IN endeavoring to learn what the Church was really like in the early centuries, it is most necessary to keep before the mind the fact, that many words then in use carried a very different meaning from that which now is the case. Church, bishop, altar, for example, in primitive times conveyed different ideas from what they now do. In respect to the word "church." During the apostolic age, and for some little time afterward, there was no word for the place where the Christians congregated. Church in those days signified persons. Hence, when we assign a date to the erection of churches in Britain, we perceive that custom had already prevailed in the world, and had permitted the Church to designate with its own name the buildings in which its members congregated. The Church at large was at the first too little settled in the heathen world to admit of rearing buildings for special use, and the room of a Roman villa, whose owner was favorable to the Christian faith, or any occasional chamber, would suffice as the place wherein the Christians worshipped; or, failing such advantages,' the open air or a hiding-place underground would afford them the opportunity of gathering together. Amongst the Jews the upper room of the house, or, in Jerusalem, the precincts of the temple, gave the Christians the center for their assembling themselves together. The persons who composed the Church were the "living stones" of the spiritual building, which was the "habitation of God through the Spirit" on the earth. But as time proceeded, and the Church fought its conquering way in the world, the places where its members met together obtained recognition, till at length buildings of importance were erected, which overtopped and overshadowed the temples of the pagans.
The first churches erected in Britain were not like the great churches of the East. They were formed of mud and wattle, after the manner of the humble houses of the Britons themselves, and this fact alone is evidence of the national character of the early British Church. There are some few remains of churches in which Roman work proclaims the presence or the influence of the conquering nation, and the hold the Christian faith had gained in the pagan empire.
The wooden fabric and straw roof of the church of about A.D. 230 (we quote from Thackeray) was not adorned either outwardly or inwardly with paintings, crosses, and images, although texts of Scripture appeared in various places upon the walls. Nearly in the middle of the church was placed a reading desk, from which portions of Scripture were read to the congregation by the deacons; for in early times every nation performed divine service in the tongue of the people.
History tells practically nothing of very early British martyrs, and it has been shrewdly observed, as it was the custom of Imperial Rome to allow conquered nations to retain their religion, that after the overthrow of Druidism the Britons may have been left, as to religion, to take their own course-at least, to a considerable extent. The Romans, while bringing their religion with them into conquered lands, did not aim at changing the ideas of the people, while certain Roman rulers in Britain were, to say the very least, favorably disposed to the Christians. But when the edict of the Emperor Diocletian (A.D. 303) reached Britain toleration was set aside. The Emperor endeavored to stamp the Christian faith out of the whole empire; and thus the more settled parts of Britain, and its chief cities, felt the force of his blow.
Then it was that Albanus, the Roman who protected a Christian, suffered martyrdom. The names of a few others have come down to us. There were many churches in Britain at the time, and many Britons who worshipped Christ, and it is much to be regretted that we know so very little of the martyrs, for several, both men and women, were slain. We merely know, in a general way, that there was persecution. The annals of the martyrs are the noblest monuments of the Church; they declare the power of Christ in His people, and the faith of Christ's servants, such as none other witness can approach; but, alas! in regard to these ennobling testimonies, the Church itself was her own enemy, for, as she grew lax as to Christ and His sacrifice on the cross, she surrounded the names of the martyrs with garlands of fables, and instead of magnifying Christ in their death, magnified their bones and garments.
After the persecution during the reign of Diocletian, a period of ease at the hand of the Romans accrued to Britain, and times of favor to the Christian religion. The Christians came forth from their hiding places, rebuilt their churches, and honored the bones of their martyrs. The Christian faith had spread in the country, and the names of several early British bishops, some of whom are noted for spiritual wisdom, have come down to us, so that we can with joy consider Britain in the third and fourth centuries as possessing a considerable number of churches and godly leaders.
We must pause again as the word "bishop" is upon our lips, for it would be a great mistake to suppose that the bishops in Britain of the third and fourth centuries were either like the bishops of today, or those of the apostolic age. As such titles as bishops, deacons, presbyters, and priests present themselves, it may be well very briefly to view the constitution of the Church as it existed at the first. The whole body of the Church (that is, all of its members) were regarded as priests rendering spiritual and acceptable worship to God the Father. They were, as St. John tells us, priests to God the Father by the consecration of Jesus Christ Himself; priests, both holy and royal, capable of offering up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God, as St. Peter teaches; and having, each one of them, liberty to enter into the Holiest of All by virtue of the sacrifice and High Priesthood of Christ, as St. Paul declares.
As the Church lost faith in these divine realities she invented a class of priests of her own, and denied to "all saints" the privileges above enumerated. So widely did the Church diverge from apostolic and revealed doctrine on this matter, that the very word "priest," as it is now applied to Christian ministers, has not even a place in the Scriptures. Over the Church in a locality—in a town, for example—elders, presbyters, or bishops were appointed. These men were married, and their families were of good repute. They were especially appointed to oversee the moral tone of the local Church, and such of them as labored also in the word and doctrine received double honor. It would have been almost impossible for the Church in Britain to have maintained a continuance at the first had the divine order not been regarded. The everyday life of the pagan and that of the Christian stood in contrast on all points, and the accepted moral principles respecting good and evil, such as prevail in Protestant countries today, had no existence in pagan communities. But, further, God did not intend that in His Church every man should do what might be right in his own eyes; neither did God intend that in His Church men should yield blind and senseless obedience to rulers who would turn it into a piece of spiritual mechanism. At the beginning the order of government in the local Church was patriarchal in character and of a family nature. The family character of life in the Church had died down in the end of the third century, when the original bishop had developed into a ruler over a large community; and it was absolutely forsaken when hundreds of such rulers were in turn ruled by a supreme Pontiff. Then the original constitution of the Church was laid in the dust, and upon the ruins of its holiness, tenderness, and love the citadel of priestly tyranny was built.
Therefore, when we speak of bishops of the British Church, and would picture one of them, we have to shade off mentally from the homely example to the flock of apostolic times, to the bishop of the Roman province of the time of Constantine, and we must form our type according to the century in which we are interested.
For some time after the conquest of Britain the Romans kept the people of the country poor; and, even when the policy of the conquerors changed, and Britain was intersected with roads, fruitful with corn and cattle, and luxurious with villas, the tax-gatherer pressed heavily upon the British. It is not, therefore, surprising that the Church in Britain was poor. It had no revenues, save the willing offerings of its members; and we find poverty characterizing some at least of its early bishops. But the favor towards Christianity shown by the Emperor Constantine exchanged the healthy hardships of the Church in Britain for pagan patronage. The Emperor addressed a circular letter to all the bishops in the empire, and commanded the State to assist with funds and support the rebuilding and enlargement of churches; and this circular styled the bishop addressed "your holiness"! So differently did the world of the year 350 regard the Church from the world of the year zoo A few brief words are necessary respecting Constantine. This emperor, while remaining a pagan—for he was not baptized until his dying hours—presided over the Church councils and was energetic in church building. We have not to say whether he was truly a Christian—we have only to judge by his ways: and, at the end of his life, he "sought comfort and absolution from the ministers of pagan superstition as well as from those of the true religion." What the influence of such a man was upon the Church is not hard to determine. Hence, the reign of Constantine, and the public recognition and toleration by the pagan empire of Rome, of the Christian religion, form a landmark of supreme importance in the history of the Church. Under Constantine the cross superseded Christ in many respects; and this evil is still rampant in the Church. He gave an impulse to the growing practice of the Church in her idolatrous sentiment of venerating sacred localities and of building elaborate churches upon sacred spots, and of doing so without warrant, whether the reputed sacred places were genuine or not. He persecuted "heretics"—some of whom, let us hope, rejected the corruption and worldliness with which the Emperor had flooded the Church— drove them out of cities, and confiscated their places of assembly. Such novelties—having the apostolic era in view—could not do otherwise than affect the whole professing body—the "Catholic" Church of the empire. Thus with the reign of Constantine and the empire absorbing the Church, we enter that period of her history when the last fragments of apostolic power, purity, and simplicity were fast being swept away.
Constantine's seat of power had been transferred to the East, and Britain stood in the extreme West of the empire; hence it may not have suffered to the extent which befell the district in immediate contact with the Emperor. And, further, Rome with its idols, ever inimical to Christianity, stood as a barrier between the East and the far West. And, also, as we shall recount in our next chapter, changes were about to take place in Britain which isolated her, not only from the East, but from those countries of Europe which formed part of the Roman Empire.