CHAPTER XIV. THE ARGUMENT OF PRELACY, DERIVED FROM ITS EARLY PREVA- § 1. The argument for prelacy, from its early introduction, examined. BUT how, it is asked, was it possible, or at all credible, that the primitive church should early depart from the practice of the apostles, or that this departure should have become universal? This argument, which is proclaimed by Chillingworth, Leslie, and others, to be an absolute demonstration of prelacy, has, in our estimation, no force at all. To us it appears both possible and credible, that such a departure should have taken place, and that it did actually occur. To such a change there was a strong tendency, from the adaptation of the prelatic system to that pride, and love of power, pomp, and circumstance, which are so congenial to the natural heart of man, and also from its conformity to the existing forms and usages of the prevailing religions of the age. This tendency we find to have been actually manifested, in reference to every doctrine and ordinance of the gospel. Not one of them remained in its original simplicity. Every one of them was subjected to the improvements! the additions! and the ornaments! by which men hoped to give them greater attractiveness and efficiency. The original institutions of baptism and the Lord's supper, were soon concealed under the cumbrous forms and ceremonies with which they were encrusted, while there was a continual effort to meet the prejudices of the pagan multitude, who had been accustomed to gorgeous rites, pompous ceremonies, and the affectation of great and momentous mystery. Thus also did the terms mystery, offering, altar, priest, sacrifice, &c., gradually lose their primitive meaning and application, and become appropriated to a hierarchical system altogether foreign to their New Testament sense.1 In illustration of this point, we 1) See this fully shewn by Dr. Hawkins in his Disc. on the Ministry of Men and the danger of overvaluing it. Am. ed. p. 15, &c. 1844. might easily adduce numerous examples. But it is unnecessary, as the facts cannot be denied. It is sufficient to remark, that this tendency was developed, even during the lives of the apostles themselves, and in the very first churches they had established. Even then and there was this departure from apostolic truth and order, and the introduction of humanlyderived arrangements; made manifest. 'Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years; I am afraid of you,' says the apostle to the churches of Galatia, (Gal. 4: 10, 11.) To correct such abuses, and the tendency to greater, were all the apostolic epistles immediately written. How severe are the reproofs conveyed to all the Asiatic churches, through the apostle John, in the book of Revelation. Are we not admonished, that even then the mystery of iniquity had begun to work, and that it would continue to increase until the anti-christian system should be perfected? To our minds, therefore, the only wonder is, that any can, for a moment, seriously question the possibility, or the credibility, of such a change. We should, a priori, in entering upon the history of the church, look out for the progressive inroads of such inventions and will-worship of man, and in the gradual consummation of the hierarchical system we find all our anticipations no more than realized. Nor is it any valid objection to our conclusion, that we cannot point out any specific time when the alleged change took place. No such burden rests upon us. We challenge the apostolicity of the prelatic theory, and have shown that it cannot be built upon the foundation of apostles and prophets. It is enough for us to point out, in the prevailing system of after ages, a dissimilarity to this primitive model. We have nothing whatever to do with the time or the manner of the change, or the persons through whose instrumentality such a discordance arose. Here, in the word of God, is confessedly the original charter and constitution of the church, but it contains nothing like the assumed polity of the prelatic hierarchy. The latter is different from the former, and is not, therefore, divine, or apostolical, but human, and that, whether it took its rise in the first, second, third, or any other century. But could such a change, it is asked, in the sentiments and practice of the church, have been silently introduced? To this let us reply, in the very striking illustration given by Mr. Herschel.1 'When the conversation has happened 1) Reasons why I, a Jew, have become a Catholic, and not a Roman Catholic, pp. 27, 28. See also the same argument by which we overthrow this objection, urged by bishop Bull against the Romanist's, in reference to the use of images. Vind. of the Ch. of Eng. p. 202. See also a similar reply, as to communion in one kind, in Notes of the Ch. Exam. p. 91. to turn on the mode of baptism, I have often been amused at the decided negative that has been given to the assertion, that immersion is the prescribed form in the church of England. A reference to the prayer-book of course decided the matter. 'And then, naming it after them, (if they shall certify him that the child may well endure it,) he shall dip it in the water discreetly and warily. But if they certify that the child is weak, it shall suffice to pour water upon it.' Here is a case in which, in less than two centuries, the exception has become the universal rule. And so natural is it for men to be impressed by what they daily see, rather than by the recollection of what they once knew to be true, that, while every prayer-book in the kingdom contains evidence to the contrary, the popular feeling certainly is, that sprinkling is the mode most approved by the church of England. If this be the case at a time when printed evidence abounds, how easily, in a time when books were scarce, and the power of reading them equally rare, might customs be introduced by the few, that the many might come to believe, even in the next generation, had subsisted from time immemorial. And what could be more probable than such a change as prelacy, in the simple and apostolic model of the church? With respect to the remark, that men could hardly have been so presumptuous as to alter the doctrine, or polity, of the apostles, we can only say, with Dr. Burton, that it shows a very slight acquaintance with human nature. If we shut our eyes to our own experience, and to history, we might perhaps imagine, that men would not dare to add to, or diminish from, them; but the moment we allow the light of either to be seen, the delusion must as quickly vanish. Had the apostles returned to earth, a very short time after their departure, they would have found such doctrines and practices professed as they could hardly have recognized as their own. Let it only be remembered, that a hierarchical system existed in every pagan temple, and that, in many places, as in Rome, the gospel made its way for five and twenty years, with nothing but the zeal of individuals to spread it, and subject to all their fancies.1 And when to this we add the natural love of power inherent in our nature, and the many circumstances in the condition of the early christians which tended to concentrate power in the hands of their ministers, who were their leaders, and their purse-bearers, nothing could have been more probable than the gradual introduction of prelacy, upon the ruins of presbyterial equality. Usurped power, too, 1) See Burton's Bampton Lect. pp. 14, 18, 26, 39. swells like the avalanche, until it becomes irresistible, bears down all opposition, and sweeps before it all that resists its progress. The history of those times is also, in great measure, a matter of tradition. Now what an enormous camera obscura is tradition. How mightily do things grow in the human memory, aided by the imagination, and when pride, ambition, and all that lies in the human heart, is there to encourage it. And what could be more easy, and natural, than the gradual transformation of the presidents of the churches, the elder presbyters, or moderators, into the distinct and superior order of prelatic bishops, and to claim for the office a divine institution, since it was then usual to repute all immemorial customs to be deduced from an apostolical tradition." 2 But we must also bear in mind, that such a change in the character of the church, and of its ministry and order, was foretold by our Lord and his apostles, in the gospels, epistles, and in the book of Revelation. On this argument we have already dwelt, and shall not again enlarge. But we are necessarily led by these predictions, to find in that very obscurity by which the progress of prelacy is characterized, a strong confirmation of the opinion that it constituted, in connection with the other doctrines associated with it, that mysterious or then concealed wickedness, which, even in the apostles' days, was already at work, and which the full coming of the man of sin has distinctly revealed. And is not the fact, that such a change, in many things connected with the polity and government of the church, actually took place, acknowledged by all impartial writers? That a gradual corruption of the church was foretold in scripture, and actually brought about, is plainly taught by the very chiefest of its promoters, the lordly and aspiring Cyprian. In his sixty-seventh epistle," he calls upon his brethren not to be moved or disconcerted, by the errors of the times, and the ambition of some prelates. "These things,' says he, 'it hath been foretold should happen, towards the end of the world; our Lord and his apostles have jointly confirmed it to us, that, as the world wears away, and antichrist approaches, every thing which is good should wear away with the one, and every thing which is evil should advance with the other.' He then takes courage from the fact that there were a good proportion of bishops left,' who had stood by the truth. 'Wherefore, dear 1) Barrow on the Creed. init. Wks. vol. v. pp. 221-223. 2) See this already proved in Lect. on Apost. Succ. Lect. vii. p. brethren,' he adds, 'although some of our colleagues think fit to neglect the discipline of our Lord, . . . yet that ought not to disconcert our faith, seeing the Holy Ghost hath pointed his threats at such.' Indeed, it is the main object of this epistle, to prove that it is a christian duty to throw off all such corruptions, and the bishops who countenance them.1 Firmilian, of Cæsarea, charges the churches of Rome with many innovations, and tells them that they vainly pretend apostolical authority for them. Nor were these corruptions without the church, but within the bosom of the catholic church itself, as Origen distinctly affirms. Cyprian, in deep humiliation, laments that the great and general declension of his church had fully required the sharp corrections sent upon it. He shows that a spirit of intrigue and faction infected many of the clergy themselves, and that the most serious attacks had been made upon the order and discipline of the church. And in what strong terms do many others of the fathers describe the general corruption of the church. It is true,' says Mr. Waddington, 'that the first operations of corruptions are slow, and generally imperceptible, so that it is not easy to ascertain the precise moment of their commencement. But a candid inquirer cannot avoid perceiving, that about the end of the second, and the beginning of the third century, some changes had taken place in the ecclesiastical system, which indicated a departure from its primitive purity." This testimony of an episcopal historian might be substantiated by any number of writers, were it at all necessary. The certainty of such a change is unquestionable. Neither can it be cienied, that it affected the very subject matter of our discussion, or that the undue exaltation of the ministry was one of the earliest errors. Did not great changes take place in the third century, in reference to the whole office, style and bearing of the bishops? This change is apparent in the contradictory spirit of Cyprian; for while, as Schlegel says, 'no man can speak in higher terms of the power of the bishops, than the arrogant Cyprian; yet, when urged by necessity, he could give up his pretensions, and submit every thing to the judgment and authority of the church,' and be most 'condescending 1) See also the whole of Cyprian's 63rd and 74th epistles. 2) Ep. and Cyp. inter Cyp. Ep. 75. 3) In Math. Comm. Series, § 33, 35, pp. 852-854. 4) See Corrybeare's Bampton Lect. pp. 402, 462. 5) Hist. of the Ch. pp. 49, 50. 6) See Dr. Hawkins's Bampton Lect. p. 255. |