Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

eyes of such a people, old institutions are less venerable than in the eyes of an enlightened people. New things captivate because they are considered as proofs of genius; and old things tire and disgust, because they check genius, and circumscribe talents. The ignorance, then, which you ascribe to the early ages of Christianity, were you even perfectly cor rect in what you say, instead of diminishing, would increase the difficulties which attend a supposition of a change of government.

But, Sir, whatever may become of this reasoning, whether it be thought conclusive or not, it is very certain that you have given your readers a very fanciful picture of the second and third centuries. Literature was not so low, nor ignorance so preva→ lent, as you represent it. Eloquence and poetry had indeed declined in Greece and Rome; but still literature and philosophy were far from being extinguished. The second and third centuries fur nished several good writers in the Christian Church

Tertullian, Arnobius, Ireneus, Clemens of Alexandria, Origen, Cyprian, and several others. We meet with no complaint of a want of knowledge in those ages, nor for several ages following. There was quite sufficient for every religious purpose, and for preserving the unity of the faith in the bond of peace.

Nor was the second century, in which, your best writers fancy Episcopacy was introduced, in any degree distinguished for contention and schism, VOL. II.

as you assert. Perhaps there never was a more peaceable period of the Christian church. I do not recollect a single controversy that produced any mischievous effects. The dispute about the time of keeping Easter was the only one of any moment; and that was conducted without violence, and without schism. Both parties retained their own custom till the council of Nice, which happily terminated the dispute.

And here let me make an observation, which, I think, ought to carry conviction to every mind. If the Eastern and Western Churches were so tenacious of such an unessential point, as the time of keeping a festival, that neither would yield to the other, how is it possible to suppose, that all the clergy and people throughout the Christian world, would have quietly submitted to an alteration of that sacred regimen, which Christ had established in his church? And, further, how is it possible to suppose, that when we have so minute an account of this controversy, which in itself was of no material consequence, we should not have one single testimony in all antiquity, that the church was changed from a Presbyterian to an Episcopal regimen? This is a wonderful circumstance. In the second and third centuries we have detailed accounts of the progress of heresies, of schisms, of disputes between Bishops, and between Presbyters and Bishops; but not the least hint of a change which deprived the Presbyters of their most sacred

rights, and which, therefore, was calculated to produce the most violent convulsions throughout the Christian world. Sir, I could as easily believe all the fictions of the Arabian Night's Entertainments, of Don Quixotte, of Gulliver's Travels, of Amadis of Gaul, as believe this story. It is incredible-it is unreasonable. Yet it seems any account of the matter will do, when a hypothesis is to be served; when those passions are to be consulted, which always entwine themselves with principles once avowed, and with interests once established.

Let us now see how you surmount all these difficulties. The consideration of this point shall occupy the first

part

of

my next letter.

LETTER XIX.

REV. SIR,

YOUR manner of accounting for the silence of the primitive writers, with respect to a revolution in the government of the Christian Church, is as follows:-" Nor is it wonderful that we find so lit-tle said concerning those usurpations in the early records of antiquity. There was probably but lit tle written on the subject; since those who were most ambitious to shine as writers, were most likely to be forward in making unscriptural claims themselves; and, of course, would be little disposed to record their own shame. It is likewise probable, that the little that was written on such a subject would be lost; because the art of printing being unknown, and the trouble and expense of multiplying copies being only incurred for the sake of possessing interesting and popular works, it was not to be expected that writings so hostile to the ambition and vices of the clergy would be much read, if it were possible to suppress them. And when to these circumstances we add, that literature, after the fourth century, was chiefly in the hands of ecclesiastics; that many important works written in

the three first centuries, are known to be lost; and that of the few which remain, some are acknow➜ ledged on all hands to have been grossly corrupted, and radically mutilated, we cannot wonder that so little in explanation of the various steps of clerical usurpation has reached our times.*”

It seems then, from this account, that we are not to look for any records of this wonderful usurpation; because those who were the most capable of writing, would be the very men who would most probably have usurped Episcopal pre-eminence; and they would not, you think, record their own shame. But were there none who were capable of writing, but the comparatively small number of usurping Bishops? Was the eloquent Tertullian one of the usurpers? Has not he left various writings? Has he given any hint about this anti-Christian usurpation? Would he have recorded his own shame by so doing? Nay, Sir, has not this Presbyter, who had every motive to brand with infamy these usurpers, declared in the most explicit terms, that all spiritual power is derived from Episcopal ordination? That neither Presbyter nor Deacon has a right to baptize without the Bishop's authority? Does not he challenge the heretics to produce a list of their Bishops, from the Apostles, as the Catholics could? What could have induced Tertullian to be silent with respect to this usurpation, if it had

* Page 302.

« AnteriorContinuar »