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

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 preserv ing the visible unity of the Church! But this is not all. In

■ MAURICE, Vindication, p. 290, 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."

"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*

REV. SIR:

LETTER XXI.

You go on in the same strain of unqualified invective against Bishops; not recollecting that every thing with which you charge them, may be retorted upon presbytery in a tenfold degree. You say, 'If we examine the history of any episcopal Church on earth, we shall find it exhibiting, to say the least, as large a share of heresy, contention, and schism, as any which bears the presbyterian form; and, what is more, we shall ever find the Prelates themselves quite as forward as any others, in scenes of violence and outrage.'

These charges could not have proceeded from a proper motive. If they were even well founded, they ought not to have been advanced. Religion can derive no benefit from criminations of this kind, nor did your argument require the introduction of the subject. I fear you were not under the influence of your usual meekness of spirit, when you committed to paper several passages in your book. With an appearance of much candour and moderation, every now and then expressions dropped from your pen, which show that all is not right. I am sorry to make these observations; but when a man advances ill-founded, and at the same time severe things, he has no right to expect that they will be passed over in silence.

Before you indulged yourself in charges of this serious nature, you ought to have refreshed your memory with a perusal of the history of the Christian Church. If you had, you would have found but one Bishop a heretic for the first three hundred years; and very few, in any age, in comparison of Presbyters and laymen. And as to violence and outrage, I am totally at a loss to determine what you mean, and at what Church you point. cannot think that you have our Church in view, or the moderate Church of England, or of Ireland, or the episcopal Church in Scotland, or the Church of Sweden, or of Denmark, or of the Moravians. What, Sir, do you mean? When you tell us, you will most probably receive an answer.

I

I have, in the course of this discussion, several times expressed my astonishment at your manner of quoting authors, and at your wide departure from well authenticated facts. You give us another instance. You inform us, that Eusebius gives a sad picture of the divisions among Bishops; but you take care not to tell us in what part of his history that picture is to be found. I have looked over his account of the state of the Church in the early part of the fourth century; and so far from finding a great corruption of morals, I am astonished at the faith and patience displayed by all ranks of Christians, under sufferings the most appalling to human nature. Among these Christians, he gives a long list of illustrious Bishops, who endured the most excru

ciating tortures, rather than renounce their GoD and SAVIOUr, Read, Sir, his account of the Dioclesian persecution, and perhaps you will feel in your heart some tenderness, even for Bishops.

You have given us, Sir, a very unwarrantable account of the Nicene Council; and to have some colour for your representation, you say in a note,a that Gregory Nazianzen 'speaks of the unprincipled ambition and shameful conduct of the clergy of that council.' When I see the passage which gives that information, I shall not be disposed to doubt that it is to be found in the works of Gregory; but then I shall oppose to it the account which Eusebius gives us of that council. He was a member of the council, and must, therefore, have known more about it than Gregory, who lived fifty years after the event. Eusebius says nothing, that I can find, about 'unprincipled ambition and shameful conduct.' If you will consult the thirteenth Chapter of the third Book; you will find that nothing occurred inconsistent with gravity and decorum. He mentions, indeed, an undue degree of warmth that appeared in some of the members, and some instances of personal reflections, which the Emperor, who was present, immediately checked. Arianism, and the time of keeping Easter, were the most material points debated in that council, and the first in particular was very interesting; of course it would excite warmth, and warmth generally produces improprieties; but none occurred, according to Eusebius, but what the subjects, and the number of the members present, would naturally produce; none that would justify your assertion, that the clergy of that council were men of 'unprincipled ambition, and shameful conduct.'

When I read the account which Eusebius has given of that council, and the canons which were made by it, I cannot perceive in your representation, the least trace of moderation, or conformity to facts. I should think that men who could enact such canons as the following, must be pure themselves, and very zealous to promote purity in others. The second canon ordains, that "those who shall be convicted of any crime, shall be deprived of their ecclesiastical functions." The third forbids " Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and other clergymen, to keep women in the house with them, excepting those of whom there can be no suspicion." The ninth ordains, “that those Priests shall be degraded, who are found either to have sacrificed, or to have been guilty of other crimes before their ordination." The fifteenth forbids "the translation of Bishops and Priests," and ordains, "that those who shall be translated, shall return to their first Church." The seventeenth ordains "that clergymen who are usurers, or who take sordid gain, shall be deposed."b These canons look as

if the Bishops of that council were men of virtue and religion, and not ambitious and unprincipled, as you represent them. Add to this, that they had but lately come out of a most dreadful

a Page 330,

b Du PIN'S Eccles. Hist. Vol. I. p. 252, 253.