ART. X. CHRISTIAN UNION. BY THE EDItor. No. I. The reunion of Christian Sects not impracticable. Sanabilibus ægrotamus, malis.-Seneca. It is an observation founded in a deep acquaintance with the nature and history of man, that "Evil felt hath a much stronger influence on the mind, than Good imagined; and the means of removing the one are much easier discovered, than the way to procure the other."* Good imagined is commonly remote, uncertain, and, however desirable, not necessary to present welfare; while Evil felt, being palpable, and the occasion of immediate pain or inconvenience, is urgent in its demands for remedy. It is accordingly found, that the native inertia of man is less obedient to the intensest attraction of future Good, than to the slightest repulsion of present evil. How few men are drawn to religion by a prospect of its rewards in the life to come, in comparison with those who are driven to it by the trials and disappointments of the life that now is! And how few are those who are active in the pursuit even of such temporal advantages as may be a little beyond their grasp, in comparison with those who repose in a kind of savage supineness, until the uneasiness of want, or the pinching of necessity, drives them to exertion. Persons will indeed be found, who, realizing more vividly the distant Good, or having a temperament more mercurial than others, are always eager in the pursuit of something better. But with regard to the mass of mankind it has ever been, and probably will remain true, that they will continue in the state in which they find themselves, however imperfect it may be, and below that which they might attain, until goaded by some present evil, or lashed by the scourge of necessity, to a strenuous exertion of their powers for the improvement of their condition. In accordance with this view, it seems to be the common method by which Divine Wisdom leads men to the adoption of such institutions as it sees to be for their advantage, to * Warburton's Divine Legation of Moses. B. I. Sec. 2. p. 11. cause them to suffer, antecedently, such evils as grow out of the want of them, and of which they are the only remedy. And so, as we think, it will be found, that those great social systems, civil and religious, which have been revered as the appointments of Divine benevolence, or admired as products of human skill, were at first adopted rather as remedies of existing evils, than as means of procuring the positive advantages afterwards derived from them. Civil society is described by Aristotle, and after him by the best writers on government, as having been first instituted for the sake of living simply, (rou v Evexev,) i. e. escaping the destruction to which men are exposed in the savage state; and as having only afterward been instrumental of men's living happily (roue (v). It is indeed represented by Hooker, that men are led to enter into society, rather for the sake of living in a manner "fit for the dignity of man," than merely to escape the evils attendant on the state of nature. But those influences of society which contribute to the dignity and refinement of life, not having been already experienced, could hardly have been calculated upon, in the original formation of society. The prime motive, therefore, for the institution of civil society, would seem to have been furnished in the general sense of the numberless ills growing out of the savage state. The vigourous system of Ecclesiastical regimen, which became universal during the first three centuries of the Christian era, was adopted as a remedy for the sectarian tendencies which were early manifested, and the evils of which were deeply felt. It had been predicted by St. Paul, that within the Church itself" there should arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them."* And according to this prediction, teachers soon appeared who were more anxious to make disciples for themselves, than for their Master; and they found many ready to follow them, and be called by their name, forgetting that one was their Master, even Christ, and that they had been baptized only into his name. These divisions in the feeble band of the early believers were seen and felt to be utterly ruinous to the Christian cause. And it was to obviate and remedy these evils, and to promote that unity seen to be essential to the very existence of the Church in a hostile world, that a vigourous and consolidated government was reared. Whether this hierarchical system was well adapted to secure the peace and oneness of the Church, it is not our object to inquire; but only to show, that such was the design of its adoption by those who were then suffering the evils of division. That this early system of Ecclesiastical regimen was designed as a remedy for schism, is acknowledged equally by those who regard it as of Divine appointment, and by those who consider it as an institution of purely human origin, and doubtful expediency. The former represent it as appointed indeed by the Apostles, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, but still as having been instituted by them for the same reason which rendered its adoption expedient in view of the Church, viz. its tendency to obviate the mischiefs of the divisions which began to prevail under their own eye. The latter represent it as having been devised by the Church, and universally assented to, as the most obvious remedy which occurred to them for the present troubles and threatening dangers of schismatic dissensions. Amidst all the diversity of view which prevails among writers on Church government, respecting the nature and tendency of the early regimen of the Church, there are few among them, so far as we have been able to examine, who dissent from the opinion, that the growing divisions in the Church were the original motives for its institution. The general concurrence in this sentiment respecting the occasion of the early regimen of the Church, among writers holding the most opposite opinions as to its nature, will be evident from a few testimonies. Jerome, in the famous passage of his Commentary on 1 Tit. 7, gives the following account of the occasion which led to the institution of the early Episcopal government: "Till through the instigation of the Devil, there sprung up in the Church certain preferences (studia), and among the people it began to be professed, I am of Paul, I of Apollos, and I of Cephas; churches were governed by the common advice of presbyters. But when every one began to reckon those whom himself had baptized his own, and not Christ's, it was decreed in the whole world that one chosen out of the presbyters, should be placed above the rest, to whom all the care of the Church should belong, and so the seeds of schism be removed." The same writer, in an epistle to Evangelus, (al. Evagrius,) says, "The Apostle plainly teaches, that presbyters and bishops were originally the same. But that it was for a remedy of schism (in schismatis remedium factum est), that one was afterwards chosen to be placed above the rest, lest every * Ep. 101. man's pulling unto himself should rend asunder the body of Christ." The occasion for the institution of Episcopal government is described by Calvin in the same way. “The ministers who had charge to teach, chose of their company one in every city, to whom they appropriated the title of bishop, lest equality should breed dissension."* "Every company (i. e. of pastors) only for preservation of policy and peace, were under one bishop.' The testimony of Hooker is equally explicit in favour of this occasion for the institution of this ancient ecclesiastical regimen, at the same time that he derives its appointment from the Apostles. "There grew," he says, "in a short time, amongst the governours of each Church, those emulations, strifes, and contentions, whereof there could be no sufficient remedy provided, except, according to the order of Jerusalem, already begun, some one were endued with Episcopal authority over the rest: which one, being resident, might keep them in order, and have pre-eminence or principality in those things wherein the equality of many agents was the cause of disorder or trouble."+ This statement is often repeated by Hooker. In another passage he says, "The cause wherefore they (i. e. the Apostles) under themselves appointed such bishops as were not everywhere at the first, is said to have been, those strifes and contentions, for remedy whereof, whether the Apostles alone did conclude of such a regimen, or else they, together with the whole Church, judging it a fit and needful policy, did agree to receive it for a custom, no doubt but being established by those on whom the Holy Ghost was poured in so abundant measure for the ordering of Christ's Church, it had either Divine appointment beforehand, or Divine approbation afterward." Again: "The cause wherefore they (i. e. bishops) were so soon universally appointed, was, for that it plainly appeared, that without them the Church could not have continued long. It was by the special providence of God, no doubt, so disposed, that the evil, whereof this did serve for remedy, might first be felt; and so the reverend authority of bishops be made by so much more effectual, when our general experience had taught men what it was to want them. Good laws are never esteemed so good, as when precedent crimes are as seeds out of which they grow. Episcopal authority was Inst. lib. iv. c. 4. § 2. even in a manner sanctioned unto the Church of Christ, by that little bitter experience which it first had of the pestilent evil of schisms."* Such is the concurrence of testimony in favour of the sentiment, that the prelatical government of the first centuries grew out of the dissensions among Christians, being adopted by their free consent, as a remedy for the evils under which they were suffering. To show this is the only object of these citations. Whether what was done, was done wisely, is another and more difficult question. To some, the institution of this Episcopal government appears to have been a measure admirably adapted to correct the evils in remedy of which it was intended; to others, as rather adapted to produce them. Some regard it as sanctioned alike by the wisdom of God and man; others, as rejected equally by both. From this institution, some derive that measure of peace and unity which the early Church enjoyed: while others consider "prelaty and faction to be wedded together, as by a sponsal ring, never to be divorced." Into these disputes our purpose does not call us to enter. Non nostrum tantas componere lites.* It is sufficient for our object to have shown, that the motive or occasion which led to the establishment of Episcopal authority, in the early ages, was furnished by the evils resulting from sectarian tendencies. In opposition to the general testimony which has here been adduced, there are a few authorities which deserve a moment's attention. "It was not the prevention of schism," says Milton, "but schism itself, and the hateful thirst of lording it in the Church, which first bestowed a being upon prelaty." But to this assertion, which represents the opinion of the more violent enemies of the prelatical system, we may oppose the judgment of one more learned and impartial, if not so eloquent-the great and good Neander. Though vying with Milton, in his aversion to the whole system of Ecclesiastical subordination which early prevailed in the Church, he never fails to acquit those who were chiefly instrumental in its institution of any sinister design. With regard to Cyprian, for example-the great architect of the imposing structure of ancient Ecclesiastical power-he observes, that "it would be doing him injustice to accuse him of acting with a deliberate plan of exalting the Episcopate. In such matters it is hardly possible for a single individual to bring to pass an entire revolution in the relations of a whole people, accord Eccles. Pol. vol. iii. p. 158. + Milton's Reason of Church Government. |