the same system of polity and discipline; and, though there was not unity of jurisdiction, there was the "keeping of the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."

*

In modern times many ecclesiastical historians have asserted that synods commenced about the middle of the second century. But the statement is unsupported by a single particle of evidence, and a number of facts may be adduced to prove that it is altogether untenable. There is no reason to doubt that synods, at least on a limited scale, met in the days of the apostles, and that the Church courts of a later age were simply the continuation and expansion of these primitive conventions. We know very little respecting the history of the Christian commonwealth during the former half of the second century, for the extant memorials of the Church of that period are exceedingly few and meagre; and as the proceedings of most of the synods which were then held did not perhaps attract much notice, it is not remarkable that they have shared the fate of almost all the other ecclesiastical transactions of the same date, and that they have been buried in oblivion.‡ It is nowhere intimated by any ancient authority that synodical meetings commenced fifty years after the death of the beloved disciple, and the earliest writers who touch upon the subject speak of them as of apostolic original. Irenæus, the pastor of Lyons, had probably reached manhood when, according to Mosheim and others, synods were at first formed; he enjoyed the instructions of Polycarp, the disciple of the Apostle John; he was beyond question

Such as Mosheim, "Instit." i. 149, 150; Neander, "General History," i. 281.

↑ During the first forty years of the second century Gnosticism did not excite much notice, and as the Church courts must have been occupied chiefly with matters of mere routine, it is not remarkable that their proccedings have not been recorded.

We have no contemporary evidence to prove that ordinations took place in the former half of the second century, and yet we cannot doubt their

Occurrence.

one of the best informed Christian ministers of his generation; and yet he obviously considered that these ecclesiastical assemblies were in existence in the first century. Speaking of the visit of Paul to Miletus when he sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the Church,* he says that the apostle then convoked "the bishops and presbyters of Ephesus and of the other adjoining cities "t-plainly indicating that he summoned a synodical meeting. Had an assembly of this kind been a novelty in the days of Irenæus, the pastor of Lyons would not have given such a version of a passage in the inspired narrative. Cyprian flourished shortly after the time when, according to the modern theory, councils began to meet in Africa, but the bishop of Carthage himself unquestionably entertained higher views of their antiquity. He declared that conformably to "the practice received from divine tradition and apostolic observance," "all the neighbouring bishops of the same province met together" among the people over whom a pastor was to be ordained;§ and he did not here merely give utterance to his own impressions, for a whole African synod concurred in his statement. Subsequent writers of unimpeachable credit refer to the canons of councils of which we otherwise know nothing, and though we cannot now ascertain the exact time when these courts assembled, there is no reason to doubt that at least some of them were convened before the middle of the second century. Thus, when Jerome ascribes the origin of Prelacy to an ecclesiastical decree, he alludes evidently to some

*Acts xx. 17.

+ "In Mileto enim convocatis episcopis et presbyteris, qui erant ab Epheso et a reliquis proximis civitatibus."-Contra Hares. iii. c. 14. § 2.

Cyprian, Epist. lxviii. § 256.

§ The new bishop was often chosen before the interment of his predecessor; and even when the senior elder was the president, it is probable that the neighbouring pastors assembled to attend the funeral of the deceased pastor, and to be present at the inauguration of his successor.

synodical convention of an earlier date than any of the meetings of which history has preserved a record.*

Did we even want the direct testimony just adduced as to the government of synods in the former part of the second century, we might on other grounds infer that this species of polity then existed; for apostolic example suggested its propriety, and the spirit of fraternity so assiduously cherished by the early rulers of the Church must have prompted them to meet together for the discussion and settlement of ecclesiastical questions in which they felt a common interest. But whilst Christianity was still struggling for existence, it was not in a condition to form widely spread organizations. It is probable that the business of the early Church courts was conducted with the utmost secrecy, that they were attended by but few members, and that they were generally composed of those pastors and elders who resided in the same district and who could conveniently assemble on short notice. Their meetings, in all likelihood, were summoned at irregular intervals, and were held, to avoid suspicion, sometimes in one city and sometimes in another; and, except when an exciting question awakened deep and general anxiety, the representatives of the Churches of a whole province rarely, perhaps, ventured on a united convention. Our ignorance of the councils of the early part of the second century arises simply from the fact that no writer appeared during that interval to register their acts; and we have now no means of accurately filling up this blank in the history. But we have good grounds for believing that Gnosticism now formed the topic of discussion in several synods.† The errorists, we know, were driven out of the Church in all places; and

See Chapter vi. of this Section, p. 524.

+ The old writer called Prædestinatus speaks of several synods held in reference to the Gnostics before the middle of the second century. He may have had access to some documents now lost, but the testimony of a witness who lived in the fifth or sixth century is not of much value.

how can we account for this general expulsion, except upon the principle of the united action of ecclesiastical judicatories? Jerome gives us to understand that their machinations led to a change in the ecclesiastical constitution, and that this change was effected by a synodical decree adopted all over the world *-thereby implying that presbyterial government was already in universal operation. Montanism appeared whilst Gnosticism was yet in its full strength, and this gloomy fanaticism created intense agitation. Many of the pastors, as well as of the people, were bewildered by its pretensions to inspiration, and by the sanctimony of its ascetic discipline. It immediately occupied the attention of the ecclesiastical courts, and its progress was, no doubt, arrested by their emphatic condemnation of its absurdities. It is certain that their interference was judicious and decided. "When the faithful held frequent meetings in many places throughout Asia on account of this affair, and examined the novel doctrines, and pronounced them profane, and rejected them as heresy," the Montanist prophets "were in consequence driven out of the Church and excluded from communion." †

The words just quoted are from the pen of an anonymous writer who flourished towards the end of the second or beginning of the third century; and, though they supply the earliest distinct notice of synodical meetings, they do not even hint that such assemblies were of recent original. The Paschal controversy succeeded the Montanist agitation, and convulsed the whole Church from East to West by its frivolous discussions. The mode of keeping the Paschal festival had for nearly fifty years been a vexed question, but about the close of the second century it began to create bitter contention. Eusebius has given us an ac

"In toto orbe decretum est ut unus de presbyteris electus superponeretur cæteris."-Com. in Titum.

Euseb. v. 16.

See Routh's "Reliquiæ," ii. 183, 195.

SYNODS EVERYWHERE THROUGHOUT THE EMPIRE. 611

count of the affair, and his narrative throws great light upon the state of the ecclesiastical community at the time of its occurrence. "For this cause," says he, "there were synods and councils of bishops, and all, with according judgment, published in epistles an ecclesiastical decree. . There is still extant a letter from those who at that time were called together in Palestine, over whom presided Theophilus, bishop of the parish of Cæsarea, and Narcissus, bishop of the parish of Jerusalem. There is also another letter from those who were convoked at Rome* concerning the same question, which shews that Victor was then bishop. There is too a letter from the bishops of Pontus, over whom Palmas, as the senior pastor, presided. There is likewise a letter from the parishes in Gaul of which Irenæus was president. And another besides from the Churches in Osræne and the cities in that quarter." +

It is obvious from this statement that, before the termination of the second century, synodical government was established throughout the whole Church; for we here trace its operation in France, in Mesopotamia or Osrone, in Italy, Pontus, and Palestine. This passage also illustrates the progress of the changes which were taking place about the period under review in the constitution of ecclesiastical judicatories. As the president of the presbytery was at first the senior elder, so the president of the synod was at first the senior pastor. At this time the primitive arrangement had not been altogether superseded, for at the meeting of the bishops of Pontus, Palmas, as being the oldest member present, was called to occupy the chair of the

* Mosheim ("Commentaries" by Vidal, ii. 105) has made a vain attempt to set aside the Latin translation of this passage by Valesius, as he saw that it completely upsets his favourite theory. But any one who carefully examines the Greek of Eusebius may see that the rendering complained of is quite correct. It cannot be necessary to point out to the intelligent reader the transparent sophistry of nearly all that Mosheim has written on this subject. † Euseb. v. 23.