The Pelagian heresy had no Bishop, either for its author or promoter. Pelagius, who gave it being, was a monk; and Julianus and Celestius, his diciples, were never Bishops. Eutyches was no Bishop, but a monk. This heresy prevailed chiefly among the Eastern monks, who made great disturbances about it after the council of Chalcedon. The heresy of the Monothelites was an unavoidable consequence of the doctrine of Eutyches. This heresy is fathered upon Cyrus, Bishop of Alexandria, who seduced two other Bishops into his opinion. But this departure from Catholic doctrine made no great progress, having met with great opposition from the episcopal college. These were the principal heresies of the first five or six centuries; and we see that no blame can be attached to the Bishops; but, on the contrary, that they are deserving of the highest commendation. "But now," says Dr. Maurice, "because the devil had another game to play, and started up but few heresies until these last ages; let us see what sort of men the authors of them have been. The Swenkfeldians, Anabaptists, Mennonists, the Family of Love, Quakers, Ranters, and the rest of the modern sects; did these derive themselves from any Bishops? Servetus, was he a Bishop? Or Socinus? Or were the Racovian divines a Council of Bishops?" w Were Luther and Carolostadius Bishops? It is well known they were not. Yet they could quarrel, and disgrace the reformation by their incessant jarring. The latter was at last banished by the Elector of Saxony, at the instigation of Luther. Bishops had nothing to do with these contentions, which are enough to make a Christian'weep.' Let us now see how it was in the Church of Geneva, that paragon of ecclesiastical regimen. Calvin, the founder of ministerial parity, was endowed by nature with great-talents. But he was a man. His new scheme of ministers upon equal ground, with a mixture of Ruling Elders, was to do wonders. But, were his expectations realized? No; Geneva was soon torn with factions, and this gentle system of parity became the source of much contention. Calvin was rewarded for his services with banishment; but after sometime he was restored; and a new trial given to parity. It appears from his own letters, that the Church in that city was miserably distracted, although there was not a Bishop within its atmosphere. The return of Calvin evinced again the gentle sway of presbytery. Castellio, a man of great learning, was soon expelled, at the instigation of the reformer. A violent contest then took place between him and the senate about the election of a minister. It produced almost sedition. Calvin's quarrels with Perinus proceeded to such a length, that the council became furious against one another. And what do you think was the V AUGUSTIN. Hær. 88. w Vindication of Ch. Gov. p. 303. cause of it? Why, Perinus thought it was no harm to recreate himself now and then with dancing. But Calvin, although no Bishop, played the tyrant, and forbad that amusement upon pain of excommunication. Perinus was not to be treated in that manner. He opposed such tyranny; and two of the ministers who joined with him were turned out of their livings. The contention became general throughout the city, and the common council taking different sides, almost cut one another's throats. Many more instances of tumults might be adduced as proofs of the gentleness of parity. One person was put to death for libelling Calvin. Another was banished the city for preaching against predestination. Servetus was burned for heresy. much for the mother church of presbytery. So Switzerland also fared no better under this parity regimen, Dr. Maurice says, "Erastus having published his Theses of excommunication, was confuted by Beza; yet there remained still several ministers dissatisfied; as Bullinger, Gualter, and divers others. This occasioned very great jealousies between the several parties, and it had almost come to a rupture. The Churches of the Palatinate were no less shaken with this new controversy, and the zealots for this government and discipline took all occasions publicly to maintain them; but the prudence of the Prince prevented the mischiefs which threatened his Churches from this question. Bullinger, in a letter dated March 10, 1574, and Gaulter, in some letters of his to the Bishops of London and Ely, and several other eye witnesses, do sufficiently testify the lamentable condition of those reformed Churches, and the confusion which presbyterian government brought upon them." The Geneva platform was adopted by the reformed in France. The constant persecution that Church was under, and the bloody wars they had to maintain with the Catholics, kept them, of necessity, more united than their neighbours. But notwithstanding the heavy pressure upon them, parity could not preserve them in peace. New and dangerous opinions in religion were continually started, and it required all the exertions of the prudent Du Plessis, and a few more of his character, to keep the Church in any tolerable degree of tranquillity. Holland, too, where parity reigned in perfection, and the face of a Bishop was not to be seen, exhibited a sad scene of distraction. "The Church government of that country," says Dr. Maurice, "was not established without great trouble and difficulty, and occasioned no small disturbance." The civil magistrates, and the ministry, were constantly at variance. Synod after synod was convened, and they did more harm than good. If these synods had been episcopal, we should have heard enough about their contentions; but, by good fortune, they were all composed of parity men. * Vindication, p. 378, 379. Ibid. p. 184. But these disputes were not of great moment, in comparison of what followed. The Arminian schism threw that Church into violent convulsions. For several years there was nothing but conference after conference, and synod after synod. At last it came to tumult, and sedition, and bloodshed. A general synod was then resolved on: it met at Dort. The Remonstrants were condemned, and these poor people, among whom were some of the most learned men of the age, were treated with the greatest severity. Some of the ministers who would not subscribe, were banished, and some were imprisoned. In short, it was a sad scene. This business was conducted, not under episcopal regimen, but under the mild sway of presbytery. "And as these presbyterian Churches have been afflicted with schisms and contentions, so they have been sensible of the mischiefs of heresy. In them, ministers have no great revenues, nor dignities, nor power, and there are no Bishops; and yet heresies make a shift to thrive. Arians, Socinians, Mennonists, and others, abound, and are pertinacious."z 66 But, perhaps, there is no Church which has felt the mischiefs of parity more than that of Scotland. "The concord of that Church," says my author, was much greater while it continued under Superintendents and Bishops, than it has been since Andrew Melvil disturbed it with the perfection of the Geneva discipline and government. What schisms there arose in the late times between the disciplinarians and the rest, and what disturbances the same sort of men have given of late, is too well known to need a relation, and the field conventicles still witness."a It is utterly inconsistent with historical truth to give the least intimation that the 'unity of the Church' is preserved by presbyterian regimen. "Is this proof," asks Dr. Hobart, to be found in the almost infinite number of sects, which sprang from presbytery in the time of Oliver Cromwell? Or does this proof exist in the state of the Presbyterian Churches in Scotland, or in this country? In Scotland, the Seceders are a numerous body, who separated from the parent Church, charging her with being a corrupt Church. We find there that presbyterian government did not preserve the visible unity of the Church. Was unity preserved among the Seceders, who carried with them presbyterian government, perfect equality of rank among ministers? In the space of a few years after the secession, they split into the two sects of Burghers and AntiBurghers; the former so called from submitting to what is called the Burgher oath, which the latter refuse to take, as inconsistent with the principles of the secession. Here then are three distinct Presbyterian Churches, who formally excommunicated one another, and disclaim all church fellowship. Admirable specimen of the efficacy of presbyterian government in preserving the visible unity of the Church! But this is not all. In z MAURICE, Vindication, p. 390, 391. a Vindication, p. 398. Scotland, there is a fourth Presbyterian Church, called the Relief Church, so denominated from their having relieved themselves from the patronage by which livings are conferred in the established Church. And last, though not least of all, the Reformed Presbyterian Church, commonly called Covenanters, who boast that they alone maintain the genuine presbyterian principles, and are the purest Church on the face of the earth."b "Nearly the same divisions are found among Presbyterians in this country, as subsist in Scotland. There are several denominations of them professing subjection to distinct ecclesiastical judicatories, and some of them refusing church fellowship with the others." There are also numerous congregations in NewEngland, who are, as to ordination, presbyterian, although as to government Congregational; and they also have had frequent contentions and numerous schisms. So that look where we will, since the reformation, and we shall find parity the fruitful source of confusion in the Church. No government indeed can prevent this altogether. The nature of man is so depraved; he is so much under the sway of pride, and selfishness, and obstinacy, that offences of this sort must come. But some governments, in their very nature, are better calculated to preserve peace, and prevent schism, than others. That appears to me to be strikingly the case with the episcopal regimen. Look at the episcopal Church in this country, and you will find it one in its form, in its ordination, and in its worship. It is the same in England, in Ireland, in Scotland, and in Sweden and Denmark. What an inestimable advantage is this! If a schism should take place, it is a difficult matter to induce a Bishop to violate the unity of the Church. In countries where there is an establishment, it scarcely ever occurs; and even where there is no establishment, the degradation and loss of character that ensue, and the almost impracticability of preserving the succession, are deterring circumstances. But among Presbyterians these things are continually occurring. A turbulent man can at any time make a schism, and as there is not the least difficulty with respect to ordination, a presbytery of some sort or other being easily formed, the circumstance which is attended with so much difficulty to Episcopalians, who are disposed to be schismatical, is not attended with the slightest inconvenience to Presbyterian schismatics. They may be schismatics, and Presbyterians still. But when Episcopalians are guilty of schism, they scarcely ever retain that character, but in almost every instance have recourse to ordination by Presbyters. This is not an imaginary advantage which the episcopal regimen possesses. Look at the episcopal Churches throughout the world, and it will be found to be a matter of fact, that where episcopacy is abandoned, there schisms and sects spring up like mushrooms. When, in the seventeenth b Apology, p. 221, 222. c Ibid. p. 222, 224. century, that apostolical regimen was abolished in England, upwards of sixty different sects, according to Edwards, a Presbyterian divine, distracted that unhappy country. But as soon as episcopacy was restored, they gradually died away, and left behind them but five or six of the more decent and sober kind. In Scotland, too, it was pretty much in the same way. As soon as Melvil got his favourite Geneva platform introduced, schisms began, and they have not ended to this day; and what is more, never will, as long as parity prevails. When we attend to the operations of our own minds, we find them almost intuitively admitting the expediency of superior ranks in communities of every kind. What has always been the common sentiment, and the common practice of the world, must be correct. In matters of taste, in moral principles, and in political science, it is allowed to be so. Why is nature, and the common sense of mankind, to be violated in the government of the Christian Church? We do not cease to be men as soon as we become Christians. There is enough of pride, ambition, and perverseness, in both priests and people, to need all those checks which the wisdom of ages has found necessary, to preserve peace and harmony in religious communities. History is uniform in her report upon this subject. The religion of the Patriarchs, of the Jews, of the Greeks and Romans, of the Persians, of the Egyptians, of the Druids, of the Mahometans, in short, of every nation that deserves to be so called, had its superior and inferior priests; and we know, that in one instance the ALMIGHTY expressly enjoined this gradation. If, then, the common sense of mankind be considered as a sure test of truth; if the experience of ages has sanctioned imparity in the ministers of religion; if God himself expressed his approbation of it, by establishing it among his peculiar people, the Jews; we may very reasonably conclude, that JESUS CHRIST Would not act in direct opposition to the voice of nature, to the common sense of mankind, and to the example set him by his Heavenly Father, And when we add to these analogical and a priori arguments, the accumulated evidence that has been adduced in proof of the fact, I see not what there is wanting to convince an unprejudiced mind, that episcopacy is an apostolical and divine insti, tution. One more letter, Sir, and I shall take my leave of this subject for the present. 26* |