Chapter XXVI: Introduction (9)

“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.”