general convention. They ordain, depose, and restore to the ministry, at pleasure, whom they will; " so that a Puseyite bishop may fill the church with impenitent and unconverted men." He can prevent any congregation from settling the minister of their choice, or displace one at his will, and may,“ upon probable cause," forbid any clergyman from another diocese to officiate in his own. Such is the fearful nature of those powers which are now entrusted to this spiritual despot in our free republic.36 And yet as if all this ominous accumulation of Episcopal prerogatives were not enough, the claims of the bishops are still pressed higher and higher. The house of bishops, with all its powers, has been superinduced upon the general convention, since its establishment in America. Now these privileged hierarchs can only be tried by themselves; i. e., if a president be guilty of any crime or misdemeanor whatever, he must be impeached and tried by a jury of presidents alone; a governor, by a jury of governors. In one convention, the bishop lately claimed and exercised the prerogative of adjusting the roll of the members, denying to them the right of all deliberative assemblies,-that of deciding upon the qualifications of their own members; and the same convention, "by a vote of nearly three to one," meekly acquiesced in this claim of their prelate,37 Another convention provides that its proceedings “shall not be open to the public." It gives to the bishop an absolute veto upon all their acts; and, to crown the whole, makes him "the judge in all ecclesiastical trials." Well may we say with Dr. Hawkes, "NOTHING BUT THIS WAS WANTING TO MAKE HIM ABSOLUTE. We will speak, and speak out, when we see all power, legislative, judicial, and executive, 36 These astounding facts and principles, with the original authorities for them, are disclosed more at length in the writings of Dr. Smyth, to whom we are chiefly indebted for the above abstract of them. Compare, especially, Apost. Succession, pp. 507-509, and Ecclesiastical Republicanism, pp. 153–172. 37 Letters to the Laity by a Protestant Episcopalian, p. 17. centred in one man in such ample plenitude, that he may even dictate to the fashion of a surplice, or the shape of a gown."38 This admirable specimen of religious legislation, we are told, was actually prepared by the bishop himself, and ratified in a state more radically democratic than any other in the Union! "Let any man read that constitution, and then say, whether, if the individual who has been thus extravagantly exalted, had dared to brave the public sentiment of the country in which he lives, so far as to carry out into practice the authority which has been thus lavishly bestowed upon him, we should not have to look to the mountains of Vermont for the mightiest spiritual autocrat at present inhabiting the globe, -with, perhaps, one exception, the man who wears the tiara, and builds his habitation on the seven hills."39 Consider now this enormous extension of the Episcopal power in this enlightened age, in this free republic,—this monstrous spiritual despotism imposed upon a people, jealous above all men of their rights, and prompt to repel every invasion of them ;-contemplate such a people, under such circumstances, with scarcely a feeble note of remonstrance, bowing themselves down to this hierarchal supremacy, and shall we wonder at the early rise of a mild and comparatively unformed Episcopacy? Shall we marvel at the gradual extension of its influence over feeble churches, dependent for their support and protection? Why should this be thought a thing incredible, in view of what is transpiring in the midst of us? 38 New York Review, Oct. 1835, cited in Letters to the Laity. 39 Letters to the Laity, p. 27.-The late transactions in the diocese of New York are fresh in the public mind, and familiar to all;— the high-handed despotism of the prelate, and the profound selfabasement with which a large portion of his clergy could consent to kneel down in the dust at the feet of their sovereign pontiff and crave his benediction. CHAPTER VIII. THE DIOCESAN GOVERNMENT. THIS term denotes the ecclesiastical organization which succeeded a fuller development of the Episcopal system, and further concentration of power in the hands of the bishop. It was gradually matured, and was settled upon the churches in the several provinces, at different times, extending through an indefinite period. The establishment of this form of government cannot with precision be assigned to a specific epoch. Suffice it to say, that the third century may be regarded as the period in which the diocesan government was chiefly consolidated and established. It was the result of a variety of causes, which deserve a careful consideration, and was productive of consequences of great moment to the interests of religion. The course of our inquiries in relation to the establishment of Diocesan Episcopacy will lead us to consider, I. The means of its development. II. Its results. I. Means of its development. 1. The formal organization of the diocesan government was chiefly effected by means of provincial synods and councils. The consideration of these councils belongs to another work. But whatever may have been their origin, such ecclesiastical assemblies were regularly held in Asia Minor, in 1 Christian Antiquities, chap. 17. § 9. pp. 356–367. the third century, and were frequently convened in other provinces, for the transaction of business relating to the interests of the church.2 They were summoned by the presiding bishop of the province. The bishops of the province were expected to attend, and if any were present from other provinces, they were courteously recognized as members of the same. The presbyters and deacons, also, had at this time, in the opinion of many, a seat and a voice in these councils, though at a later period they were excluded. The council, on the one hand, was the highest judicature of the church, where all that related to its interests in the province was discussed; on the other, it served as a privy-council to the bishop. Here, especially, were all cases brought relating to the bishops. Cases of this kind could only be brought before the council in a full assembly of the bishops, and even then not at pleasure, but only with their consent. Such an assembly, it must readily be seen, afforded a convenient method of deciding any subject of common interest to the churches; though the bishops themselves probably were not aware of the important consequences which might result from assuming thus to give laws to the church. The decisions of the synod, also, at first, assumed the form of law, rather by common consent, than as imperative enactments. They were the decisions of a public deliberative and representative assembly, in which the voice of the majority becomes the law of the whole; and under the sanction of such authority, were received as the rule of the church. But the bishops, having once acquired the power of giving laws to the church, soon changed the ground of their authority; and, instead of legislating for those churches in their name, and as their representatives, they assumed the right of giving laws to the church by virtue of their Episcopal office; and for this assumption, 2 Necessario, says Firmilian, A. D. 257, apud nos fit, ut per singulos annos seniores et praepositi in unum conveniamus, ad disponenda ea quae curae nostrae commissa sunt.-Cyp. Ep. 75. p. 143. they claimed, as has been already mentioned, the sanction of divine authority, jure divino, as the ministers of God, and under the guidance of his Spirit.3 The above representation is only an epitome of the sentiments of Planck, in his work on the Constitution of the Church, which has been so frequently cited. They accord entirely with the representations of Mosheim, and many others who might be named.5 Mosheim remarks, that these councils " were productive of so great an alteration in the general state of the church, as nearly to effect the entire subversion of its ancient constitution. For, in the first place, the primitive rights of the people, in consequence of this new arrangement of things, experienced a considerable diminution, inasmuch as thenceforward none but affairs of comparatively trifling importance were ever made the subject of popular deliberation and adjustment;-the councils of the associated churches assuming to themselves the right of discussing and regulating everything of moment or importance; as well as of determining all questions to which any sort of weight was attached.—In the next place, the dignity and authority of the bishops were very much augmented and enlarged. In the infancy, indeed, of the councils, the bishops did not scruple to acknowledge that they appeared there merely as the ministers or legates of their respective churches; and that they were in fact nothing more than representatives acting under instructions. But it was not long before this humble language, began by little and little, to be exchanged for a loftier 3 Placet! Visum est! is the style not unfrequently, in which the summary decisions of their councils are given; or if the decision relates to an article of faith, credit catholica ecclesia! Athanasius, De Synodo. Arimin. et Seluciae, Ferdin. De Mendoza, De Confirmatione Conc., Ill. Lib. 2. c. 2, cited by Spittler. 4 Gesellschafts-Verfass. 1. S. 90-100. 5 Compare also Henke and Vater, Allgemein. Kirchen Gesch. I. S. 120 seq. Eichhorn, Can. Recht. I. S. 20. Riddle's Chron. pp. 32, 33, |