est of the churches to examine whether the men of this trespass are more prayerful, more zealous, more patient, more heavenly, more universally conscientious, and harder students and better scholars, and more willing to be informed and advised, than those great and good men who left unto the churches what they now enjoy. If they be not so, it will be wisdom to forbear pulling down, with their own hands, the houses of God which were built by their wiser fathers, until they have better satisfaction." 159

159 Rev. John Higginson and Rev. William Hubbard.

21*

CHAPTER VII.

RISE OF EPISCOPACY.

AT what period the republican principle, in the primitive church, began to give place to the aristocratic and monarchical element, is not distinctly known. It is, however, admitted by Dean Waddington, "that the spirit of religion and the first government of the church was popular ;" and that "the Episcopal government was clearly not yet established," at the close of the first century, when Clement wrote. Riddle makes essentially the same concession; and with him many other Episcopalians. Such, indeed, seems to be the acknowledged opinion of that class of this denomination who disclaim the doctrine of the divine right of Episcopacy.

On the other hand, it is generally conceded that the popular form of government in the church, began gradually to change into one more despotic, soon after the age of the apostles. Those changes in the organization of the apostolical churches, which finally terminated in the Episcopal system, began, in the opinion of some, as early as the first half of the second century. Many others, with greater probability, refer the commencement of the transition to the second half of the same century. Nothing appears in history to define with precision the period when the change in question began. It was doubtless different in different churches. Resulting gradually, and almost imperceptibly, from many causes, it was unnoticed at first, or left unrecorded in the scanty records of that early period which still remain.

The Episcopal hierarchy had its origin undoubtedly in what may be denominated the parochial system. This term denotes the intermediate state of the church, in its transition from the primitive, apostolical form, to that of the diocesan confederacy. The churches, in the principal towns, gradually gained a controlling influence over those which were planted in the country around. And the clergy of these central churches came, by degrees, into similar relations to their brethren in the country. So that both minister and people of the city became, through the operation of various causes, the centre of influence and power over the feeble churches which gradually sprang up in the neighboring country. The church of the metropolis became, in the quaint style of church history, the mother-church, to smaller, dependent fraternities in the country; and the clerical head of this church, the principal man among his brethren, the presiding officer of their assemblies and councils. This accidental ascendency of the central church, and of its clergy, led on to the rapid development of the Episcopal system; and, finally, ended in the overthrow of the popular government of the primitive church.

This chapter, therefore will be devoted to a consideration of the causes which gave, both to the churches and to the bishops of the principal cities, that increasing ascendency and power, from which we trace the rise of Episcopacy.

I. Of the ascendency of the churches in the cities over those in the country.

The gospel was first preached in large cities and towns, such as Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, and Corinth. Here were the earliest churches founded. These churches now became central points of effort and of influence for the extension of Christianity in the region round about. The apostles themselves, sometimes made such missionary excursions into the neighboring towns and villages, Acts 8: 25. 9:32. Similar efforts were doubtless continued and greatly extended, by

the pastors and converts of those central churches. The promptings of Christian benevolence naturally directed them to such efforts. Clement represents the apostles to have established churches, in this manner, both in the cities and in the country.

The early Christians were often dispersed abroad, also, by persecution; and, like the first Christians, Acts 8: 4, "went everywhere preaching the word."

Strangers and visiters in the principal cities, where the gospel was preached, also frequently became converts to Christ, and returned home to make known his gospel, as they might have opportunity and ability in the places where they resided.

Whatever the means may have been, it is an acknowledged historical fact, that the Christian religion continued to spread with wonderful rapidity during the first century; and that by the close of this period it had pervaded, not only the principal cities, but the country also, in many provinces of the Roman empire. Pliny, A. D. 103 or 104, in the remote province of Bithynia, complains that "this contagious superstition was not confined to the cities only, but had spread its infection through the country villages."1 These new Christian converts in the surrounding country, while yet few and feeble, became of course members of the neighboring church. The parent-church became a great parish spreading out over an indefinite extent of country, and having several subordinate branches in connection with it, and more or less dependent upon it, over which it exerted a sustaining and controlling influence.

For a time, Dr. Campbell supposes that these converts in the villages received pastoral instruction, and the elements of the eucharist, from persons sent out for that purpose from the city; but that all continued to come into the city to wor

1 Ep. Lib. 10. 97.

ship. Such also is the representation of Justin Martyr, who says, "that on the day which was called Sunday, all that live in the city and in the country come together in the same place," for religious worship.

When, in process of time, it became expedient for Christian converts in the country to have separate places of worship, these new organizations took the form of the parent church, and still looked to that for instruction and support as they might need. The new churches bore, indeed, a striking resemblance to the "chapels of ease" in England; having a similar dependence upon the mother-church. This dependence gave rise to a gradual connection and coalition, between the churches in the country, and the central church in the city. In this connection and coalition, between the original church and the smaller ones that sprang up around it, began that change in the original organization of the apostolical churches which gave rise to the Episcopal system; and, which in the end, totally subverted the primitive simplicity and freedom in which the churches were at first founded. This dependence and consequent coalition was the result of various natural causes and local circumstances which claim a more specific enumeration.

1. The churches in the country were only branches of the parent stock, and owned a filial relation to the mother church.

2. They received their first spiritual teachers and pastors from this church; and these would naturally retain their attachment to the church from which they came, and use their influence to unite with it that to which they went,

3. The connection between the country and the city, in the ordinary course of business, had its influence in bringing the churches in the country into connection with that in the city.

4. The persecution, and consequent distress which came