Theodosia Ernest. Volume II.: or, Ten Days’ Travel in Search of the Church. (continued 5)

“If you should take a pen, put it in the hand of a babe, and take hold of his fingers and guide his tiny hand in such a way that it should write its signature to a deed of gift conveying to the Church his whole inheritance, that act would be as much the act of the child, as is the act by which he is made to give himself to the Church. It is no act of his. He is made a member not only without his desire, but without his consciousness. The members of the Scripture Churches were not made thus. They heard the Word: they were pricked in their hearts: they believed in Christ: they rejoiced in hope; and then they of their own accord consorted with the people of God. This is, therefore, no Church, because its members were not made such by their own desire, or even with their own consent.

“Does it, in accordance with our sixth test, hold the fundamental doctrines of the gospel? Is salvation, in her formulas made to depend on grace, through faith, or is it made to rest on works: on the observance of forms and conformity to the ceremonies prescribed by the Church? No one familiar with her ritual can doubt. The child is made a Christian by its baptism; and as it grows up must complete the work of salvation by confessions and penances, genuflections and fastings, and the like. Here is no recognition of the sacrifice of Christ once offered for the sins of the world, and vow available to every one who believes. Salvation is only to be found in the Church, and only to be received at the hands of the priests, and that by the use of certain forms. We need not take time to show her errors in detail. We need not speak of the adoration of images and supplications to saints. It is enough for us to know that she has so for changed the gospel plan of saving sinners that she cannot give the same directions to the convicted and anxious inquirer after salvation which the apostles did, ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.’

“Seventh. Did it begin in the time of Christ, and has it continued to the present time? There is no doubt that in the time of the apostles a Church of Christ was founded at Rome. There is no doubt that it continued for a time to be a true Church. At first it was composed only of baptized believers, who had ‘been buried with Christ by baptism,’ and whose ‘faith was spoken of throughout the world.’ It was at first and for several generations a simple local assembly, which claimed no authority over other Churches, and submitted itself to no authority but that of Christ. It took the law of Jesus for its guide and in all questions of doctrine or of duty appealed to at alone. So long as this continued, it was a Church of Christ. Had it continued thus until the present, we should rejoice to recognize it now as a true Church of Christ, which had existed from the earliest days But she did not continue thus. At an early day she began to recognize the authority of rulers whom Christ had not appointed; she submitted to laws which Christ had not enacted; she introduced members whom Christ had not authorized; and from that time she ceased to be a Church of Christ. She was still called by his name, but she was no longer his; she had become apostate, and, by doing so, had lost all right to act as his executive. She became the seat of sin, the very throne of Satan. She shed the blood of the saints by thousands upon thousands. She changed the ordinances of Christ, and showed herself to be the very ‘Antichrist,’ the ‘man of sin’ and ‘son of perdition,’ foretold in the Word. So long as she retained her first estate, she was a Church of Christ; when she entered the second, she was the Church of Rome, and in the course of time she styled herself the Roman Catholic or universal Church. The exact date of her transformation from a Church of Christ to Antichrist is not now easy to determine; but she was certainly no Church of Christ from that day when she first imbued her impious hands in the blood of those whom she slew for the testimony of Jesus. In her present form as a religious hierarchy, and with her present constitution and character of membership and order of ministry, she dates her beginning long after the time of Christ. In his day, or that of the apostles, no such religious establishments were dreamed of. The Church of Christ, as we have seen, was not a hierarchy, and of course no hierarchy could be his Church. And so even if this immense establishment had existed from before the death of Christ, it could have been no Church of his, for his Church was not such an establishment, but a simple local, independent society. We know, however, from undoubted historical records, that it was at least as late as the second century before the Church of Christ at Rome gave place to the Roman hierarchy; so that she has not even this claim to be a true scriptural Church.

“Then, if we apply our eighth test, and ask if she has ever persecuted for conscience’ sake, all history will testify that she was for ages drunken with the blood of the saints. When was there a day that she did not persecute? In every age, and every country, where she has had the power, she has tortured, and tormented, and destroyed all who ventured to obey Christ rather than Rome. It is somewhat remarkable that, though she has sometimes killed Jews and Pagans for their religion, her chief cruelties have been inflicted on those who claimed to be the followers of Jesus: who studied God’s holy Word for themselves, and who would not recognize her authority above that of their Lord. They said that a corrupt apostate Church had lost all authority as the executive of the kingdom of Christ, and therefore that baptism conferred by her ministers, and on her authority, was no Christian baptism and they could not receive it as such. They consequently baptized those who came to them from the Roman Church even though they had been immersed by the priests. This Rome declared was the horrible sin of rebaptizing, or Anabaptism, and those who practiced it were called by them the Anabaptists. It is remarkable also that these Anabaptists could not find any authority in the Word for the baptism of children. They said Christ did not command it, for no such command can be discovered in the Book. They said Christ did not practice it; no more did the apostles; for no instance of its performance can be discovered in the Book. And since there was no Scripture for it, they could not practice it as a religious ordinance. They consequently, while they dedicated their children to God, and carefully educated them in a knowledge of his Word, yet did not dare to mock God by conferring on them the baptism which Christ had appointed only for those who had repented and believed. For these things they were anathematized. For these things they were fined imprisoned, scourged, tortured, beheaded, drowned, and burned by the ‘Holy Catholic Church’ of Rome. For these things they are to-day fined, and imprisoned, and tormented, in every Catholic country where the Church has the power, and dares to use it. It is mainly by the curses which were denounced against them, by the instructions given for their extirpation, and the reasons given why they must be destroyed from the earth, that we can trace the history of the true Churches, from the time that the Roman hierarchy was established. The history of that hierarchy is minutely recorded, and that is called the history of the Church! But the true Churches of Christ have scarce a name for many ages. We might have been left to doubt of their existence, did not these decrees, which denounced them as the most fearful of heretics, and the record of the bloody executions by which these decrees were so remorsefully enforced, attest their continuous existence. But, as it is, we can recognize them in every age, and many lands. We can trace them by the streams of blood which they shed for the testimony of Jesus; and see them by the light of the fires by which their bodies were consumed, because they would not forsake their King, give up the liberty with which Christ had made them free, and subject their conscience to the rule of Rome. They boldly asked, ‘What has the emperor to do with our religion?’ They knew, in matters of religion, no other king but Jesus. They were governed by his Word; and this was their unpardonable crime. They would not obey the Pope: they would not heed the decrees of councils: they had the Word of God; that they could not disobey; its authority was supreme, and its instructions were complete. What need had they of popes and councils to teach them the law of Christ? And what right had popes and councils to change or abrogate the laws of Christ? They were Christ’s freemen, and would not, nay they could not, bow their necks to the yoke of Roman Catholic bondage, or bow their knee to Roman Catholic authority. And Roman Catholic authority, after ‘the Church’ had secured the alliance and control of the civil power to enforce her decrees, was not lightly to be cast off. Not the blood of individual offenders alone could satiate her vengeance; though countless thousands perished thus alone in the dungeons of the Inquisition, and in the flames of the ‘auto da fé;’ but whole provinces were laid waste by fire and sword, and all the population, men and women, innocent maidens and little, helpless infants, consigned to indiscriminate and murderous death—death made most terrible by all the atrocities which the most diabolical cruelty and most satanic ingenuity could possibly devise, to add to its horrors. The Church of Rome can count her victims, not by thousands nor by hundreds of thousands, but by millions; and these not Jews, rejecting Christ; not Pagans, bowing down to dumb idols; but believers in Jesus—baptized believers, meaning, like the early Christians, in their local churches, and organized upon the Scripture model; whose only crime was that they chose to obey Christ rather than the Pope. They would not acknowledge that Rome had any right to rule where Christ alone was King. They would not acknowledge the baptism of Rome, and would not baptize their children till they gave evidence of penitence and faith.”

“If it will not give you too much trouble,” said Theodosia, “I would like to hear some of the particulars of the Catholic persecutions. I know they are many; and some of them have been very destructive and cruel; but I have in my mind rather a general conception of nameless horrors, than any of the details of cruelty and death which you have referred to in such general terms.”

“I fear,” said Doctor Thinkwell, “that if we enter upon the particular acts of persecuting cruelty on the part of this Church, it will consume too much of our time. I have given some little attention to this matter, and can assure you that the history of her persecutions is, in a great degree, the history of the hierarchy. She has been not an occasional but a continuous persecutor. Still, if Mr. Courtney can select a few of the most striking or most instructive examples, it will, perhaps, not be amiss.”

“An examination of these facts,” said Mr. Courtney, “so far from causing a needless waste of time, or directing our attention from the main object which we have in hand, will be almost essential to our perfect understanding, not only of the position of this claimant, but of several of the others. And though we cannot enter into all the horrible details of the persecutions which God’s people have sustained from this ecclesiastical hierarchy and her descendants, we cannot do less than briefly to trace her history in connection with this point.”

“Please give it to us, then, as briefly as you can,” said the Doctor.

“No, no, Mr. Courtney!” exclaimed Theodosia. “Please tell us all you know about it. Dr. Thinkwell has been over all this ground, and does not remember that to the rest of us it will be entirely new, and will have all the interest of romance.”

“The history of persecution is a strange history, in any light in which we are able to view it; and the strangest chapter in that history is that which relates to the persecution of Christians by those who professed to be themselves the friends and followers of Jesus. It was not wonderful that Pagans should kill Christians, and seek to arrest the progress of a religion which so bitterly denounced their opinions and their practices, and was so utterly and irreconcilably opposed to all that they held sacred. Christianity, wherever it was received, abrogated and destroyed the power of the Pagan priests. The reverence with which they had been greeted was changed to pity or contempt. The costly offerings no longer came to enrich their shrines; no victims bled before their altars. The pomp and grandeur of their imposing ceremonies was gone. Their temples were crumbling to ruin; and all the splendor and pageantry of their once attractive ritual no longer attracted countless thousands to gaze, and wonder, and adore. These priests were the educated, the intelligent, the governing minds of vast and powerful nations. They would not see their power sliding from out their grasp, and make no effort to retain it. Instinctively they clung to it with the tenacity of the death-struggle. The intensest efforts of the mightiest minds of all the Pagan world were exerted in defence of the ancient religion. Nor does it seem too much to believe that they were aided in their counsels by suggestions from that Prince of darkness whose willing servants they had been so long. As Rome was now the mistress of the world, it was in Rome that the great battle must be fought. When Paul began to preach there, in his own hired house, bound by a chain to the soldier who had his liberty in charge, Christianity was too small a thing to excite more than contemptuous disregard on the part of those in power. But when converts had multiplied, and some of them were found even in the household of the emperor, the priests became alarmed. They did not choose to reason, but determined to destroy. The government belonged to them, and all the ingenuity of statutes, all the powers of arms, and all the authority of the empire, were employed at once to crush the new religion to the earth, and grind out every vestige of it from the minds of men. If it had been like other religions, such would have been the speedy and certain result. But the name of Christ was stronger than the terrible name of Rome. Ten fearful persecutions, in which all the vast power and resources of the mightiest empire of the earth were brought to bear with most malignant and terrific energy upon the rising sect, had passed, and yet it was not extinguished. The cruel Nero, the proud and perfidious Domitian, the superstitious Diocletian, in vain assailed it. The bodies of Christians were slaughtered in the streets; thrown alive into the arena of the amphitheatre, to be devoured by wild beasts; burned as torches to illuminate the public gardens; and subjected to tortures too horrible to mention. But Christianity still survived. Celsus, Porphyry, and Hierocles, attacked it by argument, by abuse, by satire, and denunciation; but it was still triumphant. ‘The Apologies’ of the Fathers were more than a match for the learning and wit of their opponents. Even Julian the Apostate, when he brought all the learning and all the skill of his philosophy, combined with all the power of the empire, to bear upon the religion which he had once embraced, and then disowned, was compelled to own in death that the Galilean had conquered—Christianity was triumphant. The temples of the idols became the churches of the worshippers of Jesus. The altars no longer smoked with the blood of sacrifices offered to love. And yet the priests were there, clothed, like their pagan predecessors, in their sacred robes, and much of what was called the worship of Jehovah was wonderfully like what had once been called the worship of Jupiter. The Christian name was there, but the purity and the power of the religion of Christ had been lost; and those who were now called Christians, so soon as they were invested with the power, showed that they were quite as ready to torture and torment, to persecute and destroy, those who ventured to call in question their authority, as the ancient Pagans had ever been.”

“Please tell us, Mr. Courtney, how this change was brought about. How was it that the disciples of Him who was another name for love, and who bade his followers to do good to them who hated them, and pray for those who persecuted them—how was it that they ceased to obey their Lord, and became themselves the murderers of their brethren?”

“When the religion of Christ,” replied Mr. Courtney, “became the popular religion; when those who professed it were courted and flattered rather than imprisoned and killed; when nobles and emperors had espoused the cause of Christ, bad men united with that party for the sake of power and influence. When infant baptism (or, rather, the baptism of minors, for the baptism of babes was not introduced till a later day;) had been adopted, and the only prerequisite for Church-membership was the ability to repeat, like a parrot, the words of a creed, and answer some questions of a catechism; when sincere repentance and a living faith in Christ had been dispensed with as terms of admission to the Churches, they soon came to be composed of unconverted men, who had no spiritual understanding of the gospel, and to whom religion was but an empty form, valuable only so far as it could be used or purposes of worldly aggrandizement. These Churches were no longer the assemblies of the disciples of Jesus. They had already ceased to be true Churches of Christ; they were mere companies of worldly men, who had no love for Jesus or his cause, and cared far less for the prosperity of his kingdom than for their own promotion. The first step towards that fearful change by which Christ’s Church was driven out of sight, and an establishment having the same name, though consisting of a different sort of people, and organized under a very different constitution, and filled with rancorous hatred towards it, was the loss of the independence of the local societies. Christ, as we have seen, made each Church independent. It had none above it but himself alone. He was its Lord and Master; but it called no one master on the earth.

“But it happened very early (some time in the second century) that this wise arrangement began to be changed. In the large cities the first Church that was organized began to take precedence of the others, which were formed, to some extent, under its superintendence. The process was very simple and very natural. There was a large and influential Church: it had in it a number of ministers, who were all called presbyters —that is, elders or bishops. Some one of these it chose to be its pastor. As the membership increased, it would become inconvenient for all to meet in the same place. They would consequently assemble for worship in different localities in the city; and it was but natural that they should request him whom they all recognized as their pastor, and to whose Church they came to partake of the holy supper, and at whose hands they had received their baptism, to send them some elder to conduct their public worship. It was but natural that he should request some minister to go, and that he should even desire him to take the permanent charge, with the consent of all concerned, of this little interest. It was but natural that what was thus done as a matter of convenience and courtesy, should soon come to be regarded (among people so ignorant of Christianity as the first converts from Paganism must have been) as a matter of right, and founded in the original constitution of the Church. The new assembly still considered itself as an appendage to the first, and its minister was still subject to the pastor of the first as his pastor. And in time he was regarded as holding his place, not by the will of the people to whom he ministered, but by that of the pastor who had designated him to the work. A number of such outside assemblies would be formed: in each the same results would follow, from the influence of like causes. The pastor of the first and prominent Church would find himself, though having no immediate concern in their affairs, yet nominally the pastor of thousands of people, to whom he never ministered, but who were under the control of those who soon began to be styled his presbyters, or inferior clergy; while he, by way of eminence, was called the ‘episcopos;’ that is, in plain English, ‘the overseer:’ a term which is employed several times in the New Testament, but always as synonymous with ‘presbuteros,’ or elder; as when Paul is said to have sent for the ‘presbyters,’ elders of the Church at Ephesus, and charged them to take heed to themselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Spirit had made them ‘bishops’—rendered in our version, very properly, ‘overseers.’ Now, all this may have been very innocently done. The first of the pastors who thus acquired the control of other Churches than his own, may have been, and probably was, desirous, not so much to extend his own power as to extend the conquests of religion. The influence which he exerted was probably much more dependent on his personal character than on his official position. The people loved him, and were unwilling to be entirely dissevered from his ministry. They offered him the spontaneous and unenforced subjection of willing hearts, and sought instruction and direction from him in their ecclesiastical affairs rather as a father in the Lord than as the ruler over their consciences. But a generation passed away. What was at first mere courtesy had now become custom. His successor could demand, as a right, the control which the other had, perhaps, reluctantly retained. The bishop claimed the right to designate the ministers to the secondary Churches; he claimed the right to control their discipline; he claimed as a right the fees and revenues which began to accrue from various sources. He found himself in a place of power and influence. His control over so many thousands of people made his friendship important to political aspirants. He could be useful to the state; the state therefore confirmed his claims, and, if need be, enforced them by the secular power. The bishop and his diocese became a part of the apparatus of the empire, and his relations to the Churches were established by the civil laws. Here was the first error. The original simplicity of the Churches organization established by Christ and the apostles was lost, and the independent local Church was swallowed up in a hierarchy, or ecclesiastical establishment, consisting of all the Churches in a certain city, or province, or country, made subject, more or less completely, to one common head. Congregational independence was displaced, and episcopacy was set up in its stead. This was not done everywhere at once; nor was it ever done by all the Churches. Some there were who still refused subjection to any lord but Christ; and were for this the objects of the bitterest persecution on the part of those who had acknowledged the supremacy of the bishops, and formed alliance with the state.”

“Excuse me, gentlemen,” exclaimed the Bishop, who had come in after this conversation commenced, and had taken a seat apart from the little circle engaged in it, apparently with the determination to have no more to say in the discussion— “Excuse me, gentlemen, but I would like to know upon what authority such statements as those to which I have just listened can possibly be based. The explanation of the pretended rise of Episcopacy is certainly very ingenious, and to me has been very entertaining, as will be, doubtless, the story of the innumerable evils of which it is, I discover, to be made the parent. And it seems almost a pity to spoil such a beautiful fabric by knocking the foundation out from under it; and that I fancy I can do by simply asking upon what it rests? For if any fact recorded in ecclesiastical history is certain, it is that the Church of Christ, from the earliest days, even from the time of the apostles themselves, was organized upon the Episcopal plan, and recognized three orders of the ministry: to the first of which (that is, the bishops) was given this exclusive authority to ordain to the ministry, and exercise the discipline of the Churches.”

“It is very easy,” replied Mr. Courtney, “to make confident assertions, and sometimes very difficult to sustain them by the only admissive testimony. You ask me upon what foundation I base my explanation of the rise of the Episcopacy, and by what authority I have made such statements concerning it. I will answer you frankly and freely.

“In the first place, we have, by a careful study of this book, [laying his hand upon the Bible], ascertained that the Churches established by the apostles were independent, local Churches. There is no such thing as a hierarchy there. There is no Church mentioned there which subjected any other Church to itself, or became itself subject to any other. If, therefore, Churches became thus dependent and confederated in the apostles’ days, it must have been after the canon of the Scripture was closed.

“In the next place, it is, I believe, the unanimous testimony of those who have written impartially the history of the first Churches, that they continued to be thus independent at least until the second century.

“What says the learned Mosheim? ‘A bishop, during the first and second centuries, was a person who had the care of one Christian assembly, which at that time was generally small enough to be contained in a private house. In this assembly he acted, not so much with the authority of a master as with the zeal and diligence of a faithful servant. He instructed the people, performed the several parts of Divine worship, attended the sick, and inspected into the circumstances and supplies of the poor.’ (See vol. i., Ecclesiastical History, pp 100⁠–⁠106.)

“But when he comes to speak of the third century, he says, ‘The face of things now began to change in the Christian Church. The ancient method of ecclesiastical government seemed still to subsist in general, while at the same time, by imperceptible steps, it varied from the primitive rule and degenerated toward the form of a religious monarchy. For the bishops aspired to higher degrees of power than they had formerly possessed; and not only violated the rights of the people, but also made gradual encroachments on the privileges of the presbyters. And that they might cover these usurpations with an air of justice and an appearance of reason, they published new doctrines concerning the nature of the Church, and the Episcopal dignity. One of the principal authors of this change was Cyprian, (Bishop of Carthage,) who pleaded for the power of the bishops with more zeal and vehemence than had ever been hitherto employed in that cause. This change in the form of ecclesiastical government was soon followed by a train of vices which dishonored the character and authority of those to whom the administration of the Church was committed. For although several yet continued to exhibit to the world illustrious examples of primitive piety and Christian virtue, yet many were sunk in luxury and voluptuousness, puffed up with vanity, arrogance, and ambition, possessed with a spirit of contention and discord, and addicted to many other vices that cast an undeserved reproach upon the holy religion of which them were the unworthy professors and ministers.’ (Pages 265⁠–⁠267.)

“Concerning the fourth century, the same learned historian speaks as follows: ‘The bishops, whose opulence and authority were considerably increased since the reign of Constantine, began gradually to introduce innovations into the form of ecclesiastical discipline, and to change the ancient government of the Church. The first step was the entire exclusion of the people from all part in the administration of ecclesiastical affairs; and afterwards, they by degrees divested even the presbyters of their ancient privileges, and their primitive rights, that they might have no importunate protestors to control their ambition or oppose their proceedings, and, principally, that they might either engross to themselves, or distribute as they thought proper, the possessions and revenues of the Church. Hence it came to pass that at the conclusion of the fourth century there remained no more than a mere shadow of the ancient government of the Church. Many of the privileges which had formerly belonged to the presbyters and people were usurped by the bishops; and many of the rights which had been formerly vested in the universal Church were transferred to the emperors and to subordinate officers and magistrates.’ (Page 348.)

“Similar to this is the testimony of Neander. He says—”

“But what does it matter in this dispute,” exclaimed the Bishop, “what such writers as Mosheim, or Neander, or Coleman, may assert? They are opposed to the Episcopacy. They wrote, in part at least, for the express purpose of bringing it into discredit. They, and such as they, are not disinterested, and, consequently, are not reliable witnesses.”

“I should be very sorry to believe,” replied the school master, “that such men could not relate the real facts of the history they profess to record, even though they did believe that the existence and authority of diocesan bishops was an unauthorized innovation upon the original order of the Churches. But I am disposed to be very accommodating in regard to the ecclesiastical character of my witnesses. I have such a variety that I am sure I can satisfy the most fastidious taste. Suppose we pass by Neander and Coleman. You surely will not object to Gibbon—the author of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Mr. Gibbon says of the first and second centuries: ‘The public functions of religion were solely intrusted to the established ministers of the Church—the bishops and the presbyters; two appellations which, in their first origin, appear to have distinguished the same office, and the same order of persons. The name of presbyter was expressive of their age, or rather of then gravity or wisdom. The title of bishop denoted their inspection over the faith and manners of the Christians who were committed to their pastoral care. In proportion to the respective numbers of the faithful, a larger or smaller number of these Episcopal presbyters guided each infant congregation with equal authority and with united counsels.’

“In this we have a picture of one of the earliest Churches. It was an organized body of baptized believers, who had among them a number of members who, on account of their wisdom and gravity, were called presbyters, or elders; and to whom had been committed the general oversight of the membership; and they were on this account called bishops, or overseers. But Gibbon goes on to say that ‘The most perfect equality of freedom requires the directing hand of a superior magistrate, and the order of public deliberations soon introduces the office of a president, [or chairman,] invested at least with the authority of collecting the sentiments and of executing the resolutions or the assembly. A regard for the public tranquillity, which would so frequently have been interrupted by annual or by occasional elections, induced the primitive Christians to constitute an honorable and perpetual magistracy, and to choose one of the wisest and most holy among their presbyters to execute, during his life, the duties of their ecclesiastical governor; [that is, to make him perpetual president of their congregation; or, in other words, invest him with the pastorate.] It was under these circumstances,’ continues the historian, ‘that the lofty title of bishop began to raise itself above the humble appellation of presbyter. And while the latter remained the most natural distinction for the members of every Christian senate, the former was appropriated to its new president. The pious and humble presbyters, who were first dignified with the Episcopal title, could not possess, and would probably have rejected, the power and pomp which now encircle the tiara of the Roman pontiff, or the mitre of a German prelate. The primitive bishops were considered only as the first of their equals, and the honorable servants of a free people. Whenever the Episcopal chair became vacant by death, a new president was chosen among the presbyters, by the suffrage of the whole congregation. Such was the mild and equal constitution by which the Christians were governed more than a hundred years after the death of the apostles.’ (Decline and Fall, vol. ii., pp. 272, 275.)

“Here is, according to Gibbon, whom you will admit to be an impartial witness, a direct assertion of the fact that the elders and bishops were at first the same, and, for more than a hundred years after the apostles had died, there was no other distinction between them, except that the title of bishop began to be appropriated exclusively to that presbyter whom some Church had chosen, by the vote of the whole congregation, to preside in their meetings and execute their decisions. But now, when he comes to speak of the third century, he presents a different picture:

“‘As the legislative authority of the particular Churches was insensibly superseded by the use of councils, the bishops obtained by their alliance a much larger share of executive and arbitrary power. And, as coon as they were connected by a sense of their common interest, they were enabled to attack, with united vigor, the original rights of the clergy and people. The prelates of the third century imperceptibly changed the language of exhortation to that of command, scattered the seeds of future usurpations, and supplied, by Scripture allegories and declamatory rhetoric, their deficiency of force and reason. They exalted the unity and power of the Church, as it was represented in the Episcopal office, of which every bishop enjoyed an equal and undivided portion. Princes and magistrates, it was often repeated, might boast an earthly claim to a transitory dominion. It was the Episcopal authority alone that was derived from the Deity, and extended itself over this and another world. Bishops were the vicegerents of Christ, the successors of the apostles, and the mystic substitutes of the high- priest of the Mosaic law. Their exclusive privilege of conferring the sacerdotal character invaded the freedom both of the clerical and popular elections. And if, in the administration of the Church, they sometimes consulted the judgment of the presbyters, or the inclination of the people, they most carefully inculcated the merit of such a voluntary condescension.’ (Vol. 1, pp. 276, 277.)

“Surely Mr. Gibbon sustains substantially what I asserted. The Church is at first a local society, governed by several presbyters. One of these is presently selected by the whole congregation to preside over their deliberations, and execute their will. To him, in time, the title of bishop, which had at first been given to all the presbyters, becomes specially appropriated. But yet, though a bishop, he is bishop only of the one local society, and is among them rather a servant than a ruler. This continues till the third century. Then the bishops begin to combine to elevate the Episcopal office. Then they begin to change the language of exhortation to that of command. Then, so far from regarding themselves as the servants of Christ’s people, they claim to be successors of the apostles and vicegerents of Christ himself.”

“But,” replied the Bishop, “you must be well aware that Gibbon was an infidel, and an enemy to the Christian religion; and, consequently, not the most reliable authority in matters of ecclesiastical polity.”

“Certainly, sir; and I would not have thought of referring to him if he had not been; and that in regard to this very point most fully endorsed by Dr. Haweis, one of your own most eminent divines, and the historian of your own Church. Dr. Haweis says, ‘Where no immediate bias to distort the truth leaves him an impartial witness, I will quote Gibbon with pleasure. I am conscious that his authority is more likely to weigh with the world in general than mine; I will therefore simply repeat his account of the primitive Church; I think we shall not on this point greatly differ.’ (Eccl. Hist., vol 1, p. 414.)

“But, if you object to Gibbon, even thus endorsed and vouched for, I am disposed to be accommodating. I will give you testimony from the Episcopal Church of England. Nay, I will go back and call the ancient Fathers from their graves, and they shall testify.

“What say you to the statements of your own Episcopal Bowdler? ‘I am aware,’ he says in his letters, ‘that in St. Jerome’s time there existed generally, though by no means universally, this difference between the bishop and the presbyters, namely, that to the former was then confided the power of ordination. The transition from perfect equality to absolute superiority was not suddenly effected. It was the growth of time—not of years, but of centuries; the distinction of authority, or office, preceding that of order, or decree in the Church, and being introductory to it. With the former (the distinction in office) I have no concern; it being sufficient to show that, as a distinct and superior order in the Church, Episcopacy, in the modern acceptation of the term, did not exist in the time of the apostles; and that, however expedient and desirable such un institution might be, it cannot plead the sanction of apostolic appointment or example. It may be difficult to fix the period exactly when the Episcopate was first recognized as a distinct order in the Church, and when the consecration of bishops, as such, came into general thus. Clearly not, I think, when St. Jerome wrote. This much, at least, is certain, namely, that the government of each Church, including the ordination of ministers, was at first in the hands of the presbytery, [the company of elders embraced in its numbers;] that when one of that body was raised to the office of president, and on whom the title of bishop was conferred, it was simply by the election (co-optatio) of the other presbyters, whose appointment was final, requiring no confirmation or consecration at the hands of any other prelates; and that each Church was essentially independent of every other.’

“But Bowdler, I know, though an Episcopalian, was a layman; and perhaps, as you are disposed to be so very particular about the ecclesiastical relations of your witnesses, you may prefer the testimony of a bishop; nay, of an archbishop, and be one of the most eminent for his learning and logic. What says Archbishop Whateley upon this subject? Does he deny that the first Churches were independent, and the first bishops were bishops or pastors of only a single local society? ‘Though there was,’ he says, ‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism, for all of these, yet they were each a distinct, independent community on earth; united by the common principles on which they were founded, by their mutual agreement, affection, and respect; but not having any one recognized head on earth, or acknowledging any sovereignty one of those societies over others. Each bishop originally presided over one entire Church.’ (Kingdom of Christ.)

“And, if it will not seem wrong to come down from the nigh place of the archbishop to the stand of a simple minister, what will you say to the testimony of that learned and eminent Episcopal divine, John Edwards, D.D., who, after a careful exposition of the teachings of the Fathers upon this subject, thus concludes: ‘From all these we may gather that the Scripture bishop was the chief of the presbyters, but he was not of a distinct order from them; and as for the times after the apostles, none of these writers, [Clement, Ignatius, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Jerome, etc.,] nor any ecclesiastical historian, tells us that an order superior to presbyters was set over the presbyters. It is true, one single person recorded to have presided over the college of presbyters; but this college had the same power with the single person, though not the particular dignity of the presidentship. The short is, the bishops in these times were presbyters; only he that presided over the body of presbyters was called bishop, while the rest were generally known by the title of presbyters; and the bishop was still but a presbyter, as to order and function; though, for distinction’s sake, he was known by the name of bishop. He was superior to the other presbyters so long as he executed his office; just as a chairman in a committee is above the rest of the justices, whilst he holds that place. It was generally the most ancient presbyter that was chosen to preside over the college of presbyters; but he had no superiority of authority. All the priority or primacy he had was that of order. Here is the ancient pattern. Why was it not followed? To single Fathers we may add council, who deliver the same sense. This, then, is the true account of the matter. Bishops were elders, or presbyters; and, therefore, of the same order. But the bishops differed from the presbyters in this only: that they were chosen by the elders to preside over them at their ecclesiastical meetings or assemblies. But, in after ages, the presbyters of some Churches parted with their liberty and right, and agreed among themselves that ecclesiastical matters should be managed by the bishop only.’ (Edwards’s Remains, p. 253.)

“So also the famous Bishop Burnet says expressly, ‘I acknowledge bishop and presbyter to be one; and so plead for no new office-bearer in the Church. The first branch of their power is their authority to publish the gospel, to manage the worship, and dispense the sacraments; and this is all that is of Divine right in the ministry, in which the bishops and presbyters are equal sharers. But, besides this, the Church claimeth a power of jurisdiction, of making rules for discipline, and applying and executing the same; all of which is, indeed suitable to the common laws of society, and the general rules of Scripture, but hath no positive warrant from any Scripture precept. And all these constitutions of Churches into synods; and the canons of discipline taking their rise from the division of the world into several provinces, beginning in the second or beginning of the third century, do clearly show that they can be derived from no Divine original; and so were, as to their form, but mere human institutions.’

“But I will not fatigue you. This is enough from the English Church; though but a specimen of what remains on record. It is possible you may not be quite pleased with even these witnesses, though they be your own brethren. They get their information from the Fathers. We can go to the same source. To them you can surely have no objection.”

“Excuse me for interrupting you,” said Theodosia; “but I am a little bewildered. I do not understand precisely what a discussion on Episcopacy has to do with the Church of Rome. I have been accustomed to associate the word Episcopal with the Church of England and the Methodists; but not with the Roman Catholics.”

“Perhaps,” replied Mr. Courtney, “I should have explained before, that our word Episcopal is formed from the Greek word ‘Episcopos,’ which signifies an overseer. It is sometimes so rendered in the New Testament, and sometimes it is rendered bishop; which is, in fact, only the English form of the same word. It is said by some, who profess to have traced the several steps by which Episcopos became bishop, that it first lost the prefix ‘E,’ and was pronounced ‘Piscopos;’ then the affix ‘us,’ and was called ‘Piscop;’ then, by a common transition, ‘P’ became ‘B,’ and it was ‘Biscop.’ Then the ‘c’ was changed to ‘h,’ and it became our common word, bishop. So you see that Episcopal is the same as Bishopical if there were only such a word. The Episcopal Church is the Bishopical Church; that is, the Church that is governed by bishops. So the Methodist Episcopal Church is that portion of the Methodist denomination which is subject to bishops, as distinguished from the Protestant or Independent Methodists, who refuse to acknowledge their authority. Now it is the peculiar characteristic of the Episcopal and Methodist Churches, that they are controlled by bishops; but they have both inherited this peculiarity in consequence of their regular descent from Rome. It is a part of the system of Popery, which they have retained.

“You inquired, some time since, by what process these which had been the Churches of Jesus became the persecutors of his people? I replied, that the first step seems to have been taken by giving up their independence as separate, local organizations, and becoming united in a hierarchy, in which they were subject to bishops; or, in other words, it was the setting up of the Episcopacy.

“Our friend here took issue with me upon this point, and assured us that it was as certain as any historical fact could be, that no such change from independence to Episcopacy had ever been made, since the Episcopacy existed from the very first, and was the order which was established by Christ and the apostles.

“I have been trying to convince him that did not speak without authority when I said the change was made; and described briefly the manner in which it was brought about. If any reliance is to be placed on the testimony of men who, like the Magdeburg Centuriators, Mosheim, Neander, and other ecclesiastical historians, have made Christian antiquities the object of their most laborious and careful investigation, my statements are fully sustained. But, as some of these way have been suspected of some latent aversion to Episcopacy, I have quoted Episcopalians, stating the same things. And now I propose to bring up the testimony of the Fathers, as they are called; that is, those Christian writer whose works have escaped the tooth of all-devouring time and have come down to us from the very days when this change was made. These, after all, must decide the question; for modern historians and divines can only tell us what, in their opinion, the Fathers did actually say upon the subject.”

“But, Mr. Courtney, why can we not decide this question by the Scriptures? If we cannot find Episcopacy in the Scriptures, it must, as a matter of course, have been introduced after they were written; or, if introduced before, must be without any binding authority on us. I don’t like to be dependent on mere human testimony, when we have the infallible Word for our guide.”

“We have already ascertained, madam, that the Scripture Churches were independent Churches: that each one had in itself all that was needful to make it a complete Church; and that, so far from being subject to the rule of a bishop from without, it was itself the administrator of Christ’s laws; and, such, had the making, and, if need be, the unmaking, of bishops in its hands. The bishops were its servants, not its masters.”

“Then you admit that the Scripture Churches had bishops?”

“Surely they had. So for as practicable, every Church had its bishop, and some of tuna had several bishops. Every minister who hod the charge—the oversight—of a Church, either exclusively to himself, or in conjunction with other ministers, was, according to the Scriptures, designated a bishop. There were plenty of Bishops; there were as many bishops as there were pastors; and, in a certain sense, the Churches were subject to their bishops. But no Church was subject to any bishop but her own, chosen by herself to conduct her worship and preside in her business meetings.”

“I see now how it was,” said Theodosia; “and begin to understand the reason why my mind has all the time been confused. The word bishop, in the New Testament, means one thing, and in modern English another, and a very different thing. Then, a bishop was the simple pastor of a Church. Now, he is the ruler of a diocese, including all the Churches in a certain province, state, or district of country.”

“Precisely so,” said Mr. Courtney. But the change is not merely in the number of Churches subjected to his supervision; but in the nature of the relation which he sustains to them. Then the bishop was chosen from their own members by the Church to be her pastor. Now the bishop is created by some power outside the Church; and he chooses a pastor for the Church, and sends him to her, whether she desire it or not. Then the Church received herself those whom she thought worthy of membership. Now, the members can only be received by the bishop, or his deputy, the priest or minister in charge. Then the Church exercised the needful discipline upon her own members, reproving, suspending, excluding, or restoring, as the executive and judiciary of Christ; but now all this is done without her voice, by the bishop or his representatives. The Church, which was the independent executive of Christ the King, has become the abject dependent of a man-made master. Now, we were inquiring how this change was brought about? I have given you the testimony of Mosheim and of Gibbon. I might have given you that of Neander, Schaff, Coleman, and Bunsen; and, in fact, of almost every author of ecclesiastical history who has gone back to this early day, and given a picture of the first Churches in this particular. They all agree that the Church, at first, was a local, independent society, or organization, and that the bishop was but the pastor of one of these Churches in regard to the distinction between the presbyters and bishops, some regard these as but two different words for the same thing. Some think that when there were more elders than one, which seems generally to have been the case, one of them was chosen to preside in their meetings, and he was called bishop. But he was still only the president, or bishop, of that local Church. All agree that, at an early day, when mission Churches, so to speak, began to grow up around some principal Church, the bishop of that Church began to be considered the bishop of the subordinate Churches, and these Churches subject to the control of that first established; and thus the foundation was laid for that system of despotism which has since so utterly destroyed the original freedom of all those Churches which have become subject to the bishops, whether in the Grecian, the Roman, the English, or the Methodist communions.

“I have said that the general correctness of this view was conceded by many eminent Episcopalians themselves, the testimony of some of whom I have repeated. And now, I will show you from the Fathers themselves that such a change as I have asserted was actually made. It has been customary for the advocates of the Divine origin of Episcopacy to appeal with great confidence to the testimony of the Fathers. One of them writes as follows: ‘Is it not reasonable to suppose that the primitive Fathers of the Church must have been well acquainted with the mode of ecclesiastical government established by Christ and his apostles? Now, their testimony is universally in our favor. What course, then, have the enemies of Episcopacy for the most part pursued? Why, they have endeavored, by every art of misrepresentation, to invalidate this testimony of the Fathers.’ If others have done so, I will not. Let the testimony of the Fathers stand for all it is worth. I welcome them as the best of witnesses as to what existed and as to what transpired in their days. But I will not believe that the Church of Christ is to be any thing different from that which we can find in the Scriptures, even on the testimony of the Fathers, and martyrs besides. The Bible for me, before all the Fathers that ever wrote, and all the martyrs that ever bled. So, after I have found the scriptural Church to be a local and independent body, I will not change it into a hierarchy, though every Father and every martyr in the catalogue should unite in testifying that in their day it was a hierarchy. If Christ set up the hierarchy, and makes it binding on his people, we should have the record of it in his Word. If men set it up, without his authority, I do not care how early they did it, nor how many or clear the testimonies that it was set up. My Church must be the Church of Christ, and not of the Fathers. If the Fathers testify that Christ laid down the plan of the hierarchy in the Scriptures, I would simply say, I can and must examine the Scriptures for myself. If I cannot find it there, I cannot believe it is there. If the Fathers merely assert that it existed in their day, I in ready to admit it, and let the advocates of the bishops make the most they can out of it. What if it did exist? Its existence is nothing, unless it can be shown that it existed by the authority of the Master.”

“Its existence,” replied the Bishop, who had listened with great apparent indifference to this long speech of the schoolmaster —“its existence in the days of the Fathers proves that it began before their days. And since some of them had seen and conversed with the apostles, it follows that it must have begun in the times of the apostles. And if it began in their day, and we find no expression of their disapprobation, it must be conceded that it had their sanction and authority.”

“I am willing to grant all that,” said Mr. Courtney; “and if you will show me that the hierarchy had been established, and that prelatical bishops, diocesan bishops, or any other bishops than those spoken of in the New Testament, who were, as we have seen, the bishops of a single congregation or one local Church, were in existence during the lifetime of any of the Fathers who had spoken with the apostles, I will yield the point, and admit that the apostles taught one thing in their writings, and sanctioned its opposite in their practice. Nay, I will go farther—I will yield it if you will show me such a prelatical bishop any time before the beginning of the third century, or before the change of which I have been talking so much had taken place. I know very well that Clement of Rome, who lived towards the last of the first century, and who, it is supposed, had conversed with Peter and Paul, wrote an epistle to the Church at Corinth, in which he mentions bishops, and deacons, and presbyters. So the New Testament, in a variety of places, speaks of bishops, deacons, and presbyters. The question is, Who were these bishops? Paul sent to Ephesus, and called to him the elders, that is, the presbyters of that Church, and said to them at parting, ‘Take heed to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops.’ Did not Paul mean the same persons, by bishops, whom Luke calls presbyters or elders? They were but two different titles for the same officers. If they were prelatical bishops, then there were several prelatical bishops in the one city.

“So Paul, writing to Titus, says, that he left him in Crete, among other things, that he might ordain them elders— ‘Presbuteros’—in every city; and then goes on to give him instruction concerning the qualifications for the office, and tells him a bishop—Episcopos—must be blameless as the steward of God.

“When he writes to Timothy on the same subject, he mentions only deacons and bishops; but says not a word about the presbyters. Yet he was instructing him in regard to the officers of a Church. Presbyters, therefore, must be included in the term bishop; for it is evident he did not mean to overlook them, since he mentions them expressly afterwards in the same epistle.

“But if this leave any doubt, it must to removed by what he says to the Philippians: ‘To the saints which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.’ ‘How is this?’ says Chrysostom, one of the Fathers. ‘Were there many bishops in the same city? By no means; but he calls the presbyters by this name, (bishops,) for at that time this was the common appellation of both.’

“So Peter exhorts the presbyters to feed the flock of God, taking the oversight thereof—literally, bishoping it— (Episcopountes.) The presbyters are called bishops; they are to have the same qualifications, and are to perform the same duties. It is as clear as it can be made that the two terms are employed indiscriminately, and are entirely synonymous. Now, as the Scriptures thus employ the word bishop so do the earliest Fathers. The bishops Clement speaks of are therefore simple presbyters.

“Hermas, also of Rome, is the next of the Fathers commonly quoted on this subject. He too speaks of those who preside over the Church: ‘Thou shalt say to those who preside over the Church that they order their ways in righteousness, that they may fully receive the promise in much glory.’

“Now, who are these why preside over the Church? They are the presbyters; for he says, further on, ‘After this I saw a vision at home, in my own house; and the old woman whom I had seen before came to me, and asked me if I had yet delivered her book to the elders, (presbyters;) and I answered that I had not yet. She replied, Thou hast done well, for I have certain more words to tell thee; and when I have finished all the words, they shall be clearly understood by the elect. And thou shalt write two books, and send one to Clement, and one to Grapte. For Clement shall send it to the foreign cities, because it is permitted him to do so. But Grapte shall admonish the widows and orphans. But thou shalt read in this city with the elders who preside over the Church.’ Whether these presiding officers were benefited by the admonitions of the old woman’s book or not, it is certain they were elders. And in another place, he expressly calls them bishops. ‘For what concerns the tenth mountain, on which were the trees covering the cattle, they are such as have believed, and some of them have been bishops; that is, presidents of the Churches.’

“The next in order of the earliest Fathers is Polycarp. He never employs the word bishop; but often speaks of the elders, or presbyters, and deacons. He uses such language concerning the presbyters as to show that they were the presidents of the Church. ‘Let the presbyters be compassionate and merciful towards all, turning them from their errors, seeking out those who are weak, not forgetting the widows, the fatherless, and the poor; abstaining from all wrath, respect of persons, and unrighteous judgment; not easy to believe any thing against any; nor severe in judgment, knowing that we are all debtors in point of law.’

“Paphias, who was a companion of Polycarp, and a disciple of John, in a fragment of his writings preserved by Eusebius, calls the apostles presbyters, as they sometimes called themselves; but makes no mention of bishops. ‘I shall not think it grievous,’ he says, ‘to set down in writing the things which I have learned of the presbyters: what Andrew, what Peter, what Philip, what Thomas, or James had said; what John, or Matthew, or any other disciples of the Lord were wont to say; and what Ariston or John the presbyter said. For I am of the mind that I could not profit so much by reading books, as by attending to those who spake with the living voice.’

“Irenæus, who suffered martyrdom early in the third century, and wrote towards the close of the second, speaks as Clement and Hermas had done, of bishops, presbyters, and deacons. We do net deny this, but we ask, What did he mean by bishops? What sort of bishops were they? Were they scriptural bishops, or prelatical bishops? Were these bishops not pastors of single Churches, but lords over all the Churches in a certain diocese or district? It is enough to say that he, like Paul, employs the words presbyter and bishop indiscriminately, to signify the very same persons and officers. In one place he says, ‘We can enumerate those who were constituted bishops by the apostles in the Churches, and their successors even to us.’

“In another, ‘Obey those presbyters in the Church who have the succession, as we have shown, from the apostles; who with the succession of the episcopate [or bishopric] received the gift of truth.’

“He mentions by name those who had governed the Church of Rome from the first down to his own time; and says, they had the episcopate. And, in another place, he mentions them again by name, and calls them presbyters.

“Justin Martyr, who lived in the second century, in the famous apology which he wrote to the emperor, speaks several times of the president: ‘The president having given thanks:’ ‘the president delivers a discourse,’ etc. Now, as he was giving an account of each Christian congregation, it is evident that each one had its own president; and if the president was the bishop, it follows that every Church had its own bishop; or, in other words, the bishop was simply the pastor. Clement of Alexandria speaks of deacons, presbyters, and bishops; but he also uses the word bishop in the same sense. He says that on a certain occasion the Apostle John gave a certain young man into the charge of a particular bishop, and that the presbyter [meaning the same man] took him home to his own house, nourished, comforted, cherished, and at length baptized him.”

“I have purposely abstained from interrupting your disquisition,” said the Bishop, “because I do not wish or intend to enter into an argument under existing circumstances; but I will take the liberty merely to rewind you that you have omitted all mention of that Father on whom the advocates of the Episcopacy most confidently rely.”

“I know I have,” said Mr. Courtney. “I left him till the last, because he will require some peculiar treatment. The epistles of Ignatius have ever been the stronghold of Episcopacy; and some have concluded that it was on this account that their genuineness has been so often called in question. But this cannot be given as the reason why Dr. Hammond, himself a zealous son of the Church, speaking of some of the evident interpolations of these epistles, should have said that they were ‘senseless,’ ‘extravagant,’ and evidently the work of some ‘impostor.’ This could not be the reason why an earnest advocate of the prelacy should say of them, ‘that these compositions will surely not be alleged by any capable and candid advocate for primitive Episcopacy, without great hesitation—by many they will be entirely rejected.’”

“I have heard much,” said the Doctor, “of these epistles; and yet I have rather an indistinct conception of what they are, and what depends upon them.”

“The epistles of Ignatius,” said the schoolmaster, “when they first appeared, were eleven in number; and soon after, another was added; and, after a time, three more, making the whole number fifteen. Archbishop Wake translated them, and attempted to ascertain which of them were genuine. He says, ‘To pass by the first and most imperfect [edition] of them, the best that for a long time was extant contained not only a great number of epistles falsely ascribed to this author, but even those that were genuine so altered and corrupted that it is hard to find the true Ignatius in them.

“‘The first that began to remedy this confusion, and to restore this great writer to his primitive simplicity, was our most reverend and learned Archbishop Usher, in his edition of them at Oxford, 1644.’ Usher conceived that six of them were genuine. Wake accepted seven, though he does not deny that the seventh is very suspicious. These six or seven are all that Protestants now ever quote in this controversy. On these the cause of Episcopacy is made to rest, so far as the authority of Ignatius can give it any support.

“But it has happened recently that new materials for criticism have been brought to light; and by their aid, the accomplished Chevalier Bunsen has been able to determine, beyond all reasonable doubt, that four of these seven were forgeries, and the other three had been greatly interpolated. And that, when the writings of Ignatius alone remain, they give no sort of support to any other Episcopacy than that which finds a bishop in the pastor of every Church. Indeed, there are some who were willing to grant the genuineness of all the seven, and yet would undertake to show that, however often they might speak of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, they meant no more in any place by bishops than the president of a single Church, which meaning it is certain that the word acquired at a very early day. Thus the eminent Doctor, afterwards Bishop, Stillingfleet, himself a dignitary of the Church, expressly says: ‘Of all the thirty-five testimonies produced out of Ignatius, in his epistle for the Episcopacy, I can meet with but one which is brought to prove the least semblance of an institution of Christ for Episcopacy; and, if I be not much deceived, the sense of that place is clearly mistaken.’ (Irenicum.)

“In fact, all that is said of bishops in these epistles is entirely consistent with the idea that he was the simple pastor of a local Church, in which there were other elders, or presbyters, who were in some sort associated with him in the management of the Church, yet recognized him as their president, or moderator, in all their assemblies.

“These if not all the Fathers of the first and second centuries whose testimony is relied upon, are certainly those most relied upon. If they used the word bishop in the scriptural sense—the sense in which they had received it—then they must mean by a bishop no more than a pastor, a presbyter, having the charge of a congregation. If they use it in the sense which it acquired soon after the apostles, then they mean by it that presbyter who was chosen by the others and his Church to preside in their meetings. In one or the other of these senses they always used it. In no case did they mean by it a prelatical bishop; that is, a bishop having the exclusive power of ordination and of discipline—not in one Church alone, but over all within a certain diocese. They had no idea of such a bishop: such a one had not yet existed. There was as yet no Church which was subject to the rule of any other bishop than the one whom she had chosen. Theodoret, Cyprian, Augustine, and others, who lived in later times, represented the power of the bishop as already established. The Church had lost her independence. Jerome explains how it was done. He lived in the latter part of the fourth century, and after the hierarchy had been set up and established, but before men had forgotten that it had come in the place of something else. He was the most learned of all the Fathers, and one of the most eloquent of men. Nothing can be more plain and explicit than his testimony on this subject. Hear what he says in his commentary on the epistle to Titus ‘Let us attend carefully to the words of the apostle, saying, that thou mayest ordain elders in every city, as I have appointed thee; who, discoursing in what follows what sort of presbyter is to be ordained, saith, “If any one be blameless, the husband of one wife,” etc., afterwards adds, “For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God.” A presbyter, therefore, is the same as a bishop. And before there were, by the devil’s instinct, parties in religion, and it was said among the people, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, the Churches were governed by the common council of presbyters. But afterwards, when every one thought that those whom he had baptized were rather his than Christ’s, it was determined by the whole world that one of the presbyters should be set above the rest, to whom all care of the Church should belong, that the seeds of schism might be taken away. If any suppose that this is our opinion, and not that of the Scriptures, that bishops and presbyters are the same, and that one is the name of age, and the other of office, let him read the words of the apostle to the Philippians, saying, “Paul and Timothy, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus that are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.” Philippi is a city of Macedonia; and certainly in one city there could not be more than one bishop, as they are now styled. But at that time they called the same men bishops whom they called presbyters. Therefore he speaks indifferently of bishops as of presbyters. This may seem, even yet, doubtful to some, till it be proved by another testimony. It is written in the Acts of the Apostles, that when the apostle came to Miletus, he sent to Ephesus, and called the presbyters of that Church, to whom, among other things, he said, “Take heed to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops, to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” Here observe diligently, that calling together the presbyters of one city, Ephesus, he afterwards styles the same persons bishops. If any will receive that epistle which is written in the name of Paul to the Hebrews, there also the care of the Church is equally divided among many; since he writes to the people, “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls as those that must give an account, that they may do it with joy and not with grief, for that is unprofitable for you.” And Peter, (so called from the firmness of his faith,) in his epistle, saith, “The presbyters which are among you I exhort, who am also a presbyter and a witness of the sufferings of Christ; and also a partaker of the glory which shall be revealed. Feed the flock of God which is among you; not by constraint, but willingly.” These things have I written to show that among the ancients presbyters and bishops were the very same. But by little and little, that the seeds of dissension might be plucked up, the whole care was devolved on one. As, therefore, the presbyters know that by the custom of the Church [not by the authority of Christ] they are subject to him who is their president, so let the bishops know that they are above presbyters, more by the custom of the Church than by the true dispensation of Christ; and that they ought to rule the Church in common, imitating Moses, who, when he might alone rule the people of Israel, chose seventy, with whom he might judge the people.’

“Such is the testimony of this most learned Father, after the change was made. He says the bishops of his day knew that they were above the presbyters, not by the command of Christ, not by the original constitution of the Church, but that, little by little, the chance had been brought in by the custom of the Church. To the same purpose, and, if possible, still more explicit, in his letter to Evagrius: ‘I hear that a certain person has broken out into such folly, that he prefers deacons before presbyters—that is, before bishops. For when the apostle clearly teaches that presbyters and bishops were the same, who can endure it that a minister of tables and widows should proudly exalt himself above those at whose prayers the body and blood of Christ is made? Do you seek for authority? Hear that testimony: “Paul and Timothy, servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus that are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.” Would you have another example? In the Acts of the Apostles Paul speaks thus to the priests of one Church: “Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops: that you govern the Church, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” And, lest any should contend about there being a plurality of bishops in one Church, hear also another testimony, by which it may most manifestly be proved that a bishop and presbyter are the same: “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain presbyters in every city, as I have appointed thee. If any be blameless, the husband of one wife,” etc. “For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God.” And to Timothy: “Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.” And Peter also, in his first epistle, saith, “The presbyters which are among you I exhort, who am also a presbyter, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed, to rule the flock of Christ, and to inspect it, not of constraint, but willingly, according to God.” Which is more significantly expressed in the Greek Episcopountes—that is, superintending it, whence the name of bishop is drawn.

“‘Do the testimonies of such men seem small to thee? Let the evangelical trumpet sound the son of thunder, whom Jesus loved much, who drank the streams of doctrine from our Saviour’s breast: “The presbyter to the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth.” And in another epistle: “The presbyter to the beloved Gaius, whom I love in the truth.” But that one was afterwards chosen who should be set above the rest, was done as a remedy against schism, lest every one, drawing the Church of Christ to himself, should break it in pieces. For at Alexandria, from Mark the evangelist to Heraclas and Dionysius, the bishops thereof, the presbyters always named one chosen from among themselves and placed in a higher degree bishop; as if an army should make an emperor, or the deacons should choose one of themselves whom they knew to be most diligent, and call him archdeacon.’

“This,” continued the schoolmaster, “was what one who has since been called a saint, and who deserved the title better than most of those so named, said about the origin of the bishop government in the Church more than fourteen hundred years ago.”

“Perhaps,” suggested Theodosia, “he was peculiar in his opinions, and differed from all others of his time.”

“So far from it, madam, we find the very same information in the writings of most of his contemporaries, whose works have survived the destruction of the dark ages which followed; not indeed so formally, but quite as unmistakably, announced.

“Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, writing to this same Jerome, who was only a presbyter, uses the following language: ‘I entreat you to correct me faithfully, when you see I need it; for although, according to the names of honor which the custom of the Church has now brought into use, the office of bishop is greater than that of presbyter; nevertheless, Augustine is, in many respects, inferior to Jerome.’

“Bishop Jewel, in his defence of his apology for the Church of England; refers to this passage, to show that bishops and presbyters were originally the same; and thus translates it: ‘The office of bishop is above the office of priest, not by authority of the Scriptures, but after the names of honor which the custom of the Church hath now obtained.’ St. Ambrose, sometimes called St. Hilary, who lived and wrote at the same time, says, ‘After that Churches were planted in all places, and officers ordained, matters were settled otherwise than they were in the beginning. And hence it is that the apostle’s writings do not in all things agree to the present constitution of the Church, [A. D. 376,] because they were written under the first rise of the Church; for he calls Timothy, who was created a presbyter by him, a bishop, for so at first the presbyters were called. Among whom this was the course of governing Churches—that, as one withdrew, another took his place. And in Egypt, even to this day, the presbyters ordain in the bishop’s absence. But, because the succeeding presbyters began to be found unworthy to hold the first place, the method was changed, the council providing that not order, but merit, should create a bishop.’

“Chrysostom was another Father who lived and wrote about the same time, or somewhat later. Here is what he says, in his homily on the Epistle to Timothy: ‘The apostle having discoursed concerning the bishops, and described them, declaring what they ought to be, and from what they ought to abstain, omitting the order of presbyters, descends to the deacons. And why so? Because between bishop and presbyter there is scarcely any difference. And to them [the presbyters] is committed both the instructions and the presidency of the Church; and whatever he said of bishops agrees also to presbyters. In ordination alone have they gone beyond the presbyters, and of this they seem to have defrauded them.’

“Theodoret, who wrote somewhat later still—early in the fifth century—commenting on the same passage, says, ‘The apostles call a presbyter a bishop, as we showed when we expounded the Epistle to the Philippians, and which may also be learned from this place; for, after the precepts proper to bishops, he describes the things that belong to deacons. But, as I have said, they of old called the same men both bishops and presbyters.’

“So also others; but these are enough for our purpose, and perhaps too much for the patience of our friends.”

“But let me ask,” said Doctor Thinkwell, “if these same writers are not all referred to by the advocates of the Episcopacy, as admitting its existence and advocating its claims?”

“What if they are? They did admit its existence; and some of them were themselves a part of it. They did approve it, at least so far as to exercise the Episcopal authority themselves, or to submit to it in others. There is no difficulty in proving this; but what of it? Our question is not whether this rule of the bishops existed then; but whether it had existed from the first? and whether its existence then was not the result of a change in the original constitution of the Churches?

“I grant that there were bishops in the days of Jerome, and of Eusebius, the historian, who lived before Jerome. I grant that, in their day, the bishops were a higher order than the other clergy. I grant that the Churches were then ruled by the bishops. I grant that Eusebius gives us catalogues of the bishops whom he says had succeeded each other from the days of the apostles. But I say that the bishop of that day was not the bishop of the apostles’ days. He is called by the same name, but he is not the same thing; and this I have proved by these Fathers themselves. It is just so with baptism. Christ’s baptism was immersion. The Church of Rome has set aside immersion, and substituted pouring or sprinkling, and called this act baptism. The name is the same, but the thing is changed. It is just so with the Lord’s Supper. The Church of Rome gives a bit of consecrated wafer to her communicants, but withholds the wine. The Supper instituted by our Lord was both bread and wine. She has changed the ordinance, but calls it by the same name. So it is in regard to deacons. The deacon of the New Testament and the first Churches was one appointed to attend to the secular affairs of the Church. As Jerome says, he was ‘the servant of tables and widows.’ But the Church of Rome and the Church of England have made him a minister of the word, and yet call him by the same name. Here is the fallacy by which the simple and incautious are entrapped and deluded. It is the thing, and not the name, that we must look after. There is now, in some ecclesiastical establishments, called Churches, a class of officers called bishops; and there was in the Churches of Christ, as established by the apostles, a class of officers called bishops. Of this there is no doubt. But then, the modern bishop is one thing, and the scriptural bishop was another and a very different thing. The scriptural bishop was a simple pastor of a single Church, or sometimes the joint pastor, with several others, all his equals in rank, all called presbyters, and all called bishops, as in the address of Paul to those of Ephesus. The modern bishop is not the pastor of a single Church, jointly with others, or by himself alone. He is a prelate: counts other ministers his inferiors, and lords it over all the Churches in a diocese. The ancient bishop was the servant of a single Church: the modern is the master of many Churches. The ancient bishop was at first identical with the presbyter or elder. And even after the first distinction was made, when that elder, who was chosen, for the sake of order, to preside in the Church-meetings, was called bishop, he was still only the equal of his brother presbyters, the fellow-servant with them of the single Church to which they all belonged. But the modern bishop is the master of the elders, as well as of the Churches. He says to one, Go, and he goeth; to another, Come, and he cometh; and to all of them, Do thus, and they obey him.

“The ancient bishop was chosen by the presbyters and the Church to preside over them. The modern chooses the presbyters, and sends them to minister where he will. And yet men who are, or ought to be, familiar with all these facts, and these men the professed lovers of truth, the avowed ministers of Jesus, have the effrontery to contend that bishops, in this modern sense, have always existed in the Church, amply because they can trace the word down to the apostles themselves.

“But I ask your pardon: I am talking too long. We have spent too much time already upon this point; especially as we shall probably have occasion to refer to it again, when we come to investigate the claims of the Episcopal Church. You will remember that it now came up incidentally, and not entirely in the order of our discussion. I have, however, redeemed my pledge. I have shown, by the testimony of standard historians, by the concessions of the most zealous advocates of the bishop’s power, and by the Fathers themselves, that the Episcopate, in the modern understanding of it, was an innovation upon the order established by Christ. It was, as have stated, probably the first of those changes by which the Churches were finally involved in utter apostasy. They cast off the rule of Christ as their sole Lord and King, and subjected themselves to the bishops.”

“Was it not strange,” asked Mr. Percy, “that this should have been done without resistance or remonstrance?”

“It was done, as Jerome says, ‘paulatim’—by little and little, so gradually as scarcely to excite alarm. But yet it was not done without remonstrance. How many complained, and yet submitted, we do not know. How many Churches refused to submit, history has not recorded. But we know that there were many, under various names, and in various places, who always protested against this usurpation. But when once the bishops had obtained the power, it was no light matter to venture to dispute their Divine right to govern; as may be seen in the case of Ærius, (not Arius, who denied our Lords eternal Sonship, or, as some say, his Divinity; but Ærius,) who lived about the same time with Jerome, or a little earlier. He held the same opinion that Jerome and Augustine, Ambrose and Chrysostom did: namely, that in the first Churches bishops and presbyters were one; and that the authority which had then been usurped by the bishops, and was, for the most part, tamely acquiesced in by the Churches, was not conferred by the Scriptures, but only existed by the custom of the Church. But, not like Jerome, and these others, whom the Catholics have since dubbed saints, he was determined to carry out his faith into his practice. The others acted as Chalmers, and McKnight, and many other eminent modern divines have done in regard to baptism. They admit that it was immersion which Christ commanded, and the first Churches practiced; and that the change to sprinkling was made without any express sanction of the Master. And yet they quietly coincide with the Church; and, while contending for immersion as the true baptism, practice the sprinkling which has, by custom, come into its place. So these ancient saints, while they contended and proved that the first bishops were not invested with dominion over the Churches, yet either exercised that dominion themselves, or quietly submitted to those who did. Ærius, however, sought to reform the error. He openly and boldly proclaimed that bishops are, by the Scriptures, in no way superior to the presbyters: that these were only different names for the same office. He declaimed against feasts, and fasts, and prayers for the dead, or to the dead; all which he regarded as unscriptural. He sought to bring the Churches back to the simple gospel standard. But by doing so, he roused a host of enemies on every side. He was quickly silenced as a minister: denounced as a heretic. His followers were excluded from the Churches, banished from the cities and towns, and obliged to hold their meetings (as the Waldenses did afterwards, for teaching the same doctrines) in the forests or the caverns of the mountains.

“But let us go back. You will recollect, Mrs. Percy, that we were endeavoring to answer your question, how it was that what had once been Churches of Jesus Christ, became the persecutors of the true believers and obedient disciples of the Lord. I said that the first step towards this unhappy result was that by which the Churches lost their separate independence, and became the subjects of a hierarchy of bishops. They gave up their sole allegiance to Christ, and owned the rule of human masters. We have spent perhaps more time than we should in showing how that was done. But, simultaneous with that, and, like that, brought about by little and little, was another change, still more important. That was a change in the government of the Church: this was a change in the character of its constituent membership. That was a change of external polity: this was a change of the very materials of which it was composed. That set over the Church rulers whom Christ had not appointed: this introduced into the Church members whom Christ had not authorized. The first change, even before itself was fully consummated, did much to prepare the way for the introduction of the second; and the second did much in after years to perpetuate the first. Christ’s Churches were at first, as we have seen, composed exclusively of those who had given evidence of conversion, and had professed a rational and personal belief in him as their Redeemer. They were a spiritual people, who had been renewed in the temper and disposition of their minds; in whom the carnal enmity of the natural heart had been supplanted with the love of God in Christ; in whom the darkness of the natural mind had been made light in the Lord; who had been subjects of an interior change so great that it was aptly designated a new birth, by which they were introduced into a new life, as was symbolized in their baptism; wherein their old life, their former self, was represented as dead and buried with Christ, and their present self as raised up again from the dead; so that they should henceforth walk in newness of life, or simply live a new life. The first Churches, I say, the true Churches of Jesus Christ, were composed, or designed to be composed, of such people as these. But very early after councils of bishops had usurped the prerogative of Christ, and began to make laws for the government of the Churches, they changed the conditions of membership, and substituted the repetition of a form of words for an intelligent profession of a living faith. Grown persons, youth, and children, were taught, like parrots, to repeat the form of words; and when they had been thus prepared, they were initiated into the Church, and entitled to all its privileges. The Church was therefore soon composed of unconverted men; and they were taught that by the ceremony of their initiation, by the magic efficacy of their baptism, they had been made members of Christ and heirs of glory; and were ready enough to obey the behests of those bishops at whose hands they now were taught eternal life could only be obtained. Salvation was in the sacraments: the sacraments were in the Church, and could only be available when received at the hand of the bishop, or some one authorized by him. And what the bishop’s blessing gave, the bishop’s curse could take away. The bishop had the keys of heaven and hell. Whom he would he slew; and whom he would he kept alive. Not for time—that were a trifle— but his power reached beyond the grave, and was as lasting as eternity. Who would not fear the bishop? Then, on the other hand, the bishops loved power; and the bishops loved wealth. Strange as it may seem, they delighted in magnificent cathedrals, and splendid palaces, and princely ostentation. To gain wealth, they must have subjects; to multiply subjects was the shortest way to power and opulence. Now, each bishop claimed as his subject those who were baptized by him or under his direction. Each, therefore, had an interest in making the terms of entrance into the Church as easy as possible.

“At first they gave instruction to adults, and when they could repeat the creed and catechism, admitted them to baptism. But they could not overlook the rising generation. It would soon control the wealth and power of the nation. That wealth and power must be made subservient to the Church. The youth therefore were all, so far as practicable, collected and catechized, and baptized. Then the children, as soon as they could learn the creed and say the needful formula, were brought into the Church. Then smaller children still, as soon as they could say the words as prompted at the time. And, at length, little, puling babes, who could not answer for themselves at all, but were obliged to have sponsors to say for them what older people had been required to say for themselves. When these water-made Christians, these unconverted minors, children and babes, grew up to manhood, they were the Church. They had no more love for Christ and for his cause, no more of his meekness, no more of his charity, no more of his justice, than if they had not been baptized; no more than the heathen. Yet they were the members; they were the deacons; they were the presbyters; they were the bishops; and is it any wonder that, like other unconverted men, they hated, and despised, and rejected, and persecuted the simple gospel and the pure religion of the meek and lowly Nazarene? Is it any wonder that a true believer, who had the courage to obey God rather than man; who protested against this monstrous metamorphosis of Christianity, and ventured yo intimate that this was not the Church which Christ established, was at once denounced as a heretic, excommunicated as a schismatic, banished as a disturber of the peace of the Church, or burnt, as a warning to the faithful not to distrust the teachings of their priests and bishops? This is the process by which the first persecuting Churches were made; and this is the process by which every persecuting Church has been made, down to the present time. They have all brought in their members in childhood, or infancy; and they grow up wicked men, haters of Jesus, and persecutors of his people. No Church that bears the Christian name, and which requires the same terms of membership that the Scriptures do, namely, personal penitence for sin, and personal faith in Christ, has ever persecuted; and it is remarkable that every one of all the Pedobaptist ecclesiastical establishments, all these so-called Churches of Christ, have, when they have had the power, been persecutors of those who could not conscientiously submit to their dictation.”

“That, if true, is certainly a very remarkable fact,” said the Doctor, “and very suggestive. I do not feel disposed to question it just now; nor will I ask you to-day for the authorities upon which you base the account you have just now given of the introduction of infant baptism. The picture you give is natural enough, and I could readily believe it, if properly authenticated. But I have always taken it for granted that infant baptism was, if not sanctioned by the apostles, one of the very earliest innovations on their practice, and that it was introduced with so great unanimity that there is no record of the time or manner of its coming in, or of any opposition to it. But I will not ask you for your testimony now. We have already had a long sitting, and we have yet another test to apply to the Church of Rome.”