thus either virtually self-appointed, by the zeal and activity they have already shown, or else receive their appointment, not from the members of a directive convention, but from the few, upon whom circumstances may have thrown the work of systematizing and conducting its business. As a matter of right or expediency, diocesan committees can claim no superiority over voluntary societies. Each plan has its own advantages and disadvantages, and perhaps the arrangement, which has become almost, if not quite, universal, for both to exist, side by side, in each diocese, is practically the best. Voluntary societies and corporations seem to be specially adapted to the beginning of any charitable work. Very frequently, indeed, it is the earnest Christian love and zeal of a single individual, that lays the foundation of the most useful and needed institutions. It may be, too, that he has been led on by the providential guidance of God, and that he was, at first, wholly unaware of being an instrument, in God's hand, for the accomplishment of His kind designs. A clergyman, or association of lay men or lay women, in a parish, may have been called upon, suddenly and unexpectedly, to provide for some sick and friendless communicant, or for two or three children, left destitute by the death of their parents, and what was thought and intended to be but a temporary provision for an emergency, has become a hospital, or an asylum, or a home for those whom we pray for in the Litany, as "the desolate and oppressed." A clergyman, whose parish is on the confines of some destitute region, moved by compassion for the spiritual deprivation which stares on him, begins a mission in the moral desert. The work becomes too great for him, singly and alone. He associates with himself others in that same work, and a missionary society, in substance, if not always in form, is the result. Such as this, was the beginning of our Western Domestic Missions, and numerous missionary dioceses at first, the independent labors of separate clergymen, then a voluntary society, and, lastly, a Board of Missions. The same history is repeated in Indian missions, and in missionary convocations within a diocese. If our Church were deprived of voluntary societies, her ability to set on foot, and to put into successful operation, missionary and charitable enterprises would be reduced very greatly, if not impoverished. Voluntary societies also give scope to variety of manner and means, by which to attain any given object. They enable each one to work in that way in which he can exert himself most earnestly and effectively. His energies are not cramped by being tied down to rules and methods, it may be, good and effective for others, but devised by persons of a temperament altogether different from his own, and under which he cannot labor without a constant sense of restraint, and without continual chafing and distrust. In estimating expediencies, it is not sufficient to take into account simply the question of present efficiency in attaining a certain result; we must consider, also, the effect produced upon the general tone and character of the Church. When voluntary societies exist by the side of diocesan committees, even though, at first, they are rivals in the performance of substantially the same work, both theory and fact show that ultimately the effect is beneficial. Inevitably, men will differ. They cannot all think or all act alike, for they have never done so. If compelled to work together, in one inflexible organization, time and energy will be wasted in disputes; but if each is allowed to work in his own way, though at first there may be rivalry, and, perhaps, unamiable thoughts, words, and wishes, yet, as each becomes absorbed in his own work, they will all be drawn nearer to each other, and become co-workers, rather than contenders--allies, instead of rivals. No doubt, also, it is the previous attempt at an undue restraint, which is accountable for much, if not all, of incipient rivalry and contention. Voluntary religious societies, then, are justified by both princi ple and expediency. It is a conclusion which we might have anticipated, reaching out like an evolution from the fact that our Church has practically declared in their favor. In a living, active Church, the intellectual perceptions could not be so blinded, nor the conscience be so defective, as to sanction, for any length of time, that which is essentially injurious, derogatory, or wrong. If the enlightened conscience condemned such societies, its influence would, no doubt, be felt in the diminishing number of those who adhered to them. If voluntary associations proved a hindrance, their inexpediency would very soon be recognized, and they would be neglected, uncherished, and abandoned. On the contrary, such societies are increasing in numbers, in eminence, and in sway. They are gathering large amounts for the permanent foundation and endowment of religious institutions, which society cannot afford to part with, while, at the same time, diocesan and general committees receive no diminished income; but the work of these latter shares in the zeal and earnestness which an increase in works of Christian. love, exhibited in any impressive way or form, cannot fail to excite. IF F we should write this article after the model of the celebrated chapter on the snakes of Iceland, and say briefly and simply, "There was no Roman Patriarchate during the Arian troubles," we should completely express our apprehension of the fact. But as this might appear too summary a treatment of the subject, and the discussion of the position of the See of Rome at that time may be considered as still open, and may lead to a more correct appreciation of a most interesting period of Church history, we propose to give the reasons for our assertion. In the latter half of the second century, the "Provincial System" was fairly established-if indeed it were not, in the nature of things, coeval with the institution of the Church. By that time we have abundant testimony that neighboring bishops were accustomed to meet together in council, at stated times or on special emergencies, according to the convenience of travel or affinities of race and language; and matters pertaining to the welfare of the Church at large, were deliberated upon and settled in these assemblies. The Churches of a region thus came to look upon themselves as - collectively an unit; and in due course of time, practices founded upon this fact were formulated into rules, and a definite polity was established, realizing in the Ante-Nicene Church, as completely as in any after period, the communion of the members with one another in the unity of the whole. Whether the "Metropolitan system" was also established at this time is not so clear. The Thirty-fifth Apostolical Canon (so called) enjoins, in language which may seem like the extension of a custom not universally received, that "the bishops of every country ought to know who is the chief among them, and to esteem him as their head, and not to do any great thing without his consent," etc.; but this falls short of the proposition that the Bishop of the Metropolis, as such, was that "chief" and "head;" nor do Beveridge and Bingham convince us that this was generally the case, their own examples show that it was not, as notably in Africa to a late day. The presidency of the provincial council might be bestowed at first, either because of personal preeminence, or seniority of consecration, or the magnitude of the See; but this last would occur only when the city was so important as to be beyond comparison with any other in the province. Such was the case beyond peradventure with the three great cities of the then Roman world,-Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch; and they were undoubtedly metropoles from the rise of the provincial system. A local council at which the bishop of either of these cities was present, but at which he did not preside, would be an impossibility; unless, as in the case of Paul of Samosata at Antioch, he was the party upon whom the Council sat in judgment. The Bishop of Rome, at this time, like other bishops, was under the obligations and protected by the safeguards of the Ecclesiastical Common Law. The relations of all to each other were ascertained by a polity with means and instruments effective for the preservation of Catholic Unity, and for securing the communion of member with member in the one body of Christ. Of these means and instruments, the principal were in the Ante-Nicene period, the three following: 1. Literae formatae, or official letters. 2. Duly accredited messengers from one Church to another. 3. A concurrence of local or provincial decisions upon matters of general interest. 1. The Literae formatae were so called because they were written in a peculiar hand, and with certain distinguishing marks by which they were authenticated. They were not only letters dimissory for the clergy, and of communion for the laity, but also epistles giving official information of any important transaction, or communicating opinions upon subjects under discussion, or publishing provincial decisions in adjudicated cases.1 By means of these letters duly sent and preserved in the archives of the Churches which received them, accurate information was everywhere obtainable of the condition and history of the whole Catholic communion, and we cannot open the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius anywhere, without seeing the use he made of them. By this means, also, a judgment of the Catholic Church upon any matter was arrived at as fully and as accurately as by the assembly of a general council in later times; for example, on the Quarto-deciman controversy, the Montanist heresy, or the Novatian schism. To give or withhold these letters, to receive or refuse them, was the test of Catholic communion, and the one means by which the unity of the Church was brought to bear upon any particular See, for the preservation of the faithful from schism and heresy." Under certain circumstances, letters of this sort, by whatever bishop sent, were really, if not in name, Decretals, and a collection of them agreeing in a common decision gave the law or pronounced the judgment of the Catholic Church. 8 2. These letters were not left to chance means of transmission. They were sent by accredited messengers of the clergy, with the utmost care to guard against fraudulent or unauthorized communications. St. Cyprian furnishes a remarkable instance of this, returning with his Third Epistle (Oxford trans. No. 9), a letter to the Roman Church: "Inasmuch as in the same letter both the writing and the matter, and even the paper itself, gave me the idea that something had been taken away, or had been changed from the original, . . . that you may examine whether it is the very same which you gave Bingham, B. II. chap. iv. sec. 5, omits this kind of literae formatae, which were very important. 2 Thus Augustine (Ep. 44 Migne, al. 163) challenges his antagonist, "Hic primo asserere conatus est, ubique terrarum esse communionem suam. Quaerebam utrum epistolas communicatorias quas formatas dicimus, posset quo vellem dare, et affirmabam quod manifestum erat omnibus, hoc modo facillime illam terminari posse quaestionem." So Optatus, Lib. II., contra Parm. Nobis totus orbis commercio formatarum in una communionis societate concordat." 66 Baronius, ad ann. 142, enumerates the following kinds of letters as used in the Early Church: 1. Communicatoriae, also called Canonicae and Pacificae; 2. Commendatitiae; 3. Dimissoriae; 4. Memoriales sen commonitoriae; 5. Synodicae; 6. Encyclicae, i. e., circulares, also called Catholicae; 7. Decretales; 8. Pastorales; 9. Confessoriae; 10. Apostolicae; 11. Tractoriae. But these distinctions were not formulated so early. Nor were "Decretals" issued only by the Bishop of Rome. |