and said to\nhim: I have found a man of the children of the captivity of Judah that\nwill resolve the question to the king. The king answered and said to\nDaniel, whose name was Baltassar: Thinkest thou indeed that thou canst\ntell me the dream that I saw, and the interpretation thereof? And Daniel\nmade answer before the king and said: The secret that the king desireth\nto know, none of the wise men, or the philosophers, or the diviners, or\nthe soothsayers can declare to the king. But there is a God in heaven\nthat revealeth mysteries, who hath shown to thee, O king Nabuchodonosor,\nwhat is to come to pass in the latter times. Thy dream, and the visions\nof thy head upon thy bed, are these: Thou, O king, didst begin to think\nin thy bed what should come to pass hereafter: and He that revealeth\nmysteries showed thee what shall come to pass. To me also this secret is\nrevealed, not by any wisdom that I have more than all men alive, but that\nthe interpretation might be made manifest to the king, and thou mightest\nknow the thoughts of thy mind. Thou, O king, sawest, and behold there was\nas it were a great statue: this statue, which was great and high, tall of\nstature, stood before thee, and the look thereof was terrible. The head\nof this statue was of fine gold, but the breast and the arms of silver,\nand the belly and the thighs of brass: and the legs of iron, the feet\npart of iron and part of clay. Thus thou sawest, until a stone was cut\nout of a mountain without hands, and it struck the statue upon the feet\nthereof that were of iron and of clay, and broke them in pieces. Then was\nthe iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold broken to pieces\ntogether, and became like the chaff of a summer's threshing-floor, and\nthey were carried away by the wind, and there was no place found for\nthem: but the stone that struck the statue became a great mountain, and\nfilled the whole earth. This is the dream: we will also tell the\ninterpretation thereof before thee, O king. Thou art a king of kings: and\nthe God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, and strength, and power, and\nglory: and all places wherein the children of men and the beasts of the\nfield do dwell: he hath also given the birds of the air into thy hand,\nand hath put all things under thy power: thou therefore art the head of\ngold. And after thee shall rise up another kingdom, inferior to thee, of\nsilver: and another third kingdom of brass, which shall rule over all the\nworld. And the fourth kingdom shall be as iron. As iron breaketh into\npieces and subdueth all things, so shall that break and destroy all\nthese. And whereas thou sawest the feet and the toes part of potter's\nclay, and part of iron: the kingdom shall be divided, but yet it shall\ntake its origin from the iron, according as thou sawest the iron mixed\nwith the miry clay. And as the toes of the feet were part of iron and\npart of clay, the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly broken. And\nwhereas thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay, they shall be mingled\nindeed together with the seed of man, but they shall not stick fast one\nto another, as iron cannot be mixed with clay. But in the days of those\nkingdoms the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be\ndestroyed, and His kingdom shall not be delivered up to another people,\nand it shall break in pieces and shall consume all these kingdoms, and\nitself shall stand for ever. According as thou sawest that the stone was\ncut out of the mountain without hands, and broke in pieces the clay, and\nthe iron, and the brass, and the silver, and the gold, the great God hath\nshown the king what shall come to pass hereafter, and the dream is true,\nand the interpretation thereof is faithful.\"\n\nNo one can study the vision and its interpretation without seeing that\nthe fabric of a great temporal empire, whose ruler is called a king of\nkings, and whose seat is the city wherein Nimrod, \"the great hunter\nbefore the Lord,\" set up the first kingdom, to stand for ever at the head\nof human history a kingdom symbolical not of justice but of force, is\ntherein contrasted with the fabric of a kingdom which the God of heaven\nshould set up. And it is specially noted that He should set up this\nkingdom in the times of the empires denoted by the statue. And of the\nkingdom so to be set up four things are predicated in, as it were, an\nascending scale. First, there is its divine institution: \"the God of\nheaven shall set up a kingdom,\" and that in a manner wholly unexampled,\nwhich is expressed by \"a stone cut out of a mountain without hands.\"\nSecondly, \"the kingdom shall never be destroyed.\" Thirdly, and further,\n\"it shall not be delivered up to another people;\" a process which,\naccording to the interpretation of the vision, was to take place three\ntimes in the empires represented by the statue. Fourthly, \"that it should\nbreak in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, while itself should last\nfor ever.\"\n\nMoreover, as the earthly kingdom was really a kingdom, so the force of\nthe similitude running through the whole, and heightened by the effect\nof contrast, declares that the heavenly should be a kingdom. As the seat\nof the earthly kingdom was this world, so evidently the seat of the\nheavenly is this same world. As the earthly kingdom should be destroyed,\nso the heavenly should be exempt from destruction. As the earthly kingdom\nwas to pass from one people to another, so the heavenly kingdom should\nnot pass from one people to another. But then comes a culmination which\nno one could anticipate. For not only is there an antagonism between the\nearthly and the heavenly kingdom, but by force of it, and in consequence\nof it, the heavenly should consume and break in pieces the earthly.\nWhereby the hearer is given to understand that the earthly kingdom,\nterrible and grand and all-powerful as it seemed to be, was created for\nthe sake of the heavenly, which in due time should be set up in it, but\nnot of it nor from it.\n\nIt is no less implied through the whole tenor of the vision that the\nauthority which constitutes the essence of a kingdom--that is, supreme and\nindependent authority, which is expressed in legislation and administered\nin government--subsists as much in the heavenly as in the earthly kingdom,\nwith this marked distinction, that it is transitory in the one case and\npermanent in the other.\n\nAnd, finally, the power by which all this should be done was something\nbeyond human power, and without parallel, very strange and astonishing,\n\"a stone cut out of a mountain without hands,\" which should not only\nstrike the statue upon its feet, but itself grow, \"until it became a\ngreat mountain, and filled the whole earth.\"\n\nThus the filling of the whole earth with the stone which struck the\nstatue and then became a great mountain terminates the vision. But it is\nno less its scope and object. The statue exists before that the stone may\ncome after. The statue and the stone, as thus exhibited, indicate the\nrespective value in the divine counsels of the powers which they\nrepresent; that is, the subordination of the human kingdom to the divine,\nboth in the order of causality and in duration, is distinctly laid down.\nAnd the end of both accords with this. The great statue, when struck by\nthe stone, became like the chaff of a summer's threshing-floor; but the\nstone which struck it filled the whole earth. And the vision leaves it in\npossession.\n\nThe vision also reaches from end to end. It begins with the first empire,\nwhich is human, and runs back by the place in which it is seated to the\ncommencement of actual things; and it ends with the last, which is\ndivine, and which shall consume all the other kingdoms recorded, and\nitself last for ever. Thus the vision grasps the whole organism of\nsociety in the human race, as it lies unrolled before the providence of\nGod.\n\n\n2.--_The Kingdom as Fulfilled._\n\nSuch was the prophecy. Now let us pass over a thousand years, and take\nthe first fulfilment of the vision as it presented itself to an ancient\nsaint at the beginning of the fifth century. We will only note that in\nthe interval Nabuchodonosor and Cyrus and Alexander and C\u00e6sar had set up\nthe four world-empires. They were four indeed, for they passed three\ntimes from one people to another--from Chaldean to Persian, from Persian\nto Grecian, from Grecian to Roman, as the variety of metals in the statue\nwas interpreted to mean. Yet were they also one--a unity which, as that of\na single person, the great statue so faithfully represented. For they\nwere one with each other in the character and unbroken tradition of the\nsame civilisation, and in the principle of their authority, which was\nconquest. They were filled with the same spirit of heathen domination,\nwhich was in truth the voice and the power of a false worship, as with\nthe spirit of one man who rose in Babylon to set in Rome.[1] Two\nApostles, special friends and constant fellow-workers, had marked this\nidentity by giving the mystical name of Babylon to heathen Rome--St.\nPeter[2] in the epistle which he dates from Babylon, St. John in his\nvision of the woman drunk with the blood of saints and martyrs, and\nseated upon the seven hills, whom he himself interprets to be \"the great\ncity which had kingdom over the kings of the earth.\" These empires had\nrun their appointed course, and the last and greatest of them, which was\nlikewise the heir and successor of the three preceding in power and\nthought, as well as in the body of their territories and the soul which\nruled therein, was ending in disgrace and dissolution. For at length the\ntribes of the North had broken through the long-guarded frontiers of\nRoman power. Alaric with his Goths had taken Rome, and a deep cry of\ndistress arose through all the vast provinces of her empire. Every city\nin that wide domain trembled with the sense of insecurity for the present\nand fear for the future which the fall of Rome inspired. Just at this\nmoment the great Western Father, whose voice sounded like the voice of\nthe Church herself, wrote thus to a heathen inquirer:--\n\n\"Faith opens the door to intelligence, while unbelief closes it. Where is\nthe man who would not be moved to belief, simply by so vast an order of\nevents proceeding from the beginning; by the mere connection of various\nages, which accredits the present by the past, while it confirms\nantiquity by what is recent? Out of the Chaldean nation a single man is\nchosen, remarkable for a most constant piety. Divine promises are\ndisclosed to this man, which are to find their completion after a vast\nseries of ages in the last times, and it is predicted that all nations\nare to receive a benediction in his seed. This man being a worshipper of\nthe one true God, the Creator of the universe, begets in his old age a\nson, of a wife whom barrenness and age had long deprived of all hope of\noffspring. From him is propagated a most numerous people, which\nmultiplies in Egypt, whither a divine disposition of things, redoubling\nits promises and effects, had carried that family from eastern parts.\nFrom their servitude in Egypt a strong people is led forth by terrible\nsigns and miracles; impious nations are driven out before it; it is\nbrought into the promised land, settled therein, and exalted into a\nkingdom. Then it falls more and more into sin; it perpetually offends the\ntrue God, who had conferred upon it so many favours, by violating His\nworship; it is scourged with various misfortunes; it is visited with\nconsolations, and so carried on to the incarnation and manifestation of\nChrist. All the promises made to this nation, all its prophecies, its\npriesthoods, its sacrifices, its temple, in a word, all its sacred rites,\nhad for their special object this Christ, the Word of God, the Son of\nGod--God that was to come in the flesh, that was to die, to rise again, to\nascend to heaven, that by the exceeding power of His name was to obtain\nin all nations a population dedicated to Himself; and in Him remission of\nsins and eternal salvation unto such as believed.\n\n\"Christ came. In His birth, His life, His words, His deeds, His\nsufferings, His death, His resurrection, His ascension,--all the\npredictions of the prophets are fulfilled. He sends forth the Holy\nSpirit; He fills the faithful who are assembled in one house, and who by\ntheir prayers and desires are expecting this very promise. They are\nfilled with the Holy Spirit; they speak suddenly with the tongues of all\nnations; they confidently refute errors; they proclaim a most salutary\ntruth; they exhort to penitence for the faults of past life; they promise\npardon from the divine grace. Their proclamation of piety and true\nreligion is followed by suitable signs and miracles. A savage unbelief is\nstirred up against them. They endure what had been foretold; hope in\nwhat had been promised; teach what had been commanded them. Few in\nnumber, they are scattered through the world. They convert populations\nwith marvellous facility. In the midst of enemies they grow. They are\nmultiplied by persecutions. In the straits of affliction they are spread\nabroad over vast regions. At first they are uninstructed, of very low\ncondition, very few in number. Their ignorance passes into the brightest\nintelligence; their low ranks produce the most cultivated eloquence;\ntheir fewness becomes a multitude; they subjugate to Christ minds the\nmost acute, learned, and accomplished, and convert them into preachers of\npiety and salvation. In the alternating intervals of adversity and\nprosperity, they exercise a watchful patience and temperance. As the\nworld verges in a perpetual decline, and by exhaustion expresses the\ncoming of its last age, since this also is what prophecy led them to\nexpect, they with greater confidence await the eternal happiness of the\nheavenly city. And amid all this the unbelief of impious nations rages\nagainst the Church of Christ, which works out victory by patience, and by\npreserving unshaken faith against the cruelty of opponents. When the\nsacrifice unveiled by the truth, which had so long been covered under\nmystical promises, had at length succeeded, those sacrifices which\nprefigured this one were removed by the destruction of the Temple itself.\nThis very Jewish people, rejected for its unbelief, was cast out of its\nown seat, and scattered everywhere throughout the world, to carry with it\nthe sacred writings; so that the testimony of prophecy, by which Christ\nand the Church were foretold, may not be thought a fiction of ours for\nthe occasion, but be produced by our very adversaries--a testimony in\nwhich it is also foretold that they should not believe. The temples and\nimages of demons, and the sacrilegious rites of that worship, are\ngradually overthrown, as prophecy foretold. Heresies against the name of\nChrist, which yet veil themselves under that name, swarm, as was\nforetold, in order to call out the force of teaching in our holy\nreligion. In all these things, as we read their prediction, so we discern\ntheir fulfilment, and from so vast a portion which is fulfilled we rest\nassured of what is still to come. Is there a single mind which yearns\nafter eternity and feels the shortness of the present life, that can\nresist the light and the force of this divine authority?\"[3]\n\nSt. Augustine wrote thus to his friend Volusian, the uncle of St.\nMelania, a Roman nobleman of high reputation, who was then, as he\ncontinued for many years to be, a heathen. But we must also take note\nthat he wrote at a point of time scarcely less remarkable than that of\nthe vision interpreted by Daniel. The old world with its sequence of\nworld-empires was passing away. And so soon as it passed another travail\nof extraordinary severity was preparing for the Church, such a travail as\neven the eagle eye of the Bishop of Hippo could not discern as he stood\nbefore the beginning of its accomplishment. When he wrote there was a\nCatholic Church, the fulfilment of a long train of prophecies in that\n\"connection of ages\" which he has so wonderfully drawn out, but there was\nnot yet a Christendom. Nor could he the least foresee what was to take\nplace before that Christendom could be formed. Only, as he spoke, the\niron of Roman discipline--the inflexible Romulean mind--which had held\ntogether the miry clay of so many various and divergent nationalities,\nEuropean, Asiatic, African, so that \"the kingdom took its origin from the\niron,\" was losing its tenacity. That vast structure of Roman power, the\nbreaking up of which had been feared in the wars and insurrections\narising upon the death of Nero, and extinction of the family of Augustus,\nwas in truth dissolving.[4] The western and eastern limbs of the statue\nwere parting away from each other, and the toes were crumbling. But\nthough Augustine heard the sound of the advancing tide, he saw not yet\nthe full flood of the deluge from the north; and still less could he\nforesee the counter desolation from the south; Teuton flood and Arab\ndesolation which in their joint effect would blast utterly the Roman\nPeace, and break the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold\nin pieces together, until they became like the chaff of the summer's\nthreshing-floor.\n\nAs little could he anticipate another sight, the further fulfilment of\nthe vision, when the provinces, those crumbling toes of the statue, which\nlay before him in an impending dissolution, were to be formed into great\nindependent kingdoms, having for the common foundation of their power\n\"the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.\" Then in that \"connection of\nages\" which should be drawn out after the time of Augustine in even\ngreater distinctness than before him, and with greater claim upon the\nbelieving mind, which \"yearns after eternity,\" a grander fulfilment of\nthe vision would be disclosed. The royalties set up by barbarian chiefs\nof tribes among incoherent populations of victors and vanquished were to\neducate mature nations with individual character in the one Christian\nfaith, and shine as distinct stars set in the crown of the Successor to\nPeter's pastorship. For as the Word made flesh created Christian\nmonarchies and Christian nations in their several being, so the charge of\nthe Word to a disciple by the lake of Gennesareth, \"Feed My Sheep,\"\ncreated the great unity of Christendom which bound them together. In\nConstantine one empire had acknowledged the reign of Christ, and bent the\nneck of heathen domination to raise the cross upon a heathen crown. But\nthen a group of nations should base the fabric of their laws, and the\nwhole civilisation which redeemed them from barbarism, upon the truth\nthat God assumed flesh for man's sake, and should acknowledge in Peter's\nSuccessor the Vicar of that God, who by and in that pastoral rule of\nPeter made them members of one Body, and in so making them \"took the\nGentiles for His inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for His\npossession.\"\n\nThis was a second and further fulfilment of the vision, which as yet\nAugustine saw not, nor even anticipated; but after thus writing he set\nhimself in the last years of his life to a great task, even that of\ncomparing together from their origin to their end the course of the two\nsocieties, not national, but world-wide, which run out through human\nhistory, intermingled together, and claiming possession of the same man.\nFirst, the natural society of the human race played upon by all the\npassions and infirmities which are the effect of man's original Fall; and\nsecondly, that other society chosen by God from the beginning in view of\nHis Son's Incarnation, for the purpose of repairing and counterworking\nthat Fall. It was the capture of Rome by Alaric, and the deep despondency\nwhich thence arose in the minds of many, both Christian and heathen, that\nmoved him originally to this design, of which the first tracing is seen\nin the letter to Volusian just quoted. He sought to meet conclusions\nunfavourable to the Christian faith, which were drawn by weak, or narrow,\nor unbelieving minds from the fall of the imperial city. His plan\naccordingly led him to take a complete view of all human history; and the\nresult has been that one of the last representatives of the old world,\nand certainly the greatest of all as thinker, philosopher, and\ntheologian, the most universal genius of the patristic ages, whether\namong Greeks or Latins, has left us a Philosophy of History, the first in\ntime, and as yet unequalled in ability; for it supplies a key to the acts\nof man and the providence of God in that masterly comparison between the\nCity of God and the City of the devil in their origin, their course, and\ntheir end.\n\nThe leading thought of this great work gives me a final text bearing on\nthe subject of this volume.\n\n\"Thus, then, two Cities have been created by two loves: the earthly, by\nthat love of self which reaches even to the contempt of God; the\nheavenly, by the love of God which reaches even to the contempt of self.\nThe first has its boast in self; the second in its Lord. For the first\nseeks its glory from men; whereas to the second, God, the witness of\nconscience, is the greatest glory. The first in that glory which it has\nmade for itself exalts its own head; the second says to its God, 'Thou\nart my glory and the lifter up of my head.' In the first the lust of\ndomination sways both its rulers and the nations which it subjugates. In\nthe second a mutual service of charity is exercised by rulers who consult\nthe good of subjects, and by subjects who practise obedience to rulers.\nThe first loves in its own potentates its own excellence; the second says\nto the God of its choice, 'I will love Thee, O Lord, my strength.' And\nthus in the first its own wise men, living after human fashion, pursue\nthe goods of their body or their mind, or both at once, or they who might\nhave known God, have not 'glorified him as God nor given thanks, but\nbecame vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened;\nprofessing themselves to be wise,' that is, extolling themselves in their\nown wisdom through the pride that mastered them, 'they became fools, and\nchanged the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image\nof a corruptible man, and of birds, and of four-footed beasts, and of\ncreeping things;' for they either led their peoples or followed them in\nthe adoration of such-like images; and 'worshipped and served the\ncreature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.' But in the\nsecond there is no wisdom of man save piety, by which the true God is\nrightly worshipped, awaiting its reward in the society of saints, not men\nonly, but angels, that God may be all in all.\"[5]\n\nI put together these three facts of human history, the vision of the King\nof Babylon interpreted by Daniel six hundred years before Christ, the\nsummary of its fulfilment down to his own age written by St Augustine\nfour hundred years after the coming of Christ, and his delineation, a few\nyears later, of the Two Cities, as set forth by him in a work on which\nthe Christian mind has now been nurtured for fourteen hundred and fifty\nyears. The simple juxtaposition of these shows how Babylon stretches to\nRome, and Rome is heir of Babylon; and the heathen man thus formed\nillustrates \"the Man who is born in Sion, the city of the great King.\"[6]\nIt is true that the two great Powers of Civil and Spiritual government,\nthe relation between which forms the subject of this volume, are not\nexactly represented as concerns that relation in the vision of Daniel;\nbut only the heathen growth of the Civil Power, and the miraculous rise,\npermanent rule, and progressive growth of the Spiritual Power in the\nmidst of it; yet the mighty promise is recorded that in presence of the\nCivil Power the Spiritual shall never pass away; rather that it shall\nlast unchanged, while the other is shifting and transitory; and also the\ncognate truth, that the great and terrible Power represented by the\nStatue is, in the counsels of God, subordinate in its scope to the Power\nrepresented by the Stone.\n\nIt is true, again, that the vivid contrast of the Two Cities as drawn by\nSt. Augustine does not represent the legitimate relation of the Two\nPowers to each other, but only the perversion of the one Power from its\ntrue end and object, and the perfect antagonism of the other to that\nperversion.\n\nBut the kingdom set up by the God of heaven in the vision interpreted by\nDaniel, and the connection of ages dwelt upon by St. Augustine, which\nleads up to the Person of Christ, and then starts afresh from Him, and\nthe Divine City delineated by St. Augustine, fit exactly into each other,\nand so they seem to me to form together an appropriate introduction to\nthat most remarkable period of history with which the present volume is\noccupied, when the Stone cut out without hands struck the Statue, and\nbecame a great mountain, in preparation for that further growth when it\nwould fill the whole earth.\n\nThe Statue presented in vision to the heathen king has indeed been swept\naway, but in every country a reduced likeness of it, \"the look whereof is\nterrible,\" stands over against \"the Man born in Sion.\" And the Two Cities\neverywhere run on in their predestined course until the end contemplated\nby Augustine takes effect. But as he did not discern the second\nfulfilment of the divine kingdom which followed upon the wandering of the\nnations, so neither can we discern the third and yet grander fulfilment\nwhen the divine kingdom shall become to the whole world what once it was\nin the Roman Empire. For, to repeat St. Augustine's words, \"In all these\nthings as we read their prediction, so we discern their fulfilment, and\nfrom so vast a portion which is fulfilled we rest assured of what is\nstill to come.\" And \"the stone that struck the statue became a great\nmountain, and filled the whole earth.\"\n\n February 12, 1882.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1]\n \"Dentro dal monte sta dritto un gran veglio,\n Che tiene volte le spalle inver Damiata,\n E Roma guarda s\u00ec, come suo speglio.\"\n\n --DANTE, _Inferno_, 14, 101.\n\n[2] 1 Pet. v. 13; Apocal. xvii. 18, xviii. 2, 20.\n\n[3] St. Aug. Epist. 137, ad Volusianum, \u00a7 15-16. A.D. 412. It is remarkable\nthat Volusian, who held the highest offices in the Roman Empire, and among\nthe rest was Prefect of the City, was not converted either by the genius or\nthe saintliness of Augustine. But more than twenty years after this letter,\nabout A.D. 435, he was sent on an embassy from the Emperor of the West to\nthe Emperor of the East at Constantinople. His niece, St. Melania the\nyounger, left the seclusion of her monastery at Jerusalem, and travelled\nall the intervening distance to see him. When he met in the garb of\nhumility and poverty the niece whom he remembered at Rome in all the\nsplendour of youth, rank, and beauty at the head of the Roman nobility, he\nwas so impressed by the force of Christian charity which had wrought such a\nchange, that he was converted and baptized by the Patriarch Proclus, and\ndied shortly afterwards. God did by the sight of the nun what he had not\ndone by the learning of the theologian and the philosopher.\n\n[4] The words which Cerialis addressed to the Gauls, as recorded by\nTacitus, Hist. 4, 74, apply in all their force to the times when the\ntrans-migration of the northern tribes took effect, four hundred years\nafter they were written. \"Octingentorum annorum fortuna disciplinaque\ncompages h\u00e6c coaluit, qu\u00e6 convelli sine exitio convellentium non potest.\"\nAnd every city of the Roman empire could testify to the truth of what he\nadded: \"Sed vobis maximum discrimen penes quos aurum et opes, pr\u00e6cipu\u00e6\nbellorum caus\u00e6.\"\n\n[5] De Civ. Dei, xvi. 28.\n\n[6] Ps. lxxxvi. 5.\n\n\n\n\nCHURCH AND STATE\n\nAS SEEN IN\n\nTHE FORMATION OF CHRISTENDOM.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nRELATION BETWEEN THE CIVIL AND SPIRITUAL POWERS FROM ADAM TO CHRIST.\n\n\n1.--_The Divine and Human Society founded in Adam, refounded in Noah._\n\nIn one of the most ancient books of the world, which, in addition to its\nantiquity, all Christians venerate as containing the original tradition\nof man's creation, guaranteed in purity and accuracy by divine assistance\ngiven to the writer, we read the following words:--\"God made the beasts of\nthe earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and everything that\ncreepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good. And\nhe said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have\ndominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the\nbeasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon\nthe earth. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he\ncreated him: male and female he created them.\" And further: \"The Lord God\nformed man of the slime of the earth; and breathed into his face the\nbreath of life, and man became a living soul.... And the Lord God took\nman and put him into the paradise of pleasure, to dress it and to keep\nit. And he commanded him, saying, Of every tree of paradise thou shalt\neat; but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat.\nFor in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.\nAnd the Lord God said, It is not good for man to be alone; let us make\nhim a help like unto himself. And the Lord God having formed out of the\nground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought\nthem to Adam to see what he would call them: for whatsoever Adam called\nany living creature, the same is its name. And Adam called all the beasts\nby their names, and all the fowls of the air, and all the cattle of the\nfield; but for Adam there was not found a helper like himself. Then the\nLord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam: and when he was fast asleep he took\none of his ribs and filled up flesh for it. And the Lord God built the\nrib which he took from Adam into a woman: and brought her to Adam. And\nAdam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall\nbe called Woman, because she was taken out of man. Wherefore a man shall\nleave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be\ntwo in one flesh. And they were both naked, Adam and his wife, and were\nnot ashamed.\"\n\nSuch is the account of the origin of man, of woman, of marriage, as the\nroot of human society, and of that society itself, beginning in the\nabsolute unity of one who was father and head of his race, created in\nfull possession of reason and language, and exercising both by an\nintuitive knowledge of the qualities of living creatures as they are\nbrought before him by his Maker. This account stands at the head of human\nhistory, and has been venerated as truth by more than a hundred\ngenerations of men since it was written down by Moses, not to speak of\nthose many generations among whom it had been a living tradition before\nhe had written it down. Human language scarcely possesses elsewhere such\nan assemblage of important truths in so few words. Perhaps the only\nparallel to it is contained in the fourteen verses which stand at the\nopening of St. John's Gospel, wherein are recorded the Godhead and\nIncarnation of the Divine Word. The first creation has its counterpart\nonly in the second; and the restoration of man by the personal action of\nGod alone surpasses, or, perhaps, more truly may be said to complete, the\nIdea of his original formation by the same personal action of the same\nDivine Word, who, great as He is in creating, is yet greater in\nredeeming, but is one in both, and in both carries out one Idea.\n\nFor the creation of man as one individual, who is likewise the head and\nbearer of a race, is the key to all the divine government of the world.\nThe fact rules its destinies through all their evolution. The world, as\nit concerns the actions, the lot, and the reciprocal effect of men upon\neach other, would have been quite a different world if it had not sprung\nout of this unity. If, for instance, mankind had been a collection of\nhuman beings in all things like to what they now are, except in one\npoint, that they were independent of each other and unconnected in their\norigin. This unity further makes the race capable of that divine\nrestoration which from the beginning was intended, and with a view to\nwhich man was made a race: which in restoring man likewise unspeakably\nexalts him, for He who made Adam the father and head of the race, made\nhim also \"the figure of One that was to come.\"\n\nLet us briefly enumerate the parts of the divine plan as disclosed to us\nin the narration just given.\n\nIn the council held by the Blessed Trinity it is said, \"Let us make man\nto our image and likeness;\" not, Let us make men, but man: the singular\nnumber used of the whole work indicates that the creation to be made was\nnot only an individual but a family. From the beginning the family is an\nessential part of the plan. This is no less indicated in the single\ncreation of Adam first, not the simultaneous creation of the male and\nfemale, as in the case of all other creatures, but the creation by\nhimself of the head alone, from whom first woman by herself, and then\nfrom the conjunction of the two his family is drawn. In Adam first, while\nas yet he is alone, the high gifts of reason, speech, and knowledge\nindicated in the twofold and also congenital possession of reason and\nlanguage, are exhibited as residing as in a fountain-head, when all\ncreatures of the earth and the air are brought before him by his Maker,\nand he with intuitive understanding of their several qualities and uses\nimposes on them the corresponding name. Thus Adam is created complete, a\nfull-grown man, in whom the divine gift of thought finds expression in\nthe equally divine gift of language, both exerted with unerring truth,\nfor it is intimated that the names which he assigns to the creatures thus\npassed in review render accurately their several natures. It is not said\nthat the Lord God intimated to Adam the names which he should give; but\nthe knowledge by which he gave the names was part of his original\nendowment, like the gift of thought and language, which answer to each\nother and imply each other, and in a being composed of soul and body\ncomplete by their union and joint exercise the intellectual nature. \"The\nLord God brought all beasts and all fowls before Adam to see what he\nwould call them; for whatsoever Adam called any living creature, the same\nis its name.\"\n\nThis presentation of the creatures before Adam, and their naming by him,\nis the token of the dominion promised to him \"over the fishes of the sea,\nand the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth,\" as the\nresult of his being made to \"the image and likeness\" of the Triune God.\nOnly when he has thus taken possession of his royalty is the creation of\nthe family completed out of himself. For when \"for Adam there was not\nfound a helper like himself,\" the Lord God took not again of the slime of\nthe earth to mould a woman and bring her to man, but \"He cast a deep\nsleep upon Adam, and built the rib which He took from Adam into a woman,\nand brought her to Adam.\" And then He uttered the blessing which should\nfill the earth with the progeny of the woman who had been drawn from the\nman her head, saying, \"Increase and multiply and fill the earth, and\nsubdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air,\nand all living creatures that move upon the earth.\"\n\nWhat, then, is the image and likeness of the Triune God? The image\nconsists in the soul, with its two powers of the understanding and the\nwill, proceeding out of it, indivisible from it, yet distinct. May we not\ninfer that the likeness is the obedience of the soul, with its powers, to\nthe eternal law? This law, viewed in the Triune God, the prototype of\nman's being, is the sanctity of the Divine Nature; but in man, thus\ncreated, the obedience to it was the gift of original justice superadded\nto his proper nature: the gift by which the soul, in the free exercise of\nthe understanding and the will, was obedient to the law of God, its\nCreator.\n\nThis was an image and likeness which belonged to Adam in a double\ncapacity, firstly, as an individual, secondly, as head of a family; for\nit was to descend to each individual of the family in virtue of natural\nprocreation from Adam. The man created after the image and likeness of\nthe Triune God was, according to the divine intention, to be repeated in\nevery one of the race.\n\nBut what of the family or race which was to be evolved out of Adam alone?\nNot the individual only but the race also is in the divine plan. Is\nthere a further image of the Triune God in the mode of the race's\nformation?\n\nTo give an answer to this question, we must first consider what is the\nprototype of that singular unity according to which the first parents of\nthe race are not formed together out of the earth, male and female, like\nthe inferior creatures. For in most marked distinction from all these man\nis formed by himself, and alone; receives the command to eat of all trees\nin the garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, under\npenalty of death if he take of it; and then is shown exercising the\ngrandeur of his knowledge and the fulness of his royalty in the naming of\nthe subject creatures. But inasmuch as none of them could supply him with\na companion, and as \"it was not good for him to be alone,\" a council of\nthe Triune God is held again, and a help like to himself is taken out of\nhimself. Is there not here, with that infinite distance which separates\nthe created from the Increate, a yet striking image of the Divine\nFiliation?\n\nAgain, from the conjunction of the two, from Adam the head, and from Eve\nwhen she has been drawn out of him, proceeds, in virtue of the blessing\nof God, the human family. Is there not here, again, at that distance\nwhich separates divine from human things, an image of the procession of\nthe Third Divine Person, the Lord, and the Giver of life, from whom all\nlife proceeds?\n\nMay we not then say with reverence, that from the council of the Triune\nGod, \"Let us make man to our image and likeness,\" proceeds forth the\nindividual man, an earthly counterpart in his memory, understanding, and\nwill to the divine Creator, and likewise man, the family, a created image\nof the primal mystery, the ineffable joy of the Godhead, the ever blessed\nTrinity in Unity? And since the origin of creation itself is the free act\nof God, it ought not to surprise us that the chief work of His hands in\nthe visible universe should reflect in the proportion of a creature the\nsecret life of the Divine Nature, the Unity and Trinity of the Godhead.\n\nBut next to this primal mystery, which is the source of all creation,\nstands that unspeakable condescension, that act of sovereign goodness, by\nwhich God has chosen to assume a created nature into personal unity with\nHimself, and to crown the creation which He has made. As to this the\nfirst Adam, in all his headship, with the privileges included in it, the\ntransmission to his family of original justice, and of that wonderful\ngift of adoption superadded to it, is \"the figure of Him who was to\ncome.\" But more also, St. Paul tells us, is indicated in the formation of\nEve out of Adam during the sleep divinely cast upon him. This was the\n\"great sacrament of Christ and of His Church\" (Eph. v. 32), to which he\npointed in reminding his hearers of the high institution of Christian\nmarriage. And thus we learn that God, in the act of forming the natural\nrace, supernaturally endowed, was pleased to foreshadow by the building\nof Eve, \"the mother of all living,\" out of the first Adam, the building\nof another Eve, the second and truer mother of a divine race, out of the\nwounded heart of the Redeemer of the world asleep upon the cross. As then\nin Adam's headship we have the figure of the Headship of Christ, so in\nthe issuing of Eve from him in his sleep we have the Passion of Christ\nand the issuing forth of His Bride from it, when His work of redemption\nwas completed and His royalty proclaimed.\n\nThus the mysteries of the blessed Trinity, that is, of God the Creator,\nand of the Incarnation and Passion of Christ, that is, of God the\nRedeemer, lie folded up, as it were, in the Mosaic narrative of the mode\nin which Adam was created, and in the headship of the race conferred upon\nhim.\n\nBefore we approach the sin of Adam and its consequences to human society,\nlet us cast one glance back upon the beauty and splendour of the divine\nplan in the original creation as it is disclosed to us in the narrative\nof Moses. As the crown of the visible creation is placed a being who is\nat once an individual and the head of a family, representing in his\npersonal nature the divine Unity and Trinity, and in the race of which he\nis to stand at the head the same divine Unity and Trinity in their aspect\ntowards creation; representing the royalty of God in his dominion over\nthe creatures, a dominion the condition of which is the obedience of his\nown compound nature to the law given to it by the Creator; representing\nagain in the vast number to which his race shall extend the prolific\nenergy of the Lord of Hosts; representing also in that secret and\naltogether wonderful mystery, out of which the multiplication of his race\nsprings, the yet untold secret of the divine mercy, in virtue of which\nhis fathership is the prelude to a higher fathership, the first man is\nthe pattern of the Second, and the royalty of his creation but a\nrehearsal at the beginning of the world of the reparation which is to\ncrown its end.\n\nThe whole work of creation as above described, depends in its result upon\nthe exercise of man's free-will. His value, before God, lies simply in\nthe way in which he exerts this great prerogative of his reasonable\nnature. Without it he would be reduced from one who chooses his course,\nand in that choice becomes good or evil, to the condition of a machine\ndevoid of any moral being. To test this free-will man was given a\ncommandment. We know that he failed under the trial; that he broke the\ncommandment. His disobedience to his Creator was punished by the\ndisobedience of his own compound nature to himself. That divine grace,\nwhich we term the state of original justice, and in virtue of which his\nsoul, with its understanding and will, illuminated and fortified, was\nsubject to God, and the body with all its appetites was subject to the\nsoul, was withdrawn. He became subject to death, the certain death of the\nbody, with all that train of diseases and pains which precede it; and the\nfinal separation of the soul from its Creator, unless by the way which\nGod indicated to him he should be restored. Becoming a sinner, his refuge\nwas penitence; henceforth his life was to be the life of a penitent; he\nhad lost the grace which was bestowed royally on the innocent; he was\nleft the grace which was to support and lead on the penitent. From the\ngarden of pleasure he is expelled, to go forth into a world which\nproduces thorns and thistles, unless he water it with the sweat of his\nbrow. To all this I only allude, since my proper subject is to trace the\nfirst formation of human society as it came forth from the fall. But the\nprimal state of man could not be passed over, because the state in which\nhe grew up, and the state in which he now stands, cannot be understood\nnor estimated rightly without a due conception of that original\ncondition.\n\nWith the loss of original justice Adam does not lose the headship of his\nrace. All men that are to be born remain his children, and continue to be\nnot a species of similar individuals, but a family, a race. All the\ndealings of God with them continue to be dealings with them as a race.\nAdam's fathership, had he not fallen, would have been to them the source\nof an inestimable good, would have secured to them the transmission of\noriginal justice, crowned as it further was by a wholly gratuitous gift,\nthe gift of adoption to a divine sonship. But that fathership, in\nconsequence of his sin, actually transmitted to them a nature penally\ndeprived both of the original endowment and of the superadded adoption;\nand, as a fact, all the difficulties which occur to the mind in the\ndivine government of the world spring out of this treatment by God of man\nas a family, a race. But likewise through this continuing fathership of\nAdam, the Fathership of Christ appears as the completion of an original\nplan, devised before the foundation of the world, and actually carried\nout at the appointed time. He was to be son of David and son of Abraham\nin order that He might be Son of man. This original plan of God is not\nfrustrated but executed by the fall of Adam. The yet undisclosed secrets\nof human lot have their origin in Adam and their solution in Christ. We\nare allowed to see that they belong to one plan. No doubt the hidden\nthings of God in this dispensation baffle our scrutiny: they remain for\nthe trial of faith until faith passes into sight, but we are allowed to\nsee the fact of a vast compensation; and over against the fathership\nwhich brought death and corruption and the interminable ills of human\nlife, we see all the supernatural blessings of the new covenant,\nconsisting in the triple dowry of adoption, betrothal, and consecration,\ncome to man as a spiritual race descending from the Second Adam.\n\nThus, not only the primary but the actual state of man in society springs\nout of an absolute unity. We have here to note two great truths. Adam, as\nhe was expelled from paradise to till the earth and subdue it, was the\nhead of his race in two particulars: first, as to natural society, whence\nsprings civil government; and secondly, as to the worship of God, and the\npromises included in that worship, whence springs priesthood and all the\nfabric of religion. The two unities, the social and the religious, had in\nhim their common root; and man thus comes before us in history as a\nfamily in which the first father stands at the head of the civil and\nreligious order in most intimate intercourse with God. The only\ndescription which we possess of that first period of human society from\nthe Fall to the Deluge, suggests to us a state which seems absolutely\nwalled round by God with securities, both as concerns human life in the\nintercourse between man and man, and as concerns the purity of their\nworship of God. As to the first, have we not said all which can be said\nwhen we say that they were a family? The king of the human race was the\nfather of every one in it. Certainly if any king could ever command the\nlove and respect of his subjects it must have been Adam in that royalty.\n\nBut let us very briefly consider the bearing of man's condition before\nthe fall, as set forth to us in the sacred records which have been so far\nfollowed, upon his knowledge of divine and human things, and his moral\nstate in his first society after the fall.\n\nWe have seen Adam in possession of a great dignity, created in the\nmaturity of reason, exercising the full power of thought and speech as\ndirected to truth by an inward gift, which conveys to him the knowledge\nof the creatures surrounding him; moreover, taught by God as to his\npresent duties and future hopes. We have seen a wife bestowed upon him,\nwho is, as it were, created for him and drawn from him, and a vast family\npromised to him. He is thus made father and head of his family and his\nrace, and his Creator is his immediate Teacher. After his fall these\nprivileges do not become to him as if they had never been. The memory of\nthem all is complete in him, but a very large portion of their substance\nremains. Let us take three points, which are enough for our purpose. He\nreceives, at the fall itself, firstly, a great promise of God; secondly,\nhe becomes the Teacher and, thirdly, the Priest of his race. As to the\npromise, God declares to him that, as the result of the serpent seducing\nthe woman to sin, He will create enmity between the serpent and the\nwoman, the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman; the seed of the\nwoman should crush the serpent's head; the serpent should lie in wait for\nhis heel. All human history is gathered up in that division of the race,\nbetween the seed of the woman, from which springs the City of God, and\nthe seed of the serpent, from which springs the City of the Devil. That\nis a communication of fresh knowledge to Adam, knowledge of good and\nevil, a mixture of consolation and sorrow. That is a disclosure of the\nissue of things stretching to the very end of the world, which comes to\nsustain Adam in his penitence, to complete the knowledge which he\npreviously had of God and of himself.\n\nIn this first great prophecy, which embraces all the religion, the hope,\nand the destiny of man, the consequences of which are not yet worked out,\nman is treated as a race. The punishment falls on him as a Father; the\nWoman through whom it comes, the Mother of his children, points to\nanother Woman and Mother, through whom it is to be reversed, and the\nDeliverer is to come to him as a Descendant.\n\nAdam, then, was cast out of paradise, but not without hope, still less\nwithout knowledge, for he carried with him the knowledge which God had\ngiven to him, and the lesson of a great experience. Thus he became the\ngreat Teacher of his family. Through him from whom they received natural\nbeing and nurture, they received the knowledge of God, of their own end,\nof all which it behoved them to know for the purpose of their actual\nlife. The great Father was likewise the great Penitent; and the first\npreacher of God's justice to men told them likewise of His mercy: a\npreacher powerful and unequalled in both his themes.\n\nBut, by the fall, Adam became likewise the Priest in his family. We learn\nfrom the narrative of Cain and Abel that the worship of God by sacrifice\nhad been instituted, and it is not obscurely intimated that it was\ninstituted even before he was cast out of paradise, since God Himself\nclothed Adam and Eve with skins of beasts, which, doubtless, were slain\nin sacrifice, since they were not used for food.[7]\n\nThe rite of bloody sacrifice, utterly unintelligible without the notion\nof sin, and inconceivable without a positive divine institution, so\nprecise in its formularies about the statement of sin, and the need of\nexpiation, is an everliving prophecy of the great sacrifice which God had\nintended \"before the foundation of the world,\" and a token of the\nknowledge which He had communicated to Adam before he became a father.\nUnfallen man needed to make no sacrifice, but only the triple offering of\nadoration, thanksgiving, and prayer. These Adam would have given before\nhe fell; after his fall he became a priest, and the bloody sacrifice to\nGod of His own creatures, a mode of propitiating God which man could\nnever have invented or imagined of himself, is a token of the ritual\nenjoined upon him, and of the faith which it symbolised and perpetuated.\n\nSuch, then, was the condition of the children of Adam, the first human\nsociety, in those \"many days\" which passed before Cain rose up against\nAbel: the state of a family living in full knowledge of their own\ncreation, being, and end, in vast security, for who was there to hurt\nthem? worshipping God the Creator by a rite which He had ordained in\ntoken of a great promise, at their head the Father, the Teacher, and the\nPriest, with the triple dignity which emanates from the divine\nsovereignty, and makes a perfect government.\n\nThe two powers which were to rule the world rested as yet undivided upon\nAdam after his fall.\n\nIt is evident that nothing could be further from a state of savagery or\nbarbarism, from a state of defective knowledge of God and man, and his\nend, than such a condition as this, which suggests itself necessarily to\nany one who considers attentively the sacred narrative.\n\nBut as Adam in paradise was left to the exercise of his free-will, and\nfell out of the most guarded state of innocence by its misuse, so the\nfirst-born of Adam broke out of this secure condition of patriarchal life\nthrough the same misuse, and begun by fratricide the City of the Devil.\nWe are told that God remonstrated with him when he fell under the\ninfluence of envy and jealousy, but in vain. He rose against his brother\nand slew him; he received in consequence the curse of God; \"went out from\nhis face, and dwelt a fugitive on the earth at the east side of Eden.\"\nThere it is said that he built the first city, on which St. Augustine\ncomments: \"It is written of Cain that he built a city; but Abel, as a\nstranger and pilgrim, built none.\"\n\nThe fratricide of Cain leads to a split in the human family. The line of\nCain seems to depart from Adam and live in independence of him. It\nbecomes remarkable for its progress in mechanical arts, and for the first\nexample of bigamy. The end of it is all we need here note. In process of\ntime, \"as men multiplied on the earth,\" two societies seem to divide the\nrace of Adam--one entitled that of \"the sons of God,\" the other that of\n\"the daughters of men.\" But the ruin of the whole race is brought about\nby the blending of the better with the worse: the bad prevail, the two\nCities become mixed together in inextricable confusion. God left to man\nthroughout his free-will, but when the result of this was that \"the\nwickedness of men was great upon the earth, and that all the thoughts of\ntheir heart was bent upon evil at all times,\" that is, when the City of\nthe Devil had prevailed over the City of God in that patriarchal race\nwhich He had so wonderfully taught and guarded, He interfered to destroy\nthose whose rebellion was hopeless of amendment, and to make out of one\nwho had remained faithful to Him a new beginning of the race.\n\nThe race had been cut down to the root because in the midst of knowledge\nand grace it had deserted God; and Noah, as he stepped forth from the\nark, began with a solemn act of reparation. He \"built an altar to the\nLord and offered holocausts upon it of all cattle and fowls that were\nclean.\" God accepted the sacrifice, inasmuch as it was in and through\nthis act that He bestowed the earth upon Noah and his sons, and gave him\neverything that lived and moved on it for food. He consecrated afresh the\nlife of man by ordaining that whoever took human life away, that is, by\nan act of violence, not of justice, should himself be punished with the\nloss of his own life; and He grounded this great ordinance upon the fact\nthat man was made after the image of God. At the same time God repeated\nto Noah and his sons the primal blessing which had multiplied the race,\nand was to fill the earth with it, and made a covenant with him and with\nhis seed for ever, a covenant to be afterwards developed, but never to be\nabrogated. It is to be noted that the sacred narrative dwells rather upon\nthe sacrifice made by Noah immediately upon issuing from the ark than\nupon the original sacrifice offered by Adam. Of the first institution of\nsacrifice it makes only incidental mention, referring with great\nsignificance to those skins of beasts, of which God provided a covering\nfor the nakedness of Adam and Eve. It is as if the rite of sacrifice,\ninstituted as a prophecy of the future expiation of sin, might fitly\nsupply from the skins of its victims a covering for that nakedness which\nsin alone had revealed and made shameful. The mention of this fact ensues\nimmediately upon the record of the fall, before Adam is cast out of\nparadise. And again, by the mention of the sacrifice of Abel, and of its\nacceptance, it is shown that the rite already existed in the children of\nthe first man. But now the sacrifice of Noah, and the covenant made in\nit, as being of so vast an import to every succeeding generation, is\ndescribed at length as the starting-point of the whole renewed, that is,\nthe actual race of man. In this sacrifice it is emphatically declared\nthat \"the Lord smelled a sweet savour,\" since it stood at the beginning\nof man's new life, coming after the waters of the deluge as the image and\nprecursor of the Sacrifice on Calvary, which was to purify the earth, and\nwhich those waters typified.\n\nAs, then, we considered lately the position of man as to his knowledge of\nGod and of himself in the \"many days\" which ensued after the fall before\nthe death of Abel, so let us glance at his condition in these same\nrespects at the starting-point of this new life of man. First of all, out\nof the wreck of the old world Noah had carried the two institutions, one\nof which makes the human family in its natural increase, while the other\nconstitutes its spiritual life--marriage and sacrifice. In marriage we\nhave the root of society; in sacrifice the root of religion. These had\nnot perished, neither had they changed in character. They were the\nnever-displaced foundation of the race, an heirloom of paradise never\nlost; marriage, as established in the primeval sanctity before man fell,\nsacrifice as superadded to man's original worship of adoration,\nthanksgiving, and prayer immediately upon his fall, in token of his\nfuture recovery. God, in selecting Noah to repair the race, made him, in\nso far like to Adam, the head of the two orders, King and Priest, and\nfrom that double headship the actual government of the world through all\nthe lines of his posterity descends.\n\nThirdly, we find in Noah's family the divine authority of government\nexpressly established; for in the protection thrown over human life the\npower to take it away in case of grievous crime is also given. Authority\nto take life away belongs of right to the giver of life alone. He here\nbestows the vicarious exercise of it upon that family which was likewise\nthe first State, and the fountain-head of actual human society. \"At the\nhand of every man, and of his brother, will I require the life of man:\nwhosoever shall shed man's blood, his blood shall be shed, for man was\nmade to the image of God. But increase you, and multiply, and go upon the\nearth, and fill it.\" We have then the charter here of human society;[8]\nthe delegation to it of supreme power by the Head of all power, to be\nvicariously exercised henceforward over the whole race as it went out,\nconquered, and replenished the earth; the sacredness of man's life\ndeclared, in virtue of that divine image according to which he alone of\nall creatures upon the earth was made, yet power over that life for the\npunishment of crime committed to man himself in the government\nestablished by God. An absolute dominion over all beasts was given at the\nsame time to man; first for himself, in virtue of his distinction from\nthe beast, in virtue of the divine image resting upon him, a delegation\nof divine power was set up in the midst of him, the supreme exercise of\nwhich is the power of life and death. Civil government therefore was no\nless created by God than marriage, and sacrifice, with the religious\noffices belonging to it. Like them it was ratified afresh in the race at\nthis its second starting-point.\n\nBut, fourthly, it was as Father and Head of the race that the first act\nof Noah leaving the ark was to offer sacrifice; he offered it for himself\nand for all his children. With him, as offering in a public act the\nhomage of his race, the great covenant of which we have been speaking was\nmade. Besides the divine things bound together in the institution of\nsacrifice--the accord of four acts, adoration, thanksgiving, prayer, and\nexpiation, which express man's knowledge of his condition of God's\nsovereignty, and of his own last end, as well as the dedication of his\nwill to God--great temporal promises, such as the dominion over all other\ncreatures, and the filling the earth with his race, promises which belong\nto man as one family and one race, were made to Noah in this solemn\ncovenant ratified in sacrifice. The common hopes of the whole community\nfor the present life and the future also were jointly represented in it.\nIt is, in fact, the alliance of the civil government with religion, of\nwhich we see here the solemn ratification. Noah the Father, the King, and\nthe Priest, sacrifices for all, where all have a common hope, a common\nbelief, a common knowledge, a life not only as individual men, but as a\nfamily, as a race, as a society.\n\nThus in marriage, in sacrifice, in the vicarial exercise of divine power\nby civil government, and in the alliance of that government with the\nworship of God, we have the four central pillars on which the glorious\ndome of a sacred civilisation in the human family, when it should be\nconterminous with the whole earth, was intended to rest. These four\nthings date from the beginning of the race; they precede heathenism, and\nthey last through it. Greatly as man in the exercise of his free-will may\nrage against them, grievously as he may impair their harmony, and even\ndistort by his sin the vast good which that harmony ensures and guards\ninto partial evil, yet he will not avail to destroy the fabric of human\nsociety resting upon them before the Restorer comes.\n\nNoah having lived 600 years before the flood, and having been the\npreacher of justice for 120 years to a world which would not listen to\nhim, has his life prolonged for 350 years after the flood. During this\ntime he is to be viewed as the great Teacher of his family, like Adam\nwhen he came out of Paradise. What the Fall was in the mouth of Adam the\nDeluge was in the mouth of Noah, a great example of punishment inflicted\non man for the disregard of God as his end. It is hard to see how God\ncould have more completely guarded those two beginnings of human society\nfrom the corruption of error and the taint of unfaithfulness than by the\nmode in which He caused them to arise, in that He formed them both\nthrough the teaching of a family by the mouth of a Parent, and the\ngovernment of a race by the headship of its Author. For the larger\nsociety sprung actually out of brethren as the brethren themselves out of\none parent. \"They have,\" to use Bossuet's striking recapitulation, \"one\nGod, one object, one end, a common origin, the same blood, a common\ninterest, a mutual need of each other, as well for the business of life\nas for its enjoyments.\" And one common language, it may be added, serves\nas the outward expression, the witness, and the bond of a society so\nadmirably compacted, based, as it would seem, on so immovable a\nfoundation.\n\nLet us sum up in three words the history so far as it has yet been\nrecorded. The foundation of all is man coming forth by creation out of\nthe hand of God. He comes forth as one family in Adam. Falling from his\nhigh estate by his Father's sin, he receives a religion guarded and\nexpressed by a specific rite of worship, which records his fall, and\nprophesies his restoration. After this the family springs from parents\nunited in a holy bond, which, as it carries on the natural race, is\nlikewise the image of a future exaltation. As he increases and multiplies\nthe divine authority is vicariously exercised in the government of the\nrace as a society. That government is strictly allied with his religion.\nIt is most remarkable that the last end of man dominates the whole\nhistory; that is, all the temporal goods of man from the beginning depend\non his fidelity to God. Disregard of this works the Fall; the same\ndisregard works the Deluge. It remains to show how that compact and\ncomplete society instituted under Noah depended, as to the maintenance in\nunimpaired co-operation of the great goods we have just enumerated, upon\nthe free-will of man to preserve his fidelity to God; that is, to show\nhow in the constant order of human things there is an inherent\nsubordination of the temporal to the spiritual good, as for the\nindividual so for the race.\n\n\n2.--_The Divine and Human Society in the Dispersion._\n\nThe divine narrative of the beginning of human society ends with an event\nof which the consequences remain to the present day, and from which all\nthe actual nations of the earth take their rise. The blessing and command\ngiven to Noah and his family were, \"Increase and multiply and fill the\nearth.\" It would seem that the family of man continued in that highly\nprivileged and guarded state which has just been described during five\ngenerations, comprehending perhaps the life of Noah and Shem. Of all this\ntime it is said, \"The earth was of one tongue and the same speech.\" The\ndivision of the earth among the families of a race by virtue of a\nnatural growth, which was itself the effect of the divine blessing and\ncommand, did not carry with it as a condition of that growth the\nwithdrawal of so great a privilege as the unity of language. God had\nformed the human family out of one; had built it up by marriage; cemented\nit by a religious rite of highest meaning; crowned it with His own\ndelegated authority of government, and sanctified that government by its\nalliance with religion. Unity of language is as it were the expression of\nall these blessings. The possession of language by the first man, the\nouter vocalised word, corresponding to the inner spiritual word of\nreason, was a token of the complete intellectual nature inhabiting a\ncorporeal frame--a fact expressed by the doctrine that the soul is the\nform of the body--which constituted his first endowment. And in a\nproportionate manner the possession of one language as the exponent of\nmind and heart by his race, was the most effective outward bond of inward\nunity which could tie the race together, whatever its numerical and local\nextension might be. It is to be noted that though the cause of the deluge\nwas that \"the earth was corrupted before God, and was filled with\niniquity\" (Gen. vii. 11), yet God had not withdrawn from man the unity of\nlanguage, perhaps because the revolt of man had not hitherto reached to a\ncorruption of his thought of the Divine Nature itself. But now ensued an\nact of human pride and rebellion which led God Himself to undo the bond\nof society, consisting in unity of language, in order to prevent a\ngreater evil. The sin is darkly recorded, as if some peculiar\nabomination lay hid underneath the words; the punishment, on the\ncontrary, is made conspicuous. \"And the earth was of one tongue and the\nsame speech. And when they removed from the east, they found a plain in\nthe land of Sennaar and dwelt in it. And each one said to his neighbour,\nCome, let us make brick and bake them with fire. And they had brick\ninstead of stones, and slime instead of mortar. And they said, Come and\nlet us make a city and a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven: and\nlet us make our name famous before we be scattered abroad into all lands.\nAnd the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the children\nof Adam were building. And He said, Behold it is one people, and all have\none tongue; and they have begun to do this, neither will they leave off\nfrom their designs till they accomplish them indeed. Come ye, therefore,\nlet us go down and there confound their tongue, that they may not\nunderstand one another's speech. And so the Lord scattered them from that\nplace into all lands, and they ceased to build the city. And therefore\nthe name thereof was called Babel, confusion, because there the language\nof the whole earth was confounded; and from thence the Lord scattered\nthem abroad upon the face of all countries.\"\n\nIt may be inferred that the city and the tower thus begun point at a\nsociety the bond of which was not to be the worship of the one true God.\nAs a matter of fact, thenceforth and to all time the name of Babel has\npassed into the languages of men as signifying the City of Confusion, the\nseat of false worship, the headship of the line of men who are the seed\nof the serpent, and of that antagonism which the primal prophecy\nannounced as the issue of the fall.\n\nBut the severity of the punishment and its nature seem further to\nindicate that we are here in presence of the beginning of the third great\nsin of the human race, in which, as in the former, the free-will of man,\nhis inalienable prerogative and the instrument of his trial, runs athwart\nthe purpose of God. The first was the sin of Adam's disobedience\nresulting in the Fall; the second the universal iniquity of the race\npunished by the Deluge; the third is the corruption of the idea of God by\nsetting up many gods instead of one, a desertion of God as the source of\nman's inward unity, which is punished by the loss of unity of language in\nman, the voice of the inward unity, as it is also the chief stay and bond\nof his outward unity. The multiplication of the race and its propagation\nin all lands was part of the original divine intention. When the bond of\nliving together in one place and under one government was withdrawn,\nthere remained unity of worship and unity of language to continue and to\nsupport the unity of the race. Man was breaking his fealty to God not\nonly by practical impiety, as in the time before the flood, but by denial\nof the Divine Nature itself as the One Infinite Creator and Father; God\nreplied by withdrawing from rebellious vassals that unity of language\nwhich was the mark and bond of their living together as children of one\nParent. With the record of this event Moses closes his history of the\nhuman race as one family, which he had up to this point maintained. He\nhad hitherto strongly marked its unity in its creation, in its fall\nthrough Adam, in its first growth after the fall, and in the common\npunishment which descended upon it in the flood, and again in its second\ngrowth and expansion from Noah. Language is the instrument of man's\nthought, and the possession of one common language the most striking\ntoken of his unity; and here, after recording the withdrawal of that\ntoken by a miraculous act of God in punishment of a great sin, Moses\nparts from all mention of the race as one. He proceeds at once to give\nthe genealogy of Shem's family as the ancestor of Abraham, and then\npasses to the call of Abraham as the foundation of the promised people.\nHe never reverts to the nations as a whole, whom he has conducted to the\npoint of their dispersion and there leaves.\n\nThrough this great sin the division of the earth by the human family\nstarted not in blessing, but in punishment. \"The Lord scattered them\nabroad upon the face of all countries.\" He who had made the unity of\nNoah's family, Himself untied it, and we may conceive that He did so\nbecause of that greatest of all crimes, the division of the Divine Nature\nby man in his conception of it, his setting up many gods instead of one.\n\nLet us see how this sin impaired, and more and more broke down, that\nprivileged civilisation brought by Noah from before the flood, and set up\nby him in his family.\n\nIf God be conceived as more than one, He ceases by that very\nconception to be self-existing from eternity, immense, infinite, and\nincomprehensible, he ceases also to have power, wisdom, and goodness in\nan infinite plenitude; and, further, He ceases to be the one Creator,\nRuler, and Rewarder of men.\n\nThus the conception of more gods than one carries with it an infinite\ndegradation of the Godhead itself, as received in the mind and heart of\nman.\n\nBut it likewise unties the society of men with each other, and lays waste\nthe main goods of human life. Thus it was in the case of Noah's family.\nAs it was planted by God after the deluge, it possessed a distinct\nknowledge and worship of Him, as the one end and object of human life.\nThis knowledge and worship were contained, as we have seen, in the rite\nof sacrifice and its accompaniments. Proceeding from this, it possessed\nthe love of God, obliging men to mutual love, a precept the more easy\nbecause it was given to those who, as members of one family, were\nbrethren. From these it followed that no man was stranger to another man;\nthat every one was charged with the care of his brother; and that a unity\nof interest itself bound men to each other.[9]\n\nBut all these goods are dependent on the first. For if men do not worship\none and the same God, as the Creator, the Ruler, and the Rewarder of all,\ntheir life ceases at once to have one end and object; their love to each\nother is deprived of its root, for they suppose themselves to be the\ncreatures of different makers, or not to be made at all, to spring out of\nthe earth, or to come into the world no one knows how, whence, or\nwherefore. Again, the natural brotherhood of man depends on his origin\nfrom one family, which must be the creature of one maker. And if the root\nof this natural affection and brotherhood be withered, men become strange\nto each other, rivals in their competition for the visible goods of life;\nthey cease to care for others, and cease to be united in one interest.\n\nWhen the family which had formed a patriarchal state became by natural\ngrowth too large to live together, the natural process for it was that it\nshould swarm, and each successive swarm become a patriarchal state. Here\nwas in each the germ of a nation, as they occupied various countries.\nNaturally, they would have parted in friendship, and if the bond of\nbelief and of language had continued unbroken, they would have become a\nfamily of nations; they would each have carried out and propagated the\noriginal society from which they sprang without alloy or deterioration.\n\nWhat actually took place was this. The division of the race into separate\nstems, and the corruption of the conception of God into separate\ndivinities, pursued a parallel course, until the deities became as\nnational as the communities over which they presided. As there ceased to\nbe in their thought one God of the whole earth, they ceased to believe in\none race of man, nor does any good seem to have more utterly perished\nfrom the peoples who sprung out of this dispersion than the belief in the\nuniversal brotherhood of man; and the conduct which should spring out of\nthat belief, the treatment of each other as brethren.\n\nThat their having lost the consciousness of such brotherhood is no proof\nthat it never existed, has been established for us by the new science of\ncomparative grammar in our own day in a very remarkable instance. The\ncareful study of a single family of languages in the great race of Japhet\nhas proved beyond question that those who came after their dispersion to\nspeak the Sanscrit, the Persian, the Greek, the Latin, the Celtic,\nSlavic, and Teutonic tongues, all once dwelt as brethren beside a common\nhearth, in the possession of the same language. Yet, in ancient times, it\nnever crossed the mind of the Greek that he was of the same family with\nthe Persian, by whose multitudinous inroad he was threatened; to him the\nbarbarian, that is the man who did not speak his tongue, was his enemy,\nnot a brother. As little did the Saxon, when he displaced the Celt, and\ngave him, too, the name of barbarian,[10] as not understanding his\ntongue, conceive that he was of the same family. It was with no little\nwonder that the first French and English students of Sanscrit found in it\nuneffaced the proofs of its parentage with Greek and Latin.\n\nThe study of the comparative grammar of various languages, when carried\nout as fully in other directions, may have in reserve other surprises as\ngreat as this; but the proof of unity in this case, where yet the\ndivergence has proceeded so far, of unity in a family from which the\ngreatest nations of the earth have sprung, and whose descendants stretch\nover the world, tends to make the unity of the original language of man\ncredible on principles of science, independently either of historical\ntradition or of revelation, while it shows into what complete and\nuniversal oblivion a real relationship may fall.\n\nWith the belief in one God, then, fell the belief in one human\nbrotherhood as well as the existence of one human society. Each separated\nstem became detached from the trunk, and lived for itself. It is true\nthat each state, as it began, was patriarchal; but identity of interests\nwas restricted to the single state; beyond its range there was war, and\nwithin it, in process of time, war led to conquest, and after conquest\nthe conquering leader became head of the conquered. Thus the patriarchal\nstate, in which the head of the family was its priest, passed into\nkingdoms compacted by war and its results, in an ever-varying succession\nof victories and defeats.\n\nBut it is our special task to see what portion of the goods, which\nbelonged to the race when undivided, passed on to its several stems in\nthe dispersion with which Moses closes his account of the one human\nfamily.\n\nThe universal society stops at Babel, and national existence begins; that\nis, a number of inferior local unities succeed to the one universal. It\nwould be well if we had a Moses for guide through the long period which\nfollows, but he restricts his narrative to Abraham and his family, and to\nsuch incidental notice of the nations with whom they come in contact as\ntheir history requires. When we reach the beginnings of history in the\nseveral peoples who took their rise at the dispersion, a long time has\nintervened. The bond of one society in a race seems to consist in unity\nof place, of language, of religion, and of government. Now for man in\ngeneral the unity of place was taken away by the dispersion itself. As to\nlanguage, the lapse of a thousand years was more than sufficient to make\nthe inhabitants of various countries strange to each other and\nbarbarians. Men of different lands had long utterly ceased to acknowledge\neach other as brethren. As to religion, the worship of the one true God\nhad passed into the worship of many false gods in almost every country\neach one of which had its own gods, generally both male and female, whom\nit considered as much belonging to itself as its kings or its cities.\nThis diversity of deities in each nation, and the appropriation of them\nby each to itself, was become a most fertile principle of division and\nenmity among men. But if man had lost the unity of religion he had\ncreated for himself in every land an institution which might be said to\nbe universal: the division of men into bond and free, the institution of\nslavery. That condition of life whereby man ceased to be a member of a\nfamily invested with reciprocal obligations and rights, came in fine to\nbe regarded, not as a person, but as the thing of another man, that is\nthe institution which man had made for himself in the interval between\nthe dispersion of Babel and the commencement of authentic history in each\nnation. Man, who had divided the unity of the Godhead, had not only\nceased to recognise the one ineffaceable dignity of reason as the mark of\nbrotherhood in all his race demanding equality of treatment, and the\nrespect due to a creature who possesses moral freedom, but had come to\ndeprive a vast portion of his kindred of the fruit of their labour, and\nto confiscate their toil for his own advantage.\n\nThere remains the fourth bond of unity, government, whether national,\ntribal, or municipal, without which social existence is not possible; and\nthis, as the nations emerge into the light of history, appears everywhere\namong them standing and in great vigour. In the vast majority of cases\nthat government clothes itself in the form of royalty; the king is\nundoubtedly the most natural descendant of the patriarchal chief, the\nfather passing by insensible gradation into the sovereign. But whether\nmonarchy or republic, whether the rule of the many or of the few,\ngovernment, by which I mean the supreme dominion in each portion of the\nrace over itself, of life and death over subjects, is everywhere found.\nNowhere is man found as a flock of sheep without a shepherd.\n\nOver these unrecorded years of human life, which want their prophet and\ntheir bard, sounds yet the echo of perpetual strife. If mighty forms loom\namong their obscurity, and come out at length with fixed character and a\nstrong and high civilisation, such as the Assyrian and Egyptian, the\nIndian and Chinese monarchies, and so many others of more or less extent\nand renown, we know that states have suffered change after change in a\nseries of wars. The patriarchal ruler has given way to the conquering\nchief; conquest has humiliated some and exalted others. What remains\nintact in each country, and after all changes, is government itself. This\ncarried on the human race.\n\nBut if we examine more closely this race which is thus scattered through\nall countries, which speaks innumerable tongues, has lost the sense of\nits own brotherhood, worships a multitude of local gods, is divided, cut\nup, formed again, and torn again with innumerable wars, and has degraded\na large part of itself into servitude, so as to lose as it would seem all\nsemblance of its original unity, we yet find running through it, existing\nfrom the beginning as constituent principles which the hand of the\nCreator has set in it, four great goods.\n\n1. For what hand but that of the Creator could have impressed\nineffaceably upon a race, misusing as we have seen to such a degree the\nfaculty of free-will, such an institution as marriage, in which the\nfamily, and all which descends from the family, is contained? The\ndedication of one man and one woman to each other for the term of their\nlives, for the nurture and education of the family which is to spring\nfrom them, is indeed the basis of human society, but a basis which none\nbut its Maker could lay. It exists in perpetual contradiction to human\npassion and selfishness, for purposes which wisdom or the pure reason of\nman entirely approves, but which human frailty is at any time ready to\nbreak through and elude. If we could so entirely abstract ourselves from\nhabit as to imagine a company of men and women thrown together, without\nconnection with each other, without any knowledge, any conception\nbeforehand of such an institution, and left to form their society for\nthemselves, we should not, I think, imagine them one and all choosing to\nengage themselves in such a union, resigning, respectively, their\nliberty, and binding themselves to continue, whatever might happen to\neither party, however strength and vigour might decline on one side, or\ngrace and attractiveness on the other, in this bondage for life. Yet this\ninstitution of marriage is found established, not, as was just imagined,\nin a single company of human beings thrown together, but in a thousand\nsocieties of men separated by place, by language, by religion, and by\ngovernment. The most highly policied among them are the strictest in\nmaintaining its purity; and the higher you are enabled by existing\nrecords to ascend in their history, the stronger and clearer appears the\nconception of the duties of the married state. It is surrounded with all\nthe veneration which laws can give it, and the blessing of religion\nconsecrates it. Take marriage among the Romans as an instance. Their\ncommonwealth seems to be built upon the sanctity of marriage and the\npower of the father. The like is the case with China, the most ancient of\nexisting politics. There is not one nation which has gained renown or\nadvanced in civilisation but shows, as far back as you can trace its\nhistory, this institution honoured and supported. I leave to\nmathematicians the task of calculating what are the chances of such an\ninstitution springing up in so great a multitude of nations according to\nan identical rule, guarded in all of them with whatever protection\nreligion and law could afford, except by the fiat of a Creator in the\nmanner described by Moses. The signet of God impressed on Adam at his\norigin could alone create such a mark on his race; the Maker alone lay\nsuch a foundation for it.\n\nWe find this institution in the course of time and in various countries\ndebased by polygamy, and corrupted by concubinage. These aberrations\ntestify to the force of human passion, and the wantonness of power and\nwealth ever warring against it, but they only enhance thereby the force\nof the institution's universal existence from the point of view from\nwhich I have regarded it.\n\n2. Take, secondly, the rite of bloody sacrifice. It would be hard to find\nanything more contrary to reason and feeling than the thought that taking\naway the life of innocent creatures by pouring out their blood could be\nnot only acceptable to the Maker of those creatures, but could be\naccepted by Him in expiation of sin committed by man. Yet this is the\nconception of bloody sacrifice; this was expressed in the rites which\naccompanied it; and besides this particular notion of expiation, which is\nthe correlative of sin, the most solemn duties of man, that is,\nAdoration, Thanksgiving, and Petition, the whole expression of his\nobedience to God, and dependence on God, were bound up with this rite,\nand formed part of it. And we find this rite of sacrifice existing from\nthe earliest times in these various nations; continued through the whole\nof their history, solemnised at first by their kings and chief men, and\nthen by an order of men created for that special purpose, and in every\nnation themselves holding a high rank in virtue of their performing this\nfunction. What, again, are the chances of a rite so peculiar being chosen\nspontaneously by so many various nations, and chosen precisely to express\ntheir homage for their own creation and continuance in being, to make\ntheir prayers acceptable, and above all, to cover their sin, to serve as\nan expiation, and to turn away punishment. This is the testimony which\nAssyria and Egypt, which Greece and Rome, which India and China bear to\ntheir original unity. If God instituted this rite, at the fall itself, as\na record and token of the promise then made, its existence through the\nmany changes of the race becomes intelligible; on any other supposition\nit remains a contradiction both to reason and feeling, which is like\nnothing else in human history.\n\nThe institution of sacrifice comprehends with its accompaniments the\nwhole of religion. It suffered the most grievous corruption in that it\nwas offered to false gods, to deified men, to powers of nature, to those\nwho were not gods but demons. Again, its meaning was obscured, and the\npriests who offered it were not pure in their lives. But whatever\nabominations were at any time or in any place connected with it, its\npeculiarity, its testimony to the unity of the race, to the power which\nestablished it, remain without diminution.\n\n3. Thirdly, let us take the great good of civil government. The human\nrace is scattered over all countries, in divisions which range as to\namount of population from the smallest independent tribe to the largest\nempire. God suffered them to pursue their own course, to engage in\nnumberless wars, and to pass through a succession of the most opposite\ncircumstances, but He implanted in them from the beginning, and preserved\nin them throughout, the instinct of society, which develops in\ngovernment. And He established that government in possession by the\npatriarchal constitution of life, which each portion of the race at its\nfirst start in independence took with it. By this He maintained order and\npeace, as a rule, in the bosom of each community; the smallest and the\ngreatest alike possessed the commonwealth in the midst of them, which was\nthus, independent of walls and forts, a citadel of safety. Not even the\nmost savage tribe in the most desolate northern wilderness, barren shore,\nor inland lake, was left in its self-wrought degradation without this\nsupport. In cultured nations, such as the Egyptians, Assyrians, Persians,\nIndians, Chinese, the State attained a high degree of perfection; while\nfrom the practice of the Hellenic cities Plato and Aristotle could draw\nprinciples of government which are of value for all time; and Rome, the\nqueen-mother of cities, has been the teacher of state-wisdom to mankind.\nBut what I wish to note here is that civil government was everywhere\nthroughout the dispersion of the nations a dam, constructed by Divine\nProvidence, sufficiently strong to resist the inundation of evils brought\nabout by man's abuse of his moral freedom. It was the moon in heaven\nwhich shone as a stable ordinance of God amid the storms and darkness of\nhuman life in the fall of heathendom. It belonged to man as man and never\ndeparted from him; because as conscience was given to the individual, the\nwitness and mark of God, sovereignty was given to the community, a\ndelegation of the divine kingship. \"It is entirely by the providence of\nGod that the kingdoms of men are set up,\" says a great father.[11] \"He\ngave to every one of them, said the Son of Sirach, commandment concerning\nhis neighbour. Their ways are always before him, they are not hidden from\nhis eyes. Over every nation he set a ruler, and Israel was made the\nmanifest portion of God\" (Ecclus. xvii. 12-15).\n\nThe human race, from its beginning and through all its dispersion, was\nnever in any of its parts without civil government. The headship of Adam,\nrepeated in Noah, itself a vicarious exercise of divine authority,\nrested, amid its dispersion and partial degradation, upon each portion of\nthe race, so that it might never be kingless and lawless: never a herd,\nalways a society.\n\nThis great good had also its corruption, into which it very frequently\nfell; the corruption of tyranny. Against this the Book of Wisdom (vi.\n2-5) warned: \"Hear therefore ye kings and understand: learn ye that are\njudges of the ends of the earth. Give ear, you that rule the people, and\nthat please yourselves in multitudes of nations. For power is given you\nby the Lord, and strength by the most High, who will examine your works,\nand search out your thoughts: because being ministers of his kingdom, you\nhave not judged rightly, nor kept the law of justice, nor walked\naccording to the will of God.\" But this corruption of tyranny no more\ndestroys the good of government or its testimony as the mark of the\nCreator, than the corruption of marriage by concubinage, or the offering\nof sacrifice to false gods, impairs the testimony of those institutions.\n\n4. The fourth good which I shall note as running through all the nations\nof the dispersion, is the alliance between government and religion.\nDistance of place, diversity of language, division of the idea of God\ninto separate divinities, which become the guardians of their several\npeoples, these causes all co-operate to sever from each other the various\npeoples and to make them enemies. But observe, at the same time, with\nthis hardening and estrangement of the peoples from each other, the\nenlacement of all human life, public and private, by the rites and ties\nof religion in each society. At the head of the new race we have seen\nNoah offering sacrifice for his family, and a covenant with the whole\nearth struck in that sacrifice between God and man. That aspect of the\npublic society towards religion was not altered during the whole course\nof heathendom, and in all its parts. It is a relation of the strictest\nalliance. No nation, no tribe of man, up to the coming of Christ,\nconceived any condition of society in which the Two Powers should not\nco-operate with each other. \"If it be asked,\" says Bossuet,[12] \"what\nshould be said of a State in which public authority should be\nestablished without any religion, it is plain at once that there is no\nneed to answer chimerical questions. There never were such States.\nPeoples, where there is no religion, are at the same time without policy,\nwithout real subordination, and entirely savage.\" It is a fact which we\nsee stretching through all the times and all the nations of the\ndispersion, that however tyrannical the government, and however corrupt\nthe belief, still the separation of government from religion was never\nfor a moment contemplated. A Greek or a Roman, and no less an Egyptian or\nan Assyrian, an Indian or a Chinese, must have renounced every habit of\nhis life, every principle in which he had been nurtured, to accept such a\ndivorce. For all of them alike, \"ancestral laws\" and \"ancestral gods,\"\nwent together. He who was traitor to the city's worship was considered to\noverthrow its foundation. In this point of view heathendom in all its\nparts continued to be profoundly religious. It risked the life of a\nfavourite of the people when the statues of a god at Athens were\nmutilated, as it was supposed, with the connivance of Alcibiades; and\nMarcus Aurelius, stoic philosopher as he was, offered countless\nsacrifices for the Roman people, as Noah offered sacrifice for his\nfamily; and the Chinese Son of Heaven is to this day the father of his\nfamily who unites religious and civil power in his sacred person, and\ncalls upon his people for the obedience of children.\n\nThe corruption of this relation between civil government and religion,\nwhich was an original good of the race, was the forcible maintenance of\nthe polytheistic idolatry with all the moral abominations which it had\nintroduced. But the corruption does not belong to the relation itself; it\nissues, as in the preceding cases, from the abuse of his free-will by\nman.\n\nHere then are four goods, marriage, religion, as summed up in sacrifice,\ncivil government, and alliance between civil government and religion,\nwhich we find embedded in the whole human society from the beginning,\ngoing with it through all its fractions, untouched by its wars,\ndissensions, and varieties of belief, suffering indeed each one of them\nby man's corruption, but lasting on. The force of any one of them as\ntestimony to the unity of God who alone could have established it in the\nrace, and so through Him to the unity of the race in which it is found\nestablished, and so, further, to the whole account of Moses, would be\nvery great and not easily resisted by a candid mind seeking nothing but\nthe truth. But how great is the cumulative evidence of the four together\nto the exactness of the account of the race's origin, establishment, and\neducation, which we receive through Moses.\n\nHow strangely also are these goods of the race contrasted each one of\nthem and all together with a great evil, universal like them, but man's\nown invention, the result of his wars and of the destruction of the\nfeeling of brotherhood, in the various portions into which the race\ndivided. The hideous plague-spot of slavery, which yet is one institution\nrunning through the race, attests also its unity, attests by its contrast\nwith the four goods, by its practical denial of their beneficent action\nso far as the slave is concerned, the degradation of the race from that\ncondition of a family having one end in the worship of one God, one\nbrotherhood, a common care and charge of its members, a common interest\nin which it started.\n\nThe sum then of the whole period which begins from the dispersion of\nmankind at Babel and runs on to the coming of Christ is the progressive\nmoral degradation of a race founded in the unity of a family. That unity\nitself rested upon the fidelity of the race to the belief and worship of\nthe God who created it. The race voluntarily parted from this belief and\nworship; its own division followed; mutual enmity supplanted brotherhood,\nand the end is to create two classes of men, dividing society in each\nnation into the bond and the free. The nations themselves have lost all\nremembrance that they were once actually brothers by one hearth. Yet they\nstill contain in themselves indisputable proof of that original unity.\nThere is not only the common nature which language, the token of reason,\nraises to a dignity utterly incommensurable with the condition of any\nother animal; but great divine institutions planted at the beginning\nendure amid the corruption which has dimmed their original beauty, and\ntestify to the providence which has preserved them amid the surging flood\nof heathenism for future restoration of the race.\n\n\n3.--_Further Testimony of Law, Government, and Priesthood in the\nDispersion._\n\nThe account of the human race in its origin and its dispersion thus\npresented allows for the existence of tribes in every part of the world,\nwho, through their isolation, the effect of nomad life, war, and\nseverities of climate, but most of all by that tendency to degrade\nitself--to fall from known truth to error--which is the characteristic of\nthe race, and through the impairing of social life which thus ensues,\nhave left records of their uncultivated or even savage condition, which\nan eager search is continually discovering. These records have been taken\nas aids to a theory which, rejecting the scriptural and traditional\naccount of man's origin, would wish him to start from men of different\nraces, or from universal savagery, or even from the ape as an ancestor.\nBut, while on the one hand the existence of such tribes is no difficulty\nin the scriptural record of the dispersion, where they may be fully\naccounted for by the causes above-mentioned, the universal existence of\nthe four great goods in the most ancient nations, where they appear also\npurest at the most remote time, is quite incompatible with either of the\nthree invented origins of the human race. Neither different races of men,\noriginally distinct and separated, nor universal savagery, and far less\nfathership of the ape, will develop into simultaneous existence four\nuniform institutions found through the widest range of divided nations,\nsuch as marriage, a religion based on sacrifice, civil government, and\nthe alliance between government and religion. An original language\naccounts for the proofs of unity embedded in the primary structure of the\nAryan tongues, and science professes its full belief in such unity. It\nis but a parallel to this to say that a creative hand impressing itself\non the plastic origin of the race accounts for the existence of these\ngoods in the most-widely severed branches of it. But that scattered\nsavages should emerge from savagery into cultivation of the same ideal,\nor different races in their dispersion pitch upon the same very marked\npeculiarities of social life, or the ape teach his offspring the highest\nrequirements of human society, such imaginations are contrary to the\ncollective testimony of reason, experience, and history. Perhaps one must\ngo altogether beyond the bounds of true science to account for their\narising, and attribute them to that passionate dislike of a creating God,\nwhich is the recoil from the condition of a creature subject to\nresponsibility for his actions.\n\nOn the contrary, pure historical inquiry, going back in the dry light of\nscience to the archaic society of nations as they first appear to us at\nthe beginning of written records, shows this remarkable chain of facts. A\ncondition of things is found existing, of which the only explanation is\nthat family was the nidus out of which sprung forth the House, then the\nTribe, then the Commonwealth with its patriarchal government. When\nproperty is traced to its origin it seems to be first found in the family\nas joint-ownership; and further, its succession is blended inexplicably\nwith the existence and state of the family. Again, the close union of\ngovernment with religion finds its root in the family. No testimony can\nbe more unsuspicious than that of the learned author of \"Ancient Law,\"\nwho observes (p. 4), that \"the earliest notions connected with the\nconception of a law or rule of life are those contained in the Homeric\nwords themis and Themistes.\" \"The divine agent, suggesting judicial awards\nto kings or to gods, the greatest of kings, was Themis.\" She is the\nassessor of Zeus, the human king on earth, not a law-maker, but a judge.\nThe Themistes are the judgments, in fact, of a patriarchal sovereign,\n\"whose judgment, when he decided a dispute by a sentence, was assumed to\nbe the result of direct inspiration.\" And Themis and Themistes were (p.\n6) \"linked with that persuasion which clung so long and so tenaciously to\nthe human mind of a divine influence underlying and supporting every\nrelation of life, every social institution. In early law, and amid the\nrudiments of political thought, symptoms of this belief met us on all\nsides. A supernatural presidency is supposed to consecrate and keep\ntogether all the cardinal institutions of those times, the State, the\nRace, and the Family. Men, grouped together in the different relations\nwhich these institutions imply, are bound to celebrate periodically\ncommon rites and to offer common sacrifices; and every now and then the\nsame duty is even more significantly recognised in the purifications and\nexpiations which they perform, and which appear intended to deprecate\npunishment for involuntary or neglectful disrespect. Everybody acquainted\nwith ordinary classical literature will remember the _Sacra Gentilicia_\nwhich exercised so important an influence on the early Roman law of\nadoption and of wills. And to this hour the Hindoo Customary Law, in\nwhich some of the most curious features of primitive society are\nstereotyped, makes almost all the rights of persons and all the rules of\nsuccession hinge on the due solemnisation of fixed ceremonies at the dead\nman's funeral, that is, at every point where a breach occurs in the\ncontinuity of the family.\"\n\nThus every king, as history begins, appears in a position which recalls\nthe memory of Adam or of Noah, as the divinely appointed judge, whose\noffice springs out of his fathership. The original consecration, which\nrested on the government of the race when it begun, is seen not yet to\nhave parted from its scattered members in their tribal or national\ninsulation.[13]\n\nIt is observed of Homeric Greece that \"the people in its orderly\narrangement of family or clans, or tribal relationships coming down from\nthe patriarchal form of life, derives its unity from its king, whose\npower as little springs from the people as that of the father from his\nchildren.\" Thus he possesses this power not in virtue of compact or\nchoice, but simply from Zeus.\n\n Ou men p\u00f4s pantes Basileusomen enthad' Achaioi.\n ouk agathon polukoirani\u00ea; heis koiranos est\u00f4,\n heis Basileus, h\u00f4 d\u00f4ke Kronou pais ankulom\u00eate\u00f4\n sk\u00eaptront' \u00eade themistas, hina sphisin embasileu\u00ea.\n\n --Iliad, 2. 203.\n\nThis conception shows itself not merely on occasion in the poet, as\nperhaps in the well-known epithets, Jove-born, Jove-nurtured, friend of\nJove, or in the genealogies which connect with the gods the princely\nraces by ties of blood, but he has a distinct theory on the subject\nvariously expressed.\n\n epei oupoth' homoi\u00eas emmore pm\u00eas\n sk\u00eaptouchos basileus, h\u00f4 te Zeus kudos ed\u00f4ke.\n\nAgamemnon's sceptre, the symbol of his rule over the Peloponnesus, is\nreferred to the immediate gift of Jupiter.\n\nThe effect of this evidence, says the author just before cited, derived\nfrom comparative jurisprudence, is to establish that view of the primeval\ncondition of the human race which is known as the \"Patriarchal Theory.\"\nThis is, \"that the eldest male parent--the eldest ascendant--is absolutely\nsupreme in his household. His dominion extends to life and death, and is\nas unqualified over his children and their houses as over his slaves;\nindeed, the relations of sonship and serfdom appear to differ in little\nbeyond the higher capacity which the child in blood possesses of becoming\none day the head of a family himself. The flocks and herds of the\nchildren are the flocks and herds of the father; and the possessions of\nthe parent, which he holds in a representative rather than a proprietary\ncharacter, are equally divided at his death among his descendants in the\nfirst degree, the eldest son sometimes receiving a double share under the\nname of birthright, but more generally endowed with no hereditary\nadvantage beyond an honorary precedence.\" \"The sum of the hints given us\nby legal antiquities\" is that \"men are first seen distributed in\nperfectly insulated groups, held together by obedience to the parent.\nLaw is the parent's word. When we go forward to the state of society in\nwhich those early legal conceptions show themselves as formed, we find\nthat they still partake of the mystery and spontaneity which must have\nseemed to characterise a despotic father's commands, but that at the same\ntime, as they proceed from a sovereign, they presuppose a union of family\ngroups in some wider organisation. The next question is, what is the\nnature of this union and the degree of intimacy which it involves? It is\njust here that archaic law renders us one of the greatest of its\nservices, and fills up a gap which otherwise could only have been bridged\nby conjecture. It is full in all its provinces of the clearest\nindications that society, in primitive times, was not what it is assumed\nto be at present, a collection of individuals. In fact, and in the view\nof the men who composed it, it was an aggregation of families. The\ncontrast may be most forcibly expressed by saying that the _unit_ of an\nancient society was the Family, of a modern society, the Individual.\"\n\n\"In most of the Greek states, and in Rome, there long remained the vestiges\nof an ascending series of groups, out of which the State was at first\nconstituted. The Family, House, and Tribe of the Romans may be taken as the\ntype of them; and they are so described to us that we can scarcely help\nconceiving them as a system of concentric circles which have gradually\nexpanded from the same point. The elementary group is the family, connected\nby common subjection to the highest male ascendant. The aggregation of\nFamilies forms the Gens or House. The aggregation of Houses makes the\nTribe. The aggregation of Tribes constitutes the Commonwealth. Are we at\nliberty to follow these indications, and to lay down that the commonwealth\nis a collection of persons united by common descent from the progenitor of\nan original family? Of this we may at least be certain, that all ancient\nsocieties regarded themselves as having proceeded from one original stock,\nand even laboured under an incapacity for comprehending any reason except\nthis for their holding together in political union. The history of\npolitical ideas begins, in fact, with the assumption that kinship in blood\nis the sole possible ground of community in political functions; nor is\nthere any of those subversions of feelings, which we term emphatically\nrevolutions, so startling and so complete as the change which is\naccomplished when some other principle--such as that, for instance, of\nlocal contiguity--establishes itself for the first time as the basis of\ncommon political action. It may be affirmed, then, of early commonwealths\nthat their citizens considered all the groups in which they claimed\nmembership to be founded on common lineage.\"\n\n\"The conclusion, then, which is suggested by the evidence is, not that\nall early societies were formed by descent from the same ancestor, but\nthat all of them, which had any permanence or solidity, either were so\ndescended, or assumed that they were. An indefinite number of causes may\nhave shattered the primitive groups; but wherever their ingredients\nrecombined, it was on the model or principle of an association of\nkindred. Whatever was the fact, all thought, language, and law adjusted\nthemselves to the assumption\" (p. 131).\n\n\"On a few systems of law the family organisation of the earliest society\nhas left a plain and broad mark in the life-long authority of the Father,\nor other ancestor, over the person and property of his descendants, an\nauthority which we may conveniently call by its later Roman name of\nPatria Potestas. No feature of the rudimentary associations of mankind is\ndeposed to by a greater amount of evidence than this, and yet none seems\nto have disappeared so generally and so rapidly from the usages of\nadvancing communities\" (p. 135).\n\n\"It may be shown, I think, that the Family, as held together by the\nPatria Potestas, is the nidus out of which the entire Law of Persons has\ngerminated\" (p. 152).\n\n\"When we speak of the slave as anciently included in the Family, we\nintend to assert nothing as to the motives of those who brought him into\nit or kept him there; we merely imply that the tie which bound him to his\nmaster was regarded as one of the same general character with that which\nunited every other member of the group to its chieftain. This consequence\nis, in fact, carried in the general assertion already made, that the\nprimitive ideas of mankind were unequal to comprehending any basis of the\nconnection _inter se_ of individuals apart from the relations of Family\"\n(p. 164).\n\n\"The point which before all others has to be apprehended in the\nconstitution of primitive societies, is that the individual creates for\nhimself few or no rights and few or no duties. The rules which he obeys\nare derived first from the station into which he is born, and next from\nthe imperative commands addressed to him by the chief of the household of\nwhich he forms part\" (p. 311).\n\nThen as to the union of government with religion:--\"A stage occurs in the\nhistory of all the families of mankind, the stage at which a rule of law\nis not yet discriminated from a rule of religion. The members of such a\nsociety consider that the transgression of a religious ordinance should\nbe punished by civil penalties, and that the violation of a civil duty\nexposes the delinquent to divine correction\" (p. 23). At the time of the\nCode of the Twelve Tables, \"Roman society had barely emerged from that\nintellectual condition in which civil obligation and religious duty are\ninevitably confounded\" (p. 18).\n\nFor, in fact, originally, \"Law is the parent's word\" (p. 125), and \"the\ncivil Laws of States first make their appearance as the Themistes of a\npatriarchal sovereign\" (p. 166); that is, \"as separate, isolated\njudgments, which, consistently with the belief in their emanation from\nabove, cannot be supposed to be connected by any thread of principle\" (p.\n5). Moreover, as to the origin of Property:--\"It is more than likely that\njoint-ownership, and not separate ownership, is the really archaic\ninstitution, and that the forms of property which will afford us\ninstruction will be those which are associated with the rights of\nfamilies and the groups of kindred\" (p. 259), as shown in the Indian\nvillage-community, the Russian and Slavonic village. And \"we have the\nstrongest reasons for thinking that property once belonged not to\nindividuals, nor even to isolated families, but to larger societies\ncomposed on the patriarchal model\" (p. 268). Thus the author conjectures\n\"that private property, in the shape in which we know it, was chiefly\nformed by the gradual disentanglement of the separate rights of\nindividuals from the blended rights of a community\" (p. 269).\n\nHe remarks \"a peculiarity invariably distinguishing the infancy of\nsociety. Men are regarded and treated not as individuals, but always as\nmembers of a particular group. Everybody is first a citizen, and then, as\na citizen, he is a member of his order--of an aristocracy or a democracy,\nof an order of patricians or plebeians; or in those societies which an\nunhappy fate has afflicted with a special perversion in their course of\ndevelopment, of a caste; next he is member of a gens, house, or clan; and\nlastly he is member of his _family_. This last was the narrowest and most\npersonal relation in which he stood; nor, paradoxical as it may seem, was\nhe ever regarded as _himself_, as a distinct individual. His\nindividuality was swallowed up in his family. I repeat the definition of\na primitive society given before. It has for its units not individuals,\nbut groups of men united by the reality or the fiction of\nblood-relationship\" (p. 183). \"The history of jurisprudence must be\nfollowed in its whole course, if we are to understand how gradually and\ntardily society dissolved itself into the component atoms of which it is\nnow constituted; by what insensible gradations the relation of man to\nman substituted itself for the relation of the individual to his family,\nand of families to each other\" (p. 185).\n\nSuch is the strong--may we not say irrefragable?--testimony which the\ncondition of human society, as it emerges into the light of history,\nbears to the family as the cradle of man's life. It is in the original\nsoil of the family that the four goods we have noted, marriage, religion,\ngovernment, and the alliance between religion and government, spring up\ntogether. Further, also, they are seen to be not separate, one here and\nanother there, but bound together in the strictest coherence. For if this\nhuman race be thrown up and down throughout the world, divided and\ninsulated in its several parts by vast distances and by thousands of\nyears, even the scattered limbs are shaped in the mould stamped upon it\nat its birth, and in them government, law, property in its origin and its\nsuccession, and religion bear witness to the family character. This\narchaic society, from the Pacific to the Atlantic Oceans, from Scythia in\nthe north to India in the south, is never a crowd of individuals but an\norganic structure: Adam and Eve prolonged and living in their race. We\nsee that in the beginning the fathership of God created a human plant\nwhich should reveal Himself in its development, bearing in its structure\nand fruit an undying witness to His nature; and serving, in spite of\ncorruption and decline, for the future exhibition of His fathership in a\nyet higher degree, even to the communication of the divine nature.\n\nWhatever may be the interval of time which runs out between the\ndispersion of the family at Babel, and the appearance of each separate\nmember on the platform of history--and the longer this time, the greater\nthe marvel we note--the family remains in each as a sort of universal\nThesm\u00f3s upon which the commonwealth, the government, property viewed in\nitself and in its descent, law, and religion itself rest. The \"natural\nstate\" and the \"social compact\" when inquired into become unsubstantial\nfictions; \"theories plausible and comprehensive,\" as the author of\nancient law observes, \"but absolutely unverified\" (p. 3). Man is seen to\nbe the child of Adam; and all the relations of men to each other to have\nbeen originally determined by that origin, and persistently maintained in\nits mould.\n\nNow let us return to the relation between the Spiritual and the Civil\nPower, which forms part of this original constitution of the race.\n\nAt the head of the human race we have seen, first in Adam and then in\nNoah, the junction of the two orders, sovereignty and priesthood. There\nnever was a time when the race was without government; there never was a\ntime when the race was without sacrifice. The delegated authority of God\nrested ever upon the former for the prosperity of man's life upon earth;\nthe worship of the one God, man's Creator and End, was summed up in the\nlatter. All human life consists of the tissue formed by the two; and as\nin his first abode man's condition was subject to his obedience to the\ndivine command, so throughout his course his worship of God ruled his\ntemporal condition. The lot of the antediluvian world bore witness to\nthat truth. With Noah the experience began afresh. Then once again the\ncovenant with Noah and his seed after him was made in sacrifice, in which\nthe unity of God and the religion of man stand recorded, and man's\nearthly lot is made dependent on the purity of his worship. Thus the two\norders are seen in their origin to be both of divine institution; just as\nthe life of man upon earth was from the beginning subordinate to his\nultimate end, so government, which was created for the former, was\nsubordinate to worship, which was created for the latter.\n\nLet us follow rapidly the relation between man's social state and his\nreligion, arising out of such origin, that we may note how the\ndegradation of worship entailed the degradation of society.\n\nIn Noah and his sons, so long as the earth continued of one tongue and\nspeech, the priesthood belonged to the head of the family. That was its\nnatural descent. We may suppose that the dispersion began with the same\nrule, but we are not able to say how long that rule continued in force.\nThere was intended to be one priesthood offering one sacrifice over all\nthe earth to the one God. How prodigious became the degradation when the\ndivine unity was lost! A variety of gods was introduced; a similar\nvariety of priesthoods followed: and the sacrifice, which was the\nrendering of supreme homage to the one Creator and Lord of life, in which\nwas contained the everliving prophecy of man's future restoration, was\nprostituted to a number of deities, the offspring of man's sensual\nimagination, or of perverted tradition, or of worship of natural powers,\nor of demoniacal trickery.\n\nAs soon as the patriarchal State was changed by war into the State\nfounded by conquest, the natural appurtenance of the priesthood to the\nhead of the family must at least have been modified. It was probably\noften attached to the actual head of the State. But it does not need to\ntrace step by step the debasement of worship and the multiplication of\ndeities which took place in the Gentile world. It is enough to see how\nthe whole mass of nations had by the time of Christ become divided from\neach other in their civil societies and their religious belief. But we\nmay note that as with the loss of belief in one God the nations\noriginally lost the belief in their own brotherhood, so their national\ngods became the stronghold of national prejudices and hatreds. Thus a\ndebased religion was turned into a source of cruelty to man, who had no\nbitterer enemy to his life and welfare than a foreign god; and instead of\nhuman life being sacred to man, it was sometimes even an act of worship\nto immolate him to an idol.\n\nIt is not too much to say that the profound enmity of the Gentile nations\nto each other was grounded in the variety of their gods; and in this\ninstance religion, which in its purity is the bond of human society, had\nbecome a main cause of alienation between the members of the race.\n\nThe alliance of the State in each nation with its religion was, as we\nhave seen, an original good of the race; and it continued through all\nthe debasement of worship. Had that worship maintained its original\npurity, the alliance would have been an unmixed good. But as the belief\nbecame corrupt, it ended in the public force being ever at the command of\nerror. The final issue of this alliance seems to have been when the State\nhad laid hold of religion to deify, as it were, itself. The Roman\nemperors were the most complete, but by no means the sole, bearers of\nthis corruption. They were considered to embody in their single persons\nthe united majesty of the gods. Whoever refused obedience to their\nworship was guilty of the double crime of sacrilege and treason.\n\nIf this be a correct summary of the relation between the Two Powers as it\nissued in the final condition of Gentilism, it is clear that the State\nhad far less declined from the high purpose for which it was instituted,\nthat is, the preservation of human society, than the priesthood from the\ncorresponding purpose which belonged to it, that is, the worship of God\nand the sanctification of human life. The civil power was still in every\nrespect a lawful power. And obedience was due to it for conscience' sake,\nas expressly declared by our Lord and His Apostles. But the priesthood\nhad been so utterly debased by its worship of false gods, which tore from\nit the crown of unity, and by the abominations which its rites in too\nmany instances carried with them, that it had ceased to be a lawful\npower. It had moreover fallen, at least in the Roman empire, and from the\ntime of the C\u00e6sars, under the dominion of the State.\n\nYet down to the very coming of our Lord the veneration which had belonged\nto the original character and institution of the priesthood is made\nmanifest by the clear acknowledgment that the authority of the priest was\nnot derived from the king. The Gentiles in the lowest depths of their\nmoral degradation referred the excellency of the priesthood to its divine\norigin. The honour due to God, and the thought of the future world, were\nso imbedded in the original constitution of human society everywhere,\nthat even in a pantheon of false gods, and in a service paid to\nnumberless male and female deities, the priest's office itself was held\nto be divine.[14]\n\nIn the case of the Romans, it is true that when the free state was\nsuppressed by the empire, the priesthood and the imperial power were\nimproperly conjoined in the same person. But this conjunction was at once\na novelty and an usurpation. Thus the office of Pontifex Maximus, first\nseized by Lepidus after the death of Julius C\u00e6sar, and after Lepidus\nassumed by Augustus, and then kept in succession by the following C\u00e6sars,\nwhether through the adulation of the people or their own pride, seemed to\npass as a proper title of their principate, and was numbered among the\nhonours, even of the Christian emperors, down to Gratian, who refused and\nprohibited it. Nevertheless the functions of these two powers were\nreckoned as distinct; but in the time of the Kings and the free\nCommonwealth this distinction was much more marked.\n\nDionysius of Halicarnassus thus describes the Roman Pontifical\nCollege:--\"They have authority over the most weighty affairs; they are\njudges of all sacred causes, whether among private persons, or\nmagistrates, or ministers of the gods; they legislate for all sacred\nthings which are not written or prescribed by custom, enacting laws and\ncustoms as seems to them good; they examine into all magistracies to\nwhich sacrifice and worship of the gods belong, and scrutinise all\npriests; they keep watch over the ministers which these use in their\nsacred office, so that the sacred laws be not transgressed; they instruct\nand interpret for lay persons who do not understand what concerns the\nworship of gods or genii. If they observe any disobedient to their\ncommands, they punish them according to the due of each. They are\nthemselves exempt from all trial and punishment. They render account\nneither to senate nor to people. It would be no error to call them\npriests, or sacred legislators, or custodians, or, as we should prefer,\nrulers of sacred things. On the death of any one another is elected to\nhis place, not by the people, but by themselves, whoever of the citizens\nthey judge the most meet.\"[15] From this account of the historian, says\nBianchi, we may deduce the following conclusions:--Firstly, how great was\nthe power of the Roman Sacerdotes in judging matters of religion, in\nwhich the magistrates were subject to them. Secondly, their authority to\npunish those who transgressed their laws, independently of kings and\nmagistrates. Thirdly, their immunity from the civil power, even of the\nCommonwealth itself, to which they were not bound to render an account of\nwhat they did. Fourthly, the distinction which existed between the power\nof the priests and that of the civil magistrates, which results not\nmerely from the points recited, but also from the reflection that the\nPontiffs were perpetual, while the magistrates under the free\nCommonwealth were temporary. The latter were created by the suffrages of\nthe people; in the former vacancies were filled by the College of\nPontiffs itself. This custom lasted from Numa's time to the year of Rome\n601, when Cneius Domitius, tribune of the people, transferred the right\nof filling vacancies from the College to the people; this was abolished\nby Sylla in his dictatorship; but again restored by the Tribune Titus\nLabienus during Cicero's consulship. But finally the right of electing\nits members was given back to the College of Pontiffs by Augustus.\n\nThe Pontifex Maximus, though created by the suffrage of the people, was\nalways taken from the College of Pontiffs, and his office was perpetual.\nAugustus would not take it from Lepidus during his life, though he took\nit after his death. Thus the power of the Supreme Pontiff was by no means\nconfused with that of the magistrate or the prince; and the assumption of\nthis priesthood by the C\u00e6sars makes it evident that they recognised it\nnot to be part of the prince's power to intrude into matters of religion;\nand that they needed a sacerdotal power in order to superintend sacred\nthings. It was for the sake of this superintendence, Dio observes, that\nthe emperor always assumed the office of Pontifex Maximus, in virtue of\nwhich he became master of all religious and sacred things.\n\nThe example of Cicero pleading before the College of Pontifices for the\nrestoration of his house, which had been dedicated by Clodius to Concord,\na plea involving their power to revoke a tribunicial law passed by\nClodius, is a remarkable testimony to the pontifical authority: \"If\never,\" he said, \"a great cause rested on the judgment and power of the\nPriests of the Roman people, it is this; in which all the dignity of the\ncommonwealth, the safety, the life, the liberty, the public and private\nworship, the household gods, the goods, the fortunes, and the homes of\nall seem intrusted to your wisdom and integrity.\"[16]\n\nThe fair conclusions from these facts, says Bianchi again, are that the\nRomans knew religion to be directed to a higher end than temporal\nfelicity, though they did esteem it also necessary for the preservation\nof the State; that the power of the priesthood was distinct from the\ncivil power of the magistrate; that it had the right to judge in all\ncases of religion without interference from the magistrate; that immunity\nand exemption from the civil power belonged to it.\n\nIt is needless to go through the various nations of antiquity in order to\nshow the veneration which everywhere belonged to the office of the\npriest. That is shown likewise in the frequent connection of the royal\npower with the priesthood; but though thus connected, they were not\nconfused; kings were priests, not in virtue of their kingship, but by a\ndistinct appointment. Plato asserts that in some nations the priesthood\nwas reputed so excellent that it was not considered to be properly placed\nsave in the person of the king; and that among the Egyptians it was not\nlawful for any king to command the people without being first consecrated\nto the priesthood. By this fact is seen how the sacerdotal dignity was\nesteemed by antiquity, even in the darkness of idolatry; and, at the same\ntime, how the power of the priest was considered to be distinct from the\npower of the sovereign. Plato gives his own judgment when he says that\nthe creation of priests should be left to the care of God; and that they\nshould be elected by lot, in order that the person destined to so high an\noffice may be divinely chosen.[17]\n\nAll that it is requisite here to point out seems to be that, however\ngreat was the degradation of worship produced by the character of the\ngods worshipped, as well as by the divisions of the godhead which the\nmultiplying of divine beings brought with itself, yet two things survived\nin the minds of men: one the intrinsic excellence of worship in itself,\nas the homage paid by man to a power above himself; and the other, the\nsense that this worship was a thing of divine institution, coming down\nfrom heaven upon earth, quite distinct in character from civil rule, and\nif exercised by kings, exercised not because they were kings, but in\nvirtue of a separate consecration. Thus, if the patriarchal origin of\nproperty, law, and government is borne witness to by the most ancient\ninstitutions, customs, and feelings of men, which witness likewise\nextends to the unity of the race, so likewise the original independence\nof the priestly order as to all its sacred functions and the sense of its\ndivine origin, which runs through so many nations, bear joint witness to\nthe unity of the race and to the truth of the Mosaic record. They convey\na manifest contradiction to the theory that man sprung originally from a\nnumber of different races, and likewise to the theory that he grew up\noriginally in a state of savagery.\n\nThe force of the testimony consists in this: first, a priesthood appears\neverywhere; secondly, it is connected with the rite of sacrifice;\nthirdly, it usually comprises an order of men devoted to the purpose of\ndivine worship, or at least having special functions which by no means\nbelong to the civil ruler as such, so that if he performs them, it is as\npriest and not as king; fourthly, this order has a special authority from\nthe Divine Being or Beings whom it represents, not subject to the civil\nrule; fifthly, injury to the priest's person or contravention to his\norder in divine things is esteemed as an injury done to the God whom he\nrepresents.\n\nThe peculiarity of a priesthood must therefore be added to the\npeculiarity of the rite of sacrifice upon which his office rests, and\nboth together form an order of ideas so marked and distinctive as to\nestablish the unity of the race in the several portions of which they\nappear; and at the same time it establishes, as the common inheritance of\nthat race, an overwhelming sense of human life being founded, preserved,\nand exalted by a communion between heaven and earth: it is, in short, a\nsense of man lying in the hand of God.\n\nWe have hitherto followed the dispersion of Babel in its Gentile\ndevelopment down to that ultimate issue in which a long and unbroken\ncivilisation is combined with an extreme moral corruption; now let us\nrevert to the divine plan which was followed to repair this evil.\n\nAt a certain point of time, when forgetfulness of the divine unity was\nbecoming general, God chose one man out of whom to form a nation, whose\nfunction should be the preservation of a belief in this unity. Abraham,\nthe friend of God and the forefather of Christ, was called out of his own\ncountry that he might preserve the religion of Noah, and that \"in him all\nthe kindreds of the earth might be blessed\" (Gen. xii. 3). In the second\ngeneration his family was carried down into Egypt, and became, in the\nsecurity of that kingdom, a people, but it likewise fell into bondage.\nFrom this it was redeemed in a series of wonderful events under the\nguidance of Moses, was led by him into the desert, and there formed into\na nation by the discipline of a religious, which was also a civil code.\nIn the law given on Mount Sinai we see once more the constitution of the\nsociety established in Noah. The whole moral order of the world contained\nin the ten commandments is made to rest upon the sovereignty of God: \"I\nam the Lord; thou shalt have no strange gods.\" From this precept, which\nfills the first table, proceed the precepts which, in the second,\nmaintain the order of society: \"Honour thy father and thy mother; thou\nshalt not kill; thou shalt not steal,\" and the rest. Such, says Bossuet,\nis the general order of all legislation. The ten words of God form the\ncore of a complete religious and civil code, in which the two Powers\nexist in an ideal no less than a practical union. The individual and the\nnational worship is the same, and the society springs out of it, the root\nbeing, \"I am the Lord;\" but the persuasiveness of redemption is added to\nthe power of creation: \"I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of\nthe land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.\" Abraham, the father of\nthe people, had exercised the patriarchal priesthood and the patriarchal\nsacrifice in his family; but just as God had not chosen Abraham because\nhe was the first-born, so Moses, taking the patriarchal priesthood, with\na special sanction, set it not in the first-born of the tribes, but in\nanother tribe, and in a family of this tribe. He took, further, the rite\nof sacrifice, which had existed from the beginning, only developing its\nmeaning in a series of ordinances, which, as St. Paul tells us, all\npointed to Christ: \"Almost all things according to the law are cleansed\nwith blood, and without shedding of blood is no remission\" (Heb. ix. 22).\nBut while there is here a complete union in faith, in practice, and in\nworship, for every true Israelite and for the whole people, while there\nis one source of authority to the three, the bearers of the dignities\nwhich represent this triple life of man are separated. Moses instituted,\nin the person of Aaron, a high priesthood which from that time stands\nthrough the whole history of his people at the head of their worship,\nsuperior in all that concerns it to the civil authority, which is bound\nto consult it and obey it, not only in the things of God, but in the\nchief civil acts which regard the nation. The outcome of this work is the\ncreation of a people whose function is to bear on the worship of the one\ntrue God and faith in the Redeemer to come, a royal, prophetic, and\npriestly nation, the special domain of the promised Messias.\n\nI have no need here to follow this people through the trials, revolts,\nchastisements, and humiliations of 1500 years. It is sufficient to\nobserve the result at the coming of Christ. The nation at length, as the\nfruit it would seem of captivity and suffering, has accepted with one\nmind and heart the doctrine and worship of one God; the Jewish\npriesthood, uncorrupted in its essence by any of the abominations of\npolytheism, offers the daily morning and evening sacrifice, which\ntypified the Lamb of God, in the spirit of Adam, Noah, Abraham, and\nMoses. The power of the State had indeed just passed to a Roman lord, but\nit left the rites and practices and doctrines of the Jewish faith\nuntouched in the hands of the High Priest and the Great Council, which\nsat in this respect in the chair of Moses,--a great and manifest\ndistinction, perhaps, from the condition in this respect of the whole\nGentile world. In Rome, at least, the worship \"of the Immortal Gods,\"\nthough blended with the whole growth of the State, and seated\ntriumphantly in the Capitol, was simply subservient to the Civil Power:\nin Judea, a small and despised province of Rome, the religion was the\nlife of the people, which had been made a people that it might be God's\ndomain, and, with all its divisions, was filled from the highest to the\nlowest with an universal expectation of the promised Christ, who was to\nbe Prophet, Priest, and King.\n\nIn the relation between the two Powers, Gentilism required a total\nreconstruction, in order that the priesthood, existing in it from the\nbeginning, might be completely purified, derived afresh from God, and\nreceive from Him an independence which it had lost from the moment that\nit lost its fidelity to the One Creator,--and such a gift would be a\ntoken of divine power. Judaism, on the contrary, made, after the\nprogramme of God, an image in the nation of what the Christian people was\nto be in the world, required only to acknowledge in the Christ the\npurpose for which it was appointed, that the law might go forth from Sion\nand the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[7] St. Aug. cont. Faustum, 22, 17. Antiqua enim res est pr\u00e6nuntiativa\nimmolatio sanguinis, futuram passionem Mediatoris ab initio generis humani\ntestificans; hanc enim primus Abel obtulisse in sacris litteris invenitur.\n\n[8] Leo XIII., in the great Encyclical of June 29, 1881, says: \"It is also\nof great importance that they by whose authority public affairs are\nadministered may be able to command the obedience of citizens, so that\ntheir disobedience is a sin. But no man possesses in himself or of himself\nthe right to constrain the free-will of others by the bonds of such a\ncommand as this. That power belongs solely to God, the Creator of all\nthings and the Lawgiver; and those who exercise it must exercise it as\ncommunicated to them by God. 'There is one lawgiver and judge who is able\nto destroy and to deliver' (James iv. 12).\"\n\n[9] Bossuet sums up the state in these six points: Politique, &c. Art. 1.\n\n[10] Welsh, _i.e._, foreigner, not speaking a language understood.\n\n[11] St. Augustine.\n\n[12] Politique, &c., lib. vii. art. 2.\n\n[13] N\u00e4gelsbach, Homerische Theologie, 275.\n\n[14] See Bianchi, vol. iii. ch. ii.\n\n[15] Hierodidaskaloi eite hieronomoi, eite hierophulakes, eite, h\u00f4s h\u00eameis\naxioumen, hierophantai. Dionys. Halic., 1. 2.\n\n[16] Bianchi, Sect. VI.\n\n[17] Bianchi, p. 23.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nRELATION BETWEEN THE CIVIL AND THE SPIRITUAL POWERS AFTER CHRIST.\n\n\n1.--_The Spiritual Power in its Source and Nature._\n\nTaking as our basis the historical outline of the relation between the\nCivil and Spiritual Powers which has preceded, let us attempt to have\npresent to our minds the state of this relation at the death of Christ.\n\nThe great world-empire had then been ruled in most peaceful security for\nhalf a generation by Tiberius. Under him lay a vast variety of nations,\nprofessing as strange a variety of gods and of worship paid to them, but\nall, with one exception, accepting a religious supremacy in him as\nPontifex Maximus of the Roman religion. The Princeps of the civil power,\nthe Imperator of the civil force, was also Chief Priest of religion, and\nby that union held in his hands those two Powers, an attack upon either\nof which constituted, as Tertullian testifies, the double guilt of\nmajesty violated and sacrilege incurred. Within these limits, and with\nthis condition, it was free to the several nations to practise their\nancestral rites as well as to believe in their ancestral gods, at least\nwithin their ancient territorial bounds. There can be no doubt that\nthese nations generally clung to their several rites and beliefs, not\nonly from the force of nurture and habit, but also as remnants of their\nformer independence as nations. As little can we doubt that the great\nRoman power was employed to maintain and protect them as part of the\nconstituted order of things and in prevention of _sedition_. This, so far\nas the Roman dominion extended, was the outcome of that long succession\nof wars, and changes of rule ensuing on wars, which forms the history of\nmankind so soon as it leaves the nest of pristine unity at the epoch of\nthe dispersion. It is clear that through the whole of this Gentile world,\nwhile amity had not been broken between the Civil and the Spiritual\nPowers, the priesthood, which represented the latter, had everywhere\nbecome the subject of the former. It is no less clear that this\nsubjection was repaid with support. This condition of things was most\nclearly expressed as well as most powerfully established in the position\nof the Roman Emperor, who, as he received the tribunitial power, which in\nunion with the consular was distinctive of the imperial dignity, from the\nSenate, so received also the supreme authority in matters of religion\nwhich belonged to the Pontifex Maximus. This authority had indeed been in\nits origin and its descent from age to age in the Roman city distinct\nfrom secular power, but henceforth became practically united with the\ncivil principate. That undivided supremacy betokened the ultimate\nconstitution of the heathen State, antecedent to the coming of Christ, in\nwhat concerns the relation between the two Powers. According to this,\nthe Civil Power prevailed over the Spiritual, and casting off the\nsubjection to religion in which itself had been nurtured, directed all\nits actions to a temporal end.\n\nFar otherwise was it with that people which Moses, under the divine\ncommand, had created according to the pattern which he saw in the Mount.\nChosen by God to conduct the race of Abraham out of captivity into the\npromised land, he alone in the history of the Israelitic race united in\nhimself the three powers bestowed by unction of Priest, of Prophet, and\nof King. These powers he left to the people he was forming, but did not\ndeposit them all in the same hands. His creation of the priesthood in the\ntribe of Levi, and of the high priesthood in the person of his brother\nAaron and his lineal descendants, stands without a parallel in all the\nhistory of the world before the coming of Christ as an act of\ntranscendent authority. For instead of the original priesthood of the\nfirst-born, which he found existing as it had been transmitted from the\nearliest time, he selected a particular tribe, which was not that of the\nfirst-born, to bear from that time forth the priesthood among the\nchildren of Israel; and further, he selected a particular person in that\ntribe, his brother Aaron, to erect in him the high priesthood, the most\ncharacteristic institution of the Jewish people. In like manner he took\nthe ancient institution of sacrifice, dating, as we have seen, from\nParadise itself, and formed it into an elaborate system to be carried out\nday by day through the whole succeeding history of his people, by\npriests springing from the person of the first High Priest. At the door\nof the Tabernacle, in the presence of all the assembled tribes, Moses\ninvested Aaron with the priestly garments, especially the ephod, bearing\nattached to it the Rational, which contained the twelve stones indicating\nthe twelve tribes of the holy nation, by which the High Priest,\nconsulting God, issued the oracle of doctrine and truth. Moses further\nset the mitre on his head, bearing on its golden plate the inscription,\n\"Holiness to the Lord;\" and pouring on his head the oil of unction, he\nanointed and consecrated him. Thus the whole Jewish priesthood descended\nfrom above, being gathered up in one person, from whom all succeeding\npriests were drawn, and the sous of the first High Priest were to\ncontinue the line for ever according to primogeniture.\n\nThe High Priest's office had in it four points peculiar to him beyond the\noffice of the ordinary priest. First, once in the year, on the great day\nof the atonement, he alone entered into the most holy place, \"not without\nblood, which he offered for his own sins and the sins of the people\"\n(Heb. ix. 7), inasmuch as he sent into the wilderness one he-goat,\ncharged with the sins of all the people, and sacrificed the other, whose\nblood he carried into the sanctuary, sprinkling it seven times over\nagainst the oracle, to expiate the sanctuary from the uncleanness of the\nchildren of Israel (Lev. xvi. 15, 16). He thus once every year\nrepresented in his person the whole sacred nation in that most remarkable\nact of confessing its guilt before God, and offering an expiation of it,\nwhich pointed even more to a future Redeemer. Secondly, he consecrated\nthe whole body of the priests and Levites for their several work. The oil\nof unction poured upon his head was the palpable sign of priestly power\ntransmitted from him to the priest, in which, again, he was an image of\nthe future High Priest. Thirdly, whenever the civil rulers of the nation\nrequired advice in matters concerning the good of the whole people, it\nwas the office of the High Priest to inquire for them by means of the\nbreastplate of light and truth, which he carried upon the ephod. The\nrelation of the Civil to the Spiritual Power was symbolised in the first\nbearer of the former after Moses, to whom Moses was commanded by God to\ncommunicate \"part of his glory.\" God said to Moses, \"Take Joshua the son\nof Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and put thy hand upon him, and he\nshall stand before Eleazar the priest (who had then succeeded his father\nAaron in the high priesthood), and all the multitude, and thou shalt give\nhim precepts in the sight of all, and part of thy glory, that all the\ncongregation of the children of Israel may hear him. If anything be to be\ndone, Eleazar the priest shall consult the Lord for him, he, and all the\nchildren of Israel with him, and the rest of the multitude, shall go out\nand go in at his word\" (Num. xxvii. 18). Thus David afterwards consulted\nGod by Abiathar, the High Priest in his day. Fourthly, on all questions\nconcerning the decalogue, or commands in the moral law, or the ceremonial\nlaw, which embraced the whole field of the divine worship, or the\njudicial law, which concerned reciprocal rights and duties between man\nand man, the High Priest possessed a supreme and decisive jurisdiction,\nfrom which there was no appeal.\n\nIt is necessary to distinguish between the third of those privileges, the\njudgment by the breastplate of light and truth, which was an\nextraordinary gift of God, bestowed at particular times, and analogous in\nthis to inspiration, and the fourth, the supreme jurisdiction and\njudgment of the High Priest, which belonged to him as an ordinary part of\nhis office, and may be likened to a perpetual divine assistance inherent\nin it.[18]\n\n2. Such was the high priesthood in its institution, and its operation\nthrough the whole of Jewish history down to the final destruction of the\nTemple corresponds to its institution.\n\nThe children of Israel were made a nation for a specific purpose, that\nis, in order that the race of Abraham, by Isaac his chosen son, should\nmaintain upon earth, in the midst of an ever-growing defection, the\nworship of the one True God, and should likewise embody and represent no\nless that which was bound up in this worship, the promise of redemption\ngiven at the beginning of the world. The reason of its existence,\ntherefore, was to be the bearer of the Messianic idea. To this all its\nordinances and sacrifices pointed, and in the execution of all this\npurpose the High Priest was the chief organ. The Pontificate was the stem\nof the nation, of which the civil unity was made from the beginning\ndependent on the spiritual. On Aaron, by God's command, Moses devolved\none \"part of his glory;\" and when Eleazar had succeeded his father in the\noffice of High Priest, and Moses was about to die, he devolved, by the\nsame divine command, another part of his glory upon Joshua, appointing\nhim to lead the children of Israel into their promised inheritance. To\ninvest him with this solemn charge, the civil leadership of the nation,\nhe brought him before Eleazar the priest, that, according to his\ninstruction, Joshua and the whole congregation \"should go out and go in.\"\nThis relative position of Eleazar and Joshua is continued in the\nrespective religious and civil rulers during several hundred years down\nto the kingship of Saul. When the Israelites chose themselves a king\nafter the pattern of the nations round them, the word of God to Samuel\nrespecting their act is, \"They have not rejected thee, but me, that I\nshould not reign over them\" (1 Kings viii. 7). Nevertheless God sanctions\nthe erection of a kingdom, leaving unaltered the position of the High\nPriest. During the time of the kings the high priesthood continues the\ncentre of Jewish worship; and when the civil unity is broken by the\nrevolt of the ten tribes, they revolt likewise against the worship which\nhad its seat in Jerusalem and was gathered up in the High Priest. The\nlong-persistent iniquity of the people is punished by the captivity, and\nwhen a portion of the nation comes back to take root afresh in its own\nland, it is in the high priesthood more than ever that its unity is\nrestored and maintained. Thus, through the three periods of Israelitic\nhistory, under the judges, under the kings, and after the return from\ncaptivity, the High Priest remains the permanent centre of Jewish life,\nthe organ of spiritual, and therein of civil unity. Our Lord recognises\nthis spiritual ruler as at the head of the Great Council, \"sitting in the\nchair of Moses.\" At His birth Herod inquires of this authority where\nChrist should be born, and receives the undoubting answer, \"In Bethlehem\nof Juda.\" Of Him Caiaphas, being then High Priest, uttered the famous\nprophecy denoting the great act of His mediatorial sacrifice; and the\nsame Caiaphas, sitting as supreme judge of the nation, adjures Him by the\nliving God to declare if He be the Christ; and our Lord answers the\nadjuration by the explicit declaration of His divine Sonship, and His\nauthority to be Judge of the living and the dead.\n\nThe judges pass, the kings pass, the nation goes into captivity; it comes\nback chastened, and faithful at length to its belief in the divine unity\nand the promises attached to it; and through all this, up to the time of\naccomplishment, the High Priest sits in the chair of Moses, and offers\nexpiation on the day of atonement, and the priests emanate from his\nperson, and prophecy speaks from his mouth. He is the ordinary judge of\nthe whole people, the guardian and interpreter of the divine law, whose\ndecision is final and supreme.\n\n3. That people lost its civil independence, which was merged in the great\nRoman empire, but its spiritual independence, centred in its High Priest,\nwas preserved to it. At no period of its history was this independence\nmore remarkably maintained. Philo, himself a Jew settled in Egypt, says,\n\"Innumerable pilgrims from innumerable cities flock together by sea and\nland, from East and West, from North and South, on every festival to this\nTemple (of Jerusalem) as to a common harbour and refuge, seeking peace\nthere in the midst of a life of business or trouble.\"[19] \"The Holy\nCity,\" he says in another place, \"is my country, a metropolis not of the\nsingle country of Judea, but of many others, on account of the colonies\nfrom time to time thence sent forth.\" But not only was this city such a\nmetropolis to all Jews in every part of the world, and the High Priest\nthe centre of the worship which drew them from all parts of the world,\nbut his spiritual authority extended over them in the several cities\nwhich they inhabited as well as when they came up to Jerusalem. This was\nthe power borne witness to by St. Paul, when \"yet breathing out\nthreatening and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, he went to\nthe High Priest and asked of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues,\nthat if he found any men and women of this way, he might bring them bound\nto Jerusalem.\" This was the power which counterworked and persecuted St.\nPaul himself wherever he went, through which \"five times he received of\nthe Jews forty stripes save one, and was thrice beaten with rods\" (2 Cor.\nxi. 24). This was the power which, wherever the Apostles went, preaching\nthe Gospel under the cover of a religion which enjoyed legal sanction,\nand so disobeyed no Roman law, encountered them, and, after endless\nparticular persecutions, succeeded at last with Nero in getting them put\nbeyond the pale of the protection which their character of Jews might\nafford them, and placed under the ban of the empire as preachers of a new\nand unsanctioned religion. They were but summing up a long course of\nprevious persecution in this act, which was the master-stroke of Jewish\nantagonism, by which they fulfilled to the uttermost the divine\nprediction: \"Therefore, behold I send to you prophets, and wise men, and\nscribes; and some of them you will put to death and crucify, and some of\nthem you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to\ncity\" (Matt. xxiii. 40). And it was followed at once by the destruction\nof the city, the Temple, and the priesthood, as the prophecy ran, \"Behold\nyour house shall be left to you desolate.\" The position of the High\nPriest in this last period of Israelitic history, the forty years which\nelapsed from the day of Pentecost to the destruction of the city and\nTemple, represents him most vividly as the guardian, judge, and\nmouthpiece of a religion which, though national, had colonies in all\nparts of the world, and in which not only the central seat of the worship\nand the country of Judea, but the colonies also, in whatever part of the\nworld they might be situated, acknowledged his spiritual jurisdiction.\nThis privilege was given by Julius C\u00e6sar, as to the Roman empire, and\ncontinued by Augustus. It is of much moment to understand the history of\nthe first forty years of the Christian Church.\n\n4. So completely had the high priesthood created by Moses, and the whole\nsystem of worship, sacrifices, rites, and ceremonies which it presided\nover and guarded, fulfilled the purpose for which it was created. It\npresented in all its parts a type and a prophecy of Christ and His\nkingdom--a type and a prophecy which through fifteen hundred years of\naction and suffering had wrought itself out in the heart of a people who,\nnow deprived of their civil, but enjoying a spiritual, independence, lay\nscattered through the whole world, ready to receive the spiritual\nkingdom. Through all Gentiledom the sacerdotal authority had become, by\nits corruption of the high truths of religion, the serf or minion of the\nCivil Power, but to the Jews the worship of their God was in its own\nnature supreme, and did not admit of interference even from that power\nwhich they acknowledged to rule absolutely in temporal dominion. The same\nscribes and pharisees and people who cried out before the Roman governor,\n\"We have no king but C\u00e6sar,\" were ready a few years afterwards to\nsacrifice their lives rather than admit into Jerusalem a statue of the\nEmperor Caligula, which seemed to them an impugnment of their religious\nlaw. And the Jewish people during the years of our Lord's teaching and\nministry were looking for their Messias, and when they should acknowledge\nHim, were ready to acknowledge Him not only as Priest and Prophet but as\nKing also. So deeply had the words of Moses sunk in their hearts: \"That\nGod would raise up to them a prophet of their nation and of their\nbrethren like unto him, whom they were to hear\" (Deut. xviii. 18); that\nis, a Prophet bearing, as Moses alone had done, the triple unction, and\nwho was to be supreme in teaching, in priesthood, and in rule. The civil\nsubjection of the people brought out more strikingly by its contrast\ntheir spiritual independence, and the banishment, which scattered a\nnumber of them into all lands, provided everywhere a seed-plot in which\nthe Gospel might be planted--a little gathering not only of Jews, but of\nGentile proselytes, \"who feared God\" in every place, and so could more\nreadily receive the doctrine of God incarnate and crucified upon their\nbelief of God the Creator. Had the Jews remained in their own land, they\nwould not have had the perception of a spiritual jurisdiction founded\nupon a divine hierarchy alone, and stretching over the whole earth,\ndisregarding all national divisions and restrictions, and binding\nParthians and Medes, Elamites and Mesopotamians, Egyptians and Libyans,\nCretes and Arabians, Greeks and Romans into one. The mould into which the\nGospel was to be cast had been wrought out even through the obstinacy,\nthe sins, and the punishments of the chosen people, and was now complete\nto receive and bear the tree for the healing of the nations. The high\npriesthood had come forth from Moses by express inspiration, and bearing\nits people through centuries of most various fortune, had imaged out\nexactly the Christian high priesthood and rule to which it was to\nyield.[20] A prophecy embodied in a fact which unites a people into an\nindissoluble organisation, and works through centuries moulding\ngeneration after generation, and gathering into one prodigious monument\nof priesthood, sacrifices, ceremonies, and temple, and the hopes and\ndevotion of a race, this is the ground which our Lord selected for the\nbasis of the spiritual kingdom which He would set up. He had provided\nMoses as a servant to construct the model of the house which hereafter He\nwould build Himself; He had inspired Moses to create Aaron and draw out\nof him the levitical priesthood, because Himself would commission Peter,\nthe perpetual fountain of the Christian priesthood, and would make Peter\nfor all nations that which Aaron had been for one.\n\nBut, as in all the preceding history, God left to man the exercise of his\nfree-will. It was not open to the Jews indeed to frustrate the divine\npurpose, but it was open to them to receive or not receive the Christ\nwhen He came. They were ready to receive a glorious but not a suffering\nChrist. And the High Priest, sitting at the head of the Great Council of\nthe nation, in the chair of Moses and in the dignity of Aaron, instead of\naccepting, rejected and slew Him with the Roman death of crucifixion, by\nthe hand of the Roman governor, the bearer to the nation of the Roman\nimperial power. The High Priest slew Him further on the affected charge\nthat He was plotting against the emperor's power; in reality because He\nacknowledged Himself to be the Christ, the Son of God.\n\nLet us take, then, what I am about to say as facts which have been\nhitherto undisputed. There have been, and there are, unbelievers in\nplenty of the Christian truth and Church, but no one has, I believe,\nhitherto been found to deny that Christ was put to death by Pontius\nPilate at the instigation of the Chief Priest and the Sanhedrim. Let us\ntake this as a fact, and put ourselves in thought at the great Sabbath\nduring which His Body rested in the tomb. It is the Body of one executed\nwith the greatest ignominy, between two thieves, by a most cruel death,\nunder the authority of the Roman governor, upon the charge that He\nclaimed a kingship which interfered with that of the emperor, at the\ninstigation of those who rejected His claim to be their Messias, the Son\nof God. His Body, even when dead, ceases not to be under the jurisdiction\nof the Roman governor, who commits its custody to His chief enemies,\nthose whose instigation has brought about His death. Their seal is set\nupon His tomb, and their guards watch it. Taking these bare facts, as\nacknowledged by friend and foe, can any situation of more complete\nimpotence be conceived by human imagination than this? He has come, and\ntaught, and worked miracles, and been rejected by His own. He has been\nput to death in the name and by the power of the world's lord, who bears\nthe crown of majesty and wields the authority of worship. The guards of\nHis enemies sit beside His tomb.\n\nSuch was the fact on the great Sabbath, the high day of the Jewish Pasch.\n\nWhat can be conceived more improbable at that moment, and under these\ncircumstances, than the fact which we have now to record as following in\nits evolution during so many ages? The sovereign in whose name and by\nwhose power that Body had been put to death held undisputed in his hands\nthe supremacy of Spiritual as well as Civil Power through the great world\nof Gentilism, represented by the Roman empire. From that Body was to\nspring, beginning with the morrow, the distinction and independence of\nthe Spiritual over against the Civil Power, which was to dissolve this\ntwofold supremacy throughout the whole range of that empire. And this was\nto be accomplished by a series of actions arising out of the sole\nproclamation of envoys taken from the people which had rejected Him--a\nproclamation derived from the commission which He should give in the Body\nraised again to life. The distinction, indeed, of the two Powers, so far\nfrom being new, has been coeval with the human race itself, as we have\nseen; but it has been broken down by human sin in all nations but one,\nand that one, created for its maintenance, made, through all its history,\nprophetical for its fulfilment when the time of that fulfilment came, has\nrejected its Bearer; and yet out of its bosom, on the morrow, is to go\nforth that word of power which in the end shall change the condition of\nhuman society, and create it after another order.\n\nIt will be well thoroughly to grasp the truth that all which followed\ndepended upon a fact, the supernatural character of which cannot be\nexaggerated. We are considering the Spiritual Power which arose and\ndiffused itself in the world from the Person of Christ. It took its\norigin from the Body in which He appeared to His Apostles after His\nresurrection. Without their belief in that resurrection, as evidenced to\nall their senses, there was no ground for their conduct. Without the\nreality of that resurrection there was no source for the Power. It would\nseem that, whatever else the Christian order of things may be, it must be\nsupernatural and miraculous, since, to exist at all, it presupposes a\nfact which is a lordship over nature and a miracle in the highest degree.\nWithout this primary miracle all Christian faith is vain, and in the\npower which worked it all subsequent miracles are included. That the fact\ntook place, let the results which followed testify, at the beginning of\nwhich our exposition stands. The Jews expected a Messias, who, according\nto the prophecies long enshrined in their nation about Him, was to be\nPriest, Prophet, and King. They put to death one who claimed to come\nbefore them in this triple character. From one dead, so long as he\ncontinues dead, no life can spring. But life and multifold life sprung up\nhere; therefore He who was dead had arisen, and all of which we have to\nspeak is the result of His life. The fundamental truth on which we have\nto dwell is the going forth of a supernatural power from the Person of\nChrist.\n\nWe have seen Adam in Paradise created in the full maturity of intellect\nand will, and placed at the head of a double order of things, of civil\nand of spiritual authority. We have now to consider that greater One whom\nAdam prefigured, and who, coming forth from the tomb, assumed forthwith\nthat double headship. When the great act of His pontificate had been\naccomplished in giving up His Body to death for the sins of the world,\nand its efficacy acknowledged by His resurrection, He declared to His\nApostles \"that all power had been given to Him in heaven and upon earth.\"\nThis all-power in heaven and on earth, given to the God-man as the fruit\nof His incarnation and the reward of His sacrifice, divides itself into\ntwo--temporal and spiritual. The first is that by which He disposes of\nall persons and all events. This power He has not delegated to any one in\nchief, but keeps it in His own hands. Yet it is a part of this power of\nwhich it is said, \"By me kings reign, and princes decree justice.\" The\nwhole civil sovereignty is founded on an apportionment to it of the\ndivine sovereignty for the maintenance of human society. A part of the\nsecond or Spiritual Power He delegated to St. Peter in chief, and to the\nApostles, with St. Peter at their head. Out of this all-power He set up\nand sent forth in them a royal priesthood to proclaim and maintain the\ntruth which He had come to declare to the world; that is to say, He took\nHis own priesthood and put it upon them, investing it with a reproductive\nordering and maintaining power in His spiritual kingdom. To it He\nattached the gift of truth, that is, of communicating, unfolding,\nguarding, the whole body of doctrine which He came upon earth to declare;\nand in it He placed the jurisdiction which is necessary to the priesthood\nin order to exert itself in offering the sacrifice and in dispensing the\nsacraments which He instituted, and in guarding the truth with which\nthey are bound up.\n\nThat power, then, which He designated in the keys given to Peter, in the\nRock which He set in his person, in the pastoral charge which He laid\nupon him over His sheep, and in which He sent forth His Apostles to make\ndisciples all nations, to baptize them in the sacred Name, to teach them\nto observe all which He had commanded, and in the exercise of which He\npromised to remain with them to the end of the world, is one and\nindivisible in itself, and triple in its range and direction--a\npriesthood proclaiming the truth and ruling in the sphere which belongs\nto its priesthood and its teachings. As Adam is created one and complete,\nand his race springs from him, so this kingdom of Christ springs complete\nfrom Him in its regimen, which is not the result of history, but formed\nin His Person before its history begins, as He is at once Priest,\nTeacher, and King. Thus this Power comes from above, not from below;\nproceeds from emanation; is not gathered gradually by accretion; is an\neffect of positive institution, derived from the Head; not the effect of\na need or the working out of a natural capacity in the body.\n\nThe root of that Power is the act for the accomplishment of which our\nLord Himself took our flesh upon Him--the act of His high priesthood, by\nwhich, having taken our flesh, He took also the sins of the world upon\nHimself, and offered Himself for them on the cross. It is as Redeemer\nthat He is Priest, the sacrifice of His body being the offering which He\nmade. It is in the perpetual service and offering of that body that the\npriesthood which He created for others exists and provides the perpetual\nbread of life, which is the food of sanctification, for His people. In\nthe priesthood, therefore, we have to deal with the whole range of\nsubject which embraces grace on the part of God and worship on the part\nof man. It is most fitting that all spiritual power should grow upon this\nstock. All priesthoods in the world from the beginning had been\nconnected, as we have seen, with the sense and acknowledgment of guilt;\nand with the rite of sacrifice. In the Aaronic priesthood this has been\nspecially noted. Thus it bore a perpetual prophetical witness to the act\nwhich Christ accomplished. All future priesthood dated from the\naccomplishment of that act, and took its force from it. Thus it was truly\nthe central act of human history. Had not the Son of God assumed our\nnature, He could not have been a Priest. His priesthood, therefore,\ncarried in it the two great divine acts--His incarnation and His\nsatisfaction, which make up the economy of human salvation. The first\ndirection, then, of the power which He delegated is that of the Priest.\n\nThe second is that of the Teacher. A principal part of His ministry while\non earth certainly was to teach. He was the Prophet that was to come into\nthe world, and all that He taught bore reference to the two acts just\ndwelt upon, that He came forth from God and was going to God. Not a\nsentence of His teaching but presupposes His Incarnation and His Passion.\nThat whole body of truth, therefore, which He did not write down\nHimself, but committed to the living ministry of His Apostles, proceeds,\nas it were, out of His Pontificate, and rests upon it. It is the truth of\nthe Word made flesh, and of God sacrificed for His creatures. The gift of\nteaching, as the illuminating power in His Church, corresponds to the\nvirtue of faith in the taught, and implies the possession of truth in the\nteacher. As the priesthood has a perpetual sacrifice stored up within it,\nand a perpetual gift of grace accompanying it, so the teaching has a\nperpetual gift of truth. The fountain of truth, therefore, in this Power,\ncan be no more discoloured and polluted than the fountain of grace in the\npriesthood can be turned into sin. By virtue of it Christ remains for\never the one Teacher and Master whom all His people have to follow.\nTheology is an outcome of this Power. The issuing of doctrinal decrees is\ngrounded upon it, and the censure of writings and of all false opinions\non whatever subject which may impair Christian doctrine.\n\nThe third direction of the one Power is that of ruling and ordering, not\nto be separated from the former two, since it consists, in fact, in the\nfree, legitimate, and ordered use of them, and has, therefore, been\ntermed Jurisdiction, inasmuch as it is government in the whole domain of\ngrace and truth. In every government there is a power which administers,\na power which legislates, a power which judges, and all these in the\nsovereign degree; that is, in a degree not liable to revision and\nreversal in the respective subject-matter. If we apply these three acts\nto the full domain of grace and truth, which is the domain of the\nIncarnate Son (John i. 14), set up in the world, we express that royalty\nwhich is the third attribute of the priesthood. It comprehends supreme\npastorship in all its range; legislation in the kingdom of truth; and\njudgment, whether external or internal, in the spiritual tribunal.\n\nThis was the Power, one and indivisible in itself, triple in its\ndirection, which Christ took from His own Person as part of the all-power\ngiven to Him, and delegated to the Ruler of His Church, that in the\nexercise of it He might fulfil all prophecy concerning Himself, and be at\nonce Priest, Prophet, and King: and out of this He made and makes His\npeople.\n\nIn the transmission of that Power to the persons to whom He gave it He\nobserved two principles: that of unity, and that of hierarchical\nsubordination. To maintain the first, He made the Primacy; to maintain\nthe second, the College of Apostles. For the whole of this triple power,\nthe keys of the kingdom of heaven in the priesthood, the guardianship of\nfaith in the office of teacher, and the supreme pastorship of rule He\npromised to one and bestowed on one, Peter. Thus He made Peter the\nPrimate, and by the centering this triple authority in his sole person\nset him as the Rock on which the Church is built. At the same time He\nassociated with Peter the eleven, to exercise this same authority in\nconjunction with Him. Thus at the very founding of the Church we find the\ntwo forces which are to continue throughout, and from the union of which\nthe whole hierarchy with its graduated subordination springs. From the\nApostolic College descends the Episcopate, the everliving source of\nwhich is in Peter the head, by union with whom it is \"one Episcopate, of\nwhich a part is held by each without division of the whole.\" Only on this\ncondition is the Episcopate one, without which, in all places and in all\ntime, it would be a principle of rivalry and division, using the triple\npower of priesthood, teaching, and rule against itself. With this\ncondition we have exactly realised the image of the Rock on which the\nChurch is founded, and against which the gates of hell shall not prevail,\nin the establishment of the Episcopate, as one indivisible power, having\nits fountain and fulness in one person, a part of whose solicitude is\nshared by a body of bishops spread through the whole world, speaking with\none voice the faith of Peter, because they are united with the person of\nPeter.\n\nAll that we have hitherto said as to the emanation of power from the\nPerson of Christ is comprehended by St. Peter when he calls our Lord,\n\"the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls,\" and by St. Paul when he calls Him\n\"a High Priest over the house of God,\" \"the Apostle and High Priest of\nour confession,\" \"called of God High Priest after the order of\nMelchisedek.\" And by Himself when He bade His disciples to have no other\nMaster, that is, Teacher, \"for one is your Master, Christ;\" and when,\ntreating on the eve of His passion this very subject, He said to His\nApostles, \"I dispose to you, as my Father disposed to me, a kingdom;\" and\nafter His resurrection, saying to them collectively, \"As my Father sent\nme, even so send I you;\" and \"Behold I am with you all days, even to the\nconsummation of the world;\" and when He said to Peter on the shore of the\nLake of Galilee, after He had drawn in the unbroken net full of great\nfishes, \"Lovest thou me more than these? Feed my sheep.\"[21] For is He\nnot in priesthood, teaching, and government the prolific Father of the\nage to come? He remains not solitary in His triple dignity, but is the\nAdam of His race, and rules in it from His resurrection by those whom He\nappoints.\n\nIt may further be observed that in the supernatural regimen thus\nestablished by our Lord, viewed as the one indivisible power which\nconstitutes it, there is an image traced upon His spiritual kingdom of\nthe ever-blessed Trinity, its royalty representing God the Father as the\nsource: its priesthood, wherein lies the whole economy of human\nredemption, God the Son, who carries it out; its teaching, God the Holy\nGhost, the Spirit of Truth, whose ever-abiding presence guides its\nsubjects, as by the hand, into all truth. The regimen is the generative\npower in His kingdom; and this image, wrought indelibly upon its society\nin all lands and times, is as distinctly Christ's work upon the Christian\ncommonwealth as the image traced upon individual man in the soul's triple\nconstitution of memory, understanding, and will, when it has been\nsanctified by His grace, is His work upon the individual.\n\nThat in the Episcopate there should be a triple power: of priesthood,\ncomprehending the whole divine worship, and the imparting of grace\nthrough the sacraments; of teaching, which contains the communication of\nthe whole divine truth; and of ruling, that is, over the whole region of\naction comprised by the priesthood and the teaching, the prototype of\nwhich exists in the eternal relations of the Blessed Trinity, while\nitself is that one undivided power which represents the divine unity,\nseems to shadow out the very citadel in which the Divine Wisdom set up\nHis kingdom.\n\nWho could have imagined beforehand such a constitution of government?\nWho, placing himself at the time of Christ and contemplating as a fact\nthe actual relations of the Two Powers then in existence _before him_,\ncould ever have devised such a kingdom? Is not this in very deed the\nkingdom of grace and truth? Have we not here visible to the eye of faith\nthe Priest, the Prophet, and the King, who has set up Altar, Chair, and\nThrone together in the midst of the nations?\n\n\n2.--_The Spiritual Power a Complete Society._\n\nThat man, who was originally made after the image and likeness of God, is\nsent into this life in order that he may in a future life attain the end\nof his being, that is, the enjoyment of God, is the primary fundamental\ntruth which is presupposed in that whole work of Christ just described.\nThe supernatural society exists for a supernatural end. The total denial\nof this end would be the complete and perfect heathenism of which the\noriginal heathenism was but a shadow; for that state of man in which the\nwhole of his public and private life was encircled by the ties and\nconsecrated by the rites of religion, even though those rites were\nprostituted by being offered to false gods, was not a denial of this end.\nIn such a state man acknowledged a power beyond himself--beyond visible\nnature: his mind, his heart, his imagination were filled with the sense\nof that power. This is true of the great mass of the heathen before the\ncoming of Christ, and is true in a large degree of those nations\nremaining still outside the Christian faith in their traditional\nreligion, which descends in however fragmentary, however perverted a\nform, from the religion of Noah, and the primal and universal covenant\nfor all his family struck with him. It is only the apostasy of a few from\nthe Christian faith itself which has readied that final and absolute\nimpiety--the greatest which the human mind can reach--of entirely denying\nthis end of man.\n\nNow, in considering the relation between the Civil and the Spiritual\nPower in all its bearings, we assume as a postulate this supernatural end\nof man. As it is the kernel of our belief, so it is the absolute basis of\nour argument. It cannot be put in a terser form than that in which our\nLord stated it to those about Him when He asked the question, \"What shall\nit profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul?\" Those\nonly who have come to such a negation of reason as to suppose that they\nhave no souls can disregard it. And as it is of absolute necessity, so it\nis all that is required for a full consideration of the subject.\n\n\"There is then a certain good beyond the natural society of man in this\nhis condition of mortal life, which is that ultimate beatitude which is\nlooked for after death in the enjoyment of God. And so the Christian, who\nhas acquired a right to that beatitude by the blood of Christ, and has\nreceived the earnest of the Holy Spirit in order to attain it, requires,\nbeyond the aid which temporal government gives him for the concerns of\nthis life, a spiritual care which is given to the faithful by the\nministers of Christ's Church. Now, as to the ultimate end which they are\nto seek, the same must be said of the whole mass of men as of one man.\nIf, then, the one man's end lay in any good existing in himself, the\nultimate end of government for the mass of men would be similarly that it\nshould reach such good and secure its possession. But all the goods of\nthis present life offer no such end, whether it be health, or riches, or\nknowledge, or even virtue. For the virtuous life, whether of the\nindividual or the mass, is subordinate to a further end, which is the\nfuture enjoyment of God. If that end could be obtained by a power of\nhuman nature, it would belong to the office of temporal government to\ndirect men to it, since that is supreme in things purely human. But since\nman does not attain the end of enjoying God by any merely human power but\nby divine power, according to St. Paul's word, that 'the grace of God is\neternal life,' it requires not a human but a divine government to lead\nmen to that end. And so it is that such a government belongs to a King\nwho is not only man but also God, that is, to our Lord Jesus Christ, who\nhas introduced men to the glory of heaven by making them sons of God.\nThis, then, is the kingdom which has been delivered to Him, and which\nshall not be broken up, on account of which He is named in Scripture, not\nPriest only, but King. Hence a royal priesthood is derived from Him; and,\nwhat is more, all the faithful of Christ, so far forth as they are His\nmembers, are called kings and priests. Therefore the ministry of this\nkingdom, in order that spiritual things might be distinguished from\ntemporal, has been entrusted not to the kings of the earth but to\npriests, and in the highest degree to the priest who is over all, the\nsuccessor of St. Peter, the Vicar of Christ, the Roman Pontiff, to whom\nall kings of the Christian people are to be subject as to our Lord Jesus\nChrist himself; for this is in accordance with the principle that those\nto whom belongs the care of antecedent ends should be subject to him who\nhas the care of the final end, and be directed by his rule.\"[22]\n\nWhat we have just said amounts to this, that the whole life of man,\nwhether single or in society, while he lives upon earth, is subject to\nthe life which he hopes for in heaven as its supreme purpose and end; and\nthat being so subject, as there is a society to aid him in attaining the\ngoods of his natural life, so much more is there a society to aid him in\nattaining that supernatural good to which the natural goods are\nsubordinate. We have next to compare the regimens of these two societies\nwith each other in regard to their completeness.\n\nThe analogy between the Two Powers is full of instruction; but it is to\nbe remembered that as, since the coming of Christ, the Spiritual Power\nis one in all countries and in all times, whereas the Temporal Power is\none only in each country and at each time, the comparison of the two can\nonly take those points which belong to the Temporal Power alike in all\ncountries and times; and this will be found sufficient for our purpose.\nWe have just seen the conception of spiritual jurisdiction as wielding\nthe priesthood and the teaching: it corresponds in this respect to\nsecular sovereignty, under which is ranged on the one hand authority in\nevery degree, as held by all officials in administration, by all\ncouncillors in legislating, by all judges in their several tribunals, by\nall officers in the public force. Whoever in the public service holds a\nportion of the public authority may be ranged under the general head of\nmagistrate, and stands herein to the sovereign power in the same relation\nas the priest to the bearer of supreme spiritual jurisdiction. On the\nother hand, whoever is engaged in the whole circle of human arts and\nsciences, which comprehends the vast domain of human knowledge as\nacquired by learning, answers to the spiritual teacher. This triple\ndivision runs through every state, at every time, whatever may be its\nrelative advancement in the scale of government. And the comparison as to\nboth Powers is exhaustive with regard to their range, since in both, man,\nindividual or collective, is a being who acts because he first knows and\nthen wills. Sovereignty, presiding in the various kinds of magistracy\nover all who command, and over all in the various arts and sciences who\nteach, because they have first learned, covers that triple domain in the\none case, and in the other spiritual royalty, which acts through the\npriest and the teacher. But the society is knit together in a much\nstricter bond, by a far more perfect interaction of forces, in the\nspiritual than in the temporal order; and this arises from the fact that\nall spiritual power in its triple range actually descends from the\nspiritual head through every degree, which is far from being the fact in\ntemporal sovereignty. That is the pre-eminence of Christ in His spiritual\nkingdom; and it is the perfection of the Divine Legislator that He\nexercises His royalty by the indivisible action of His Jurisdiction,\nPriesthood, and Teaching, communicated to the whole structure at the head\nof which He stands.\n\nThe completeness of the spiritual society in its regimen is likewise\nshown by the philosophical basis on which it rests. Our knowledge of our\ndependence upon the Being, the Truth, and the Goodness of God is the\nfoundation of religion in us, and produces in us the idea of three chief\nduties binding us to God--Faith, Adoration, and Charity.[23] These answer\nto man's triple nature, which acts upon the basis of knowing and willing;\nand they correspond likewise to the office of the Teacher, the Priest,\nand the Spiritual Ruler. Faith is evidently the virtue in man elicited by\nthe Teacher, and its office is to accept the truth which he communicates.\nIt leads on to Adoration, which ensues when the mind and heart dwell upon\nthe divine attributes and their relation to man, and which includes Hope\nas a part of itself; and this answers to the special work of the Priest,\nwhich is to communicate the whole treasure of grace to the human redeemed\nfamily. And, lastly, Charity, which is the ruling principle of all action\nto the Christian, so far as he acts christianly, is the special virtue of\nthe Ruler, according to the condition imposed by our Lord when He\ninstituted the pastoral rule in its highest degree, saying to Peter,\n\"Lovest thou me more than these?\" that is, his brother Apostles and the\nApostle of Love himself, and then adding, \"Feed my sheep.\" And these\nvirtues, Faith, Adoration, and Charity, it may be added, have as intimate\na connection with each other as the several bearers of power in the\nregimen to which they belong are linked together. To exercise Faith,\nAdoration, and Charity make the Christian man, as the Teaching, the\nPriesthood, and the Rule make the Christian order.\n\nWorship, belief, and conduct embrace the whole man in his relations\ngodward; but much more than this is true in the order of the Christian\nkingdom, for there these three things are inseparably joined with the\nPerson of Christ. As we have said above, the whole power grows upon the\nroot of His Priesthood, the particular act of which is the offering of\nHis Body, the Body of the Incarnate Son, for the sin of the world. His\ncommunicated Priesthood consists in the perpetual presentation of that\nSacrifice to God by His ministers in the name and in the presence of the\nChristian people; and the Sacrifice thus offered becomes further to them\nthe food of eternal life. In this great sacrament, carrying with it the\nperpetual presence of Christ in and with His Church, all the other\nsacraments are potentially contained. It is the well-spring of the whole\nsacramental life, which He caused to open when His own Passion was\nbeginning. Of indescribable grandeur is that order, beginning with the\neve of His Passion, and stretching unbroken through all times and climes\nto the consummation of the world. In that great act, carried on by the\nHigh Priest through the voice and hands of countless successors, which\ndaily in every generation gathers into one the prayers of His people, the\nmanifold life is concentered which provides for every need.\n\nBut this Priesthood it is which carries on the Faith. That Faith is not a\nbelief in God \"as the Architect of the universe,\" but in the love of God\nthe Father, the Creator of man, who sends His Son to be their Redeemer,\nand in the love of God the Son, who is so sent; so that the Faith grows\non the root of the Priesthood. And out of this Faith is developed that\nvast fabric of doctrine which in the course of eighteen centuries and a\nhalf has made Christian theology, and reared for itself a harmonious\nsystem of Christian law. The Eternal Priest carries in His hands eternal\ntruth, which He alone can preserve amid the never-ending conflicts of\nhuman opinion, the surging strife of the bottomless sea of human\nimaginations. The gift of maintaining all the truth which concerns human\nredemption in every one of its remotest issues cannot be parted from the\nPriesthood by which that redemption was wrought. Thus it coheres with the\nsacramental life, and is not a fruit of man's intellect by itself, but\nis bestowed on that intellect in union with grace. It is as it were an\natmosphere of thought which the Christian people breathe.\n\nAnd, once more, Christian conduct is the action of those who have this\nworship and this faith. It springs from an intention united at least\nimplicitly to the Author and Finisher of the Faith. It is this intention\nwhich gives to the action the quality of merit. For an action done with\nit differs incalculably from an action done without it, though the\nexternal appearance and effect of the two actions may be the same. It is\nto Christ as King that we are answerable for our actions, and worship and\nbelief culminate in action. The inward life of His subjects therefore\nanswers to the triple outward order established by the Priest, the\nProphet, and the King. It is in virtue of this answering in His people\nthat He has fulfilled the prophecies concerning Him as to His triple\ncharacter. Had He left no government for His kingdom, how would He be a\nKing? Had He left no priesthood to be perpetuated in His Church, how\nwould He be Priest after the order of Melchisedek? Had He left no truth\ninaccessible to error, how would He be the Prophet that was to come into\nthe world?\n\nIt is then in their worship, their belief, and their conduct that the\nChristian people one and all are derived from Christ, as much as the\ntriple regimen of His kingdom. Every individual man, so far as he is a\nChristian, is a copy of Christ, while the whole people \"is Jesus Christ\ndiffused and communicated, Jesus Christ complete, Jesus Christ perfect\nman, Jesus Christ in His fulness.\"[24]\n\nNothing can show the universality of this Christian society more than\nthis derivation alike of the individual and of the mass from Christ. When\nthe children of Noah wore scattered abroad over the face of the whole\nearth at the dispersion, the great family was broken up and nations\narose; but in the baptism of Christ nations disappear and the great\nfamily is restored. There it is the member of the human race, the child\nof Adam alone, who is assumed to be the brother of Christ. All the\nconditions of human life which have arisen in the society of the nation,\nwhich St. Paul has summed up in the words Greek and Jew, barbarian,\nScythian, bond or free, disappear also; there arises from that fontal\nbirth only the man \"created anew to knowledge after the image of the\nCreator\" (Col. iii. 10, 11). Yet there is no interference with the\nnatural society, with its rights on the one side and its obligations on\nthe other. It is the human being, with body and soul, making one manhood,\nof which the soul is the form, which is thus taken; but he is taken in\nhis relations to that last end with the mention of which we begin. As to\nthe other relations of his natural stale, they continue as they were,\nsubject only to a superior end, which is superior because it is the last.\n\nOur Lord, when traduced before the Roman tribunal as infringing on the\nsovereignty of the emperor, was solemnly asked if He was the King of the\nJews. He replied with a threefold assertion: that He was a King; that\nHis kingdom was not of this world, and yet that it was in this world. How\nfar does the kingdom which we have so far attempted to delineate\ncorrespond to these three truths?\n\n1. It is a kingdom because, according to the delineation of it which we\nhave just made, it is a royal priesthood, ruling inasmuch as it deals\nwith the belief, the worship, and the conduct of its people--all the\nrelations of man with God. In all this it does for the divine life in man\neverything which the temporal kingdom does for his secular life. The\nanalogy between the two is precise and complete.\n\n2. It is not a kingdom of this world, inasmuch as it governs with a view\nto an end which is outside and beyond this life. This end determines\neverything within it, as also we have seen above.\n\n3. Again, it is not of this world because the source of its regimen lies\nin the Incarnation and Passion of the Son of God, acts the virtue of\nwhich consists in God's supreme government of the world, in His absolute\nlordship over it as Creator and Redeemer. All authority in it descends\nfrom Christ, \"as the Apostle and High Priest\" by this divine appointment,\nfrom whose Person the apostolate and priesthood are transmitted to those\nwhom He sends, in like manner as He Himself was sent by His Father.\n\n4. Again, it is not of this world because its subjects are produced as so\nmany copies of this divine original; it is the only kingdom in which the\npeople proceeds out of the King as much as the regimen by which it is\nruled. He is strictly the Father whom His children imitate so far as they\nare His children; in Him Fathership and Kingship are identical.\n\n5. Again, it is not of this world because its sacraments bestow grace, a\ngift of God coming down upon the world, in it, but not of it; the\nfountain-head of the gift being that God has taken the flesh of Adam and\nborne the sin of Adam, and therefore, through seven sacramental streams,\ndispenses the grace which heals the sin, as it affects the whole life of\nman as the offspring of Adam.\n\n6. Again, it is not of this world in the perpetual witness which it bears\nto the truth, in which witness specially our Lord declares that His\nsovereignty lies. If this witness had closed with His death, that would\nhave been the triumph of falsehood. And those who allege that truth has\nbeen corrupted in His kingdom do, in fact, declare with the same breath,\nthough they often do not perceive the consequence, that His witness has\nceased and failed. But truth, as the token and inheritance of His\nkingdom, depends, like grace, upon a divine gift attached to His Person,\nand transmitted through the order of His kingdom's regimen.[25]\n\n7. Furthermore, it is a kingdom because of the complete analogy with that\ncivil government which makes a temporal kingdom. It has jurisdiction for\njurisdiction, and a graduated hierarchy of officers descending more\ndirectly from the head than exists in any temporal monarchy. And what\nthe multifold arts and sciences which embellish natural life are to any\nof these kingdoms, that the divine inheritance of teaching Christian\ntruth, in its bearings upon the acts and thoughts and philosophy of\nmankind, is with a much higher degree of perfection in the Christian\nkingdom.\n\n8. And if man has naturally need to live in society, if to do so is a\nfulfilment of God's purpose in creating him a race, much more has he this\nneed of the supernatural society; and in so living he fulfils the purpose\nof God in so much higher a degree as Christ exceeds Adam. All the\nsacraments fulfil this purpose according to the needs of human life, by\nincorporating him with a divine order; most of all the divinest of them,\nin which the King appears for ever in the act of His Priesthood,\ndispensing bread to His people. And here again this spiritual\nnourishment, whereby His people live in society, testifies that the\nkingdom is not of this world.\n\n9. Nor is it to be forgotten that the kingdom thus far described\ngenerated for itself a law, not confined, like the law of any earthly\nkingdom, to a particular time or place, but universal as itself, defining\nand arranging the various relations by which it subsists, that is, the\nwhole order of the internal Christian life and the external Christian\nsociety. The power of the Legislator who is seated in this empire nowhere\nis shown more manifestly than in the great and uniform fabric of\nChristian law which He has caused to proceed out of it, and which, made\nfor the rule of a Christian people gathered out of all the tribes of the\nearth, contains in it, drawn out and applied, all the principles needed\nto provide a mirror of justice and equity for the nations of the earth in\ntheir intercourse with each other.\n\n10. Most striking is this witness to the truth that it is not of this\nworld in the essential and inherent independence of the civil government\nwhich the kingdom possesses as to its end, as to its regimen, as to the\nproduction of its people, as to its sacraments, as to its maintenance of\nthe truth committed to it, and as to its Canon Law. With regard to all\nthese it is in the midst of these governments, but it is not of them. No\none of these things can their mechanism produce, while the divine kingdom\nconsists in the exercise of them all within the limits of these various\nkingdoms, with or without their concurrence, but never with any\noriginating power in temporal rule as to any of them.\n\n11. And this leads to two of the most striking differences between the\nTemporal and the Spiritual Power. Every temporal kingdom is limited in\nspace. The proudest and most imperial which has yet existed, that great\nRoman empire of which Christ was a subject, and in the bosom of which His\ngreater kingdom arose, how small a portion of the earth's surface did it\ncover! Not so the Kingdom of Truth. It is in place, but not local; it\nruns through all the kingdoms of the world, grasping them, not grasped by\nthem. By the token of ubiquity it is in them, but not of them; and if it\nbe retorted that this attribute has but imperfectly been fulfilled in\nfact, I reply that it has been sufficiently fulfilled to mark to all eyes\nthat it is a token of the one kingdom, fulfilled more and more, and\nadvancing to greater fulfilment; besides that I am here considering the\ndivine kingdom in its conception, in its idea.\n\n12. And still more than in place is the Temporal Power limited in time.\nImmortal in the institution itself, so far as the human race is immortal,\nit is subject to decline and death in numberless individual applications.\nIf man is likened to a flower in duration, many a kingdom lasts not so\nlong as a tree. All change in the character of their government, passing\nfrom the one to the few, from the few to the many, or again reabsorbed\nfrom the many to one. The succession of human governments is likened to\nthe sea in its changes, whose turbulent waves image forth the\nfluctuations of empires. Where is the government that has remained one\nand the same but that concerning which Christ said, \"Feed my sheep;\" \"I\nwill give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven;\" \"Confirm thy\nbrethren;\" \"Thou art the Rock on which I will build my Church\"? By its\ndomination over time and space the kingdom of the truth shows that it is\nin but not of the world.\n\n13. There is yet one more quality, as distinctive and as peculiar as any\nwhich we have yet passed in review. It is the kingdom not only of the\ntruth, but of Charity. Not that within it there have not been innumerable\nscandals; not that within it sin has not ever been fighting with grace;\nbut that the whole kingdom is compacted and held together by a divine\ncharity, and has in it as a common possession the treasure of the merits\nof Jesus Christ. \"The king is one with the kingdom, because He bears its\nsins; the kingdom is one with the King, because it bears His cross.\"[26]\nThis is an interchange of charity which goes on for ever. It is an effect\nof this bond that no virtue and no suffering in it is lost. The whole\nkingdom, from the beginning to the end, makes up \"that which is wanting\nof the sufferings of Christ.\" There is no such bond of unity, no such\nfruit of communion, in any temporal kingdom comparable to this. I suppose\nthat patriotism in the natural society corresponds to the charity\nengendered in the supernatural kingdom; and patriotism is limited to the\ntemporal objects of the particular society; charity extends to the\neternal interests of the kingdom without end.\n\n\n3.--_Relation of the Two Powers to each other._\n\nIn the treatment hitherto pursued we have divided the consideration of\nthe two Powers into the period before Christ and the period which ensues\nupon His coming.\n\nIn the period before Christ we have found that both Powers were\noriginally of divine institution in the beginning of man, and that both\nbelonged to him as a race. Civil government began with the family;\nworship, and with it priesthood, began also with the family; both were\nunited in the head of the race; both were instituted for the good of man\nas he lived in society. Their subject was the same--man--the secular\nPower treating him in his relation to his natural end, its object being\nto provide all things which concerned the temporal prosperity of his\nlife; the Spiritual Power treating him in relation to his supernatural or\nlast end, its object being to provide whatever concerned his eternal\nstate after this life. And their relative importance was determined by\ntheir end, with regard to which the temporal life was subject to the\nfuture life. No fact was more strikingly illustrated by the whole history\nthan this; for three times the condition of the whole race upon the earth\nwas affected by its conduct in regard to the last end, which belongs to\nthe Spiritual Power. Once, and at a stroke, the whole race fell in its\nfirst sire from its state of original justice, and from the happiness\nwhich depended on the preservation of that state, by disregard of the end\nfor which it was created. A second time the whole race, with the\nexception of one family, because disobedience to God became universal,\nfell in like manner, and was destroyed. A third time the lapse proceeded\nto the corruption of the idea of God Himself; the unity and brotherhood\nof the race was broken up in consequence; it divided into nations at\nenmity with each other, and man, from being a family of brethren, became\nthe bitterest foe of his fellow-man, inventing war, and slavery as its\nresult, and inflicting on himself worse evils than those which came to\nhim from any external cause. By the same lapse the Spiritual Power was\nspecially affected. The unity of the priesthood was destroyed with belief\nin the unity of the Godhead; the truth which it was intended to attest\nand carry on, that is, the sense of man's guilt and the promise of his\nrestoration, was overclouded; the sacrifice which it was intended to\noffer to the one God was offered to a multitude of false gods; the rites\nwhich accompanied the sacrifice and the prayers which explained its\nmeaning lost their force. The corruption of religion entailed with it a\nterrible descent in the moral character of its ministers. In this state\nit may be said that the Spiritual Power was so far fallen from its\noriginal purpose, that it had almost ceased to have relation to the\nsupernatural end of man. In every country it continued to be, it is true,\nin amity with the civil government, but at the price of absolute\nsubjection at last. The truth which should have guarded it was all but\nlost, and the honour which belonged to it was seized by the civil ruler\nas a decoration of his crown.\n\nIn the period which ensued upon the coming of Christ we have found a new\nbasis given to the Spiritual Power. As it lay through all Gentilism with\nits truth corrupted, its power appended to the State, its offices\nstripped of all moral meaning, it needed to be renewed from its very\nsource. A foul pantheon of male and female deities, differing as to names\nand functions with every country, could generate no priesthood. Such\ngeneration was the work of the Most High God, and for it He sent His Son.\nThe nation which He had built up to form the Altar, the Chair, the Throne\nof His Son refused, through the worldliness of its rulers, to discharge\nits office. Yet in its despite He sent forth the law from Sion, where the\nact of His Son's high priesthood was effected by the very sin of His\npeople; and henceforth we find the Spiritual Power a derivation from the\nPerson of Christ as the Incarnate God in His work of redemption. We have\nseen it one and indivisible in its essence, triple in its direction or\nmodality; in its Priesthood representing the Son; in its Teaching of the\ntruth, the Holy Spirit; in the Spiritual Royalty, from which Priesthood\nand Teaching both proceed, and which both exercise, the Father, the\nsource of the Godhead; thus rendering an image, perfect so far as the\nweakness of created things allows, of the Divine Trinity in Unity,\naccording to the prayer offered for it by our Lord in His Passion: \"They\nare not of the world, as I am not of the world: as Thou hast sent me into\nthe world, I also have sent them into the world; that they all may be\none, as Thou, Father, art in me, and I in them, that they also may be one\nin us.\"\n\nIt is, then, out of the union of the divine and human natures in Christ,\nin virtue of His Passion, and from His Person when He rose from the dead,\nthat the Spiritual Power is drawn. The Spiritual Power itself makes its\nsubjects; and thus the Father of the future age creates His people from\nHimself, as of old time and in figure of Himself He made the race out of\nAdam. Thus, as regards Gentilism, He formed anew the priesthood to\nreplace that original priesthood which had so fallen from its duties, so\ncorrupted its witness, so lost its honour. The act in view to which that\noriginal priesthood was set up being accomplished, He resumed its power,\nfor the symbolical sacrifice became useless so soon as the real sacrifice\nwas offered. As regards Judaism, he fulfilled the purpose for which it\nhad been created, offering Himself as the Paschal Lamb in the midst of\nit; and by His resurrection He caused the prophet-nation to subserve for\nthe generation of an universal kingdom of truth, whose power lay\nhenceforth in Himself.\n\nThis is the condition of things established by Christ, and all that we\nhave further to say as to the relation between the Two Powers is a\ndeduction from it.\n\n1. And, first, it is clear that all Christians are subject to the\nSpiritual Power. This subjection rests upon the same ground as subjection\nto Christ Himself, for the power represents Him. As regards any\nindividual Christian this will hardly be contested. But it is equally\ntrue of all corporate bodies, whether small or great. This obligation\ntouches us strictly the mightiest kingdom, if it be Christian, as the\nhumblest private person. There is nothing in the quality of numbers or of\ntemporal sovereignty which exempts from obedience to the law of Christ\nthose who acknowledge Him for their King; and the King's government is as\nthe King Himself. Of course it is only so far as the spiritual domain\nextends--that is, over the things which belong to the Priesthood, the\nTeaching, and that Spiritual Jurisdiction which makes their Royalty--that\nthe obligation of obedience extends.\n\n2. Secondly, all Christians are subject likewise, as all men in general,\nto the Temporal Power, in the respective country in which they live, so\nfar as the domain of that Temporal Power extends, which even more than\nthe Spiritual has its limits. The Spiritual Power has itself laid down\nin absolute terms the obligation of this obedience and the ground on\nwhich it rests. \"Let every soul be subject to higher powers, for there is\nno power but from God, and the powers which are have been ordained by\nGod. So that he who resists the power, resists the ordinance of God, and\nthey that resist purchase to themselves condemnation, for the power is\nGod's minister to thee for good.\" And again, \"Be subject to every human\ncreature for God's sake, whether it be to the king as excelling, or to\ngovernors as sent by him for the punishment of evil-doers, and for the\npraise of the good; for so is the will of God.\" This may be termed the\ncomment of the two chief apostles, Peter and Paul, upon the words of\ntheir Lord, \"Render to C\u00e6sar the things which are C\u00e6sar's,\" which is\nfollowed by the limitation, \"and to God the things which are God's.\"\nTemporal government is herein declared to be the vicegerent of God; to\nhave been such from the beginning of the world; to continue to be such to\nthe end of it. The statement that authority, as such, is the minister of\nGod to man for good applies, of course, not to any particular form of\ntemporal government, as emperor, king, or republic, in which the\ngovernment is administered in the persons of many or few, and in various\ndegrees of delegation, but to temporal government in itself, in the\nprinciple of its authority. And being spoken by the highest Christian\nauthority in regard of what was actually a heathen government, it\nmanifestly belongs not only to Christians under Christian governments but\nto the subjects of civil power in all times and conditions of things.\nAnd, further, it is remarkable that our Lord and His apostles, who so\nstrongly recognise civil government as the ordinance of God, \"as the\nminister of God for good,\" themselves suffered the loss of their lives in\nobedience to it, by an unrighteous judgment.\n\nWe have, then, the two Powers set forth as two Vicegerences of God, in\nthe government of His human world: the temporal Vicegerency belonging to\neach sovereignty for the country which it rules, so far as the sphere of\nthat sovereignty extends; the Spiritual Vicegerency belonging to His one\nspiritual kingdom in all times and places in the sphere of its\nsovereignty.\n\n3. Here we are in presence of two societies, the authority in each of\nwhich is a divine Vicegerency, whose subject is the same man, whether\nindividual or collective. The one is the minister of God for good to man\nin all his natural relations in every country; the other is the very\nauthority of the Incarnate God Himself, unlimited as to time and place,\nover the same man in all his supernatural relations. Not only do both\nrepresent God, but both govern the same man. These two conditions fix\nwhat is the divinely intended relation between them. It cannot but be one\nof amity. As these powers existed in the beginning they were united even\nas to the person bearing them. The great sin of unfaithfulness to God in\nthe race caused them to be placed in different bearers. Amid all the\ncorruption which ensued, as to worship on the one hand, as to civil\ngovernment on the other, the two Powers never ceased to be in amity with\neach other. For the basis of this amity is, in truth, a condition of\nhuman nature which never varies, being, in fact, the subjection of man's\nnatural life to his supernatural end. As long as man is sent into this\nworld for the purpose of trial, to live in another world an endless life,\nthe quality of which shall be determined by his conduct as a free moral\nagent in this life, so long the power which rules him in reference to the\nconcerns of this life is bound to live in amity with the power which\nrules him as to the concerns of that future life. This, on the one hand,\nbeing the reason for amity in man himself; on the other hand, both Powers\nproceeding from the same God. must be intended by Him to work in harmony.\nHe has no more made them rivals in the government of His moral world,\nthan He has made the sun and moon rivals in the physical enlightenment of\nthe earth, and the government of its motions.\n\nTo illustrate further the necessity of amity between the two Powers for\nthe good of man's life, let us consider three other relations which have\nbeen conceived as possible to exist.\n\n4. A separate action of the two Powers in their respective spheres, that\nis, a complete division between Church and State, has been imagined by\nsome as feasible and desirable. But with regard to this it must be\nobserved that the two Powers rule over one human commonwealth, whether\nthat be viewed as existing within the limit of any particular state, or\nas spread over the whole world. Again, that they rule conjointly over\nboth soul and body. For, if we use accurate language, it is not as if the\nChurch ruled over the soul, and the State over the body. It is, indeed,\ntrue that, in order to bring home the relative importance of the two ends\npursued by the two Powers, this illustration has been constantly used, by\nthe Fathers first, and by other writers afterwards; but it is only an\nillustration, not an accurate statement of a real relation. They rule, in\nfact, over both soul and body, but in different relations; the State over\nsoul and body as to their natural end, the Church over soul and body as\nto their supernatural end. The State's rule is over all those things\nwhich are ordered for the tranquillity and stability of human society;\nthe Church's rule is over all those things which concern the salvation of\nsouls, all those things which fall under the domain of her priesthood,\nher teaching, and her jurisdiction. It is obvious that both these classes\nof things belong both to soul and body. How, for instance, can rule over\nthe soul be denied to the State if it can demand of its subjects, for the\ndefence of country, the sacrifice of life, in which the condition of the\nsoul as well as that of the body is involved? How can rule over the body\nbe denied to the Church, when the body enters into every act of worship\nand receives the sacraments?--when the inward belief requires to be\ntestified by word and deed, in order to confess Christ before men?\n\nThe Temporal Power, therefore, rules over all temporal matters, that is,\nthose which concern natural right and man's natural end; the Spiritual\nPower rules over spiritual things, those which concern man's\nsupernatural end. Can the former perform rightly the duties which belong\nto it without considering the rights appertaining to the latter?\n\nTo answer this question, let us take the case of the individual man. Is\nit possible for a man rightly to perform his duties to the State without\nconsideration of his duties to God? As we have before seen, all the\nduties of man in life are subject to his supernatural end. Every particle\nof natural right rests upon the authority of God the Creator; and if God\nhas created man for a supernatural end, to discharge the civil duties of\nlife without regard to that end is simple impiety. It is plain that,\naccording to the intention of God, every part of man's natural life has\nbeen ordered with a view to the end of his supernatural life.\n\nBut in this the case of the individual in no respect differs from the\ncase of the collective mass. The State has been created with a view to\nthe ultimate end of man as much as the individual. In fact, the cause of\nits creation was to establish an order in human things which should help\nman continually to attain that end. It was not created for itself. The\nsociety of man in this life is not the ultimate fact. Once more; the\nFall, the Deluge, and the Dispersion have uttered three voices upon that\ntruth which can never be silenced, which have echoed through the whole\nworld and touch all human nature. The State, then, as much as the\nindividual, must perform all which it is intended to perform in the\ngovernment of man, in obedience to the principle that man's present life\nis ordered with a view to his future life.\n\nTo apply this more particularly, it means that the State, in its\nadministration of all temporal things, is bound incessantly to have\nregard to the free exercise by the Spiritual Power of its authority over\nspiritual things. It must allow that power to administer the whole work\nof the priesthood, and the whole work of the teaching, with that liberty\nof internal government which constitutes its jurisdiction, the seat of\nits royalty. It is not the place here to enumerate in detail how much\nthat involves. It is enough to say that the ordinary action of the State\nand the ordinary action of the Church run daily into each other, as being\nconcerned with the same man and the same society of men; and accordingly,\nthat the allowing such a liberty to the Church by the State carries with\nit great consideration and regard for the Church by the State. But such a\nconsideration and regard are quite incompatible with separate action of\nthe two Powers in their respective spheres. An instance in point would be\nthe State compelling a subject, who is a minister of the Church, to\nbecome a soldier. It is a purely natural right of the State to require\nthe service of the subject for such a purpose. It is a purely spiritual\nright of the Church to have the use of her ministers for her own work.\nThe use of the former right without consideration of the latter would\nconstitute a separate action of the State in its sphere. But it would be\nat the same time an act of the utmost hostility on the part of the State\nto the Church. And other instances of the same kind present themselves\nthrough the whole domain of things which, in themselves, are purely\ntemporal or purely spiritual. Besides these there is the class of mixed\nthings, and, as one of them, let us take education.\n\nEducation, so far as it embraces instruction in the several arts and\nsciences which subserve man's natural life, belongs to the domain of the\nState; so far as it embraces the formation of the spiritual character in\nman, which includes instruction in religion, and that not only as it\nconcerns dogma, but also philosophy and science, belongs to the domain of\nthe Church. If the State exercises its natural right over education with\nregard to the former, without allowing the supernatural right of the\nChurch over the latter, which in itself would be no more than a separate\naction in its own sphere, it would constitute, at the same time, a\ncomplete infringement of the Church's rights in her spiritual power of\nteaching and jurisdiction.\n\nThis is enough to show that the separate action of the two Powers in\ntheir respective spheres leads to the disjunction of man's natural life\nfrom his supernatural end. This was not the intention of God in creating\nthe two Powers, and placing man's life under their joint government.\n\n5. Another relation between the two Powers which may be conceived, is\nthat of hostility upon the part of the State to the Church. This cannot\nbe reciprocal. The Church can indeed and must resist, with her own\nweapons, unlawful aggression against the exercise of her rights in\nadministering the \"things of God,\" but she cannot war against the State\nas such, because it is in her sight \"the minister of God.\" The hostility\nof the State which invades the Church's exercise of her Priesthood,\nTeaching, and Jurisdiction constitutes persecution. There are many\ndegrees of this. A heathen State may aim at the complete destruction of\nthe Christian Church within its borders, as at times the Roman emperors\ndid. A Christian State may also vex and hamper with every form of\nimpediment the exercise of the Church's powers. A State which has been\nChristian, becoming heretical or apostate, may assault the Church with a\nhatred, combined with deceit, which shall surpass the malignity of the\nRoman State of old or the heathen State at any time. In the course of\ncenturies every degree of persecution has been exercised by the State,\nheathen, Christian, heretical, or apostate, against the Church, by the\npermission of the divine Providence; but no one will pretend to say that\nsuch a relation as hostility on the part of the State, and of suffering\non the part of the Church, is the normal relation intended by God in the\nestablishment of the two Powers. On the contrary, the States which\npersecute the Church, while they fulfil the divine purpose for its trial\nand purification, incur punishment in many ways for their crime against\nGod in assaulting His kingdom, and, if they persevere, have been and are\nto be rooted up and destroyed.\n\n6. In contrast to such relation between the two Powers, let us look for a\nmoment at the divine Idea as it is thrown out in strong projection upon\nthe background of ages. We have human government founded indeed by God\nat and with the commencement of the race, and continued by the strong\nsanction of His power ever since, through the dispersion, through the\nvarious races of men, one rising and another falling; human government\npossessed in common by a vast number of sovereignties, great and small,\nparticular in place, with changing constitutions, everything about them,\nthe people who bear them, the boundaries within which they flourish, the\nlaws by which they are administered, shifting and transitory: no one of\nthese sovereignties having a claim to say that it was founded by God,\ninasmuch as they all spring out of a long series of conquests and changes\nwhich succeed after the original patriarchal rule. These are\ndistinctively the kingdoms of men, and in them is fulfilled, with a\nlittle longer range, what the poet says of each human generation--\n\n \"Like leaves on trees the race of man is found;\"\n\nthe only thing about them which is not shifting and not transitory is the\none thing which is of divine appointment, government itself. And in the\nmidst of these nations, borne upon them, and shaken indeed, but\nimperturbable amid their fluctuations, behold the one government founded\nimmediately by Christ in St. Peter, as no other sovereignty has been\nfounded; in St. Peter, made by express language His Viceregent. Here is\none sovereignty, universal in time and place, with no changing\nconstitution, after the fashion of its human shadows, which are a royalty\none day, a democracy another day, an empire a third, but one and the\nsame for ever. Here is the kingdom of Christ.\n\nBut that which rules the relation of the one kingdom and the many\nkingdoms to each other, is the _end_ for which they are constructed:\nhuman government, the one abiding because divine element in the many\nkingdoms, exists for the peace, the order, and the prosperity of man's\nlife on earth. But this, its highest end, is subject, like all the\nnatural goods of man, to a higher end, the eternal beatitude of man. In\nthe last resort temporal government itself was originally founded and\nactually exists only for this purpose. But the one kingdom of Christ is\ndirected immediately to this very purpose. Because there is an\ninseparable relation of all earthly things to that highest end, therefore\neach of these temporal kingdoms and the one spiritual kingdom have a bond\nbetween them which cannot be broken. If it were not for this, their range\nis so apart from each other, their powers so independent of each other,\nthat they would speedily part company. The strong hand of God has joined\nthem to draw together the chariot of human government by the yoke of the\nlast end.\n\nHow entirely independent in themselves are their constituent parts! On\nthe one hand, earthly might, grounded indeed in right but ruling by\nforce, cemented by riches, carrying the sword of life and death in its\nhands, exulting in all the vast accumulation of human arts and sciences,\nthe work of civilised man through long ages; on the other hand, a royal\npriesthood, with a divine truth, carried through the ages by an order of\nmen generated spiritually in virtue of the consecration once given by the\nhands of Christ to Peter and his brethren. The temporal government marked\nby wealth and force; the spiritual by poverty and weakness. Yet both\nreign over the soul and body of man individual and collective. These\npowers are both ordained by God; can they be also ordained with\nco-ordination?\n\nThe following passage of St. Thomas[27] leads, I think, to a full answer\nto this question:--\n\n\"As the life by which men live well here on earth is as means to the end\nof that blessed life which we hope for in heaven, so whatever particular\ngoods are obtained by man's agency, as, for instance, riches, profits of\ntrade, health, eloquence, or learning, have for their end the good of the\nmass. If then, as we have before shown, the person charged with the care\nof the last end ought to be the superior of those who are charged with\nmeans to an end, and to direct them by his authority, it is evident from\nwhat we have said that, just as the king ought to be subject to that\ndomain and regimen which is administered by the office of the priesthood,\nso he ought to preside over all human offices and regulate them by his\nsupreme authority. Now whoever has the duty of doing anything which\nstands to another thing as means to an end, is bound to see that his work\nis suitable to that end; so the armourer furbishes his sword for\nfighting, and the builder arranges his house to be lived in. Since, then,\nthe beatitude of heaven is the end of that life by which we live at\npresent virtuously, the king's office requires him to promote such a life\nin his people as is suitable for the attainment of blessedness in heaven,\nby ordaining what tends thither, and by forbidding, so far as is\npossible, the contrary.\"\n\nThe king will here stand for whoever has sovereign authority. That\nsovereign authority therefore is itself subject to the law of God through\nall its exercise. The bearer of that law of God is the Spiritual Power\nwhich stands over against all sovereigns, in all countries, with the\ncommission placed expressly in its hands by Christ. So far, therefore, as\nthe law of God is concerned, which is precisely the same for the\nindividual and the multitude, the sovereign is in every country subject\nto it, and the more stringently because, in the words of St. Thomas, he\npresides over all _human_ offices. These by their nature are subject to\nthe _superhuman_ office.\n\nThis is the indirect Power over temporal things possessed by the Royal\nPriesthood which has been instituted by Christ. The indirect Power rests\nsimply on the supernatural end of man, and cannot be denied without the\ndenial of that supernatural end. And on account of this end the relation\nbetween the two Powers cannot be one of co-ordination, and must be one of\nsubordination.\n\nNothing can be further removed from the confusion of the two Powers, or\nfrom the absorption of the one by the other, than this Idea of their\nrelation. For it is a purely spiritual power which belongs to the\npriesthood: any power which it exerts over temporal things is indirect,\nbased simply upon the subjection of those temporal things to the bearer\nof the divine law; and therefore this indirect Power extends over _all_\ntemporal things without exception, but over all only so far as they\nconcern the last end of human life.\n\nThe sum is this. God is the one Creator, Designer, and Ruler of the order\nof Nature and the order of Grace, and in both has one end in view, the\nglorification of Himself by His creatures; which glorification in beings\npossessed of reason can only consist in the knowledge and love of His\ninfinite perfections.\n\nThere is no power on earth of man over man but that which is derived from\nGod, either mediately or immediately; and therefore every power is,\nstrictly speaking, vicarious, a portion of His lordship over the human\nrace, committed to man, and subject to the end of His glorification by\nHis creature: in which is comprehended the ultimate happiness of that\ncreature; since that happiness is itself the exercise of his mind and his\nwill in knowing and loving his Creator, so that God's honour is the\ncreature's bliss.\n\nBut, further, the order of nature was in its origin united with the order\nof grace, and subordinated to it. The intervention of the Fall did not\ndissolve this subordination. The long ages of the Revolt only led up to\nthe Restoration, which was prophesied at the moment of the Revolt, and\nintended even before it. Thus the Power divinely instituted to carry on\nthe human race--the Power of civil government--the power which represents\nGod in the order of nature, is yet subordinated by Him to the power\nwhich He Himself has instituted in the order of Grace.\n\nThis second Power at the time of the Restoration springs directly from\nthe Person of the Son; who as He was sent by the Father, so sent His\napostles; but He conveyed that power especially to Peter and his heirs in\nthe fulness of a royal priesthood which teaches His faith for ever; so\nthat no power on earth exists so directly instituted by God, and so\nmanifestly vicarious of God's own power, as that of Peter, viewed in\nhimself and in his heirs; and given with the express promise that all the\npower of the enemy shall not prevail against it.\n\nIn all this God, who cannot be at variance with Himself, made the two\nPowers to help each other, conferring upon each distinct offices, which\nconcern respectively the natural and the supernatural life of man, but\nlikewise subordinating the natural to the supernatural end in the person\nand race of the Second Adam, as He had subordinated it in the person of\nthe First Adam.\n\nOne of the greatest saints and rulers, who shines in the firmament of the\nChurch with almost unparalleled lustre, has expressed this union under\nthe image of a human body, seeing the natural light by two eyes, but\ndirected by one mind, the mind of Christ. He is the one Head of the two\nPowers, ruling in temporal sovereignty by the hand of kings, in spiritual\nby the Priesthood which He has inaugurated. If we imagine the one mind of\nthe God-man thus ruling the Christendom which He has made out of Himself\nby the two eyes of the kingdom and the priesthood, we reach the divine\nideal of the relation between the two Powers. Thus St. Gregory VII.\nobserves in his letter to Rodolph, Duke of Suabia, A.D. 1073:[28] \"The\nsovereign reigns most gloriously, and the Church's vigour is\nstrengthened, when priesthood and empire are joined in the unity of\nconcord. There should be no fiction, no dross, in that concord. Let us\nthen confer together, for as the human body is directed in the natural\nlight by two eyes, so when these two dignities are united in the harmony\nof pure religion, the body of the Church is shown to be ruled and\nenlightened with spiritual light. Let us give our best attention to these\nmatters, so that when you have well entered into what is our wish, if you\napprove of our reasons as just, you may agree with us. But if you would\nadd or subtract anything from the line of conduct which we have marked\nout, we shall be ready, if God permit, to consent to your counsels.\" The\nwords \"if God permit\" indicate very gently that subordination, grounded\nupon the pre-eminence of the divine law, and the divine Ruler who upbears\nit, which, in case of difference, the natural must yield to the\nsupernatural authority. There is the fullest recognition that to temporal\nsovereignty all things belong which concern natural right. In these few\nwords I think that St. Gregory VII. has summed up the settled view,\npolicy, and practice of all his predecessors and of all his successors\nupon the relation between the two Powers, and the importance of their\nagreement for the good of human society. Never has any one of them\ndenied to human sovereignty the exercise of all those rights which belong\nto natural law. Never has any one of them failed to maintain that all\nthings which belong to natural law are subordinate to those things which\ntouch the salvation of man, and accordingly that when the two orders of\nthings come into conflict, the natural must yield to the supernatural. It\nis obvious to add how many mixed things there must be, which enter into\nboth domains, and the treatment of which will affect the harmony between\nthe two Powers.\n\nFrom all the above it results that the denial of the supernatural end in\nman, individual or collective, constitutes that which is the complete\nheathenism. In proportion as the bearers of the Temporal Power have more\nor less approached this heathenism has their opposition to the Spiritual\nPower been more or less intense; in proportion as they have acknowledged\nand acted with a due regard to the supernatural end, they have also\nacknowledged the Spiritual Power and acted in harmony with it.\n\nThe perfect ideal relation between the two Powers has been expressed by\nthe term of marriage, in which Christ, the celestial Bridegroom in the\nSpiritual Power, espouses the temporal order. This image is in remarkable\naccordance with the origin of the race, and with the prefiguration of\nChrist in Adam. It is as if the divine order at the Fall fell into the\nbackground, and in its slumber the human was taken out of it. But when\nthe human race awoke in the new Adam, the divine order greeted the human\nas bone of its bone and flesh of its flesh, and wooed it to rule the\nworld with it in the stable union of wedlock. This image at least may\nserve to indicate the various relations which have hitherto existed\nbetween the two Powers. It is itself the ideal relation intended by God.\nThen, as a matter of fact, during the first three centuries the Church,\nwith her divine claims, turns to the Temporal Power inviting it to an\nalliance. This is the Church's relation to the heathen State, as it were\nthe time of wooing. Next the Temporal Power accepted this invitation and\nunited itself with the Church, so that each preserving its own domain,\nthey ruled the world together. That was the relation of the Church to the\ntruly Catholic State, a marriage disturbed by no division and separation,\nwhen unity of faith preserved the marriage vow unbroken. Each then,\nindeed, might have misunderstandings, because the bearers of the two\nPowers, like husband and wife, are human beings; but since there was the\nstable will in both to preserve the marriage vow undefiled in Christ,\nsuch misunderstandings were easily overcome. Perhaps this expresses the\nwhole medieval condition of things in this respect as accurately as can\nbe done. Thirdly, the Temporal Power divorced itself from the Church's\nfaith, and from obedience to her in divine things; that is the state of\nbroken wedlock. It has various decrees. First, the housewife divorces her\nhusband and breaks the marital band: that in itself constitutes the\napostate State. Secondly, she dissolves the marriage by entering into\nconnection with another, to whom she gives power over the household, and\nwith his aid oppresses the lawful husband: that is the position of the\nheretical State. Thirdly, the housewife will no longer tolerate the\nsingle rule of him who has alienated her from her husband; she is willing\nto have more than one temporary connection, and amongst the many perhaps\nthe husband, if he will accept such terms: that is the position of the\nindifferent State. Thus we get from this image of marriage[29] an\nadequate measure of all the relations which have hitherto subsisted\nbetween Church and State.\n\nBut the purpose of the foregoing chapter has been to set forth the ideal\nrelation between the two Powers intended by God in the Incarnation and\nthe Passion of His Son, and springing out of the junction of these two\nmysteries of His love.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[18] See Die Harmonie des alten und des neuen Testamentes, von Dr. Konrad\nMartin, p. 190.\n\n[19] Philo de Monarchia, lib. 2. Legation to Caius, quoted by Vincenzi, p.\n21.\n\n[20] Observe in St. Clement's Epistle how it is assumed as undoubted that\nbishop, priest, and deacon had succeeded to the three orders of the\nlevitical worship.\n\n[21] 1 Peter ii. 25; Heb. x. 21, iii. 1, v. 10; Matt. xxiii. 8; Luke xxii.\n29; John xx. 21; Matt. xxviii. 20; John xxi. 15.\n\n[22] S. Thos. de Reg. Prin., lib. I. c. 14, translated.\n\n[23] Taparelli, Saggio teoretico di dritto naturale.\n\n[24] Bossuet.\n\n[25] See Ephes. iv. 11-16.\n\n[26] Bossuet.\n\n[27] De Regimine Principis, lib. I. c. xv.\n\n[28] Mansi, Collectio Conciliorum, xx. p. 75.\n\n[29] I am indebted to Phillipps' \"Kirchenrecht\" for this illustration of\nmarriage. It is a work to which I am under many obligations.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nTHE ACTUAL RELATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE FROM THE DAY OF PENTECOST TO\nCONSTANTINE.\n\n\n_Transmission of Spiritual Authority from the Person of Our Lord to Peter\nand the Apostles, as set forth in the New Testament._\n\nThe Spiritual Power rests for its origin, so far as all Christians are\nconcerned, upon the transmission of spiritual authority from the Person\nof our Lord to Peter and the Apostles.\n\nThat transmission runs up as a fact by a living unbroken line of men to\nour Lord Himself. It subsists as a kingdom subsists. As the governments\nof England, or France, or Russia, or China, occupy a portion of the\nearth, and by that fact are recognised quite independently of any records\nwhich attest their rise and growth, so the far greater and more widely\nspread government of the Church exists, and is in full daily action,\nindependently of any records which attest its origin. Day by day in the\nsacrament of Baptism it admits children into the Christian covenant; day\nby day upon myriads of altars, from the rising to the setting sun, it\noffers the unbloody sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ; day by day\nin unnumbered confessionals it exercises in binding and loosing the\nsacrament of Penance; day by day its priests teach, support, console,\nuphold, in ways which it would exhaust the power of language to describe,\na multitude of its people. This is its vital force as a kingdom, which it\nhas gone on exerting for eighteen hundred and fifty years without a\nmoment's suspension. This vital force does not proceed from any record\nwhich attests it: it is not stored up in any book, but in a divine\npresence resting on a living succession of men, which perpetuates\nitself--which, as a fact, goes on increasing in volume and in the effects\nwhich it produces from age to age.\n\nNevertheless, it is desirable to draw out as accurately as we can the\naccount of the first transmission of that spiritual authority by which\nthis kingdom exists, as we have it recorded for us in the writings of the\nNew Testament. For this purpose I shall quote the terms which express it\nas given in each of the four Gospels and in the Acts of the Apostles and\nthe Epistles of St. Paul and in the Apocalypse.\n\nFirst of all is the institution of that Priesthood which supports the\nwhole spiritual superstructure, and from which, as the stem, all its\nbranches spring. And this is seen to take place at a moment when our\nLord's Passion may be said to have begun--to be, as it were, the first\nact of it. The fullest record we have is that given by St. Paul in the\nFirst Epistle to the Corinthians, which runs thus: (1 Cor. xi. 23) \"For I\nhave received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you: the Lord\nJesus, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread, and giving\nthanks, broke, and said, Take ye, and eat: this is My Body which shall be\ndelivered for you: this do for the commemoration of Me. In like manner\nalso the chalice, after He had supped, saying, This chalice is the new\ntestament in My Blood: this do ye, as often as ye shall drink, for the\ncommemoration of Me.\" The Apostle adds in His own words that this was an\neverlasting memorial of the Lord's death, to continue until His second\ncoming, and that it so contained the Lord's Body and Blood that he who\nate or drank unworthily was guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord.\n\"For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink this chalice, you\nshall show the death of the Lord until He come. Therefore, whosoever\nshall eat this bread or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall\nbe guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord.\"\n\nSt. Luke in the Gospel mentions the institution in terms similar to those\nof St. Paul, especially in that he uses in respect of the Body the\nsacrificial words, \"Do or offer this in commemoration of Me,\" which St.\nPaul uses of the chalice also, while St. Luke omits them. St. Matthew and\nSt. Mark record it more briefly still, not giving the sacrificial words\nin either case; and St. John passes over the institution itself of the\nBlessed Sacrament, while he adds very largely to the record of what was\nsaid by our Lord on the eve of his Passion, and gives three whole\nchapters which might almost be considered as a comment upon that act of\ndivine love. Indeed, the opening words, \"I am the true Vine,\" seem to\npoint to the rite as having just been accomplished, and to give a divine\ninterpretation of the graces stored up in it. On the whole, it must be\nsaid of these four accounts, even including that of St. Paul, that they\nare rather an allusion to a thing otherwise well known to those for whom\nit was written than a description of it. When St. Paul wrote, the\nPriesthood and the Sacrifice had been in daily operation for twenty-five\nor thirty years, and every Christian knew by the evidence of his senses\nthe full detail, both as to Priesthood and to Sacrament, of that to which\nreference was made. This is a consideration which it is requisite to bear\nin mind. Nothing could be further removed from the truth than to suppose\nthat we were intended to obtain our knowledge of what the Priesthood, the\nDivine Sacrifice, and the Blessed Sacrament were, merely or mainly from\nthe record of them in the Gospel narrative. When this was first published\nin writing, they were institutions upon which the Church had been already\nfounded; every detail of them was imprinted upon the heart of every\nChristian, associated with his daily life, and enshrined in his practice.\nTo a heathen reading the Gospel, the words, \"Do this in commemoration of\nMe,\" might be an enigma; while to a Christian they carried the power of\nwhich his whole spiritual being was the growth.\n\nThe institution of the Blessed Sacrament and of the Priesthood which is\nto offer the Sacrifice is enacted by our Lord on the eve of His Passion\nbefore the Apostles collected together, as He is about to make the\noffering in commemorating which forever, until His final coming, the\nPriesthood consists. Thus the moment of the institution is so chosen as\nto connect it most intimately not only with His Person, but with that act\nof our Lord wherein He is our High Priest, and in reference to which His\nown words of institution carry so deep a significance. That which was\ngiven by our Lord to His Apostles, that which they were to receive\nthemselves and give to others to the end of the world, was precisely that\nwhich was to be offered on the same day for the sin of the world, which\nis very exactly intimated in the tense used in the original; not a future\nbut a present tense: \"Take, eat: this is My Body which is being broken\nfor you;\" as if the action of His immolation had begun.\n\nAs the whole divine mission of our Lord is collected up in his\nPriesthood, and no less the whole power which He left to His Church,\nevery circumstance of time, place, and occasion which belongs to its\ninstitution has to be noted, and this in particular, that it is bestowed\nbefore His death, and that it is the only power which is recorded to have\nbeen actually bestowed before it. Perhaps it would be more correct to say\nthat His death is the crowning act of the eucharistic institution, and\naccompanies the institution, understanding in this sense the words of St.\nJohn, \"Jesus knowing that His hour was come that He should pass out of\nthis world to the Father, He loved them unto the end,\" words by which he\nintroduces the account of that last evening of our Lord's life.\n\nThe basis of the whole structure being thus laid in the act which began\nour Lord's Passion and commemorates it for ever, we proceed to the\ntestimony of the several Gospels as to the investiture of the Church's\nrulers which followed the Passion.\n\n1. The words in which St. Matthew records the transmission of spiritual\npower from the Person of our Lord after His resurrection are the\nfollowing:--\"The eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain\nwhere Jesus had appointed them.... And Jesus came and spoke to them,\nsaying, All power is given to Me in heaven and in earth. Go forth,\ntherefore, and make disciples all nations, baptizing them in the name of\nthe Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to\nobserve all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with\nyou all days, even to the consummation of the world.\"\n\nThe power thus given, as recorded by St. Matthew, comes direct from\nChrist, as an outflowing of His all-power in heaven and on earth: it is\nan universal power, co-extensive with all the purposes for which the\nChurch has been created, and enduring so long as the Church endures,\nthrough the accompanying presence of the Lord; and it is given to the\nApostles collectively as to one body.\n\nBut St. Matthew, in a former part of his Gospel, had recorded a most\nremarkable and singular promise made to Peter, or rather a group of four\npromises forming one mass: the first, that he should be the Rock on\nwhich Christ would build His Church; the second, that against this the\ngates of hell should not prevail; the third, that Christ would give to\nhim the keys of the kingdom of heaven; the fourth, that whatsoever he\nshould bind on earth should be bound in heaven, and whatsoever he should\nloose on earth should be loosed in heaven. Matthew (xviii. 17, 18) had\nalso recorded, a little later, a promise made to the Apostles\ncollectively, in which our Lord, after referring to the Church as an\nauthoritative tribunal for all His people, had added, \"Amen, I say to\nyou, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven,\nand whatsoever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in\nheaven.\" This promise then contained a part of the fourfold promise\nalready made to Peter, with the limitation, however, not only that it was\nmade to the Apostles conjointly, whereas it had been made to Peter\nsingly, but also that it was detached from the other part of the promise\nso given to Peter. With respect to the first point, a power vested in a\nBody, with the condition that it be exercised by common consent, differs\ngreatly from the same power vested in the Head of that Body, to be\nexercised by him singly. It differs, as far as the conception of\naristocracy differs from the conception of monarchy. And the second point\nabove noted, that the promise thus given to the Apostles is detached from\nthe other parts of the promise which had been given to Peter,\ncorroborates this distinction. The powers which indicate monarchy lie in\nthose parts of the promise which were not given to the Apostles\nconjointly.\n\nThe whole testimony of Matthew, therefore, consists in the promise of\npowers which he records to have been made before the Resurrection, and in\nthe giving of powers which he records to have been made after it.\n\n2. The testimony of Mark is contained in the last six verses of his\nGospel: \"And He said to them (the eleven), Go ye into the whole world and\npreach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized\nshall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned. And these\nsigns shall follow them that believe: in My name shall they cast out\ndevils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents;\nand if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they\nshall lay their hands upon the sick, and they shall recover. And the Lord\nJesus, after He had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sitteth\non the right hand of God. But they went forth and preached everywhere,\nthe Lord working withal, and confirming the word with signs that\nfollowed.\"\n\nHere also the power comes direct from Christ; it is universal in its\nrange and permanent in duration; it is given to the Apostolic Body, and\nSt. Mark attaches to it the perpetual accompaniment of miraculous\neffects, which he connects with the session of our Lord at the right hand\nof God, as witnessing to the truth of the Apostolic mission; and not only\nso, but as further implying that so long as the session at the right hand\nof God continues, the divine effects which proceed from it shall\ncontinue also.\n\nIt is remarkable that St. Mark's Gospel, which is the Gospel of Peter,\nset forth by his disciple at his instance, is the only one of the four\nwhich does not record either the promise or the conveyance of the special\npower bestowed upon Peter.\n\n3. St. Luke's record is this: Our Lord coming to the Apostles on the\nevening of His Resurrection bestows upon them His peace; convinces them\nthat He has risen again; eats with them; illuminates their mind to\nunderstand the Scriptures and the need of His Passion. \"And He said to\nthem, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to\nrise again from the dead the third day; and that penance and remission of\nsins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at\nJerusalem. And you are witnesses of these things. And behold I send the\npromise of my Father upon you; but stay you in the city until you be\nindued with power from on high. And He led them out as far as Bethania,\nand lifting up His hands, He blessed them. And it came to pass while He\nblessed them He departed from them and was carried up into heaven.\"\n\nLuke completes his account in the Acts, where he says our Lord \"showed\nHimself alive, after His Passion, to the Apostles whom He had chosen by\nmany proofs, for forty days appearing to them and speaking of the kingdom\nof God. And eating together with them He commanded them that they should\nnot depart from Jerusalem, but should wait for the promise of the\nFather, which you have heard, saith He, by My mouth. For John indeed\nbaptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not\nmany days hence. They, therefore, who were come together asked Him,\nsaying, Lord, wilt Thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?\nBut He said to them, It is not for you to know the times or moments which\nthe Father hath put in His own power; but you shall receive the power of\nthe Holy Ghost coming upon you, and you shall be witnesses unto Me in\nJerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and even to the uttermost part\nof the earth. And when He had said these things, while they looked on, He\nwas raised up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.\"\n\nThe power thus promised as about to be bestowed in terms so concise and\nyet so simple, as \"the promise of the Father sent down by the Son,\" \"the\npower from on high,\" \"the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you,\" is\nafterwards described in the events which took place on the Day of\nPentecost, which therefore supplement or give their full meaning to St.\nLuke's account of the transmission of spiritual authority. It is a power\ncoming down on the Apostles in a Body direct from Christ--the power, in\nfact, which makes the Church to be what she is; it is a visible descent\nof that perpetual presence of the Holy Ghost within her which is her\nlife, by which she is the kingdom of God on earth--a power universal and\npermanent.\n\nIt is given to the Apostolic College collectively, and there is no\nmention here of a special power given to Peter. But St. Luke in his\naccount of the Last Supper introduces in a manner peculiar to himself a\nspecial prerogative promised by our Lord to Peter. To gather its whole\nforce, it is necessary carefully to study the context in which it is\nfound.\n\nImmediately after his reference to the institution of the Lord's Supper\nand the announcement that there was one among them who should betray his\nLord, St. Luke writes: \"And there was also a strife among them which of\nthem should seem to be greater. And He said to them, The kings of the\nGentiles lord it over them; and they that have power over them are called\nbeneficent. But you not so; but he that is the greater among you, let him\nbecome as the younger, and he that is the leader, as he that serveth. For\nwhich is greater, he that sitteth at table or he that serveth? Is not he\nthat sitteth at table? but I am in the midst of you as he that serveth.\nAnd you are they who have continued with Me in My temptations; and I\ndispose to you, as My Father has disposed to Me, a kingdom; that you may\neat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and may sit upon thrones judging\nthe twelve tribes of Israel. And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold\nSatan has desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have\nprayed for thee, that thy faith fail not; and thou being once converted,\nconfirm thy brethren. Who said to Him, Lord, I am ready to go with Thee\nboth into prison and to death. And He said, I say to thee, Peter, the\ncock shall not crow this day till thou thrice deniest that thou knowest\nMe. And He said to them, When I sent you without purse and scrip and\nshoes, did you want anything? But they said, Nothing. Then said He unto\nthem, But now, he that hath a purse let him take it, and likewise a\nscrip, and he that hath not, let him sell his coat and buy a sword. For I\nsay unto you that this which is written must yet be fulfilled in Me, 'And\nwith the wicked was He reckoned.' For the things concerning Me have an\nend. But they said, Lord, behold here are two swords. And He said to\nthem, It is enough.\"\n\nWe may judge of the importance of this conversation by the fact that the\nspace given to it by St. Luke makes much more than half of his whole\nrecord, so far as the events are concerned which took place in the upper\nchamber, while it exceeds the whole record of those events given either\nby St. Matthew or St. Mark. In fact, it constitutes the main addition\nwhich St. Luke has made to the record of the first two Evangelists, and,\nviewed as that addition, it specially draws our notice to his reason for\ninserting it. The incident thus dwelt upon by St. Luke with so much\ndetail is omitted not only by St. Matthew and St. Mark, but by St. John\nalso. If we view the narrative of the Passion as a whole, given by the\nfour Evangelists, it is as special a contribution to it by St. Luke as\nthe conversation given by St. John.\n\nAnd here, first, it may be again remarked, that our knowledge of the\ninstitution either of the Priesthood or of the Blessed Sacrament did not\ndepend upon its record in the Gospels, because both were institutions of\nthe divine kingdom carried into effect before the Gospels were published,\nand exhibited in the daily action of the Church. But our knowledge of a\ncontest having arisen among the Apostles at the very time our Lord was\nspeaking of one out of the Apostolic College itself who was to betray\nHim--a contest the subject of which regarded the person who should be the\ngreater in that College--does depend upon the written record of it; and\nthe selection of it to occupy so large a part in so short a narrative, as\nwell as to form almost the whole addition which St. Luke was to\ncontribute to the previous record of St. Matthew and St. Mark, shows that\nsomething was contained in it which was to be kept in perpetual\nremembrance among Christians.\n\nFirst, then, our Lord does not put aside this contest, but proceeds to\ndetermine it. He draws the strongest contrast between heathen domination,\nsuch as it both was then and had been in past time, and Christian\ngovernment, which as yet was not, but was to be. \"The kings of the earth\nlord it over them, and they that have power over them are called\nbeneficent. But you not so; but he that is the greater among you, let him\nbecome as the younger, and he that is the leader as he that serveth.\"\nThus \"a greater\" and \"a leader\" in the Apostolic College is pointed out\nas to be. But it is also pointed out that the type and example of this\nsuperior is our Lord Himself. It is the character of one who represents\nHim. \"For which is greater, he that sitteth at table or he that serveth?\nIs not he that sitteth at table? But I am in the midst of you as he that\nserveth.\" If the character of our Lord's example is here pointed at on\nthe one hand, on the other the greatness of the rule to be exercised is\nindicated. In both, in the character of the rule as being a service to\nthose who are ruled, and as representing our Lord Himself, the\napplication makes itself felt. The superior was to exercise not a\ndomination which had become the mark of Gentile kings, but a service for\nthe good of the governed such as Christ in all His ministry had shown.\nThe words recorded by St. Luke bring back those recorded by St. John,\nwhich our Lord had uttered just before: \"Know you what I have done to\nyou? You call me Master and Lord, and you say well, for so I am. If then\nI, being your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, you also ought to\nwash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that as I have\ndone to you, so you do also.\" If this had been all which St. Luke had\nrecorded, the existence of a Superior in the Church after the pattern of\nChrist Himself might have been inferred as to come.\n\nBut our Lord then proceeds to speak positively of a kingdom which He was\nsetting up, and of the place in it which the Apostles should hold: \"And\nyou are they who have continued with me in my temptations; and I dispose\nto you, as my Father hath disposed to me, a kingdom; that you may eat and\ndrink at my table, in my kingdom, and may sit upon thrones, judging the\ntwelve tribes of Israel.\" From these words we gather that in the kingdom\nthus announced there should be not only one Superior after the pattern\nof Christ--\"the greater and the leader\"--but the College of the twelve,\nsitting on thrones, and judging the whole people of God. The kingdom and\nits rulers are correlative and co-enduring. And is not the whole of the\norder of the Episcopate symbolised in these words, as well as the\ndistinctive rank of the twelve Apostles? For do not they in their heirs\ncarry on through the whole duration of the kingdom on earth the mysteries\nof that wonderful priesthood instituted at this moment, eating and\ndrinking at His table in His kingdom, and judging His people in the\ntribunal which has reference to it?\n\nThis interpretation seems intimated in the words which follow, in which\nan attack is spoken of as to be made upon all the rulers of this kingdom;\nand not, as it would seem, a passing, but a continuing attack. \"And the\nLord said, Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he\nmay sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail\nnot; and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.\" He singles\nout one Apostle, and speaking of the whole Body in the plural as the\nobject of the attack, declares that He has prayed for that one, that he\nmay be able, at a future time, when he has been converted, to confirm his\nbrethren. Peter, supposing that our Lord spoke of the actual moment, said\nto Him, \"Lord, I am ready to go with Thee both into prison and to death.\nAnd He said, I say to thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, till\nthou thrice deniest that thou knowest Me.\"\n\nThus pointedly did our Lord exclude the time then present from that at\nwhich Peter should confirm his brethren; and the event showed that, so\nfar from confirming them during the night of the Passion and the\nsubsequent Crucifixion, his faith and his conduct conspicuously failed:\nwhile all deserted Him and fled, he denied Him.\n\nBut of what time, then, did our Lord speak? of what attack? of what\nconfirmation to be rendered by Peter?\n\nThe words which follow seem to give an answer to these questions. \"And He\nsaid to them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, did\nyou want anything? But they said, Nothing. Then said He unto them, But\nnow he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip, and he\nthat hath not, let him sell his coat, and buy a sword. For I say to you,\nthat this that is written must yet be fulfilled in Me, 'And with the\nwicked was He reckoned.' For the things concerning Me have an end. And\nthey said, Lord, behold here are two swords. And He said to them, It is\nenough.\"\n\nWhat is this but that our Lord contrasts all the time of His ministry,\nwhen He was with them, their visible Master, Lord, and Comforter, when He\nsent them forth with instructions, after fulfilling which they were to\nreturn to Him, with another period--that in which the things concerning\nHim had an end: when He was to be taken from them: when they were to go\nforth in His power, but without the resource of His visible Headship and\nthe comfort of His visible presence. That period is the whole time\nduring which the apostolic ministry--the eating and drinking at His\ntable, and the sitting on thrones judging the twelve tribes of\nIsrael--continues. During all this time the attack of which our Lord\nspoke is going on: there is one who desires to have them that he may sift\nthem as wheat: there is one also whose faith, in virtue of our Lord's\nprayer, fails not, and who is appointed to \"confirm his brethren.\" Peter\nand the eleven, as individual men, passed away and went to their reward;\nbut the kingdom of which our Lord was speaking, and which He disposed to\nthem, did not pass, nor by consequence its rulers, neither those who were\nto be sifted as wheat, nor he who was to confirm his brethren. Thus\nduring all that time which was to begin after His passion, death, and\nresurrection, when the kingdom was disposed to the Apostles, when the\napostolic ministry was being carried on, and when the undying enmity of\nthe great enemy was to be shown in the persistence of his attack, the\nchaff is burnt, the wheat is sifted, and the Confirmer, after having been\nconverted, is in the midst of his brethren and performs his work.\n\nThus completely does our Lord answer the question of the strife which had\narisen among the Apostles, and so great is the pertinence of the\nnarrative thus introduced by St. Luke, so important its bearing upon all\nfuture history. If, then, these fifteen verses be considered in their\nwhole context, not forgetting that they constitute the insertion of a\ntotally new incident, in which consists mainly the addition made by St.\nLuke to the two points which are common to his own record and that of\nthe first and second Evangelist, that is, the declaration of our Lord as\nto the disciple who should betray Him, and the institution of the Blessed\nEucharist, it will appear that St. Luke distinguishes Peter from the\nother Apostles, and the power promised to him of confirming his brethren\nfrom the powers given to hint in common with them, no less markedly than\nSt. Matthew and St. John, though in quite other language. And it must be\nadded that, as his narrative in the Acts of what took place on the Day of\nPentecost completes his statement in his Gospel concerning that \"promise\nof the Father,\" and \"power of the Holy Ghost\" coming down, with which the\nApostles were to be endued; so his narrative, from the Day of Pentecost\nthrough eleven chapters of the Acts, to the end of the time during which\nhe speaks of the whole College of the Apostles, their preaching and\nmiracles, illustrates what is meant in his Gospel by the special office\nhere promised to Peter of \"confirming his brethren.\" For Peter throughout\nappears at the head of the Apostles: his Primacy is exhibited in action\nfrom the first mention on the Day of Pentecost itself, as in the words,\n\"Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice and spoke to\nthem;\" while his supervision of the whole work, which comprises the first\nperiod of the Church's history, while the Apostles acted in one country\ntogether and until they separated, is stated in the words, \"Peter, as he\nwent through, visiting all,\" which indeed may be said to be a compendium\nof the whole narrative. And of him alone is it recorded that, when he\nwas in prison, \"prayer was made without ceasing by the Church unto God\nfor him.\"\n\nThis, then, is the testimony of St. Luke considered as a whole, contained\npartly in the Gospel, partly in the Acts, as to the transmission of\nspiritual power, and such is the very remarkable addition which he\ncontributes to the narrative given by his predecessors, St. Matthew and\nSt. Mark.\n\n4. The testimony of St. John as to the transmission of spiritual power\nmay be divided, as in the cases of St. Matthew and St. Luke, into the\npromises which he records as made before our Lord's Passion and the\nfulfilment which he records as made after His resurrection.\n\nThe promises are contained in that same wondrous discourse of our Lord to\nHis Apostles, of which St. Luke has preserved for us another portion in\nthe passage just transcribed. They are given to the apostolic Body\ncollectively, and, so far as they refer to this particular point, the\ntransmission of spiritual power, are contained in the following verses:--\n\n\"Whatsoever you shall ask the Father in My name, that will I do: that the\nFather may be glorified in the Son. If you shall ask Me anything in My\nname, that will I do.--And I will ask the Father, and He shall give you\nanother Paraclete, that He may abide with you for ever: the Spirit of\ntruth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth Him not, nor\nknoweth Him: but you shall know Him, because He shall abide with you, and\nshall be in you. I will not leave you orphans: I will come to\nyou.--These things have I spoken to you, abiding with you. But the\nParaclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, He will\nteach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I\nshall have said to you. Peace I leave with you, My peace I give unto you:\nnot as the world giveth, do I give unto you.--If you abide in Me, and My\nwords abide in you, you shall ask whatsoever you will, and it shall be\ndone unto you.--You have not chosen Me: but I have chosen you; and have\nappointed you, that you should go, and should bring forth fruit: and your\nfruit should remain: that whatsoever you shall ask of the Father in My\nname, He may give it you.--I tell you the truth: it is expedient to you\nthat I go: for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you: but if I\ngo, I will send Him to you.--But when He, the Spirit of truth, is come,\nHe will teach you all truth. For He shall not speak of Himself: but what\nthings soever He shall hear, He shall speak, and the things that are to\ncome He shall show you. He shall glorify Me: because He shall receive of\nMine, and show it to you.--And in that day you shall not ask Me anything.\nAmen, amen, I say to you: if you ask the Father anything in My name, He\nwill give it you.--Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth. As thou\nhast sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.\"\n\nIn these words our Lord foretells and promises the coming of the\nParaclete to His Apostles, whom He would send to them from His Father,\nand the perpetual possession of truth which the Paraclete, by His\npresence, would confer upon them, and our Lord also says how He would\nbestow on them His own mission, received from the Father. There was the\npromise of a vast and manifold spiritual power involved in these things,\nwhich we do not attempt to draw out; but we pass to the record of St.\nJohn as to the bestowal of spiritual power made by our Lord on the eve of\nHis resurrection to the assembled Apostles. A clear and striking\nconnection and correspondence between the bestowal and the promise are\nhere to be seen. An interval of three days only in time had taken place,\nbut in it the passion and resurrection of our Lord had been accomplished.\n\n\"Now when it was late that same day, the first day of the week, and the\ndoors were shut, where the disciples were gathered together for fear of\nthe Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them: Peace be\nto you. And when He had said this, He shewed them His hands and His side.\nThe disciples therefore were glad when they saw the Lord. He said\ntherefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent Me, I\nalso send you. When He had said this, He breathed on them; and He said to\nthem: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are\nforgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.\"\n\nIn these few words, addressed to the Apostles together, our Lord would\nseem to have conveyed a power as universal and as direct from Himself as\nthat contained in the corresponding passages of the three preceding\nEvangelists. Nothing could be wanting to that mission of which it is\nsaid, \"As the Father hath sent Me, I also send you;\" nothing to the\nfulness of the grace communicated by the Lord breathing on them, and\nsaying, \"Receive ye the Holy Ghost;\" while the concluding words coincide\nexactly with the promise made to the Apostles in St. Matthew, that they\nshould receive the power to forgive or to retain sins. In this interview\nwith His Apostles on the evening of the day of His resurrection. He\nconveys to them the full apostolate in terms the simplicity of which is\nonly equalled by their majesty.\n\nHad the testimony of St. John stopped here, it would have seemed to give\nto the Apostles every attribute of power needed for their work. And it is\nto be noted that St. Peter was present with his brethren, St. Thomas\nalone being absent, and so, notwithstanding his recent fall, was included\nin that grant to the Apostolic College.\n\nBut St. John, in the last chapter of his Gospel, has added to it a record\nof that famous scene wherein our Lord bestowed on Peter singly a power as\nuniversal as that contained in the fourfold promise recorded by St.\nMatthew, a power also completely including the power given collectively\nto the Apostles in the four Evangelists. Indeed, we seem to hear the same\nvoice sounding which said, \"The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them,\nand they that have power over them are called beneficent. But you not so;\nbut he that is the greater among you, let him become as the younger, and\nhe that is the leader as he that serveth:\" when the Lord said to Peter,\n\"Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me more than these? Feed My lambs: be\nshepherd over My sheep; feed My sheep.\" How else was it possible for\nEternal Love to give so stupendous a charge and power in language so\ntender?\n\nBut considering that our Lord had already bestowed a mission on the\nApostles collectively, which He likened to the mission received by\nHimself from the Father, what could these words mean save the universal\npastorship of the flock of Christ? What _more_ could Peter receive than\nthe others, in answer to his greater love for his Master, except this?\n\nThe passages which we have now cited contain the whole account which we\npossess, as written in the Gospels, of the spiritual authority first\npromised, and then communicated by Christ to the Apostles and to Peter.\n\nThey comprehend two classes of passages, those which regard the Apostolic\nCollege collectively, and those which regard Peter singly. And this\ndivision is made the more remarkable by the fact that no power is either\npromised or conveyed to any Apostle distinctly from the rest except to\nPeter.\n\nIn estimating their relative force, on the one hand, the full meaning\nmust be given to each of these classes; on the other, no interpretation\ncan be admitted which puts one class into conflict with the other. That\ninterpretation alone can be sound which binds them in one harmonious\nwhole.\n\nIf we take the passages which we have above cited, and which are\naddressed to the Apostles collectively, that is, Matt. xxviii. 18 20,\nMark xvi. 15-20, Luke xxiv. 46-49, with Acts i. 3-9, and the passages\nfrom our Lord's last discourse in St. John together with John xx. 21-23,\nwe find them to contain an universal supernatural power which is conveyed\nto a Body consisting of the Apostles, and which is co-extensive with the\nneeds of that Body, and which lasts so long as the Body is to last.\nMoreover, the language used by each Evangelist is sufficient by itself,\nwithout reference to the others, to express the conveyance of this power,\nbut at the same time the language of each several Evangelist corresponds\nto the meaning of the others.\n\nIf we take the passages addressed to Peter singly, that is, Matt. xvi.\n17-19, Luke xxii. 31, 32, John xxi. 15-17, we find a power of Headship\nsuperadded to the former power which had been conveyed to the Apostles as\na College. This Headship is conveyed in various expressions, such as the\nRock on which the divine House is built, while to it the promise of\nperpetual stability is attached; the Keys, which indicate the supreme\npower in the divine Kingdom; the power to bind and to loose everything in\nheaven and earth, as given not to a collective Body, but to one singly,\nwhich distinction in the terms of the grant greatly enlarges the\nauthority of the recipient by removing all restraint arising from common\naction; the Confirming the brethren in the divine Family; the Pastorship\nof the divine Flock. Each of these five things indicates sovereignty;\ntogether they express it with cumulative evidence: but each of these\nfive things also indicates not collective sovereignty given to a college\nof men, but the sovereignty proper to a single person.\n\nThese passages in three several Evangelists addressed to Peter singly\ncorrespond to each other even more closely than the former class of\npassages corresponds to each other, and the power conveyed in them is a\npower more definitely marked than the power conveyed in the other.\n\nAgain, the two classes of passages, as given in the several Evangelists,\nmay be separately compared in the case of each; as Matt. xxviii. 18-20,\ngiven to the College, with Matt. xvi. 17-19, promised to the individual;\nas Luke xxiv. 46-49 and Acts i. 3-9, as said to all, with Luke xxii. 31,\n32, prophesied of Peter singly; and, lastly, the various words addressed\nto the Apostles collectively in the discourse after the Last Supper, and\nthe gift of the Holy Ghost breathed on them together in John xx. 21-23,\nwith the charge to Peter alone recorded in John xxi. 15-17. The result of\nthe most careful and accurate comparison will be to see that the full\npower given to the Apostolic College in the concluding words of St.\nMatthew's Gospel is not interfered with by the Headship promised to Peter\nin chap. xvi. 17-19: that in Luke, the power from on high, and again the\npower of the Holy Ghost coming down upon the Apostolic College, do not\nexclude the confirming power promised to one of them: that in John, the\nuniversal Apostolic mission and the imparting of the Holy Ghost, bestowed\nby Christ upon the Apostles in common, so far from being opposed to the\nuniversal Pastorship conferred upon Peter by our Lord on the shore of the\nlake, receive as it were their completion and crown in the privileges of\nthe Head.\n\nIt may be noted that in St. Mark alone, the Evangelist who wrote from St.\nPeter's side and at his direction, there is an absence of this\ndistinction of passages, some of which relate to the Apostles\ncollectively, others to Peter singly. He gives only one class of\npassages, that which expresses the powers given to the Apostles in\ncommon. But Matthew and Luke, while they record only the first class of\npassages relating to powers given after the Resurrection, record also\nsingular promises made to Peter by our Lord before His Passion. St. John\nalone, writing last, and in that purpose of supplementing the preceding\nGospels which so remarkably belongs to him, gives both words addressed\nand powers assigned after the Resurrection to the Apostles collectively,\nand words addressed and powers assigned to Peter singly. His record of\nthe creation of the universal Pastorship following upon his record of the\napostolic mission, following also the promise of the Holy Ghost to dwell\nperpetually with the Apostles, and the gift of the Holy Ghost breathed\nupon them from His mouth, seems to bind together in one harmony the whole\nnarrative in the four Gospels of the power given by our Lord for the\nestablishment of His Church. \"As My Father sent Me, I also send you,\"\naddressed to a company of men, and the gift of the Holy Ghost accompanied\nwith the power to remit or retain the sins of men, seem to embrace all\nthe powers of the Apostolate. So, too, the words in the promise, \"When\nHe, the Spirit of truth, be come, He shall lead you by the hand into all\ntruth,\" seem to embrace the whole gift of maintaining revealed truth in\nthe world: while the solemn charge, thrice given, and in the presence of\nhis brethren, to feed the sheep of Christ, addressed to one singly,\ncontains all the powers of the Primacy.\n\nSt. Luke says of our Lord, that \"He showed Himself alive after His\nPassion, by many proofs, for forty days appearing to the Apostles, and\nspeaking of the kingdom of God.\" We have cited all that we possess in the\nwritten record of that intercourse, so far, that is, as concerns the\ngovernment of the kingdom which He was establishing. It would be a great\nerror to suppose that what we possess in the written record is all that\ntook place. There is a double warning of St. John given to prevent\nprecisely such an error. Immediately after his account of our Lord's\nfirst and second appearance to the Apostles together, he adds, \"Many\nother signs also did Jesus in the sight of His disciples, which are not\nwritten in this book. But these are written that you may believe that\nJesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that, believing, you may have\nlife in His name.\" And immediately after his record of the Pastorship\nconferred on Peter, he closes his Gospel with the words, \"But there are\nalso many other things which Jesus did, which, if they were written every\none, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books\nthat should be written.\"\n\nThe inference from these passages would be the same which meditation on\nthe whole subject would suggest, that in the great forty days between His\nResurrection and Ascension our Lord instructed His Apostles perfectly in\nall which they needed to know concerning the kingdom of God for the\nexecution of their office as God's ministers for its propagation. Under\nthis head would fall the number and nature of the sacraments, their\nritual--in short, the government of the Church as a spiritual society. Of\nthe details which regarded these subjects, nothing was made known in the\nwritings, of which even the first in time, the Gospel of St. Matthew,\nbegan to be published many years after the Church had been carried on in\nits appointed order. The simple statement of such a fact is enough to\nshow that for the Christians themselves such details were not needed to\nbe expressed in a writing which might fall into other than Christian\nhands; while to lay them open to the heathen empire, in the midst of\nwhich the Church was rising, would have constituted a gratuitous danger,\nand would have contradicted what we know to have been the discipline of\ndiscretion long practised during the era of persecution. It was precisely\nthe polity of the Church at which the Roman State would take umbrage.\nThus the powers which are requisite for establishing and perpetuating\nthis polity were recorded as having been conveyed to the Apostles under\ngeneral heads. The language used for this purpose has a terseness, a\nconcentration, a sublimity which betokens the voice of a Sovereign, the\nfiat of a Legislator. It befits the Person of the Word in the\nconstruction of His divine work. It harmonises admirably with those\neight words upon the Mount which sustain and reveal a whole fabric of\ndivine philosophy and Christian life.\n\nThus the central mystery of divine love, carrying in it the perpetual\npresence of the Incarnate God in His Church and the institution of the\nPriesthood, is referred to in the briefest terms, as given to the\nApostles by our Lord on the eve of His Passion: \"This do in commemoration\nof Me.\" The authority which He bestowed on them after His Resurrection\nis, as St. Matthew states it, a power to confer sacraments and to teach\nall nations, carrying with it an obligation upon those who are taught of\nobedience to all which the Apostles should enjoin as commanded by Christ,\nand a promise of His perpetual presence with them in the fulfilment of\nthe office. As St. Mark states it, a power to teach all nations, to\ndispense sacraments, and to work miracles, accompanied by the\nco-operation of Christ sitting at the right hand of God. As St. Luke\nstates it, the promise of the Father sent upon them by Christ; power from\non high; power of the Holy Ghost coming upon them; baptism with the Holy\nGhost: all which is, in this case, elucidated by what took place on the\nDay of Pentecost. As St. John states it, such a mission of the Apostles\nby Christ as Christ received from the Father, and the gift of the Holy\nGhost proceeding from the mouth of Christ, together with the power of\nremitting and retaining sins.\n\nAll this was power bestowed upon the Apostles collectively, which Peter,\nas one of them, shared.\n\nThe privileges recorded to have been bestowed on Peter, if we treat, as\nwe must, the promise and the fulfilment as of equal force, are six--\n\nThe first, to be the Rock on which Christ would build His Church.\n\nThe second, that to the Church thus founded on the Rock, or to the Rock\nitself, perpetual continuance and victory are guaranteed.\n\nThe third, that the keys of the kingdom of heaven, that is, supreme power\nin the Lord's house, guardianship of the Lord's city, are committed to\nhim alone.\n\nThe fourth, that the power of binding and loosing whatsoever shall be\nbound or loosed in earth and in heaven is committed to him singly.\n\nThe fifth, the power to confirm his brethren, in which name the Apostles\nare specially indicated, because his own faith shall never fail.\n\nThe sixth, the supreme Pastorship of the whole flock of Christ.\n\nComparing carefully together what is said to the Apostles as a body with\nwhat is said to Peter singly, we cannot but be struck with the fact that\nwhile they received nothing without him, he received a power including\nand crowning theirs. The terms of conveyance in the two cases are indeed\nof similar majesty and simplicity, being the language of God in the\nsovereign disposition of His gifts; but in the case of Peter there is\ngreater definiteness, and to him our Lord employs constantly the\nparabolic form of expression, calling him the Rock, giving him the Keys,\ncommitting to him singly the binding and loosing, and the confirmation\nof the brethren, which is the image of a tower or structure held together\nin one mass, charging him finally with the Pastorship of the flock of\nChrist. This imagery is capable of wider application than any other form\nof speaking, and as we know by the instance of the parables, contains in\nit an amount of instruction which direct language can only convey at a\nmuch greater length. None of it is given to any Apostle by himself,\nexcept Peter; what the rest receive of it together, as in the case of the\npower of binding and loosing, first promised and then given to them\ncollectively, is greatly exceeded by what he receives alone. And besides,\ntheir commission and his throw light upon each other. The Papacy and the\nEpiscopate are their joint result. Give its full force to the Apostolic\ncommission, and Christ is with the one universal Episcopate all days to\nthe consummation of the world. Give the same full force to the words\nbestowed upon Peter, and he feeds the flock of Christ until the second\ncoming of the Great Shepherd. Perpetuity enters equally into both.\n\nThere is thus accordance in the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles\nas to the persons to whom transmission of spiritual power in the Church\nwas made. The Gospels and the Acts record in the form of narrative the\ninstitution of the divine kingdom from its beginning and before it was\ncarried into effect. But there is another inspired writer who speaks of\nit incidentally in his Epistles after it had been in operation between\ntwenty and forty years. The eminence of St. Paul as the Preacher of the\nGentiles is so great that we may endeavour to put together his testimony\nconcerning the constitution of that Church which he loved so well, and\nfor which he gave his life.\n\nAnd, first, it is from him we derive that name of the Church which, more\nperhaps than any other, expresses her nature, and identifies her with our\nLord. The Church to St. Paul is \"the Body of Christ.\" \"As the human\nbody,\" he says, \"is one and has many members, and all the members of the\nbody, whereas they are many, yet are one body, so also is Christ. For in\none Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles,\nwhether bond or free; and in one Spirit we have all been made to drink.\"\n\"There are,\" he says, \"diversities of graces, but the same Spirit; and\nthere are diversities of ministries, but the same Lord; and diversities\nof operations, but the same God who worketh all in all;\" and saying this\nto the Corinthian disciples he well-nigh repeats it to the Roman. To him,\ntherefore, the whole structure of the Church's government is divine, as\ndrawn from Christ's Person, as animated by His Spirit, as the work of the\nEternal Father in and through the Son whom He has sent, and by the Spirit\nwhom He has also sent. And again, as he thus wrote in the middle of his\ncourse to his Corinthian converts, so nearly at the end of it he\nexpressed to the beloved Church of Ephesus, the fruit of so many toils,\nthe same doctrine. This passage is sufficient of itself to give the\ncomplete Pauline conception of the Church as it was present to his mind\nin the whole range of time, stretching from the first to the second\ncoming of our Lord. \"I therefore, a prisoner in the Lord, beseech you\nthat you walk worthy of the vocation in which you are called, with all\nhumility and mildness, with patience, supporting one another in charity,\ncareful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. One Body\nand one Spirit: as you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord,\none faith, one baptism. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and\nthrough all, and in us all. But to every one of us is given grace\naccording to the measure of the giving of Christ. Wherefore He saith:\nAscending on high He led captivity captive; He gave gifts to men. Now\nthat He ascended, what is it, but that He also descended first into the\nlower parts of the earth. He that descended is the same also that\nascended above all the heavens, that He might fill all things. And He\ngave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and\nother some pastors and doctors for the perfecting of the saints unto the\nwork of the ministry, unto the edifying of the Body of Christ: until we\nall meet into the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God,\nunto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ:\nthat henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried\nabout with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning\ncraftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive: but doing the truth in\ncharity, we may in all things grow up in Him who is the Head, even\nChrist: from whom the whole Body, being compacted and fitly joined\ntogether, by what every joint supplieth, according to the operation in\nthe measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying\nof itself in charity.\"\n\nAre not these words a divine comment from the Apostle himself upon what\nhe means by the Body of Christ? It is no figure of speech, but the\ngrandest reality in the universe. The words contain the beginning,\nmiddle, and end of his belief concerning the instrument of our salvation.\nIt is an inspired summary of the record in the Gospels which we have been\nso long considering. Its compass reaches from the ascension above the\nheavens to the completion \"of the perfect man\" in the fulness of the\nmystical Body, when all the labours and sufferings of earth are at an\nend. It places the security against error of doctrine, as well as the\ngrowth of charity in the working together of one ministry through the\nwhole Church, and through all time, not only drawn from the institution\nof Christ, but enclosed in the sacred structure of His Body; nor can we\nconceive of any preaching of the Gospel without a divine mission derived\nfrom Christ through this ministry, as he elsewhere wrote to the Roman\nChurch: \"How shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? or\nhow shall they believe Him of whom they have not heard? or how shall they\nhear without a preacher? and how shall they preach except they be sent?\"\nThere is, in his conception, one mission only in the Body of Christ. The\nsplitting of this Body of Christ into two or three parts would be simply\nthe destruction of St. Paul's conception, not an atom of it would remain.\nThere is, in his conception, but one ministry, in unity and harmony with\nitself, the guardian and the propagator of the truth--Bishops existing\noutside this one divine ministry and exercising authority are a complete\ndenial of the whole idea.\n\nIt is in exact accordance with these passages that St. Paul, in his\npastoral letter to his disciple St. Timotheus, reminds him of the grace\nof God derived to him by the imposition of the Apostle's hands, and the\nhands of the Presbytery. He speaks manifestly of a divine gift descending\nthrough the hands of men from Christ, \"who, ascending up on high, gave\nsome apostles, some prophets,\" and the rest.\n\nAgain, it is after a strict and precise charge to St. Timotheus\nrespecting the quality of the persons whom he should choose for the\noffice of the episcopate that St. Paul winds up with the words: \"These\nthings I write to thee, hoping that I shall come to thee shortly, but if\nI tarry long that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in\nthe house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and\nground of the truth.\" Here then, also, as in the letter to the Ephesians,\nhe describes the divinely appointed ministry as bearing and upholding the\ntruth which it is charged to impart; so that St. Augustine was putting\nSt. Paul's doctrine forth when he wrote, \"I should not believe the Gospel\nunless the authority of the Catholic Church moved me thereto.\"[30]\nAccording to St. Paul's mind, it is the living ministry which carries to\nthe world the knowledge \"of the living God,\" a knowledge which dwells in\n\"the house of God\" alone. Outside the house the truth is corrupted, and\nthe ministry loses its gift.\n\nFrom the union of these passages, to which many more of like import might\nbe added, we learn that the unity of the Church, in St. Paul's idea and\nexpression, rests upon the very deepest foundation, the unity of Christ's\nPerson as receiving a mission from the Father, which He accomplishes in\nHis own Body, and by the working of His Spirit. If the promise to St.\nPeter and its fulfilment were for a moment put out of sight, yet this\ndivine unity testified in St. Paul's letters would still remain in all\nits force, and could not be disregarded without giving up St. Paul's mind\naltogether. How can it be accomplished except by means of the promises\ngiven and the charge imposed on St. Peter? Thus St. Paul, in testifying\ndirectly to the unity, a witness the depth, precision, force, and\ntenderness of which no one can deny, testifies indirectly to the means by\nwhich it is obtained. If there be one ministry discharging in the Body of\nChrist the functions which St. Paul assigns to it, there must be the\norgan also by which that ministry remains one. Nor does it follow less\nthat, as the ministry is visible and permanent, so likewise must the\norgan of its unity be visible and permanent. And if St. John records, in\nthe most emphatic manner, the universal pastorship bestowed on Peter by\nhis Lord, St. Paul sets forth as a reality the unity thus created in a\nsymbol more striking, if possible, than the flock of the One Shepherd,\nfor it is the Body of the One Lord. If the Apostle who lay on our Lord's\nbreast and heard Him declare Himself to be the good Shepherd who gives\nHis life for His sheep, recorded the transmission of that charge to St.\nPeter under that same figure of the Shepherd in the injunction to feed\nthe lambs and the sheep of Christ, St. Paul, who was carried up to heaven\nand heard unspeakable words, saw from his prison in Rome, through the\nwhole vast period from our Lord's first to His second coming, the growth\nof that sacred Body which was to fill all in all, compacted together of\nthe apostles, doctors, and pastors, whom at the beginning Christ gave,\nwhom He would continue to the end to give; for does it not run, \"until we\nall meet into the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of\nGod, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of\nChrist.\" In all this St. Paul declares that, so long as the Church is\nmilitant, her ministry is the organ of truth, and this because the Church\nis the Body of Christ.\n\nThus it is a great and striking harmony with the witness of the Gospels\nand of the Acts to the transmission of Spiritual Power in the Church\nwhich the vessel of election, the Preacher of the Gentiles, contributes.\nThus the figure of St. Peter stands in the New Testament between St.\nMatthew and St. John, supporting him on one side, and St. Paul and St.\nLuke on the other.\n\nNothing can be clearer than the mind of St. Paul in these passages. To\nhim the fabric of government is inseparably united with the fabric of\ndoctrine. It is one and the same institution which is indivisible in its\norganic structure and infallible in the truth which it upbears and\nexpounds. He sets forth a Creed at the same moment that he describes a\nBody. The Creed and the Body make one thing. St. Paul's doctrine of unity\nis part of his conception of truth. The Church, the Body of Christ, is as\ncompletely possessed by all the truth which came by Jesus Christ as it is\ndowered with the grace which also came by Him. And the Christian\nministry, viewed as a whole, as the mantle dropped by Him who, ascending\nup on high, led captivity captive, and gave gifts to men, is that wherein\nthe double gift of truth and grace resides indefeasibly.\n\nI pass to another point in St. Paul's teaching. Do the recipients of the\ngovernment which in general and in particular he thus describes receive\nit from above or below? Does the magistracy draw its authority from a\ncharge which the community bestows, or from a power which creates the\ncommunity itself? Which is first both in principle and in time, the\nmagistracy or the community?\n\nThere are six names by which, in various parts of his epistles, St. Paul\ndescribes the commission in virtue of which he spent his life and finally\npoured forth his blood in preaching the Gospel. These six names are\napostle, minister, doctor, steward, ambassador, and herald. Sometimes\nthey are mentioned singly, sometimes they are blended with each other in\na way which sheds light upon them reciprocally. He terms himself an\nambassador, when he says, \"for Christ, therefore, we are ambassadors, God\nas it were exhorting by us.\" And he beseeches his converts to pray for\nhim \"that speech may be given me that I may open my mouth with\nconfidence, to make known the mystery of the Gospel, for which I am an\nambassador in a chain.\"[31] He refers all his power back to God when he\nsays, \"Our sufficiency is from God, who also has made us fit ministers of\nthe New Testament,\" for this word, the original of deacons, signifies\nhere a ministry to God, not a service of men. The sufficiency was that\nGod had accredited certain men to bear to their fellow-men a certain\ndocument, a new covenant. They stood in the relation of ministers to Him\nwho appointed them; to those to whom they came they were the commissioned\nagents of a sovereign. He calls himself also a steward,[32] where he\nsays, \"Let a man so account of us as the servants of Christ, and the\ndispensers of the mysteries of God. Here now it is required in dispensers\nthat a man be found faithful; but to me it is a very small thing to be\njudged by you, or by man's day,--but He that judgeth me is the Lord.\" And\nin another place he very remarkably joins together three terms which he\napplies to himself, while he specially connects them with the source and\nhead of all power in that work of the dispensation which He became man to\naccomplish. St. Paul breaks into a sort of creed, which is like a summary\nof his whole message, in these most solemn words which he addresses to\nthe archbishop whom he had himself set in the great see of Ephesus:\n\"There is one God and one Mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus,\nwho gave Himself a redemption for all, a testimony in due times.\nWhereunto I am appointed a herald and an apostle (I say the truth, I lie\nnot), a doctor of the Gentiles, in faith and truth.\" And he joins the\nsame three names together in another letter to the same Bishop, \"The\nGospel whereunto I am appointed a herald and an apostle and a doctor of\nthe Gentiles.\"[33] The original word herald was rendered by preacher; and\nthe term Apostle has become so fixed as the name of those to whom our\nLord committed His Church in chief, that the lesson as to the source of\nthe authority which it bears in its meaning of \"the sent,\" has been\nimpaired to many minds. A multitude of men preach in these days without\nany notion that a preacher is a man who bears a divine commission from a\nSovereign to announce pardon to His people, and that a man who chooses\nhimself for such a function is an impostor. Now what I wish to remark of\nthese six terms, by which St. Paul expresses his own authority and that\nof the brethren who held the like rank with himself, is that they all\nconcur in deriving the power and the commission which they represent from\nthe person giving it, that is Jesus Christ, in the name of His Father,\nand not from the people for whose good it is bestowed. The whole\npublication of the Gospel is, in fact, called \"The Proclamation,\" which\nthe word preacher and preaching no longer conveys. It is the message of a\nKing to His subjects declared by His heralds. They convey it to those who\nhear it by a commission from above. Their whole authority comes from\nabove, not from below. It is not the election of brethren which is the\nprinciple of their mission, but the charge of the Sender, Christ. And as\nthe Apostles were sent, they sent their successors. Election, in\nsubsequent times, however conducted, indicated the person upon whom power\nfell; but the power was from God.\n\nA further light is thrown upon this most grand and beautiful doctrine of\nSt. Paul as to the Church being the Body of Christ, and her ministry the\nappointed organ for maintaining divine truth through the whole course of\ntime upon earth, by the magnificent vision bestowed upon the beloved\nApostle when he was by command of Domitian a prisoner in the island of\nPatmos, \"for the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus.\" As he \"was in\nthe Spirit on the Lord's day, he heard behind him a great voice as of a\ntrumpet, saying: What thou seest write in a book, and send to the seven\nChurches which are in Asia, to Ephesus, and to Smyrna, and to Pergamus,\nand to Thyatira, and to Sardis, and to Philadelphia, and to Laodicia. And\nI turned to see the voice that spoke with me. And being turned, I saw\nseven golden candlesticks; and in the midst of the seven golden\ncandlesticks one like to the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to\nthe feet, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. And His head and\nHis hairs were white, as white wool and as snow, and His eyes were as a\nflame of fire, and His feet like unto fine brass, as in a burning\nfurnace. And His voice as the sound of many waters. And He had in His\nright hand seven stars. And from His mouth came out a sharp two-edged\nsword: and His face was as the sun shineth in His power. And when I had\nseen Him, I fell at His feet as dead. And He laid His right hand upon me,\nsaying, Fear not, I am the First and the Last, and He that liveth, and I\nbecame dead, and behold I am living for ever and ever, and have the keys\nof death and of hell. Write, therefore, the things which thou hast seen,\nand which are, and which must be done hereafter: the mystery of the seven\nstars which thou sawest in My right hand, and the seven golden\ncandlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven Churches: and\nthe seven candlesticks are seven Churches.\"\n\nThis vision occupies a quite singular position. It is, as it were, the\nopening scene of that revelation which was made by our Lord to the\nApostle of the things that should happen in His Church from His first to\nHis second coming; and which terminates only in the conclusion of the\ngreat conflict between the city of God and the city of the devil, when\nthe seer beholds the Holy City \"coming down out of heaven from God,\nprepared as a bride adorned for her husband.\" It took place rather more\nthan sixty years after the day of Pentecost, when two persecutions of the\nChurch, the first under Nero, and the second under Domitian, had already\ntried the patience of the saints. Thus it dates a full generation after\nthe time of St. Paul. In accordance with the position which it occupies\nat the head of a revelation given by the Lord Himself to him,\n\n \"Che vide tutti i tempi gravi,\n Pria che morisse, della bella sposa,\n Che s'acquist\u00f2 con la lancia e co' chiavi,\"\n\nit is a vision of extraordinary power and majesty, repeating, and if\npossible excelling, the grandeur of similar visions in the old prophets,\nIsaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel.[34] Our Lord appears with the incommunicable\nname of God, as the First and the Last: as the Redeemer, that Living One\nwho became dead and is alive for ever and ever; as the Ruler who orders\nall things as to the race of man, having the keys of death and of hell;\nas the world's Teacher, with the sharp sword of the Word, the instrument\nof His dominion, proceeding out of His mouth; in the glory of the\nResurrection, for His face is as the sun shining in his strength. The\ndisciple who lay upon His breast at the Supper, now, when he saw Him,\nfell as one dead at His feet; but He, deigning to lay His right hand on\nhim, raised him up, and communicated the meaning of the vision: and we\nlearn from our Lord's own words that it showed Him present in the\ngovernment of His Church. Write, He commanded the seer, the mystery of\nthe seven stars which thou sawest in My right hand, and the seven golden\ncandlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven Churches, and\nthe seven candlesticks which thou sawest are seven Churches. The mystery,\nHe said--and the number seven is mystical. The seven stars represent the\nwhole Episcopate held in the right hand of the Lord:[35] the seven\ncandlesticks the whole number of Churches throughout the world: and that\nHe, the Son of Man, is in the midst of them, His perpetual government in\nand through those whom He has appointed:[36] and the seven letters\ndirected to the seven Churches, may by parity betoken seven ages or\nconditions of the one Church.[37] For the vision, taken as a whole,\nexhibits the perpetual action of Christ, not in one place, but in the\nmidst of His people from the beginning to the end. It is thus equivalent\nto the scope of the entire Apocalypse, at the head of which it stands. It\nalso conveys to us, with the witness of St. John, a complete agreement\nwith the conception of St. Paul as to the unity of the divine mission\ncentred in the Church, and exerted by her Episcopate; as to the relation\nof that Episcopate to Christ, which in every age is held in His right\nhand, as in every age He is in the midst of the seven golden\ncandlesticks; as to the relation also of that Episcopate to the people\nover which it is set: for our Lord commands what He would say to the\nChurches to be written to their several angels, to express the truth that\nthey summed up in their person the flock committed to them. The stars\nare in His hand, while He is in the midst of the candlesticks. They are\nHis angels, and their authority lies in the message which they bear from\nHim, not in any charge deputed to them by those whom they govern. Each\nletter gathers up the character of the people, in the single person of\nthe angel: \"I know thy works, thy labour, and thy patience:\" thus\nexpressing the doctrine of St. Cyprian, \"the Church is in the Bishop.\"\n\nThus St. Paul's truth of the Body of Christ is delineated in the vision\nof Him who is the First and the Last, who became dead, and who lives for\never and ever, and from whom not only does all spiritual power originally\ndescend, but is perpetually carried in His right hand; which does not\nleave Him because it is used by human instruments under Him. And if the\nvision seen by St. John is in perfect agreement with the conception of\nSt. Paul, no less does it agree with, and convey in visible action, that\nwhole account of the origin and transmission of spiritual power which we\nhave been contemplating in the harmony of the Gospels and the Acts. Only\nit is to be noted that what the Gospels declare is _to be_, the vision\nexhibits _as being_.\n\nIf we take the whole mass of the Scripture testimony respecting the\ntransmission of spiritual power for the government of the Church and the\nconstitution of her polity, four qualities will appear salient: its\ncoming from above; its completeness; its unity; its independence of civil\nauthority.\n\n1. First, the power thus instituted comes down from Christ upon Peter\nand the Apostles, and from them upon their successors. It does not spring\nfrom election out of the body, but by an exactly reverse process; the\nbody itself springs from it. On the eve of the Passion, just after the\ninstitution of the Priesthood, our Lord said: \"You have not chosen Me,\nbut I have chosen you, and have appointed you that you should go and\nshould bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain.\"[38] This is\nthe whole order of the divine appointment, from beginning and throughout.\nThe Apostles develop out of themselves ministry and people. This growth\nPeter's preaching on the day of Pentecost inaugurated, as the power from\non high came down upon him and his brethren. The whole history of the\nChurch through the first three centuries is a faithful continuation of\nthis beginning. But here we have to note how every particle of the\nScripture record testifies to the spiritual power coming down from above,\nnot rising up from below. The figure of this in the old law was Aaron\ninvested by Moses with the Priesthood in the face of the whole\ncongregation of the children of Israel; the counterpart in the new is\nChrist ascending to heaven, blessing His brethren as He ascended, and\nsending down upon them the promise of the Father. Thus the divine polity\nunfolds itself in a spiritual descent.\n\n2. The second quality is the completeness of this power. The absence of\ndetails in the records, far from being an impeachment of this\ncompleteness, subserves to its expression, because the power given is\nsummed up in a general head, which embraces all particulars under it. Of\nthis summing up we have in the same Gospel of St. John an instance both\nin what is said to the Apostles and in what is said to Peter. As to the\nApostles, the Incarnation, often called by the Fathers the Dispensation,\nembraces the whole work of our Lord; not only His coming in our flesh,\nbut His satisfaction for the sins of the world in the flesh assumed. All\nthis was a mission from the Father. Now, in investing His Apostles with\npower on the evening of the Resurrection, He used this very expression:\n\"As My Father hath sent Me, I also send you.\" Whatever there was to be\ndone and ordered in the Church from the beginning to the end was, by the\nforce of the similitude with Himself thus used, included in these words.\nThey are truly imperial words, constituting a spiritual empire. So,\nagain, as to St. Peter, our Lord was \"the great Pastor of the sheep in\nthe blood of the everlasting testament.\" As such He had been marked out\nby prophecy: it was His name of predilection: \"I am the Good Shepherd:\nthe Good Shepherd giveth His life for the sheep.\" Now, this and none\nother was the term He used when He would convey to Peter, in the\nconcluding words of the last Gospel, supreme authority: \"Lovest thou Me\nmore than these? Be shepherd over My sheep.\" What could be added to this\none word? That which we render \"Be shepherd\" comprehends all offices\nwhich government in the divine polity requires. It is the word chosen of\nold in psalm and prophecy for the sovereignty of the Messiah. First the\nPsalmist sung, as he recorded the splendid promise of the future King,\n\"Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the Gentiles for Thine inheritance, and\nthe utmost parts of the earth for Thy possession: Thou shalt _rule_ them\nwith a rod of iron.\"\n\nAgain, when Herod, assembling all the high priests and scribes of the\npeople, inquired of them when the Christ should be born, they replied to\nhim out of the prophet Micheas, describing by this word the reign of\nMessiah: \"Out of thee shall come forth the Captain that shall _rule_ My\npeople Israel.\"\n\nAgain, when the last prophet saw in the Apocalyptic vision the glory of\nthe Word of God going forth as a Conqueror, he described His power in the\nsame expression: \"The armies of heaven followed Him on white horses,\nclothed in linen white and clean. And out of His mouth goes forth a sharp\nsword, that in it He may strike the nations: and He shall _rule_ them\nwith a rod of iron.\" Our Lord of set purpose selected the one word[39]\nwhich conveyed His regal dominion, and bestowed it upon Peter. Nor did He\ngive it with a restricted but with a universal application: \"Be shepherd\nover My sheep.\" Who can refuse St. Bernard's comment: \"What sheep? the\npeople of this or that city, or country, or kingdom? _My_ sheep, He said.\nTo whom is it not plain that He did not designate some, but assign all?\nNothing is excepted where nothing is distinguished.\"[40] On the two\nsides, therefore, the power is complete; in its nature, as that\nspecially belonging to Christ; in its subjects, as universal. This one\nword includes in itself all inferior derivations, whether of episcopal or\nother subordinate power, and in virtue of it St. Peter becomes the source\nof the whole episcopate as well as the type or figure of every local\nBishop.\n\nIf the special conversations between our Lord and the Apostles which\npassed in the forty days are not recorded for us in their details, as\nbeing privileged communications made only to the chiefs of His kingdom,\nfor their guidance, and as instructions to be carried out by them in\npractice, yet the institution of an everlasting polity by Him is marked\nout in the two instances of Mission and Rule just cited, as well as in\nthe other passages before collected. In fact, it is in the institution of\nsuch a polity that the perfection of our Lord as Lawgiver and Governor\nconsists. Nothing in His kingdom was left to chance, or to sudden\nexpedients arising in unforeseen dangers. All was from the beginning\nforeseen and provided for. When He said to Peter, \"Follow thou Me,\" which\nwas His interpretation of the commission He had just before given to\nPeter, and a crucifixion which ensued upon a crowning in the case of the\ndisciple as of the Master, the whole sequence of His Church through the\ncenturies was in His mind and expressed in His voice.\n\n3. But further, the very basis of the Spiritual Power, as delineated in\nthe testimony of Scripture, is so laid in unity, that if unity be broken\nthe idea itself is utterly destroyed.\n\n\"The Captain who should rule My people Israel\" presents a very definite\nidea. \"To feed the flock of Christ\" is equally definite. The one is the\nportrait of Christ in prophecy; the other represents His kingdom in\nhistory. It is one people and one flock, as it has one King and one\nShepherd. So the Rock on which the Church is built is one structure; the\nconfirmation of the brethren is the holding together one family in that\none structure. When St. Paul convoked the ancients of the Church at\nEphesus, he expressed the duty of Bishops through all time and place:\n\"Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost\nhath placed you Bishops, to rule the Church of God, which He has\npurchased with His own blood.\" This work of the Holy Ghost was not\nlimited either as to time or as to place, and belongs to the Bishops of\nthe whole world as much as to those who met at Ephesus to receive the\nfarewell of St. Paul. In precisely similar terms St. Peter charged the\nBishops whom he had planted in the provinces of Pontus, Galatia,\nCappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, \"to feed the flock of God which is among\nyou;\" indicating at once the unity of the flock and the unity of the\nepiscopate held by many shepherds. For it is one flock which they rule\neverywhere; not each a separate fold. A confederation of Bishops, each\nruling a fold of his own, would frustrate the divine idea; also it would\nbe difficult to imagine a government more futile, or a spectacle less\npersuasive to the world. If we take the account of the Church's ministry\nquoted just above from St. Paul, its unity runs through the whole as much\nas its descent from above. The Body of Christ expresses both equally. If\neither part is taken away, the essence is gone. A ministry such as is\nthere described, existing in a dozen different countries of the earth,\neven if it possessed the same succession and order would present no such\nidea as the Apostle contemplates, and offer no such guarantee of divine\ntruth as he dwells upon, unless it were organically one. Its witness in\none country might otherwise be diverse from its witness in another\ncountry; and as each would have the same claim to be heard, the one would\nneutralise the other. In fact, the Body of Christ would cease to be. So\nineffaceably is the Sacrament of Unity impressed on the whole Gospel\naccount of spiritual government. There is not a single promise made nor a\nsingle power given except to the whole Church and to the one Church.\n\n4. The three qualities we have described, the coming from above,\ncompleteness, unity, are intrinsic to the essence of spiritual\ngovernment. They form together an external relation of entire\nindependence with regard to civil government. Nothing can by plainer than\nthe fact that Christ came from God, and that He gave to His Apostles, and\nnot to kings or rulers of the world, the Spiritual Power which He meant\nto transmit. Equally plain is it that the power so given, being complete,\ncould derive nothing intrinsic to its essence from the Civil Authority;\nand its unity demonstrates in no less a degree its independence of that\nauthority, for it is the same one power everywhere, whereas civil\ngovernment is both complete and different in each separate State. Thus\nthe independence of the Spiritual Power is essential to it, as flowing\nout of the qualities which make it.\n\nWhen we view the Spiritual Power as possessing inalienably these four\nqualities, as coming from above, as complete in itself, as one in all\nlands, and as independent of the Civil Power, the notion of perpetuity\nwill be found to be inherent in the thing so conceived. Again, the\npromises made to it last as long as the subject to which they belong. As\nthe kingdom of Christ and the flock of Christ are perpetual from His\nfirst to His second coming, so therefore is the Bearer of the keys and\nthe Shepherd of the flock. And yet more, the Body of Christ moves through\nthe ages, ever growing to His full stature and measure, so that this\nliving structure can as little fail as Christ Himself. The Head and the\nBody live on together. Again, the secular power also, over against which\nand in the midst of which in all lands and times the Spiritual Power\nstands, is perpetual. The promise made to the College of Apostles,\n\"Behold I am with you all days to the consummation of the world,\" is an\nexpress grant of perpetuity. The promise to Peter that the gates of hell\nshall not prevail against the Rock, or the Church which is founded on the\nRock, is a grant of perpetuity equally express. The same is implied in\nSt. Mark's closing words, that our Lord sat down on the right hand of\nGod, after giving His commission to the Apostles to preach the gospel\nthrough the whole world to every creature; and that as they went forth He\nworked with them, confirming the word by signs following--a work and a\nconfirmation on His part which should last equally to the end, so long\nas He was seated at the right hand of God. So equally the promise of the\nFather, the Paraclete, sent down from above by the Son, is a permanent\npower by which the Church was originally made and perpetually subsists.\nAll these divine promises cohere and shed light upon each other. Thus the\ncommission to Peter, \"Feed My sheep,\" is universal, not only as to its\nsubject, which is the whole flock of Christ, but as to its duration,\nwhich is so long as there is a flock to feed. It was a charge, not only\nto a person, but to an office. If the thing itself to which it related\nwas to endure, it is obvious that the longer it lasted, and the more it\ngrew, the greater also the need of the office which should upbear it. The\nduration of the living organism moved by the Head, which St. Paul so\nstrongly attests, and carries on into the unseen world, attests the\nreciprocal duration of the Head.\n\nAs those divine words which convey the promise or confer the gift of the\nSpiritual Power cohere and shed light on each other, so the impairing\nthem in any particular destroys their idea, which is to say that they\nexpress a real and concrete existence, wherein the idea has passed into\nan adequate act. This is Jesus Christ in His Kingship, the same\nyesterday, to-day, and for ever.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[30] Contr. Epist. Manich\u00e6i, cap. 5, tom. 8, 154.\n\n[31] 2 Cor. v. 20; Ephes. vi. 19, 20; 2 Cor. iii. 6.\n\n[32] 1 Cor. iv. 1: hup\u00earetas christou kai oikonomous must\u00eari\u00f4n Theou.\n\n[33] 1 Tim. ii. 7; 2 Tim. i. 11.\n\n[34] Isaias vi. 1; Ezech. iv. 32; Dan. vii. 9.\n\n[35] Compare the strikingly similar and almost contemporary passage in the\nletter of St Ignatius to the Ephesians: \"For Jesus Christ, our inseparable\nlife, is the mind of the Father, as also the bishops, appointed throughout\nthe earth, are in the mind of Christ.\"\n\n[36] Baur, Kirchengeschichte der drei ersten Jahrhunderte, p. 272, remarks,\n\"Nicht ohne Grund hat man daher schon in den Engeln, an welche die den\nsieben Gemeinden der Apocalypse bestimmten Schreiben gerichtet sind, einen\nAusdruck der Episcopatsidee gesehen--da die den sieben Engeln\nentsprechenden Sterne alle zusammen in der Hand Christi sind, in ihm also\nihre Einheit haben, so kann durch den Engel, welchen jede Gemeinde hat,\nnichts anders ausgedr\u00fcckt sein, als die Beziehung, die sie mit Christus als\ndem einen Haupte aller Gemeinden und der ganzen Kirche verkn\u00fcpft.\"\n\n[37] \"Ideo septem scribi ecclesias ut una Catholica septiformi grati\u00e6\nspiritu plena designetur.\"--_Cornel. a L. in loco._ \"Wherefore in the\nApocalypse the whole Church is represented by the sevenfold number of the\nChurches.\"--_St. Greg._, 1. B. 23, _Morals. on Job_. \"Propter quod et\nJohannes Apostolus ad septem scribit ecclesias, eo modo se ostendens ad\nunius plenitudinem scribere.\"--_St. Aug. de Civ. Dei_, xvii. 4.\n\n[38] John xv. 16.\n\n[39] Heb. xiii. 20; John x. 11, xxi. 16; Ps. ii. 9: Sept. Matt. ii. 6, in\ntranslating Mic. v. 2, where its equivalent is archonta tou Isra\u00eal; Apoc.\nxix. 15; the same word, poimainein, is used in all these passages.\n\n[40] De Consideratione ad Eugenium Papam, 2, 8.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nTHE ACTUAL RELATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE FROM THE DAY OF PENTECOST TO\nCONSTANTINE.\n\n\n_The Transmission of Spiritual Authority as witnessed in the History of\nthe Church from A.D. 29 to A.D. 325._\n\nIt was requisite to draw out the full statement of the transmission of\nSpiritual Power, as recorded in the Scriptures of the Church, before\npassing to its historical fulfilment. How exactly the fulfilment\ncorresponded to the promise is attested for us by an unexceptionable\nauthority, almost at the end of the first century. This witness was given\njust before the closing of the Canon of the New Testament itself. It is\nto be deplored that almost all the early letters of the Sovereign\nPontiffs have been lost, but one of the first is extant in the letter of\nSt. Clement of Rome to the Corinthian Church. It belongs to the year 95\nor 96, and was written during or immediately after Domitian's\npersecution, when St. John the Evangelist was the sole survivor of the\nApostolic College. Its occasion was an attempt to depose the Bishop of\nCorinth by a party in that Church. The matter was referred to the Roman\nChurch, and the Pope gives his judgment in words which we will quote\nlater. St. Iren\u00e6us,[41] about eighty years after this letter was\nwritten, referred to it in these terms: \"The blessed Apostles (Peter and\nPaul), having founded and built up the (Roman) Church, delivered up the\nadministration of it to Linus; this is the Linus of whom Paul has made\nmention in his letter to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus, and in the\nthird degree from the Apostles Clement received the bishopric, who had\nboth seen the blessed Apostles and lived with them, having their\npreaching yet sounding in his ears, and their tradition before his eyes;\nnot alone in this, for there were still many left at that time who had\nbeen taught by the Apostles. In the time then of this Clement, no slight\ndissension having arisen among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in\nRome sent a most authoritative letter to the Corinthians, drawing them\ntogether into peace, and renewing their faith, and recording the\ntradition recently derived by it from the Apostles.\"\n\nThe nature of the dissension which he sought to appease was a violation\nof the due succession in the episcopate. This fact led St. Clement to\ngive an account of its origin. This account, be it observed, dates\nsixty-six years, or just two generations after the Day of Pentecost. It\nis an historical narration of what had intervened, exhibiting the manner\nin which the Apostles and their immediate successors had understood the\ncommission given them by our Lord, the terms of which we have just been\nconsidering. There can be nothing more authentic or more valuable than\nsuch a statement coming from such a source. It is a summary at the end\nof the first century,[42] giving the order according to which the Church\nwas propagated, and it has the peculiarity of being issued by the\nauthority which stood at the head of all.\n\nSt. Clement[43] there enjoins obedience within the Christian body,\nreferring to the discipline of the Roman army, in these terms: \"Let us\ntake service, therefore, brethren, with all earnestness in His faultless\nordinances. Let us mark the soldiers that take service under our rulers,\nhow exactly, how readily, how submissively, they execute the orders given\nthem. All are not prefects, nor rulers of thousands, nor rulers of\nhundreds, nor rulers of fifties, and so forth; but each man in his own\nrank executeth the order given by the emperor and his commanders. The\ngreat without the small cannot exist, neither the small without the\ngreat. There is a certain mixture in all things, and therein is utility.\nLet us take our body as an example. The head without the feet is nothing,\nso likewise the feet without the head are nothing; even the smallest\nlimbs of our body are necessary and useful for the whole body; but all\nthe members conspire and unite in subjection, that the whole body may be\nsaved. So, in our case, let the whole body be saved in Christ Jesus, and\nlet each man be subject unto his neighbour, according as also he was\nappointed with his special grace.\n\n\"Forasmuch, then, as these things are manifest beforehand, and we have\nsearched into the depths of the divine knowledge, we ought to do all\nthings in order, as many as the Master[44] has commanded us to perform at\ntheir appointed seasons. Now the offerings and liturgic[45] acts He\ncommanded to be performed with care, and not to be done rashly or in\ndisorder, but at fixed times and seasons. And where and by whom He would\nhave them performed He himself fixed by His supreme will, that all things\nbeing done with piety, according to His good pleasure, might be\nacceptable to His will. They, therefore, that make their offerings at the\nappointed seasons are acceptable and blessed; for while they follow the\ninstitutions of the Master they cannot go wrong. For unto the high priest\nhis proper liturgic acts are assigned, and to the priests their proper\noffice is appointed, and upon the levites their proper ministrations are\nlaid. The layman is bound by the layman's ordinances.\n\n\"Let each of you, brethren, in his own rank give thanks to God,\nmaintaining a good conscience, and not transgressing the appointed rule\nof his service, but acting with all seemliness. Not in every place,\nbrethren, are the continual daily sacrifices offered, or the free-will\nofferings, or the sin-offerings and the trespass-offerings, but in\nJerusalem alone. And even there the offering is not made in every place,\nbut before the sanctuary in the court of the altar, and this too through\nthe high priest and the aforesaid officiants, after that the victim to be\noffered has been inspected for blemishes. They then who do anything\ncontrary to the seemly ordinance of His will receive death as the\npenalty. You see, brethren, in proportion as greater knowledge has been\nvouchsafed to us, so much the more are we exposed to danger.\n\n\"The Apostles evangelised us from the Lord Jesus Christ: Jesus Christ\nfrom God. So then Christ was sent forth by God, and the Apostles by\nChrist. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order.\nHaving therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through\nthe Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and confirmed in the Word of\nGod with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the good\ntidings that the kingdom of God was about to come. So preaching\neverywhere from country to country and from town to town, they went on\nappointing their first-fruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit,\nto be bishops and deacons for those that were to believe. And this they\ndid in no new fashion; for indeed it had been written concerning bishops\nand deacons in very ancient times: for thus saith the Scripture in a\ncertain place, I will appoint their bishops in justice and their deacons\nin faith.\n\n\"And what marvel if they who were entrusted in Christ with such a work by\nGod appointed the aforesaid persons, seeing that even the blessed Moses,\nwho was a faithful servant in all his house, recorded for a sum in the\nsacred books all things that were enjoined upon him. And him also the\nrest of the prophets followed, bearing joint witness with him unto the\nlaws that were ordained by him. For he, when jealousy arose concerning\nthe priesthood, and there was dissension among the tribes which of them\nwas adorned with the glorious name, commanded the twelve chiefs of the\ntribes to bring to him rods inscribed with the name of each tribe. And he\ntook them and tied them, and sealed them with the signet-rings of the\nchiefs of the tribes, and put them away in the tabernacle of the\ntestimony on the table of God. And having shut the tabernacle, he sealed\nthe keys, and likewise also the rods. And he said unto them, Brethren,\nthe tribe whose rod shall bud, this hath God chosen to be priests and\nofficiants unto Him. Now when morning came, he called together all\nIsrael, even the six hundred thousand men, and showed the seals to the\nchiefs of the tribes, and opened the tabernacle of the testimony, and\ndrew forth the rods. And the rod of Aaron was found not only with buds,\nbut also bearing fruit. What think ye, beloved? Did not Moses know\nbeforehand that this would come to pass? Assuredly he knew it. But that\ndisorder might not arise in Israel, he did thus, to the end that the Name\nof the true and only God might be glorified: to whom be glory for ever\nand ever. Amen.\n\n\"And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be\nstrife over the dignity of the episcopate. For this cause, therefore,\nhaving received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid\npersons, and they established a succession, that if these should fall\nasleep, other approved men should succeed to their liturgic function.[46]\nThose, therefore, that were appointed by them, or afterward by other men\nof repute, with the consent of the whole Church, and who performed their\noffice blamelessly to the flock of Christ, with lowliness, gentleness,\nand a generous spirit, and for a long time have borne a good report with\nall, these we judge it not consonant with justice to deprive of their\noffice. For it will be no light sin in us to deprive of the episcopate\nthose who offer the gifts blamelessly and holily. Blessed are those\npresbyters who have gone before, seeing that their departure was fruitful\nand ripe, for they have no fear lest any one should remove them from\ntheir appointed place. For we see that you are displacing certain persons\nwho were living honourably from the office which they had blamelessly\nperformed.\"\n\nSt. Clement, in the above passages, states in few but precise words how\nthe whole Christian ministry was appointed by Christ with the most exact\norder. \"The Master commanded the offerings and liturgic acts to be\nperformed with care, and not to be done rashly or in disorder, but at\nfixed times and seasons. And where and by whom He would have them\nperformed He himself fixed by His supreme will, that all things being\ndone with piety, according to His good pleasure, might be acceptable to\nHis will.\" We have seen that only the appointment of the supreme\nauthority--that of St. Peter and the Apostolic College--is recorded in\nthe Gospels and Acts. All details are omitted. But this does not mean\nthat such details were either unimportant or left to be developed\ncasually. Here it is expressly said that our Lord appointed them all, and\nleft strict injunctions both as to the persons who should execute them\nand the things to be done. And then St. Clement assumes rather than\nstates--so entirely uncontested and acknowledged seems it to be in his\nmind--that the Christian order succeeds the Mosaic in the triple division\nof high priest, priest, and levite. \"They therefore that make their\nofferings at the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed; for while\nthey follow the institutions of the Master they cannot go wrong.\" He\nspeaks of a present, not a past time; of an actual, not a typical order,\ncontinuing thus: \"For unto the high priest his proper liturgic acts are\nassigned, and to the priests their proper office is appointed, and upon\nthe levites their proper ministrations are laid. The layman is bound by\nthe layman's ordinances. Let each of you, brethren, in his own rank, give\nthanks to God, maintaining a good conscience, and not transgressing the\nappointed rule of His service, but acting with all seemliness.\"[47] It\ncannot be denied that these are injunctions issued to those to whom he\nwas speaking. And the tacit appropriation of the Jewish names and offices\nto the Christian order, with the injunction of present obedience, all\nbased upon the direct institution of \"the Master,\" is every way to be\nnoted. But he proceeds to say that, if the Mosaic services are accurately\nperformed according to a divine rule, much more should the Christian be.\n\"Not in every place, brethren, are the continual daily sacrifices\noffered, or the free-will offerings, or the sin-offerings, and the\ntrespass-offerings, but in Jerusalem alone. And even there the offering\nis not made in every place, but before the sanctuary in the court of the\naltar, and this too through the high priest and the aforesaid officiants,\nafter that the victim to be offered has been inspected for blemishes.\nThey then who do anything contrary to the seemly ordinance of His will\nreceive death as the penalty. You see, brethren, in proportion as greater\nknowledge has been vouchsafed to us, so much the more are we exposed to\ndanger.\"\n\nHow, it may be asked, comes it that he mentions the worship at Jerusalem\nas going on when the city and temple had been destroyed twenty-five years\nbefore?\n\nI would suggest that St. Clement is considering the whole order of the\nAaronic priesthood and worship as a divine appointment. In this point of\nview, it is apart from time, that is, he mentions it ideally as a divine\ninstitution. Moreover, he clearly considers it as carried on in the\nChristian ministry, as having found in that ministry its complete\nfulfilment. In this aspect it was of no importance that the worship at\nJerusalem, to which he referred, had ceased by a divine judgment to be\nany longer in existence. It had fulfilled its work; the blood of bulls\nand goats, which typified the most Precious Blood, was offered no more;\nbut instead the sacrifice to which it had pointed. He quotes it for what\nhad not passed, the divine institution of a certain order in it. If, for\nthe violation of this order, death was inflicted, how much more should\nthose who transgressed the Christian institution, as having been\nvouchsafed greater knowledge, be exposed to danger. Moreover, was not the\nfact of Jesus being the Christ a basis in St. Clement's mind for the\nbelief that the Mosaic worship was carried on, with the requisite change,\nin the Christian? How deeply lay in his mind the feeling that the\nChristian Church was a continuation of the Jewish--the child coming forth\nfrom the embryo of the Jewish womb--is apparent through the whole letter.\n\nThe third point, then, which we note is, that the ordinances of Christ,\nin all that concerns the priesthood and the rites of His Church, were to\nbe observed according to the rule which \"the Master\" Himself had given\neven more accurately than the Mosaic ritual, though that also was of\ndivine institution, had been observed.\n\nIn the next section St. Clement states very concisely, but with the\ngreatest energy, that quality in the transmission of spiritual power on\nwhich we have dwelt in drawing out the scriptural record, that it came\naltogether from above, not from below: \"The Apostles evangelised us from\nthe Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ from God. So then Christ was sent\nforth by God, and the Apostles by Christ. Both, therefore, came of the\nwill of God in the appointed order. Having then received a charge, and\nhaving been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus\nChrist, and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy\nGhost, they went forth with the good tidings that the kingdom of God was\nabout to come.\" As the whole appointment proceeded originally from Christ\nto the Apostles, so in the appointments of the Apostles it proceeded from\nthem to those whom they chose. Authority, therefore, in the kingdom of\nChrist, pursued throughout one descent: it came by the mandate of\nsuperiors, not by the election of inferiors. Thus St. Clement restates\nthe Apostolic mission as recorded by St. John: \"As My Father hath sent\nMe, I also send you.\" But he adds a fact to a principle--a fact which,\nrecording as it does the whole order of the propagation of the faith in\nthe first two generations from the day of Pentecost, is of the utmost\nvalue. \"So preaching everywhere from country to country, and from city to\ncity, they went on appointing their first-fruits, when they had proved\nthem by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons for those that were to\nbelieve.\" That is, the Apostles when they came into a town, preaching as\nSt. Paul and St. Barnabas are described as doing at Iconium, at Lystra,\nand at Derbe, were guided by a special inspiration of the Holy Spirit in\nthe choosing of future rulers among those who heard them and listened to\nthem. These \"first-fruits\" of their labour they invested with the\nepiscopal consecration and office, and themselves passing on to other\nplaces, left the bishop and his deacons to form the future people. In the\nbishop they planted the root of the complete tree; from his person\nradiated the priests and deacons; from his mouth came the tradition of\nthe divine doctrine, and thenceforth in that place all Christian\nordinances began to exist and to be exercised. The bishop is the\necclesiastical unit, the father and generator after the pattern of\nChrist, whom he represents. The process is entirely different from\nanother which has often in thought been substituted for it, according to\nwhich an existing number of believers might elect their superiors, and\nthe ecclesiastical rule be exercised in virtue of a sort of imagined\nsocial compact. But the words of St. Clement are precise in excluding any\nsuch origin of Christian mission: he says that the Apostles appointed\ntheir first-fruits to be bishops and deacons of those who were to\nbelieve, not of those who believed already; they created the ministry,\nthat the ministry might form the people as yet future.[48] All this, he\nadds, was in accordance with ancient prophecy.\n\nHe then proceeds to draw attention to the most remarkable origin of the\nJewish hierarchy, in that Moses determined the devolution of the high\npriesthood to Aaron by appealing to a miraculous judgment of God in\ncausing his rod to bear fruit among the rods of the chiefs of the tribes.\nIn truth, there is no act recorded more strikingly typical of the divine\neconomy in the mission of our Lord than the creation of the whole Jewish\npriesthood in the person of Aaron. In that one act the entire Jewish\nritual, with the doctrine which it upheld and propagated, proceeded by a\ndivine interference attested in a miracle from above, exactly as in the\nPerson of our Lord and from His sacrificial act as Redeemer the whole\nChristian hierarchy and the doctrine which it upbears came forth from the\nGod and Father of all. Under this example, and as an instance of power\ncoming from above, St. Clement places the conduct of the Apostles in\ndetermining the appointment and the succession of rulers in the Church.\n\"And our Apostles knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would\nbe strife over the dignity of the episcopate. For this cause, therefore,\nhaving received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid\npersons, and they established a succession that, if these should fall\nasleep, other approved men should succeed to their liturgic function.\"\n\nThus before the end of the first century we have a historical statement\nof the universal and regular appointment of bishops throughout the world\nby the Apostles in consequence of \"complete foreknowledge received\" from\nour Lord Himself. The principle on which they proceeded is clearly\ndefined; the generation of the Christian people from a hierarchy\nexisting before itself is marked out. This is said to be in accordance\nwith ancient prophecy, and follows the great example of God, who created\nby the hand of Moses the order of the Aaronic priesthood, the precursor\nand preparer of the Christian, in which it was merged, when the High\nPriest at length appeared and consummated the act which the whole Jewish\nritual was formed to symbolise.\n\nIn all this statement St. Clement not merely confirms the scriptural\nrecord, but he supplies those details which it enveloped in general\nheads. Titus and Timotheus are instances of episcopal appointment in the\nwritings of St. Paul, and the bishops or angels of the seven Churches in\nthe Apocalypse; but here the appointment is recorded as general, as\neverywhere carried out by the Apostles in each city according to the\nspecial instruction of our Lord.\n\nScarcely less remarkable is the manner in which this Pope, the third from\nSt. Peter, exercises in the lifetime of St. John the supreme pastoral\noffice, the creation of which that Apostle has recorded. The question to\nbe decided is the deposition or the maintenance of the Bishop at Corinth,\nand there follows immediately upon the text above cited the act of\nauthority. \"Those, therefore, that were appointed by them or afterward by\nother men of repute, with the consent of the whole Church, and who\nperformed their office blamelessly to the flock of Christ, with\nlowliness, gentleness, and a generous spirit, and for a long time have\nborne a good report with all, _these we judge it not consonant with\njustice to deprive of their office_. For it will be no light sin in us\nto deprive of the episcopate[49] those who offer the gifts blamelessly\nand holily.\" He who speaks in this language intimates thereby that he has\npower to deprive of the liturgic office, that is, of the episcopate, and\nacknowledges that he will have to answer for the exercise of that power.\n\nBut further, the sentence thus given he declares to be the sentence of\nGod Himself. \"Receive our counsel, and you shall have no occasion of\nregret. For as God liveth, and the Lord Jesus Christ liveth, and the Holy\nSpirit, who are the faith and the hope of the elect, so surely shall he\nwho, with lowliness of mind and instant in gentleness, hath without\nregretfulness performed the ordinances and commandments that are given by\nGod, be enrolled and have a name among the number of them that are saved\nthrough Jesus Christ, through whom is the glory to Him for ever and ever.\nAmen. But if certain persons should be disobedient unto the words spoken\nby Him through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves\nin no slight transgression and danger; but we shall be guiltless of this\nsin.\"[50] Further on in the letter he continues:--\n\n\"Therefore it is right for us to give heed to so great and so many\nexamples, and to submit the neck, and, occupying the place of obedience,\nto take our side with them that are the leaders of our souls, that,\nceasing from this foolish dissension, we may attain to the goal which\nlies before us in truthfulness, keeping aloof from every fault. For you\nwill give us great joy and gladness if you render obedience to the things\nwritten by us through the Holy Spirit, and root out the unrighteous anger\nof your jealousy, according to the entreaty which we have made for peace\nand concord in this letter.\"[51]\n\nLet us sum up the force of the words just cited.\n\nSt. Clement, after invoking the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity as\nwitnesses of the judgment he was about to promulgate, declares that \"he\nwho performs without regretfulness the ordinances and commandments that\nare given by God\" shall \"be enrolled and have a name among the number of\nthem that are saved through Jesus Christ.\" On the other hand, that those\nwho are \"disobedient unto the words spoken by Him through us\" \"will\nentangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger.\" He adds,\nmoreover, \"You will give us great joy and gladness if you render\nobedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.\"[51]\n\nFrom all which we learn that a decision of the Church of Rome, issued by\nits Bishop, as to whether the Bishop of Corinth was rightly or wrongly\ndeposed, is declared, after attestation of the Three Divine Persons to be\namong the commandments and ordinances given by God; to be \"words spoken\nby God through us,\" that is, the Pope and the Church of Rome; to be\n\"things written by us through the Holy Spirit,\" to which absolute\nobedience was due, and which could not be neglected \"without no slight\ntransgression and danger.\" The Pope, moreover, takes upon himself the\npower to deprive of the episcopate by issuing a judgment that an actual\npossessor of it is in his right, while he says at the same time that it\nwould be \"no light sin in us to deprive him of it unjustly.\"\n\nIt is in every way remarkable that the first pastoral letter of a Pope\nwhich has been preserved to posterity should contain so undeniable an\nexercise of his supreme authority. Again, it is another noteworthy matter\nthat this supreme authority should have been exercised in the lifetime of\nthe last surviving Apostle, the Beloved Disciple. Further, would it be\npossible to apply in a stronger way than St. Clement, issuing an\nauthoritative judgment, here applies them, those words of our Lord: \"He\nthat heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me;\nand he that despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me.\"[52] And again,\n\"Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.\" Lastly,\nit is to be noted that the authority thus exercised concerns not a point\nof dogma, but the office of a Bishop; yet disobedience to it is\nconsidered as disobedience to \"words spoken by God through us.\"\n\nThe part of St. Clement's letter, which contains the whole judgment thus\ncommented on, has only been recovered within the last few years.\n\nBut that whole view of the constitution of the Church during the first\ncentury which is presented to us in the Epistle of St. Clement is\nremarkably corroborated by the letters of his contemporary, St. Ignatius\nof Antioch. That fervent confessor of God, passing in chains to\nmartyrdom, pours forth, as is well known, the deepest fulness of his\nheart to the Churches which he visits in his long way of the cross from\nAntioch to Rome. The letters are short, the style abrupt, the expressions\nonly incidental; he had no thought of writing a treatise on the\nconstitution of the Church. Thus any short quotation is quite inadequate\nto render the full witness of the saint. It would be necessary to read\nthrough the whole series in order to feel how incessantly he dwells upon\nunion with God wrought through obedience to the hierarchy of bishops,\npriests, and deacons, which is the test in his mind of love to Christ.\nThus, at the beginning of his letter to the Church of Smyrna, he speaks\nof the most blessed Passion of Christ, \"a fruit of which are we that He\nmight set up a token for all ages through His Resurrection to His holy\nand faithful ones, whether they be among Jews or Gentiles, in the one\nbody of His Church.\"\n\nIn his letter to the Church of Ephesus there is a remarkable passage, in\nwhich he joins together the thought of the unity of a particular diocese\nwith the unity of the bishops throughout the world. \"It is fitting that\nyou should by all means glorify Jesus Christ, who has glorified you, that\nby a uniform obedience you may be perfectly joined together and subject\nto the bishop, and the presbytery may be in all things sanctified. I do\nnot command you, as if I were anybody; for though I am bound in the name\nof Christ, I am not yet perfected in Him. For now I begin to learn, and\nspeak to you as my fellow-disciples. For I ought to be confirmed by you\nin faith, in admonition, in patience, in long-suffering. But since\ncharity permits me not to be silent in regard to you, I have therefore\ntaken upon me to exhort you that you may run together with the mind of\nGod. For Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the mind of the Father,\nas also the bishops, appointed throughout the earth, are in the mind of\nChrist. Whence, also, it becomes you to agree with the mind of the\nbishop, as indeed you do. For your illustrious presbytery, worthy of God,\nis fitted as exactly to the bishop as the strings are to a harp. Hence it\nis that, in your concord and harmonious love, Jesus Christ is sung; and\none and all you make up the chorus, that, being harmonious in concord,\ntaking up the song of God in unity, you may sing with one voice to the\nFather through Jesus Christ, that He may both hear you and recognise by\nyour good deeds that you are members of His Son. It is well for you,\nthen, to be in blameless unity, that you may in all things partake of\nGod.\"\n\nThe vivid love and sense of the Church, as the great instrument of unity\nwrought by the Passion of Christ in the world, and compacted by the\nministry which He has set up, distinguishes the letter of St. Ignatius as\nit does that of St. Paul to the same Ephesian Church, so specially\nbeloved by the Apostle, and the scene of so many of his labours. But St.\nIren\u00e6us[53] tells us that it was also from the bosom of this Church of\nEphesus that the Apostle of love issued the Gospel in which he recorded\nfor the world the great commission to feed the whole flock of Christ\ngiven to St. Peter on the shore of the lake of Galilee.\n\nLet us add one more passage from the letter to the Trallians. \"For when\nyou are subject to your bishop as to Jesus Christ you seem to me to live\nnot after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for\nus, in order that, believing in His death, you may escape death. It is\ntherefore necessary that you do nothing without your bishop, but that you\nbe subject to the presbytery also, as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ,\nour hope, in whom if we walk we shall be found. The deacons also, as\nbeing the ministers of the mysteries of Jesus Christ, must be acceptable\nto all. For they are not the ministers of meat and drink, but servants of\nthe Church of God. Wherefore they must avoid all offences as they would\nfire. Let all in like manner reverence the deacons as Jesus Christ, and\nthe bishop as the type of the Father, and the presbyters as God's senate\nand the College of Apostles. Without these there is no Church.\"\n\nThese words expressly state the organic unity of a local Church to be the\nbishop with his priests and deacons; but he had likewise noted that the\nbishops established throughout the earth were together \"in the mind of\nChrist.\"\n\nThe words of St. Clement the Pope, and St. Ignatius, the bishop of one of\nthe three original patriarchal Sees, thus complete and corroborate each\nother. If we put the passages just cited from the latter with the\nstatement of the former, that \"the Apostles, preaching from country to\ncountry and from city to city, established their first-fruits, after\nproving them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of a people that\nwere to believe,\" we have a perfect chain let down from above, and\nbinding the earth in its embrace: God, who sends forth Christ; Christ,\nwho sends forth the Apostles; the Apostles, who appoint local bishops,\nwho are the bond to their clergy and people. In the whole of this the\nexpression of St. Ignatius is verified: \"hence in your concord and\nharmonious love Jesus Christ is sung.\" If the bishops throughout the\nworld were not united with each other in as complete a harmony as the\npresbytery with the bishop in a particular diocese, these words would not\nbe true. But, on the contrary, they are together \"in the mind of Christ,\"\nas He is \"the mind of the Father,\" and they feed not each a separate\nflock, but together \"the flock of Christ.\"\n\nBut who is the bond of their union? It pleased the Divine Providence\nthat, even before St. Ignatius wrote, and even in the lifetime of the\nApostle who recorded the commission to feed the whole flock of Christ,\nthe harmony and obedience of which St. Ignatius spoke should be broken in\na particular diocese, and that St. Peter's third successor should execute\nhis office and assert the Divine commission by fulfilling it. His conduct\nin this marks, by a solemn act, the line between the Apostolate and the\nPrimacy. That he speaks in the name of the whole Roman Church, as the\nvoice of a Body, illustrates further the words of St. Ignatius, \"Your\npresbytery is fitted as exactly to the bishop as the strings are to a\nharp.\"[54]\n\nIn the testimony of these Apostolic Fathers, each completing the other,\nwe have not only the local bishop planted as the unit of the Church's\norganism in any particular city, but the bishop who sits in the See of\nPeter, the tie and bond of his brethren. The harp sounds its notes to\nChrist throughout the world.\n\nAnother point in which their testimony exactly agrees is, that while St.\nClement speaks of the government of the Church as enacted with even\ngreater accuracy and enforced with even stronger penalties than the law\nof Moses, St. Ignatius takes the strict observance of unity and obedience\nto external authority as a perfect test of the inward disposition, a\nperfect assurance that those who exercised these virtues were members of\nChrist. The temper in which these Fathers write is as far as possible\nremoved from the notion that Church government was either lax or\nuncertain. To them it comes from above, and requires inward obedience, as\nthe appointment of Christ.\n\nEusebius, the first historian of the Church, compiling about the year\n324 notices of the times before him, with, records at his command which\nare no longer extant, describes in the following terms the first period,\nthat in which the Apostles themselves preached, which we may speak of as\nrunning from the Day of Pentecost to the destruction of Jerusalem:--\n\n\"Thus, under a celestial influence and co-operation, the doctrine of the\nSaviour, like the rays of the sun, quickly irradiated the whole world.\nPresently, in accordance with divine prophecy, the sound of his inspired\nEvangelists and Apostles had gone throughout all the earth, and their\nwords to the end of the world. Throughout every city and village, like a\nreplenished barn-floor, numerous and populous churches were firmly\nestablished. Those who, in consequence of the delusions that had\ndescended to them from their ancestors, had been fettered by the ancient\ndisease of idolatrous superstition, were now liberated by the power of\nChrist, through the united force of the teaching and miracles of His\nmessengers; and, as if delivered from dreadful masters, and emancipated\nfrom the most cruel bondage, they renounced the crowd of deities\nintroduced by demons, while they confessed the one God, the Creator of\nall things. This same God they now also honoured with the rites of a true\npiety, under the influence of that inspired and reasonable worship which\nhad been planted among men by our Saviour.\"[55]\n\nThe next period is distinctly marked by Eusebius as the first succession\nfrom the Apostles. St. Paul,[56] he says, preaching to the Gentiles, laid\nthe foundations of Churches from Jerusalem in a circle round to\nIllyricum; and St. Peter preached to the circumcision in the five\nprovinces recorded by him in his letter. He continues, \"It is not easy to\nsay how many imitators of these were by them judged worthy to exercise\nthe pastoral office in the Churches founded by them, except so far as St.\nPaul's own words record them. For he had numberless fellow-workers,\nfellow-soldiers, as he himself called them, most of whom he has delivered\nto immortal memory by mention of them in his letters.\" Thus Timotheus was\nfirst Bishop of Ephesus; Titus was set over Crete, and expressly enjoined\nto appoint bishops in its several cities, for St. Paul draws out what\nsort of a character the bishop so appointed should be.[57] \"Linus, whom\nhe mentions being with him at Rome, has already,\" says Eusebius, \"been\nnamed by us as having been first Bishop of the Roman Church after Peter.\nBut likewise Clement, who was the third appointed Bishop of the Romans,\nis recorded by St. Paul as his colleague and fellow-labourer.\"\n\nIn a third passage Eusebius,[58] after speaking of Ignatius \"as the\nsecond who received the episcopal succession of St. Peter at Antioch,\"\nEvodius having been the first, and after quoting at length his letters,\nproceeds, \"There were many others also noted in the times of these men\nwho held the first rank of the apostolic succession. These, as the holy\ndisciples of such men, built up further in every place the foundations of\nthe Churches which had been laid by the Apostles. They spread the\npreaching further abroad and scattered the saving seeds of the kingdom of\nheaven far and wide through the breadth of the world. For the most of the\ndisciples at that time, kindled by a more ardent love of the divine word,\nhad first fulfilled the Saviour's exhortation by distributing their\nsubstance to the needy. Afterwards, leaving their country, they performed\nthe work of evangelists, filled with a noble ambition to proclaim Christ\nto such as had not yet heard the word of faith, and to deliver to them\nthe writing of the sacred Gospels. Thus laying merely the foundations of\nthe faith in new and strange places, and, appointing others to the\npastoral office, they left them to cultivate the new plantation, and\nagain went on to other places and nations by God's grace and\nco-operation. For a great number of marvellous works of power were still\ndone by them through the Holy Spirit; so that at the first hearing\nmultitudes of men in a mass received into their souls readily the worship\nof the One Creator. As I cannot record by name all those who received the\nfirst succession of the Apostles as pastors and evangelists in the\nChurches throughout the world, I will mention those only where tradition\nof apostolical doctrine is carried down to us by actual memorials.\"\n\nThe gradations thus marked in the propagation of the gospel are three:\nfirst, that of the Apostles in Judea before their dispersion; secondly,\nthat of the Apostles with their personal fellow-workers throughout the\nworld; thirdly, that of the men called Apostolic, because they had lived\nin the time of the Apostles without having been their first co-operators,\nor, to use the Pauline expression, fellow-soldiers. This carries us over\nthe ninety years from the Day of Pentecost to the end of Trajan's reign,\nduring which reign, the time, as Eusebius calls it, of St. Clement of\nRome and of St. Ignatius of Antioch, he notes that there was a specially\nabundant outburst of such teachers.\n\nEusebius bears witness through the whole of his History to the\nuniversality of the episcopal regimen. Likewise he carefully gives the\ndescent of the three great Sees of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. He\nnotes how they took their rise from the person of Peter, who sat at\nAntioch himself, who sent his son Mark to Alexandria, and whose coming to\nRome the historian describes in the words following:--\n\n\"Immediately in the reign of the Emperor Claudius, the most benign and\nman-loving providence of God conducted to Rome Peter, the great and\npowerful among the Apostles, who for his virtue was chosen to lead them\nall against Simon, the plague of mankind.[59] Peter, like a valiant\ncommander of God's army, clothed in heavenly panoply, carried from the\nEast to the West the precious freight of intellectual light, bearing the\nproclamation of the heavenly kingdom, to be the sure and saving word of\nsouls.\" He records the martyrdom of the two Apostles, Peter and Paul,\ntogether at Rome under Nero, giving for this fact a fourfold testimony;\nof historians generally; of their tombs, which were still to be seen at\nRome; of the presbyter Cains, who, at the beginning of the third century,\nappealed to the existence of these tombs, the one at the Vatican, the\nother on the Ostian Road, as a proof where \"the sacred tabernacles of\nthese Apostles had been deposited;\" and lastly, to the letter of\nDionysius, Bishop of Corinth in the middle of the second century, who\nspoke of their having both taught the Church of Corinth as well as that\nof Rome, and of both having suffered martyrdom together. \"These\nparticulars I have given,\" says Eusebius, \"that the memory of the fact\nmay be the more confirmed.\"[60] He gives carefully during two hundred\nyears the descent of the bishops in these three Sees, and the number of\nyears they sat--a tacit witness to the eminent rank of the three great\nMother Sees established by Peter in the three chief cities of the Roman\nEmpire; and an honour which he gives besides only to the Church of\nJerusalem, since all, he says, have ever borne reverence \"to the throne\nof the Apostle James, the first who received the episcopate of the city\nof Jerusalem from the Saviour Himself and the Apostles!\"\n\nIn another place he writes: \"Again, when I consider the power of the\nWord, how the most populous churches were constructed by the rudest and\nmost ignoble disciples of Jesus, not in obscure and unknown places, but\nfounded in the most conspicuous cities, in very imperial Rome itself, in\nAlexandria and Antioch, for all Egypt and Libya, for Europe, and for\nAsia,--again I am compelled to search out the reason of this, and to\nconfess that they could not have succeeded in so audacious an attempt\nexcept by some divine and superhuman power, and the working together with\nthem of Him who said 'Make disciples all nations in My name.'\"[61]\n\nBetween St. Clement of Rome and St. Ignatius of Antioch at the end of the\nfirst century, and Eusebius at the beginning of the fourth, stands at the\nend of the second century the witness of Tertullian. In setting forth the\nlegal ground of prescription against the heretics of his day, he gives an\naccount of the original propagation of the divine kingdom, which exactly\ntallies with all that precedes. \"Christ Jesus our Lord ... had chosen\ntwelve disciples to be attached to His side, whom He destined to be the\nteachers of the nations. Accordingly, after one of these had been struck\noff, He commanded the eleven others, on His departure to the Father, to\ngo and teach all nations, who were to be baptized into the Father, and\ninto the Son, and into the Holy Ghost. Immediately, therefore, the\nApostles, whom this designation indicates as the Sent, having on the\nauthority of a prophecy, which occurs in a psalm of David, chosen\nMatthias by lot as the twelfth into the place of Judas, obtained the\npromised power of the Holy Ghost for the gift of miracles and of\nutterance. And after first bearing witness to the faith in Jesus Christ\nthroughout Judea, and founding Churches, they next went forth into the\nworld, and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations.\nThey then, in like manner, founded Churches in every city\" (that is, an\nepiscopal See in each city, without which, as St. Ignatius told us, there\nis no Church) \"from which all the other Churches, one after another,\nderived the tradition of the faith and the seeds of doctrine, and are\nevery day deriving them that they may become Churches. Indeed it is on\nthis account only that they are able to deem themselves apostolic, as\nbeing the offspring of Apostolic Churches. Every sort of thing must\nnecessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the\nChurches, though they are so many and so great, comprise but the one\nPrimitive Church founded by the Apostles, from which they all spring. In\nthis way all are primitive and all are apostolic, while all together make\nup a unity; while they have peaceful communion, and title of brotherhood,\nand bond of hospitality, privileges which no other rule directs than the\none tradition of the self-same mystery. From this, then, do we prescribe\nthe rule that, since the Lord Jesus Christ sent the Apostles to preach,\nno other ought to be received as preachers than those whom Christ\nappointed; for 'no man knoweth the Father save the Son, and he to\nwhomsoever the Son will reveal Him.' Nor does the Son seem to have\nrevealed Him to any other than the Apostles, whom He sent forth to\npreach that, of course, which He revealed to them. Now what this was\nwhich they preached--in other words, what it was which Christ revealed to\nthem--can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no\nother way than by those very Churches which the Apostles founded in\nperson, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves, both by word\nof mouth, as the phrase is, and subsequently by their Epistles. If, then,\nthese things are so, it is in the same decree manifest that all doctrine\nwhich agrees with the Apostolic Churches--those wombs and original\nsources of the faith--must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly\ncontaining that which the said Churches received from the Apostles, the\nApostles from Christ, and Christ from God; whereas all doctrine must be\nprejudged as false which savours of contrariety to the truth of the\nChurches and Apostles of Christ and God.\"[62]\n\nBut the whole work of St. Iren\u00e6us against heresies is based exactly upon\nthe fact which we are here setting forth. His object was to show that the\ntrue faith was preserved intact in all the Churches of the world by means\nof the bishops appointed by the Apostles. Thus he commences his third\nbook: \"For the Lord of all gave to His Apostles the power of the gospel,\nthrough whom we have learnt the truth, that is, the doctrine of the Son\nof God; to whom the Lord said, 'He who heareth you, heareth Me, and who\ndespiseth you, despiseth Me, and Him who sent Me.'\" ... \"For after our\nLord arose from the dead, and they had been clothed with the power of the\nHoly Spirit coming down upon them from on high, they were completely\nfilled and had perfect knowledge: they went forth into the ends of the\nworld, proclaiming the gospel of good things from God, and announcing\npeace from heaven to men, all of them and every one of them possessing\nequally the gospel of God.\" ... \"All, therefore, who wish to see the\ntruth may behold in every Church the tradition of the Apostles, which was\nmade known through the whole world; and we can number up those who were\nappointed by the Apostles bishops in the Churches, and their successors\ndown to our own times, who have neither taught nor known any such\ndelirious imagination as theirs.\" He is speaking of the heresy of\nValentinus. \"For had the Apostles known recondite mysteries, which they\nwere in the habit of teaching separately and secretly from the rest to\nthe perfect, they would deliver such especially to those to whom they\nwere intrusting the Churches themselves. For they desired those to be\nvery perfect and blameless in all things whom they were leaving as their\nsuccessors, handing over to them their own place of teaching. For if\nthese acted faultlessly, the good would be great; whereas if they failed,\nthe calamity would be complete.\"\n\nIren\u00e6us sums up all this view in another place, where he says: \"True\nknowledge is the doctrine of the Apostles, and the ancient compacted\nfabric of the Church through the whole world, and the character of the\nBody of Christ, according to the succession of bishops, to whom they\ndelivered that Church which is everywhere.\"[63]\n\nIn what has preceded we have traced carefully the transmission of\nspiritual authority, putting together the various intimations respecting\nit which are given in the four Gospels, the Acts, the Epistles of St.\nPaul, and the Apocalypse. From these intimations a most clear and\nunambiguous result has been deduced. Then proceeding to historical\nproofs, we find the third Pope from St. Peter, at the end of the first\ncentury, in an official document, summing up in words of great precision\nwhat had been the actual course of things in the two generations which\nlay between the Day of Pentecost and the time at which he was writing. If\nwe compare the Gospels which record the institution of the power, and the\nhistory which records its actual beginning and exercise, as thus given by\nSt. Clement, we find the most exact agreement. Another saint and martyr,\ncontemporary with St. Clement, and holding by second succession from St.\nPeter what became the great patriarchal See of the East, affords the\nstrongest corroboration to him in the doctrinal statements which are\nfound interwoven in the letters addressed by him to various churches as\nhe is carried a prisoner on his way to martyrdom. The first extant\nhistorian, writing in 324, on the eve of the assembling of the first\nGeneral Council, testifies throughout the ten books of his work the\nuniversality of the episcopal regimen, and intimates its organic\nstructure by giving each link in the spiritual descent of the three great\nSees of Peter and of the Church of Jerusalem. Intermediate between these\nthree authorities, Iren\u00e6us, Bishop of Lyons, writing seventy years after\nSt. Clement, and Tertullian, writing thirty years after Iren\u00e6us, give\nvery graphic accounts of the Church in their day, which exactly accord\nboth with the Pope and Martyr-bishop preceding and the historian\nfollowing them. Instead of calling in other witnesses, let us attempt to\ngive a general view of the Episcopate as it is found when emerging from\nthe last great persecution, which terminated the first stadium of its\ncourse, and was followed by the peace of the Church, proclaimed by the\nEmperor Constantine 283 years after the Day of Pentecost. The whole of\nthis period marks a time in which the growth of the Church and the form\nof her constitution were the result of a power proceeding solely from\nwithin, never favoured by the civil power, often actively persecuted, and\ndaily in a thousand ways discouraged.\n\nSt. Augustine, writing in the year 398, observes precisely of this time,\nthat is, the year 314, that if the Donatists suspected the judgment of\ntheir African colleagues, there were thousands of bishops beyond the sea\nto whom they might have recourse.[64] In his own time he counted 476\nCatholic bishoprics in the African provinces. Throughout the Roman Empire\nit would seem that, before the peace of the Church, not only every\nconsiderable city, but even small towns, possessed their bishop. St.\nHilary says: \"Though there be only one Church in the world, yet every\ncity has its own Church;\" and St. Cyprian and St. Dionysius of Alexandria\nassert this of their own time.[65]\n\nThe conduct, then, of St. Peter, of St. Paul, and of all the Apostles in\nthe propagation of the Church, was from the beginning one and uniform,\nand impressed itself on the succeeding generations.[66] They founded a\nChristian colony on the solid basis of a complete administration, and\nestablishing their most fervent disciples as the chiefs of that\nhierarchic organisation, they left to them the charge of forming new\ncentres of spiritual life in the cities dependent on those first chosen.\nThus St. Peter chose first Antioch, Queen of the East, the head\nafterwards of fifteen ecclesiastical provinces; then Rome, the head of\nthe whole Empire, of which Pope St. Innocent said, writing in the year\n416 to the Bishop of Eugubium, that \"it was an acknowledged fact that no\none had established Churches\" (by which he means a Bishop's See) \"in all\nItaly, the Gauls, the Spains, in Africa, in Sicily, and the intervening\nislands, except those whom the venerable Apostle Peter or his successors\nhad appointed bishops.\"[67]\n\nThirdly, he chose Alexandria, whose bishops became the head of the three\nprovinces, Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis. But no less St. Paul planted in\nEphesus the Mother Church of the province of Asia (one-twentieth only of\nthe great country called Asia Minor); in Thessalonica, the metropolis of\nThrace; in Corinth, that of Achaia; he and Barnabas, in Salamis, that of\nCyprus; while he set a disciple to appoint bishops over the whole island\nof Crete. These are specimens of the power which was thus established in\nevery city over the whole world traversed by the Apostles and their\ndescendants, a power fixed, not transitory; local, not roving. It was an\noccupation of each city by the spiritual authority exactly similar in\ndivine things to the military colonies which Rome planted in its\nprovinces for the propagation of its temporal sway. It was a corporate\nbody with a most compact unity, at the head of which, informing and\ndirecting every act, stood the bishop, a name of power and jurisdiction.\nOf them St. Paul said, \"Obey your prelates, and be subject to them.\" From\nsuch words the power of government is a clear inference. If the faithful\nare obliged to obey the prelates of the Church, these must have authority\nto command. Thus St. Gregory of Nazianzum, addressing in the year 373 the\ngovernor of his province, used these words: \"The law of Christ subjects\nyou to my authority and to my tribunal. For we also have a government,\nnay, I will add a greater and more perfect government, unless spirit\nmust yield to flesh, and heavenly things to earthly. I know that you will\naccept my freedom of speech, because you are a sheep of my flock, a\nsacred sheep of a sacred flock, nurtured by the Great Shepherd.\"[68]\nElsewhere he calls it \"the government which is innocent of blood,\"\ncontrasting it with \"the government of the sword and the lash.\" The Greek\nFathers universally, in explaining the dignity of the episcopate, use\nthis word government.[69]\n\nOf the way in which the world was thus evangelised we have an instance\nrecorded by Photius, who says that Caius, a grave and learned priest of\nthe Roman Church, was ordained by Pope Zephyrinus (who sat from 202 to\n218), Bishop of the Nations, that is, without designation of any\nparticular diocese, as if anointed and crowned for a kingdom, which by\nhis valour and wisdom he was to obtain for himself. In this way the Roman\nPontiffs consecrated a great number of bishops, whom they sent to bring\nthe provinces under the yoke of the faith, as recorded above by St.\nInnocent.[70] But it is to be noted that those who were thus sent out\nduring two centuries from the first age were not elected by the people of\nthe several churches which they founded. They came to them by authority\nfrom without--the authority of the Apostles and the Apostolic See,\nmediately or immediately. In the cases just mentioned the mission was\nimmediate: in other cases, where it was derived from some Patriarchal See\nor from a metropolis, it still descended from that original mission of\nthe Apostles, and the distribution of authority made by Peter at their\nhead.\n\nFor the whole of this mission there is one great type and source; our\nLord at the head of His Apostles is the prelude to the bishop in the\nmidst of his presbytery. He repeats Himself in every diocese, the first\nand everlasting Bishop, whose heirs spread throughout the world. All is\nfrom above.\n\nBut each bishop's chair thus established is a centre of dogmatic truth\nand of moral force. The government extending thus over the whole Church\nis a mean between autonomy and centralisation. \"The bishop is contained\nin the Church, and the Church in the bishop:\" it is \"a flock united to\nits pastor.\" This is its local character: a most living authority, and a\nmost careful representation of those governed. What it is in reference to\nthe like authority planted elsewhere, we shall see presently.\n\nThe bishop, with his presbyterate and diaconate, fitted to him as the\nstrings to a harp, in the words of St. Ignatius, this was the instrument\nby which our Lord chose to take hold of the world. \"Many nations of\nbarbarians,\" St. Iren\u00e6us observes, \"believing in Christ, follow the order\nof tradition without pen and paper, having salvation written in their\nhearts by the Spirit;\"[71] but nowhere as to this point of episcopal\nregimen did this tradition vary. The Church having traversed the three\ncenturies, assaulted from within by sects innumerable, and from without\nby a hostile Empire, emerges under this government alone. Nowhere was it\nwithout this settled order of the Episcopate. A presbyter not subject to\na bishop, a single church or any number of churches not ruled by a\nbishop, these were unknown things. In the sects, indeed, there were all\nsorts of disorder and continued changes of government, just as there was\nincessant fluctuation of doctrine; the true and only Church showed itself\nprecisely in this, that it preserved its doctrine and its government\nalike unchangeable.\n\nEusebius observes how \"the devices of opponents destroyed each other by\ntheir own violence. New heresies continually rose and fell, one giving\nway to the other, and corrupting themselves in a long series of the most\ndiverse and strange conceptions. But the one Church, proceeding on the\nsame lines, and in an even tenor, kept upon its path, ever increasing in\nbrilliancy, and shedding forth upon every race of Greeks and barbarians\nthe dignity, sincerity, and freedom, the tempered wisdom and purity, of\nthe divine polity and philosophy;\" where it is observable that by the\nwords polity and philosophy he blends together the form of life and the\ntruth of doctrine as coinherent with each other.[72]\n\nThus in less than three centuries the Episcopate was flung as a golden\nnetwork over the greatest of the world-empires, and far beyond its\nborders. But let us well understand what this means. It does not mean\nsimply that there were bishops everywhere; that no church existed save\nunder the rule of a bishop; that there were no presbyterian, still more,\nno independent churches. It is a much greater fact which we have to note;\nit is that there was \"one Episcopate, of which a part was held by each\nwithout division of the whole;\" \"one Episcopate spread abroad in the\nconcordant multitude of many bishops.\"[73] The doctrine of St. Cyprian is\nthus set forth by De Marca: \"As there is one body of the Church divided\ninto many members through the whole world, so there is in it one only\nEpiscopate, spread abroad in the harmony of many bishops. If these be\nconsidered as a body, they hold the entire Episcopate in common. But a\ncertain portion of the flock has been assigned to each bishop to lead and\ndirect it singly, but in consonance with the charity and communion due to\nthe whole body. For if unity be relinquished, the bishop who departs from\nthe body would dry up as a stream deflecting from its source, and wither\nas a branch cut off from the trunk and root. This distribution of\nportions, which have been committed to the various bishops, descended\nfrom the apostolic rule. For when the Apostles founded churches, though\nthey conferred on the ordained bishop by the imposition of their hands\nall the power of order and jurisdiction, yet they assigned to him the\nplace in which he should discharge his office. This has been marked with\ngreat clearness in the 20th chapter of the Acts, where we read that the\nHoly Spirit appointed bishops to govern the Church of God. But since the\nChurch was to be ruled in unity, it was necessary that some mode of\ncommunion between the bishops should be established by the Apostles\naccording to the example given by Christ in establishing the College of\nApostles, which represented the whole body of the Church.\"[74] And what\nthis rule was De Marca proceeds to state in the words of St. Leo the\nGreat, which, as written in the middle of the fifth century by the\nhighest authority, will serve better to convey a lucid view of the one\nEpiscopate than any more modern statement. In the year 446 St. Leo\nwrites: \"It is the connection of the whole body which makes one soundness\nand one beauty; and this connection, as it requires unanimity in the\nwhole body, so especially demands concord among bishops. For though these\nhave a common dignity, yet have they not a general jurisdiction; since\neven among the most blessed Apostles, as there was a likeness of honour,\nso was there a certain distinction of power; and the election of all\nbeing equal, pre-eminence over the rest was given to one. From which type\nthe distinction also among bishops has arisen, and it was provided by a\ngreat disposition that all should not claim to themselves all things, but\nthat in every province there should be one whose sentence should be\nconsidered the first among his brethren; and others again, seated in the\ngreater cities, should undertake a larger care, through whom the\ndirection of the universal Church should converge to the one See of\nPeter, and nothing anywhere disagree from its head.\"[75]\n\nIt is thus that the Church appeared when it came out of the fire of\npersecution and the perpetual conflict with heresies into peace and\nrecognition by the Civil Power. It was not merely that by an innate\nforce--which all the Fathers attribute to the gift of the Holy Spirit\ndwelling in it--a uniform episcopal government had been established\nwherever it extended, but that it was one Episcopate ruling one flock.\nBetween a bishop viewed as the centre of unity in his own diocese, but\nunconnected with other bishops, and independent of them, and an\nEpiscopate organically one, ruling one flock through the whole world,\nthere is all the difference which exists between what is human, weak, and\nperishable and what is divine, strong, and enduring. In the former case\nthe bishop's throne would simply be a seat of rivalry, confusion, and\nerror; in the latter, the union of the body is the test of health, and\nmakes that divine beauty which our Lord in His prayer for His Church at\nthe entrance of His Passion contemplated, which He likened even to the\ndivine unity. This was the vision which lay before St. Cyprian's eyes\nwhen he cried out, \"The Spouse of Christ cannot be adulterated; she is\nincorrupt and chaste; she has one single home; she guards the sanctity of\none marriage chamber with inviolable modesty. The Lord says, 'I and the\nFather are one;' and again, of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit\nit is written, 'These three are one.' Can any one believe that the unity\nwhich springs from the divine strength, which is bound together by\nheavenly sacraments, can be broken in the Church and torn asunder by the\ncollision of opposing wills.\"[76] But St. Cyprian's safeguard against\nthis was the one Episcopate, which he views as centred in the See of\nPeter, its origin and matrix, and which, two hundred years after him, the\ngreat successor of St. Peter describes in act.\n\nThe Fathers regarded the establishment of bishops everywhere as a\nwonderful fulfilment of the Psalmist's vision: \"Instead of thy fathers,\nsons are born to thee: thou shalt make them princes over all the\nearth.\"[77] And, in truth, the uniform planting in every city and town of\na divine government such as we have described, the doing this, moreover,\nwithout favour or protection from the civil power, nay, in spite of its\njealousy, resistance, and persecution, is a wonder of divine power. But\nthis is only half what was done. This is not yet the One Episcopate, but\nthere is to be added to it that \"Sacrament of unity\" whereby every one of\nthese bishops belonged to an indivisible whole, and fed a portion of the\none \"flock of Christ.\" Bishops, holding each in his own person the\nfulness of the priesthood, its generative and ruling power, whether the\nnumber of their people were small or great, whether their presbyters and\ndeacons were many or few, in these respects equal to each other and\ncomplete in themselves, were in a further point of view members of one\nhierarchy, which could no more be multiplied than the Body of Christ or\nHis Flock. The one Saviour could not have two bodies, nor the one\nShepherd two flocks. Hence, what St. Leo calls \"the provision of that\ngreat disposition that all should not claim to themselves all things, but\nthat in every province there should be one whose sentence should be\nconsidered the first among his brethren;\" in which words he marks the\nMetropolitan and his suffragans; \"and others again seated in the greater\ncities should undertake a larger care\"--as, for instance, the Bishop of\nAntioch, when he had fifteen Metropolitans subject to his chair--\"through\nwhom the direction of the Universal Church should converge to the one See\nof Peter, and nothing anywhere disagree from its head.\" What terser and\nclearer statement of the actual government of the Church could be given\nnow, though more than fourteen hundred years have passed since it was\nwritten?\n\nThis, then, is the full meaning of the One Episcopate; this is the marvel\nsuperadded to the sons of the Church who are made princes over all the\nearth, that they are not individual governors only of a local republic,\nbut bound together by a manifold subordination, Bishop to Metropolitan,\nMetropolitan to Patriarch, Patriarch to Pope. There is the twofold beauty\nof unity and order; the first, \"sweet and comely as Jerusalem;\" the\nsecond, \"terrible as an army set in array.\"\n\nAnd it may be said that if there be any one feeling which shows itself on\nall occasions in the writings of the Fathers, any one conviction which\nsways all their arguments, it is the feeling that the flock of Christ is\none and indivisible; that the Episcopate which rules it throughout the\nearth is one and indivisible also; and both because the Great Shepherd is\none, and the Father who sent Him is one; as we have heard St. Cyprian in\nunsurpassable words declaring sixteen hundred years ago.\n\nWe see, then, the two forces of the Primacy and the Episcopate coexist at\nthe end of this first great stadium of the Church's course, as they\ncoexisted on the Day of Pentecost. It is precisely when setting forth the\ntestimony given to the one Christian faith against all heresy by the\nchurches as established throughout the world, especially those which had\nApostles for founders, that Iren\u00e6us, a hundred years after St. Peter's\ndeath, dwelt upon this bond of the one Episcopate, \"that necessity by\nwhich, on account of its superior principate, every Church, that is the\nfaithful everywhere, were bound to agree with the Roman Church.\"\n\nThe two great Fathers, one the glory of the East, as the other of the\nWest, Chrysostom and Augustine, born within a few years of each in the\nmiddle of the fourth century, and thus placed at a period sufficiently\nnear, and yet not too near to contemplate the whole course of the Church\nduring her conflict with the Roman Empire, both speak in numberless\npassages and in enthusiastic words of the wonder of the Catholic Church\nspread in all lands. The wonder was increased by the existence of\nheresies and schisms, which seemed by force of contrast the better to\ndelineate the form of the one Spouse of Christ. St. Epiphanius and St.\nAugustine himself had recorded a number of these when that notable\nsentence of the great Father, \"The judgment of the whole world is a safe\none,\" which has passed into a proverb, was pronounced against the\nDonatists. What was the marvel which especially convinced their minds and\ntouched their hearts? The Roman Empire, as they still saw it and lived in\nit, was, in fact, a vast confederation of many peoples, lands, and\nreligions: the only unity which it possessed, amid endless varieties and\ncontradictions, was that unity of civil government which Roman\ndiscipline, energy, and valour had so long maintained; which, the one of\nAfrican the other of Hellenic race, equally felt and appreciated. This is\nthe greatness especially of the imperial period. Now, springing up in the\nmidst of this endless variety, this most profuse and party-coloured\npolytheism, this antagonism and rivalry of countless races, and no less\nin the light of a proud, refined, and most ancient, if also most corrupt,\ncivilisation, they saw the establishment of one uniform government,\nbearing in its bosom one uniform religion, carried on through ten\ngenerations of men, and accomplished after manifold persecutions. They\nsaw the religion and the government start together from the Person of one\nwho claimed to be the Son of God, while He certainly died, as a\nmalefactor would be condemned to die, upon the cross. They saw the\nreligion and the government carried on in the second degree by twelve\nmen, poor, illiterate, and powerless. And before their own time their\nfathers had told them how the chief of this mighty empire had bowed his\nhead before the religion and the government springing from One who hung\nupon the cross, and in His name taught by the Fisherman and the\nTentmaker. Was it not the One Episcopate with its one doctrine planted in\nall these lands, and imposing a uniform rule of life on men and women of\nevery degree, attested by its hosts of martyrs, the purity of its\nvirgins, the patience of its people, which seemed to them a miracle, the\nforce of which they were never tired of proclaiming? That stately fabric\nin which doctrine and government permeate each other, \"that unity coming\nfrom the strength of God, and seated in heavenly sacraments,\" was it not\nthis to which St. Augustine appealed in combating a heresy in the errors\nof which he had long been himself ensnared?--an appeal couched in words\nthe force of which is vastly greater when they can be applied with equal\ntruth in the nineteenth as in the fourth century. \"I am held in the bosom\nof the Catholic Church by the agreement of peoples and nations; by the\nauthority which took its rise in miracles, was nurtured in hope, reached\nits growth in charity, is confirmed by antiquity. I am held by the\nsuccession of bishops, down to the actual episcopate, from the very See\nof the Apostle Peter, to whom after His resurrection the Lord intrusted\nHis sheep to be fed. Lastly, I am held by the very name of Catholic,\nwhich, not without reason, among so many heresies that Church alone has\npossessed; so that though all heretics would like to be called Catholics,\nyet if a stranger ask where the Catholic Church is, no heretic would\nventure to show him his own church or house.\"[78]\n\nThese words were written before the end of the fourth century, and\nexhibit the aspect in which the Church of Christ presented itself to St.\nAugustine. That which he has summed up in a few sentences was drawn out\nat somewhat, greater length by St. Chrysostom about ten years before,\nwhen the worn-out religion of paganism was falling to the ground, and the\njudgment of Theodosius in levelling heathen temples only expressed the\nvictory of the Christian society. His words[79] portray so graphically\nthe several features of that \"divine and invincible power\" to which he\nattributed the growth and expansion of the Church as he beheld it 350\nyears after the Day of Pentecost, that I will quote them here\nnotwithstanding their length.[80] He begins with saying: \"If a heathen\nsays to me, How can I know that Christ is God? for this is the first\nthing to be established; the rest all follows from it; I will not make my\nproof from heaven, or such things. For if I say to him, He made the\nheaven, the earth, and the sea; he will not receive it. If I say, He\nraised the dead, He healed the blind, He cast out devils; that too he\nwill not accept. If I say, He promised a kingdom and blessings\nunspeakable; if I talk to him of the resurrection, not only will he not\nreceive it, he will laugh at it. How, then, can we approach him,\nespecially if he be an ordinary man? How but by those things which both\nof us admit without contradiction, of which there is no doubt. What,\nthen, does he admit Christ to have done which he will not dispute? This,\nthat He founded the race of Christians. He will not deny that Christ\nHimself established the Churches throughout the world.\" Afterwards he\nthus comments on the marvellous fulfilment of our Lord's prophecy on this\nsubject: \"Twelve disciples followed Him; of the Church no one had then\nconceived so much as the name, for the synagogue was still flourishing.\nWhen, then, almost the whole world was under the dominion of impiety,\nwhat was His prophecy? 'Upon this Rock I will build My Church, and the\ngates of hell shall not prevail against it.' Weigh as you please this\nword, and you will see the splendour of its truth. For the wonder is, not\nthat He built it throughout all the world, but made it impregnable, and\nthat though assaulted by such conflicts. For 'the gates of hell shall not\nprevail against it' are dangers which drag down to hell. Now, compare the\ndistinctness of the prediction with the force of the result; behold words\nwhich have their evidence in facts, and an irresistible power producing\nits effects with ease. They are but few words: 'I will build My Church.'\nDo not run over them simply, but draw them out in your thoughts. Form a\nconception how vast a thing it is to fill the whole world with so many\nChurches in a short time; to change so many nations; to persuade\nmultitudes; to break up hereditary customs; to extirpate rooted habits;\nto scatter like dust the tyranny of pleasure, the strength of vice; to\nsweep away like smoke _altars of blood_, and temples and idols and\nmysteries, and profane festivals, and the impure odours of victims, and\neverywhere to raise _unbloody altars_[81] in the country of Romans,\nPersians, Scythians, Moors, and Indians, beyond the limits of our own\nworld. For even the British Islands, lying in the ocean beyond our own\nsea, have felt the power of this word; for there too churches and altars\nhave been erected. The word then uttered by Him has been planted in all\nmen's souls, is current in all their mouths. The world, which was\novergrown with thorns, has been cleared of them, is become pure arable\nsoil, has received into it the seeds of piety. It would be a proof of\nexceeding greatness, an evidence of divine power, if nobody offered\nresistance, in the midst of peace and in the absence of opponents, for so\nvast a portion of the earth to be changed in a mass from a long\ninveterate bad habit, and to assume another habit far more difficult. It\nwas not merely custom which offered resistance, but pleasure which held\npossession, two tyrannous things. For men were persuaded to reject what\nthey had inherited from a long succession of ancestors, from\nphilosophers, and from orators; and not only so, but what was most\ndifficult, to receive a new habit of life, in which the hardest point of\nall was, that it carried with it much endurance. For it led away from\nluxury to fasting, from the love of money to poverty, from impurity to\ntemperance, from anger to meekness, from enviousness to kindliness, from\nthe broad and wide way to the narrow and straight and rugged way; and\nthis too the very men who had been nurtured in the former. For it did not\ntake men of another world and another habit of life, but the very men\nwho, through their utter corruption, were softer than mire in their old\nhabit of life; on these it enjoined to tread the narrow and straight way,\nin all its roughness and sharpness, and they listened. How many? Not two,\nor ten, or twenty, or a hundred, but the vast majority of a world-wide\npopulation. And by whom did the persuasion come? By eleven men without\nliterature, without station, ineloquent, ignoble, poor, who had no\ncountry, nor abundance of resources, nor bodily strength, nor\ndistinguished reputation, nor renown of ancestors, nor strength of words,\nnor skill in rhetoric, nor eminence of knowledge; fishermen, tentmakers,\nforeigners. For they had not even the same language as those they\npersuaded, but that strange and outlandish Hebrew tongue. Through them He\nbuilt this Church, which stretches from one end of the earth to the\nother.\n\n\"Nor was this the sole wonder, but there was a further one. These few,\npoor, private men, undistinguished, untaught, and unvalued, foreigners\nand despised, had the remodelling of the whole world placed in their\nhands, and were bidden to change it into a far more difficult condition\nof things. Yet this was not to be done in peace, but amid wars of all\nkind surrounding them. War was in every nation and every city; nay, they\nfelt its blast in every house. For this doctrine entering in, and\nsevering often the child from the father, the daughter-in-law from the\nmother-in-law, brother from brother and servant from master, subject from\nruler, husband from wife and wife from husband, and the parent from his\noffspring, since conversions did not take place in a mass, produced daily\nenmities, perpetual conflicts, a thousand deaths to its bearers, from\nwhom men turned as common enemies. All persecuted them--emperors, rulers,\nprivate persons, freemen, slaves, cities and their peoples; nor them\nalone, but, hardest of all, their neophytes, while they were yet under\ninstruction. War was waged equally upon the taught and the teachers,\nsince the doctrine was opposed to imperial commands, to the common habit,\nto inherited manners. They were bidden to abstain from idols, to despise\nthe altars of blood, which their fathers and all their ancestors had\nserved, to quit impure beliefs, to ridicule festivals and reject\ninitiations--things to them the most formidable and tremendous, and for\nwhich they would rather have given up their life than choose what the\nothers said to them, to believe, that is, on the Son of Mary, on One who\nstood before the procurator's tribunal, who was spit upon, who suffered\nunnumbered horrors, who endured an accursed death, who was buried, who\nrose again. But the strange thing of all was this: the sufferings were\nmanifest to all, the scourging, the blows on the cheek, the spittings on\nthe face, the strokes from the palms of the hand, the cross, the long\nmockery, the being put to scorn by all, the burial granted by favour.\nNot so the facts of His Resurrection; for when He rose again He appeared\nto them alone. And yet when they told these things they persuaded men,\nand so they built up the Church.\n\n\"But how did they do this? By the power of Him who commanded it. He\nHimself levelled the way for them; He made the difficulties easy. For had\nnot a divine power given success here, there would not even have been a\nbeginning, not even the first step. How otherwise was it? He who said,\n'Let there be a firmament,' and produced it in fact; 'Let the dry land\nappear,' and it came; 'Let the sun shine,' and it shone; He who did all\nthings with a word planted also these Churches, and the saying, 'I will\nbuild my Church,' produced all these effects. For such are the words of\nGod, creative words, of creations wonderful and strange....\n\n\"Thus, then, they build the universal Church. Yet no workman who was\ndriven about and hindered could with stone and mortar build a single\nwall; but these men erected so vast a number of churches through the\ninhabited world while they were being beaten and imprisoned, pursued and\nput to flight, banned and scourged, slaughtered, burned, and drowned,\ntogether with their disciples. They built not with stones, but souls, in\nthe fulness of free choice. How can one compare a mason's work with that\nof changing by persuasion a soul wherein demons had so long revelled, so\nthat from a state of madness it should reach the height of a sound mind.\nYet such was the strength of men who went about all the world naked and\ndiscalced, and with a single coat; for they had fighting with them the\nirresistible power of Him who said, 'Upon this rock I will build My\nChurch, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.' Count up the\nnumber of tyrants who were ranged in battle against it from that time,\nwhat persecutions they raised, in what position the faith stood all that\nfirst time when it was newly planted and men's minds were tender.\nHeathens were the emperors Augustus, Tiberius, Caius, Nero, Vespasian,\nTitus, and all those who succeeded them down to the time of the blessed\nConstantine. All these fought against the Church, some with more, some\nwith less violence; all of them, however, fought. If some of them\nseemed to be quiet, the very fact that those who reigned were conspicuous\nfor impiety was a cause of warfare against the Church, because those\naround them flattered and served them therein. Yet all these snares and\nattacks were scattered like spiders' webs, smoke, or dust. For the effect\nof their plotting was to produce a great host of martyrs, to unfold the\nimmortal treasures of the Church, to disclose its pillars and towers.\nThey, not only by their life but by their death, were the assurance of a\ngreat help to all who came after them.\n\n\"Here is the strength of the prediction: the gates of hell shall not\nprevail against it. From that which has been trust concerning that which\nis to be, and that no one shall overcome the martyrs.\"\n\nIn reflecting on the history thus sketched out, the thought occurs how\ncompletely the ideal of Pope St. Clement, St. Ignatius, St. Iren\u00e6us,\nTertullian, St. Cyprian, St. Chrysostom, St. Augustine, St. Epiphanius,\nand St. Leo, nay, not their ideal only, but that spiritual kingdom which\nthey described as they saw before their eyes, would have been overthrown,\nif there were substituted for it a number of bishops scattered through\nthe world in a variety of temporal kingdoms, some holding one part and\nsome another part of an original revelation, with a multitude of\ndiscrepancies, and all deriving their authority to exercise their mandate\nfrom the several temporal powers to which they were civilly subject. The\nwonder which these Fathers one and all testify in gazing upon a divine\nChurch would have passed into disgust and derision for an institution\nover which \"the gates of hell\" had prevailed by destroying its spiritual\nindependence together with its doctrinal unity.\n\nLet us proceed to examine how these two were both maintained, penetrating\nthe divine work so far as to reach that intimate union which made one\nsubstance of outward regimen and inward belief by the force of an\nindissoluble life; for if the Episcopate had been a mere government, it\nwould have had neither such unity nor such vitality, nor have been\ncapable of supporting the Church's fabric.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[41] Contra H\u00e6reses, 3, 3.\n\n[42] For the date of the epistle, as at the end of the century, see the\narguments in the Prolegomena, pp. 22, 23, of Funk's \"Opera Patrum\nApostolicorum.\"\n\n[43] St. Clement to the Corinthians, 37 and following sections, in which I\nfollow generally Dr. Lightfoot's translation, with a few changes.\n\n[44] Ho Despot\u00eas.\n\n[45] prosphoras kai leitourgias, sacrificial terms, belonging to the Holy\nEucharist.\n\n[46] t\u00ean leitourgian aut\u00f4n.\n\n[47] On this passage Bianchi, \"Della Potest\u00e0 e della Politia della Chiesa,\"\nvol. iii. p. 158, remarks: \"In oltre era noto a San Girolamo il senso della\nChiesa intorno all' ecclesiastica gerarchia d' ordine, che ella ne' tre\ngradi de' Vescovi, de' Preti, e de' Ministri, ovvero de' Diaconi, sotto il\ncui nome altri Ministri inferiori si comprendono, discendeva dal Vecchio\nTestamento, e da origine divina, cio\u00e8 dall' ordine stabilito da Dio nel\nsommo Sacerdote, ne' Sacerdoti inferiori, e ne' Leviti: i quali gradi\ndiversi nella potest\u00e0 componevano la gerarchia della vecchia Chiesa.\" St.\nJerome himself says, Ep. 101 ad Evangelum: \"Et ut sciamus traditiones\nApostolicas sumptas de V. Testamento, quod Aaron et filii ejus atque Levit\u00e6\nin templo fuerunt, hoc sibi Episcopi et Presbyteri, et Diaconi vindicent in\nEcclesia.\"\n\n[48] kathiotanon tas aparchas aut\u00f4n, dokimasantes t\u00f4 pneumati, eis\nepiskopous kai diakonous t\u00f4n mellont\u00f4n pisteuein.\n\n[49] t\u00eas leitourgias--t\u00eas episkop\u00eas apobalein.\n\n[50] Sections 58, 59.\n\n[51] Section 63.\n\n[52] Luke x. 16.\n\n[53] Iren\u00e6us, iii. 1--epeita I\u00f4ann\u00eas, ho math\u00eat\u00eas tou Kuriou, ho kai epi to\nst\u00eathos autou anapes\u00f4n kai autos exed\u00f4ke to euangelion, en Ephes\u00f4 t\u00eas Asias\ndiatrib\u00f4n.\n\n[54] I note this because Dr. Lightfoot, in his recent edition of St.\nClement's complete letter, not knowing how to meet the very strong proof of\nthe Primacy contained in the newly recovered part, suggests that the\nPrimacy belonged not to the bishop of the Roman Church, but to the Roman\nChurch. This is so total a misstatement of the position held by every\nbishop in his See as to smack of Presbyterianism. But when he goes on to\nattribute the Primacy thus located in the Roman Church to a supposed\nsuperior sanctity residing in the members of that Church, he would seem to\nbe substituting a pure invention of his own for history.\n\n[55] Eusebius, Hist. 2, 3. The words are so specific that it is desirable\nto give the original: kai d\u00eata ana pasas poleis te kai k\u00f4mas pl\u00eathuous\u00eas\nhal\u00f4nos dik\u00ean muriandroi kai pampl\u00eatheis athro\u00f4s ekkl\u00easiai sunest\u00eakesan.\nThe last word indicates the regular formation of a Church, that\nhierarchical constitution of the bishop, with his attendant ministry,\nwithout which, in the words of St. Ignatius, ekkl\u00easia ou kaleitai. I have\nused Cruse's translation, altering it occasionally.\n\n[56] Lib. iii. 4.\n\n[57] Titus i. 5-9.\n\n[58] Lib. iii. 37.\n\n[59] Eusebius appears to say that the Apostle Peter came to Rome very\nshortly after he had discomfited Simon Magus in Samaria. See lib. ii. 14.\n\n[60] Hist. 2, 25.\n\n[61] Eusebius, Hist. 7, 19; and Pr\u00e6p. Evan. lib. 3, towards the end, quoted\nby Bianchi, 3, 137.\n\n[62] Tertullian, De Pr\u00e6scriptione H\u00e6reticorum, 20, 21, Dr. Holmes'\ntranslation, with a word or two altered.\n\n[63] Iren\u00e6us, 4, 33, 8. The same is set forth with great force in Book 5,\n20.\n\n[64] Ep. 43, 11: \"Nec in illis solis episcopis Afris erat Ecclesia, ut omne\njudicium ecclesiasticum vitasse viderentur qui se judicio eorum pr\u00e6sentari\nnoluissent. Millia quippe collegarum transmarina restabant, ubi apparebat\neos judicari posse, qui videbantur Afros vel Numidas collegas habere\nsuspectos.\"\n\n[65] St. Hilary on Ps. 14, 3; St. Cyprian, Ep. 52.\n\n[66] See Dom Chamard, L'Etablissement du Christianisme, p. 141.\n\n[67] _Sacerdotes_; as ekkl\u00easia means a Bishop's See, so _sacerdotes_ meant\na bishop; that word in the language of the day signified the bishop who\npresided in each Church, pre-eminently the _Sacerdos_, as offering the\nSacrifice of the Altar. See Coustant. Rom. Pont. Epist., p. 856.\n\n[68] Orat. 17, 8; Ep. 224, Africano.\n\n[69] arch\u00ea. Bianchi, 3, 475.\n\n[70] See Bianchi, 3, 484.\n\n[71] Iren\u00e6us, 3, 4.\n\n[72] Hist., 4, 7, speaking of the time of Hadrian and the Gnostic heresies.\n\n[73] St. Cyprian, De Unit. Ecc. 4, and Epis. 52.\n\n[74] De Marca, De Concordia Sacerdotii et Imperii, lib. 6, 1.\n\n[75] St. Leo I., Ep. 14.\n\n[76] De Unitate Ecclesi\u00e6, 4.\n\n[77] Ps. xliv. 17.\n\n[78] Cont. Epist. Manich\u00e6i, 5.\n\n[79] theia tis kai amachos dunamis tou tauta proeipontos kai\ntelesantos.--St. Chrysostom, tom. i. p. 579.\n\n[80] Against the Jews and Gentiles to demonstrate that Christ is God, tom.\ni. p. 558, and pp. 574, 577, 578.\n\n[81] The contrast is marked in the original by totally distinct words,\nwhich the rendering both by the same word _altar_ would efface: 1. b\u00f4mous,\naltars of the religion with bloody sacrifices; 2. thusiast\u00earia, which are\naltars whereon the Unbloody Sacrifice is offered.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nTHE ACTUAL RELATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE FROM THE DAY OF PENTECOST TO\nCONSTANTINE.\n\n\n_The One Episcopate Resting upon the One Sacrifice._\n\nOne of the points on which Pope St. Clement most strongly dwells is the\ncare with which our Lord communicated to His Apostles definite and\naccurate instructions as to the kingdom which they were to set up. And\nfrom this care he draws the conclusion that, if infringement of the\nMosaic law was punished by death, how much more guilty were they who\nshowed insubordination to a precept of Christ in the institution of\nChristian rule? Thus St. Clement affirms that our Lord, far from leaving\nthe government of His Church to be evolved out of local circumstances or\nindividual temperaments or political affinities, determined it from the\nbeginning. We shall now further show that He enshrined in it the very\nlife of His people; and so that their worship, their government, their\nbelief, and their practice were wrapped up together. Their government\ncontained their doctrine, and set before their eyes in distinct vision\nHim in whom they trusted, Jesus Christ and Him crucified. It was not a\nhuman device but a divine ordinance, and the preaching of Christ through\nit was His action also. His words were deeds as much in the teaching of\nHis Church as they were in the days of His flesh.\n\nOur Lord created the priesthood of His Church on the eve of His Passion.\nIt is the basis on which all spiritual power and all doctrinal truth rest\nin His kingdom; and He willed that the episcopate should be the\ninstrument to communicate both power and truth to His people, and that\nthe priesthood should be stored up in the person of each bishop. This\nplant of life, complete in itself, but only as a sucker of the One\nVine,[82] the Apostles deposited in every city and town by the\ninspiration of the Holy Ghost; as St. Clement says, they passed on\nthemselves and left it to grow by virtue of the same Spirit. The result\nwas that when Constantine gave the acknowledgment of the Civil Power to\nthe great Spiritual Kingdom, its Episcopate had far outgrown the limits\nof his empire.\n\nIn what does the High-priesthood of Christ consist? In two acts, which it\nis well carefully to distinguish.\n\nThe first is that divine act of the Blessed Trinity by which the Second\nPerson, the Eternal Son of the Father, assumed a created nature into the\nunity of His Person, and that the nature of man. The act whereby He\nbecame man is the act constituting His Priesthood.[83] Before His\nIncarnation He was not a Priest; in the divine nature in which alone He\nis from eternity, He does not offer but receive sacrifice. St. Paul\ndescribes the act, and the instantaneous acceptance by the Divine Son, as\nman in His human nature, of the mission to be High Priest for the human\nrace in these words: \"When He cometh into the world He saith: Sacrifice\nand oblation Thou wouldest not: but a body Thou hast fitted to me:\nHolocausts for sin did not please Thee. Then said I, behold I come: in\nthe head of the book it is written of Me, that I should do Thy will, O\nGod.\" The whole purpose of His Incarnation and the whole course of His\nfuture human life are here summed up, as accepted by Him in the first\nmoment of His human existence, when He says: \"A body Thou hast fitted to\nMe--behold I come--that I should do Thy will, O God.\" The whole Christian\nfaith rests upon this divine act. It is the simply inconceivable\nhumiliation of the Divine Majesty, the simply unutterable effect of the\nDivine Love. The angels, who have had it before them from their creation\nin vision, and for more than eighteen hundred years in effect, have not\nyet mastered its depths; nor is the Mother of fair Love herself--the\nnearest to it--equal to the task either of expressing it or of\ncomprehending it. How, then, was it to be impressed on the human race in\na manner which should cause its full force to be received by those who\nlearnt it for the first time; and when it had been thus learnt what\nfurther provision was to bring about that it should never be forgotten,\nnor pass into the crowd of things which have once been and then cease to\nbe?\n\nWe have, first, in these words of St. Paul, the Divine Son accepting His\nmission as the first act of His human nature, and, further, expressing\nthe nature of His mission--to do the will of His Father, that will being\nthat He should take the body which His Father had prepared for Him. In\nthat acceptance is comprised all the labours and sufferings of the\nthirty-three years foreseen from the beginning, willed by the Father,\nfreely chosen by the Son in His manhood, as the first act of that\nmanhood, which yet is prolonged through His whole life.\n\nAfter this the Apostle goes on to exhibit the second act of His\nHigh-Priesthood, springing out of the first, and its consummation--the\nabrogation of the ancient sacrifices, although divinely instituted, and\nthe substitution for them of that Body which God had fitted to Him. \"In\nsaying before, Sacrifices and oblations and holocausts for sin Thou\nwouldst not, neither are they pleasing to Thee, which are offered\naccording to the law: then said I, Behold I come to do Thy will, O God:\nHe taketh away the first, that He may establish that which followeth. In\nthe which will we are sanctified by the oblation of the Body of Jesus\nChrist once.\" As the first act, the Incarnation, runs on into the second,\nthe Atonement, so the second depends on the first. Without the assumption\nby God the Son of a created nature, the nature of man, there would be no\nsacrifice for man and no reconciliation. The source of sanctification is\nthe offering of the Body of the God-man, of no other body; and without\nthe Godhead of Christ His religion would be the shadow of a dream.\n\nHow, again, was this second act of His High-Priesthood, the oblation of\nHis Body on the cross once for all for the sins of the whole world, to be\nimpressed upon the world?\n\nHuman acts pass away into the abyss of past time, and the ever-flowing\ntide of successive existence sweeps them into the background. The\nsufferings and teachings of our Lord Himself, even His death upon the\ncross, would in themselves as human acts be subject to this lot. How were\nthey to be made ever-living and ever-present, rescued from oblivion,\ncarried in the heart and professed by the lips of men in every succeeding\ngeneration until the day of doom?\n\nTruly there was wisdom needed for this effect, and what did our Lord do?\n\nHe was at the very point of completing that will of God which He came to\ndo, and for which a Body was fitted to Him. Having celebrated the Pasch\nof the Law, which had been instituted so many ages before, as the\nspeaking type of what He was to accomplish, He with a word made His\ndisciples priests to offer that Body which He then first gave to them,\nwhich on the morrow He was to offer on the cross, and in doing this utter\nthe \"Consummatum est.\" The Priesthood, which was to carry in itself the\nwhole power and virtue of His Church, He created before the sacrifice of\nthe cross, but in immediate view of it, as the first act, as it were, of\nHis Passion.\n\nBut the Priesthood which He created, and the offering in which it\nconsisted, sprung from the union of the two acts which formed His own\nHigh-Priesthood, the assumption of the manhood for the purpose of\nredeeming man, and the execution of that purpose by His death on the\ncross. The Priesthood contained them both in itself, for the Body given\nwas the Body broken on the cross, the Blood given was the Blood shed on\nthe cross; and they were both the Body and Blood of a God-man. \"Do this,\nHe said, in commemoration of Me;\" and as long as it was done daily, the\ndouble truth, the double benefit of God to man, the double marvel of\nredeeming love, offering itself and offering what is divine for the\nerring creature, could not fade from remembrance. It is as present now as\nit was at the hour of the crucifixion, and will be equally present to the\nend of the world.\n\nBut in order better to understand the force and meaning of our Lord's\naction, it is necessary to consider the institution which, at the time of\nit, was in existence and full operation all over the world, the\ninstitution, that is, of bloody sacrifice.\n\nFrom the beginning of history, and in all countries, the intercourse\nbetween God and man consisted in two things, prayer and sacrifice, and\nthey were carried on together. For this much the Greek may fitly\nrepresent all Gentilism. Now Plato represents Euthyphron as saying to\nSocrates, \"If any one knows how to say and to do things acceptable to the\ngods by praying and by sacrificing, that is piety, and such conduct\npreserves both private families and the commonwealth; and the contrary to\nthese acceptable things is impiety, which overthrows and destroys\neverything.\" To which Socrates replies, \"You call, then, piety a certain\nknowledge of sacrifice and prayer.\" \"I do.\" \"Then sacrifice is giving to\nthe gods, and prayer asking of them.\"[84]\n\nA most careful student[85] of the Greek mind tells us: \"As the need of\nthe gods was felt by man in all the events of his life, in every work and\nevery purpose, sacrificial worship, the burnt-offering, or the briefer\nlibation-offering, ran through the whole of his being, and seemed to be\nprayer clothed in action.\" And again, \"We have shown that man conceived\nof the Godhead not only as by its immortality infinitely exalted above\nhimself, but likewise as the Ruler and Administrator of the whole\nuniverse and the being of man; and moreover, that man, in spite of all\ndoubt and error as to the nature of his gods, in spite of his allowing\nimpersonal powers to be at their side who threaten their dignity, yet\nnever detaches himself from them, because he always feels himself\nimpelled to seek a living personal Godhead. To this he was riveted by the\ninsoluble bonds of a spiritual and natural need; and the recognition of\nthis dependence, the expression of human subjection, the tribute of\nhomage which man offers in the certainty of needing its grace, that is\npiety, as it is shown in action and in word, that is to say, in sacrifice\nand in prayer.\" And \"the whole worship, that is, all sacrifices and\ndivination, are made by Plato to be identical with the communion of gods\nand men with each other.\"[86]\n\nAnother writer,[87] most learned in Greek and Roman antiquity, says:\n\"These two constitute the oldest and most general form of honouring God.\nIt might perhaps be said that the first word of the original man was a\nprayer, and the first act of the fallen man a sacrifice. Moses in\nGenesis, at any rate, carries the origin of sacrifice up to the first\nhistory of man, to Cain and Abel; the Greek legends, to Prometheus and\nthe centaur Chiron, or to the eldest kings, Melisseus, Phoron\u00e6us, and\nCecrops.\n\n\"In Gentilism as in Judaism, actual sacrifices of animals are everywhere\nthe rule; beside them, in particular cases, offerings also of vegetable\nsubstances. Indeed, sacrifices were offered not merely for expiation, but\nwherever man had need of the gods, or reason to thank them, on all\nimportant moments of life, at the beginning and end of every weighty\naction, in order to maintain and make manifest the unbroken connection of\nman with God.\n\n\"Those most ancient domestic precepts recorded by Hesiod enjoin on every\none, at declining and at dawning day, to conciliate the gods, with pure\nand chaste heart, by holy sprinklings and fragrant perfume, that their\nheart may incline to us with good-will and peace, and as often as thou\nreturnest from a journey, offer fair sacrifices to the immortal gods. In\nfamily life sacrifices were made specially at birth, marriage, and death.\nThe Cretans, who considered human marriage as a transcript of the\nheavenly marriage between Zeus and Hera, made offerings on occasion of it\nspecially to these gods. If a man wished to marry at Athens, he first\nmade his prayers and sacrifices to the so-called Tritapatores, the first\nfather's of life, for the happy generation of children, since no birth\ntakes place without God. At the marriage itself, again, there were\nsacrifices, when the gall of the victim was thrown behind the altar to\nsignify that no bitterness should infect their union. Moreover, the bride\nat Athens was introduced by a sacrifice into her husband's race; and\nagain, a victim was offered upon the inscription of children on the tribe\nlist. At Sparta mothers were wont, on the espousal of their daughters, to\nmake offerings to Aphrodit\u00e9 Hera, the goddess of married love; the\nBoeotians and Locrians to Artemis Euklea; the maidens of Haliartus made a\npreparatory gift to the fountain Kissoessa, according to ancestral\ncustom. If the marriage was blest by a child, a sacrifice was offered for\nthis on the seventh or tenth day after the birth, and thereupon the child\nwas named. At death, again, sacrifices were offered for the peace of\ndeparted souls, as well by individuals as by the commonwealth. According\nto Plato, it was an orphic doctrine that there were certain deliverances\nand purifications which availed also for the dead. The gravestones were\nanointed and crowned with flowers, pyres were erected, and victims\nslaughtered on them, or cakes were thrown into the fire, holes made in\nthe earth, and libations of wine, milk, and honey poured into them. Only\nno sacrifices were offered for children, because, as they had departed\nunstained by intercourse with earthly things, they needed no further\nreconcilement. Plutarch describes the great public sacrifice for the\ndead which the Plat\u00e6ans, in late times, continued to offer yearly for\nthose who had fallen in battle against the Persians.\n\n\"In agricultural life, also, which is the beginning and foundation of all\nreligious habit, every important moment was sanctified by sacrifice. The\nAthenians, at the beginning of tillage, before they turned up the land,\noffered the preparatory sacrifice to Demeter[88] for the prosperity of\nthe future fruits, and are said on one occasion, in the fifth Olympiad,\nat a time of general dearth, to have made such an offering for all Hellas\nat the command of the Delphic god. So at the end of the winter, when the\nfruits of the field began to grow, all the magistrates, from eldest time,\noffered the previous thanksgiving[89] to Athen\u00e9, the protectress of the\ncity. So they offered at Rome, at the time of the pear-tree blossom,\nbefore ploughing, vows and grain cakes, for the health of the labouring\noxen; then before harvest offerings to Ceres of bread and wine, and so\nagain when a wood was cleared, at the digging and blessing of the fields.\nSo both peoples were wont in general to give the first-fruits of\neverything which the favour of the gods gave to them; fruits of the field\nas of the herd, of the vintage, and of the trees; the former liquid, and\nthe latter solid. These first-fruits represented the whole mass, for all\nthe productions of nature belong to the Giver thereof. Aristotle holds\nthe offering of such first-fruits of the field to be the oldest kind of\nofferings in general, and a Roman writer finely says, since the ancients\nlived in the belief that all nourishment, the fatherland, nay, life\nitself, is a gift of the gods, they were wont to offer something to these\nof everything, more to show their gratitude than because they believed\nthat the gods needed it. Hence, before they ate anything of the new\nfruits, they consecrated a portion to the gods; and since they possessed\nboth fields and cities in fee from the gods, they dedicated to them a\nportion for temples and chapels, and some were wont to offer to them the\nhair, as the topmost portion of the body, for the sound state of the\nrest. Thus the Bhagavadgita[90] says: 'Sacrifice to the gods; they will\ngive you the wished-for food. He who eats what they have given without\nfirst offering therefrom is a thief; they who ate what remained of the\nsacrifice are free from all sins.' The fathers of families made an\noffering every month to Hecat\u00e9 for reparation of sins committed in the\nhouse. Certain dishes were prepared and carried through the whole house,\nwhile the curse which rested on evil deeds committed was put therein, and\nthen they were placed at midnight upon a cross-road. Whoever ate of this,\nit was believed he took the curse into him with the food. Only curs and\ncurrish men did it.\n\n\"Sacrifices were connected not less with all important acts of political\nlife. 'Those before us,' says Philo, 'began every good action with\nperfect victims, deeming this the best means to bring about a good end to\nthem,' In the consciousness that all were stained with sin, but that\nsinful men could discover no good counsel, swine were sacrificed before\nevery assembly of the people at Athens, and their blood sprinkled as a\npurification over the seats of the meeting. A priest then carried certain\nparts of the victim round the assembly, and cast their sins into these\nparts. When this was done, incense was offered, and the same priest went\nwith a vessel of holy water round, blessing the assembled people\ntherewith for the matter which it was to undertake. Then the herald\nrecited the customary prayers, and the consultation at last began. The\nsacrifices by which the council, the generals, the Prytanes, and all\npublic magistrates entered on office were similar. In like manner\nsacrifices preceded the sittings of justice and the taking of oaths. In\nwar no important step was taken before the sacrifices were prosperous and\nannounced a good result. Sacrifice was offered at the first start, at the\npassage of boundaries and rivers, at making an advance, at taking ship,\nat landing, before assault of besieged cities, before battle, and after\nvictory. The Athenian generals were wont specially to sacrifice to\nHermes, the leader. All truces, peace-makings, leagues, and treaties were\naccompanied with sacrifice. A direction was attached to all sacrifices\nordered by law or oracular decrees, that they should be according to the\nhereditary three customs, that is, take place on months, days, and years,\n_i.e._, solar years, lunar months, and days of the month. Plato enjoins,\nas in Athens was really the fact, that on every day of the year the\nmagistrate should offer sacrifice to a god or genius for the city and its\ninhabitants, their goods and chattels. Of Julian, the last emperor\nattached to the Hellenic worship, it is expressly said that he, not only\non new moons, but every day, welcomed the rising sun-god with a bloody\nvictim, and accompanied his setting with another, and served the gods not\nby other hands, but himself took part in the sacrifice, ran about the\naltar, took up the mallet and held the knife, and that, in order the\nbetter to discharge these duties, he had built a temple to the sun-god in\nthe midst of his palace. The shedding of blood was everywhere the bond of\nunion between man and man, and between man and God; to the commonwealth\nthe guarantee of its security, the firmest pillar of its government.\"\n\nIf we extend this description of the prevalence of sacrifices among the\nGreeks and Romans to all the nations of antiquity, we shall be able to\nform a conception which, after all, will be very feeble when compared\nwith the reality, of the degree in which the whole religious life between\nman and God, the national life in the various nations, the social life in\neach nation, the domestic life in each family, was alike dominated by the\nidea and practice of bloody sacrifice.\n\nThe ceremonial of sacrifice was as follows: \"The sacrificial usages\nthemselves were very solemn. Everything expressed that the sacrifice was\nmade freely and joyously. Those who offered to the heavenly gods wore\nwhite robes, and crowns on the head and in the hands. Those who offered\nto the gods beneath the earth were robed in black. The victim was also\ncrowned and adorned with ribbons, and on solemn occasions its horns were\ngilt. It was led by a loose cord, to indicate that it followed willingly\nand of its own accord. If the animal took to flight, that was a bad\nprognostic. It had to be put to death, but might not be led up again to\nthe altar. Before touching the sacrificial utensils, the hands were\nwashed in order to approach the holy with purity. As with us, a boy\npoured water over the hands of the sacrificant. Then the sacrificial cake\nor sacred salt-meal and the knife of sacrifice were brought in a basket\nand carried round the altar. A branch of laurel or olive, symbol of\npurification and peace, was dipped in the water-stoup and the bystanders\nsprinkled therewith. The holy water itself was consecrated with prayers\nand the dipping into it of a firebrand from the altar. Silence was then\nenjoined, and when the profane had been dismissed with such words as\n'Depart, depart, whoever is a sinner,' the herald cried with a loud\nvoice, 'Who is here?' those present answered, 'Many, and they pious.'\nThen the proper prayer of sacrifice began for the gracious acceptance of\nwhat was offered; and after the victim had been proved sound and\nfaultless, a line was drawn to mark its willingness with the back of the\nsacrificial knife from the forehead to the tail, and grain was poured\nover its neck until by nodding it seemed to give its consent to be\nsacrificed. Then there were fresh prayers; the priest took a cup of red\nwine, tasted the blood of the vine, allowed also those present to drink\nof it, and poured the remainder between the animal's horns. Then the hair\nof its forehead was cut off and cast into the fire as a firstling;\nincense was kindled, and the remaining grain finally poured upon the\naltar with music of pipe and flute, that no ill-omened word might be\nheard during the sacred action. In specially solemn sacrifices there were\nalso choral hymns and dances. The animal was struck with the axe and its\nthroat cut; when the sacrifice was to the gods above, with hands raised\ntowards heaven; when to the gods below, with head bowed to the earth. The\nblood was then received in a vessel and partly poured out upon the altar,\npartly sprinkled on those around, that they might be delivered from sin.\nEspecially all who wished to have a portion in the sacrifice had to touch\nthe victim and the sacrificial ashes. According to the oldest usage the\nwhole victim was burnt; later only certain portions--the head and feet\n(the extremities for the whole), the entrails, especially the heart as\nthe seat of life, the shanks as the place of strength, and the fat as the\nbest portion. Then red wine, unmixed, was poured upon the flames. The\nsacrificers consumed the rest, as in the Hebrew thank-offerings and among\nthe Egyptians and Indians, in a sacred festive meal; among the Arcadians,\nmasters and slaves altogether. Such meals were usual from the most\nancient time after the completion of the sacrifice, and in them\noriginally the gods were considered to sit as guests with men. All sang\nthereby, as law and custom determined, sacred hymns, that during the meal\nmoral comeliness and respect might not be transgressed, and the harmony\nof song might consecrate the words and the conduct of the speakers. By\nthis common partaking of the pure sacrificial flesh, the communion of the\noffered meats, a substantially new life was to be implanted in the\npartakers; for all who eat of one sacrifice are one body.\n\n\"Hence the first Christians obstinately refused to eat of the flesh of\nheathen victims. 'I had rather die than feed on your sacrifices.' 'If any\none eat of that flesh he cannot be a Christian.'[91] At the end of the\nfeast, as it seems, the herald dismissed the people with the words laois\naphesis--Ite, missa est.\"\n\nThus we find that sacrifice existed from the beginning of history in all\nnations, and was associated with prayer; the two together made up\nworship, and the spiritual acts of the mind, expressed in prayer, were\nnot considered complete without sacrifice, a corporeal act as it were, so\nthat the homage of soul and body together constituted the complete act of\nfealty on the part of man to his Maker. But we find also more than this.\nThe spiritual acts which are contained in prayer, as the expression of an\ninnocent creature to his Creator, are three: adoration, which recognises\nthe supreme majesty of God; thanksgiving, which specially dwells on the\nbenefits received from Him; and petition, which speaks the perpetual need\nof Him felt by the creature. And with these in a state of innocence\nprayer would stop. But if the harmony between the Creator and the\ncreature has been broken, if sin has been committed, and a sense of guilt\narising from that sin exists, then prayer expresses a fourth need of the\ncreature, which does not exist in the state of innocence--the need of\nexpiation. Now offerings of the natural fruits of the earth, of whatever\nkind, correspond, it is plain, to the three former parts of prayer--to\nadoration, thanksgiving, and petition for support; but the bloody\nsacrifice of living creatures, in which occurs the pouring out of their\nblood in a solemn rite, the presentation of it to God, and the sprinkling\nof the people with it, can only be accounted for by a consciousness in\nman of guilt before God. The existence of a rite so peculiar in so many\nnations, and its association everywhere with the most solemn act of\nprayer, is not accounted for even by such a consciousness alone; for what\npower had the shedding of an animal's blood to remove the sense of guilt\nin man or to propitiate God? There was no doubt the consciousness of\nguilt on man's part, but what should ever lead him, of himself, to\nconceive such a mode of expiating his guilt, such a mode of propitiating\nGod? It was much more natural for him to conceive that the act of pouring\nout the blood of a creature, in which was its life, the most precious\ngift of the Creator, would be an offence to that Creator, the Lord of\nlife, its Giver and Maintainer. Thus the act of bloody sacrifice can only\nbe accounted for as in its origin a directly divine institution, a\npositive law of God. As such it is plainly recognised by Moses when he\nintroduces it in the history of Cain and Abel, where, in the first man's\nchildren, it appears as already existing. God alone, the absolute Lord of\nlife, could attach together prayer and bloody sacrifice, and enact that\nthe worship which He would receive from His creature, the worship which\nnot only adored Him as Creator, thanked Him as Benefactor, asked His\nhelp as Preserver, but likewise acknowledged guilt before Him for sin\ncommitted, should be made up of a compound act, that of solemn prayer,\nand that of shedding and offering blood, and partaking of a victim so\noffered. The rite of bloody sacrifice is, therefore, the record of the\nFall stamped by the hand of God on the forehead of the human race at its\nfirst starting in the state of guilt. The death of a vicarious victim was\nthe embodiment of the doctrine that man had forfeited his life by\ndisobedience to God his Creator, and that he should be restored by the\neffusion of the blood of an innocent victim. The fact of the\nconcentration of these four acts of prayer about the rite of bloody\nsacrifice, through all Gentilism, as well as in Judaism, has no end of\nsignificance.\n\nThis conclusion was drawn by St. Augustine,[92] who says: \"Were I to\nspeak at length of the true sacrifice, I should prove that it was due to\nno one but the one true God; and this the one true Priest, the Mediator\nof God and men, offered to Him. It was requisite that the figures\npromissive of this sacrifice should be celebrated in animal victims, as a\ncommendation of that flesh and blood which were to be, through which\nsingle victim might take place the remission of sins contracted of flesh\nand blood, which shall not possess the kingdom of God, because that\nself-same substance of the body shall be changed into a heavenly quality.\nThis was signified by the fire in the sacrifice, which seemed to absorb\ndeath into victory. Now such sacrifices were duly celebrated in that\npeople whose kingdom and whose priesthood were both a prophecy of the\nKing and Priest who was to come, that He might rule, and that He might\nconsecrate the faithful in all nations, and introduce them to the kingdom\nof heaven, the sanctuary of the angels, and eternal life. Now this being\nthe true sacrifice, as the Hebrews celebrated religious predictions of\nit, so the Pagans celebrated sacrilegious imitations; for in the\nApostle's words, what the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to devils and\nnot to God. For an ancient thing is that immolation of blood, carrying an\nannouncement of the future, testifying from the beginning of the human\nrace the Passion of the Mediator that was to be, for Abel is the first in\nsacred writ recorded to have offered this.\"\n\nThe rite of bloody sacrifice, thus enacted by God, and set by Him upon\nflesh and blood as a perpetual prophecy, is one of those acts of supreme\nworship which may be offered to God alone. \"Genuflexions,\" says St.\nThomas,[93] \"prostrations, and other indications of such-like honour, may\nbe offered also to men, though with a different intent; but no one has\njudged that sacrifice should be offered to any one unless he esteemed him\nto be God, or pretended so to esteem him. But the external sacrifice\nrepresents the internal true sacrifice, according to which the human mind\noffers itself to God. Now, our mind offers itself to God as being the\nSource of its creation, as being the Author of its operation, as being\nthe End of its beatitude; and these three things belong to the supreme\nprinciple of things alone. Whence man is bound to offer the worship of\nsacrifice to the one supreme God alone, but not to any spiritual\nsubstances.\"\n\nThe Gentile world broke this primary law of worship in offering the rite\nof bloody sacrifice to numberless false gods. It is, therefore, no wonder\nthat, falling so low in its conception of the Godhead as to divide God\ninto numberless parts, it fell likewise into oblivion of the meaning and\nprophecy contained in the sacrifice itself; yet though it might forget,\nit could not efface the idea enshrined in the act, so long as it\npreserved the material parts of the act, which in so striking a manner\nexhibited to the very senses of man the great doctrine that without\neffusion of blood there is no remission of sins. And this was declared\nnot merely in the Hebrew ritual, divinely instituted for that very\npurpose, and in full operation down to the very time of Christ; but in\nall those sacrifices of the dispersed and corrupted nations, which,\ndebased in the persons to whom they were offered, and performed with a\nroutine oblivious of their meaning, yet bore witness to the truth which\nGod had originally impressed on the minds of men, and committed to a\nvisible and prophetic memorial.\n\nIf we survey the whole world at the coming of Christ, we may say that the\ninstitution of bloody sacrifice is the most striking and characteristic\nfact to be found in it. This conclusion will result in the mind if four\nthings be noted which are therein bound up together. The first of these\nis its specific character; for surely the ceremonial of sacrifice, as\nabove described, deserves this title, if anything ever did. It is a very\nmarked and peculiar institution, conveying an ineffaceable sense of guilt\nin those who practise it, and a quite singular manner of detaching from\nthemselves the effects of that guilt. Secondly, it is found everywhere;\nwithout sacrifice no religious worship is complete; its general diffusion\nhas with reason been alleged as a proof of its true origin and deep\nmeaning. Were it only found in single or in rude nations, it might have\nbeen attributed to rude and barbarous conceptions; but all nations had\nit, and the most civilised offered it in the greatest profusion. Thirdly,\nit had the most astonishingly pervading influence; from the top to the\nbottom of the social scale it ruled all; the king made it the support of\nhis throne; the father of the family applied it to his children; bride\nand bridegroom were joined together in its name; and warring nations made\npeace in the blood of the sacrificed victim. Fourthly, the three notes\njust given are indefinitely heightened in their force when we consider\nthat the institution, far from being of itself in accordance with man's\nreason, is quite opposed to it. Reason does indeed suggest that the\nfruits of the earth should be offered in mark of honour, gratitude, and\ndependence to that Almighty Lord by whose gift alone they are received;\nbut reason of itself, far from suggesting, flies back from the notion\nthat the Giver of life should accept as a propitiatory offering from His\ncreature the blood of animals, in which, according to the general sense\nof antiquity, their life itself consisted. That this blood should be\npoured out, and sprinkled on those present as an act of religious faith;\nthat it should be accompanied by words expressing adoration,\nthanksgiving, and petition; and further, that it should be considered to\nremove guilt,--the whole of this forms a conception so alien from reason,\nthat he who reflects upon it is driven to the conclusion of a positive\nenactment, bearing in it a mysterious truth, which it was of the utmost\nimportance for man to know, to bear in mind, to practise, and not to\nforget. And if we put together these four things, the specific character\nof the bloody sacrifice, its universality, its pervading influence, and\nthe token of unreason, apart, that is, from the significance of a deep\nmystery, which rests upon it, we must feel that there is nothing in the\nconstitution of the world before our Saviour's time more worthy of\nattention than this. There is no solution of it to be found but that of\nSt. Augustine, \"that the immolation of blood, carrying an announcement of\nthe future, testified from the beginning of the human race the Passion of\nthe Mediator that was to be.\"\n\nBut there is likewise a series of portentous facts, bearing upon the\ninstitution of bloody sacrifice, which runs through all human history.\nThis is the offering of human sacrifices in expiation of guilt, or to\nward off calamities. The religious ideas which lie at the bottom of this\nare, that as life is a gift of God to man on the condition that he\nfulfils God's commands, every sinner has thereby forfeited his life. The\nrule of inexorable justice is set forth in strongest language by the\nGreek tragedians, as when \u00c6schylus says, \"It abides, while Jove abides\nthrough the series of ages, that he who has done a deed shall suffer for\nit. It is an ordinance.\"[94] But as all men stand in a real communion of\nlife to each other, and as members of one living whole are bound in one\nresponsibility to the Godhead, the idea also prevailed that one man's\nlife could be given for another's; that one might offer himself in\nexpiation for another, and the willing sacrifice of the innocent was\nesteemed to have the more power in proportion as the vicarious will of\nthe offerer was pure, and therefore acceptable to the gods: \"For I think\nthat a single soul performing this expiation would suffice for a\nthousand, if it be there with good-will,\" says Oedipus in Sophocles. So\nkings offer themselves for their people; so the royal virgin gains for\nthe host with her blood prosperous winds. But from such acts of\nself-devotion, freely performed, we proceed to a further step, in which\nmen are sacrificed against their will. At Athens is found the frightful\ncustom that two miserable human beings, one of each sex, were yearly\nnourished at the public cost, and then solemnly sacrificed at the feast\nof the Thargelia for expiation of the people. Not only did the Consul\nDecius, at the head of his army, solemnly devote himself for his country,\nbut so often as a great and general calamity threatened the existence of\nthe Roman State human sacrifices were offered, and a male and female\nGaul, a male and female Greek, or those of any other nation whence danger\nthreatened, were buried alive in the ox-market, with magic forms of\nprayer uttered by the head of the college of the Quindecemviri. Nay, the\nhuman sacrifices yearly offered upon the Alban Mount to Jupiter Latiaris\nwere continued down to the third century of our era.\n\nWhat thus took place in Greece and Rome is found likewise amongst almost\nall the Eastern and Western peoples. The most cruel human sacrifices were\nnowhere more frequent than among the idolatrous races of Shem, whether\nCanaanites, Phoenicians, or Carthaginians. These specially offered the\neldest or the only son. Egyptian, Persian, Arabian, the most ancient\nIndian history, and that of the Northern peoples, Scythians, Goths,\nRussians, Germans, Gauls, British, and the Celts in general, give us\nexamples of the same custom.\n\nThe conclusion from all this is, how strong and general in the religious\nconscience of all ancient peoples was the sense of sinful man's need to\nbe purified and reconciled with God, and that the means of such\nreconcilement were thought to be in the vicarious shedding of human\nblood.\n\nAt any rate, we may draw from this custom a corroboration of the meaning\nwhich lay in the rite of bloody sacrifice of animals, that the vicarious\noffering of an animal's life, which was deemed to be seated in the blood,\nwas made in the stead of a human life as a ransom for it, as is exactly\nexpressed in the lines of Ovid--\n\n \"Cor pro corde precor, pro fibris accipe fibras,\n Hanc animam vobis pro meliore damus,\"\n\n --_Ovid_,_Fasti_, 6, 161.\n\nThe vicarious character of animal sacrifice is shown in the Egyptian\nusage, wherein a seal was put upon oxen found pure and spotless for\nsacrifice, which represented a man kneeling with hands bound behind his\nback, and a sword put to his throat, while the bystanders lamented the\nslaughtered animal and struck themselves on the breast. The same idea\nthat the victim was a ransom for man's life is also found in the Indian\nsacrificial ritual.[95]\n\nThe institution of bloody sacrifice, then, was not merely an instinctive\nconfession by man of guilt before God, though this confession was\ncontained in it in an eminent degree, but sprung from a direct divine\nappointment. This conclusion is borne in upon the mind by its existence\nevery where, and by the astonishing force with which it seemed to hold\nall parts of human life in its grasp. Such an influence, again, shows the\nextent to which, in the original constitution of things, all human life\nwas bound up in a dependence upon God. Not mental acts only, acts of\nadoration, thanksgiving, petition, and expiation were enjoined, but all\nthese were expressed in a visible, corporeal action, and associated with\nit. It is precisely in this association that I trace the stamp of the\ndivine appointment, as well as a seal of permanence, which is shown in\nthe unbroken maintenance of the rite through so many shiftings of races\nand revolutions of governments in the lapse of so many centuries.\n\nThus on the original human society, the family of the first man, God had\nimpressed the idea that man by sin had forfeited his life before God;\nthat there must be reparation for that forfeiture; that such reparation\nwas one day to be made by the offering of an innocent victim; that in the\nmeantime the vicarious sacrifice of animals should be offered to God as a\nconfession of man's guilt; that their blood poured out before Him and\nsprinkled on the sacrifices should be accepted by God in token of an\nexpiation.\n\nNow what we have seen of the original institution of sacrifice will help\nto show how absolutely divine an act it was which our Lord took upon\nHimself in establishing a sacrifice for His people. But He was not only\nordering a new worship; He was likewise at once fulfilling and abolishing\nby that fulfilment the old, that which had prevailed from the beginning\nof man's race. Instead of the blood of animals poured out profusely all\nover the world, He said, \"This is the chalice, the new testament in My\nBlood, which shall be shed for you;\" and speaking as the Lamb of God who\ntakes away the sin of the world, using also the special sacrificial term,\nHe said, \"This is My Body, which is given for you; do this for a\ncommemoration of Me.\" The act was doubly a divine act, in appointing a\nsacrifice for the whole human race, and in making His own Body that\nsacrifice; the first an act of divine authority, the second not that\nonly, but pointing out the personal union of the Godhead with the\nManhood, in virtue of which the communication of His flesh gives life to\nthe world, as He had foretold a year before: \"The bread which I will\ngive is My flesh for the life of the world.\"[96] Thus the Christian\nsacrifice is the counterpart of the original institution, and throws the\nlight of fulfilment upon that offering of the blood of bulls and goats\nwhich seemed in itself so unreasonable; which would have been so, but\nthat it earned in itself the mystery hidden from the foundation of the\nworld. Thus it was that the animal creation placed below man was chosen\nto bear witness in its flesh and blood to the offering which was to\nrestore man, and the Lord of life made use of the life which He had given\nto signify in a speaking prophecy that supreme exhibition of His mercy,\nHis justice, and His majesty, which He had purposed from the beginning.\nIf the earth without Calvary might seem to have been a slaughter-house,\nCalvary made it an altar.\n\nBut if this be the relation of the Christian sacrifice to the original\ninstitution in general, it has a special relation to that whole order of\nhierarchy and sacrifice which was established by Moses. The whole body of\nthe Mosaic law, from head to foot and in its minutest part, was\nconstructed to be fulfilled in Christ. It was alike His altar and His\nthrone, prepared for Him fifteen hundred years before His coming. Moses\nfound the patriarchal priesthood and the patriarchal sacrifice, and drew\nout both so as to be a more detailed picture of the Priesthood and\nSacrifice which were to be.\n\nThen as the whole ancient worship, whether Patriarchal, or Jewish, or\nGentile, had been concentrated in sacrifice, the Lord of all, coming to\ncreate the world anew, in the night of His Passion, and as the prelude of\nit, instituted the new Priesthood, and made it the summary of His whole\ndispensation. The Priest according to the order of Melchisedec came forth\nto supply what was wanting in the Levitical priesthood. Signs passed into\nrealities, and the Precious Blood took the place of that blood which had\nbeen shed all over the earth from the sacrifice of Abel onwards.[97] St.\nPaul has told us how the King of justice and of peace, fatherless,\nmotherless, and without genealogy in the sacred narrative, having neither\nbeginning of days nor end of life, as then recorded, was the image of the\nSon of God, who remains a Priest for ever. For though He was to offer\nHimself once upon the altar of the cross, by death, to God His Father,\nand to work out eternal redemption, His Priesthood was not to be\nextinguished by His death. Therefore in the Last Supper, on the very\nnight of His betrayal, He would leave to His beloved bride the Church a\nvisible sacrifice, such as the nature of man required. This should\nrepresent the bloody sacrifice once enacted on the cross; this should\npreserve its memory fresh and living to the end of time; this should\napply its saving virtue to the remission of sins daily committed by human\nfrailty. Thus He declared Himself a Priest for ever after the order of\nMelchisedec. He presented His Body and His Blood under the species of\nbread and wine to God His Father. Under these symbols He gave them to\nHis Apostles to receive, and so doing He made them priests of the new\ntestament, and charged them, and those who should succeed them in this\npriesthood, to make this offering, by the words, \"This do in\ncommemoration of Me;\" thus, as St. Paul adds, \"showing the death of the\nLord until He come.\"[98] For when He had celebrated that old Pasch which\nthe multitude of the children of Israel immolated in memory of their\ncoming out of Egypt, He made Himself the new Pasch, that this should be\ncelebrated by the Church through her priests in visible signs, in\ncommemoration of His passage from this world to the Father, when by the\nshedding forth of His own Blood He redeemed us and delivered us from the\npower of darkness and translated us into His own kingdom. This is the\npure oblation, incapable of being stained by the unworthiness or malice\nof those who offer it, which God by the mouth of His prophet Malachias\nprophesied, saying, \"From the rising of the sun even to the going down\nthereof My name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is\nsacrifice, and there is offered to My name a clean oblation.\" This St.\nPaul pointed out with equal clearness when he wrote, \"The things which\nthe heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils and not to God; and I\nwould not that you should be made partakers with devils. You cannot drink\nthe chalice of the Lord and the chalice of devils: you cannot be\npartakers of the table of the Lord and of the table of devils.\" For as in\nthe one case the table indicates the altar on which the heathen\nsacrifice was offered, so on the other it indicates the altar on which\nthe sacrifice of Christ is offered; and the reality asserted in the one\ncase is equally asserted in the other. And this, in fine, is that\noffering, the figure of which was given by those various similitudes of\nsacrifices in the time of nature and the time of the law; for, as the\nconsummation and perfection of all these, it embraces every blessing\nwhich they signified.\n\nAll the force which sacrifice originally had to represent doctrine in a\nvisible form, in accordance with the twofold nature of man, belonged in\nthe most eminent degree to the sacrifice thus instituted. It became at\nonce the centre of the Church's worship, being celebrated by the Apostles\ndaily,[99] as we are told, while the Liturgies of the East and West make\nany question as to the character of the sacrifice impossible, and show\nhow the great acts of adoration, thanksgiving, petition, and expiation\nwere united in it and with it. It was the voice of the Christian people\nevermore mounting to the Eternal Father, and representing to Him in an\naction of infinite solemnity how He \"so loved the world as to give His\nonly-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him may not perish but may\nhave life everlasting.\"[100]\n\nBut more particularly let us observe the doctrines which our Lord taught,\nand as it were clothed with flesh in the daily sacrifice of the Church.\n\nFirst, the cardinal doctrine of religion from the beginning, as it is\nequally the certain witness of human reason, the unity of the Godhead;\nfor the sacrifice is offered to the one God alone. It is the guardian of\nthis great primary truth from all corruption, whether the polytheistic\ncorruption of division and limitation, or the pantheistic corruption of\nvagueness and impersonality. Wherever this sacrifice is offered, the\ngreat Christian unity of the one living and holy God, the God who knows,\nthe God who wills, the God who creates, is maintained by those who offer\nit.\n\nSecondly, the Trinity of the Divine Persons; for the sacrifice consists\nin the offering of God the Son in His human nature as a sin-offering for\nman to His Father: \"Wherein the same Christ is contained, and immolated\nwithout blood, who once on the altar of the cross offered Himself with\nblood;\"[101] which, moreover, is accomplished by the descent of the Holy\nGhost upon the gifts. Thus the three Divine Persons enter into the\nsacrifice, He to whom it is offered, He who offers it, and He by whose\noperation it is consummated. So distinct yet so interwoven is their\naction, so divine in each, that the sacrifice guards the doctrine of the\nmost Blessed Trinity as it guards that of the Divine Unity, and those who\noffer this sacrifice are faithful in the maintenance of the second\nmystery as in that of the first. But the Divine Unity and Trinity is the\nvery life of God, the very source of beatitude, to the knowledge and the\nfaith of which this sacrifice subserves. It preaches these truths as no\nmere word could preach them; for action and word enter into each other\nand complete themselves reciprocally in the sacrifice.\n\nThirdly, the stupendous mystery of God the Creator assuming a created\nnature for the sake of the creature enters into the very substance of the\nsacrifice. This can scarcely be expressed more distinctly than by the\nvery words of St. Justin Martyr in the second century, who says, \"We\nreceive not these as common bread or common drink, but as by the word of\nGod Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh, had both flesh and\nblood for our salvation, so we have been taught also that the food which\nhas been blessed by the word of prayer made by Him, from which our blood\nand our flesh are by their change nourished, are the flesh and the blood\nof that incarnate Jesus. For the Apostles, in their memorials called the\nGospels, have handed down that thus Jesus enjoined them: that He took\nbread, and having blessed it, said, This do in commemoration of Me: this\nis My Body; and that He took likewise the chalice, and having blessed it,\nsaid, This is my Blood.\"[102] Here the martyr appeals to the reality of\nthe flesh assumed by the Word, as a supposition necessary to understand\nthe reality of His Body and Blood in the Eucharist, as St. Ignatius had\ndone before him, and as St. Iren\u00e6us and others did after him.[103] In\nthis connection, Eusebius of C\u00e6sarea, setting forth the typical character\nof the Jewish Pasch and its fulfilment in the new covenant, says, \"The\nfollowers of Moses sacrificed the Paschal Lamb only once a year, on the\nfourteenth day of the first month about evening tide, but we in the new\ncovenant celebrating the Pasch every Sunday, are ever satisfied with the\nBody of the Lord, and ever take part in the Blood of the Lamb.\"[104] And\nhere, once more, wherever this sacrifice is truly offered, the offerers\nshow themselves truly penetrated by that belief which comes next in\npreciousness and dignity to the belief in the Divine Unity and\nTrinity--the belief of that assumption by the Divine Son of human nature,\non which the Christian faith rests.\n\nFourthly, the sacrifice in St. Paul's words, \"Sets forth the Lord's death\ntill He come,\" that is, the divine act of redemption; for in it our Lord\nlies upon the altar in the state of a victim, the flesh and the blood\nseparated, as in the state of death, which He took upon Himself\nvoluntarily for the sin of the world, being offered because He willed it\nHimself. The sacrifice exhibits most directly this act of the divine\nlove, which with that other act just treated of, the assumption of human\nnature, makes up the double mystery of God's love to man--the double\nmystery which, boundless and immeasurable as are the power and the wisdom\ndisclosed to man's reason in the structure of the visible universe,\ndisclosed equally in the infinity of smallness as in the infinity of\ngreatness, disclosed in every branch of science and every portion of\nnature, makes both power and wisdom to pale before the greatness of\ncondescendence and affection; for truly it is greater that the Maker of\nall these things should, for the sake of one of them, descend from His\ngreatness, and that the Lord of life and Author of beauty should\nencounter death and embrace dishonour, than that He should have created\nthe universe in all its magnificence by the word of His power. But here,\nin this sacrifice, He lies before His people in the state of\nannihilation, dishonour, and death. The world's ransom is ever in the\nsight of those whom He has ransomed, in the very act of paying their\ndebt: the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world goes through its\nunfolding centuries, ever presenting to His Father the price which He has\npaid for the salvation of His brethren. And it may be noted that those\nwho offer the Divine Sacrifice in the complete faith of the Church\npreserve at the same time their full assurance in that redemption which\nseparated sects seem to lose as a consequence of their division, it being\ntoo great and awful a doctrine for their weak and paralysed condition to\nbear.\n\nFor it is impossible, fifthly, to separate the gift of adoption from the\nDivine Sacrifice, which contains it and imparts it. Wherefore does the\nSon of the Eternal Father lie upon the altar in the state of death? He\ncries out aloud there, \"Behold I and my children whom God has given Me.\"\nIt is precisely out of the act assuming our nature, and out of the act\noffering that nature to death, that He draws His human family. It is\nafter the detailed account of His sufferings in the 21st Psalm that He\nconcludes with the words which St. Paul has quoted in this\nconnection:[105] \"I will declare Thy name to My brethren: in the midst\nof the Church will I praise Thee.\" It is in the act of priesthood that He\ncreates His race. \"Because the children are partakers of flesh and blood,\nHe also Himself in like manner has been partaker of them, that through\ndeath He might destroy him who had the empire of death.\" Thus, \"It\nbehoved Him in all things to be made like unto His brethren, that He\nmight become a merciful and faithful High Priest before God.\" And the\ndaily act of His Priesthood thus performed, the unbloody immolation for\never presented before God in the eyes of His people, is the bond and\npledge to them of the communicated sonship. They who have the Church's\ndaily sacrifice have never fallen from the belief of the divine\nbrotherhood, have never substituted for it the natural kinship of fallen\nman. They have not sunk away from the bond of redemption giving sonship,\nto the phantom of brotherhood, dispensing with faith, and vainly calling\non men to unite in the midst of national enmity, broken belief, and\nthirst for material enjoyment. The Divine Sacrifice, as it is the\ninstrument, so also it is the guardian of divine adoption, and\nperpetuates it upon the earth.\n\nThere are three parts, so to say, of adoption which are further\ndistinctly contained in the Divine Sacrifice. The first of these is the\nderivation of spiritual life from the Person of Christ; for here\nespecially is fulfilled what He said of Himself, \"The Bread of God is\nthat which cometh down from heaven and giveth life to the world.\" In the\nact of sacrifice He becomes also the food of His brethren: here He was\nfrom the beginning daily; here He is to the end. This is the inmost\njunction of life with belief, so that the faithful people by its presence\nattesting belief in the Divine Unity and Trinity, in the Incarnation of\nthe Son of God, in His redemption of the race, in the adoption of man by\nGod, at the same time become partakers of the life which these doctrines\ndeclare. The perfection of the divine institution consists in this\nabsolute blending of belief, worship, and practice. The unbelieving Jews\nstrove among themselves, saying, \"How can this Man give us His flesh to\neat?\" Our Lord answered by establishing a rite on which His Church lives\nthrough all the ages, in which He bestows Himself on each believer\nindividually, being as much his as if He was for him alone. Space and\ntime disappear before the Author of life in the act of communicating\nHimself, and He is the sole Teacher of His Church, in that He alone feeds\nit with the Divine Food, which is Himself.\n\nBut this food is the source of sanctification: as that by which man fell\naway from God was sin, so that which unites him to God is holiness. It is\nfrom the Incarnate Son in the act of sacrifice that this holiness\nemanates to His people; and the gift of His flesh, the banquet at the\nsacrifice, dispenses it. No teaching of words could so identify the\nPerson of our Lord with the source of holiness as the bodily act of\nreceiving His flesh. It is the command, \"Be ye holy, for I am holy,\"\nexpressed in action. This is the perennial fountain of holiness which\nwells forth in the midst of His Church; and beside it, as subordinate and\npreparatory, is the perpetual tribunal of penance: one and the other\ngiven to meet and efface the perpetual frailties of daily life, first to\nrestore the fallen, and then to join them afresh with the source of\nholiness.\n\nThere is yet another gift consequent upon adoption, which completes as it\nwere the two we have just mentioned. It is that the flesh of our Lord\ngiven in the Blessed Sacrament is the pledge and earnest of eternal life.\nThis He has Himself said in the words, \"He that eateth My Flesh and\ndrinketh My Blood hath everlasting life, and I will raise him up at the\nlast day.\" And St. Thomas, in the beautiful conclusion to the grandest of\nhymns, has summed up numberless comments of the Fathers on these divine\nwords, where he sings--\n\n \"Bone Pastor, panis vere,\n Jesu nostri miserere,\n Tu nos pasce, nos tuere;\n Tu nos bona fac videre\n In terra viventium:\n Tu qui cuncta scis et vales,\n Qui nos pascis hic mortales,\n Tuos ibi commensales\n Coh\u00e6redes et sodales\n Fac sanctorum civium.\"\n\nThe Fathers[106] with great zeal insist that the physical Body of Christ\nin the Eucharist, being one in all the receivers, is a principle of unity\nof Christ's mystical Body. St. Augustine especially dwells upon this\neffect in Christ's mystical Body, but the effect presupposes the cause,\nwhich is that physical Body of Christ received by each.\n\nTake an instance of the first statement, that is, the presence of\nChrist's physical Body, in St. Chrysostom. Commenting on the words, \"How\ncan this Man give us His flesh to eat?\" he says, \"Let us learn what is\nthe marvel of the mysteries, what they are, why they were given, and what\nis their use. We become, He says, one body, members of His flesh and of\nHis blood. Let those who are initiated follow my words. That we may be\nso, then, not only by charity but in actual fact, let us be fused with\nthat Flesh. For it is done by that Food which He bestowed on us in the\ndesire to show us the longing which He had for us. He mingled Himself\nwith us, and made His Body one mass with us, that we may be one thing, as\na body united with its head. This is what Christ did for us, to draw us\nto closer friendship and to show His own longing for us; He granted those\nwho desired Him, not only to see Him but to touch Him, and to eat Him,\nand to fix their teeth in His Flesh, to be joined in His embrace, and to\nsatisfy all their longing. Parents often give their children to be\nnourished by others; I not so, but I nourish you with My own Flesh; I set\nMyself before you. I wished to become your Brother, I have partaken of\nflesh and blood for you; again, I give to you that Flesh and Blood\nwhereby I became your kinsman.\"[107]\n\nOf the effect proceeding from this cause St. Augustine says, \"The whole\nredeemed city, the assembly and society of the saints, is offered as an\nuniversal sacrifice to God by the Great Priest, who also offered Himself\nin His Passion for us, according to the form of a servant, that we might\nbe the Body of so great a Head. For this form He offered, in this He was\noffered, because according to this He is Mediator, in this Priest, in\nthis Sacrifice. When, therefore, the Apostle exhorted us to present our\nbodies a living sacrifice: 'For as in one body we have many members, but\nall the members have not the same office, so we, being many, are one body\nin Christ, and every one members one of another:' this is the sacrifice\nof Christians, many one body in Christ. Which also the Church constantly\nperforms in the sacrifice of the altar, as the faithful know, where it is\nshown to her that she is offered herself in that which she offers.\" As he\nsays a little further on, \"Of which thing (that is, Christ being, in the\nform of a servant, both Priest and Victim) He willed the daily sacrifice\nof the Church to be the Sacrament; for she being the Body, as He the\nHead, she learns to offer herself by Him. To this supreme and true\nsacrifice all false sacrifices have given way.\"[108]\n\nThus, then, the question has been answered how our Lord impressed for\never on the world the double act of His Priesthood, the assumption of\nhuman nature to His Divine Person, and the offering of that assumed\nnature in sacrifice. For whereas He made the bloody sacrifice once for\nall upon the altar of the cross, He ordered the daily sacrifice of His\nChurch to represent it for ever in the name of His people to God the\nFather, wherein He immolates Himself without blood. \"What then?\" says\nSt. Chrysostom; \"do we not offer every day? We do offer, but making a\ncommemoration of His death. And this is one sacrifice, and not many. How\nis it one and not many? Because that was once offered which entered into\nthe Holy of holies. This is the figure of that. For we offer ever the\nsame; not to-day one lamb and another to-morrow, but always the same. So\nthat the sacrifice is one. Otherwise, according to the objection, 'Since\nit is offered many times,' are there many Christs? By no means, but there\nis one Christ everywhere, complete here and complete there, one Body. As\nthen He, being offered in many places, is one Body and not many bodies,\nso there is one sacrifice. Our High-Priest is He who offered the\nsacrifice that cleanses us; that same we offer now which was then\noffered, which is inconsumable. This is done for a commemoration of that\nwhich was then done; for, 'Do this,' He says, 'in commemoration of Me.'\nWe offer not another sacrifice as the (Jewish) high-priest, but ever the\nsame; or rather we make a commemoration of the sacrifice.\"[109]\n\nThe one perpetual sacrifice thus instituted in His Church, to be offered\nfrom His first to His second coming, carrying in it indissolubly the\ngreat truths of His religion, the life and the unity of His people, this\nis the instrument which He used to impress His High-Priesthood on the\nworld; and He set up the one episcopate as the bearer of the one\npriesthood. The government of His Church is not an external magistracy,\nbut rests on the mass of worship and doctrine intimately blent together,\nso that the outward regimen and the inward belief form an indissoluble\nunity in the daily practice.\n\nIn this unity we must likewise comprehend the jurisdiction expressed in\nplanting and maintaining belief and worship throughout the world. For our\nLord is a King, and came to establish a kingdom; not several kingdoms,\nnor a confederation of states, but one kingdom, concerning which His\npeople confesses for ever, in the words of the angel who announced His\ncoming, \"Of His kingdom there shall be no end.\" But without jurisdiction,\nthat is, without the power which says to one man, \"Go here,\" and to\nanother, \"Go there,\" the first foundation of a kingdom was as impossible\nas was its continuance and permanence.\n\nAll the records of that ancient Church which fought a victorious battle\nwith the Roman Empire and received a civil enfranchisement from the\nEmperor Constantine tend to show that the principle of hierarchical order\nwas very strong in it, and was most severely maintained. It could not be\nwell stated in a more absolute form than in the letter of Pope St.\nClement above quoted. But the Church which met in representation at the\ngreat Nicene Council offers a perfect picture of what that order was,\nworking itself out in absolute independence of the Civil Power through\nthree centuries from the Day of Pentecost.\n\nIn the diocese the bishop's jurisdiction was complete. No priest was\nindependent in the exercise of his functions. Thus jurisdiction in the\ninterior forum entered into the daily dispensing of the sacraments. For\na long time the Holy Eucharist was dispensed by the bishop from one\naltar, and sent from him to the sick. He was the imposer of penance, and\nwhen, as churches and priests multiplied, the system of parishes and\nparish priests arose, they executed all their functions in complete\nsubordination to the bishop, whose title in those early times was taken\nfrom the rite on which all his power rested, when he is called\npre-eminently Sacerdos, _i.e._, the sacrificing priest. Within the limits\nof the diocese there can be no sort of doubt that the idea of\njurisdiction was perfectly realised in practice.\n\nBut did it stop with the diocese? Was the bishop independent in the\nexercise of his powers? In the first place, he exercised them all within\na certain district. He had no power to encroach upon the district of a\nneighbouring bishop, nor to execute therein functions which were\nperfectly lawful and usual in his own. It is plain that had he possessed\nany such power, the whole system established would not have made one\nkingdom of Christ, but would have been a congeries of similar\ngovernments, not tied together but agitated by perpetual rivalries.\nNothing could be more unlike the actual system of government as disclosed\nby the bearing of the Church of Rome to that of Corinth in the letter of\nSt. Clement, or to that orderly division into provinces which is seen in\nits full development at the Nicene Council. We may conclude that the tie\nwhich held the bishops together was at least as strict and as defined as\nthat which formed the unity of the particular diocese.\n\nWe now behold that marvellous spiritual fabric of which St. Chrysostom\nand St. Augustine, at the head of the Fathers of the fourth century,\nspoke with such affection, acknowledging that its existence was to them\nan absolute proof of the Godhead of its Founder. It was not its material\nextension alone, but its inmost nature and character which moved them\nthus. It was the evolution of the one indivisible power in its threefold\ndirection of Priesthood, Teaching, and Jurisdiction. It was that the one\nepiscopate tied together in a hierarchy of several thousand bishops was\nbut the outward regimen of an inward polity in which the One Sacrifice is\noffered, and the one Body of Christ communicated by the work of the one\nPriesthood, which lives upon and dispenses one doctrine, proclaiming it\nfrom age to age to the whole earth.\n\nThus the words of our Lord, spoken immediately after He had instituted\nthe priesthood according to the order of Melchisedec, committing to it\nthe sacrifice of His Body and Blood, were marvellously accomplished. \"I\nam the true Vine, and My Father is the husbandman.--Abide in Me, and I in\nyou. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abide in the\nvine, so neither can you, unless you abide in Me. I am the Vine, you the\nbranches: he that abideth in Me, and I in him, the same beareth much\nfruit; for without Me you can do nothing.\" The human nature which He had\ntaken had sent forth, in virtue of the Person who took it, the triple\npower bestowed upon it: His priesthood, His teaching, and His rule had\noccupied the earth. All the nations composing the Roman Empire had\nbrought in their first-fruits to form clusters of the mystical Vine. They\nhad made the triple offering of the Eastern kings from the peoples of\nEurope, Asia, and Africa to the Royal Infant; to the King they had given\ntheir gold, for His sake and after His likeness becoming poor; to the God\ntheir frankincense, worshipping Him at the altar of His love; to the\nVictim their myrrh, presenting to Him their bodies as a sacrifice, in\nrepetition of His martyrdom. It was the very scoff of the heathen\nphilosopher and magistrate that any one could think to reduce to one\nworship the various rites of the Empire, a conglomeration of European,\nAsiatic, and African superstitions. Out of that seemingly hopeless\ndiversity, that endless antagonism, He had constructed a divine unity, a\ntable at which the children of Scipio knelt side by side with the vilest\nslave, at which many an Aspasia became a penitent, and a Boniface sent\nback as holy relics to his mistress, Aglae, the body in which he had\nsinned with her. The vine of the synagogue, planted of old with the\nchoicest care, and protected from the inroads of wild beasts in the\nsecurity of a single nation of brethren, had brought forth but wild\ngrapes, and therefore it had been plucked up; its hedge had been broken\ndown and its tower ruined. Instead of it, the Vine of His Body had grown\nabundantly, and from its single root, to use Tertullian's application of\nthe parable, suckers had been carried everywhere, and the harvest of its\nvintage rendered the earth fruitful; the hills and the valleys of many\nvast regions were covered with its grapes. But this itself was but the\nbeginning of a vaster growth in the future, the first realisation of an\never-expanding kingdom. Only it was a complete specimen of all that\nshould be. This generation of the Christian people from the person of\nChrist was the one miracle which St. Chrysostom thought no heathen could\ndeny.\n\nThe Eucharistic Sacrifice is the centre and instrument of all this work;\nthe other Sacraments lead up to it or attend upon it. That which is most\nintimate in man, the forming his soul after a divine type, and the\nsanctifying it with all its affections; that which is most intellectual,\nthe doctrine of God made man, surpassing all knowledge in its development\nas in its conception; that government which is necessary to the\nwell-being of every kingdom; that worship which is most exalting, the\nworship of the Infinite One, the source, example, and giver of\npersonality, which is the last and highest gift of the Creator to the\nrational creature,--all these were here joined together by the simple act\nof God when He perpetuated in a visible rite the double power of His\nHigh-priesthood, the assumption of our nature, and the dying for our\nsins, and brought out of it the generation of His people, wherein the\nresurrection of one Man to bodily life became the resurrection of a\ncountless host to spiritual brotherhood, and created the Family of the\nIncarnate God.\n\nI have been exhibiting the institution of the most blessed Eucharist, and\nthe planting of it throughout the Church in the three centuries which\nended with the Nicene Council. Throughout these it was the life of the\nChurch; all the marvels of faith, endurance, zeal, and charity spring\nfrom it; the works of the Saviour were hidden in it. But since then\nfifteen centuries and a half have elapsed, and the Church which filled\nthe Roman Empire has dilated itself over the whole earth. In all the\ncountries which it has thus occupied, in all the races of which it has\nconverted the first-fruits, the same blessed Eucharist--that divine\nbanquet of the Flesh and Blood of the Word made man--has continued to be\nthe life of the Church. Upon it the race of martyrs, saints, doctors, and\nvirgins have been nurtured, and the power which in each one of them was\nsupernatural has to be also estimated in its aggregate. Among all the\nproofs of the Godhead of the Son of Man, that Divine Food which He\nforetold to the multitude satisfied with the miraculous multiplication of\nthe natural food on the shores of the Lake of Galilee, and which He first\ngave to His Apostles in the upper chamber on the eve of His Passion, is\nin its results the most transcendent. It is enough by itself to quench\nall the doubts of unbelief, to kindle all the fires of an endless\ncharity. It is the Church's unparalleled possession, of which no false\nreligion possesses even a shadow; her testimony, which grows not old; her\nyouth, which never fails. Unnumbered myriads of people of all times and\ncountries have been supported by it through the desert of this world, and\nbeen led in its strength to the Paradise in which the Son of God in the\nglory of His humanity communicates Himself face to face to those whom He\nhas redeemed, and imparts to them the vision of God in His Unity and His\nTrinity.\n\nBut if this Church, possessing this Divine Sacrifice and Sacrament, was a\nwonder to minds such as St. Chrysostom and St. Augustine in their day of\nthe fifth century, what ought it to be to us at the end of the\nnineteenth? The Roman Empire broke up, and the tribes of the North dashed\ninto fragments its unrivalled organisation, and destroyed that peace\nunder which the fairest regions of the earth, washed by the inland sea,\ndwelt for centuries, rich in all the arts of commerce, in all the\nsecurity of civilisation. The Blessed Eucharist survived this convulsion;\nfar more, it restored this ruin. By founding religious houses through the\nwhole extent of the countries occupied by the German tribes, whose\nindwellers, in virtue of it, lived _the common life_ under the safeguard\nof the three great vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, it produced\na Christian France, Spain, Italy, Germany, England, and Poland out of the\ntorn and bleeding members of the Empire. This was its work in the Western\nhalf of the Roman broken statue.\n\nIn the Eastern the savage power of the Mahometan Califate arose, denying\nat once the redemption of Christ, and the sacrifice in which He had\nenshrined that redemption, and the divine banquet which ensued upon it.\nThousands of Christian Sees fell not before its persuasive power, but its\nruthless sword of conquest. The Mahometan Califate has for hundreds of\nyears trampled on the fairest regions of the earth, and turned the Roman\npeace into a desolation. At length it trembles for its existence; the\ndivine Eucharist remains unimpaired in strength, and is ready to enter\ninto the desolated territory and repeat its work of restoration, to turn\nthe foulness of the Mahometan harem into the sanctity of the Christian\nhome.\n\nAgain, when iniquity abounded and the love of many had waxed cold, there\narose a defection in the West as terrible as that of the East 900 years\nbefore, and it was marked by special enmity to the Blessed Eucharist. It\ncast down and trampled under the feet of those who approached the\ndesecrated churches the very altars at which for a thousand years the\ngenerations of a Christian people had worshipped. It denied the great\nmystery which was the heart of the doctrine; it enrolled the denial in\nthe coronation oath of its sovereigns; it abolished the belief which had\nsoothed all sorrows as it had made all saints. But that defection has\nbroken into innumerable wavelets against the Rock of the Christian\nChurch, upon which rises, as of old, the impregnable citadel of the\nfaith--the faith which dispenses, as in the first ages, to the children\nof all the races of the earth that sacred Body and Blood, in virtue of\nwhich now, as in the upper chamber, the Word of God declares, \"I am the\nVine; ye are the branches: he that abideth in Me and I in him, the same\nbeareth much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.\"\n\nCan there be any proof of the Godhead of the Word made flesh to compare\nwith that which has been the life of the living and the hope of the\ndying to sixty generations of men for eighteen centuries and a half? \"For\nthis is the chalice in My Blood of the new and everlasting testament, the\nmystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many, for the\nremission of sins.\"\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[82] \"A quibus traducem fidei et semina doctrin\u00e6 c\u00e6ter\u00e6 exinde ecclesi\u00e6\nmutuat\u00e6 sunt.\" _Tradux_, the vine branch carried along above the ground\nfrom the parent stem, so that there is but one tree. Tertullian, De\nPr\u00e6scrip. H\u00e6ret. 20.\n\n[83] Franzelin, De Verbo Incarnato, p. 520.\n\n[84] Plato, Euthyphron, 14.\n\n[85] N\u00e4gelsbach, Homerische Theologie, 207; Id., Nachhomerische Theologie,\n193.\n\n[86] The Banquet, p. 188 _e_.\n\n[87] Lasaulx, Die S\u00fchnopfer (extracts from), pp. 234-270.\n\n[88] pro\u00earosia.\n\n[89] procharist\u00earia.\n\n[90] 3, 12.\n\n[91] Ruinart, Acta Martyrum, pp. 350 and 527.\n\n[92] Contr. Faustum, l. 22, s. 17, tom. viii. 370.\n\n[93] S. Tho. contr. Gentilis, 3, 120.\n\n[94] Agamemnon, 1520.\n\n[95] The above account of human sacrifices is drawn from Lasaulx's\ntreatise, pp. 237-255. He gives a profusion of examples, with their\nreferences in ancient authors.\n\n[96] Luke xxii. 20; John vi. 52.\n\n[97] See Council of Trent, sess. 22, cap. i.\n\n[98] 1 Cor. xi. 26.\n\n[99] Acts ii. 46.\n\n[100] John iii. 16.\n\n[101] Council of Trent, sess. 22, cap. ii.\n\n[102] Justin. Apol. i. 66.\n\n[103] Franzelin, De SS. Eucharisti\u00e6 Sacramento et Sacrificio, p. 81.\n\n[104] Eusebius C\u00e6s.: peri t\u00eas tou Pascha heort\u00eas, cap. 7.\n\n[105] Heb. ii. 12.\n\n[106] Franzelin, De SS. Eucharisti\u00e6 Sacramento, p. 111.\n\n[107] S. Chrys. Hom. in Joan, 46, c. 3, tom. viii. 272.\n\n[108] St. Aug. De Civitate Dei, lib. 10, c. 6 and 20.\n\n[109] S. Chrys. 16 Hom. on the Hebrews, tom. xii. p. 168.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nTHE ACTUAL RELATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE FROM THE DAY OF PENTECOST TO\nCONSTANTINE.\n\n\n_The Independence of the Ante-Nicene Church shown in her Organic Growth._\n\nThe foundation-stone of the Church of God is the Person of our Lord, a\ntruth embodied with marvellous force and terseness of expression in that\nfamous symbol of the Catacombs, the Sacred Fish, denoting by its initial\nletters the name of our Lord as Man, His office as Messiah, the two\nnatures in the one Divine Person, the salvation which is their result,\nJesus, the Christ, Son of God, Saviour.[110] As in that Divine Person the\nGodhead and Manhood are joined in that special union which constitutes\npersonality, as He who governs and He who teaches, He who offers\nsacrifice and He who is sacrificed, is one and the same Saviour\nthroughout, so He continues to be in the life of His Body the Church. And\nthis is very manifest during the first stadium of the Church's course,\nstretching from the Day of Pentecost to the decree of Constantino, which\ngranted to it civil recognition as a lawful religion; for government and\ndoctrine, like warp and woof, form the robe woven from the top\nthroughout in which our Lord as High Priest appears to the world.\nAccording to the prophecy, \"He builds a temple to the Lord, and bears the\nglory, and is a Priest upon His throne.\"[111] His kingdom resides in this\nunity. It is one flock, and the pastures in which His people feed upon\nthe truth make the domain of the government by which the kingdom is\nruled, and to feed the flock is to rule it. It is the one temple in which\nthe sacrifice offered is the Lord Himself, while in the sacrifice the\npeople is fed and grows, and is reciprocally offered to the Lord.\n\nIn all this the Church continues the mystery of her Lord's life, the\nDivine Incarnation, the suffering of the Nature assumed, the resurrection\nwhich follows. We have, then, to deal with one particular but complex\nfact, the outcome of this whole period in the government, teaching, and\nworship of the Church inseparably blent together, as borne into and upon\nthe world by its hierarchy, as enacted in its liturgy, as contained in\nits sacramental life, as exhibited in the living Christian people, the\ninvincible race,[112] which grew up in those centuries without\ninterference by the State. It is a period during which the State's legal\nposition of undeviating hostility served as the guardian of the new\nspiritual kingdom's independence.\n\nThat independence resided in a threefold sanctuary, which is one and the\nsame, being the House, the Temple, the Tribunal which the Blessed\nTrinity, the source and model of the Church, had constructed for Himself\nin the hearts of His people. First there is the sanctuary of worship, in\nwhich Christ is Priest, the starting-point of the whole economy;\nsecondly, the sanctuary of teaching, from which as Prophet He dispenses\nall that doctrine wherewith He is charged; thirdly, there is the\nsanctuary of government, whereof jurisdiction is a necessary and\ninalienable part, and in this He rules as King the distribution of all\npowers belonging to His kingdom.\n\nWe have to consider how, in the first three centuries, all this was\nactually carried out; and we shall best do so by placing ourselves at the\nremarkable point of history, the convocation of the Nicene Council in the\nyear 325, and by summing up the result of the long conflict which\npreceded that event, as regards these three particulars.\n\nThe Nicene Council was convoked to terminate the question which Arius had\nraised as to the Godhead of our Lord. It was the remedy of the Emperor\nConstantine for the malady which had broken out in the Church. He had\njust become, by the death of Licinius, sole ruler of the Roman world.\nThough not yet a Christian by the reception of baptism, he had conceived\nthe highest veneration for the Christian Church. There can be no doubt\nthat he trusted, by means of its spiritual unity, to weld together on a\nfirmer basis the shaken fabric of imperial Rome. Thus he looked with much\nsorrow and no little perplexity upon the rise of a heresy in the\nimportant Church of Alexandria; and when its bishop, in spite of his\ngreat authority, as the head of the second Church in the world, which by\na most powerful organisation governed the three secular provinces of\nEgypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, was unable to expel the mischief, he urged\nthe convocation of a General Council. He convoked it, so far as a secular\nprince could do so, by giving all the assistance which the public\nauthority could render in a State politically absolute; for he not only\ninvited the bishops to attend, but ordered that they should travel free\nof cost at the public expense. Pope Sylvester, on his side, assented; he\nsent his legates to the Council, where they alone represented the whole\nWest, and so by his assent and by the mission of his legates gave the\nCouncil its oecumenical character.\n\nBy this act the Emperor, who, it should be borne in mind, was still the\nPontifex Maximus of heathen worship, and the official head of the old\nState religion, recognised the Church of Christ as a spiritual kingdom,\npossessing a doctrine of which it was the sole judge and bearer;\nrecognised in its bishops the representatives of the various powers\nplaced by Christ, its Founder, therein, as those who bore throughout his\nempire a priesthood, and exercised a spiritual rule and jurisdiction, and\npreached a doctrine all bound together in one whole; who, moreover, in\nvirtue of this triple character, which came upon them from above, by the\ninstitution of Christ and through the medium of consecration, which is to\nsay, by the force of a divine unction, and not by any human authority,\nrepresented a people which likewise was spread everywhere, while it was\none likewise in virtue of a divine consecration, baptism in the threefold\nname of God.\n\nSuch a recognition is an enormous fact, which reason and imagination flag\nin their effort to realise. Two hundred and ninety-six years before, a\nMan had died upon a cross the death of a Roman slave, and the evening\nbefore His death He had ordered His disciples to commemorate that death\nfor ever in a certain rite which should constitute the central worship of\nHis people. This Man died by the edict of a Roman procurator, which had\nbeen extorted from him by the threats of the people and their rulers over\nwhom he maintained Rome's supremacy. This Man also died with the record\nover His head that the cause for which He died was, the assumption of\nkingship over a people who refused Him for their King, and chose in\npreference the Roman Emperor. His death was reported to the Emperor of\nthat day; but we know not whether he took any note of the death of one\nrecorded as a pretender to a provincial throne, or of a death enacted at\nthe command of a very subordinate officer of his empire, a mere\nprocurator under the Proconsul of Syria. The twelve disciples of this\nMan, made up of fishermen, a publican, and afterwards a tent-maker, went\nforth, carrying with them this rite, which they delivered to other men\nthroughout the empire. Upon this rite grew up a whole fabric of doctrine\nand worship; rulers who propagated the doctrine and celebrated the rite,\nand a people which sprung out of both. The Roman emperors, at first\nsuperciliously disregarding the seed which had been so silently dropped\nin their cities, presently turned to persecute this people and their\nrulers; during ten generations having always persistently\ndiscountenanced them, they imprisoned, tormented, or executed a certain\nportion. They also destroyed the seat and worship of the people who had\nrejected this Man as their King, and had chosen the Emperor instead. And\nnow, in rather less than three centuries, the Emperor of Rome, the\nsuccessor of Tiberius, acknowledged this crucified Man for what He\ndeclared Himself to be: acknowledged His kingdom; acknowledged as princes\nin all lands the missionaries whom He had sent forth; acknowledged as one\npeople, bound together in sacraments, those who had believed in His word,\nor in the word of others derived from Him; acknowledged, moreover, as a\nliving authority, as judges of what was or was not the true doctrine as\nso derived from Him, men whose sole claim was the consecration received\nfrom that Man on the eve of His public execution, and transmitted by the\nimposition of hands to their successors; acknowledged the rite of\nsacrifice which He had created by His word in the offering of His Body as\nthe most august, the most tremendous, the most precious thing existing in\nthe world.\n\nMoreover, in the convocation of the Council, the Emperor acknowledged of\nhis own accord the solidarity of the Christian episcopate. St. Cyprian\ndid not express it more plainly in his famous aphorism, \"The episcopate\nis one of which a part is held by each without division of the whole,\"\nthan the Emperor in supposing that a point of doctrine on the maintenance\nof which the whole fabric of revelation rested, since it concerned the\nPerson of the Founder, could be resolved by the common consent of its\nepiscopate. For the decision to be come to would bind the whole as one\nBody; and herein lay another imperial attestation of Christ's kingdom.\nThe Emperor of Rome looked upon the Church and treated it, not as a\nbeehive of separable cells, but as a Body the force and life of which lay\nin its oneness; and in causing a single heresy to be thus judged, he was\ncondemning the principle of every heresy which should at any time arise.\n\nAll this and much more is comprehended in that act of the Emperor\nConstantino which sanctioned the convocation of the Nicene Council. It\nwas not a Christianity split up into sects, but the solid unity of the\nCatholic Church in doctrine, discipline, worship, and constitution, which\nthe Emperor looked to for a support to the tottering political fabric of\nthe State, and as a new bond to its maintenance.[113]\n\nBut yet again. The Senate of Rome had been in the day of Rome's freedom a\ngreat power. At first representing the authority of a free people who had\nin course of time established a vast rule, it was a name of dignity and\nglory on the earth. Next, as the official bestower or ratifier of\nimperial authority, as even yet representing the Roman people, as\ncollecting in its bosom those who had borne high offices, ruled\nprovinces, gained victories, were the instruments by which the Pax Romana\nkept the earth quiet and obedient, the Senate was still an august body.\nBut now appeared before the world another council, consisting of men\neach of whom represented in his person a spiritual community while he\ncarried a divine power. These men were not imposers of taxes or rulers of\narmies, not enactors of laws for human contracts, but men whose rule was\nover souls, whose word was divine, who announced not to a particular race\nbut to all races of the earth one God, one Christ, one faith; a rule the\ncentre of which was an act of transcendent worship, and the scope and\nobject holiness. And this council, while it met in the empire of an\nabsolute sovereign, who raised up and put down whom he pleased, the lives\nand fortunes of whose subjects were entirely in his hands, alone\npossessed freedom, the freedom to worship what they believed, to obey the\ncommands of their conscience as Christians, to acknowledge a power\nstretching over the whole range of their most secret life, and in nowise\nderived from the Roman Emperor nor dependent on him. This power\nConstantine acknowledged in causing the Council to be convoked; and by so\ndoing he pointed out the Council of the Christian Church as that from the\nimitation of which every future parliament should spring to construct\ncivil liberty under Christian sovereigns. Assuredly the Council, as a\ndeliberative body, possessed a dignity far transcending that of the\nSenate whether of free or of imperial Rome.\n\nThis is the meaning of the Nicene Council in the great arbitrament\nbetween the Spiritual and the Civil Powers, or, in Catholic language,\nbetween the Priesthood and the Empire. And it is a meaning put upon it\nby the Roman Emperor himself. Viewed on this side, the Council is a\nsummary of the whole preceding history from the Day of Pentecost to its\nconvocation, the records of which are as scant as the facts are precious.\nWhat know we as to the number of the martyrs and confessors in that\ninterval? What infinitesimal portion of individual lives and sufferings\nthen undergone has been preserved for our love and imitation? Among the\nFathers present at the Council there was one, Paphnutius, who had lost an\neye in the preceding persecution. We are told the Emperor would kiss the\nempty socket in token of his veneration. That act symbolised his whole\ndemeanour to the Church for whose faith Paphnutius had suffered. It\nlikewise expressed the witness which the fact of the Council convoked and\nacknowledged by the Roman Emperor gave to all those sufferings the\ninnumerable incidents of which went to construct that victory of patience\nover force whereby the Christian kingdom was established in its first\nfield of combat. This was the conflict of the natural society of man, as\nit existed in the grandest empire of Gentilism, with the supernatural\nsociety founded in Christ.\n\nThus the convocation of the Nicene Council is the definitive declaration\nby the Roman Empire through the mouth of its chief that it recognised a\nkingdom of Christ upon earth.\n\nTo illustrate the spiritual government of this kingdom, as it had grown\nup in the three centuries which intervene between the Day of Pentecost\nand the convocation of the Council, let us touch upon five points: the\nfirst shall be the ordered gradation of the hierarchy; the second, the\nholding of provincial councils; the third, the hearing and the judging of\ncauses; the fourth, the election of the Church's ministers; the fifth,\nthe administration of her temporal goods.[114]\n\n1. As to the first, the Sixth Canon of the Council ordered that the\nancient custom should continue in force, according to which the great\nmother Churches of Alexandria and Antioch possessed jurisdiction over the\nwhole civil diocese, the one of Egypt and the other of the East, in like\nmanner as the Church of Rome possessed a similar jurisdiction in the\nWest. The ground upon which the Council rests this canon is much to be\nobserved; it does not institute this jurisdiction, but orders it be\ncontinued because it was the ancient custom. Now as there had been no\nother Council prior to that of Nic\u00e6a, in which this power of jurisdiction\nover the Metropolitans in the civil dioceses of Egypt and of the East had\nbeen granted to the Bishops of Alexandria and of Antioch, the origin of\nthis ancient custom must be referred to apostolic institution, according\nto St. Augustine's rule, \"That which is held by the whole Church, which\nhas not been ordered by councils, but always been kept, we are most right\nin believing to have been handed down by none other than apostolic\nauthority.\"[115] Pope Innocent I.,[116] writing to Alexander Bishop of\nAntioch, about eighty years after the Council, recognises his\njurisdiction over not only one province, but over the whole assemblage of\nprovinces which made up the civil jurisdiction of the Prefect of the\nEast, not so much on the ground of the city's civil dignity as because it\nhad been the first See of the chief of the Apostles. St. Gregory the\nGreat[117] repeatedly in his letters speaks of the See of the chief of\nthe Apostles as being the See of one in three places, Rome, Alexandria,\nand Antioch.\n\nThat which the Sixth Canon of the Council witnesses, therefore, is the\noriginal jurisdiction of the two great mother Sees of Alexandria and\nAntioch over their daughter churches, which it corroborates by referring\nto the norm, as it were, supplied by the still greater See of Rome.\nThough these Sees were not called at the time of the Nicene Council\npatriarchal, a name which arose in the fifth century; yet the thing\nitself, and the institution which it denoted, existed from the beginning.\nThe system of mother and daughter churches is shown in the highest degree\nin these three great Sees, in two of which St. Peter himself sat, while\nhe founded the third by his disciple Mark. It is, in fact, a derivation\nfrom St. Peter's Primacy, and the constituent principle of the hierarchy\nin its intermediate gradation of ranks. As the institution of bishops\nthroughout the world is a derivation of apostolic authority, so likewise\nis the repartition of jurisdiction among them. One and the same\nprinciple--power coming from above--made the whole hierarchy, whether in\nthe bishop over the simple diocese, or in the metropolitan over a single\nprovince, or in the primate over several metropolitans, or in the central\nSee of St. Peter, the Head of all. The three former of these gradations,\nthe Sixth Canon of the Council recognised as of immemorial existence.\nWith regard to the fourth, when the Roman legate at the Council of\nChalcedon cited this canon, he cited it with the heading: \"The Roman\nchurch always had the Primacy.\" And although the Greek copies of the\nCouncil did not bear this heading, the Greek bishops there did not\ndispute the fact which it stated. And it must be noted that this heading\ndid not assert the Primacy of Rome to be given by the Council, but that\nit had always existed; nor was any fact more constantly repeated by Pope\nafter Pope when addressing the Church in her bishops, than this, that his\nauthority, whatever it was, was the gift of Christ to St. Peter, and not\nbestowed by any Council: and so of divine, not apostolical, institution.\n\nIt would appear that the Apostles,[118] in carrying out the divine\ninstructions of their Master for the establishment of His kingdom,\nfollowed His own example. Inasmuch as He had given them a head, they\nwould appoint inferior heads in the Church who should hold an order among\nthemselves in its administration, and all refer to the Superior. In doing\nthis they had regard to the civil disposition of the empire, using it as\na model upon which they formed the exterior polity of the Church. For\njust as in the civil and temporal government of each province there was a\nmother city, the prefect of which administered the whole province,\nruling under the Prince over the subordinate governors, to whom matters\nof more grave importance were referred, so the Apostles and their\ndisciples after them instituted in the chief cities bishops to whom they\ngave all the powers of metropolitans before the name came into use, in\norder that ecclesiastical regulations of the greatest moment might be\ntreated before them in union with the bishops of their respective\nprovinces.[119] Thus St. Paul, finding Ephesus the metropolis of\nProconsular Asia, placed Timotheus to be bishop there, giving him at the\nsame time jurisdiction over the bishops of that province, who should be\ndrawn as it were out of the womb of the parent See; and in his first\nletter we find instructions as to the quality of the bishops whom he\nshould select. In the 19th chapter of the Acts, we are told that St. Paul\nhad drawn a great number of disciples to him, not only at Ephesus, but in\nnearly every part of Asia, that is, the proconsular province of that\nname. In the 17th chapter, at a later date, he summoned at Miletus the\nbishops of Ephesus and its province to meet him, calling them \"all you\namong whom I have passed preaching the kingdom of God,\" which words\ndenote that he was speaking, not to the priests of one city, but to the\nbishops of a province, in which \"the Holy Ghost had set them as bishops\nto rule over the church of God.\" St. Iren\u00e6us also notes that they were\nbishops and elders from Ephesus and the adjoining cities. St. John\nrecognises these bishops in the seven letters which he is ordered to\ncommunicate to the angels of the churches in the Apocalypse. At the head\nof these is the Angel of the church of Ephesus as metropolis. So, again,\nthe Apostle Paul set Titus as metropolitan over the whole of Crete,\nexpressly ordering him to establish bishops in every city, and describing\nwhat their character should be. His letters to Corinth and to\nThessalonica, as well as to Ephesus, are letters to cities each of which\nwas a metropolis. Thus the 34th of the Canons, called apostolical, runs:\n\"It behoves the bishops of each nation to recognise him, who is the first\namong them, and to esteem him as their head, and to do nothing of\nimportance without his sentence; but let each of them do only what\nconcerns his own diocese and the places belonging to it, and not that\nwithout the agreement of all.\"[120] Here is seen the discipline of the\nancient church, beyond a doubt derived from the Apostles, as to the\nMetropolitan's superintendence over the bishops of every province.\n\nThus the distribution[121] of episcopal jurisdiction began with the\nbeginning, and was the outflow of one principle as stable as it was\nsimple. The structure of the diocese, that of the province, that of the\npatriarchate, that of the whole Church, was identical throughout. It was\na series of concentric circles, at the centre of which was our Lord\nHimself. In the simple diocese He was seen as walking and teaching with\nHis Apostles on earth; in the province the metropolitan, with his\nsuffragans, repeated the same image; in the patriarchate, the Primate\nand his metropolitans; while in the See of Peter, our Lord stood by the\nlake of Galilee delivering with the thrice enjoined question, \"Lovest\nthou Me more than these?\" the divine pastoral power over His whole flock.\nThis was the example of the Master Himself, which the Apostles faithfully\nfollowed.\n\nFrom the beginning as to this exterior polity of His Church nothing was\nundefined, nothing was casual; it was the Body of Christ in its natural\naction gradually filling the world, by which the Head was gradually\ndrawing man to Himself. It was the perfection of order, and yet the\nperfection of a divine liberty, which took hold of earthly things, such\nas the civil disposition of a temporal empire, to exalt it into the\nstructure of a supernatural kingdom.\n\nThe great builders of the Middle Ages, in these stupendous cathedrals\nwhich the piety of generations raised in honour of the Mother of God,\nrepresented the Body of our Lord in that form of the cross on which He\npurchased our redemption. Every wall, every buttress, every chapel\ntherein converged towards the centre, and lent its several portion of\nsupport to the whole. Therein the Church in her unity and solidarity was\nvisibly portrayed, the Head with His members, the Mother of fair love,\nbearing the Divine Child, with His saints and confessors around Him.\nTherein the mystery of our salvation, the mystical altar of sacrifice,\nwas ever set forth, in which the Divine Presence, the greater Schechinah\nof the new law, abode without ceasing. Such an intellectual and moral\nstructure is presented to us in the hierarchy of the Church, graduated\naccording to the system just described, from the first Apostolic Council\nat Jerusalem to the first General Council at Nic\u00e6a. No bishop stood apart\nfrom his fellows; no important matter of doctrine or discipline, of\ngovernment or worship, was terminated by him without common council of\nhis brethren. Every province was ranged round the central shrine, and\nmade part of the one edifice. It was the Body of Christ sculptured, not\non stone, but on human hearts, joined together by the wisdom of His\nsaints, and cemented with the blood of His martyrs.\n\n2. The second point[122] to be considered is the development of synodical\ninstitutions which kept even pace with the metropolitical hierarchy. As\nthe council of his priests stood beside the bishop, so the provincial\nsynod, the earliest form of councils, stood beside the metropolitan. From\nthe second half of the second century these came into action for the\nsubjugation of doctrinal errors and divisions, such as the Montanist\nheresy, and the contest as to the proper day for the celebration of\nEaster. The unity and solidarity of the churches and their bishops found\nmore and more expression in these synods; here the heretical attack was\nstayed, and the common action of the bishops met the common assault of\nopponents. In the third century these episcopal meetings took place\ngenerally once, and in some countries twice a year. In them the bishops\nonly had a decisive voice; priests and deacons could take part in them,\nthe latter usually standing, while bishops and priests sat; the laity\nalso were not absolutely excluded. The decrees of councils were usually\nsent by encyclical letters to other bishops. Bishops who could not appear\nin person had to be represented either by other bishops, as in A.D. 286\nat Carthage, or by clerics of their church, as in 314 at Arles. The\nbishops of higher rank, who presided over the synod, generally\nmetropolitans, were accustomed to subscribe the decrees alone.\nAccusations against bishops, and wrong acts on their part, were likewise\nexamined at synods, and decided there. We no longer possess acts of the\nmost ancient councils, except those of some African synods under Cyprian,\nand of that of Antioch in 269; we have 28 disciplinary decrees of the\nCouncil of Amyra in 314, and 14 of that of Neoc\u00e6sarea held at about the\nsame time.\n\n3. Nothing sheds clearer light upon the constitution of the Church, as a\nperfect society, than her action in the hearing and deciding of\ncauses.[123] The coercive power of the Church descends to her direct from\nGod, and not from man, and was comprised from the beginning in the\ntwofold jurisdiction of the external and the internal forum, the one\ncriminal and the other penitential. The Son of God, who gave this power\nto the prelates of His Church, appointed them to be judges of men,\ngranting to them full power to absolve and to condemn, and pledging His\ndivine word that their sentences should be confirmed in heaven. The grant\nis recorded in the sixteenth chapter of St. Matthew, as promised to St.\nPeter in his quality as head of the Church, and in the eighteenth chapter\nas promised to the Apostles collectively, and in their persons to the\nbishops who descend from them. By this divine disposition they are the\nsole and ordinary judges of the Church who belong essentially to the\necclesiastical polity; and therefore St. Cyprian wrote: that \"heresies\nhave arisen and schisms sprung up from no other reason than the not\nyielding obedience to God's priest; and from not reflecting that there is\nat a time but one priest in the Church, and one judge at a time in\nChrist's place: to whom, if according to the divine commands the whole\nbrotherhood yielded obedience, no one would venture to do anything\nagainst the College of Priests;\"[124] that is the episcopate.\n\nThis power of the keys gave a true and proper jurisdiction as well in the\ncriminal as the penitential forum. But the difference between the two is\nmarked. The punishment inflicted by the Church on those who were accused\nand convicted in judgment was different from that which was laid upon\nsuch as of their own accord, either in public or in secret, confessed\ntheir sins. The punishment inflicted on delinquents after accusation and\nproof of their misconduct was called a sentence, a condemnation, a\nsacerdotal censure, to use St. Cyprian's term; the other, which was laid\nupon any one who of his own accord confessed his faults, was properly a\npenitence, and never called a condemnation, but, on the contrary, carried\nwith it a sacerdotal absolution from the soul's stains. The former\nbelonged to the exterior forum, judicial and contentious; the latter to\nthe interior forum, that of conscience. There was, indeed, a great\ndifference between the two; for the censure laid its stroke upon those\nwho resisted and were contumacious, who refused to confess their crime,\nif they were once judicially convicted; but penitence was only given to\nthose who, by confession, voluntarily disclosed their fault, and they\nonly who were the guilty parties formed the accusers and the witnesses\nagainst themselves.[125]\n\nDuring the whole period of the first three centuries the Church exercised\nthrough her bishops this true and proper jurisdiction, both of the\nexterior and the interior forum. Instances of the former are the\npunishment of Ananias and Sapphira by St. Peter; of Elymas the sorcerer\nand the incestuous person at Corinth by St. Paul. But, further, the\nlatter Apostle in his first Epistle to the Corinthians directed that\ncauses of all kinds among Christians should be settled, not before the\nsecular Gentile magistrates, but before the divine magistracy of the\nChurch. And according to this rule the bishops in the first ages took\ncognisance of all causes and temporal differences, as well of clergy as\nof laity, and terminated them by their judgment; and this custom lasted\neven into the fourth century, after the peace of the Church, so that the\nmost troublesome occupation which the bishops of those ages had was to\nexercise this judicial power over secular matters, as St. Augustine\nconfesses in his own case, where he says, \"They demand of us that we\nshould occupy ourselves with their vicious and troublesome covetousness,\nand give them up our time; at least they press the weak, and force them\nto bring their causes to us; and we do not venture to say to them, 'Man,\nwho made me a judge or a divider among you?' For the Apostle instituted\necclesiastical judges in such causes by prohibiting Christians from\npleading before secular tribunals.\"[126]\n\nJurisdiction is defined to be \"cognition of causes belonging to the\nmagistrate by right of his office.\"[127] Such a cognition was exercised\nby the bishops over every sort of cause among Christians in the first\ncenturies. Aristotle says, \"Those are most properly to be called\nmagistrates whose function it is to deliberate, to judge, and to command,\nbut especially the latter, as being more characteristic of them.\" And\nwhen St. Paul writes, \"Obey those that are set over you, and be subject\nto them; for they watch as those who will give account of your souls,\" he\nsays the same, since by the force of relative terms there cannot be the\nduty of obedience on one side without the right to command on the other.\nThis episcopal magistracy was executed in four degrees, corresponding to\nthe hierarchy and the councils as they have been just described. First,\nin his diocese the bishop was the proper judge, as Origen in his answer\nto Celsus draws a parallel between the bishop with his presbytery in each\nparticular city and the chief magistrate of that city with the council.\nSecondly, the metropolitan with his council of bishops, so that the\napostolical canons enjoin that if a bishop be accused by persons of the\nfaith, worthy of credit, he should be brought and judged before that\ntribunal.[128] Thirdly, if a metropolitan were accused, the higher\ntribunal of the Primate and his Episcopal Council would intervene.\nFourthly, if a Primate, or one of those afterwards termed Patriarchs,\nwere in fault, as Paul of Samosata, holding the See of Antioch in the\nthird century, a council of still greater rank would meet to judge him;\nand in this case even the secular sovereign, the Emperor Aurelius,\nrecognised that the episcopal house ought to belong to the person\nindicated by the bishops of Italy, that is, the Pope.\n\n4. The fourth point which I will endeavour to sum up is the practice of\nthe Church in the period preceding the Nicene Council as to the election\nof bishops and the other ministers of inferior rank to the bishop from\nthe priest downwards, together with the principle on which this practice\nwas founded.\n\nIt has been shown above how the first bishops were planted by St. Peter,\nSt. Paul, and the other Apostles, who chose by direction of the Holy\nSpirit, in the cities wherein they preached, those whom they would invest\nwith the plenitude of the priesthood, to be sources of future spiritual\nrule and centres of Christian life. But when successors to those had in\nthe course of time to be appointed, what rule was followed?\n\nThe form of the sacred elections in those first ages was this: when a\nbishop died, the bishops of the province, together with the metropolitan,\nassembled in the city of the defunct prelate. They here took information\nfrom the clergy and the people respecting the persons who were considered\nworthy of episcopal rank. The bishops deliberated by themselves on the\nmatter, and then proposed in public the person whom they considered\nworthy of the bishop's seat. They heard thereupon the opinion and the\nwish of the clergy and the faithful people. Having heard these, they\nissued their judgment, in which the sentence of the metropolitan had the\nlarger share; and the new bishop being elected, they at once consecrated\nhim. As to the election of the priests and the other inferior clergy, the\nsame order was pursued in consulting clergy and people, and the whole\njudgment was ultimately reserved to the bishop.\n\nSt. Cyprian has left us in his 68th letter a most lucid testimony to this\nbeing the custom in his day, not only in the Churches of Africa, but in\nall other provinces. \"We must,\" he says, \"diligently observe and maintain\nthe custom which has come down to us by divine tradition and apostolical\nobservance, which is kept among ourselves and in almost every province.\nIn order that ordination be rightly celebrated, the nearest bishops of\nthe province must assemble among that people for whom a superior is to be\nappointed. The bishop must be chosen in the presence of the people,\nwhich has the fullest knowledge of the life of every one, and is\nthoroughly acquainted with his conduct by his acts.\" He supports the\ncustom by the example of Eleazar, who, though chosen to be high priest by\nMoses alone, in obedience to a divine command, was yet set before the\npeople, to show that sacerdotal ordinations should be made in the\npresence of those who by intimate knowledge can testify the merits of\nthose chosen; and, again, by the example of the Apostles, who, in the\nelection as well of St. Matthias as of the seven deacons, called together\nthe people and heard their testimony, \"that no unworthy person might find\nmeans to be advanced to a higher rank or the sacerdotal dignity.\"\n\nThe outcome of these three centuries is, that the election of the bishop\nlay in the hands of the metropolitan, assisted by the bishops of his\nprovince, and that the election of the metropolitan lay in the synod of\nhis bishops, but confirmed by the bishops of the first Sees, to whom\nbelonged the consecration of metropolitans.[129] This was the discipline\nin the East, while in the West the Roman Pontiff, through the dignity of\nhis throne as head of the whole Church and of all particular Churches,\ndid not personally intervene in the election of bishops to vacant Sees,\nbut the successor was chosen by the neighbouring bishops according to the\ndesires of the clergy and people, and the decree of the election was\ntransmitted him, leaving to his choice its confirmation, or provision\nfor the vacant See in some other manner, as might seem to him most\nexpedient.\n\nThe election of all ministers below the bishop belonged to the bishop\nalone.\n\nIt is evident that the great number of bishops who in the course of two\ncenturies were sent out by the Roman Pontiffs[130] to convert the nations\nto the faith were not elected by the faithful people which they\nthemselves founded; nor could the testimony or the consent of the people\nbe asked. But if the election of ministers had belonged by divine\ninstitution to the faithful laity and the Christian people, neither the\nApostles, nor their disciples, nor the successors of St. Peter could have\naltered a divine disposition, nor elected pastors without the consent of\nthe people.\n\nBut the principle on which the Church acted from the beginning is as\nclear as her practice; for the priesthood and the whole order of pastors\nin the Church having been established by the Son of God, and the\nperpetuity of this same priesthood in this same Church being also\nnecessary by this divine disposition, it follows that the election of\nsacred ministers to maintain the succession and the disposition given by\nChrist to the Church, must belong by divine order to some one. As it\ncannot belong to laymen, it must belong to the clergy alone. In fact, St.\nPaul, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, declares that God Himself prescribed\nthe form of this election in the priesthood of Aaron, and that this form\nwas observed by our Lord. \"No one,\" he says, \"takes this honour to\nhimself but he that is called by God, as was Aaron. So, too, Christ\nglorified not Himself to be called High Priest, but He that said to Him,\n'Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee;' as also in another\nplace He says, 'Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of\nMelchisedec.'\"\n\nExactly, then, as Aaron was elected solely by Moses at God's command,\nwithout waiting for any consent or any council of the people, so in the\nChurch bishops did not need the consent or counsel of the people to be\nelected to their ministry, but they required the suffrage and the\ninstitution of their own order. And our Lord, on the day of His\nResurrection, when He met His assembled Apostles, gave the whole rule,\norder, and descent of election and institution in His Church in the\nwords, \"As My Father sent Me, so I also send you.\" As He elected His\napostles and disciples, excluding all consent of the multitude, so He\nmade them electors and institutors of the ministers who should succeed\nthem, independent of popular election. In His Church power is from above,\nnot from below; from within, not from without; nor is any truth attested\nwith a more complete and unbroken witness in the history of three hundred\nyears than this.\n\n5. The fifth point to be considered is the administration of the Church's\ntemporal goods.\n\nOur Lord died upon the cross in utter want and nakedness; in similar want\nand nakedness of temporal goods the Church, His Body, began her course.\nShe had to draw by the power of His resurrection from the hearts of men\nwhat should be sufficient for her clothing and sustenance. The charge of\nour Lord in sending out His twelve Apostles is, in brief, the history of\nHis Church during these three centuries. They went out without gold or\nsilver in their girdles; they stayed in the houses which received them,\neating and drinking of what was set before them. They preached the\nkingdom of heaven; freely they had received, and freely they gave; and\nfor their heavenly gifts, since the labourer is worthy of his hire, they\nreceived temporal support. The 34th Apostolic Canon expresses the\nobligation to support the clergy and the divine service, which created\nall the property of the Church. \"The law of God has appointed that those\nwho abide at the altar should live by the altar.\"\n\nThe support of their religion was from the beginning both a natural and a\ndivine obligation lying upon all Christians; the natural obligation,\nexpressed in the words \"The labourer is worthy of his hire,\" received\nfrom our Lord a supernatural application, when, using these words, He\ncommanded that they who preached the gospel should live of the\ngospel.[131]\n\nWe may note three states of the Church in these early ages as to this\nmatter.[132] In the beginning, during the first fervour of the disciples\nin Jerusalem, the clergy and laity were united in one heart and spirit,\nand had all things in common, and those who possessed property sold it,\nand laid the price at the feet of the Apostles, that they might provide\nfor the common needs. Those who lived in this manner had no obligation\nof paying tithes or first-fruits. A second state was that when the faith\nwas spread beyond the bounds of Palestine, and that common life could\nhardly be maintained. Then the faithful retained their property as\nindividuals, but collections were made on certain days for the support of\nthe clergy and the poor, as St. Paul records.[133] When, subsequently,\nthe Christian faith spread through the whole Roman Empire, and assumed a\nmore complete and established form, these stated collections were\nretained, while Iren\u00e6us, and Origen, and Cyprian bear witness to the\ninstitution of tithes and first-fruits. Whether the specific amount of\ncontribution was or was not imposed, at least the sustenance of the\nclergy and of religion was ever considered a debt of justice.\n\nAs to the acquisition and usage of temporal goods, the course of things\nin these first ages may be thus summed up.[134] It is not easy to know\nprecisely at what time churches began to possess immovable goods; it is,\nhowever, very probable that this took place soon after the death of the\nApostles, and as soon as the faithful gave up the practice of selling\ntheir property. Not that every Church made such acquisitions, but that by\ndegrees, now in one city and now in another, some real property was\nsecured; for it is certain that collections continued to be made for a\nlong time, and the faithful continued to give tithes and first-fruits.\nThese collections were not only made for the local Church, but for\nchurches of distant provinces which were in need, for such a\ncommunication of goods was always enjoined by charity and recommended by\nunity. And it must be further remarked that these oblations of a\nparticular Church were not only sent to another Church when they were\nmore than were needed at home, but often made on purpose to be sent to a\ndistance, as we learn from innumerable examples of ecclesiastical\nhistory. The reason of this is plain; for the whole Church being one, as\nall particular parts are bound to maintain religious union, so are they\nbound to have communication of those temporal goods which are the\nendowments necessary to preserve it, and one must help the other when\njust reason requires it, that all may help reciprocally in maintaining\neach other.\n\nThere was also in these centuries already made a fourfold distribution of\nthe temporal goods acquired; one portion was given to the bishop, a\nsecond to the other clergy, a third for the support and relief of the\npoor and of strangers, a fourth for the building, reparation, and\nfurnishing of churches, for it would seem that there were from the\nbeginning places destined for divine worship. St. Paul[135] speaks of\nsuch for the reception of our Lord's Body and Blood. The Martyrology\nrecords the festival of the first Christian Church at Rome, which was\nconsecrated by St. Peter. Justin, Tertullian, Cyprian make mention of\nchurches, sometimes the heathen emperors even allowed these, as is\nspecially mentioned of Alexander Severus.\n\nIf, then, we compare the want and nakedness in which the Church began\nwith the state in which she emerged from the period of persecution\nterminated by Constantine, we find that in spite of spoliations undergone\nin so many assaults of the heathen empire, she had created funds to\nsupport the whole body of her Episcopate, and the clergy subject to them\nin each diocese, to make ample relief for the poor, for the reception of\nstrangers, for the support of hospitals; to build, maintain, and adorn\nchurches for the celebration of her sacraments and the preaching of her\nword. In all this she exerted a parallel force with that which shows\nitself in the construction of her hierarchy, the system of her provincial\ncouncils, the constitution of her tribunals, the free election of her\nbishops and subordinate ministers. In no one of these things did the\ntemporal government give her any aid. That is, indeed, to say much less\nthan the truth. In no one of them did the temporal government do\notherwise than thwart her, from the lowest degree of persecution,\nconsisting in a social contempt and disregard, to the highest, of violent\nconfiscation and bloody torture. The extent of favour which she enjoyed\nwas that here and there a politic emperor shut his eyes to her\nproceedings, or even remarked in the plenitude of his forbearance that a\nchurch was better than a cookshop.[136] As the hierarchy proceeded forth\nby an inward strength derived from our Lord's command, uniting local\nautonomy with central authority, exercising a rule at once paternal and\nmajestical, the rule of Him who joined the commission to feed His whole\nflock with the condition to love Him more than all others loved Him, so\nthis same hierarchy, passing from house to house and city to city with\nthe word, \"the Kingdom of God is at hand,\" clothed itself as it passed\nwith such a measure of material goods as was necessary for its\nmaintenance by the offerings of the faithful, which they considered at\nonce a natural and a divine obligation, for throughout they saw in the\nbody they were covering the Body of the Lord, who for their sakes, being\nrich, had become poor.\n\nThe five subjects we have just reviewed belong to the Church's external\ngovernment, in which she manifested from the beginning a complete liberty\nand independence of all power outside of herself. It is next in order to\nshow the same liberty and independence in the evolution of her teaching.\n\nIn this respect the task which fell upon the Apostles, from the time of\nher Lord's departure, has been very concisely but, at the same time, very\nexactly defined in the last words of St. Matthew's Gospel, wherein our\nLord Himself charged them to \"Go forth and make disciples all nations,\nbaptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy\nGhost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded\nyou.\" Herein the construction of the Church is marked in the authority\nwhich makes disciples everywhere, for the disciple stands to the teacher\nin a relation of obedience; in the rite of baptism, which binds them\ntogether in one whole, and which, standing at the head, represents the\nwhole system of sacraments; while the teachers are enjoined to require\nobservance of all those things which Christ had commanded them to teach\nin His name. These injunctions were recorded by St. Matthew in his Gospel\nmany years after they had been exactly fulfilled by those to whom they\nwere addressed. As soon as the Apostles were invested \"with power from on\nhigh\" at the Day of Pentecost, they began the simple work of making\ndisciples, binding them together with sacraments, teaching them obedience\nto those things in which they had been enjoined by their Lord to instruct\nthem. Again, we possess in the Gospel of St. Luke, dated, as is supposed,\nat least thirty years after the Day of Pentecost, a continuous record of\nwhat they began to do. But the work done, in all its length and breadth,\nwas independent of these records. It is important to realise as well as\nwe can the fact that the whole settlement of the Church as an\ninstitution, which embraces the worship of God, the administration of\nsacraments, the regulation of discipline, her essential polity, including\nthe vocation, ordination, and jurisdiction of her ministers, and no less\nthe instruction of men in that whole doctrine of salvation which\nconsisted in the confession that our Lord was the Christ; all this, which\nwas effected in the forty years which passed between the Day of Pentecost\nand the destruction of Jerusalem, was effected by oral teaching and\nliving authority. The chief Sees were planted, and the divine polity in\neach of them, which formed the life of the Christian people, was laid\ndown before the writings of the New Testament began to be published,\nlong before they were collected, still longer before the Canon of the\nwritings forming them was closed. The first generation of Christians\nreceived their religion from the lips of Messengers, Ambassadors,\nHeralds, who spoke in Christ's name the words which Christ had put in\nthem. Christians so made entered upon the practice of a life the whole\ncourse of which was drawn out for them by their teachers. This is the\nforce of the commission, \"Make disciples of all nations.\" Mysteries were\ndispensed to them of which these teachers were stewards, and which they\naccepted from the hands of the teachers. And only when this work had been\ndone, during a course of years and in many great cities, did the first\nwritten collection of some of the words and acts of Christ begin to be\nmade public; while the last of this fourfold collection was not\ncommunicated to the general body of disciples until more than sixty years\nafter the termination of our Lord's earthly life. Before that time the\nstructure of the Church in those points of her external government which\nwe have touched above had been entirely completed; the sound of the\nApostles had gone out into all the world; a multitude of teachers had\nbeen commissioned by the Apostles; a multitude of people had been taught\nby them; martyrs had borne witness to the faith thus planted everywhere.\n\nIn this first era, which lasted certainly during the lifetime of the\nApostles in general, probably to the death of the last Apostle, John, the\ntradition of the Christian faith was oral. By all this period the\nkingdom of Christ preceded the book in which we read at the distance of\nso many centuries the account of its origin. The book did not make the\nkingdom, but the kingdom made itself, and in making gave us the book, as\na part of itself, a permanent though not a complete record of our Lord's\nwords and acts, and a portion of that oral teaching which had been the\ninstrument of its first propagation.\n\nThis oral teaching comprehended three classes of facts: first, the things\ntaught by our Lord to His Apostles, whether they were afterwards written\nor whether they were not written; and as to such a distinction nothing\ncan be more express than St. John's repeated testimony that only a small\nportion of the things which He did and the signs which He wrought were\nwritten--a testimony the more important as it comes from him whose\nwritings close the canon of Scripture. Secondly, it comprehended those\nthings which the Apostles learnt by illumination from the Holy Spirit,\naccording to the promise recorded for us by St. John, \"I have yet many\nthings to say to you, but you cannot bear them now; but when He the\nSpirit of Truth is come, He will guide you by the hand into all\ntruth,\"[137] and which under His guidance they taught to the first\ndisciples; and these two classes of things make up together the divine\ntradition. Thirdly, it comprehended those things which the Apostles in\npropagating the Church enjoined upon the pastors whom they appointed for\nthe regulation of discipline, for the administration of sacraments, and\nfor the worship of God, which were not written; and these things make up\nthe apostolic tradition.\n\nIt is obvious that out of this treasure-house of the divine and\napostolical tradition came the whole planting and propagation of the\nChurch during that first period which elapsed from the Day of Pentecost\nto the end of the personal teaching of the Apostles. At first, and for\nmany years, the Gospels were not set forth in a written shape, much less\nwere the other books of the New Testament composed. The writings forming\nthe actual canon were not completed until about the year 98. In this\ninterval the acts and the life of Christ were to be impressed on the\nworld; the character of His people was to be formed upon them; the\nChristian race was born and passed through more than two generations, and\nthe kingdom of heaven upon earth received its definite shape. The divine\nand apostolic tradition which came from Christ through living men worked\nthese effects. The principle upon which all rested was personal\nauthority. The historical demonstration of the Apostolic Church in this\nrespect is complete and absolute.\n\nIt would seem as if this period were of special importance in enabling us\nto understand distinctly the nature of the Church's teaching office. The\nwork then done comprised the whole evangelical announcement, the\npreaching, that is, of Christ in His kingdom; the establishment of the\nworship which He had enjoined, the administering not merely the sacrament\nof baptism, but the other sacraments in their due order, as they touched\nthe several parts of human life, the discipline which regulated the daily\ncourse of life, and also the ordering of penance. In the first community\nset up at Jerusalem all this would take place; it would be repeated at\nAntioch, at Rome, at Alexandria, at Ephesus, at Corinth, at every place\nin which the Apostles established bishops. These things, with the almost\ninterminable series of arrangements and actions which they involve, are\nall contained in the charge given by our Lord to His Apostles, to which\nwe have just referred. This it is \"to make disciples of all nations.\"\n\nThus when St. Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost, the immediate\neffect of his word was the reception of about three thousand hearers into\nthe Church. These had at once to be baptized; therefore the form and\nceremonies of baptism were ready prepared for them; but their life is\nimmediately described as a steadfast continuance upon the teaching of the\nApostles, in the communion of the breaking of bread, which took place day\nby day, and in prayers.\n\nFrom the Day of Pentecost, therefore, the Liturgy of the Church, with all\nthe treasure of doctrine and worship which it contains, was in full\noperation. I have endeavoured above to give a very short sketch of the\nvast amount of doctrine contained in the Liturgy, which is at the same\ntime an explicit confession of faith, an act of worship, and an\nexhibition of spiritual rule. Further, it is an act daily repeated\nthroughout the whole Church, in which she testifies her life, and the\ndwelling of her Lord in her. The testimony thus given of the threefold\npower of doctrine, worship, and rule is entirely independent of those\nallusions to it which are afterwards made in the narrative either of the\nGospels or of the Apostolic Epistles. For instance, the term \"breaking of\nbread\" points indeed unmistakably to the Eucharistic service, but it\ngives no description of what that service as celebrated was. We gather\nthis from the ancient Liturgies of the East and West which have come down\nto us, showing a perfect accord in their parts and meaning and general\ndisposition. Vast is the difference between these Liturgies, viewed in\ntheir completeness as acts of worship--that is, not merely in their\nwords, which are so grand and spirit-stirring, but likewise in the\nfunction visibly carried out by the bishop, his attendant clergy, and the\nadoring people--between all this, and the allusion made to it in the few\npassages of the Gospels, the Acts, and the Epistles. Yet all this existed\nfrom the very beginning, and is part of that which St. Peter at the head\nof the Apostles instituted from the Day of Pentecost. As an act, it is\nquite independent of any subsequent narrative which records it; but\nbefore the end of this first period it was an act which had been carried\nout daily in a vast number of cities wherein the Church had taken root.\n\nThe Eucharistic Liturgy was from the beginning the Church's explicit and\nsolemn exhibition of her faith in her worship. She kept it strictly for\nher own people, and did not allow it to be divulged. It was an act\nexpressing Christ visibly in the midst of His Church. The altar was His\nthrone. The chiefs ministrant bore His person, and enacted before the\neyes of the observant people the work of Christ's Incarnation and\nRedemption, presenting it to God the Father. The rites and ceremonies\nwhich accompanied the words removed, for those beholding and\nparticipating the mysteries, that obscurity which may belong in matters\nof faith to mere words. But, moreover, words of singular simplicity and\nperspicuity were used in describing the acts by which our Lord became man\nfor us and redeemed us. When the attendant deacon[138] gave warning that\nall should be in fear and trembling, before the commencement of the\nsacred action, and before the invocation of the Holy Ghost, did not the\nwords themselves signify the expectation of some signal miracle to be\nwrought by the Divine Omnipotence? When the people heard the celebrant\ninvoking the descent of the Holy Ghost on the gifts lying before him,\nthat by His presence He might make the bread to be the Body of Christ,\nand the wine and water the Blood of Christ, transmuting them by His\ndivine power,--when the ministers delivered them to each of the faithful,\nwith the words, \"the Body of Christ,\" \"the Blood of Christ,\" to which he\nreplied, \"Amen,\" what merely verbal announcement could equal in force of\nteaching that visible setting forth of Christ? On one part, it was Christ\ngiving Himself to His people; on the other, a supreme acknowledgment of\njoy, gratitude, and prostrate homage by His people for the gift.\n\nWhen the Beloved Disciple, who lay on the Lord's bosom, had a revelation\nof what was to happen in the time to come, the vision was presented to\nhim under the form of that worship which Peter first, in the company of\nhis brother Apostles, which the bishop of each city afterwards,\nsurrounded by his ancients and in the presence of the faithful people,\ncelebrated. It seems to be the interior of a church in the apostolic age\nwhich we have described, and all the meaning of the Eucharistic\nSacrifice, as the witness of creative power and redeeming love, set\nforth. But it is the Lord Himself, who with the voice of a trumpet\nproclaimed Himself to be the First and the Last, and charged His Apostle\nwith letters to the Seven Churches, who now says with the same voice,\n\"Come up hither, and I will show thee the things which must be done\nhereafter.\" \"I looked,\" he says, \"and behold a door was opened in heaven,\nand immediately I was in the spirit; and behold there was a throne set in\nheaven, and upon the throne One sitting. And He that sat was to the sight\nlike the jasper and the sardine-stone; and there was a rainbow round\nabout the throne in sight like unto an emerald. And round about the\nthrone were four-and-twenty seats; and upon the seats four-and-twenty\nancients sitting, clothed in white garments, and on their heads crowns of\ngold. And from the throne proceeded lightnings and voices and thunders;\nand there were seven lamps burning before the throne, which are the seven\nspirits of God.\" Here, in the likeness of an ancient basilica, with the\nthrone of the bishop in the apse, and the seats of his presbyters in a\nsemicircle round him, we have the court of the Almighty set forth, and\nthe ineffable grandeur of the creating God: when \"the four living\ncreatures full of eyes gave glory and honour and benediction to Him that\nsitteth on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever, the four-and-twenty\nancients fell down before Him that sitteth on the throne, and adored Him\nthat liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne,\nsaying, Thou art worthy, O Lord our God, to receive glory and honour and\npower, because Thou hast created all things, and for Thy will they are\n(eisi,) and have been created.\"\n\nSo far the homage paid to God in the great overwhelming mystery of\ncreation. All things have been made by Him and for Him. But another\nmystery succeeds: the fall and the redemption of man. \"And I saw in the\nright hand of Him that sat on the throne a book written within and\nwithout, sealed with seven seals. And I saw a strong angel proclaiming\nwith a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book and to loose the seals\nthereof? And no man was able, neither in heaven, nor on earth, nor under\nthe earth, to open the book, nor to look on it. And I wept much because\nno man was found worthy to open the book nor to see it. And one of the\nancients said to me, Weep not; behold the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the\nroot of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven\nseals thereof. And I saw, and behold in the midst of the throne and of\nthe four living creatures, and in the midst of the ancients, a Lamb\nstanding as it were slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are\nthe seven spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. And He came and\ntook the book out of the right hand of Him that sat upon the throne.--And\nwhen He had opened the book, the four living creatures and the\nfour-and-twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, having every one of\nthem harps and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of\nsaints; and they sang a new canticle, saying, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to\ntake the book and to open the seals thereof; because Thou wast slain and\nhast redeemed us to God in Thy blood, out of every tribe and tongue, and\npeople and nation, and hast made us to our God a kingdom and priests, and\nwe shall reign on the earth. And I beheld, and I beard the voice of many\nangels round about the throne and the living creatures and the ancients;\nand the number of them was thousands of thousands, saying with a loud\nvoice, The Lamb that was slain is worthy to receive power and divinity,\nand wisdom and strength and honour and glory and benediction. And every\ncreature which is in heaven and on the earth, and under the earth, and\nsuch as are in the sea, and all that are in them, I heard all saying, To\nHim that sitteth on the throne, and to the Lamb, benediction and honour\nand glory and power for ever and ever. And the four living creatures\nsaid, Amen. And the four-and-twenty ancients fell down on their faces,\nand adored Him that liveth for ever and ever.\"\n\nWe have now added to the throne of the Almighty, in the midst of the four\nliving creatures and the twenty-four crowned elders, \"a Lamb standing as\nit were slain,\" who, having received the sealed book from Him that sat\nupon the throne, becomes Himself the centre of adoration. He takes the\nplace of the altar in the Church, being Himself the altar and the\ncelebrant; He opens the seals of the book which no one in heaven or earth\ncould open but Himself; He rules the evolution of all the events which\nmake up the history of His people; He the victim; He the priest; He the\nruler. And under the Eucharist Sacrifice thus exhibited the whole\nevolution of judgments and victories are drawn out, which ends with \"the\nholy city, the New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God,\nprepared as a Bride adorned for her Husband.\"\n\nOnly this vision of the Beloved Disciple and the feelings which it\nexhibits would adequately represent that awe and joy, that gratitude and\ntriumph, with which the faithful took part in what the Fathers call \"the\ntremendous and unbloody sacrifice.\" And could any Christian of the\nApostle's day read the words of this heavenly vision without recognising\nin it the very order and arrangement of the great worship which formed\nthen, as it forms now, the central act of united Christian life?\n\nNo higher act of authority is even conceivable than that establishment of\nworship. But this was a worship which the Apostles had received in secret\nfrom their Lord, which they did not commit to writing, but carefully\nimprinted upon the memories of their disciples, which they guarded with\nthe utmost care and jealousy from the knowledge of all until they had\nfirst instructed them and then baptized them, the participation in which\nwas the crown of all Christian privileges. Thus they understood what\nChrist had ordered them to do in commemoration of Himself. They began it\nat Jerusalem; they carried it with them in their dispersion to all\nChurches. It is found the same in its principal parts and sequence in all\nplaces. The same form was received everywhere solely in virtue of an\nApostolic tradition, which originally was not written, but conveyed by\nword of mouth, and at once and incessantly practised.\n\nThe commemoration in which they earned out their Lord's command was\ncontained in words, and rites, and vestments illustrating those words,\nand making up together an act, a permanent act, going through all the\nlife of the Church from end to end. This act in the present day, as in\nevery past age, is not derived from any written authority, though the\nGospels and Epistles of the Apostles, and, as we have seen, the\nApocalypse, bear witness to it, but from the authority of the Church,\nimmanent in her from the beginning by perpetual descent from the\nApostles.\n\nAnother instance of the like kind is scarcely inferior in its force. The\nApostles, in passing from city to city in the course of their preaching,\nselected those in whom they would deposit a portion of their power. But\nthis they did by the imposition of their hands, accompanied by a certain\nrite, which, like the Eucharistic rite in the beginning, was not written,\nbut conveyed by word of mouth. But the life of the Church depended upon\nthis transmission of spiritual power. The conveying of this power was an\nact of authority similar in character to the institution of worship, with\nwhich indeed it was closely allied. Part of the power which they conveyed\nby their act was the right to celebrate this very worship. The pastoral\nEpistles of St. Paul speak of the grace and gift bestowed upon Timotheus\nby the imposition of hands, as well as of the power given both to\nTimotheus and to Titus to impart these gifts to others, accompanied with\nadvice as to the quality of persons whom they should select. But the\nScriptures of the New Testament do not contain the rite itself, than\nwhich nothing could be more necessary to the continued existence of the\nChurch.\n\nNo acts could possibly exhibit the teaching office of the Church in\ngreater perfection and fulness than the exercise of the rite which\nadmitted men into her fold; of the rite, again, which communicated to\nthem daily the divine life of the Saviour indwelling in her; and thirdly,\nof the rite which propagated the whole of that hierarchy by the descent\nof which from our Lord Himself her existence was secured and perpetuated.\nThe immense authority which documents such as these possess is mentioned\nin a letter of Pope St. Celestine in the year 431 to the Gallic bishops.\n\"Let us have regard,\" he says, \"to the sacred rites used in sacerdotal\nsupplications, which, having been handed down from the Apostles, are\ncelebrated uniformly in the whole world and in every Catholic Church,\nwherein the law of supplication establishes the law of belief. For when\nthose who preside over the holy people in various places exercise the\noffice of ambassadors committed to them, they plead the cause of the\nhuman race before the divine mercy, and offer their requests and their\nprayers while the whole Church joins with them in urgent entreaty.\"[139]\nIt is sufficient to mention these several public and official acts\nwithout going on to dwell upon the system of penance in its doctrinal\naspect, which has been described above in another aspect, that of\ngovernment. Such a system, it is evident, existed from the beginning, and\nthe act of St. Paul in reference to the incestuous person at Corinth\nbears witness to it. The society possessing and exercising these rites,\nand forming a people upon their discipline, had a complete rule of inward\nlife. Such was the Christian society in the first forty years following\nthe day of Pentecost. And this whole life rested upon the personal\nauthority of its teachers, which they exercised in the name of Christ,\nand by the power of the Holy Spirit continually attending upon their\nministry, and attesting His presence as well by the perpetual operation\nof His grace as by the extraordinary and visible action of spiritual\ngifts. That authority was complete before the sacred writings of the New\nTestament were made public, and without their attestation.\n\nThe authority divinely instituted[140] to preserve and propagate the\ndoctrine preached by the Apostles was neither changed in character nor\ndiminished by the writing of the books of the New Testament and by their\ndelivery to the several churches. The proof of this is twofold. First,\nthe nature of the teaching office itself, placed by Christ in the\nApostles and their perpetual succession, to which He promised His own\never-abiding assistance, with the gift of the Holy Spirit dwelling in\nthem. For these two things were not accidental or temporary, but the\ncause for ever of the Christian profession's continuance.\n\nSecondly, the consideration of all the circumstances which surround the\nwritings themselves corroborates this conclusion.\n\nBefore these books were written,[141] and much more before they were all\ncollected and read in all churches, these churches themselves had been\narranged by the teaching and ordering of the Apostles according to the\ncharge they had received from Christ; bishops had been appointed in them\nby imposition of the Apostles' hands; the doctrine delivered to them by\nthe Apostles had been committed to them as a deposit to be faithfully\nguarded through the gift of the Holy Spirit: they had been charged to\nappoint successors in every place, endowed with the like authority and\nthe same gift. Thus the faithful everywhere depended, with the obedience\nof faith, upon the authority of the apostolic successors as God's\nmessengers, from whom they were to receive Christian doctrine and\ndiscipline. This was not a mere dependence of those who were learning\nupon the knowledge of those who were teaching, because as yet there were\nno books from which each individual might learn for himself, but it was a\nproper office of teaching upon which the obedience of faith depended by\nChrist's institution, and by which the unity of the churches was\nmaintained. When, therefore, inspired books containing revealed doctrine\nwere gradually delivered by the Apostles to the churches, the\necclesiastical constitution already existing was not destroyed, but\ndocuments were added to be used in accordance with that constitution, to\nbe preserved by those same bishops as successors of the Apostles and\nguardians of the deposit, and to be explained by them should doubt arise\nas to the meaning.\n\nFurther, it is an historical fact, and is evident from the internal\narrangement of the books, that each one of them was written on some\nparticular occasion and necessity for some particular end. No one of the\nsacred writers had the intention to give complete instruction as to the\ndoctrine, discipline, and worship of the Christian religion. Accordingly\nin no one of them is the whole Christian doctrine found set out in\ncatechetical order and connection; and in each one many most important\npoints are either omitted, or merely alluded to, or can only be deduced\nfrom it, if otherwise known. Now such an origin of the books from\nparticular occasions and for a particular scope, and such an internal\narrangement, make it evident that it was not the Holy Spirit's design in\nwriting any particular book, or the whole together, nor any purpose of\nthe Apostles, to substitute books so composed for the ministry of those\npastors and doctors whom Christ had appointed to teach all nations to the\nend of the world. It was not meant to abolish the constitution of a\nteaching office by which, up to the moment when these books appeared,\nevery one had, in virtue of Christ's institution, been taught by the\nacknowledged messengers of God, in order that he might teach himself from\na written book. This would be plain even were it to be granted that the\nwhole revealed doctrine was contained in those books; for the argument\nholds not so much from deficiency of matter as from the form of teaching,\nand the manner of proposing and explaining doctrine.\n\nBut when we have stated the historical origin of the books, and their\ninternal arrangement which corresponds to their origin, it is a mere\ngratuitous assertion that all revealed doctrine is contained in them. For\nas neither the sacred writers, each taken by himself, intended to\ncomprehend the whole Christian doctrine in his own books, nor concerted\ntogether to contribute each his portion to make up one whole, but as each\nwrote on the most diverse occasions what was necessary or opportune for\nthe particular circumstances, the Holy Spirit indeed, who is the chief\nAuthor of the Scriptures, might direct everything, so as to form a\ncomplete body of doctrine without the knowledge and beyond the intention\nof the writers, but that He did so can in nowise be shown. For this the\nsupposition is required that it was the will of God that Scripture should\nbe the sole source, or at least the complete code, from which the entire\nrevelation might be acquired. We have certain evidence from the charge of\nChrist that the Apostles and their successors should teach to the end of\nthe world all nations to observe whatever He had commanded them, and from\nthe promise of the Spirit of truth teaching all truth and remaining with\nthem for ever, by whom Christ's witnesses are ordered to go to the end of\nthe earth, that the whole revelation was to be preached by an authentic\noffice of teaching in perpetual succession. On the other hand, there is\nnot a vestige of a charge that this revelation should be committed entire\nto writing, either in the words of Christ or in the sayings of the\nApostles, or in the manner of acting and writing of the Apostles or of\nthe other sacred writers, or in the arrangement, scope, and occasion of\nthe books, or in the persuasion of Christians down to the sixteenth\ncentury. How, then, is this to be maintained unless you first lay down\nnot to believe the word propagated by preaching which Christ appointed by\ncharges and promises distinct and irrefragable, and enjoined to\ncomprehend the whole revealed truth, but to believe only the word in\nScripture, which He did indeed superadd to preaching, but never either\nenjoined or promised that all revealed truth should be contained in it?\n\nBut whatever be the fact as to the material fulness of Scripture, the\nform of the books, each and all, is such that they evidently are not\nwritten for the purpose of teaching the whole Christian religion to each\nof the faithful independently of the teaching office.\n\nIt must be added that these books were addressed to those who were\nalready Christians, and give directions and advice which could not be\nrightly understood save by those who had been previously instructed, and,\nmoreover, refer the faithful in express words to the preaching which they\nhad heard and received, and in which they are exhorted to abide. They\nfurther also refer to guardians of the deposit, and to a line of\nauthentic teachers who shall continue to hand it on from generation to\ngeneration.[142]\n\nThat which had existed from the beginning by the institution of Christ,\nand that which was to last unaltered to the end, was an apostolic\nsuccession of men, in whom He put His power and presence, to whom He\npromised the perpetual assistance of His Holy Spirit, and to whom He\ncommitted the propagation of His faith. It was impossible that this\nprinciple of action, the living personal authority, which, as we have\nseen, did everything in the first two generations of the Christian\npeople, should ever be changed, because Christ appointed it to bear His\nWord, the Word of God, whether oral or written, to every succeeding\ngeneration.\n\nAmong the things which preceded in time the publication of the writings\nof the New Testament, and which, therefore, were not derived from them,\nwere these: The hierarchy, including therein the election, ordination,\nand jurisdiction of bishops throughout the world, and of the ministers\ninferior to them; the several sacraments, with the rites which conveyed\nthem; the worship, and herein especially the Eucharist, and all which\nbelongs to it; and fourthly, that daily discipline of life which received\nmen into the Christian body, numbered them in it, imposed penance for\nfaults committed, restored the fallen, and, in fact, which was that\natmosphere by breathing which the Christian lived. All this the living\nsuccession of men, instinct with the power and presence of the Holy\nGhost, the Sanctifier and the Comforter, the Spirit of truth, originally\nconveyed, as the living succession of men perpetuates it from age to age.\nThese things, the writings of the New Testament, as they were gradually,\nfirst one and then another, given to particular churches, or intended for\nclasses of believers, and finally collected in one and made the heirloom\nof the whole body, found in existence and in full operation. With all the\ninstruments of the divine life thus enumerated these writings did not\nmeddle, except that they alluded to them more or less, usually in few\nwords, attesting them, it is true, but in a manner which those only who\nwere in possession of them would understand aright. The action of the\nChurch as a living Body consisted very largely in these things, and this\naction, at least in all its details, the Apostles were not directed by\nany charge of their Lord, nor inspired by the Holy Ghost, to commit to a\nbook. These things, from their nature, formed an essential part of the\necclesiastical tradition; in fact, the Church as a society could not\nexist without them.\n\nAnother part of the ecclesiastical tradition was the announcing to men\nthe words and the acts of Christ. The Christian character was to be\nformed upon the living example of the Shepherd who had gone before His\nsheep. For this task men were chosen who had been with Him during the\nwhole time of His ministry. So long as they were on earth they would\nspeak with all the authority of those who had seen what they witnessed;\nbut it is not apparent how an accurate account of our Lord's words and\nacts could be transmitted to succeeding generations except by writing.\nThus it pleased the Holy Spirit to inspire some of the Apostles and some\nof their disciples to commit to writing that record of our Lord's words\nand actions which we possess in the four Gospels. Inexpressibly dear,\nindeed, and precious to every Christian, must be the words of the Word;\nlike nothing else upon earth, the sounds which came from the lips of God\nmanifest in the flesh; of untold depth His utterances; of inexhaustible\nfruitfulness His teaching. And the same may be said of His acts. As a\nsingle parable would disclose the nature of His kingdom, so a single act\nmight be rich in endless application to the history of His Church and to\nthe heart of every believer. This most precious part of the\necclesiastical tradition the Evangelists deposited in the bosom of the\nChurch, to be communicated, guarded, interpreted by her for ever to the\nend of time. It was not the creation of one power to balance another,\nfor a book and a society do not come into competition; it was endowing\nthe society which Christ had created with the breath of His mouth, and\ninvesting it with a permanent knowledge of His words and acts--a\nknowledge to be transmitted under its keeping to all times.\n\nAs the Gospels contained words and acts of our Lord, so the Apostolic\nEpistles contained comments, illustrations, and developments of their\npersonal teaching, bearing witness everywhere to that teaching, and to\nthe society which their own labours had constructed under their Lord's\ndirection, and only by the power of His Spirit working in themselves who\npreached, and in the hearers who accepted the faith which they preached.\nThese writings the Church collected and placed in her treasury; they\nbecame part of that deposit which St. Iren\u00e6us[143] celebrates \"as being\nnew and fresh in an excellent vessel, and giving perpetual youth to that\nvessel, which is the divine office intrusted to the Church, as life is\ngiven to the body to vivify all the limbs belonging to it.\"\n\nIf we put together that large mass of teaching above described, which\nconsisted in the government everywhere set up by the Apostles, in the\nsacraments which they carried into effect according to their Lord's\ninstructions, in the worship which they established, in the life of\nfaith, the daily discipline of which they set on foot, with that written\nmass of documents of which by the end of the first century the Church was\nin possession, we can form an approximate notion of the written and\nunwritten tradition which it was her abiding office to expound.\n\nThat which is primary and essential,[144] the very substance of God's\ninstitution, is the perpetual succession of living men from the Apostles.\nAll the rest are means by which that succession acts. These means the\nprovidence of God has placed round His own central creation. Such means\nare the word contained in the Divine Scriptures, the word contained in\nsacraments, the word contained in worship, the word contained in the most\nvarious ecclesiastical monuments, which exhibit the consent and\ndefinitive judgment of the successors of the Apostles in past time.\n\nThese were the various means which the apostolic succession itself used,\nunder the assistance of the Holy Spirit, to maintain and expound and\npreserve from error that whole tradition of the truth which Christ in the\nbeginning committed to it. But the subject requires further\nillustration.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[110] I\u00easous Christos, Theou Uios, S\u00f4t\u00ear = Ichthus.\n\n[111] Zach. vi. 13.\n\n[112] to amachon genos, St. Chrys., above quoted.\n\n[113] See Hagemann, Die r\u00f6mische Kirche, p. 558.\n\n[114] Bianchi, vol. iii. pp. 120, 121.\n\n[115] Aug. l. iv. De Bapt. c. Donat. cap. ult. (B. 120 note).\n\n[116] Innocent. Ep. 18, c. 1.\n\n[117] S. Greg. I., 1. 6, Ep. 39; 8, Ep. 35.\n\n[118] Bianchi, 3, 137.\n\n[119] Bianchi, 3, 136.\n\n[120] The Council of Antioch, in the year 341, almost repeats this canon,\nand lays it down as of universal application.\n\n[121] Bianchi, 3, 132.\n\n[122] The following paragraph is a translation from Cardinal Hergenr\u00f6ther's\nHistory, vol. i. pp. 196, 197, sec. 228.\n\n[123] Bianchi, 3, 468; quoting the constitution of Pope John XXII.\n\n[124] Bianchi, 3, 440. The word _Sacerdos_ is here used as the proper\nappellation of the bishop in his diocese by Cyprian, Ep. 57, according to\nthe usage in the third century, as the word _Ecclesia_ indicates the\ndiocese; the argument being that if complete obedience were rendered to the\nbishop in the diocese, there would be complete peace in the whole Church\nruled by the Collegium of Bishops.\n\n[125] This paragraph translated from Bianchi, 3, 445.\n\n[126] Bianchi, 3, 457, 458; St. Augustine in Ps. cxviii.\n\n[127] Bianchi, 3, 474, 475.\n\n[128] Bianchi, 3, 444; Apostol. Canon, 66 and 74.\n\n[129] Bianchi, 3, 500, translated.\n\n[130] Bianchi, 3, 485, translated.\n\n[131] 1 Cor. ix. 14.\n\n[132] Bianchi, 3, 526, 527.\n\n[133] 1 Cor. xvi. 1.\n\n[134] Bianchi, 3, 536, translated.\n\n[135] 1 Cor. xi. 22.\n\n[136] An incident mentioned of Alexander Severus.\n\n[137] John xx. 30, xxi. 25, xvi. 12.\n\n[138] Renaudot, Dissertatio de Liturgiarum Orientalium Origine et\nAuctoritate, p. li.\n\n[139] St. Coelestini, Ep. 21, Coustant, p. 493. The part quoted is supposed\nto have been added to St. Coelestine's letter (which refers to the death of\nSt. Augustine as having just happened) a little later, but was always\njoined with it afterwards from the beginning of the sixth century.\n\n[140] Franzelin, De Traditione, Thesis vii. p. 49.\n\n[141] Translated from Franzelin, Tractatus da Traditione Divina et\nScriptura, pp. 50-53, down to \"The Teaching Office.\"\n\n[142] As, _e.g._, Rom. xvi. 17; 1 Cor. vii. 17, xi. 23, xiv. 33, xv. 12; 2\nCor. i. 18; Gal. i. 18; Phil. iv. 9; Colos. ii. 6, 7; 1 Thess. iv. 2; 2\nThess. ii. 14; 2 Tim. ii. 2; Heb. ii. 3, referred to by Franzelin, but\nespecially Ephes. iv. 11-16, which is of itself sufficient to decide the\nwhole question.\n\n[143] St. Iren\u00e6us, iii. 24.\n\n[144] See Franzelin, De Traditione, p. 134.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nTHE ACTUAL RELATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE FROM THE DAY OF PENTECOST TO\nCONSTANTINE.\n\n\n_The Independence of the Ante-Nicene Church shown in her Mode of Positive\nTeaching and in her Mode of Resisting Error._\n\nThe Church is the Body of Christ as it moves through the centuries from\nHis first to His second coming. We have been tracing the course through\nthe first three of these centuries. Let us recur for a moment to the\nbeginning, when we behold our Lord, at the head of His Apostles, passing\nthrough the towns and villages of Galilee, preaching that the kingdom of\nheaven is at hand, imparting, as in the Sermon on the Mount, the\nprinciples of that divine kingdom, healing every infirmity and disease;\nthen sending out His Apostles, and afterwards His disciples, by two and\ntwo, as His heralds and messengers. This was the prelude, the type and\ngerm, of what was to come. Then, after His Passion and Resurrection, we\nsee the first stadium in the mission of the Apostles. They speak in His\nname; they manifest His power; His Person is in the midst of them; His\nSpirit upon them. The Apostle who once denied Him stands at their head,\nand speaks with authority, declaring the mission intrusted to him.\nForthwith three thousand, who speedily become five thousand, accede to\nthe voice of his preaching. In twelve years Jud\u00e6a and Palestine and\nAntioch have had the new doctrine planted among them, and then it is set\nup in Rome, the sceptred head of heathendom. The forty years of that\nfirst mission are crowned by the destruction of the deicide city, after\nthat, by the hands of the Apostles and the fellow-labourers whom they\nhave chosen, the suckers of the Vine have been laid in all the chief\nplaces of the Roman world. A kingdom had been preached and a kingdom had\nbeen founded; and its basis had been laid in authority--that of a\ncrucified Head, transmitted to His Apostles.\n\nThe whole of this forty years' work is a Tradition or Delivery, to\ntranslate literally the Greek title. Its bearers gave what they had\nreceived. It was intrusted to them, to their truthfulness and their\naccuracy; and those who received their message did not question it, but\naccepted it as they gave it. From first to last the Tradition rested on\nthe one principle of authority, which had its fountain-head in the Person\nof our Lord. He spoke as one having authority in Himself, not as the\nScribes and Pharisees, who interpreted an existing law; and they whom He\nhad deputed to follow Him claimed a delegation from that authority, and\nspoke in virtue of it.\n\nBut if this was so in the lifetime of the Apostles, who had seen and\ntouched and handled the Word of Life, it was no less the case in the\nteachers who immediately followed them. We have seen a most striking\ninstance in St. Clement, who claimed for the decision of the Roman\nChurch in an important matter, and that during the lifetime of the\nApostle John, that the words uttered by it were the words of the Holy\nGhost, and asserted that those who did not listen to them refused to\nlisten to God Himself. But this language represents the language and the\nconduct of those who succeeded to the place of the Apostles in the whole\nthree hundred years. There is no break and no change in this respect. The\nNicene Council in its decisions has the same tone as the Apostolic\nCouncil at Jerusalem; it is no other than \"it has seemed good to the Holy\nGhost and to us.\"\n\nFor in truth, from first to last, all success in the divine kingdom is\nthe work of the Spirit of Christ. Ho is the one power who gives life to\nthe whole. In Him lies the secret of its unity, whereby the Body of\nChristians, or the Christian nation,[145] is one and the same at Rome,\nAlexandria, Antioch, and a thousand other places; for Jew and Greek,\nbarbarian, Scythian, bond and free, male and female, have all been made\nto drink into one Spirit.\n\nThus a living God will have a living Church; and in this first great\nperiod--instinct with a character of its own, as the conflict between the\nnew Christian nation and the mightiest offspring of the old civilisation,\nthat heir of Egypt, Assyria, Persia, and Greece, which transcended its\nancestors--the great charter lies in the words, \"As My Father sent Me, so\nalso send I you.\" It is this ever-living mission which perpetuates \"the\nTradition or Delivery.\" Thus it is the accordant witness of all that we\nhave hitherto said, from the testimony of the sacred writings to that of\nthe first fathers and teachers, exhibited in all their conduct, that the\nliving apostolic succession is the one thing instituted by God to carry\non His revelation and to maintain His kingdom. This succession it is\nwhich bears in its hands the various records forming the treasury of the\nkingdom, whether they be the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, or\nthe sacraments which communicate a divine life, or the majestic liturgy\nwhich expresses the divine worship, or the daily praxis of the Church,\nwhich is, in fact, the embodiment of its unwritten tradition: in all\nthese, and through them in all ages, the apostolic succession works. And\nthe mission through which it works is as living, real, and present, as\nimmediate and efficacious now, as when the words first dropped from the\nlips of our Lord in the Body in which He rose again, \"As My Father sent\nMe, so also send I you.\"\n\nWe may divide the consideration of the manner in which the Apostles\nproclaimed the divine kingdom into two heads, the first of which will be\nthe whole work of positive promulgation, and the second the whole defence\nagainst error.\n\nAs to the first, I will touch on five points--the system of catechesis,\nthe employment of a creed, the dispensing of sacraments, the system of\npenance, and the Scriptures carried in the Church's hand. And I am\nconsidering these especially in one point of view, as illustrating the\nmethod of teaching pursued by a body which was intrusted with a divine\nmessage.\n\n1. Converts were admitted into the Church after a process of oral\ninstruction of more or less duration; for I am not here concerned with\nthe extent of that duration, but with the fact that such instruction was\ninvariably given by word of mouth, not by placing a book in the hands of\nthose who came to be taught. What the Christian doctrine was it belonged\nto its teachers to say, and the system by which it was learnt was termed\ncatechesis, _i.e._, instruction by word of mouth, by question and answer.\nThis is the word applied by St. Luke in the beginning of his Gospel to\nTheophilus, to whom he addressed it; and the opening verses of the Gospel\ndescribe the thing itself with an accuracy which leaves nothing to be\ndesired; for the Evangelist speaks \"of the things that have been\naccomplished among us, according as they have _delivered_[146] them unto\nus, who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the\nword;\"[147] and adds, \"It seemed good to me also, having diligently\nattained to all things from the beginning, to write to thee in order,\nmost excellent Theophilus, that thou mayest know the verity of those\nthings in which thou hast been instructed by word of mouth.\" By which we\nsee that it was not a book which had been put into the hands of\nTheophilus to teach him Christian truth, but a doctrine delivered by\npersonal teachers, and derived from those who were eye-witnesses, and\nadministered to others what they knew. But after Theophilus had become a\nfull Christian, a Gospel might be addressed to him for confirmation of\nhis faith.\n\nThe Church of which we know most as to its method of converting Gentiles\nis the Alexandrine Church, in which, from very early time, there was a\nfamous catechetical school, founded, it is said, by St. Mark himself, the\nnames of whose after teachers, Athenagoras, Pant\u00e6nus, and still more\nClement and Origen, have distinguished it.[148] Its method has been thus\ndescribed:--\n\n\"In the system of the early catechetical schools the _perfect_, or men in\nChrist, were such as had deliberately taken on them the profession of\nbelievers, had made the vows and received the grace of baptism, and were\nadmitted to all the privileges and the revelations of which the Church\nhad been constituted the dispenser. But before reception into this full\ndiscipleship, a previous season of preparation, from two to three years,\nwas enjoined, in order to try their obedience and instruct them in the\nprinciples of revealed truth. During this introductory discipline they\nwere called _catechumens_, and the teaching itself _catechetical_, from\nthe careful and systematic examination by which their grounding in the\nfaith was effected. The matter of the instruction thus communicated to\nthem varied with the time of their discipleship, advancing from the most\nsimple principles of natural religion to the peculiar doctrines of the\ngospel, from moral truths to the Christian mysteries. On their first\nadmission they were denominated _hearers_, from the leave granted them to\nattend the reading of the Scriptures and sermons in the church.\nAfterwards, being allowed to stay during the prayers, and receiving the\nimposition of hands as the sign of their progress in spiritual knowledge,\nthey were called _worshippers_. Lastly, some short time before their\nbaptism, they were taught the Lord's Prayer (the peculiar privilege of\nthe regenerate), were intrusted with the knowledge of the Creed, and, as\ndestined for incorporation into the body of believers, received the\ntitles of _competent_ or _elect_.[149] Even to the last they were granted\nnothing beyond a formal and general account of the articles of the\nChristian faith, the exact and fully developed doctrines of the Trinity\nand the Incarnation, and, still more, the doctrine of the Atonement, as\nonce made upon the cross, and commemorated and appropriated in the\nEucharist, being the exclusive possession of the serious and practical\nChristian. On the other hand, the chief subjects of catechisings, as we\nlearn from Cyril, were the doctrines of repentance and pardon, of the\nnecessity of good works, of the nature and use of baptism, and the\nimmortality of the soul, as the Apostle had determined them.\"[150]\n\nIt is not needful for our present purpose to go further into the\n\"Discipline of the Secret.\" It is enough to point out how this whole\nmethod, which belonged to the Church everywhere, though carried out no\ndoubt in various degrees of perfectness according to the endowments and\nzeal of individuals and the energy of pastoral care, testified throughout\nthe magistral character of the Church, and that those who came into her\nfold must come in the spirit of little children, according to our Lord's\nsaying. Those certainly who so came could not question the doctrines\nwhich they received, nor the authority of which they were not judges, but\ndisciples.\n\n2. But the use of a Creed,[151] communicated at a certain advanced period\nof the instruction given, and as a prelude to the rite which admitted\ninto the Body, was a further token of authority. Nor indeed can any\ngreater act of authority be well imagined than the summing up what is to\nbe believed as the doctrine of salvation in a few sentences. This is not\ndone in the Scriptures themselves, whether of the Old or New Testament,\nor both together. And how great an act of authority it was in the mind of\nthe Christian people is well expressed in the tradition which not only\ncalled the first creed the Creed of the Apostles, but represented them\nbefore their separation not again to be reunited, as contributing each\none to the twelve propositions forming it. Such a tradition, even if it\nbe not true, is not only a picturesque but a most powerful and emphatic\nexhibition of the feeling which Christians entertained as to the act of\nauthority implied in creating the instrument which conveyed the Christian\nfaith. For if each separate article of the Creed may be attested by the\nChristian Scriptures, yet the selection of such and such doctrines, their\narrangement and force when put together, indicate something quite other\nthan the existence or expression of such doctrines scattered about\nScripture, just as the faggot is something much more than the sticks\nwhich compose it. And in accordance with this judgment upon the authority\nof a creed as such, we find that enlargements or explanations of the\nfirst Creed have only been made by the highest authority in the Church,\nand on rare occasions, as a defence against heresies which threatened the\nvery being of the Church, or as the more complete expression of doctrines\nin which the Church felt her life to be enshrined. But it was a Creed\nwhich from the beginning bore the title of the Rule of Faith. The Creed\nwas recited by the baptized, as a token of their acceptance and\nincorporation into the Church; repeated as a daily prayer of singular\npower and efficacy; renewed by the dying as a confession of faith and\npassport to the tribunal of the great Judge. St. Augustine,[152] in a\nsermon to catechumens, said, even in his time, \"You must by no means\nwrite down the words of the Creed in order to remember them, but you must\nlearn them by hearing them; nor when you have learnt them must you write\nthem, but hold them ever in your memory and ruminate on them.\"\n\nNor, though the doctrines contained in the original Creed may be\nattested by the Scriptures, was the authority of the Creed and of the\npower which imposed it derived from the testimony of the Scriptures. It\nwas antecedent in time to such testimony, and it was derived from those\nwho were authors of the Scriptures, and who were at least as infallible\nin such an act as in the account which they might communicate to the\nchurches of what they had seen and heard.[153]\n\nTo the method of catechesis, therefore, as the means of instruction, we\nadd the employment of the Creed, which is the Church's oriflamme, round\nwhich her host gathers, and to which it looks in the ever-during struggle\nof the faith.\n\n3. Next consider the daily life into which the convert was introduced\nwhen his course of catechetical instruction was concluded and he was put\nin possession of the Creed.\n\nThe first sacrament, that of baptism, administered with the utmost\nsolemnity at certain times of the year, the one being the eve of the\nLord's resurrection, the other the eve of the descent of the Holy Spirit\nupon the Church, was \"an enlightening\" which opened to him the wonders of\nthe spiritual world. In virtue of it he became a member of \"the household\nof God,\" he entered into brotherhood with his Redeemer, he shared in the\ngift of the Almighty Spirit, the Author and Giver of all grace. At the\nsame time, or shortly after, the chrism of confirmation added to his\nstrength for the perpetual conflict of the Christian life. And here by\nthe imposition of episcopal hands the same sevenfold Spirit of grace\ndescended upon him, marking by the rite itself how the Christian society\nwas inhabited by that Spirit, whose power the bishop bestowed upon the\nnewly born Christian. But both baptism and confirmation were sacraments,\nhowever enduring in their effects, yet given once and never to be\nrepeated; whereas for the perpetual sustenance of spiritual life a tree\nwas needed which should bear perpetual fruit. And here the Lord Himself\nwas at hand; for the baptized and confirmed Christian was forthwith fed\nwith the Bread of Angels; and that majestic altar was disclosed to his\nsight on which daily lay the Body of the Lord of Angels, offered for him\nin mystical sacrifice; and he heard the accents of that divine liturgy\nwhich called upon heaven and earth to rejoice together in the great glory\nof God. It was impossible for any faithful heart to hear the glowing\nwords in which the sacrificant described the mercy of God in bestowing\nHis Son upon men as their Deliverer and their daily food without being\nkindled into an unspeakable joy, \"while the angels praise, the\ndominations adore, the powers tremble, the heavens, the heavenly virtues,\nand the blessed Seraphim with common jubilee glorify\" that majesty so\nshown forth in mercy. In the eucharistic service he felt himself at once\nthe citizen of a heavenly kingdom, for the divine polity breathed in all\naround him. Sight and touch, language and every sense, testified a divine\npresence, and religion became to all participants a living thing. This\nwas a permanent, not a fleeting gift; the endowment of a life, the\nsupersubstantial daily Bread.\n\nBut the heavenly blessing encircled every act. It joined the sexes in a\nconsecration which ennobled while it sanctified that lifelong treaty on\nwhich rests the whole existence of a home for family and children; it\nsupported the infirmities of the dying with a special strength; it\nrecruited the ministers of the Church in rites which imaged out in most\nexpressive formulas the power from on high, that delegation from the\nSaviour's Person which was the whole ground of authority.\n\n4. But there is yet another institution, which in as forcible a way as\nany of the six just mentioned exhibits the Christian Church as a polity;\nfor the one enemy against which a perpetual watchfulness needed to be\nmaintained was the frailty of the human heart itself. Even from the\nbeginning there never was a time in which Christians did not fall, and so\nfrom the beginning there was a system of penance to meet that case of\ntheir fall, and to provide for restoration. The Apostle Paul found the\nevil among his converts at Corinth, and used the remedy. But that remedy\npowerfully illustrates the control of a living society over its members.\nThose who fell in any way from the Christian profession could only be\nrestored by a double action; the inward repentance of the individual\nsinning was required on the one hand, but this did not of itself suffice;\nthe outward action of the society itself was needed, and this society\nimposed such rules as it thought good for the granting of pardon. It is\nnot to my point to go into any details on the subject, because it is the\nprinciple itself contained in the system of penance which I wish to\ndwell upon alone. Sins of infidelity, impurity, idolatry, as a rule\nexcluded for long periods of years, or even for the whole course of life,\nfrom the Church. The bishop dispensed this discipline either in person or\nthrough his priests, in a tribunal in which he represented Christ\nHimself, and exerted His authority, the greatest given to man upon earth,\nan authority belonging to God alone, the power to remit or retain sins.\nFrom the beginning the Church exercised this authority, and in it ruled a\nkingdom, the kingdom of man's innermost thoughts, the hopes and the fears\nof an eternal world. They whose lives were not safe a moment from the\npersecuting powers of heathen magistrates, wielded a much more awful\npower over their fellow-Christians, subject to them by the bond of a\ndivine hierarchy which had its source, its centre, and its crown in our\nLord Himself, which was His gift to the world, which He left behind Him\nto carry on His kingdom. This power was an essential part of the\npriesthood borne by the episcopate, in no sense derived from the\nparticular community wherein it was exercised, but descending from above.\n\n5. If we put together the constant action of these divine institutions,\nwhich we term sacraments, we gain from the contemplation a picture of the\nentire Christian life, the daily course of the Christian citizen in his\ncitizenship, subsisting by the force of the Tradition above spoken of.\nBut there is another point to be exhibited. When St. Luke wrote to\nTheophilus that the intention of his Gospel was to confirm him in the\ncertainty of those things which he had been taught by word of mouth, he\ndisclosed to us the position which the Scriptures held in this period of\nthe Ante-Nicene Church. They were not the immediate instrument of\nteaching, and far less were they put in the hands of the neophyte in\norder that, by an act of his private judgment, he might compare the\ndoctrine which he supposed to be contained in them with the doctrine\ntaught to him by his instructors. The Scriptures, both of the Old and New\nTestaments, were carried in the Church's hand, and presented to the\nfaithful as documents beyond the reach of their criticism, guaranteed by\nthe authority through which they themselves became Christians. This is a\ntotally different presentment from that of a book which exists without\ncredentials external to itself. The notion of treating the narratives of\nour Lord's actions and words as common books, subject, like any ordinary\nhistory, to the judgments of their readers, would have struck with horror\nthose who had a special name for such weak or unfaithful Christians as in\ntimes of danger delivered up their sacred books to the heathens. They\ncalled them Traditores, whence we derive the most loathsome appellation\nwhich can be applied to a man who disregards the dictates of conscience\nand the pledges of fidelity. It would have been _treason_ indeed to their\nminds to question the truth of a miracle recorded by St. Matthew or a\ndoctrine set forth by St. John. But why? Because behind the Holy\nScriptures lay the whole authority of that living Church in virtue of\nwhich they themselves had the privilege of knowing the Scriptures at\nall. That the Spirit of God dictated these Scriptures they knew only from\nthe Church. The kingdom of which these Scriptures spoke was the Church\nherself. The Scriptures were _part_ of her. They did not produce the\nhierarchy by which she was governed, nor the sacraments on which her\npeople lived, nor that whole daily discipline in and through which the\nChristian people existed. Even had they constituted, which they did not,\na code of laws, a code is an unexerted power without those who administer\nit.\n\nBut the Church from the beginning literally _dispensed_ the Scriptures;\nshe selected portions of the Gospels and Epistles for recitation in her\neucharistic liturgy; she referred to them in her daily teaching. They\nwere a treasury out of which she brought perpetually things old and new.\nThe parables of our Lord became in her hands the structure of a living\nkingdom; she herself was the fulfilment of that great series of\nprophecies. In her the Sower went forth to sow His seed, and the field in\nwhich He sowed was the world, and the time of the sowing the last\nage--the time between the first and the second coming of the King. She\nherself was the net which gathered a multitude of fish, \"which when it\nwas filled they drew out, and sitting by the shore they chose out the\ngood into vessels, but the bad they cast forth.\" She herself was \"the\ngrain of mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field, which is\nindeed the least of all seeds, but when it is grown up it is greater than\nall herbs, and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and\ndwell in the branches thereof.\" And especially in all this process she\nwas \"the leaven which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal\nuntil the whole was leavened,\" whether we regard those three measures as\nthe corporeal, animal, and spiritual nature of the individual man, or as\nthe family, the social, and the political life of the collective man.\n\nAnd this continued to be the relation between the Church and the\nScriptures which were committed to her charge, and which she dispensed to\nher people, not merely by reading them in her liturgies and the devotions\nof her clergy and her religious orders, but in the realising and acting\nthem out in her own life during full fifteen centuries. During this vast\nperiod of time the Holy Scriptures were received throughout the whole\nextent of Christendom as the unquestioned Word of God, with an entire\nfaith in their inspiration. The faithful mind was not prone to analyse\nthe basis on which this belief rested, which was the Church's\nattestation. They had been copied out by the unwearied labours of\ninnumerable hands in religious houses scattered throughout the world, to\nwhose occupants it was the most pious of toils to multiply the sacred\nbooks. It was not the paid work of hirelings, indifferent to their\ncontents, which, up to the invention of printing, wrought this\nmultiplication. How many a monk spent his life in adorning a copy of the\nGospels not with pen only but with pencil, so that the loving service of\nyears was enshrined in the leaves he wrought! It followed of course, that\ndown to the time in which printing became common, copies of the Sacred\nScriptures were costly, and the reading of them never could have been\npopular. Thus it was physically impossible, if it had not been besides\ncontrary to all Christian practice and principle, that they should be the\nimmediate instrument of teaching. Only when the Church had been for long\nages in possession of men's minds, and had built up one harmonious\nstructure of doctrine and practice by the work of a uniform hierarchy in\nmany lands, and when, besides, a new invention had multiplied with a\ngreat economy of manual labour copies of the Scriptures, so that they\ncould be produced in thousands and sold as an ordinary book, a notion,\nuntil then unheard of, was set up. A man arose who maintained that the\nChurch in her ministers was not the teacher to whom God had committed the\npropagation of His gospel, but that each Christian was to teach himself\nby personal study of the written Word. This notion rested upon the\nassertion that the Holy Spirit coalesces with the written Word in such a\nmanner as to act immediately on the mind of the reader. To those who\ncould embrace such a notion the written Word came to stand to the reader\nin exactly that relation to divine truth which up to that time the Church\nherself had occupied. There seems to have been a real confusion in the\nmind of the man who devised this notion, and in the minds of his\nfollowers, between the outward material Word, which they read and\nconstrued, and its true sense, or the inward Word. Thus they argued from\nthe possession of the former to that of the latter, and supposed that\nunity of belief would follow from the individual's study of the same\ndocuments. They always refused to see the conclusion which all of the old\nbelief set before them, that they were substituting their own private and\nsubjective interpretation of the Bible for the Church's public and\nauthorised one. They opposed instead what they called the Word of God,\nthat is, the real sense of Holy Scripture, to the word of man, which they\ncalled the Church's interpretation of it.\n\nIt is true that this notion contained in it something very flattering to\nthe human mind and the natural feelings, for it supposed an immediate\nrelation between Christ and the individual, and an illumination of the\nreaders mind by the influence of the Holy Spirit, the sole instrument of\nwhich was the reading of the Scripture. Thus this notion got rid at one\nstroke of Church, sacraments, discipline, and all spiritual rule.\n\nThe objections to it at once apparent were: First, it was not only\nwithout warrant from Scripture itself, but directly opposed to its\nplainest statement, such as \"Go ye into all the world and preach the\ngospel to every creature,\" and all those other passages in which the\nfoundation of spiritual authority is set forth. Secondly, it was directly\nopposed to the historical fact in the way in which the Church was\nactually instituted. Thirdly, it was no less opposed to the way in which\nthe Church had been carried on in every age and every country through the\nfifteen centuries. A fourth objection was made to it as soon as it was\nset up, but only the actual experience of three centuries and a half\ncould adequately express its force. It has been found to produce not\nunity of belief, but every possible variety and opposition, until at last\nthe final point has been reached, that this variety and opposition are\nviewed as being a good in themselves, and an assurance of the mind's\nfreedom; and the possession of one faith, which was the glory of all\nChristians, and viewed by the Fathers as a sensible token of Christ's\nGodhead, has ceased, by those who received and transmitted Luther's\nnotion, to be deemed practicable or even desirable. In other words, those\nwho deserted the unity of the supernatural kingdom have been broken\nwithout hands into a shapeless anarchy.\n\nIf, then, we consider as a whole the work of positive promulgation\ncarried on by the Church from the Day of Pentecost to the bestowal of\ncivil liberty upon it by Constantine, we find it to consist in the action\nof the Spirit of Christ animating that teaching Body which began with the\nApostles and was continued in their living succession. We find the method\nof internal promulgation which that teaching Body pursued was the\ncreation everywhere of a Christian polity. Of this the main parts were\nthe discipline and direction of the whole spiritual being which the\nsacraments embraced. One of them contained the great central act of daily\nworship and the supersubstantial bread of daily life. Into this polity\nmen were admitted after careful probation and instruction of each\nindividual by word of mouth, and the chief articles of belief were\ndelivered to him upon his admission by an act of supreme authority. The\nCreed was the soldier's oath of fidelity when he entered into the sacred\narmy. The censure and restoration of sinning members were provided for by\nother acts of supreme authority. Nor did it only impart to the incoming\ndisciple what he should believe summed up in the Creed, but it presented\nto its members collectively the Sacred Scriptures of the Old and New\nTestaments. Thus the living society carried both the written and\nunwritten Word, not as separate and disjointed, but as one treasure-house\nof truth committed to its perpetual guardianship. For all these means\nwere comprehended in a divine unity which excluded partition. That unity\nwas the mystical Body of Christ, and these means subsisted in and by\nforce of the Body of Christ; for just as the human soul[154] is the life\nof the human body, without which its members would cease to be an\norganism and fall back into dust, so the Spirit of God animated this Body\nof Christ, binding together in one life those manifestations of doctrine,\nworship, and government the system of which we have been trying to\nfollow.\n\nWe proceed to consider the dangers which beset that unity.\n\nWhat during this period was the defence of the Church against errors of\nbelief?\n\nWe may subdivide our answer into two heads: first, the question of the\n_principle_ which actuated the Church in all her conduct of promulgating\nher faith; and, secondly, the question of _fact_, or a review of the\nerrors themselves which she had to oppose.\n\nThe principle of the Church was, in one word, that which defines her own\nbeing--a divine authority establishing a kingdom, Jesus Christ, her Lord\nand Founder, living and acting in her. The consideration of the faith\nwhich she promulgated cannot be severed from that of her government and\nher worship. If we put together that which we have been observing, we\nfind a hierarchy stretching over the whole earth, developing itself in\ncouncils, hearing and deciding causes both in an exterior and an interior\nforum, having a fourfold gradation, the Bishop in the diocese, the\nMetropolitan in the province, the Primate in the larger circle of several\nprovinces, the Pope in the whole Church. But, further, the whole of this\nauthoritative government rests upon an identical worship, in which\ndwells, in a wonderful manner, the very Person of Him who is the Founder\nand Maintainer of the kingdom, and which exhibits daily to the hearts and\nminds of His people the sublime truths upon which His presence rests.\nAgain, this worship itself is a part of that daily discipline of life in\nwhich the people live, and by which they are subjects of their sovereign\nin the spiritual world of thought and action. The administration of\nsacraments, which belongs to practice, embraces a whole world of\ndoctrine. It is also the carrying out and application to daily life of\nthe Scriptures which the Church holds in her hands, and presents to her\npeople under the guarantee of her authority.\n\nAgain, in all that we are enumerating, in the whole system of government,\nworship, and teaching, is comprised _the Word_ of God committed to the\nChurch, a word partly written and partly unwritten, but in both its parts\nequally the word of God, not human thought or inference; and the teaching\noffice is exercised in the living administration of the one and the other\npart, which cannot in practice be divided.[155]\n\nAgain, the knowledge of revealed truth as a whole, and of the system in\nwhich it should be enshrined and perpetuated on the earth among men, was\na special gift communicated to the Apostolic Body. They could not\npropagate a religion without this special gift of understanding what they\nwere to propagate. This was part of their endowment as Apostles, a point\nin which they were superior to all who should come after them, who would\nhave to continue and hand on that which they had established.[156]\n\nFurther, from this gift followed the consciousness from the beginning\nthat the revelation made by Christ to His Apostles was complete as to its\nsubstance.[157] He was the Teacher whose word was final: they were those\nwhom He _sent_ to convey it to men. Their name expressed their\noffice--_the sent_. They transmitted what they had received. Those who\nfollowed, even the greatest who sat in Peter's seat, watched over the\nmaintenance of what the Apostles had transmitted. They were _overseers_.\nThe name of predilection which stands at the head of documents declaring\nthe faith, re-establishing discipline, terminating disputes, is, as it\nmay be, Gregory, Leo, Pius, but always _Bishop_; and the whole plenitude\nof spiritual power is conveyed in the word \"Bishop of the Catholic\nChurch.\"\n\nSince all that we have been so long saying is an illustration of this\nprinciple of the Church,--her own divine authority in promulgating her\nLord's message,--we need not dwell on it further, but turn at once to a\nreview of those combats which she actually underwent, in order to see how\nher liberty and spiritual power are manifested during the period of\npersecution, by the issue of the conflict in which, from the beginning,\nshe was engaged with various enemies.\n\nThe first of these conflicts is with unbelieving Judaism, and its period\nis chiefly from the Day of Pentecost to the destruction of the temple and\ncity of Jerusalem by Roman arms.\n\nWhen the Apostles went forth to their work, they first addressed\nthemselves to their own brethren, the people of Israel; and for twelve\nyears they addressed themselves to their brethren alone. The great point\nto which they had to win Jewish consent was that Jesus was the Christ.\nThose to whom they preached were well convinced that there would be a\nChrist, and many of them also that the time for His coming was at hand.\nThe work of the Apostles was to show that the life and death of Jesus\ncorresponded to the manifold prophecies concerning the Messiah contained\nin the books of Moses, the Psalms, and the Prophets, and that He had\ndone \"the works of the Christ.\" In this first period of their preaching a\nconsiderable number, even of the priests, listened to their call; but a\nmuch greater number rejected it. In Jerusalem itself the Sanhedrim began\nthe long list of Christian persecutions, and those who had slain the Lord\ncommanded His disciples not to preach in His name. We cannot doubt that\nthe enmity of those Jews who rejected a suffering Christ was very bitter\nagainst their countrymen who proclaimed Him.\n\nBut as soon as the Apostles embraced the Gentiles in their teaching this\nbitterness would greatly increase; for then, besides proclaiming One who\nhad suffered the death of the cross at the hands of His own people to be\nthe appointed Head and Deliverer of that people, the Apostles opened all\nthe benefits of His Headship to the very nations in the midst of which\nthe Jews lived with the proudest sense of their own superior claim to the\nfavour of God. We see, by the example of St. Paul and St. Barnabas, how\nthe Apostles addressed themselves in each city to their brethren in the\nsynagogue, and through them to the Gentile proselytes, male and female,\nwho frequented it; how they received into the communion of the Church\nsuch as accepted their message, and these not only when they were Jews,\nbut the Gentiles also; and how, by the decision of the Council at\nJerusalem, the Gentiles so entering were not bound to accept the\nceremonial law of Moses nor the rite of circumcision. If it was a\ngrievous offence to Jewish pride that a crucified man should be\npropounded as the son of David and King of Israel, how intense was the\nanger excited by the fact that the children of the hated and despised\nnations were allowed to enter into possession of the divine inheritance\nof Israel's race without receiving circumcision, the pledge of the Jewish\ncovenant, the mark of the children of Abraham!\n\nSuch was the double cause of indignation which led the Jews continually\nto plot against the life of St. Paul, to cut off St. James by the sword\nof Agrippa, to attempt at the same time the life of St. Peter, and during\nthe whole period of apostolic preaching to set the Roman magistrates\nagainst the Christians.\n\nWe must add another cause of Jewish enmity, which, coming upon the two\ngreat causes already indicated, must have still more inflamed it.\n\nFor a considerable time, perhaps down to the persecution of Nero in the\nyear 64,[158] the Christian faith appeared to the Romans to be what\nGallio, the proconsul of Achaia, and the brother, be it observed, of\nSeneca, called it, \"a question of a word and names, and of your,\" that\nis, the Jewish, \"law;\" so that practically, in this first time, to use\nthe well-known expression of Tertullian, the apostolic preaching \"was\nsheltered under the profession of a most famous, at least a licensed\nreligion.\"[159] This means that whereas by the laws existing at Rome\nbefore the coming of our Lord, the setting up of religions not authorised\nby the Senate was strictly forbidden; and whereas the profession of\ntheir own religion was everywhere allowed to the Jews as subjects of the\nempire, who were not called upon to renounce their ancestral belief, and\nwhose synagogues were much frequented, as we know from Horace, even in\nhis time; the first teachers of the Christian faith being Jews, and using\nthe synagogue itself as a means of propagating their message, were\ncovered by the protection extended to the Jewish religion. To the\nunbelieving Jews this protection, thus enjoyed by those whom they\nconsidered not only teachers of a false Messiah, but surrenderers of the\nspecial privileges and promises of the Jewish race, must have been very\ngalling. Were apostates to be saved by their Jewish character from the\nvery punishment which the Roman law itself imposed on religious\ninnovators? Were they who overturned the very foundation of Jewish\ndistinction to preach their sect under cover of the Jewish name?\nAccordingly they set themselves to kindle Roman enmity against the\nChristian faith by every means in their power. In the whole period\nbetween the conversion of Cornelius and the destruction of their own\ntemple and city they were sleepless enemies, so that they fulfilled to\nthe utmost the divine prediction, \"Therefore, behold I send to you\nprophets and wise men and scribes: and some of them you will put to death\nand crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute\nfrom city to city: that upon you may come all the just blood that hath\nbeen shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the just even unto the\nblood of Zacharias, the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the\ntemple and the altar. Amen. I say unto you all these things shall come\nupon this generation.\"[160]\n\nPopp\u00e6a is said by Josephus to have been a Jewish proselyte, and to have\nused her influence with Nero in favour of the Jews; and Tacitus[161]\nrecords her to have been surrounded with fortune-tellers, which would\ninclude Jewish diviners of the future; and the combination of these\nstatements has led to the conclusion by some that Nero was moved by her\nto those acts which resulted, not only in the sacrifice of that \"vast\nmultitude\" recorded by Tacitus as suffering in the persecution raised\nagainst them for the burning of Rome imputed to them, but in removing for\never from the Christian religion the protection of being \"licit,\" as a\npart of an allowed religion. If this be so, all the subsequent\npersecutions were contained as in germ in the decision of Nero. The\nspecial cruelties of the punishments inflicted by Nero might cease upon\nhis deposition, but the decision that the Christian faith was not a part\nof the Jewish, and therefore not \"licit,\" would remain as a principle of\nimperial legislation,[162] as appears, in fact, in the conduct of Trajan\nwhen Pliny appealed to him for guidance. For it should not be forgotten\nthat Pliny had already treated the profession of Christianity as in\nitself a capital crime, inasmuch as he ordered those who were guilty of\nit to be executed before he applied to Trajan for directions as to how he\nshould treat them in future, on account of the difficulty which arose\nfrom their number. This evidence is complete so far as to show that it\nwas not Trajan's answer to Pliny which made the Christian religion\nillicit, but that it was already of itself a capital crime.\n\nWhen St. Peter and St. Paul had crowned the Roman Church with their joint\nmartyrdom under the authority of Nero, that Jewish revolt had already\nbegun the issue of which was the accomplishment of the divine prediction\nthat their \"house should be left to them desolate.\" But the stroke of\nNero's sword, wielded by his deputies,[163] was but the final act of\nJewish enmity to St. Paul; what his life had been at their hands we have\nvividly described in his own words: \"Of the Jews five times did I receive\nforty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once I was stoned;\nthrice I suffered shipwreck; a night and a day I was in the depth of the\nsea.\"[164] And as to St. Peter, they for whom Herod Agrippa, seeing that\nthe slaughter of St. James pleased the Jews, proceeded to imprison Peter,\nintending after the Pasch to bring him forth to the people for public\nexecution, would pursue him with their enmity all the rest of his life.\nAnd what happened to the chiefs, St. Peter and St. Paul, happened in\ntheir measure to the other first teachers of the new faith: they gained\ntheir crown of martyrdom through the perpetual enmity of the unbelieving\nJews stirring up the Roman power against them.\n\nThe position of bitter enmity to the Christian religion taken up by the\nunbelieving Jews was far from terminating with the destruction of\nJerusalem. As the nation, with its imperishable vitality, survived that\nblow, and the further severe punishment dealt upon it after the\ninsurrection headed, in the reign of Hadrian, by the false Messiah\nBarcochba, who inflicted upon the Christians in Jud\u00e6a fearful torments,\nso through the whole period of persecution which the Church suffered from\nthe Roman empire, the Jews fanned by every means in their power the\nheathen hatred of the Christian people. Tertullian, at the end of the\nsecond century, represents them as not possessing an inch of land which\nthey could call their own, yet at the same time as propagating every vile\nreport against Christians. He gives this specimen: \"Report has introduced\na new calumny respecting our God. Not so long ago a most abandoned wretch\nin that city of yours (Rome), a man who had deserted indeed his own\nreligion--a Jew, in fact, who had only lost his skin, flayed of course by\nwild beasts, against which he enters the lists for hire day after day\nwith a sound body, and so in a condition to lose his skin--carried about\nin public a caricature of us with this label, An ass of a priest. This\nhad ass's ears, and was dressed in a toga, with a book, having a hoof on\none of his feet. And the crowd believed this infamous Jew. For what other\nset of men is the seed-plot of all the calumny against us?\"[165]\n\nJewish hatred of the Christian faith stopped as little with Constantine's\nedict of toleration as it had with the destruction of the temple by Titus\nor the banishment of the people by Hadrian; but here we have only to\nconsider it in the first period of the forty years.\n\nThis is one aspect of that first conflict with Judaism, but there is\nlikewise another, of which the issue was the gradual severance of the\nChristian Church from the synagogue. As the first struggle came from the\nenmity of those who rejected Jesus as the Christ, so the second came from\nthose who received Him, but at the same time clung to the Jewish law and\nits observances.\n\nThe problem of the first twelve years' teaching was, whether the Jewish\nnation would, as a nation, receive the faith of Him whom its rulers had\ncrucified. An ardent longing for the salvation of their people as a whole\nmust have lain deep in the heart of those first Jewish converts. But even\nafter it became plain that only a remnant would accept the faith, and\nafter a great number of Gentile converts had been received throughout the\nempire, on conditions which exempted them from the practice of the law of\nMoses, when St. Paul, at a late period of his ministry, went up to\nJerusalem, he was entreated, because there were many thousands among the\nJews that had believed who were all zealots for the law,[166] to perform\nin his own person publicly in the temple a vow according to the law, with\nwhich he complied.\n\nNo doubt one of the greatest difficulties experienced in these first\nforty years was the amalgamation of Jewish and Gentile converts in the\none Christian Church; but I would draw attention only to the completeness\nof the result. Among the questions then settled[167] were the meaning of\nthe Old Testament law in regard to the faith in Christ, the relation of\nour Lord to the Jewish prophets, His superiority to them, His divine\nnature, and thus His relation to God the Father. I pass over the\nconsideration of all these to make one remark. The ultimate result is the\nproof of power, and by the time the Jewish temple and the public worship\ncarried on in it were destroyed by the Roman avenger of the God he did\nnot know, the Christian Church was seen to emerge in its character of a\nreligion for all mankind. The association of St. Paul with St. Peter in\nthe patronage of the Roman Church is the most conclusive refutation of\ntheories as to their enmity and rivalry. The one Christian community,\nruled by one Episcopate, derived from the Person of Christ, and\ncontaining Jews and Gentiles in the one Body of Christ, is the best proof\nthat the force of that divine unity prevailed over zeal for the law and\nnational privileges on the one hand, as over all the errors and\nconfusions of heathen life on the other. Jewish persecution had its\ncompletion in the ruin of the deicide city. Those thousands of believers,\nzealots for the law, were in a few short years merged in the\never-increasing number of the Gentile converts. That great mother Church\nof Jerusalem, mindful of her Lord's prophecy dwelling in her thoughts,\nwas warned by the Roman standards encompassing the city to migrate to\nPella, beyond the Jordan, and thus the centre of Jewish influence in the\nChurch was dissipated beyond recall. The Christian Church took over the\ninheritance of the synagogue, displaced and destroyed, without being\nconfined to its rites and ceremonies. The high priest, the priest, and\nthe levite of the old covenant, touched with the life-giving flesh of\nChrist, passed into the ministry of the new; and while the lamb ceased to\nbe offered for the daily sacrifice in the temple, the Lamb of God on\nevery Christian altar became the Sacrifice and the Food of the one\nChristian people.\n\nThus the providence of God, offering to His chosen people their Saviour,\nhad, when they rejected Him, worked a double result of their unbelief:\none, the destruction of their city and polity; the other, the coming\nforth in unity and independence of the true Israel, \"the nation of\nChrist.\"\n\nIn all this the Divine Kingdom accomplished its first stage, being\nfounded by Jewish teachers in spite of the enmity of unbelieving Judaism\nwithout, and blending the Jew and the Gentile convert within by the force\nof its potent unity.\n\nThe contest with Judaism in both its phases had but a restricted scope,\nif we compare it with that manifold contest with error which filled the\nwhole history of the Church from the Day of Pentecost to the convocation\nof the Nicene Council. It is not easy to realise the circumstances under\nwhich that contest was waged. First, from the persecution begun under\nNero in the year 64, to the edicts of Constantine in 311-313, the\nChristian Church lay under the ban of the Empire as an illicit religion.\nIt is indeed true that the whole of this long period of two hundred and\nfifty years is not a time of active persecution. There are intervals\nthroughout, of considerable length, in which the Church carried on her\nsilent course of conversion, without the law being executed against her,\nwith at least anything like a general intention to destroy her. Still,\neven in these intervals, she was in the condition of a society in\nopposition at all points to the powers of the world, and, to say the\nleast, discouraged by the spirit of the time. She could not unfold and\npublish her constitution. The thing of all others which she could least\nventure to disclose was her _polity_, that episcopate with its centre in\nRome which was the bond of her strength as a regimen. In spite of\nherself, Roman law forced her into the position, in many respects at\nleast, of a secret society; secret, not because her doctrines in\nthemselves required concealment; secret, not because her polity was in\nitself an infringement of the Empire's civil rights, but because both\ndoctrine and polity involved a change in the religious, social, and civil\nrelations of the world which the Roman Empire was not prepared to\nconcede, and which, had it divined, not Nero alone, or Domitian, \"a\nportion of Nero in his cruelty,\"[168] but every Roman emperor, with\nTrajan at their head, would have stamped out. Again, it is difficult to\nrealise the condition of a religious society which could not carry out\nits worship under the protection which publicity confers. Yet as to this\nwe have no authority to show that there were public Christian churches\nbefore the reign of Alexander Severus, two hundred years after the Church\nbegan. Her eucharistic liturgy was a secret; her sacred books were kept\nout of the sight of the heathen; but even so the language and the\ntreatment of subjects in these books, not to speak of the choice of those\nsubjects, betoken that they belonged to a society which needed not only\nthe harmlessness of the dove but the wisdom of the serpent. It had need\nto keep its head under cover. To take one instance out of many. I do not\nknow a more remarkable example of reticence than that passage in the Acts\nof the Apostles wherein it is said of Peter, that when delivered by the\nangel from prison, he sent a message to James and the brethren, and then\n\"went out and departed into another place.\" Here St. Luke, writing in a\ntime of active persecution, rather more than twenty years after the event\nwhich he was recording, and when Nero had broken out against the Church,\ncarefully abstains from saying that the place to which St. Peter went was\nRome, and that he went to found the Church there, for such foundation was\nthe thing above all others which Roman law looked upon with most\nsuspicion, in its confusion of temporal with spiritual rule. Now we have\nto bear in mind, in order to realise the condition of the Church in this\nwhole period, that all her work of promulgation, her daily administration\nof sacraments, her worship, her defence of the truth which she had\nreceived and which she was to guard, were carried on under this state of\ncompression, a perpetual outlawry in the letter of the law, which might\nbe put into exercise at the will of a local magistrate or the rising of a\ndiscontented populace, and which on many occasions was actually enforced\nby the supreme authority of the emperor. And it is not a little to be\nborne in mind what the political condition of the empire then was. The\nrights of the citizen, as opposed to the government, were overborne by a\ntremendous despotism, which only allowed light and air to its subjects so\nfar as the science of government had not reached the complete development\nof modern times. The Roman emperors were not enabled to wield a secret\npolice, because such an instrument of servitude had not yet been\ninvented, nor had they reached an universal military conscription,\nbecause the Roman peace rendered such a sacrifice unnecessary; they had\nonly the supreme power of life and death in their hands without\nrestriction. Into the midst of such a despotism the Christian religion\nwas cast. The seed silently deposited in each city in the episcopal germ\ngrew with its individual life, which was yet the life of one tree; but\nhow little was that secret unity of root apparent to the world, at least\nin the first half of this time! How truly, indeed, was the prophecy of\nthe Lord fulfilled: \"Behold I send you forth as sheep in the midst of\nwolves;\"[169] and how apposite the warning, \"Be ye therefore wise as\nserpents, and harmless as doves!\"\n\nBut as the Episcopate was a tree growing upon one root, so the faith on\nwhich it lived was one sap. Yet to what danger of isolation, especially\nin those first times, were small communities of Christians in so many\nseveral cities exposed. The Sees, it is true, were not crystallised\nunits, but associated in provinces under Metropolitans. Yet their bishops\ndid not possess the civil liberty of meeting when they chose. Upon the\nwhole action of the Church there was a perpetual constraint from without.\nThe two forces which held the Church together were the Episcopate viewed\nas one body, and the directing, controlling, regulating authority of St.\nPeter's See at its centre. Yet not once in the well-nigh three hundred\nyears could the Episcopate meet in universal councils, and the action of\nthe Roman Church, an action which of all others within the bosom of the\nChristian society the Roman State would regard with the most jealousy,\ncould only be exercised with a due respect to that jealousy, and in\nconjunction with that large measure of autonomy which the condition of a\ncompressed and often-persecuted society, sprinkled over a vast number of\nprovinces, imposed.\n\nOne of the most effective means for maintaining unity and overcoming\nerror was the regular meeting of Councils. In ante-Nicene times these\ntook place in various provinces of the Church, but did not extend to the\nwhole Church. The first Western General Council was held at Arles in 314,\nand it needed the permission of the Emperor Constantine to take place.\nBefore the peace of the Church its various provinces stand out in groups,\nunder the presiding influence of the greater Sees. Thus, Alexandria\nunites all the Churches of Egypt and Libya, and the great See of Antioch\nserves as a centre for the numerous Sees of the East. Ephesus collects\nthe churches of Asia Minor, and Carthage those of Africa. A certain local\nspirit and certain tendencies of thought would grow up. Perhaps a certain\nschool of teaching may be said to characterise each of these groups. Even\nthe natural temperament[170] of the African, the Egyptian, the Asiatic,\nand the Oriental character, receiving the one seed of Christian doctrine,\nwould show itself in their several developments. The correction of such\nlocal tendencies lay in the free and unfettered intercourse and relation\nwith St. Peter's See; but it was this precisely which the above-noted\ncircumstances of the times rendered difficult.\n\nFor all these reasons we may look upon the period stretching from the Day\nof Pentecost to the Nicene Council as one whole, in which the contest\nbetween the faith of the Church and the various forms of emergent or\nantagonistic error was carried on under trials which tested to the utmost\nher inherent vigour.\n\nWe may approach the subject by reflecting that the first condition of\nChristians was one of simple faith. The Son of God had come upon earth,\nand being found in fashion as a man, had taught, worked miracles,\nsuffered, died, and risen again. He had thus delivered a divine truth to\nHis Apostles for communication to the world. It was not the result of\nhuman inquiry, but the working of a new life derived from the Person of\nthe Incarnate God. A new knowledge formed part of this life, and a new\nspeculation was thus begun. But the complete thing was the life, that is,\nthe Church as an institution, with her sacrifice, her sacraments, her\ndaily discipline, her hierarchy; Jesus Christ dwelling in His people,\nperpetuating in that people the life which He had begun on earth.\n\nThis life was received by an act of faith. It was based upon authority,\ncontinued by a tradition which carried in its bosom all the things just\nenumerated. Such a state is borne witness to in the letters of St. Paul,\nSt. Peter, and St. John, and again in the letters of St. Ignatius and in\nthe Epistle to Diognetus. Its force lay in the strength, simplicity, and\nearnestness of the faith received as a divine revelation. It is vividly\nexpressed by St. John in his opening words: \"That which was from the\nbeginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which\nwe have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the Word of life; for\nthe life was manifested; and we have seen and do bear witness, and\ndeclare unto you the life eternal which was with the Father, and hath\nappeared to us: that which we have seen and have heard we declare unto\nyou, that you also may have fellowship with us, and our fellowship may be\nwith the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.\"\n\nThe fulness of truth had thus appeared corporally in the Word become\nflesh, and by this appearance a new epoch had begun to man,[171] and\nhenceforth there were only two attitudes of the human spirit possible\ntowards the truth thus revealed. On the one hand, it might recognise the\nrevelation as truth given by God, and make it the standard and guiding\nprinciple of speculation. On the other hand, it might use its freedom to\nassume an independent standing-point over against this revelation, which\nit might subject to its private reason. In the former case revelation\nwould be primary and reason secondary; in the latter case the position\nwould be reversed. Reason would take what it liked and reject what it\ndisliked in revelation. In the former, reason, using the natural powers\nof the human mind in subordination to revealed truth, and accepting the\nChristian mysteries as data, would proceed by profound meditation upon\nthem, would connect doctrine with doctrine, and come to the perception of\nthe harmony contained in the structure of the revelation made in Christ;\nto a system, in fine, of speculative theology. In the latter, following\nits particular bias, according to the spirit of the time in each period,\nit would attempt to subject revelation to itself, to alter some parts, to\ndiscard others, to improve or reject according to its own inward\nattraction.\n\nThe one is the principle of orthodoxy, the other that of heresy.\n\nAs a matter of fact, we find from the institution of the Christian\nChurch--that is, the entrance of Christ's Person into the world--a\nspiritual war commence, which runs through all the ages, and of which the\ntime from the Day of Pentecost to the convocation of the Nicene Council\nis only the first period. But in that period the combatants are already\nwell defined, the two standing-points definitely taken up, and the battle\nwaged even upon the most important of all truth, the existence and the\ncharacter of God Himself. The Christian God is carried through three\ncenturies, and impressed upon the belief of men by the Christian Church;\nthe philosophic god is set up against Him by those who subjected faith to\nreason; and in the collision between the two the pantheon of false gods\nis dispersed and shattered, and dissolved in the pure light of the\nChristian heaven.\n\nThat first condition of the Christian Church, during which it lived on\npure faith--I mean the simple historical transmission of its worship, its\nsacraments, its discipline, and its government, as they were\ninstituted--lasted for several generations; it may be said quite to the\nend of the second century. During this whole time the attacks of human\nreason acting upon the principle of heresy were incessant, and it was to\ndefend themselves against these attacks that those who stood entirely\nupon the ground of faith and tradition in the first instance gradually\nbetook themselves to the arms of reason, reflection, and learning\nsuperadded to the faith.\n\nBut before passing to any intellectual defence of the faith, it is well\nto remark that the only adequate defence against error in doctrine\nconsisted in the Church's own life diffused amongst its members; that is,\nthe ordinary teaching office, comprehended in worship, sacraments,\ndiscipline, and government, including therein the dispensing of the\nScriptures, whether of the Old or New Testaments. Wherever error\nappeared, this was the power which met it first, met it continuously,\nand in the end met it successfully; and part of this teaching office was\nthe unity of the Episcopate and the uniformity of its teaching, while\nerror was ever various and changing.\n\nNow let us proceed to the assaults of innovators or one-sided thinkers\nupon this institution of the Church and her faith. No sooner was the\nChurch in action than the attack began. We have a proof of this in the\nconstant warning against false teachers which occurs in the Apostolic\nwritings. It would be hard to say whether St. Peter, St. Paul, or St.\nJohn is the stronger in this warning. It shows us that great as the\nauthority of the Apostles was, and built as the Church was upon their\nliving word, transmitting the charge of their Lord intrusted to them,\nthere was full freedom as to the manner in which it would be received. If\nHymeneus and Philetus afflicted St. Paul, \"and were delivered by him up\nto Satan, that they might learn not to blaspheme;\" if their \"speech\nspread like a cancer;\" if St. Peter, using against error words as strong\nas any used by his successors in the Papal chair, denounced false\nteachers as \"fountains without water and clouds tossed with whirlwinds,\nto whom the mist of darkness is reserved;\" if St. John even wrote his\nGospel against Gnostic errors, and in his first chapter attested the\nGodhead of the Eternal Word, with His relation to the Father and His\nassumption of human flesh, in the face of their imaginary \u00e6ons, and their\nplacing the seat of evil in matter--this is but the first page of the\nnever-ending conflict between truth and error; between \"the men of good\nwill\" on the one hand, and \"the children of malediction\" on the other,\n\"who left the right way and went astray.\"[172]\n\nWe possess very few written remnants of the time immediately succeeding\nthe Apostles. The writers are St. Clement of Rome, St. Barnabas, Hermas,\nSt. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Polycarp, Papias, and the writer of the\nletter to Diognetus. With the exception of the \"Pastor,\" these are all in\nthe form of letters, conveying strong feelings expressed in few words,\nshort and touching exhortations, simple narratives of joys and sorrows.\nThese first Christians were anything but literary; they were only\nconscious of possessing a divine truth which had incomparable value above\nall earthly things. Nevertheless it deserves to be remarked, that short\nas these writings are, we have in them the first outlines of all future\nlearned teaching.[173] In the letter to Diognetus we have a sketch of the\ncourse which Christian apology against heathens afterwards took; in the\nletters of St. Ignatius, the first features of the Church's defence\nagainst heretics; in the letter of Barnabas, an approach to speculative\ntheology; in the \"Pastor,\" the first attempt at a Christian science of\nmorals; in the letter of Pope St. Clement, the first development of the\ngovernment which afterwards produced the Canon Law; and in the Acts of\nSt. Ignatius' martyrdom, the earliest historical production. In these, as\nit were, infantine movements of His first disciples, the Divine Child was\nmanifesting the future conquests which He would achieve in leading His\npeople through the whole range of the divine science.\n\nIn the second century the Church vastly increased in the number of her\nfaithful and in her influence; at the same time she was exposed to much\nseverer attacks from within and without. Through the whole century the\nfalse Gnosis afflicted her. The Greek and the Oriental philosophy had\nfully detected the presence of a great enemy, and fought against her with\nall the arms of learning, the brilliance of Eastern imagination, the fire\nof religious zeal. It is said that in the first fifteen hundred years no\nsect has pushed the Church more hardly than Gnosticism, which through the\nbrilliant talent of its leaders in Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, and other\ngreat cities gained many adherents. The attacks from the heathen and the\ndefacements which Christian doctrine received through heretics formed\nthus the strongest challenge to Christians to defend themselves with the\narms of learning and science on their own side.\n\nThere were great difficulties in the way. The mass of Christians was\nstill drawn from the lower ranks, and was accordingly unlettered. All,\ntoo, that were of higher rank had no other than the heathen schools to\nfrequent, and were thus in great danger themselves from the force of\nheathen culture. A remarkable result ensued: for, one after another,\nchampions of the Christian cause arose from among the heathen themselves\nwho were converted to the Christian faith. Justin, we are told, sought\nfor truth about the being of God and the soul's immortality in the\nschools of the Greek philosophy. He tried successively the Stoic, the\nPeripatetic, the Pythagorean, and the Platonic, and thought that he had\nfound truth in the last; when, in the midst of these dreams, walking out\none day in a lonely place by the sea-shore, he met with an old man with\nwhom he entered into conversation. This man, pointing out the futility of\nhis past search, directed him to the Christian teaching. Justin says that\nhe felt a fire in his heart kindled by the old man's words; he followed\nhis advice, and found here what he had in vain sought elsewhere--the only\ntrue philosophy. He became a Christian in middle age, dedicated his life\nto propagate the faith which he had embraced, and died a martyr for it.\n\nHis pupil, Tatian, seems to repeat this history. An Assyrian by birth, he\nwas instructed in all branches of Grecian literature, and had tried every\nshade of the old heathen wisdom. But the corruption of the heathen world\ninspired him with abhorrence; he was converted by Justin, and found in\nthe Christian doctrine the ideal which he sought. Yet afterwards certain\nrigorous views led him into error, and he became the head of a Gnostic\nsect.\n\nAthenagoras of Athens supplies us with another like conversion. He was an\nadept in the Greek, especially the Platonic philosophy, and was devoted\nto heathendom. With the intention of writing against Christians he\nstudied the Holy Scriptures, and in doing so was converted. He has left\nus two brilliant writings, one an apology in defence of Christians,\naddressed to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius, and another setting forth the\ndoctrine of the resurrection with admirable skill.\n\nTheophilus of Antioch continues the list of converts. The study of the\nHoly Scripture led him to become a Christian, and he afterwards rose to\nthe great See of Antioch, and has left learned writings in defence of the\nfaith.\n\nMore brilliant than all these, the first as well as the greatest Latin\nwriter in the West of the whole ante-nicene period, Tertullian, born of\nheathen parents, studied philosophy and literature, was converted about\nthe age of thirty, became a priest, and dedicated himself by word and\nwriting to the defence of the faith. Every subsequent age has admired the\nforce of his reason. It amounted to genius, yet a rigoristic spirit led\nhim to fall off to a sect.\n\nPant\u00e6nus, who became head of the catechetical school at Alexandria about\n180, had been a Stoic. His conversion repeats that of Justin. A man of\nthe highest renown for his Grecian learning, he became equally\ndistinguished as a Christian. He devoted himself to preaching. He was\nalso noted as the first who not only commented by word of mouth on the\nSacred Scriptures, but wrote his commentaries against Gnostic\ncommentators of the day. For it is remarkable that, in their zeal to get\nthe Scriptures on their side, the Gnostics had preceded the Christians in\nthe explanation of Scripture, which they treated with the utmost latitude\nof private judgment.\n\nStill more distinguished was Clemens, the pupil as well as the successor\nof Pant\u00e6nus. Born about the middle of the second century at Alexandria or\nAthens, and endowed with great ability, he searched all the systems of\nGreek philosophy. He was full of learning when grace made him a\nChristian, and from that time he devoted all his powers to deepen his\nknowledge of the Christian faith, and to convey that knowledge to others,\nby drawing out a true Gnosis against the false, a main seat of which was\nat Alexandria, over the school of which he presided.\n\nI have taken the seven great converts, Justin, Tatian, Athenagoras,\nTheophilus, Tertullian, Pant\u00e6nus, Clemens, who all became apologists of\nthe Church after their conversion, as specimens of the power which she\nexercised in the second century of drawing the higher spirits among the\nheathen into her fold. That power did not diminish but increase in the\nthird century. It exerted itself with great effect through the\nestablishment in the course of the second century of a system of learned\ninstruction in the great catechetical schools. The chief of these was at\nAlexandria; for where the munificence of the Ptolemies had planted and\nrichly endowed a seat of Greek learning, science, and philosophy, which\nhad been enlarged by Tiberius, so that youth thronged to it from all\nparts of the Roman Empire, now the Christian Church, which probably from\nits beginning had there the usual school for instruction of catechumens,\nby degrees enlarged the instruction given in that school, and introduced\nlearned lectures upon the Christian faith. Before long a complete learned\neducation, all that we mean by an university, was set up. The object was\nnot only to instruct Christian youths, but likewise to attract cultured\nheathen, especially the young, to prepare them gradually, and gain them\nto the Christian faith. Explanation of the Sacred Scriptures formed the\nchief point, but likewise grammar, rhetoric, geometry, and philosophy\nwere studied. The exact point of time when all this took effect cannot be\nassigned; it is probable that it took time to perfect the system.\nAthenagoras is the first named president, who was followed from the year\n170 to 312 by Pant\u00e6nus, Clemens, Origen, Heraclas, Dionysius, Pierius,\nTheognostus, Serapion, Peter the Martyr. Each of these had fellow-workers\nunder him, who increased in number as time went on. A crowd of learned\nmen, bishops, saints, and martyrs, came out of this school. The envy and\nhatred of the heathens were so incited by it, that they often surrounded\nthe house with soldiers, seized upon students, and led them away to\nexecution. The renown of the school was so great in the middle of the\nthird century, that Anatolius, a pupil of it, was sought by the heathen\nthemselves to succeed Aristoteles in the headship of the Alexandrian\nuniversity.\n\nAnother school of the like kind was set up by Origen at C\u00e6sarea in\nPalestine, and became famous. Rome also possessed a learned school,\nfounded by Justin, concerning which, however, we know very little.[174]\nEdessa and Antioch possessed the like. It is apparent how important such\nschools must have been for the formation of a learned clergy. The more\nthe Christian Church increased, and spread to all ranks of society, the\nmore need there became for learning in its defenders.\n\nBut great as was the renown won by these schools, and important as were\nthe services rendered by them to the Christian Church in the advance of\nlearning, in building up that progress from faith to knowledge--that\ngrowth of knowledge founded upon faith which marks the whole ante-nicene\nperiod--nevertheless the development of the sacred science was connected\nnot so much with a regular course of teaching in the schools as with the\nvehement struggle for life which the Church was then waging on the one\nhand against Judaism and heathendom, on the other hand against the great\nheresies which successively attacked all the main truths of religion and\nthe chief mysteries of Christianity.[175] Also, it must ever be\nremembered that the gift of infallible teaching, derived from the\nassistance of the Holy Spirit, is lodged, not in science, even not in\ntheological science, but in the magisterium of the Church.[176] The most\naccomplished defence during all this period of the Church against the\nattacks of heathenism is, by common consent, allotted to the work of\nOrigen in reply to Celsus. There is also a like consent that the same\nauthor's work upon Principles is the first attempt at systematic\ntheology; but with all its ability, learning, and acuteness, it is not\nfree from great errors. The one is a pure success, the other shows that\nthe contact with Platonic philosophy had led the author in certain points\nastray. Again, all his genius and all his zeal did not save Tertullian\nfrom falling into Montanism, nor from discharging upon the chief ruler of\nthe Church the sarcasm which he had so often employed against its\nenemies. In inquiring closely into the belief of some of those whose\nconversion from heathenism I have above instanced, an illustrious writer\nsays: \"It must be considered that the authors whom I have above cited\nwhatever be the authority of some of them, cannot be said to speak _ex\ncathedra_, even if they had the right to do so, and do not speak as a\nCouncil may speak. When a certain number of men meet together, one of\nthem corrects another, and what is personal and peculiar in each, what is\nlocal or belongs to schools, is eliminated.\"[177]\n\nBut if, as seems to be fully admitted, theology was not treated as an\norganic body of doctrine up to the Nicene Council, and even much beyond\nit, and yet, if in this period the Church maintained, as she did\nmaintain, her faith against three great foes, the Jews, the many-sided\ninfluence of the Gentile world arrayed with all its powers against her,\nand the manifold attacks of false doctrines rising from within in the\nshape of heresies, or in the shape of antichristian systems which\nsimulated Christianity, how was her work accomplished?\n\nI proceed to give as definite an answer as I can to this question.\n\nI have traced above the transmission of spiritual power from the Person\nof Christ to the College of Apostles presided over by St. Peter, and the\nplanting of bishops throughout the world by the Apostles as a further\ntransmission of that power. The episcopate so appointed formed,\ninstructed, taught, and governed the Christian people, one and identical\nin itself. This people, with the hierarchy which governed it, the\nsacraments which contained and dispensed its inward life, most of all the\nsacrifice wherein was the Lord Himself, made a polity; and the Christian\ndoctrine was, so to say, to that polity what blood is to the body. From\nthe beginning, then, the office of teaching was lodged in those who\ngoverned; they conserved, handed down from age to age, all that which\nconstituted the polity, of which doctrine was the life-blood.\n\nNow, I will take as an exponent of this whole belief one who came forth\ninto active life just at the time of the Nicene Council, and whose name\nhas been ever since identified with the defence of that especial doctrine\nupon which the whole fabric of the Christian faith rested, namely, the\nGodhead of Christ. St. Athanasius may well stand as the representative of\nthose principles in virtue of which the Church maintained her faith when\nshe could not meet freely in council, when her theology was contained in\nthe form of simple faith rather than drawn out as an organic structure,\nwhen her bishops everywhere had to meet the brunt of persecution, when\nthe action of her central and presiding Bishop was hampered by the\nperpetual jealousy of a hostile government; when, for all these reasons,\nthe unity and impact of the whole body, as one people, were exposed to a\nseverer strain than at any other period.\n\nI take this account of the mind of St. Athanasius from one who has\nstudied his writings with peculiar care, not to say with the affection of\na kindred spirit:--\n\n\"This renowned Father is in ecclesiastical history the special doctor of\nthe sacred truth which Arius denied, bringing it out into shape and\nsystem so fully and luminously, that he may be said to have exhausted his\nsubject, as far as it lies open to the human intellect. But, besides\nthis, writing as a controversialist, not primarily as a priest and\nteacher, he accompanies his exposition of doctrine with manifestations of\ncharacter which are of great interest and value.\n\n\"The fundamental idea with which he starts in the controversy is a deep\nsense of the authority of tradition, which he considers to have a\ndefinitive jurisdiction even in the interpretation of Scripture, though\nat the same time he seems to consider that Scripture, thus interpreted,\nis a document of final appeal in inquiry and in disputation. Hence, in\nhis view of religion, is the magnitude of the evil which he is combating,\nand which exists prior to that extreme aggravation of it (about which no\nCatholic can doubt) involved in the characteristic tenet of Arianism\nitself. According to him, opposition to the witness of the Church,\nseparation from its communion, private judgment overbearing the\nauthorised catechetical teaching, the fact of a denomination, as men now\nspeak,--this is a self-condemnation; and the heretical tenet, whatever it\nmay happen to be, which is its formal life, is a spiritual poison and\nnothing else, the sowing of the evil one upon the good seed, in whatever\nage and place it is found; and he applies to all separatists the\nApostle's words, 'They went out from us, for they were not of us,'\nAccordingly, speaking of one Rhetorius, an Egyptian, who, as St. Austin\ntells us, taught that 'all heresies were in the right path and spoke\ntruth,' he says that the impiety of such doctrine is frightful to\nmention.\n\n\"This is the explanation of the fierceness of his language when speaking\nof the Arians; they were simply, as Elymas, 'full of all guile and of all\ndeceit, children of the devil, enemies of all justice,' theomachoi--by\ncourt influence, by violent persecution, by sophistry, seducing,\nunsettling, perverting the people of God.\n\n\"Athanasius considers Scripture sufficient for the proof of such\nfundamental doctrines as came into controversy during the Arian troubles;\nbut while in consequence he ever appeals to Scripture (and, indeed, has\nscarcely any other authoritative document to quote), he ever speaks\nagainst interpreting it by a private rule instead of adhering to\necclesiastical tradition. Tradition is with him of supreme authority,\nincluding therein catechetical instruction, the teaching of the _schola_,\necumenical belief, the phron\u00eama of Catholics, the ecclesiastical scope,\nthe analogy of faith, &c.\n\n\"In interpreting Scripture, Athanasius always assumes that the Catholic\nteaching is true, and the Scripture must be explained by it. The great\nand essential difference between Catholics and non-Catholics was, that\nCatholics interpreted Scripture by tradition, and non-Catholics by their\nown private judgment. That not only Arians, but heretics generally,\nprofessed to be guided by Scripture, we know from many witnesses.\n\n\"What is strange to ears accustomed to Protestant modes of arguing, St.\nAthanasius does not simply expound Scripture, rather he vindicates it\nfrom the imputation of its teaching any but true doctrine. It is ever\northos, he says, that is, orthodox; I mean, he takes it for granted that\na tradition exists as a standard, with which Scripture must, and with\nwhich it doubtless does agree, and of which it is the written\nconfirmation and record.\n\n\"The recognition of this rule of faith is the basis of St. Athanasius's\nmethod of arguing against Arianism. It is not his aim ordinarily to\n_prove_ doctrine by Scripture, nor does he appeal to the private judgment\nof the individual Christian in order to determine what Scripture means;\nbut he assumes that there is a tradition substantive, independent, and\nauthoritative, such as to supply for us the true sense of Scripture in\ndoctrinal matters--a tradition carried on from generation to generation\nby the practice of catechising, and by the other ministrations of Holy\nChurch. He does not care to contend that no other meaning of certain\npassages of Scripture besides this traditional Catholic sense is possible\nor is plausible, whether true or not, but simply that any sense\ninconsistent with the Catholic is untrue--untrue because the traditional\nsense is apostolic and decisive. What he was instructed in at school and\nin church, the voice of the Christian people, the analogy of faith, the\necclesiastical phron\u00eama, the writings of saints,--these are enough for\nhim. He is in no sense an inquirer, nor a mere disputant; he has received\nand he transmits. Such is his position, though the expressions and turn\nof sentences which indicate it are so delicate and indirect, and so\nscattered about his pages, that it is difficult to collect them and to\nanalyse what they imply.\n\n\"The two phrases by which Athanasius denotes private judgment on\nreligious matters, and his estimate of it, are 'their own views' and\n'what they preferred;' as, for instance, 'laying down their private\nimpiety as some sort of rule, they wrest all the divine oracles into\naccordance with it,' and 'they make the language of Scripture their\npretence, but instead of the true sense, sowing upon it the private\npoison of their heresy,' and 'he who speaketh of his own speaketh a lie.'\nThis is a common phrase with Athanasius, 'as he chose,' 'what they\nchose,' 'when they choose,' 'whom they chose;' the proceedings of the\nheretics being self-willed from first to last.\n\n\"Revealed truth, to be what it professes, must have an uninterrupted\ndescent from the Apostles; its teachers must be unanimous, and persistent\nin their unanimity; and it must bear no human master's name as its\ndesignation. On the other hand, first novelty, next discordance,\nvacillation, change, thirdly, sectarianism, are consequences and tokens\nof religious error. These tests stand to reason, for what is over and\nabove nature must come from divine revelation; and if so, it must descend\nfrom the very date when it was revealed, else it is but matter of\nopinion, and opinions vary, and have no warrant of permanence, but depend\nupon the relative ability and success of individual teachers, one with\nanother, from whom they take their names. The Fathers abound in passages\nwhich illustrate these three tests.\n\n\"From the first the Church had the power, by its divinely appointed\nrepresentatives, to declare the truth upon such matters in the revealed\nmessage or gospel tidings as from time to time came into controversy; for\nunless it had this power, how could it be 'the pillar and ground of the\ntruth;' and these representatives, of course, were the rulers of the\nChristian people, who received as a legacy the depositum of doctrine from\nthe Apostles, and by means of it, as need arose, exercised their office\nof teaching. Each bishop was in his own place the Doctor Ecclesi\u00e6 for his\npeople; there was an appeal, of course, from his decision to higher\ncourts, to the bishops of a province, of a nation, of a patriarchate, to\nthe Roman Church, to the Holy See, as the case might be; and thus at\nlength a final determination was arrived at, which in consequence was the\nformal teaching of the Church, and, as far as it was direct and\ncategorical, was from the reason of the case the word of God. And being\nsuch, was certain, irreversible, obligatory on the inward belief and\nreception of all subjects of the Church, or what is called _de fide_.\n\n\"All this could not be otherwise if Christianity was to teach divine\ntruth in contrast to the vague opinions and unstable conjectures of human\nphilosophers and moralists, and if as a plain consequence it must have\nauthoritative organs of teaching, and if true doctrines never can be\nfalse, but what is once true is always true. What the Church proclaims as\ntrue never can be put aside or altered, and therefore such truths are\ncalled _definitions_, as being boundaries or landmarks.\"\n\nFrom all the above \"it would appear that the two main sources of\nrevelation are Scripture and Tradition, that these constitute one Rule of\nFaith, and that sometimes as a composite rule, sometimes as a double and\nco-ordinate, sometimes as an alternative, under the _magisterium_, of\ncourse, of the Church, and without an appeal to the private judgment of\nindividuals.\"[178]\n\nNow I conceive that the picture thus drawn from the writings and the\npractice of Athanasius gives us, in fact, a palpable embodiment of that\nspiritual power by which the Church defended and carried on her faith\nfrom the Day of Pentecost to the Nicene Council; for the principles and\npractice of Athanasius were the principles and practice of the whole\nChurch, and nothing short of the continuous action of the Holy Spirit\ncould have created and maintained a polity whose subjects were instinct\nwith such a loyalty of mind, heart, and action. It was not a gift of\nlearning; it was not philosophic power of thought; it was not the\nscientific labour of theology, as in after medieval times, arranging in a\nluminous system the results of the Church's doctrine through ages of\nspiritual warfare and trials of every kind. It is true that in all this\nperiod, as well as in the succeeding four hundred years, the armour of\ntheology was wrought out bit by bit through the blows of heresy, and not\nbefore St. John of Damascus did any one work the separate pieces into a\npanoply. The great mind and nobler heart of Origen even failed in the\nattempt. But from the beginning the Church moved on, filled with a divine\nconsciousness that it was the Body of Christ, carrying the truth in its\nbosom. Each bishop, each father, each writer, and in a far higher degree\nthe Councils, were conscious of this; but most of all in the Apostolic\nSee, the centre of the whole body, was such a conviction living and\nactive, and exhibited in all the various functions of spiritual rule.\n\nIt is not possible from existing documents to form a continuous and\ndetailed history of the ante-nicene Church. Thus, if any will not accept\nthe Church at the Nicene Council as an evidence of what the Church was in\npreceding times as to its constitution, principles of action, and faith,\nit is possible, through the mere absence of written proof, to make\ndenials of those very things without which the Nicene Council could never\nhave come together. The spirit of negation luxuriates in that absence of\ndocuments which more than anything else the state of persecution caused.\nOn the other hand, to the eyes of faith the grain of mustard seed planted\nby our Lord on Calvary is become, at the end of three hundred years, a\ntree which covers the Roman world, and gives its fruits for the healing\nof the nations.\n\nThe writer just quoted says elsewhere, in treating the point how far an\naccurate presentation of the doctrine respecting the Holy Trinity is\nfound in the apologists of those times, that \"it is a great misfortune to\nus that we have not had preserved to us the dogmatic utterances of the\nante-nicene Popes.\"[179] But I would draw attention to a remarkable proof\nactually existing of the completeness with which the hierarchic principle\nhad worked itself out in the days of persecution. This testimony is the\nmore valuable because it belongs to the very first year of the Church's\nfreedom, the year 314. In that year, at the instance of the Emperor\nConstantine, the Council of Arles was convoked as a representative\nCouncil of all the West. Up to this time the Council of Antioch, which\ndeposed Paul of Samosata, had been the most important and general. That\nof Arles was in a much greater degree a Council in which the bishops who\nsat represented their respective provinces, as, for instance, from the\nremote Britain the bishops of York and London and another British See\nwere present.\n\nThe Council of Arles then addresses in these terms Pope Sylvester:--\"We\nwho, by the desire of the most religious Emperor, have been assembled in\nthe city of Arles, bound together by the common bond of charity and the\nunity of the Church our Mother, salute you, most glorious Pope, with the\nbefitting reverence. We have endured here men grievous and pernicious to\nour law and tradition, men of unbridled mind. Both the present authority\nof our God, and the tradition and rule of the truth have rejected them,\nfor there was in them no reasonable ground for pleading, no limit or\nproof for their accusations. Therefore, by the judgment of God and our\nMother the Church, who knows and approves her own, they have either been\ncondemned or repudiated; and would, most beloved brother, that you could\nhave been present at so great a spectacle; we believe, indeed, that our\nsentence would then have been more severe, and had your judgment been\nunited with ours, our assembly would have rejoiced with a greater joy.\nBut you were not able to leave that place in which the Apostles daily\nsit, and their blood without intermission testifies the glory of God.\"\nThen sending to him the subjects of their decrees, they preface them with\nthe words, \"It was our pleasure that knowledge of this should be\ncommunicated to all by you who hold the greater dioceses. What we have\ndecreed by common counsel we signify to your charity, that all may know\nwhat in future they are bound to observe. And, first, as to the\nobservation of the Lord's Pasch, that it may be kept on one day and at\none time through the whole world, and that according to custom you direct\nletters to all to this effect.\"\n\nBut the Emperor, neither a Christian nor a catechumen for many long years\nto come, writes to the Fathers of the Council: \"They (the Donatists) ask\nfor my judgment, who am myself awaiting the judgment of Christ. For I\nsay, as the truth is, the judgment of bishops ought to be considered as\nif the Lord Himself were present and judging. For these may have no other\nmind and no other judgment but what they have been taught by the\nteaching of Christ.[180] What, then, do those malignant men want,\ninstruments, us I truly call them, of the devil? They desert heavenly in\ntheir search for earthly things. Oh, the rabid audacity of maniacs! they\ninterpose an appeal, as is customary in secular matters.\"[181]\n\nThe Council recognised the authority of the Apostles Peter and Paul\nruling for ever in the See of Rome, as the Pope at the present day\nattests in solemn documents that same rule when he uses the words, \"By\nthe authority of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul,\" adding to them,\n\"and by our own;\" and the Emperor clearly understands the distinction\nbetween secular and ecclesiastical judgments. In the former he knows\nhimself to be the judge of ultimate appeal. In the latter he recognises\nthe bishops as holding the magisterium of Christ Himself, and that their\njudgments are His, as if He were present among them. What stronger\nattestation of the Church's freedom in her ecclesiastical and dogmatic\njudgments from the State's control could be given than this spontaneous\ndeclaration by the head of the Roman empire? And it is to be noted that\nhe places the ground of that freedom and the force of its authority in\nthe magisterium of Christ transmitted to the rulers of the Church.\n\nHow did the successor of Nero, Domitian, Trajan, and Decius come to this\nknowledge? That is a subject which requires special consideration.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[145] Corpus Christianorum: to ethnos Christianon.\n\n[146] paredosan, in which is signified that the whole was a paradosis,\n_traditio_, delivery. On the two meanings of the word _tradition_, the one\nthe unwritten word of God, the other the whole doctrine of salvation as\nhanded down by the Fathers, see Kleutgen's Theologie der Vorzeit, tom. i.\np. 73, and v. p. 405.\n\n[147] hup\u00earetai tou logou.\n\n[148] Origen was followed by his pupil Heraclas; then the great Dionysius,\nafterwards bishop; Pierius, Achillas, Theognostus, Serapion, Peter the\nMartyr (Reischl in M\u00f6hler, i. 377).\n\n[149] teleioi; akro\u00f4menoi, or _audientes_; gonuklinontes or euchomenoi;\n_competentes_, _electi_, or ph\u00f4tizomenoi. Bingham, Antiq., B. x.; Suicer,\nThes. in verb. kat\u00eache\u00f4.\n\n[150] Newman's Arians, pp. 45, 46.\n\n[151] See upon this use of the Creed, M\u00f6hler, Kirchengeschichte, i.\n343-347.\n\n[152] Sermon 212.\n\n[153] On this subject see Newman's Arians, pp. 137-142.\n\n[154] As St. Iren\u00e6us says, 3, 24, and Origen, Contr. Celsus, 6, 48.\n\n[155] See Kleutgen's Theologie der Vorzeit, v. 404-409.\n\n[156] Ibid., pp. 395-404.\n\n[157] For which see Franzelin, De Traditione, pp. 228-237.\n\n[158] Baur observes, p. 432: \"Erst die Regierung Nero's f\u00fchrte auf ihrer\nw\u00fcrdigen Weise die Christen in die Geschichte ein.\"\n\n[159] Tertullian, Apol. 21.\n\n[160] Matt. xxiii. 34-36.\n\n[161] Joseph. Antiq., viii. 8; Tacitus, Hist. i. 22.\n\n[162] Baur remarks, p. 433: \"Die neronische Verfolgung war der erste Anfang\nalles dessen, was das Christenthum von dem r\u00f6mischen Staat, so lange er\nkeine andere Ansicht von ihm hatte, bei jeder Gelegenheit auf's Neue\nerwarten musste.\"\n\n[163] martur\u00easas epi t\u00f4n h\u00eagoumen\u00f4n.--St. Clem. 5.\n\n[164] 2 Cor. xi. 24.\n\n[165] Tertullian, Ad Nationes, 14, translation in Clarke's edition.\n\n[166] Acts xxi. 20.\n\n[167] See Schwane, Dogmengeschichte, i. 68.\n\n[168] Tertull. Apol., 5.\n\n[169] Matt. x. 16.\n\n[170] See this learnedly brought out by Hagemann in his introduction to\n\"Die r\u00f6mische Kirche.\"\n\n[171] See St\u00f6ckl, Lehrbuch der Geschichte der Philosophie, p. 244.\n\n[172] 2 Peter ii. 14.\n\n[173] M\u00f6hler, Patrologie, p. 51.\n\n[174] See M\u00f6hler, Patrologie, p. 423.\n\n[175] Heinrich, Dogmatische Theologie, i. 71.\n\n[176] Ibid., i. 70.\n\n[177] Newman, Causes of Success of Arianism, pp. 215, 216.\n\n[178] Newman, Notes on St. Athanasius, pp. 51, 261, 264, 452, 250, 247,\n150, 82, 312.\n\n[179] Newman, \"Causes of the Rise and Successes of Arianism,\" p. 252, a\ntreatise which I have found a storehouse of information respecting the\nChurch of the first three centuries.\n\n[180] Magisterio.\n\n[181] Mansi, tom. ii. pp. 469-477.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nTHE ACTUAL RELATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE FROM THE DAY OF PENTECOST TO\nCONSTANTINE.\n\n\n_The Church's Battle for Independence over against the Roman Empire._\n\nIn the period before Christ, the two Powers, as well in every polity over\nthe earth as in the vast conglomerate called the Roman Empire, beginning\ntogether, grew up in fast alliance. Such a thing as the Civil Power in\nany particular polity putting under ban and persecuting the religion of\nits people was unknown. In the Roman city, as originally constituted, the\nunion with religion, as an everyday work of life, was especially intimate\nand strong. It subsisted no less when Rome ruled from Newcastle to\nBabylon; for under the supremacy of the Emperor as Pontifex Maximus all\nthe various nations were allowed the free exercise of their ancestral\nrites. Such was the state of the relation between the two Powers at the\nDay of Pentecost; such it had been from the first creation of human\nsociety. A foreign conqueror might, it is true, persecute the gods and\nthe priests of a nation which he conquered, as Cambyses, when, with the\nzeal of a Persian worshipper of the single Sun-god, he burst upon the\ngods of Egypt; but this state of things usually passed away, when\nconquest became settled into possession; and in the Roman Peace each\ncountry and city was in stable possession of its gods, its rites, its\ntemples, and among the rest the Jew might everywhere have his synagogue\nfor his own people and worship God.\n\nClose and permanent as the alliance between the two powers of civil\ngovernment and religious worship, founded in the original constitution of\nhuman things, had been up to the time of Christ, yet in the minds of the\npeople the two functions of civil government and of worship had ever been\ndistinct. It is true that in matter of practice the ever growing moral\ncorruption of Gentilism had tended to subordinate worship to government,\nthe priest to the ruler. Nevertheless, though the Emperor was Imperator\nto his army, the possessor of tribunitial and consular power in the\nState, and likewise Pontifex Maximus in religion, such a concentration of\ndistinct powers in his single person did not efface in the minds of the\nmany peoples subjected to his sway the distinction itself of the powers\nwielded by him. A vast number of various priesthoods subsisted in the\ndifferent countries untouched and unmeddled with by him. He was, in fact,\nby virtue of his religious pontificate, annexed to his civil principate,\nthe conservator of all these rites, religious customs, and priesthoods.\nThe meddling with them was a violation of his pontificate. Anubis in\nEgypt, Astarte in Syria, Cybele in Phrygia, Minerva at Athens, no less\nthan Jupiter on the capitol, found their defender and guardian on the\nPalatine Mount, while Augustus did not disdain to have a daily sacrifice\noffered for him in the temple at Jerusalem, for the Jewish worship was\npart of the Roman constitution. He was patron as well as suppliant.\n\nThus at the time the Holy Ghost came down upon the Apostles on the Day of\nPentecost there was strict alliance in all the provinces of the\nworld-empire between secular rule and religious worship; an alliance in\nwhich worship was, it is true, subordinate to secular rule, but fostered\nand guarded by it. The eye of a Trajan would, no doubt, discern a common\nelement in all the religions of which he was the official guardian, and\nit was even for the security of the immortal gods at Rome that Anubis\nshould bark in Egypt, though he would not be allowed with impunity to\ndeceive the matrons of Rome,[182] and that Astarte, under the public\nauthority, should have trains of female priestesses in Syria. The fixed\nidea of the Roman Emperors might be said to have been to keep these\nparty-coloured provinces, with their ancestral gods and rites, in due and\nlegitimate enjoyment of their own property, without encroaching on that\nof their neighbours. And Marcus Aurelius was not deterred by his\nphilosophic pantheism from offering multitudes of white oxen for the\nsuccess of the Roman arms, but he sanctioned the perpetration of the most\nfearful tortures upon Christian confessors in the arena of Lyons, and\nimputed their patience of death to a sort of Galilean obstinacy. Why did\nhe, who sacrificed to Jupiter, while he was an outspoken Positivist,\npersecute belief in Christ?\n\nLet us endeavour to give a distinct and adequate answer to this question.\n\nThe subsisting alliance between civil authority and religious worship,\nwhich existed in the Roman world, whatever the particular gods\nworshipped, and rites and customs practised in the various countries\ncomposing it might be, was interrupted and snapped asunder by the\nproclamation of the Gospel as an universal religion. It is true that in\nthe first twelve years, while the Apostles addressed themselves to the\nJewish people, wherever they might be, inviting them to accept Jesus as\nthe Christ, the liberty to do this, within the various synagogues, might\nbe covered by the liberty accorded to the Jewish race everywhere on Roman\nsoil to practise their own religion as a thing handed down to them from\ntheir ancestors. So long as it was a question of Jewish law--in the words\nof the Roman propr\u00e6tor, the brother of Seneca, at Corinth--the protection\nof an undoubtedly sanctioned religion, to use the phrase of Tertullian,\nwould veil from censure the action of the Apostles; but as soon as, and\nin proportion as the kingdom of Christ came forth to the Gentiles as an\nuniversal religion--so soon as Christ was declared to them to be the Son\nof God, the Saviour of the world--so soon as men were distinguished as\nChristians, as they were already at Antioch, that is, recognised to be\nnot a Jewish sect, but the adherents of a substantive religion with\ndistinct belief, which was repudiated by the mass of Jews, a religion of\nuniversal import, which was founded on the Person of a Redeemer, the\nGod-man who had come into the world, lived as a man, died, and risen\nagain, and who called upon all men to be His followers, whether Jews or\nGentiles, it became evident that the toleration, nay more, the support\nand guarantee for all religions which were subsisting equally for the\nvarious peoples of the Roman Empire, did not apply to the followers of\nthe new religion. St. Paul, for instance, as a ringleader of the Galilean\nsect, was punishable and was punished by the Jewish Sanhedrim, as\ninfringing what they considered the orthodox Jewish belief, and this\nconduct of the Jewish authority, everywhere pursued towards the\nChristians, drew upon them the attention of the Roman magistrates. The\nculmination of this conduct and policy was seen as to its result in the\npersecution set on foot by Nero, under Jewish instigation, and the act of\nNero seems to have had the permanent effect of establishing the\nillicitness of the Christian faith, in the sight of Roman law. The\ndestruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, as the seat of Jewish worship,\ncompletely established the severance of the Christian people from the\nJews, and gave them religious independence with all its honour and all\nits perils.\n\nFor what was their position towards that universal heathendom which\nsurrounded them on all sides?\n\nTake the three great constituents of belief, of worship, and of\ngovernment, which we been have considering in their several departments,\nin their relations with each other, and in their co-inherence.\n\nHeathendom, under the sway of Tiberius, lay stretched out over the vast\nregions of the empire in numberless varieties of costume which covered an\nidentity of substance. The dark mysterious forms of Egyptian gods, the\ngods of Greece arrayed in human shapes of consummate loveliness, the\nvoluptuous rites of Syrian goddesses, the sober and homely deities of\nancient Rome vested somewhat awkwardly in the robes of their Grecian\ncongeners, the local deities, mountain oreads and river naiads, which had\ntheir seat in every city and district of civilised or semi-barbarous\nprovinces, the representatives of oriental traditions, philosophies, and\nreligions,--all these had part in a worship offered by some or other\nsubjects of Rome. And now went forth from city to city preachers who\nproclaimed to all who would hear them that there was one God alone who\nhad made out of nothing, by an act of the purest free-will, the heavens\nand the earth, and that He made also of one blood the human inhabitants\nof this earth. And they declared that this one God was not only the\nCreator of all matter and of all spirit, of all men in all nations, but\nthat in order to redeem them from a terrible slavery into which they had\nfallen, He had sent His own Son, one in nature with Himself, in human\nform among them, to die the death of a malefactor upon the cross, which\nwas the legal punishment of the slave in the Roman law for capital\ncrimes; nor only to die, but by rising again in the same body in which He\nhad died, to attest the truth of His mission, and to gather all men\ntogether, the freeman and the slave, the Roman conqueror and the most\nabject of his serfs, in one religious community. Thus the same one God\nwho was Creator, was proclaimed to be Redeemer. And, further, the name of\nthis God, communicated in the very rite which admitted into membership\nwith the religion, disclosed a third Divine Person, whose work was\npre-eminently a work belonging to the one God alone, for it was to\nsanctify, by His presence in their hearts, all its members.\n\nThus these preachers proclaimed, as the basis of all they taught to their\nhearers, belief in a God who was One[183] and who was Three; who was\nsingle and alone, but outside the conception of number, and who was at\nonce Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier altogether.\n\nAnd they proclaimed this to peoples who had every conceivable variety of\ngods, male and female, to whom various functions, down to the lowest\nemployments in the service of mankind, were assigned, according to the\ncaprice or the inherited traditions of their worshippers.\n\nWhat was the position of these preachers towards the various deities and\ntheir worshippers who occupied the Roman empire? It is obvious that it\nwas one of an absolute uncompromising hostility. And it is plain that, on\nthe other side, all who did not closely and impartially examine their\ndoctrine, would count them to be \"godless,\" and treat them accordingly.\n\nThis, the barest outline of the primary and fundamental belief as to the\nall-important being of God, on which all further development of teaching\nrested, is sufficient to exhibit the intense opposition between\nChristianity and that which it was attempting to displace in the matter\nof belief.\n\nBut belief becomes concrete and actual in worship. What was the worship\noffered by the nations of the Roman empire to their various gods? From\nend to end this vast region was covered with magnificent temples, rich\nwith the offerings of successive generations, wherein day by day and\noften many times a day sacrifices of living animals were offered by\npriests appointed to that end. I only refer here to this rite of\nsacrifice, because I have dwelt sufficiently upon it in a former place.\nThe varieties of the worship accompanying it were great, but the\nsubstance of the rite identical; the number and names and offices of the\ndeities to whom it was offered were bewildering.[184] The customs and\ntraditions which encircled these various temples and the rites offered in\nthem struck their roots into the family, the social, and the political\nlife of the various peoples among which they stood.\n\nWhat, as over against this \"palpable array of sense,\" was the Christian\nworship which the new teachers brought with them?\n\nIt was withdrawn into the innermost recess of the Christian society\nitself. For many generations they had not public churches, but were\nreduced to meet in secret. And those who shared the Christian membership\nreceived, in assemblies held in the silence of the early morning, under\ncover of some private house, a victim which they adored as the very Body\nand Blood of the God who for their sakes had become incarnate, for their\nsakes also had suffered His Body to be broken, and His Blood poured out.\nInstead of the sacrifices of slain animals, whose blood was sprinkled\nupon the worshippers, the Christian received the Immaculate Lamb of God,\noffered upon a mystical altar, in commemoration of that one Sacrifice by\nvirtue of which he was a Christian.\n\nIf the contrast in belief between the one Christian God and the many gods\nof heathendom was great, the contrast between heathen sacrifices and the\none Christian Sacrifice was at least as great--perhaps the more wonderful\nin this, that while natural reason fought in every human breast for the\ndoctrine of the Divine Unity, no reason nor thought of man could ever\nhave imagined a Sacrifice at once so tremendous and so gracious as that\nwhich the Christian worshipped, wherein the Victim which received his\nhomage contained and imparted his life.\n\nBut if the doctrine of the Divine Unity destroyed the heathen gods, and\nso rendered its adherents liable to be called \"godless\" by their\nworshippers, no less did the doctrine of the Christian Sacrifice, which\nabolished at a stroke the whole worship of heathendom, create the keenest\nantagonism; they who were without gods were said to be without altars;\nthey who never presented themselves at the heathen sacrifices were\naccounted as outcasts and sacrilegious men who renounced all piety.\n\nYet complete and thorough as the antagonism drawn forth in these two\ngreat points of belief and worship, perhaps the third constituent element\nof the Christian society, its government, was even more calculated to\nawaken the jealousy and excite the resentment, if not of the various\npeoples which composed the empire, at least of the Roman rulers.\n\nThe priests who ministered in the multitudinous temples to the various\ndeities of the Roman world, were as various as the objects of their\nworship. No common hierarchy held together the priests of Egyptian,\nAsiatic, Hellenic, Roman gods, and all the intermediate gradations. But\nfar more than this, there was an absence of hierarchy in the particular\nor national gods of each several country; the priest of Jupiter had\nnothing to do with the priest of Apollo, the priest of Juno, and the\nrest. The conception of many gods had introduced unnumbered weaknesses,\nanomalies, and incongruities into the arrangements of their ministers.\nWhen that which was worshipped was divided, the ministers of the several\nparts became rivals, with this grand result, as it affected the civil\npower, that it stood in one great mass of solid unity over against\ndifferent religions, varying in their objects, crossing each other,\ncontradicting each other. Thus it was that the original independence of\ndivine worship had been lost; no one of these various priesthoods could\nmaintain any real opposition to the civil ruler; no one of them\npresented any body of concordant doctrine which man's mind could\napprove, or his heart accept. That which ought to be most sacred among\nmen was by internal contradictions become weak and contemptible.\n\nHow, on the other hand, stood the case of the Christian society as to\ngovernment?\n\nAnd here as for a long time the Christian altar lay concealed from the\nsight of the heathen, and they knew not Him who was offered on it, so for\na long time the Christian ruler was withdrawn from recognition. They did\nnot even surmise that which grew up gradually and silently in the midst\nof them: the establishment, that is, of a _new_ spiritual power, of _one_\npower for all nations, of a spiritual governor in every city, a member of\nthis one power. It may safely be said that while Trajan did not apprehend\nthe existence of any such power in his empire, Decius had come to the\nknowledge of it, and he liked it so little that it was said of him by an\neye-witness how he would rather hear of a competitor for his throne than\nof a Bishop being set at Rome in the See of Peter.\n\nBut from the beginning the power was there, concealed in the humility of\nthe mustard seed, while it rested upon the authority of Him who had\ndropped the seed into the soil.\n\nThis power of spiritual government was _new_, in that it sprung from the\nPerson of our Lord Himself, and until He communicated the charge\ncontained in it, did not exist. It was pointed out in type and prophecy\nto Adam, to Noah, and to Moses, but realised in Him at His resurrection.\nThus, whereas these priesthoods which it came to displace were the\nultimate form of corruption into which the original worship instituted by\nGod when man fell had sunk, the Redeemer, in the work of His\ndispensation, sent forth this pastorship of spiritual rule afresh from\nHimself, gave it to Peter and His Apostles, and propagated it through\nthem upon earth.\n\nFor this reason, as coming from one who was Lord of all, it was one for\nall nations. Corresponding to the unity of the Triune God, and the unity\nof the Christian Sacrifice, it was one in its origin, its duration, its\neffect. What greater contrast could there possibly be than between the\ndiversity and contradiction of heathen priests ministering in numberless\nreligions, and the unity of the Christian priesthood, a replication in\nevery instance of Christ's person, between worships varying with every\ncountry in their bearers and their rites, and the unity of the Christian\nepiscopate, a replication of His charge to feed His sheep, resting on one\nSacrifice as unique as its own rule.\n\nAnd, again, that which was one in origin, duration, and effect, stretched\nitself forth and dilated itself to embrace every city, placing at its\nhead a spiritual ruler, who was distinct but not separate from his\nfellows; who preached one doctrine and ministered to one worship, as he\nalso participated in one power.\n\nIf we embrace in one view the three constituents on which we have\ntouched--belief, worship, and government--and contemplate the Christian\npeople which is its outcome, how total a contrast does it present in the\nChristian habit of life to that of the heathen. The Christian worships a\nsingle God, who by the greatest of mysteries is at once one and three;\nwho has a triple personality; he partakes of a worship in which that God,\noffered first as a Victim for him, becomes his Food; he is governed by\none who bears the person of that God, whose priesthood is the foundation\nof his rule, and whose teaching is bound up with both rule and worship.\nThat which the heathen called nature was to the Christian the ever-living\noperation of a creative hand hiding under shapes which met the senses an\nillimitable power, wisdom, and goodness; and the majesty of the God whom\nhe thus adored was presented to him in the holiest rite of his worship as\nthe Victim who redeemed him, and the Food which nourished his spiritual\nlife. Greek and Egyptian, Syrian and African, Roman and barbarian, it was\ndifficult to say from which he was most removed in all his thoughts of\nGod and man, and the world around.\n\nBut to the whole body of people thus created it was the shifting of the\nbasis on which the heathen State rested, because it was the discovery of\nthe one Lord from whom all rule descended, and in whose name it was\nadministered. The Roman ruled not in virtue of the principle that one God\nhad made all the nations of the earth of one blood, and partitioned the\nkingdoms of the earth among them, but by virtue of the fact that the\nchildren of the wolf-cub had been the strongest in fight and the firmest\nin discipline, and had reduced a hundred peoples beneath their sway. The\nRoman himself worshipped and protected in others the worship of\nancestral, that is, national gods, and the God of the Christians claimed\nnot to be national, and to dethrone them all. The Roman, and the nations\nhe held in subjection, believed in a multitude of traditionary doctrines\nrespecting the earth and its inhabitants, and the powers presiding over\nthem, some true and some false, mixed up in each case with peculiar and\nnational interests, and all these the Christian swept away in the sublime\nbelief, austere at once and tender, of a single Being who created,\nsustained, and ruled all, with the love of a Creator for all, while He\nkept watch over every thought, word, and action of every rational\ncreature; that is, who was Judge and Rewarder, as well as Creator. And,\nlastly, this new Christian people held as the very bond of its existence\nthat being the Body of Christ, it was to embrace all nations, and be\nco-extensive with the earth, co-enduring with man's race.\n\nThis was the people and the power which, having been more or less\nconcealed during five generations from the watchful eyes of Roman\nstatesmen, may be said to have come forth and shown itself by the\nmultiplication of its numbers and the tenacity of its purpose, and the\nfixity of its doctrines in the time of Marcus Aurelius, and which five\nmore generations of Romans, until the time of Constantine, either watched\nwith ever-increasing anxiety, or tolerated in the mistaken hope of\nassimilating, or finally contended with for life or death in fearful\npersecutions.\n\nAnd this was the people and power before which the Emperor Marcus\nAurelius, when he saw it in the persons of women and slaves and aged men,\nwho sacrificed their lives for their belief, lost his philosophic\nindifference, and persecuted it as if he had been a voluptuous profligate\nlike Nero, or a cruel tyrant like Domitian.\n\nThat the belief, the worship, and the spiritual government which carried\nboth, had been from their first appearance in the reign of Tiberius\nindependent of the imperial rule, whose officer crucified their Founder,\nunder the title of the King of the Jews, we have seen in all the\npreceding chapters. But how was this independence actually acquired and\nmaintained? By what talisman did the Christians compel the emperors to\nacknowledge that there were things of God to be rendered to God, as well\nas things of C\u00e6sar to be rendered to C\u00e6sar? For when this fight began the\nEmperor claimed all things, the things of C\u00e6sar as Emperor, and the\nthings of God as Pontifex Maximus.\n\nMelito, Bishop of Sardis, addressing an apology for the Christian faith\nto Marcus Aurelius, besought him to \"protect a philosophy which was\nnurtured together and began together with Augustus;\"[185] and, in fact,\nit was at the moment when Augustus closed the temple of Janus, and\nproclaimed that there was peace in the Roman world, that our Lord was\nborn at Bethlehem. Thirty-three years after, He was crucified by the\ngovernor of a province who represented the person of the Emperor\nTiberius, and on the ground that he had infringed the rights of that\nemperor by calling Himself King of the Jews. Forthwith, when \"Peter rose\nup in the midst of the brethren\" to propose the appointment of a twelfth\napostle, that he might take the place of the traitor who had betrayed his\nMaster to death, we are told the number of the persons together was about\na hundred and twenty. This number, then, indicated those disciples of our\nLord who had been gained during His ministry, and were then at Jerusalem.\nWe have another indication of numbers, where it is said that our Lord,\nbefore His ascension, was seen by \"more than five hundred brethren at\nonce,\"[186] which would indicate the larger number of His adherents in\nGalilee.\n\nThese two statements give a notion as to the extent to which the teaching\nof our Lord had been accepted when the event of His public execution took\nplace, which was intended by those who brought it about to effect the\ndestruction of His claim to teach the world, and which was calculated,\naccording to all human judgment, to produce the effect intended.\n\nThe empire of Augustus, and \"the philosophy nurtured and begun together\nwith it,\" took their several courses, and at the end of three hundred\nyears the greatest man who had sat upon the throne of Augustus in all\nthat interval came to the conclusion that the Christian Church was become\nthe power of the time. What makes the greatness of Constantine, we have\nbeen told, makes him one of those characters in the world's history who\nare the individual expression of the spirit of their time, is, that he\nunderstood his time, that he perceived the weakness and powerlessness of\nthe heathen world, the inward dissolution of the old beliefs; that the\nChristian faith was alone the substantial power of the time, the\nChristian faith, as the Corpus Christianorum, in the strong, flexible,\nand yet compact organisation of the Catholic Church, as seen in its one\nepiscopate. Constantine knew Christianity only in this form; and the\nmajestic unity into which the episcopate of the Church had already grown\nwas for him so imposing that he saw in the Christian Church[187] the\npower through which the Roman empire, greatly needing a regeneration,\ncould alone be made capable of it. That was the real power which could\ngive a new basis to the State when it was falling into self-dissolution.\n\nTo indicate the greatness of the change involved in the action of the\nRoman emperor, we may here use the words of St. Gregory the Great to the\nAnglo-Saxon King Ethelbert, when he wrote to him at the end of the sixth\ncentury: \"Illustrious Son, guard carefully the grace which thou hast\nreceived by a divine gift; hasten to extend the Christian faith among the\npeoples subject to thee, for He will render the name of your glory yet\nmore glorious to your posterity, whose honour you seek and preserve in\nthe world. For so Constantine, most pious emperor of old, calling back\nthe Roman commonwealth from the perverted worship of idols, subjected it\nwith himself to Jesus Christ, our omnipotent Lord God.\"[188]\n\nBut what had passed in the interval, since the officer of Tiberius\ncrucified the Head, that the successor of Tiberius, Constantine, should\nrecognise the Body as the only power which could hold together his\ntottering State?\n\nWhat had happened was such facts as these.\n\nAfter the Jews had spent their utmost malice in persecuting the Christian\nmessengers, first at Jerusalem, upon St. Stephen's death, and then\nthroughout the empire, wherever the authority of the Sanhedrim could\nreach them, Nero, the last emperor of the family of Augustus, moved by\nJewish instigation, turned upon Christians the accusation of burning\nRome, and slew what the Roman historian calls a \"huge multitude\" of them,\nwith torments so atrocious that pity for them began to arise even among\nthose who hated them.\n\nSecondly, at the distance of another generation, Domitian slew his\ncousin, even while he held the consulate, and an unknown number of other\nChristians, on the imputed charge of impiety, that is, of deserting the\nheathen gods.\n\nThirdly, twenty years later, in the time of Trajan, we learn, by his\ncorrespondence with Pliny, that the mere profession of the Christian\nfaith was a capital crime; and the punishment of Ignatius, in the Roman\namphitheatre, made his name famous to all future generations. We know not\nto how many in the reign of Trajan the profession of the Christian faith\nwas the sacrifice of life. But the Bishop of Antioch, if the most\nillustrious, was far from the only victim.\n\nFourthly, an abundance of martyrs in the reign of his successor, Hadrian,\ntestifies the continuance and the exercise of this law proscribing the\nChristian profession. The noble Roman matron who witnessed the execution\nof her seven children is an instance how savage a man of letters and\ncurious taste could be, when there was a question of Christian realities\ncrossing his feelings as a heathen.\n\nFifthly, the reign of Marcus Aurelius, noblest of heathen rulers, is\nconspicuous for the number of its martyrs, in Asia Minor and in Gaul, as\nwell as at Rome; for the increasing number of the Christians had now\nbrought the religion into general notice. It is of this time that\nIren\u00e6us, an eye-witness, shortly himself to be one of those he\ncommemorates, writes \"that the Church in every place, on account of that\nlove which she bears to God, sends forward a multitude of martyrs in\nevery time to the Father; while all the rest (by which he means the\nvarious sects), not only are not able to show this thing among them, but\ndo not even say that such a martyrdom is necessary.... For the reproach\nof those who suffer persecution for the sake of justice, and endure all\npenalties, and are done to death for their affection towards God and\ntheir confession of His Son, these the Church alone continuously\nmaintains, often thereby weakened, and straightway increasing its\nmembers, and becoming entire again.\"[189] Of this time Eusebius writes,\nthat by the attacks made in various cities through the enmity of the\npopulace calling upon the magistrates to execute the laws, \"martyrs\nalmost numberless were conspicuous through the whole world.\"[190]\n\nSixthly, after another generation, in the time of Septimius Severus,\nEusebius states that there were martyrdoms in every part of the Church.\nThis is the time of which Tertullian writes that Christians were now\neverywhere, and from their numbers would have been able to wage a civil\nwar with their persecutors, had their religion permitted them. Of this\nalso an eye-witness, Clement of Alexandria, says, \"It was a good remark\nof Zeno about the Indians, that he would rather see one Indian roasted\nthan hear any number of arguments about the endurance of pain. But we\nhave every day a rich stream displayed before our eyes of martyrs\nroasted, impaled, and beheaded. All these the fear of the law has been a\ntutor to lead to Christ, and has wrought them up to show their piety by\nshedding their blood. 'God hath stood in the congregation of gods, and\nbeing in the midst of them He judgeth gods.' Who are these? They who are\nsuperior to pleasure; they who conquer sufferings; they who know each\nthing which they do; possessors of true knowledge, who have mastered the\nworld.\"[191] This was the time when Origen, a youth of seventeen, tried\nto share with his father, Leonides, the martyr's crown, while death, as\nthe result of sufferings undergone in confession, was reserved for him\nfifty years later in the persecution under Decius. Many writings of\nTertullian bear witness of the persecution of his own time, respecting\nwhich he says: \"You crucify and impale Christians; you tear open their\nsides with hooks; we lay down our necks; we are driven before wild\nbeasts; we are burnt in fires; we are banished into islands.\"[192]\n\nAgain, we pass thirty years, in which, while emperors hold their hands,\nyet individual Christians suffer under the law which proscribes their\nreligion in general, and then we come to a seventh persecution of great\nseverity under the Emperor Maximinus, which lasts for three years. After\nanother interval of ten years we reach the great persecution of Decius,\nthe eighth in number, which aims with decision at the general destruction\nof the Christian clergy and people.\n\nThe ten years which commence with the reign of Decius contain also two\ngeneral persecutions under the Emperors Gallus and Valerianus. It is in\nthis period that three Popes, Fabian, Lucius, and Stephen, Cyprian,\nBishop of Carthage, and Laurence, Deacon at Rome, are crowned with\nmartyrdom. The extant letters of Cyprian and Dionysius of Alexandria bear\nwitness to the wide extent of suffering inflicted upon all classes.\n\nUpon this succeeds the longest period of rest which occurs during the\nthree centuries, and is terminated by the persecution commenced in the\nyear 303 by Diocletian, which is likewise the longest, and also the most\nuniversal, and the most severe of all.\n\nNo human record preserves the names or assigns the numbers of all those\nwho sacrificed their lives for the sake of their Master in these ten\npersecutions, and in the intervals of comparative peace which lay between\nthem; in all of which it needed but the execution of the empire's\nexisting laws to imperil any Christian life. A persecution meant that the\nsovereign power called upon the several governors of provinces and\nmagistrates in cities to execute the law.\n\nThus the period from the Crucifixion in the year 29, to the Edict of\nToleration in 313, a space of 284 years, bears one character. It is that\nof opposition by the great world-empire to the free propagation of the\nreligion of Christ. Not only is every human motive which can have force\nupon the mind of man set against this propagation, but at constantly\nrecurring times men and women and children give up the joys of home, the\nsecurity of civilised life, wealth, peace, social happiness, in order to\nmaintain and profess their belief in a crucified man as Son of God and\nSaviour of the world. To this end a great multitude during ten\ngenerations sacrifice life itself, and that often not by simple death,\nbut under torments the most severe and prolonged which the ingenuity of\nsavage enemies can invent.\n\nMartyrdom was the ripe fruit of the Christian mind carried to its highest\ndegree of excellence; the imitation of a crucified Lord in finished\nperfection. The martyr expressed in his own soul and body the truth\nuttered concerning his Lord, that \"though He was a Son, yet learnt He\nobedience through the things that He suffered.\" The martyrs were the\nchoice soldiers and champions of the great army of faith which arose\nupon the earth between Augustus and Constantine. It was by the sufferings\nof these three hundred years that the Church won, over against the\npersistent enmity of the Civil Power, the inestimable right of liberty in\nher faith, her worship, and her government.\n\nBut how did the army itself arise of which the martyrs were the\nchampions? When I attempt to collect in one view the history of these\nfirst three centuries, what I find most wonderful is, not that they who\nbelieved in a crucified Head were ready as His members to suffer in and\nfor Him, but that men and women of the most various nations, characters,\nand ranks, came to accept a crucified Head. Martyrdom is the outcome of a\nperfect faith--but the faith itself, whence was it, and how came it? Hear\nthe Apostle who laboured more abundantly than all others describe his own\nwork: \"Christ sent me to preach the Gospel, not in wisdom of speech, lest\nthe cross of Christ should be made void. For the word of the cross to\nthem indeed that perish is foolishness, but to them that are saved, that\nis to us, it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the\nwisdom of the wise; and the prudence of the prudent I will reject. Where\nis the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world?\nHath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For seeing that in\nthe wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the\nfoolishness of our preaching to save them that believe. For both the Jews\nrequire signs, and the Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ\ncrucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks\nfoolishness, but unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ\nthe power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is\nwiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For see\nyour vocation, brethren, that there are not many wise according to the\nflesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but the foolish things of the\nworld hath God chosen, that He may confound the wise, and the weak things\nof the world hath God chosen that He may confound the strong. And the\nbase things of the world and the things that are contemptible hath God\nchosen, and things that are not that He might bring to nought things that\nare: that no flesh should glory in His sight. But of Him are you in\nChrist Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom and justice, and\nsanctification and redemption, that, as it is written, he that glorieth\nmay glory in the Lord. And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not in\nloftiness of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of\nChrist. For I judged not myself to know anything among you, but Jesus\nChrist and Him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and\nin much trembling; and my speech and my preaching was not in the\npersuasive words of human wisdom, but in showing of the spirit and of\npower; that your faith might not stand on the wisdom of men, but on the\npower of God. Howbeit we speak wisdom among the perfect, yet not the\nwisdom of this world, neither of the princes of this world, that come to\nnought: but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, a wisdom which is\nhidden, which God ordained before the world, unto our glory: which none\nof the princes of this world knew, for if they had known it, they would\nnever have crucified the Lord of Glory. But as it is written, That eye\nhath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of\nman what things God hath prepared for them that love Him. But to us God\nhath revealed them by His Spirit.\"[193]\n\nThus St. Paul wrote to some of his early converts about the year 50. The\nrecords which would have described by a continuous and detailed history\nthe labours of the Apostles and their successors in the two centuries and\na half which followed these words, have almost entirely perished. Their\nresult subsists in the conversion of the Roman world, and the recognition\nof the kingdom of Christ by the kingdom of C\u00e6sar. These words describe\nthe process. We have no more to say than this, and no less. The Church\nhas not to show in all this period great and renowned men among her\nmembers; she has not to show men distinguished for their science; she has\nnot to show men who made themselves of mark in public life, who had\nwealth, or influential connections, or anything which makes power\naccording to the natural constitution of the world.[194] Even her great\nwriters were not yet come; of those whose writings have come down to us,\nTertullian and Origen were her sole men of genius. Among those who sat in\nthe chair of Peter, there had as yet arisen no one such as the great Leo,\nwhose word was equal to the power which he swayed. Her schools of\ntheology scarcely existed; no golden tongue among her preachers had yet\nspoken \"with lips of flame;\" no heathen rhetorician, converted in the\nmiddle of life, had become the great doctor for future ages, a fountain\nat once of philosophy and theology. She knew and she preached nothing but\nJesus Christ and Him crucified, and the effect was that no such contrast\nexists in all history as that supplied by the weakness of that company,\nthe number of whose names was about 120, who met to elect a successor to\nthe traitor apostle, and the grandeur of that body represented by the 318\nFathers at Nic\u00e6a, on whom the majesty of the Roman people waited in the\nperson of Constantine. For behind those Fathers was the Christian people,\nconverts of every race, from the haughtiest patrician of Cornelian blood\nto the humblest slave of Egypt, who had heard and obeyed the call to\nbelieve on Jesus Christ and Him crucified. There had been ten generations\nof youths and maidens who had offered to Him the very flower of human\nbeauty and superhuman purity; mothers who had surrendered their children,\nhusbands who had lost both wives and children, bishops maimed, or\none-eyed, for the love of Christ, who had laboured in mines, a host of\nmissionaries who had been treated as \"the offscourings of the world,\" all\nfor the sake of that Crucified One, who was ever before their eyes, and\nin their hearts; to whom they were joined by suffering with Him, and who\npromised them, in recompense for those sufferings, that which eye hath\nnot seen, nor ear heard, nor hath it entered into the heart of man to\nconceive, but God had revealed by His Spirit.\n\nFor no greater change can be conceived for man to accept, than to pass\nfrom the life which a Pomponia Gr\u00e6cina or a Callista would lead in her\nRoman or her Grecian home, into the life of a Lucina burying martyred\napostles, or the death of a Callista, in a dungeon of the third century;\nbetween the prosperous C\u00e6cilius in the midst of the wealth and luxury of\nCarthage, and the Cyprian who, after ten years of apostolic labour,\nuttered his _Deo gratias_ upon the Propr\u00e6tor's sentence of death. Nor\nmust we take only as samples those who were conspicuous for their work as\nChristians, even though it were accompanied by sufferings. We must take\nrather the staple of the common Christian life in its opposition to the\ndiscarded heathendom--the life of charity, of poverty, of chastity\npursued by those of humblest position, over against the hatred, the\navarice, the impurity out of which they came. The acceptance of such a\nlaw as the Christian law, founded upon such a belief as the Christian\nbelief, is in any one case the result of a power quite beyond man,\nwhatever his learning, eloquence, or persuasiveness from any natural gift\nmay be, to bring about in his fellow-men. What, then, was that power\nshown in instances innumerable--shown when the acceptance of Christ\ncrucified as the exemplar of life involved the risk of losing life, and\nall which made life naturally sweet or even tolerable, involved a living\ncrucifixion? The state of virginity, confession of any kind, and finally\nmartyrdom, made the highest point of this life; but we must look upon\nthe great mass of the Christian people as that which produced such\nfruits. The Martyrs, whatever their number, were no doubt relatively few\nin comparison with those who were not martyred. They were \"the\nfirst-fruits of the threshing-floor which the world would offer to the\nRedeemer;\" how numerous must have been the grains of wheat out of which\nthey were chosen? They were \"the new leaven and the salt of humanity,\nwhich by the offering of their bodies and the pouring out their blood\nwould sanctify the whole mass;\"[195] but how great was the spiritual\npower which had descended into that mass? Surely Chrysostom had good\nreason when he selected the creation of the Christian people as that one\nmiracle of Christ which no heathen gainsayer could deny.\n\nWhat we find, then, as an ultimate fact in the historical conversion of\nthe heathen world, is this internal action of the Holy Spirit in the\npreaching of the Apostles and their successors, by which the Christian\npeople was formed in spite of the world around them; in spite of\nseductions from the pride of life, the desire of the eyes, the terrible\nempire of sensuous beauty; in spite of terrors which involved every\nsuffering as well us every privation of lawful enjoyments.\n\nAll that vast development of doctrine, worship, and government, which we\nhave been endeavouring to trace out, has been from first to last\noriginated, accompanied, and maintained by the action of the Holy Spirit\nupon each individual heart. Here at last is the power which we seek in\nvain to detect as lodged in any natural gift possessed by the preacher.\nThe heart is that sanctuary of liberty which no human power can invade:\nthe heart's free acceptance of the belief offered to it is the result\nwhich no human power can win. If the Church's one Episcopate has thrown\nthe net of Christ over the whole empire, and into regions more or less\nbarbarous beyond it; if the Church's one doctrine has grown out into\npalpable form, scattering the gods of heathendom with the demons who\nlurked under their masks, and uplifting the strong personality of the\ndivine Triad, in spite of pantheism, to universal adoration; if the\nChurch's one worship has come forth from the catacombs into the light of\nday, and the celebration over a martyr's body in an obscure vault to a\ncelebration in lordly temple, rich with marble and precious stones; the\none adequate cause for all is the manifestation of spirit and of power,\nthe cross set up in the heart of man before it was applied to living\nmembers of the body: it is a process inexplicable save upon the\nsupposition of divine power. That world which by wisdom knew not God,\nwhich philosophy had failed to convert, was converted in a great\nproportion of its subjects by the foolishness of God which was wiser than\nmen, and the weakness of God which was stronger than men. A crucified God\nwas the palmary test of this foolishness and weakness; the army of\nmartyrs was its witness; the empire's recognition of the Church's freedom\nin doctrine, worship, and government, was the victory which it gained.\n\nThose who lived in the midst of this great movement fully recognised its\nwonderful character. Thus Clement of Alexandria, in his address to the\nGreeks, exclaimed: \"The power of God casting its beams upon the earth\nwith incredible rapidity and most attractive kindness has filled\neverything with the seed of salvation. For the Lord could not have\nbrought about so great a work in so small a time without a divine\ngoodwill and affection; despicable in appearance, worshipped in deed;\npurifier, Saviour, propitious, the Divine Word, the most manifest truly\nGod, equal to the Lord of the universe, for He was His Son, 'and the Word\nwas in God.' Nor was He disbelieved when first announced; nor when He\ntook upon Him human form and fashioned Himself after the flesh, and acted\nthe saving drama of the manhood, was He ignored. For He was a lawful\ncombatant and a fellow-combatant with His creature; and when swifter than\nthe sun He dawned upon us at the Father's will. He was communicated most\nspeedily to all men, and with the utmost ease caused God to shine upon\nus; showing whence He was Himself, and who He was by what He taught and\nby what He did; bearer to us of the treaty and the reconciliation, our\nSaviour Word, a fountain of life and of peace, poured over the whole face\nof the earth; through whom the world has become a very sea of\nblessings.\"[196]\n\nNo less were eye-witnesses struck with the impotence of philosophy in\ncomparison with the doctrine of the cross. Thus the same Clement in\nanother place says: \"The heaven-taught wisdom is that alone which is with\nus, from which spring all the sources of wisdom; such, I mean, as lead to\nthe truth. For certainly when the Lord who was to teach us came to men He\nhad innumerable pointers of His way, to announce, to prepare, to precede\nHim, from the very foundation of the world. They pre-signified Him by\naction and by word, they prophesied His coming, the where and the when,\nand His signs. From afar off the Law provides for Him, and Prophecy; then\nHis precursor declares His presence; then the heralds teaching the power\nof His appearance signify it. [But philosophers[197]] pleased their own\nonly, and not all these, for Socrates pleased Plato, and Plato\nXenocrates, and Aristotle Theophrastus, and Zeno Cleanthes. They\npersuaded those only who embraced their own sect. But the word of our\nTeacher did not remain in Judea alone, as philosophy did in Greece. It\nwas poured over the whole world, persuading from nation to nation,\nvillage to village, city to city, whole houses of Greeks at once and of\nbarbarians, and each one of the hearers by himself, and bringing over to\nthe truth not a few of the philosophers themselves. Now, as for the Greek\nphilosophy, if any one in authority offers it hindrance, forthwith it\ndisappears; whereas our doctrine, from its very first announcement, has\nbeen thwarted by kings and tyrants, and magistrates, and governors, with\nall their satellites and men innumerable, who make war upon us, and do\ntheir utmost to cut us off. For all which it flourishes the more. For it\ndoes not die out like a human doctrine, nor fade away like a weak gift,\nsince no gift of God is weak; but it continues unhindered, having the\nprophecy that it shall be persecuted to the end.\"[198]\n\nIf such was the marvel of conversion, viewed in itself, it is well also\nto listen to another eye-witness of the consequences which this change of\nlife brought with it. The heathen objected that Christians ought to be\nthankful for the sufferings which they wanted. Tertullian replied:\n\n\"Well, it is quite true that it is our desire to suffer, but it is in the\nway that the soldier longs for war. No one indeed suffers willingly,\nsince suffering necessarily implies fear and danger. Yet the man who\nobjected to the conflict both fights with all his strength, and, when\nvictorious, he rejoices in the battle, because he reaps from it glory and\nspoil. It is our battle to be summoned to your tribunals, that there,\nunder fear of execution, we may battle for the truth. But the day is won\nwhen the object of the struggle is gained. This victory of ours gives us\nthe glory of pleasing God, and the spoil of life eternal. But we are\novercome--yes, when we have obtained our wishes. Therefore we conquer in\ndying: we go forth victorious at the very time we are subdued. Call us,\nif you like, Sarmenticii and Semaxii, because, bound to a half-axle\nstake, we are burnt in a circle heap of faggots. This is the attitude in\nwhich we conquer; it is our victory-robe; it is for us a sort of\ntriumphal car. Naturally enough, therefore, we do not please the\nvanquished; on account of this, indeed, we are counted a desperate,\nreckless race. But the very desperation and recklessness you object to in\nus, among yourselves lift high the standard of virtue in the cause of\nglory and of fame. Mucius, of his own will, left his right hand on the\naltar: what sublimity of mind! Empedocles gave his whole body at Catana\nto the fires of Etna: what mental resolution! A certain foundress of\nCarthage gave herself away in second marriage to the funeral pile: what a\nnoble witness of her chastity! Regulus, not wishing that his one life\nshould count for the lives of many enemies, endured these crosses over\nall his frame: how brave a man, even in captivity a conqueror!\nAnaxarchus, when he was being beaten to death by a barley-pounder, cried\nout, 'Beat on, beat on at the case of Anaxarchus; no stroke falls on\nAnaxarchus himself.' O magnanimity of the philosopher, who even in such\nan end had jokes upon his lips! I omit all reference to those who with\ntheir own sword, or with any other milder form of death, have bargained\nfor glory. Nay, see how even torture-contests are crowned by you. The\nAthenian courtezan, having wearied out the executioner, at last bit off\nher tongue, and spat it in the face of the raging tyrant, that she might\nat the same time spit away her power of speech, nor be longer able to\nconfess her fellow-conspirators, if, even overcome, that might be her\ninclination. Zeno, the eleatic, when he was asked by Dionysius what good\nphilosophy did, on answering that it gave contempt of death, was, all\nunquailing, given over to the tyrant's scourge, and sealed his opinion\neven to the death. We all know how the Spartan lash, applied with the\nutmost cruelty, under the very eyes of friends encouraging, confers on\nthose who bear it honour proportionate to the blood which the young man\nshed. O glory legitimate because it is human, for whose sake it is\nreckoned neither reckless fool-hardiness nor desperate obstinacy to\ndespise death itself and all sorts of savage treatment, for whose sake\nyou may, for your native place, for the empire, for friendship, endure\nall you are forbidden to do for God! And you cast statues in honour of\npersons such as these, and you put inscriptions upon images, and cut out\nepitaphs on tombs, that their names may never perish. In so far as you\ncan by your monuments, you yourselves afford a sort of resurrection to\nthe dead. Yet he who expects the true resurrection from God is insane if\nfor God he suffers. But go zealously on, good presidents; you will stand\nhigher with the people if you sacrifice the Christians at their wish.\nKill us, torture us, condemn us, grind us to dust; your injustice is the\nproof that we are innocent. Therefore it is of God's permitting (not of\nyour mere will) that we thus suffer. For but very lately, in condemning a\nChristian woman to infamy rather than to the lion, you made confession\nthat a taint on our purity is considered among us something more terrible\nthan any punishment and any death. Nor does your cruelty, however\nexquisite, avail you; it is rather a temptation to us. The oftener we are\nmown down by you, the more in number we grow; the blood of Christians is\nseed. Many of your writers exhort to the courageous bearing of pain and\ndeath, as Cicero in the Tusculans, as Seneca in his Chances, as Diogenes,\nPyrrhus, Callinicus. And yet their words do not find so many disciples as\nChristians do, teachers not by words, but by their deeds. That very\nobstinacy you rail against is the preceptress; for who that contemplates\nit is not excited to inquire what is at the bottom of it? Who, after\ninquiry, does not embrace our doctrines? and when he has embraced them,\ndesires not to suffer that he may become partaker of the fulness of God's\ngrace, that he may obtain from God complete forgiveness by giving in\nexchange his blood? For that secures the remission of all offences. On\nthis account it is that we return thanks on the very spot for your\nsentences. As the divine and human are ever opposed to each other, when\nwe are condemned by you we are acquitted by the Highest.\"[199]\n\nOrigen, in replying to the attacks of a very subtle and able Platonic\nphilosopher of the second century, appeals again and again to the divine\npower shown forth in the conversion of so many, and among them of those\nwho had previously been the slaves of sin. Heathen philosophy could boast\nof two converts, Ph\u00e6do and Polemo; on which he says, \"We assert that the\nwhole habitable world contains evidence of the works of Jesus, in the\nexistence of those churches of God which have been founded through Him by\nthose who have been converted from the practice of innumerable sins. And\nthe name of Jesus can still remove distractions from the minds of men,\nand expel demons, and also take away diseases, and produce a marvellous\nmeekness of spirit and complete change of character, and a humanity, and\ngoodness, and gentleness in those individuals who do not feign themselves\nto be Christians for the sake of subsistence or the supply of any mortal\nwants, but who have honestly accepted the doctrine concerning God and\nChrist and the judgment to come.\"\n\nCelsus, unable to resist the miracles which Jesus is recorded to have\nperformed, had on several occasions spoken of them slanderously as works\nof sorcery, to which Origen had severally replied. But he also pointed\nout how far greater a divine power is manifested in healing the maladies\nof the soul than in raising the daughter of Jairus, or the son of the\nwidow of Nain, or Lazarus four days dead; for indeed these miracles were\nthe symbols of the greater things which our Lord promised to do by His\nApostles. \"I would say that, agreeably to the promise of Jesus, His\ndisciples performed even greater works than these miracles of Jesus,\nwhich were perceptible only to the senses. For the eyes of those who are\nblind in soul are ever opened, and the ears of those who were deaf to\nvirtuous words listen readily to the doctrine of God and of the blessed\nlife with Him; and many too who were lame in the feet of the 'inner man,'\nas Scripture calls it, having now been healed by the word, do not simply\nleap, but leap as the hart, which is an animal hostile to serpents, and\nstronger than all the poison of vipers. And these lame who have been\nhealed received from Jesus power to trample with those feet in which they\nwere formerly lame upon the serpents and scorpions of wickedness, and\ngenerally upon all the power of the enemy; and though they tread upon it,\nthey sustain no injury, for they also have become stronger than the\npoison of all evil and of demons.\"\n\nOn this point he dwells further. The Jew introduced by Celsus argued that\nour Lord was a man. Origen replied: \"I do not know whether a man who had\nthe courage to spread throughout the entire world His doctrine of\nreligious worship and teaching could accomplish what He wished without\nthe divine assistance, and could rise superior to all who withstood the\nprogress of His doctrine--kings and rulers, and the Roman Senate and\ngovernors in all places, and the common people. And how could the nature\nof a man possessed of no inherent excellence convert so vast a multitude?\nFor it would not be wonderful if it were only the wise who were so\nconverted; but it is the most irrational of men and those devoted to\ntheir passions, and who, by reason of their irrationality, change with\nthe greater difficulty so as to adopt a more temperate course of life.\nAnd yet it is because Christ was the power of God and the wisdom of the\nFather that He accomplished and still accomplishes such results, although\nneither the Jews nor Greeks who disbelieved His word will so admit. And,\ntherefore, we shall not cease to believe in God, according to the\nprecepts of Jesus Christ, and to seek to convert those who are blind on\nthe subject of religion, although it is they who are truly blind\nthemselves that charge us with blindness; and they, whether Jews or\nGreeks, who lead astray those that follow them, accuse us of seducing\nmen--a good seduction, truly, that they may become temperate instead of\ndissolute, or at least may make advances to temperance; may become just\ninstead of unjust, or at least may tend to become so; prudent instead of\nfoolish, or be on the way to become such; and instead of cowardice,\nmeanness, and timidity, may exhibit the virtues of fortitude and courage,\nespecially displayed in the struggles undergone for the sake of their\nreligion towards God, the Creator of all things.\"\n\nThe wonder of the formation of the Christian community itself was never\nabsent from the mind of those who were eye-witnesses of the heathendom in\nthe bosom of which it arose. The place now occupied in the minds of men\nby the sins of professing Christians was then occupied by the sins of\nheathens in the midst of whom Christians formed so striking a contrast.\nOrigen refers to the moral miracle as supported and in part explained by\nthe material miracle, which, like every writer of those centuries, he\npresupposed and dwelt upon as a fact which was manifest before the eyes\nof every one--a fact which might be ascribed to sorcery, but could not be\ndenied.\n\n\"I think,\" he says, \"the wonders wrought by Jesus are a proof of the Holy\nSpirit's having then appeared in the form of a dove; and I shall refer\nnot only to His miracles, but, as is proper, to those also of the\nApostles of Jesus. For they could not without the help of miracles and\nwonders have prevailed on those who heard their new doctrines and new\nteachings to abandon their national usages and to accept their\ninstructions at the danger to themselves even of death.\" And elsewhere:\n\"Christians, who have in so wonderful a manner formed themselves into a\ncommunity, appear at first to have been more induced by miracles than by\nexhortations to forsake the institutions of their fathers and to adopt\nothers which were quite strange to them. And, indeed, if we were to\nreason from what is probable as to the first formation of the Christian\nsociety, we should say that it is incredible that the Apostles of Jesus\nChrist, who were unlettered men of humble life, could have been\nemboldened to preach Christian truth to men by anything else than the\npower which was conferred upon them, and the grace which accompanied\ntheir words and rendered them effective; and those who heard them would\nnot have renounced the old established usages of their fathers, and been\ninduced to adopt notions so different from those in which they had been\nbrought up, unless they had been moved by some extraordinary power and by\nthe force of miraculous events.\"[200]\n\nThis power of miracles, as inherited by the disciples from their Lord, is\nthus recorded by Iren\u00e6us:[201]--\n\n\"They who are truly His disciples, having received the grace from Him,\neffect it in His name for the good of others in proportion as each\nindividual has received the gift from Him. Some with true and permanent\neffect expel demons, so that in many cases the very persons who have been\ndelivered from the evil spirits believe and are in the Church. Some have\nforeknowledge of future events, visions, and prophetic utterances. Others\nheal sick people by the imposition of their hands and make them whole.\nDead, too, have been raised to life, and have remained with us many\nyears. What shall I say? It is impossible to express the number of the\ngraces which the Church throughout the whole world, having received them\nfrom God, effects every day for the good of the nations in the name of\nJesus Christ who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. And in this she\nneither seduces any nor works for filthy lucre; for what she has freely\nreceived she freely imparts.\"\n\nIn the time of Iren\u00e6us, Clement, Tertullian, and Origen, the proof from\nthe rapid growth of the Church in spite of the world's opposition was by\nno means complete. Moreover, the greatest and most general persecutions,\nthose of Decius, Gallus, Valerian, and Diocletian, came after this.\nProbably the struggle between the Church and the Empire was not\nunderstood in all its bearings before the time of Decius. But we possess\ntwo treatises of Athanasius, composed in his youth, about the year 320.\nThey are extremely beautiful both in style and matter; and in parts of\nthem Athanasius contemplates the whole preceding history of the Church\nand the effects of her preaching the cross of Christ. I take as a\nspecimen what he says about certain miraculous effects worked by the name\nand the cross of Christ, for the truth of which he appeals to universal\nexperience.[202]\n\n\"When did men begin to desert the worship of idols except from the time\nthat the true God, the Word of God, appeared among men? When did the\noracles which were everywhere among the Greeks cease and come to nought,\nsave from the time that the Saviour manifested Himself upon earth? When\ndid the gods and heroes of the poets begin to be condemned as mere mortal\nmen, save from the time that the Lord set up His trophy against death,\nand preserved incorruptible the body which He had taken by raising it\nfrom the dead? And when was the deceit and madness of demons despised,\nsave when the Word, the power of God, the Lord of all, and of these among\nall, in His condescension for the weakness of men, appeared upon the\nearth? When did the art and the schools of magic begin to be trodden\nunderfoot, save upon the manifestation of the Word among men? In a word,\nwhen did the wisdom of the Greeks become foolish, save when the true\nWisdom of God showed Himself on the earth? For of old the whole world and\nevery spot in it was filled with the false worship of idols, and men held\nthat there were no gods but idols. But now through all the world men\ndesert the superstition of idols and fly to Christ, and worship Him as\nGod, through whom they recognise the Father whom they knew not. And\nobserve this wonder. The religions were different and numberless; each\nplace had its own idol, and he that was invoked as god there could not\npass to the next spot to persuade his neighbours to worship him, but\ncould only just maintain his own worship; for no one worshipped his\nneighbour's god, but kept to his own idol, thinking that he was the lord\nof all; whereas the one and same Christ is worshipped everywhere by all;\nand what the impotence of idols could not do to persuade its neighbours,\nthis Christ has done, persuading not only those near, but simply the\nwhole world to worship one and the same Lord, and through Him God His\nFather.\n\n\"Of old, also, everything was full of the deceit of oracles, and those in\nDelphi, and Dodona, and Boeotia, and Libya, and Egypt, and the Kabiri,\nand the Pythia, were admired in men's imagination; but from the time that\nChrist is preached everywhere, this their madness also is stopped, and no\none any longer acts the prophet. And of old the demons deceived men with\nspectres, taking possession of fountains and rivers, of wood and stones,\nand so astonishing the foolish with deceits. All these sights have\nvanished since the Divine Epiphany of the Word; for a man using only the\nsign of the cross scatters all their tricks. Of old men deemed those whom\nthe poets called Zeus, and Kronos, and Apollo, and the heroes, to be\ngods, and were drawn into error by worshipping them; but now that the\nSaviour has appeared among men, these have been reduced to the nakedness\nof mortal men, while Christ has been recognised as alone true God, God\nthe Word of God. What shall I say of the magic which had so much vogue\namong them? Before the Word was spread among us, it prevailed and worked\namong Egyptians, Chaldeans, and Indians, and astonished the beholders;\nbut it was convicted and utterly brought to nought by the presence of the\ntruth and the appearance of the Word. But as to the Grecian wisdom and\nthe big words of the philosophers, I think it needs no word from us when\nthe strange sight is before the eyes of all, that all the volumes written\nby the Greek wise men were not able to persuade even a few neighbours of\nimmortality and virtuous life; while Christ, only by a few cheap words in\nthe mouth of men who had no wisdom of the tongue, has persuaded numerous\nassemblies of men throughout the whole world to despise death and to have\nimmortal longings, to pass by time and see eternity, earth's glory to\nesteem as dust and ashes, and grasp instead of it a crown in heaven.\n\n\"These are not mere words of ours, but appeal to the test of experience\nfor their reality. Let any one who will go and see the proof of virtue in\nChristian virgins and the youths who cultivate purity, and the assurance\nof immortality in the vast multitude of martyrs. He that will try the\ntruth of what we have said, let him upon the appearance of demons, the\ndeceit of oracles, and magic wonders, use the sign of the cross which\nthey mock at, with the mere name of Christ, and he will see how the\ndemons fly, the oracles stop, the whole array of magic and trickery\ndisappears. Who, then, and how great is this Christ who has by His mere\nname and presence cast His shade over and annihilated all these things\neverywhere, who prevails over all alone, and has filled the whole world\nwith His teaching? Let the Greeks who mock and blush not say. Is He a\nman? how then has one man been too much for the power of all their gods,\nand convicted them by His own power of being nothing? Do they call Him a\nmagician? but how can all magic be destroyed by a magician, and not\nrather be confirmed? For if He prevailed over some magicians, or was\nsuperior to one only, He might well be deemed by them to have surpassed\nthe others by greater art; but if His cross carried off the victory over\nall magic absolutely, and the very name of the thing, it is plain that\nthe Saviour is not a magician, since the demons invoked by other\nmagicians fly from Him as their Lord. If He only drove away some demons,\nHe might be thought to have power over the inferior by the chief of the\ndemons, as the Jews mocking said of Him. But if all the fury of the\ndemons is displaced and scattered by naming Him, it is plain they are\nwrong, and that our Lord and Saviour Christ is not, as they think, some\ndemoniacal power. If, then, the Saviour is neither simple man, nor\nmagician, nor a demon, but by His own Godhead has annulled and frustrated\nall the imagination of poets, the display of demons, and the wisdom of\nGreeks, it must be plain and confessed by all that He is truly the Son of\nGod, the Word, and Wisdom, and Power of the Father. Hence His works are\nnot human, but above man's range, and are recognised to be the works of\nGod in truth by their manifest effects, and by the comparison of them\nwith the works of man.\"\n\nAthanasius speaks in these words for the whole period preceding him. The\napologists of the early Church before him[203] lay the most stress in\nproving her divine character upon five things--the predictions of the Old\nTestament, the miracles of Jesus and the Apostles, the miraculous power\ncontinuing on in Christians, the rapid propagation of the Church, and the\nsteadfast endurance of confessors under persecution. Our Lord Himself\nlaid the greatest weight upon the proof arising from prophecy, and from\nthe works of power, themselves announced in prophecy, which He did, \"the\nworks of the Christ.\" His answer to the disciples of John the Baptist\nincluded both. In fact, He came among a people possessing a divinely\nappointed priesthood and office of teaching, which He expressly\nacknowledged when He said, \"The Scribes and the Pharisees sit in the\nchair of Moses; all things, therefore, whatsoever they shall say to you,\nobserve and do.\" But He did not in any way attach Himself to this\nauthority, much less submit to it in His office of teaching. If we\nreflect on the fact that He did not submit Himself to the authority which\nHe acknowledged to be divine, yet claimed supreme authority, it is\nobvious that without miracles He could claim no authority as the Christ.\nAnd He said so most plainly Himself when He summed up, as it were, the\nwhole bearing of His ministry towards the Jewish authorities in the\nwords, \"If I had not done among them such works as no man ever did, they\nshould not have sin; but now have they both seen and hated both Me and My\nFather.\"\n\nThus, as in His own life, so likewise in the life of His people, miracles\nand prophecy were of necessity the double external witness to His\nmission, as martyrdom, including under it every degree of confessorship,\nwas the great internal witness.\n\nAnd every ancient Christian writer alleges the existence and the exercise\nof miraculous power in the Church. But there is also another fact; not\nonly all Christians, but Jews and heathens of every class, the bitterest\nopponents of the Christian faith, agreed in one point, namely, that\nsuperhuman[204] power was at work in the world, and in the whole life of\nman, by which works exceeding man's ability, and often transgressing the\nlaws of nature, were wrought. They were eye-witnesses of these works.\nAbout a great number of them, so far at least as the fact was concerned,\nthey could not be deceived, though they might be deceived as to the\nnature of the cause.\n\nWithout martyrdom and also without miracles the conversion which took\nplace between the Day of Pentecost and the Edict of Toleration in 313 was\nnot even conceivable. Let us consider the bond which connects the two\ntogether.\n\nThe Christian faith itself rests upon two miracles. The first is the\nassumption of human nature by the Divine Word, the Second Person in the\nBlessed Trinity, in the womb of the Virgin Mary. This act of the divine\ncondescension is so transcendent in all its bearings as not merely to\nsurpass the order of nature, but to be, as it were, the parent of\nmiraculous power in all that supernatural order which it creates and\nmaintains. It is the fontal source of grace to man, of his first creation\nin grace, the first Adam himself being the image of the Second who was to\nbe, and for whose sake the whole creation was made. Take away from the\nChristian faith that \"Gospel of Mary\" which St. Luke has recorded in the\nmission of the Angel Gabriel to her, and that faith is not only altered,\nbut it ceases to be. Everything which the Christian believes and hopes\ndepends, in fact, upon that miracle of miracles, the union of the divine\nnature with the human in the Person of Jesus Christ. Therefore all His\nchildren are born of a miracle, nurtured upon a miracle, live and hope\nand suffer and die in faith of a miracle, so great, so peculiar, so\ninconceivable beforehand, that all other miracles are but its progeny.\n\nBut, secondly, the very existence of this first miracle was guaranteed\nand made known by another--the resurrection of Jesus Christ in that very\nBody bearing the marks of the nails and the wound of the spear in which\nHe was crucified. It was faith in this resurrection which sent forth a\nCollege of twelve unlettered men to convert the world, and by that faith\nthey converted it, so far at least that the diadem of its emperors was\nsurmounted by the cross of Christ. They and their successors who went\nforth in the same faith were misused, calumniated, persecuted, tormented\nto death in every shape and fashion, until Constantine saw the token in\nthe sky and placed it on his banner.\n\nWhat, then, we have said as to the Incarnation we may also say as to the\nResurrection of Christ; take it away, and the Christian people have no\nlonger a foundation on which to rest. They would simply cease to be.\n\nThey are, therefore, doubly the children of miracle.\n\nThey were thus from the beginning--and they could not but be--instinct\nwith the sense of miracle.\n\nBut these two miracles were no less the ground of martyrdom and of all\nthat life, consisting in the endurance and even choice of suffering,\nhardship, privation of every kind, of which martyrdom is the seal and\ncrown. The connection between miracle and martyrdom seems to be this: The\nIncarnation of our Lord is the very reason of miraculous power being\nexhibited in the world, just as His assumption of human nature is itself\nthe miracle of miracles. The purpose of all miracle is to bring home to\nthe creature a special action of the Creator as Governor of the world,\nbut the head and crown as well as the starting-point of such special\naction is, in our actual world, the miracle of the Incarnation.\n\nAgain, the original need of miraculous action springs from the moral\ndarkness superinduced by the Fall, which the Incarnation repairs. The\nangelic world, while under probation, or any world of rational creatures\nunfallen, needs no miracles. And all miracles anterior to Christ are part\nof a chain of events leading on to Him, just as all martyrs before Christ\nhave their reason of existence in Him alone. The occasion of martyrdom is\nthe enmity between the seed of the serpent and the Seed of the Woman, and\nmiracle is from beginning to end the hand of God showing itself in the\ncontest. \"All the just,\" says St. Augustine,[205] \"who have been from the\nbeginning of the world have Christ for their Head. For they believed in\nthe future coming of that One whom we believe to have come, and they were\nhealed by faith in the same One by faith in whom we are healed, that He\nmight be head of the whole city Jerusalem.\" And the most inspired of\nChristian poets, when he beheld the great rose of Paradise flowering with\nthe saints of all times, divided them by their preceding or following the\ncoming of Christ:\n\n \"Da questa parte, onde 'l fiore \u00e8 maturo\n Di tutte le sue foglie, sono assisi\n Quei che credettero in Cristo venturo\n Dall' altra parte, onde sono intercisi\n Di v\u00f4to i semicircoli, si stanno\n Quei ch' a Cristo venuto ebber li visi.\"\n\n --_Paradiso_, c. 32, 22.\n\nIn like manner the Apostle commences his illustration of the life of\nfaith by the martyrdom of Abel, \"who being dead yet speaketh.\" Thus the\none life pleasing to God from the beginning to the end is identical in\nits substance, and shows the oneness of the divine plan, commencing its\nexecution in the very family of the first man. There the just loses his\nlife for his justice' sake, and Abel becomes the type of Christ and of\nall who follow the Divine Master. So St. John the Baptist, marking the\ntransition from the old covenant to the new, the precursor of our Lord,\nwith the triple aureole of virginity, doctorship, and martyrdom, gives up\nhis life to maintain the sanctity of marriage.\n\nFurther, the Passion of our Lord is the source of martyrdom; and union\nwith Him, especially in the act of His Passion, is the cause of all the\neffects which martyrdom produces. As He said, in reference to His coming\nPassion, of Himself, \"Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and\ndie, it remaineth alone, but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit;\" so\nTertullian said of His people, \"The blood of Christians is seed.\" In\nmartyrdom lies the perpetuation of faith in Christ. He stands in the\nmidst of the ages, as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world,\nworking backwards and forwards. The shedding of Abel's blood, the first\nblood shed, and the blood of the brother shed by the brother, points to\nthe shedding of Christ's blood; and so in the interval between Abel and\nChrist the blood of all the just ones is shed for the hope of Christ. As\nall martyrdom preceding Him was for the hope of Him, so all following is\nin remembrance and participation of Him.\n\nThere is a strong parallel between miracle and martyrdom as to their\nprinciple, their witness, their power, and their perpetuity.\n\n1. First, as to _principle_. The conception of miracle springs at once\nfrom the doctrine of God the Creator, Orderer, and Maintainer of the\nuniverse, united with the doctrine of the Fall of man and the ignorance\nthence superinduced, and requiring to be dissipated by an objective\nconfirmation of the truth. This confirmation is produced when He suspends\nthat order of nature which He has impressed on things. \"The divine power\ncan at any time, without prejudice to His providence, do something\nbeyond the order impressed on natural things by God. This is the very\nthing which He sometimes does to manifest His power. For in no manner can\nit be better shown that all nature is subject to the divine will than by\nthis, that sometimes He does something beyond the order of nature; for by\nthis it is made to appear that the order of things proceeded from God,\nnot by a necessity of His nature, but by His free-will.\"[206]\n\nOn the other hand, the conception of miracles is incompatible with the\nnotion of a power evolving itself by a strict necessity in the universe.\nThis involves at the same time the rejection of the notion of sin as a\nviolation of the eternal law. For the evolution itself is the only law\nadmitted, and is incapable of sin, which arises from the misuse of the\nliberty of the will. A world evolved by eternal necessity denies any\nliberty to the will. In this the Positivist and Materialist of the\npresent day only take the position which the Stoic took of old. All the\nthree deny miracle, because they deny creation.\n\nAnd the principle of martyrdom is the intimate union between Christ and\nChristians, whereby the Head and His members form one Body. The community\nin suffering rests on this. At the head of persecution is the statement\nof our Lord Himself (the narrative of which, it may be remarked, is given\nthree times in the Acts), \"Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me?\" Thus a\nmartyr said to martyrs, \"He who once conquered death for us is ever\nconquering death in us. You know that you are contending under the eyes\nof your present Lord; that by the confession of His name you reach His\nown glory. For He is not as if He was only looking at His servants, but\nHe wrestles Himself, He combats Himself in them; in the contest of our\nstruggle, Himself both crowns and is crowned.\"[207]\n\nThe martyr Felicitas underwent in prison the sufferings of premature\nchildbirth. One of the attendants remarked to her, \"You who so much show\nyour suffering now, what will you do when you are thrown before the wild\nbeasts, which you despised when you refused to sacrifice?\" And she\nanswered, \"It is I who suffer now that which I suffer; but then there\nwill be another in me who will suffer for me, because I also shall be\nsuffering for Him.\" On which St. Augustine comments: \"It was He who\ncaused women to suffer with faith and the courage of men who deigned in\nHis mercy for their sake to be born of a woman.... Eve's penalty was not\nabsent, but Mary's grace was present. What she owed as a woman was\nexacted; what she needed in help was given by the Virgin's Son.\"[208]\n\n2. As to the _witness_ of miracles, in matter of fact the objective proof\nof our Lord's mission as Messias and Son of God was based, both in His\nown life and in the propagation of His faith, upon miracles viewed in a\ndouble light--first, as they are in themselves, and secondly, as the\nfulfilment of prophecy. \"To confirm doctrines which surpass natural\nknowledge He showed visibly works which surpass natural power, by the\nhealing of the sick, the raising of the dead, and, what is more\nwonderful, the inspiration of human minds, so that untaught and simple\nmen, filled with the gift of the Holy Spirit, obtained in an instant the\nutmost wisdom and readiness of speech; so that not by the violence of\narms, not by the promise of pleasures, but amid the tyranny of\npersecutors, an innumerable multitude, not merely of simple, but of the\nwisest men was drawn into the Christian faith. They preached doctrines\nsurpassing man's understanding; they set a restraint on carnal pleasures;\nthey taught contempt for everything that is in the world. It would be the\nmost marvellous of all marvels if the world without miracles had been led\nto the belief of doctrines so difficult, the working of deeds so arduous,\nthe hoping of rewards so exalted, by simple and ignoble men.\"[209]\n\nThe witness of martyrdom is expressed in its very name, that they who\nsuffered death for the sake of Christ were simply called witnesses. The\nanalogy with miracles is very strong indeed, the one being the witness of\nGod attesting the truth of His messengers by visible signs, which suspend\nor reverse the order which He has Himself established as a general rule;\nthe other being the witness of men who suffer all those things from which\nthe nature of man recoils in order to attest the truth of God.\n\n3. As to the _power_ exercised by miracles over the minds of men, the\nvictory over idolatry and the whole heathen life, which was the\nreflection of that idolatry, could not have been accomplished--all other\npowers remaining in the Church--without this one. In fact, a diabolic\nspiritual power, termed by our Lord \"the strong man armed,\" being, as the\nresult of the Fall, in possession of his captive, could only be cast out\nby One stronger than he, the Son of God Incarnate. The series of miracles\nwrought by His disciples were the arms which He used. His name alone when\ninvoked by them is attested in numberless instances to have had a\nsupernatural effect.\n\nAs to the power exercised by martyrdom, the whole history is full of that\nvictory over idolatry and the heathen life which was accomplished by the\nsuffering of our Lord's disciples in His name and in community with Him.\nOver and above the effect which the voluntary endurance of suffering for\nconscience' sake has upon the minds of men, martyrdom merited the\npropagation of the faith as if our Lord's Passion required to be repeated\nin His members for the growth of His Body. Such is the fact expressed by\nSt. Paul in the words, \"I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up\nthose things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ in my flesh for\nHis Body, which is the Church.\" And, again, \"As the sufferings of Christ\nabound in us, so also by Christ doth our comfort abound.\" In this\nmartyrdom threw a light upon the divine government of the world; and as\nthe reversibility of guilt had formed the history of fallen man, so the\nreversibility of merit formed the history of man redeemed. Thus over\nagainst the abyss of judgment lies the abyss of grace, the\ntreasure-house of the Church, of which the King of martyrs holds the key.\nThat treasure-house is the communion of saints. The power of martyrdom is\none of its great exhibitions. Its source is the Incarnation of the Son.\nTaking the mass of sufferings undergone by the mystical Body of Christ in\nthe process of its growth, there is nothing in the web of human guilt,\nhow intricate soever it may be, from the beginning to the end of the\nworld, which has not its counterpart in the reversibility of merit, all\nderived from the Passion of the Incarnate Son.\n\n4. As to the _perpetuity_ of the miraculous power, the same reason exists\nthrough the whole course of the Church's preaching for the signs in her\nfollowing them that believe. The promise is most clearly recorded at the\nconclusion of St. Mark's Gospel, without limit of time or place. The\nperformance in this first age, when she had to meet all the tyranny of\nrulers and all the rage of unbelievers, is recorded also. The promise\nclearly extends to the whole time over which the command relating to it\nextends: \"Go ye unto the whole world, and preach the gospel to every\ncreature.\"\n\nAs to the perpetuity of martyrdom, it is clear, to use St. Paul's\nexpression, that what is wanting of the sufferings of Christ will not be\nmade up until His Body is completed \"in the measure of the stature of the\nfulness of Christ.\"\n\nIn all these respects the two great powers of miracle and martyrdom,\nunited in their origin, seem to run into and complete each other. The\nwitness of God and the witness of man concur in the formation of the\nkingdom of His Son.\n\nIt may also be noted that all those who reject God as Creator, Judge, and\nRemunerator proclaim as a first principle that a miracle is impossible,\nwhile they have the same dislike to martyrdom as the great adversary is\nsaid to have for holy water.\n\nI have now, then, answered the question which I put above--How came the\nRoman Emperor to allow to Christians the liberty to render to God the\nthings of God, that is, to believe, to worship, and to be governed\naccording to the law of Christ? It was done by an internal action of the\nHoly Spirit, forming by a process of individual conversion in the minds\nof an innumerable multitude a certain type of Christian character, an\nimage in each one of the Founder of the line; and at the same time by an\nexternal action of the same Holy Spirit co-operating in this conversion\n\"with signs following.\" Never before were the divine and the human\nsocieties pitted against each other in so absolute a conflict. Perhaps it\nis even the only period as yet in the 1850 years of Christian life in\nwhich the Battle of the Standards, of poverty, affliction, and contempt\non the one side, of the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the\npride of life on the other, has been completely carried out--completely\nin that the representation on each side embraced the whole society. For\nif any would not be poor, afflicted, and despised in those times, either\nthey could not become Christians, or becoming so in times of comparative\npeace, they were speedily scattered by the winnowing flail of\npersecution. But on the other side, the combative heathenism from\nTiberius to Maxentius was pre-eminently corrupt. It should be added, that\nin the 1850 years, never has there been so astonishing a result as the\nadvance of the Christian Church, from those who met in the upper room on\nthe Day of Pentecost to those who received from Constantine perfect civil\nfreedom to believe that doctrine, to exercise that worship, to be\ngoverned by that Episcopate, which formed together the greatest\nconceivable contradiction to the heathen world of Augustus. It was the\nresult of ten generations, sanctified by suffering and multiplied by\nmartyrdom.\n\nThere is another point of view also in which this period should be\nregarded. What did these champions of conscience do for that very civil\norder of things to which in their character of Christians they had so\noften to refuse obedience, and to say simply, in the words of their first\nleader, \"We ought to obey God rather than men\"?\n\nThey conferred upon all future generations of men an inestimable benefit,\nfor they established the doctrine that the individual man has rights\nwhich the collective society of men may not violate. They overthrew the\nautocracy of the State, which had crushed out the heart of humanity.\n\nDuring those ages, after the conversion of the original Roman\ncommonwealth into the C\u00e6sarean empire, there was no guarantee of civil\nliberty. From the city which only refused fire and water to its guiltiest\ncitizens, the Empire had grown into a power wherein a charge of majestas\njustified the application of every torment to the accused; and the charge\nof majestas was ever at hand in the case of a Christian. If Augustus,\nthough he slaughtered without mercy when his interests were concerned,\nstudied to give his rule the aspect of moderation, the emperors his\nsuccessors became more and more uncontrolled. Not only had they\nlegislative power, but the imprisonment and the execution of any\nobnoxious person was entirely in their hands. In this long period of 284\nyears, Christians without number suffered loss of goods, confinement in\nloathsome dungeons, separation from their families, and finally death\nitself under torment and insult, because they would worship Christ as\nGod, because they would not swear by the genius of the Emperor, because\nthey would not burn a few grains of incense on the altar of an idol,\nbecause one who had dedicated herself to God would not marry, because a\nsoldier would not carry out an impious command, for any of the\ninnumerable reasons for which they were offensive to the world, which the\nworld called \"their hatred of the human race,\" that being the phrase of\nthe day for the Kulturkampf.\n\nThus they suffered and they died, and in so suffering and dying they\nconstructed a new basis of civil liberty. For this it was which the\nChurch's creation of the Spiritual Power betokened. It meant the\nestablishment of the Christian conscience not merely in the individual,\nbut in the great world-wide corporation of the Church, which thus formed\nan impregnable citadel of defence against civil absolution, by cutting\noff from it the triple domain of the Church's priesthood, teaching, and\njurisdiction. What heathenism had destroyed by corrupting the worship of\nthe one true God into a multitude of false gods, the Church restored by\nsetting up the worship of the Blessed Trinity; and the priesthood, which\nunutterable degradations had humbled in the dust of human passions and\nvices, the Church took from the Body of her Lord, dyed red in blood, and\ninvested with the imperishable sanctity of the Priest after the order of\nMelchisedek; and that kingship which Nero and Domitian, Elagabalus and\nGalerius, had stained with unspeakable crimes, it renewed in the example\nof those princes over all the earth who ruled not as the kings of the\nGentiles, but as Fathers in God. Christian monarchy is the Church's work,\nand the Christian State became possible because the Christian people in\ntimes of authority which was cruel, and of majesty which was selfish, had\nshown the example of rulers who governed for their people's sake,\ngoverned by the authority of One who created the government of His people\nwhen He said by the Lake of Galilee to the disciple who should be the\ntype and mould and origin of the episcopate for ever, \"If thou lovest Me,\nfeed My sheep.\"\n\nThis was a purifying and ennobling of civil society wrought by the Church\nover and above its spiritual end. The kingdom of heaven, whilst it\nlimited, also invigorated the earthly kingdom, showing that Christians\nalone are freemen, by exercising the highest of all freedoms in belief,\nin worship, and in obedience to spiritual government, and in the conduct\nwhich is their united result.\n\nRetracing the ground we have traversed, we find that the Church, between\nthe Day of Pentecost and the Edict of Toleration, passed unscathed and\nvictorious through five great trials, which were calculated to test to\nthe utmost the power vested in her. Two of these conflicts--that with\nJudaism and that with heresy--were internal, and three--the conflict with\nidolatry, that with Greek and Oriental philosophy, and that with the\ncivil power of the Roman Empire--were external. Moreover, while one of\nthese conflicts--that with the enmity of the unbelieving Jews, and the\nspirit which urged the obligation of the ceremonial law upon the\nChristian Church--raged chiefly in the first forty years, and was greatly\nassuaged in its influence by the destruction of the city and temple of\nJerusalem, the remaining four contests lasted continuously, and acted\nwith collective force against the Church during the whole period. For as\nto heresy, it was rife from the time of the Apostles themselves. Those\nwho became Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, were all themselves\nexposed to the danger of intellectual and moral seduction: we find,\nindeed, that some of the most distinguished converts yielded to it, such\nas Tatian and Tertullian. Those especially who in middle age had passed\nover from heathen customs and a youth perhaps spent in the study of\nHellenic literature and philosophy into the Christian confession, would\nnaturally remain all their lives liable to the danger of false teaching,\nif they were not guarded from it by the utmost purity of life, and not\nonly sincerity but humility of mind. Certainly no period of the Church's\nhistory shows a greater number of sects than this.\n\nAnother enemy which the Church had from the beginning, and which\ncontinued in the utmost force through the whole time, was idolatry, and\nthat whole contexture of life of which it was first the prolific source,\nthen the vigilant nurse and the constant support. Every part of Gentile\nlife was flavoured by the spirit of the false worship--the passions of\nthe young, the ambitions of middle life, the avarice of age. Its power\nwas all around the Church, to corrupt morals, to pervert belief, to\nsensualise worship. As we have seen above, Christian writers dwell upon\nthe fact that vast numbers of those who became Christians had previously\nbeen stained with heathen vices: those who had yielded to all manner of\nsensual passions became chaste: those who had revelled in pride of\nintellect became humble. But what a force of opposition to the spread of\nthe Christian religion did the moral state of the great cities in which\nit had its principal seats present! Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Ephesus,\nCorinth and Carthage were the very centres of all moral corruption when\nthe Christian seed was dropped upon them. This glamour of the heathen\nlife was an enemy the intensity and ubiquity of whose power lasted\nwithout intermission from the beginning to the end of the time.\n\nFrom the beginning likewise to the end the heathen philosophy, whether\nGreek or Oriental, or in that amalgam of both which probably formed the\ntexture of cultured minds in this period, was a most dangerous and\ninfluential foe. Against this also the Apostles themselves warn their\nconverts. From a very early time indeed the Gnostic sects put up the\npantheistic unity of the philosophic God against the Christian Trinity in\nUnity. They tried to convert the Divine Logos into an \u00e6on. Led by their\ndoctrine that the essential seat of evil was in matter, they attacked\nChrist in His human nature, denying the verity of His Body. They\nconstructed divine theogonies with all the brilliance of the Eastern\nimagination and all the cleverness of Greek subtilty; and many who\nresisted the foulness of heathen idolatry were led away by fantastic\nschemes of spiritual unity--by pantheism in one of its many shapes. This\nenemy also lasted through the whole period: the Gnostic systems passed\ninto the Neoplatonic, perhaps the most dangerous enemy which the Church\nencountered in the three hundred years, and Arianism itself was but a\nmodification of Gnostic error.\n\nBut heresy, idolatry, and philosophy were helped throughout by that\njealousy of the Civil Power, the most marked perhaps in the best rulers,\nsuch as Trajan and Decius, which abhorred above all things the formation\nof an independent religious community in its bosom. How would an emperor\nof cultivated tastes and incessant curiosity, such as Hadrian, exult over\nthe divisions of heresies and the varying systems of philosophy, looking\ndown on them all from his superior height! Iren\u00e6us observed that\nheresies had no martyrs--the State did not persecute them. And philosophy\ndid not die for its belief; its essence was free thought--that is, the\nlicense to change to-morrow what it asserted to-day. But how would a\nmonarchy which scrupled to authorise a guild of firemen in a provincial\ncity, lest it should form the nucleus of a secret society, abhor the\ngrowth of a Church which had its centre in Rome and a governor in every\ncity, bound to the centre at Rome by the accord of a common faith, a\ncommon worship, and the undivided rule of a single people, the _corpus\nChristianorum_! Therefore heresy, idolatry, and philosophy were the\nfriends and allies of the Civil Power throughout this time. It patronised\nthem, and it could use all their influence, their resources, and their\nintellect against the insurgent Church, while all the time it had at its\ncommand every punishment which force can inflict on those who disregard\nthe laws of an empire. To be a Christian was to violate the Roman\nmajestas.\n\nOver against these five enemies the Church received her spiritual\nauthority from the Person of her Lord; she planted it through her\nepiscopate over the earth; she maintained her one doctrine in the\nteaching of that episcopate, her one worship in the sacrifice which it\neverywhere offered; she worked out her independence in her organic growth\nof structure, in the mode of her teaching, in her resistance to error of\nevery sort and kind; and, finally, the empire which had used every arm\nagainst her, acknowledged her doctrine, her worship, and her government,\nand her essential independence in all these as the kingdom of Christ,\nwhen Constantine appeared at the Nicene Council, not to control, but to\ncarry into effect its decision, and when he wrote concerning it, \"The\nsentence of the three hundred bishops is nothing else but the decision of\nGod; especially since the Holy Spirit, by His action upon the minds of\nsuch men, has brought into full light the divine will.\"[210]\n\nWhen the Emperor of Rome, the successor of Tiberius, gave official\nutterance to such words, he showed that the blood of martyrs shed through\nten generations, the endurance of confessors, the labours of priests who\nrefused the joys of domestic life in their imitation of the Virgin's Son,\nthe continence of those who carried out in themselves the vow of the\nVirgin Mother of that Son, and what is included in all these, the\ngeneration of the Christian people, had done their appointed work; and so\nthe kingdom of C\u00e6sar recognised the kingdom of Christ.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[182] See Josephus, Jud. Antiq., l. 18, c. 4.\n\n[183] See St. Basil, Ep. 141.\n\n[184] For instances, see the utmost incredible account in De Civitate Dei\nvi. 9; and, again, Clement of Alexandria, Cohortatio, p. 81 (Potter's ed.);\nwhat I have said is in exact accordance with St. Athanasius, de Inc. Verbi,\nsec. 46.\n\n[185] A fragment of this apology is preserved for us in Eusebius' History,\niv. 26.\n\n[186] 1 Cor. xv. 6.\n\n[187] As Baur, Die drei ersten Jahrhunderte, p. 464, attests.\n\n[188] St. Greg. I Epist. xi. 66.\n\n[189] Iren\u00e6us, iv. 33, 9.\n\n[190] Eusebius, Hist., v. 1.\n\n[191] Clement, Strom., ii. 20, p. 494, tous gn\u00f4stikous, tous tou kosmou\nmeizonas.\n\n[192] Apologeticus, cap. 12.\n\n[193] 1 Cor. i. 17, ii. 9.\n\n[194] See Schwane, Dogmengeschichte, i. 557.\n\n[195] Panegyric of the Martyrs by the Deacon Constantine.\n\n[196] Clement of Alex., Cohortatio, sec. 10, p. 85. It might be fruitful to\ncompare the view of the world taken by the Christian Clement with that\ntaken by the pessimist Schopenhauer.\n\n[197] The words inserted seem here to have fallen out of the text.\n\n[198] Clement of Alex., Strom. vi., at the end.\n\n[199] Tertullian, Apology, 50; Edinburgh translation.\n\n[200] Cont. Cels., 1, 67; 2, 48; 2, 79; 1, 46; 8, 47; Edinburgh\ntranslation.\n\n[201] Iren\u00e6us, 2, 32.\n\n[202] Athanasius, De Incarnatione Verbi Dei, c. 46-48.\n\n[203] Gieseler, i. 208.\n\n[204] As admitted by Friedl\u00e4nder, Sittengeschichte Roms., iii. 458, 459,\nand see the argument of Celsus in Origen, 8, 45.\n\n[205] On Psalm xxxvi. 3.\n\n[206] St. Thomas, Cont. Gent., 3, 99.\n\n[207] St. Cyprian, Ep. 8.\n\n[208] Sermon 281.\n\n[209] St. Thomas, Contra Gent., 1, 6.\n\n[210] Constantine's letter to the Church of Alexandria, recorded by\nSocrates, Hist. 1, 9.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX.\n\n\n ADAM, Father and Head of his race, 3;\n does not lose the Headship by his fall, 11;\n is likewise Priest and Teacher of his race, 14-16;\n created in full possession of language, 5;\n has an infused knowledge of the animal creation, 5;\n has the Image and Likeness of God both as an Individual and as Head\n of his race, 6;\n subserves the mystery of the Incarnation, 8;\n as does the whole society founded in Adam and his children, 55.\n\n \u00c6schylus, his rigid statement of satisfaction due for sin, 260.\n\n Alexandria: its catechetical school, 345;\n becomes a Christian university, 385;\n its succession of ten distinguished presidents, 386.\n\n Altar, the heathen, on which beasts were sacrificed, b\u00f4mos, the\n Christian, on which the Unbloody Sacrifice is offered,\n thusiast\u00earion, 232.\n\n Apostolate, the powers conveyed to it by Christ, 136, 138, 139, 149-151;\n summary of these powers, 154, 155, 159;\n (See PRIMACY and EPISCOPATE).\n\n Aquinas, St. Thomas, his doctrine of the subordination of the Temporal\n to the Spiritual Power, grounded upon the superiority of the\n end pursued by the latter, 123;\n Miracles a proof that the order of things proceeds from God, not by\n necessity of nature, but by His free-will, 450;\n the conversion of the world without miracles would have been the most\n marvellous of all marvels, 452;\n marks that sacrifice must be offered to God alone, 256;\n his statement of the supernatural government tending to a supernatural\n end, 94-96;\n sums up patristic doctrine on the Eucharist in his hymn, Lauda Sion,\n 274.\n\n Athanasius, St., represents the principles on which the ante-nicene\n Church maintained the faith, 389;\n how he states the authority of Scripture, 370;\n the rule of faith, 392;\n what he thinks of private judgment, 393;\n his tests of heresy, 393;\n on ecclesiastical definitions, 394;\n says Scripture and Tradition are united in the Church's magisterium,\n 395;\n how he accounts for the cessation of idolatry, oracles, and magic,\n 440-443.\n\n Athenagoras, his conversion, 383.\n\n Augustine, St., his description of the \"Connection of Ages\" down to\n Christ, and from him, xxx-xxxii;\n witnessed the Catholic Church, but did not foresee Christendom, xxxiv;\n his description of the Two Cities, xxxvii;\n attests that the shedding of blood in sacrifice from the beginning\n points to the sacrifice of Christ, 15, 255;\n that the Christian Sacrifice is the principle of unity to Christ's\n mystical Body, 276;\n how he understood the \"One Episcopate,\" 280;\n mentions thousands of bishops as existing in 314 A.D., 216;\n why he saw in the Church the Godhead of its Founder, 280;\n his testimony to the force of the Catholic Church upon his mind,\n 165, 229;\n the number, names, and offices of heathen deities, 407;\n the seven churches in the apocalypse signify the fulness of the one\n Church, 174;\n his rule that what has been always kept in the Church, without being\n ordered by a council, is of apostolical authority, 296;\n complains of judgments as to secular matters being pressed upon\n him, 306;\n forbids the words of the creed to be written down, 348;\n comments on an answer of St. Felicitas, 451.\n\n\n BABYLON, type of the kingdom of force, xxvi;\n identified with heathen Rome by St. Peter and St. John, xxix.\n\n Basil, St., places the nature of God outside the conception of number,\n 406.\n\n Baur, Die drei ersten Jahrhunderte, 364, 366;\n Constantine's view of the Church, 416;\n sees the episcopal idea in the angels of the seven churches, 174.\n\n Bernard, St., his comment on the sheep committed to Peter, 178.\n\n Bianchi, Potest\u00e0 della Chi\u00e8sa, on the honour given by the Gentiles to\n their priesthood, 60, 63, 64;\n how St. Jerome says that bishops, priests, and deacons succeed the\n high-priest, priests, and Levites of the Mosaic hierarchy, 191;\n the bishop's office an arch\u00ea, 219;\n selects five points of the Church's organic growth, 296;\n the Apostles follow their Lord's example in placing power in a head,\n 298;\n distribution of episcopal jurisdiction from the beginning, 300;\n on the Church's hearing and deciding causes, 303;\n on the criminal and penitential forum, 304;\n the Apostles prohibited Christians from pleading before secular\n tribunals, 306;\n jurisdiction, 307;\n election of bishops in the first three centuries, 309;\n bishops sent out from Rome to convert the nations, 219, 310;\n the Church's administration of temporal goods, 312, 313.\n\n Bossuet, his six points of the original human society, 29;\n what he thinks of a State without a religion, 41;\n the Christian people's relation to Christ, 101, 108.\n\n\n CATECHETICAL SCHOOLS, at Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa,\n 386, 387.\n\n Chamard, Dom, L'Etablissement du Christianisme, quoted, 217.\n\n Christ, His action as at once and always King, Lawgiver, and Priest,\n the subject of this volume, xx;\n kingdom of Christ as prophesied, xxi-xxviii;\n as fulfilled, xxix-xl;\n His High-priesthood consists in two acts, 239;\n His people answer to Him in the triple order established by Him as\n the Priest, the Prophet, and the King, 101.\n\n Chrysostom, St., his epitome of the Church's course preceding his own\n time, 230;\n Christ's one undeniable miracle that He founded the race of\n Christians, 231;\n contrast of the race with that out of which it was formed, 232;\n the incessant conflict amid which it was done, 233;\n dwells on the presence of Christ's physical Body in the Eucharist,\n 275;\n the Eucharist one sacrifice, everywhere, and for ever, 277.\n\n Cities, the Two, date from the Fall, 14;\n city of the devil, prevailing, leads to the Deluge, 17;\n described by St. Augustine, xxxvii.\n\n Clement of Alexandria, his conversion, and great ability, 385;\n attests the persecution in his time, 419;\n on the power of the k\u00earugma, 429;\n impotence of philosophy contrasted with it, 430;\n exposes the heathen deities, 407.\n\n Clement, St., of Rome, his letter to the Church of Corinth, the first\n Papal Pastoral, 184;\n called most authoritative by Iren\u00e6us, 185;\n likens Christian obedience to Roman military discipline, 186;\n speaks of minute regulations as to religious ordinances given by\n Christ, 187;\n makes all spiritual order to descend from above, 188;\n argues for the Christian order _\u00e0 fortiori_, as compared with\n the Mosaic, 189;\n says the Apostles established bishops everywhere, with rule of\n succession, 190;\n attests the continuation of the Mosaic hierarchy in the Christian,\n 191;\n says Christian ordinances are to be observed more accurately than\n Mosaic, 193;\n describes the descent of power from above in the first sixty years,\n 194-196;\n confirms in this the Scriptural records, and supplies details, 197;\n exercises the primacy in the lifetime of St. John, 197-200;\n St. Clement and St. Ignatius complete and corroborate each other, 203;\n insists on the care with which our Lord instituted the government of\n His Church, 238;\n marks St. Paul to have been martyred by Nero's deputies, 367.\n\n Council of Arles, 375;\n its testimony to the Pope's authority, 397;\n says the Apostles Peter and Paul sit for ever in the Roman see, 398;\n Constantine acknowledges its judgment as that of Christ, 398.\n\n Council of Trent, its description of the Christian sacrifice, 265, 268.\n\n Coelestine, Pope, St., how the law of supplication establishes the\n law of belief, 329.\n\n Cyprian, St.--every city has its bishop in his time, 217;\n meaning of his aphorism on the oneness and solidarity of the\n Episcopate, 222;\n which he compares with the divine Unity in the Trinity, 224;\n his testimony as to the election of bishops in his own time, 308;\n sees Christ present in the martyrs, 450.\n\n\n DANIEL, the prophet, his vision of the kingdom of God set\n up on earth, xxiii-xxviii.\n\n Dante, the great statue, xxix;\n St. John the Evangelist, 172;\n the saints before and after Christ form the great rose of Paradise,\n 448.\n\n Dionysius of Halicarnassus, description of the Roman Pontifical\n College, 61.\n\n\n EPISCOPATE, the One, planted in every city by the Apostles, 194;\n attested by St. Ignatius, 202;\n by Eusebius the historian, 207;\n who gives the succession at Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem,\n 210;\n by Tertullian, 212;\n by Iren\u00e6us, 213;\n each city and small town had its bishop before the peace of the\n Church, 216;\n the bishop said to wield a government, 218;\n bishops sent out from Rome to convert the nations, 219;\n episcopal government universal, 220;\n but the One Episcopate much more than this, 222;\n a regimen ruling one flock through the whole world, 224-226;\n the undivided rule of a single people, the Corpus Christianorum, 462;\n set forth by De Marca, 222;\n by St. Leo the Great in A.D. 446, 223;\n co-exists with the Primacy, 227;\n considered a miracle by St. Chrysostom and St. Augustine, 228;\n contrasted with national churches, 180, 181, 237;\n Christian government, worship, belief, and practice wrapt up together\n herein, 238;\n organic growth of the One Episcopate in mother and daughter churches,\n 296;\n developed in provincial councils, 302;\n exercised in decisions of coercive power, 303;\n exhibited in election of bishops, 307;\n the whole a derivation of the mission of Christ, 311;\n gradually clothes itself in temporal goods, 312-316;\n the living personal authority that to which the assistance of the Holy\n Ghost is promised from beginning to end, 335;\n our Lord's missionary circuits the germ, 340;\n the mission carried on by the Apostles, 341-343;\n personal authority exhibited in the system of catechesis, 344;\n the use of a creed, 347;\n the dispensing of sacraments, 349;\n the inflicting of penance, 351;\n the dispensing of the Scriptures, 352;\n all this continued during fifteen hundred years, 355-359;\n gift of infallibility lodged in the magisterium, 387, 389;\n which is the Church's divine government and concrete life, as attested\n by Athanasius, 395.\n\n Eusebius, of C\u00e6sarea, notes three periods in the first ninety years,\n 206, 207;\n sum of his testimony as to the three great sees and the episcopate,\n 209;\n records that Peter came to Rome in the reign of the Emperor Claudius,\n 209;\n and the martyrdom of the two Apostles, 210;\n attests the divine power by which the Church was planted, 211;\n the Paschal Lamb sacrificed once a year, but Christians are ever\n satisfied with the Body of the Lord, 270;\n contrasts the divine polity and philosophy of the Church with the\n incessant variation of heresies, 221;\n attests the multitude of martyrs everywhere in the reign of Marcus\n Aurelius, 418.\n\n\n FISH, the sacred symbol in the catacombs of Christ's person\n and work, 287.\n\n Franzelin, Cardinal, the Church's teaching office, 330-335;\n that which is essential, the perpetual succession of living men, 339;\n the revelation made by Christ to the Apostles complete as to its\n substance, 361;\n the act of Christ's High Priesthood in the Incarnation, 239;\n the reality of the Body and Blood of Christ on the altar asserted by\n St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Justin, and St. Iren\u00e6us, 269;\n the physical Body of Christ in the Eucharist insisted on by the\n Fathers, 274.\n\n Friedl\u00e4nder admits the universal belief in miracles of Jews and heathens\n as well as Christians, 445.\n\n\n GIESELER, five things on which the apologists laid stress, 444.\n\n Gregory the Great, St., his letter to King Ethelbert, 416;\n the whole Church represented by the sevenfold number of the churches,\n 174;\n repeatedly speaks of the see of the chief of the apostles as the see\n of one in three places--Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, 297.\n\n Gregory of Nazianzum, calls his office as bishop a government, 218.\n\n Gregory VII., St., on the union of Church and State, 127.\n\n\n HAGEMANN, Die r\u00f6mische Kirche, how Constantine looked at the\n Church, 293;\n speaks of particular tendencies in local churches, 376.\n\n Heinrich, Dogmatische Theologie, 387.\n\n Heresy, its principle, as opposed to that of orthodoxy, 378;\n the apostolic writings full of warnings against it, 380;\n its incessant attacks through the second century, 382.\n\n Hergenr\u00f6ther, on the development of synodical institutions, 302.\n\n Hilary, St., attests that every church has its bishop, 217.\n\n\n IGNATIUS of Antioch, St., contemplates the whole Episcopate\n in the mind of Christ, as the mind of the Father, 173, 202;\n corroborates St. Clement of Rome, 200, 203;\n states the organic unity of a local church, 203.\n\n Innocent I., Pope, St., grounds the wide jurisdiction of the See of\n Antioch on its being the first see of the chief of the apostles,\n 296.\n\n Iren\u00e6us, St., quoted, 185, 202;\n describes the propagation of the Church, 213;\n barbarians believing in Christ follow the order of tradition without\n pen or paper, 220;\n the Church's deposit of doctrine like the principle of life in a body,\n 339;\n bears witness to the multitude of martyrs everywhere, 418;\n and of miracles, 438.\n\n\n JOHN, ST., does not record the institution of the Eucharist,\n but adds what may be considered a comment upon it, 134;\n records promises made to the Apostles, 149-151;\n the universal pastorship conferred on Peter, 152;\n how his expressions sum up both the universal mission of the\n apostolate, and the supreme pastorship of Peter, 177;\n his double warning as to the many things concerning Jesus not written,\n 157;\n his vision of the heavenly court as the Eucharistic Sacrifice, 324-327;\n his vision of our Lord in the government of the Church through his\n bishops, 171-175;\n identifies heathen Rome with Babylon, xxix.\n\n Josephus, 402;\n States Popp\u00e6a to have been a Jewish proselyte, 366.\n\n Jurisdiction, how partitioned in the Episcopate, stated by De Marca, 222;\n by St. Leo the Great, 223;\n Bianchi, 306;\n necessary in any kingdom, 278-280.\n\n Justin Martyr, St., says the presence of Christ's Body and Blood on the\n altar is as real as the Incarnation itself, 269;\n the tale of his conversion, 382.\n\n\n KINGDOM of Christ, thirteen characteristics of, 103-107;\n foretold by Daniel, xxii-xxviii;\n subsists from age to age by its own force, 131;\n disposed to the Apostolic College, 144;\n jurisdiction necessary to it, 278;\n as it appeared in A.D. 29 and A.D. 325, 291;\n recognised by Constantine at the Council of Arles, A.D. 314, 398;\n and at the Nicene Council, 290, 463;\n consists in three things, Sacerdotium, Magisterium, Jurisdictio,\n answering to worship, belief, and government in the people which\n is its outcome, 411;\n the intimate cohesion of these three, 87-90;\n the perfect antagonism which they constituted in Christians to the\n Pagan empire, 404-411;\n the five conflicts which the kingdom underwent in the three centuries,\n 459-463.\n\n Kleutgen, on the two meanings of _tradition_, 344;\n on the word of God, written and unwritten, 361;\n on the special gift of the Apostolic Body, 361.\n\n\n LASAULX, Die S\u00fchnopfer der Griechen and R\u00f6mer, und ihr\n Verh\u00e4ltniss zu dem einem auf Golgotha, extracts from, 245-253;\n on human sacrifices, 259-262.\n\n Leo the Great, St., illustrates the \"One Episcopate\" of St. Cyprian, 223;\n his perfect picture of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in his day, 223.\n\n Leo XIII. in his encyclical June 1881, declares civil power to be a\n vicegerency from God, 20.\n\n Lightfoot, Dr., suggests that the Primacy belongs not to the bishop but\n to the Church of Rome, 205.\n\n Luke, St., records the institution of the priesthood, 133;\n the power given to the Apostles, 139, 159;\n vast importance of the conversation which he alone records about the\n disposition of the kingdom, and its ruler, 141-147;\n distinguishes Peter from the other Apostles, as much as St. Matthew\n and St. John, 148;\n his reticence as to the place to which St. Peter went, when delivered\n from prison, and its reason, 373.\n\n\n MAGISTERIUM, of the Church, shown in her teaching, 316;\n which at first was oral only, based upon authority, 317;\n three classes of truths forming the divine and apostolical tradition,\n 319;\n the period of exclusively oral teaching specially exhibits the Church's\n teaching office, 320;\n seen in the rite of baptism, 321;\n in the Eucharistic Liturgy, 322;\n in the rite of ordination, 328;\n fullness of the magisterium shown in these rites, 329;\n not changed or diminished by the writings of the New Testament,\n 330-335;\n consists in the unchangeable principle of a living personal authority,\n 335;\n thus expressed by Iren\u00e6us, 213;\n acts of the magisterium which preceded the New Testament, 336;\n is the continuation of Christ's personal teaching, 340;\n and of the apostolic mission, 341;\n and abides in all ages, 343;\n is shown in five things, the system of catechesis, the use of a Creed,\n the dispensing of sacraments, the enjoining of penance, the\n handling of Scripture, 343-355;\n unimpeached through fifteen centuries, 355;\n its principle, a divine authority establishing a kingdom, 360;\n it transmits the word of God, written or unwritten, 361;\n which is complete, as to its substance, from the beginning, 361;\n the defence against error lodged in it, 387;\n consists in the Church's divine government and concrete life, 389;\n employs the whole word of God, written or unwritten, as its Rule of\n Faith, 395.\n\n Maine, Sir Henry, author of \"Ancient Law,\" quoted upon original society,\n 46;\n the patriarchal theory, 47, 49;\n family, the unit of ancient society, not the individual, 50-54;\n universal belief, or assumption of blood-relationship, 51;\n the Roman _patria potestas_, a relic of the original rule, 53;\n union of government with religion, 53;\n property sprung out of joint-ownership, 53.\n\n Marca, De, his statement of jurisdiction in the Episcopate, 222.\n\n Mark, St., the only Evangelist who does not record special powers given\n to Peter, 156;\n records the institution of the priesthood, 133;\n the powers given to the Apostolic Body, 138, 154.\n\n Martin, Dr., Bishop of Paderborn, on the High-priest's office, 75.\n\n Martyrdom, an essential element in the world's conversion, 445;\n its occasion the enmity between the serpent's seed and the Woman's\n Seed, 447;\n before Christ looks to Christ, and after Christ looks back on Him, 448;\n parallel with miracles in principle, witness, power, and perpetuity,\n 449-455;\n martyrs, champions of a great army, 421;\n endure for God what heroes endure for natural goods, 431-434;\n fill up what is wanting in the sufferings of Christ, until His mystical\n Body is completed, 453, 454;\n hated by all who deny a Creator, Judge, and Remunerator, 455;\n the Deacon Constantine's panegyric, 427.\n\n Matthew, St., records the institution of the priesthood, 133;\n the transmission of spiritual power, 136;\n the special promises to Peter, 137;\n distinguishes the Apostolate and the Primacy, 154-155.\n\n Melito, of Sardis, calls the Christian faith a philosophy nurtured\n together and begun together with Augustus, 414.\n\n Miracles, their existence alleged by every ancient Christian writer, 445;\n by Jews and Heathens of every class, 445;\n by Origen, who insists on miracles of conversion as greater than\n bodily miracles, 435;\n and that miracles only could account for the conversions wrought, 438;\n attested by Iren\u00e6us, of his own time, 439;\n by Athanasius, of the sign of the cross, and the name of Christ, 442;\n connection between miracles and martyrdom, as to their principle,\n witness, power and perpetuity, 449-454;\n the Christian faith rests upon two miracles, the Incarnation and the\n Resurrection of Christ, 445-447;\n the absolute necessity of miracles to substantiate the mission of\n Christ, 444;\n the Incarnation, the reason of miraculous power, 447;\n and the Fall of man its necessity, 447.\n\n M\u00f6hler, on the use of the Creed, 347;\n on the first Christian writers, 381;\n on the Roman catechetical school, 386.\n\n\n N\u00c4GELSBACH, original kingship springs from fathership, 48;\n sacrifice, an essential of Greek piety, 244;\n the Greek seeks a living personal God, 244.\n\n Newman, Cardinal, describes the system of catechesis, 345;\n his history of the Arians referred to, 349;\n notes on St. Athanasius quoted, 390-395;\n his treatise on the Rise and Successes of Arianism, a storehouse of\n information, 397;\n says that particular authors do not speak _ex cathedra_, nor as\n a Council may speak, 388.\n\n Nicene Council, occasion of its convocation, 289;\n Constantine recognised therein the Church as a divine kingdom, 290;\n and the solidarity of the Episcopate, 292;\n compared with the Roman Senate, 293;\n its force as to the relation between Church and State, 294;\n its sixth Canon, 297;\n Constantine, acknowledging its sentence as the decision of God,\n recognised the kingdom of Christ in the world, 463.\n\n Noah, refounds the human race, 18;\n his first act, an act of sacrifice to which God attaches an universal\n covenant with his race, 18-21;\n is Father, King, Priest, and Teacher of his race, 22;\n among whom he establishes Marriage, Sacrifice, Civil Government, and\n the alliance of Government with Religion, 22-24.\n\n\n ORIGEN, insists on the divine power shown in converting\n sinners, 434;\n on miracles of conversion as greater than bodily miracles, 435;\n on the spread of the Church and the conversion of sinners viewed\n together, 436;\n not possible without miracles, 437;\n as the soul vivifies and moves the body, so the word arouses and moves\n the whole body, the Church, 359;\n sets up a catechetical school at C\u00e6sarea in Palestine, 386.\n\n Ovid, his statement of the power of vicarious sacrifice, 261.\n\n\n PANT\u00c6NUS, his conversion, labours, and renown, 384.\n\n Paul, St., six names whereby he describes his commission, 168;\n the Church to him \"the Body of Christ,\" 162-165;\n says mission is necessary to every herald of the Gospel, 164;\n attests the grace given by ordination, 165;\n places in the one Christian Ministry the seat of dogmatic truth, 162;\n sees an inseparable bond in unity, truth, and government, 167;\n how he records the institution of the Priesthood, 132;\n appoints bishops, 165, 217.\n\n Peter, St., the six privileges recorded to have been bestowed on him,\n in which his primacy consists, 160;\n speaks of Rome under the name of Babylon, xxix.\n\n Phillipps' Kirchenrecht, 130.\n\n Philo, describes the concourse of Jews to Jerusalem, 78;\n quoted upon sacrifice, 248.\n\n Plato, makes piety to consist in prayer and sacrifice, 243.\n\n poimainein, force of the word, to be Shepherd, 177-178.\n\n Power, the Spiritual, a derivation from the Person of Christ, out of the\n union of the divine and human natures in him, 103, 111, 162;\n creates the supernatural society for a supernatural end, 93;\n to which the present life is subordinated, 94;\n and which is beyond the provision of temporal government, 96;\n a kingdom subsisting by its own force from age to age, 131;\n divine truth maintained by the perpetual operation of its one hierarchy\n in the Body of Christ, 162-164;\n has in Scripture five qualities, 175;\n the coming from above, 175;\n completeness, 176-179;\n unity, 179-181;\n independence of civil government, 181;\n perpetuity to the end of time, 182;\n the transmission of such a power witnessed in the Church's history from\n A.D. 39 to A.D. 325, 184-237;\n the resting of this power upon the Sacrifice of His Body instituted by\n Christ, 238-243, 263-286;\n its independence as to government shown in its organic growth, 295-316;\n its independence as to teaching shown in its communication of doctrine,\n 316-339;\n in its mode of positive teaching, 340-355;\n in its mode of resisting error, 359-399;\n in its conflict with the Roman empire's civil power, 400-463;\n the creation of such a power by the direct action of God foretold by\n the Prophet Daniel, 600 years before Christ, xxi-xxviii.\n\n Powers, the Two, appear united in the Headship of Adam, 11-13;\n and again in Noah, 19;\n in whom civil government is established by divine authority, 20;\n it is a common good of all his race, 38-40;\n the two Powers ever in alliance through all gentilism, 41-42;\n civil government springs as little from those governed, as fathership\n from children, 48-52;\n \"Law originally is the parent's word,\" 53;\n relation of the two Powers from the beginning, 56, 108;\n Gentile deification of the State, 58;\n relation of the two Powers in the Mosaic Law, 67, 72-82;\n Analogy between them, 95;\n subjection of the spiritual to the civil power, the final result of\n gentilism, 70;\n the spiritual power has a new basis in the Person of Christ, 110;\n co-operation of the two Powers as stated by St. Gregory VII., 126;\n Christians subject to both Powers, 111;\n amity intended by God between them, 114;\n their separate action not intended, 115;\n persecution of the spiritual by the temporal not intended, 119;\n the indirect spiritual power over temporal things, 124;\n the ideal relation of the two Powers, and the various deflections from\n it described under the image of marriage, 128;\n alliance of the two Powers in the Roman empire at the advent of\n Christ, 400;\n how and why the civil power acknowledged the triple spiritual liberty\n of belief, worship, and government, 455, 462.\n\n Priesthood, begun in Adam, 15;\n and afresh in Noah, 22;\n carried on from them through all the race, 56;\n distinguished from the Civil Power in the Roman Republic, 60;\n united afterward to the Principate, but still distinct, 62;\n the College of Pontifices reverse a tribunicial law, 63;\n the distinction from civil power in it runs through all ancient\n nations, 64;\n witness to the unity of man's race, 65;\n the Aaronic, 72;\n special offices of the High-priest, 72;\n part of the High-priest through the whole history from Moses to\n Christ, 75;\n his jurisdiction under the Roman empire, 77;\n the Jewish priesthood and worship, a prophecy and preparation for\n Christ, 80;\n the High-priest's treatment of Christ, 82;\n the Christian priesthood springs from the Person of Christ, 86;\n as the human race from Adam, 111;\n institution of the Christian Priesthood, 132-135;\n all the mission of Christ collected in his Priesthood, 135;\n the Christian hierarchy succeeds the Mosaic, 191;\n Priesthood of the Church springs from the two acts of Christ's High\n Priesthood, 242;\n priesthood, teaching, and jurisdiction cohere inwardly, 87, 287-288;\n acknowledged equally by Constantine, 462.\n\n Primacy, the, of the Church, instituted by Christ himself, 137, 143-148,\n 152-153, 176-179;\n the words conveying it compared with those which convey the Apostolate,\n 154;\n the witness of St. Matthew to the distinction between Apostolate and\n Primacy, 155;\n the witness of St. Luke to the same distinction, 155;\n the witness of St. John to the same distinction, 155, 156;\n summary of its powers as given in the Gospels, 160;\n how St. Paul bears witness to it, 166-168;\n exercised by St. Clement in the lifetime of St. John, 197-200;\n the two forces of the Primacy and the Hierarchy exist from the\n beginning, 90;\n are exactly expressed by St. Leo in the year 446, 223;\n hold the Church together in the ante-nicene period, 375;\n are the joint result of our Lord's words, 161.\n\n\n RENAUDOT, the Eucharistic Liturgy, 323.\n\n\n SACERDOS, in the language of the third century, signifies the\n bishop, as offering the sacrifice of the altar, 217, 279;\n as ekkl\u00easia signifies a diocese, 304.\n\n Sacrifice, rite of bloody, appears in the family of the first man, and\n dates from his fall, 15;\n unintelligible without the notion of sin, 15;\n its prevalence among the Gentiles, 243-250;\n specialities of the rite, described by Lasaulx, 250-253;\n associated with prayer, 253;\n with the sense of guilt, 254;\n enacted by God at the Fall as a perpetual prophecy, 256;\n the most striking characteristic of the world before Christ, 257;\n human, 259-261;\n enaction of, a divine act, 263;\n the Christian Sacrifice counterpart of the original institution, 264;\n and fulfilment of the whole Mosaic ritual, 264;\n its prodigious meaning and power, 267-274;\n presence of Christ's physical Body in it, according to St. Chrysostom,\n 275;\n is the principle of unity to Christ's mystical Body, according to St.\n Augustine, 276;\n the double act of Christ's High-priesthood thereby impressed on the\n world, 276;\n fulfils over the world the parable, I am the true Vine, 280-286;\n the Eucharistic, picture of, by an apostle, 324.\n\n Schwane, Dogmengeschichte, 370, 424.\n\n Sophocles, his sense of the power of vicarious sacrifice, 260.\n\n St\u00f6ckl, Lehrbuch der Geschichte der Philosophie, 377.\n\n\n TACITUS, his _compages_ of the Roman empire, xxxiv;\n says that Popp\u00e6a was surrounded with fortune-tellers, 366.\n\n Taparelli, Saggio teoretico di dritto naturale, philosophical basis\n on which the spiritual society rests, 98.\n\n Tatian, history of his conversion, 383.\n\n Tertullian, history of his conversion, 384;\n marks Domitian as a persecutor of the Church, 372;\n attests the persecution in his time, 420;\n sufferings which followed on conversions, 431-434;\n describes the first propagation of the Church, 211-213;\n compares the Church to a single vine planted in all lands, 239;\n the apostles sheltered by their position as Jews, 364;\n marks the Jews as sources of all calumny against Christians, 368.\n\n Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, his conversion and writings, 384.\n\n Tradition, has two meanings, (1) the _unwritten_ word of God,\n (2) the whole doctrine of salvation as handed down, 344;\n divine and apostolical tradition, 319;\n announcing the acts and words of Christ, part of, 337;\n various parts of tradition in its full sense, 338.\n\n\nPRINTED BY BALLANTYNE, HANSON AND CO.\n\nEDINBURGH AND LONDON","title":"Church and State as Seen in the Formation of Christendom","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":142087}