gether in one common bond of faith and love, and were, in every respect, ready to promote the interest and welfare of each other by a reciprocal interchange of good offices, yet, with regard to government and internal economy, every individual church considered itself as an independent community, none of them ever looking beyond the circle of its own members for assistance, or recognizing any sort of external influence or authority. Neither in the New Testament, nor in any ancient document whatever, do we find anything recorded, from which it might be inferred that any of the minor churches were at all dependent on, or looked up for direction to, those of greater magnitude or consequence. On the contrary, several things occur therein which put it out of all doubt, that every one of them enjoyed the same rights, and was considered as being on a footing of the most perfect equality with the rest. Indeed it cannot, I will not say be proved, but even be made to appear probable, from testimony human or divine, that in this age it was the practice for several churches to enter into and maintain among themselves, that sort of association which afterwards came to subsist among the churches of almost every province. I allude to their assembling by their bishops, at stated periods, for the purpose of enacting general laws, and determining any questions or controversies that might arise respecting divine matters. It is not until the second century, that any traces of that sort of association from whence councils took their origin are to be perceived; when we find them occurring here and there, some of them tolerably clear and distinct, others again but slight and faint, which seems plainly to prove that the practice arose subsequently to the times of the apostles, and that all that is urged concerning the councils of the first century, and the divine authority of councils, is sustained merely by the most uncertain kind of evidence, namely, the practice and opinion of more recent times."5 5 De Rebus Christ, Saec. I. § 48. Indications of this original independence are distinctly manifest even after the rise of Episcopacy. Every bishop had the right to form his own liturgy and creed, and to settle at pleasure his own time and mode of celebrating the religious festivals.6 Cyprian strongly asserts the right of every bishop to make laws for his own church. Socrates assigns this original independence of the bishops as the principal cause of the endless controversies in the church, respecting the observance of Easter and other festivals.7 But we need not enlarge. Nothing in the history of the primitive churches is more incontrovertible, than the fact of their absolute independence one of another. It is attested by the highest historical authorities, and appears to be generally conceded by Episcopal authors themselves. "At first," says the learned Dr. Barrow, "every church was settled apart under its own bishop and presbyters, so as independently and separately to manage its own concerns. was governed by its own head and had its own laws."8 66 Each 'Every church," according to Dr. Burton, "had its own spiritual head or bishop, and was independent of every other church, with respect to its own internal regulations and laws. There was, however, a connexion, more or less intimate, between neighboring churches, which was a consequence, in some degree, of the geographical or civil divisions of the empire. Thus the churches of one province, such as Achaia, Egypt, Cappadocia, etc., formed a kind of union, and the bishop of the capital, particularly if his see happened to be of apostolic foundation, acquired a precedence in rank and dignity over the rest. This superiority was often increased by the bishop of the capital (who was called, in later times, the metropolitan) having actually planted the church in small "Greiling, Apostol. Christengemeine, S. 16. 7 Eccles. Hist. Lib. 5. c. 22. 8 Treatise on Pope's Supremacy, Works, Vol. I. p. 662. Comp. King's Prim. Christ. c. 12. p. 14, also 136. er and more distant places; so that the mother-church, as it might literally be termed, continued to feel a natural and parental regard for the churches planted by itself. These churches, however, were wholly independent in matters of internal jurisdiction; though it was likely that there would be a resemblance, in points even of slight importance, between churches of the same province." Riddle's account of this subject is as follows:-"The apostles or their representatives exercised a general superintendence over the churches by divine authority, attested by miraculous gifts. The subordinate government of each particular church was vested in itself; that is to say, the whole body elected its ministers and officers, and was consulted concerning all matters of importance. All churches were independent of each other, but were united by the bonds of holy charity, sympathy and friendship."9 Similar views are also expressed by Archbishop Whately. Though there was 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 of one of those societies over others. Each bishop originally presided over one en tire church."10 Now what, according to these Episcopal concessions, was the bishop at first, but the pastor of a single church, a parochial bishop, exercising only the jurisdiction, and enjoying the rights of an independent Congregational clergyman? But more of this hereafter. Several of the ancient churches firmly asserted and maintained their original religious liberty, by refusing to acknowledge the authority of the ancient councils, for a long time after the greater part of the churches had subjected them 9 Chronology, Beginning of Second Century. selves to the authority of these confederacies. The church in Africa, for example, and some of the Eastern churches, although they adopted the custom of holding councils, and were in correspondence with these churches, declined entering into any grand Christian confederation with them; and continued for some time inflexibly tenacious of their own just liberty and independence. This their example is an effectual refutation of those who pretend that these councils were divinely appointed and had, jure divino, authority over the churches. Who can suppose that these churches would have asserted their independence so sternly, against an institution appointed by our Lord or his apostles ?11 The early independence of the churches, then, is conceded even by Episcopalians themselves. It has both the sanction of apostolic precedent, and the concurring authority of ecclesiastical writers, ancient and modern. This of itself is a point strongly illustrative of the religious freedom which was the basis of their original polity. This independence of particular churches is the great central principle, the original element, of their popular constitution and government. It vests the authority and power of each church in its own members collectively. It guards their rights. It guarantees to them the elective franchise, and ensures to them the enjoyment of religious liberty, under a government administered by the voice of the majority, or delegated at pleasure to their representatives. The constitution of the churches and their mutual relations, may not have been precisely Congregational or Presbyterian, but they involved the principles of the religious freedom and the popular rights which both are designed to protect. 11 Even the council of Nice, in treating of the authority of the metropolitan bishops of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria, rests the dignity and authority of these prelates, not on any divine right, but solely on ancient usage. Τὰ ἀρχαῖα ἔθη κρατεῖτο, etc., ἐπειδὴ καὶ τῷ ἐν τῇ Ρώμῃ ἐπισκόπῳ σύνηθες ἐστὶν, Can. 6. Comp. Du Pin, Antiq. Eccl. Disciplina. Diss. 1. § 7. Mosheim, De Rebus Christ., Saec. II. § 23, Note. CHAPTER IV. ELECTIONS BY THE CHURCH. THE right of suffrage was, from the beginning, enjoyed in the Christian church. The first public act of this body was a formal recognition and a legitimate exercise of this right. First in importance among their popular rights, they maintained it with greater constancy than any other against the usurpations of prelatical power, and resigned it last of all into the hands of their spiritual oppressors. The subject of the following chapter leads us to consider, I. The evidence that the right of suffrage was enjoyed by the primitive church. II. The time and means of the extinction of this right. I. The members of the primitive church enjoyed the right of electing, by a popular vote, their own officers and teachers. The evidence in support of this position is derived from the writings of the apostles and of the early fathers. In the former we have on record instances of the election of an apostle, and of deacons, delegates and presbyters of the church, each by a popular vote of that body. From the latter, we learn that the church continued for several centuries subsequent to the age of the apostles, in the enjoyment of the elective franchise. |