open and violent resistance. But that this progress was observed, and that alarm was actually taken, and protestations entered against it, we know. And if the fact of such alarm, 'as early as the beginning of the fifth century,' to the progress of the Romish apostacy, is deemed by Mr. Faber. sufficient, then assuredly the testimonies of Jerome, and of Aerius, of Primasius, Sedulius, and others, are more than enough to authenticate the fact of this prelatical usurpation. We would further remark, that, even could prelacy be traced up to the apostolic age of the church, it would not therefore be, necessarily, an apostolic institution. Even then, we are taught, the mystery of iniquity was at work. There were many antichrists even in the apostles' times. False teachers, lying prophets, men who said they were apostles, and were not, errors in doctrine, in government, and in practice, then abounded. For many deceivers,' says the apostle, 'are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.' 2 John, 5: 7. For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.' Tit. 1: 10, 11. There were 'false apostles,' (2 Cor. 11: 13,) 'false brethren,' (Gal. 2: 4,) those who, to gain their ends, would even forge letters, in the name of the apostles, (2 Thess. 2: 2,) 'false prophets who should bring in damnable heresies, and many shall follow their pernicious ways.' (2 Pet. 2: 1,2.) So extensive were these errors, that bishop Shuttleworth enumerates ninety heresies as having prevailed from the first to the third century.2 Against these heresies the apostles strove, and wrote, and preached, and forewarned the present and coming ages of the church. The age of heresy began with the age of christianity, and will close only with its close. The first age was as defectible and fallible as any other, and gave birth to as many monstrous perversions of divine things. The various existing sects and denominations, says Mr. Holden, have their counterpart in former ages, and the principles may there be discerned, which at length attained their full growth and maturity.' Papias, Appollinarius, Victorinus, Tertullian, Irenæus, Lactantius, and others, defended the heresy of the personal reign of Christ on earth. Irenæus held that man at the beginning, 1) See many similar passages quoted in Goode's Div. Rule of Faith, vol. i. pp. 427, 428. 2) On Tradition, p. 44, 47, 64. 3) Ibid, p. 130. when created, was imperfect. Clemens Alexandrinus, and Justin, held that the angels fell in consequence of their carnal lusts for women. Many of the fathers also believed in the propriety of giving the Lord's supper to infants.1 What controversies were waged, in the earliest times, about the obligation of Jewish ceremonies, the sacramental cup, and whether the wine should be used simply, or with water, on the time and observance of Easter, on heretical baptism, and other matters.2 The apostle warns the Ephesians that grievous wolves would shortly enter among them. He implies the existence, among churchmen, of covetousness, and ambition of power, of which he gives an illustration in Diotrephes. Cerinthus and Basilides, the founders of heresy and schism, were actuated by the ambition to be reckoned great apostles, and these lived in the first century. Montanus, in the second century, was actuated by a similar motive, as well as Samosatenus, in the third, and Demetrius, of Alexandria, and all the other fomenters of heresy and strife. In short, if we consider the immoral and irreligious state of the world at that time; that the first christians were mostly from the lower orders; the reproofs and remonstrances of the inspired apostles; the fact that the writings of Clement, Ignatius, Barnabas, and Hermas, were at first read in the churches, as if inspired, while full of fabulous analogies; the fact, also, that all the writings of the sacred penmen were not then collected together, and were not universally known and read; we must conclude, that, even in the earliest age, the probability of corruption, both in doctrine and order, was irresistibly strong.s 'While,' saith Jerome, 'the blood of Christ was yet but recently shed in Judea, it was maintained that the Lord's body was but an appearance; the Galatians, drawn away to the observance of the law, were again begotten to spiritual life by the apostle; the Corinthians, disbelieving the resurrection of Christ, were urged, by many arguments, to return to the true path. Then Simon Magus, and Menander his disciple, asserted themselves to be powers of God. Then Basilides feigned his great god, Abiaxes, with his three hundred and sixty-five forms! Then Nicholas, who was one of the seven deacons, promulged his impurities. I say nothing of the heretics of Judaism, I come to those heretics who mangled the gospels; a certain Saturninus, and the 1) See Jewell's Def. of Apol. part iii. ch. iii. § 1. Jameson's Cyp. Isot. p. 340. 2) Jameson, ibid, p. 307. 3) Ep. to Titus. ... 2 Ophites, and Cainites, and Sethoites, and Carpocrates, and Cerinthus, and his successor, Ebion, and other pests, most of whom broke out during the life of the apostle Paul. He then goes on to illustrate his position in the case of the seven churches of Asia.1 To the same effect speak Origen, Dionysius, and others. And hence, it is by the principles of the apostolic law, and not merely by the facts or customs of the apostolic age, that the character and claims of any doctrine, custom, or order, must be ultimately judged. There is no consistent medium between claiming infallibility for the church in every age, and inspiration for all her teaching and her acts, and attributing it exclusively to Christ and to his sacred written word. The silence of the fathers is objected to us. But besides what has been said on that point, we would further remark, that, on our view of the subject, a comparative silence of the earliest fathers was to have been anticipated. Presbytery being true, and being the established order in the churches, no more than incidental allusions could have been looked for. Until the aggressions of the prelatic temper had become visibly apparent, they could not be condemned; and if, when thus visible, their reception had been previously made sure, by imperceptible advances, we might be prepared to find them silently received, and then approved. Thus did the errors of popery steal forth, like the leaves of spring, by a sure but invisible progress. But we may retort still more pointedly upon our opponents. We are certainly placed by them in a most paradoxical predicament, since they tell us that, although it is unquestionably true that the name bishop is, throughout the scriptures, formally given as one of the designations of presbyters; that yet afterwards it was transferred to the order now exclusively known by that title. But when we demand evidence of this change-a very important one, as we regard it- by whom introduced; by what divine authority sanctioned, we receive no other answer than the report given by Theodoret, in the fifth century!! That the change has been made, is certain; but when, and by whom, who can assuredly tell? And yet, in prelatic argument, this report of the fifth century is an all-satisfying demonstration. But, when we exhibit the platform of christianity, as drawn up in the word of God, and show that no such thing as prelacy is to be found therein, we are immediately gagged with the allegation that, for many subsequent centuries, 1) Dial. Adv. Lucifer, § 23, 24, tom. ii. col. 196 - 198. 2) See given in Goode's Div. Rule of Faith, vol. i. pp. 432-438. prelacy, as a system, did exist, and that until we can make it demonstrably evident when, where, and by whom it was actually introduced, it must be concluded to have existed always and everywhere. But this argument surely is as good in the one case as in the other, and will just as forcibly substantiate presbytery as prelacy. For, as it never can be made certain when, where, and by whom, the term bishop was transferred to the present order of prelates, and ceased to designate the order of presbyters; of course it must be concluded that no such change was ever authoritatively or properly made; that the term, therefore, as used by the primitive fathers, means what it does confessedly mean in the word of God; and that it was only after the presidents among these coequal officers had succeeded in concentrating power in their own hands, that the exclusive appropriation of the name bishop to themselves was formally established. This we believe to be the truth in the case, and the argument must be peculiarly grateful to every prelatic understanding. And, if the testimony of Theodoret is insisted upon, as proof sufficient for the authorized transference of the title, although only a report of a report; most assuredly the testimony of Jerome, who lived in the fourth century, to the fact, which he substantiates from holy writ, that 'in the beginning the churches were governed by a common council of presbyters, a presbyter being the same as a bishop, but that afterwards, by little and little, the whole care was devolved upon one;' this testimony will, we say, most unquestionably, suffice to establish the claims of presbytery to be the true, primitive, and apostolic order. And let prelatists take hold of whichever horn of this dilemma they may, presbytery must be the gainer, and in neither case a loser. We have seen how, in the beginning, every church had its presbytery, varying according to its extent, over which one of the presbyters was chosen, to act as president or moderator. This moderator became permanent and fixed, and was chosen at first from regard to age, but afterwards to qualifications. This was the apostolical, primitive, and presbyterian episcopacy. This president being then treasurer, and leader of the society, and the first object of attack and persecution, soon monopolized great power and authority, which were willingly allowed to one at every moment liable to death. He was thus led to receive, par eminence, the name and title of bishop, and to assume, as his right, the exclusive privileges assigned to the office. Thus did the presbyterial or republican episcopacy pass into the parochial episcopacy. This parochial episcopacy, except in cities, continued until the council of Nice. The assumption of parochial authority by despotic councils, the claim of prelates to the sole power of ordination, and the exclusion of presbyters from councils, paved the way for the establishment of diocesan episcopacy. When the first vigor and fervor of church discipline slackened, avarice and ambition creeping in apace into the hearts of churchmen, these, not contented with their allowances out of the churches of the city, which were too small for their growing desires, got churches in the country annexed to them, and for most part served them by substitutes, except at the return of some solemn festivities; and by this means it was that church discipline fell totally into the bishops' hands, and the ancient model being laid aside, new courts, which were unknown to antiquity, were set up, &c.1 The humble diocesan episcopacy which had arisen in cities, from adherence to the rule that there should only be one community, however many churches, in one place, was adopted by Constantine, as an engine of power, and made the basis of that ecclesiastical hierarchy which has since ruled, oppressed, corrupted, and destroyed the church, and overwhelmed both her purity and her liberty in one common ruin.2 There is, therefore, an apostolical, a parochial, and a diocesan episcopacy; or, as it may be called, a scriptural, primitive, and patristical or ecclesiastical episcopacy; or, to use the terminology of Beza, a divine, a human, and a satanic episcopacy. We claim the first, and are thus two degrees nearer to antiquity and apostolicity, than are prelatists. § 2. The argument for prelacy derived from its universal prevalence. The generality of people like to be in a crowd. Multitudes cannot err. The majority must be right. And might makes right. Prelatists, therefore, by dint of loud asseveration, bold assertion, and the reiterated declaration of oft-refuted misstatements, endeavor to make all, who take opinions upon authority, believe that prelacy, that is, as they wish people to conclude, the present form of prelacy, has universally existed from the apostles' days until the reformation. Presbytery, it is said, was then invented by Calvin, Knox, and others, and foisted into the church. Such statements are common to the p. 59. 1) Burnet's Obs. on the 2d Canon, 2) See Dr. Wilson's Govt. of the Ch. pp. 108, 134, 285, and Boyse's Anct, Episc. p. 251; see also Riddle's Christ, |