CHARACTER OF DIONYSIUS OF ALENANDRIA.

295

of the general repute and esteem he was held in. He was a person of undissembled humility and modesty, and of great simplicity, to a degree uncommon in men of his extensive learning and long and wide experience. He had a great deal of natural good humour, cultivated by the principles of religion; by which means he excelled in that moderation and charity which the Christian religion so earnestly recommends. His undisguised probity, or a little vehemence of natural temper, rendered him liable to be sometimes off his guard, insomuch that in disputes he was apt to go into extremes; for, as Basil says, a man who intends to make a crooked plant straight sometimes bends it too much the other way. So Dionysius, in his opposition to Sabellianism, asserted not only a distinction of subsistences, but a difference of essence and an inequality of power and glory. And perhaps some may think they see another similar instance in the argument which he used concerning the Apocalypse [about the genuineness of which he entertained doubts; or rather of its being the production of the apostle John]. We must not, however, forget his generous zeal for truth, for the sake of which he practised much self-denial, renouncing the honours, and riches, and grandeur of this world; thereby showing true greatness of mind, and acquiring to himself glory and riches, preferable to all the advantages of a transitory life. He had a quick apprehension and a lively fancy. His style is usually florid, and he wrote with spirit to the last-which, after the fatigues of more than thirty years' public service in the church, as catechist or bishop, and after two confessions before heathen magistrates, and the sufferings that followed; besides the malicious calumnies, or false and unfair insinuations at least of some of his brethren, and the unkind and unfriendly charges and accusations of some other Christians, may be reckoned the proof of a firmness of mind that is very glorious; for it could be only founded on a consciousness of his integrity, and the supports and consolations of religion. To conclude, Dionysius fulfilled the duties of his station, and shone in his sphere. He was unquestionably one of the ornaments of that age; and he may be esteemed the chief glory of the see of Alexandria for three centuries, from the time of the first founder of that church." Such, according to Dr. Lardner, was DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA.

LECTURE XV.

Introductory Remarks—Origin of the Church of Rome—The first Pastors were obscure men-And that church had no preeminence over others—Early symptons of Judaizing-Equality of the primitive churches and mutual fellowship—Church membership a voluntary act-Primitive simplicity exchanged for a Jewish Theology-Episcopal system of Church Law introduced -Schism of the Novatianists-Mosheim's account of it-Strictures on that historian--Some account of Novatianus—Increase of Puritan churches-Defence of their conduct in seceding— Their rigid discipline---Some of their peculiarities--Appeal to the New Testament, the only rule of religion, A. D. 251.

In several of our last lectures I have had to lay before you the state of religion chiefly among the churches in Africa; it is now time for us to direct our attention to Italy, and the city of Rome in particular. "The church of Rome," says a late writer, "is now a phrase of magnitude and splendour; yet at first it stood for no more than an assembly of Jews dwelling at Rome, who believed Jesus to be the Christ, and who met together to worship God and confer on the sense of the Old Testament in the hired house of Paul of Tarsus, a prisoner,'

I make this quotation merely for the sake of rectifying the error that is involved in it. The author would have us to believe that there existed no Christian church in Rome prior to the time when Paul arrived there as a prisoner, which all allow was not earlier than the year 62; whereas the apostle had sent an epistle

* Robinson's Eccles. Researches, ch. VIII. p. 117.

ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH OF ROME.

297

to the church of Rome in the year 57 or 58, or, at latest, in the year 60, at which time their "faith was spoken of throughout the whole world," Rom. i. 8, and it is manifest also that it was then composed of both Jews and Gentiles, for the whole drift of chapters xiv. and xv. prove the fact. It is, moreover, very obvious that, at the time Paul wrote his epistle, the church had existed "MANY YEARS;" for he declares that he had so long had a desire to see them, which could not have been the case had that church not been in existence during that period, Rom xv. 23. Not only were they organized as one body, having a diversity of gifts, such as prophecy, ministering, teaching, exhorting, ruling, deaconizing, &c., as in ch. xii. 1-8; but these gifts were so matured by age and experience, and carried into exercise, that the apostle could say of them, what can be truly said of few churches in our day, however numerous and respectable---"I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another," ch. xv. 14-a noble testimony, and such as proves that, whatever was their number, or the talents of their ministers, they were a very flourishing church long before Paul visited Rome.

But there is another point of view in which this subject presents itself to our consideration. We learn, from the annals of the historian Tacitus, that in the reign of the emperer Nero, only two years after the apostle Paul was sent to Rome as a prisoner, a dreadful persecution against the Christians there broke out, and a vast multitude of them were discovered by the agents of government, accused, and subjected to exquisite punishments. But if, as this lively and ingenious writer tells us, the church of Rome at that time consisted of no more than an assembly of Jews who met together in the hired house of Paul of Tarsus, the prisoner," its increase in the short space of two years must have been wonderful, and such as we have no reason to think was the case.

The history of the first age of this church, it has been truly said, is so fabulous, and the interest of protestants, in either disguising or exposing the fables, so insignificant, that an outline of it may satisfy a modern enquirer. At the time of the birth of Christ there were in Rome at least eight thousand Jews, who

openly worshipped God in their own synagogues. Several Romans, both Jews and proselytes, were at Jerusalem on the day of pentecost, Acts ii., and it is reasonable to conclude that some of them were among the converts to Christianity of whom we read in that and the following chapters. These persons doubtless carried the gospel with them to Rome, on their return, and thus laid the foundation of a Christian church in that renowned city as early as the year 33. The empire, at that time, included nearly the whole of the then known world. Vast provinces which now constitute large and populous kingdoms in Asia and Africa, and by far the greater part of Europe, acknowledged the authority of the Romans and were partly governed by Roman laws. This opened a wide field of action for the apostles and primitive teachers of Christianity; and, as their principles led them to aim at the conversion of the world, so their condition of Roman provincials enabled them to give full scope to the strong impulses of their benevolent feelings. Many churches, in all parts of the empire, boast of being planted by apostles—and the assumption is by no means incredible. Nothing was easier, in the days of the apostles, than to go over all the provinces, especially to such a man as the apostle Paul-and what he says is highly credible, that the gospel was in his day "made known to all nations for the obedience of faith."

The writers of the Romish church have drawn out a list of bishops of Rome, and named the first fifty-six" saints"—that is, they have canonized them! Of these, Sylvester, who flourished in the reign of Constantine, is the thirty-fourth in succession; but it is a remarkable circumstance that both he and all his predecessors were obscure men, of whom little more is known than the name—not one of them having left a single work that is remarkable for learning or talent. The fact is, and it should never be lost sight of by a reader of ecclesiastical history, that the elders, or bishops, of the churches, during the first and second centuries, were not chosen on account of their extensive acquirements in human literature--their eloquence, oratory, or powers of persuasion; but for their knowledge of the holy Scripturestheir aptness in bringing them forth in the way of doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness - together with their ability to manage the affairs of the Lord's house, or

THE BISHOPS OF ROME BEGIN TO JUDAIZE.

299

rule the church of God; for these are the scriptual qualifications of an elder or bishop, 1 Tim. iii. and Titus, ch. i. And what the bishop of Rome was in the imperial city, the metropolis of the empire, other bishops were in other parts of Italy. The churches at that time were all independent of each other, and the people elected their own pastors and teachers. This was the actual state of matters for at least the first hundred and fifty years, and it is in perfect accordance with the doctrine of Christ and his apostles. In process of time, however, they began to Judaize-a distinction was invented, as mentioned in a former lecture, between a bishop and a presbyter-a distinction wholly unknown to the New Testament; and a Jewish kind of Christianity was inculcated, having in it the seeds of a hierarchy, which first produced a sacred order of men, in imitation of the Levites of old, and then sunk the people into insignificance to elevate the order. In process of time it was found out, or at least pretended, that Christ had given the keys of his kingdom to the apostle Peter-that Peter had governed at Rome for twenty-four years—that Mark and Barnabas, and all others, had only been his curates-and consequently that Rome was the seat of spiritual dominion, and the bishop there the only true undoubted Christian pontiff! An incredible number of volumes have been written, some to propagate and defend and others to unravel and confute this idle Christian mythology. Can we reasonably wonder that Italy should be full of dissenters by the middle of the third century?

For about the first two hundred years all the churches of Christ, having the same faith and order, walked in union and fellowship with each other, acknowledging one another as sister churches. They had one common Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ; one faith, one hope, one baptism, one God and Father of all, Eph. iv., and they maintained a general harmony of affection, which indeed was the bond of their union. When congregations multiplied, so that they became too numerous to assemble with convenience in one place, they parted into separate companies, and so again and again; but, maintaining the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, there was no schism: on the contrary, all held a common union, and a member of one company of Christians was a member of all. If an individual removed