PART to all the Bishops of the Apostolic see, by no less a council than that of Chalcedon. But he was therein certainly mistaken. Gregory wrote at the same time to the emperor, and the empress Constantina, inveighing, throughout both letters, against his most holy brother, (for so he styled him,) as one who strove by a most wicked attempt to enthral the whole Church, as one equal in pride to Lucifer himself, as the forerunner of antichrist, &c., repeating here what he had written to the patriarch himself. He begs the emperor, in the name of St. Peter, to control, by his authority, the unbounded ambition of a man, who, not satisfied with being Bishop, affected to be called sole Bishop of the Catholic Church. It was, therefore, according to Gregory's way of reasoning, the same thing to be called universal Bishop, and sole Bishop. He alleges several reasons to convince the emperor, that, in the Church, there can be no universal Bishop; and the following among the rest: "If there were a universal Bishop, and he should err, the universal Church would err with him :" which was evidently supposing every Bishop, even a universal Bishop, to be capable of erring.Vol. V. pp. 395–399. 2 BINGHAM. Antiquities of the Christian Church. Book II. Chap. xii. 3. During the time of the schism of the Donatists, many new bishoprics were erected in very small towns in Africa; as appears from the Acts of the Collation of Carthage, where the Catholics and the Donatists mutually charge each other with this practice; that they divided single Bishoprics sometimes into three or four, and made Bishops in country towns and villages to augment the numbers of their parties. Thus, in one place, we find Petilian, the Donatist, complaining that the Catholics had made four Bishops in the diocese of Januarius, a Donatist, to outdo them with numbers. And, in another place, Alypius, tho Catholic, orders it to be entered upon record, that a great many Donatist Bishops, there mentioned, were not ordained in cities but only in country towns or villages. To which Petilian replies, that the Catholics did the same; ordaining Bishops in country towns, and sometimes in such places where they had no people: his meaning is, that in those places all the people were turned Donatists, and for that very reason the Catholic Bishops thought themselves obliged to divide their dioceses, and ordain new Bishops in small towns; that they might outdo the Donatists, both in number and zeal, and more effectually labour in reducing the straying people back again to their ancient communion with the Catholic Church. CONSTITUTION OF THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 367 CHAPTER IV. OF THE INTERNAL CONSTITUTION OF THE AMERICAN CHURCH. Q. i. UPON what principles is the internal con- CHAP. stitution of the American Church founded? A. It is founded upon two great principles. One of these is of Divine origin; that the power of ordination and the chief government of the Church are vested in Bishops. The other is of human origin; that the power of the Bishops must be checked by that of the Clergy and laity. Q. ii. How is the first of those principles applied? A. By placing each diocese under the care of a Bishop who has the exclusive power of ordination, and the chief judicial authority of the diocese, with the rights of visitation and inspection. In the united Church it is applied in uniting all the Bishops into one body, which is a co-ordinate branch of the General Convention; without whose assent no action of that body is binding. Q. iii. How is the second principle applied? A. By placing on each diocese a standing committee, consisting sometimes of clergymen only, and sometimes of clergymen and laymen, but always elected by the votes of the Clergy and laity, without whose assent the Bishop is prohibited from ordaining, and who constitute generally his council of advice. It is further applied by limiting the exercise of the judicial functions of the Bishop, so that they cannot be exercised without the concurrence of presbyters; to whom a portion of judicial authority is given, sometimes as assessors to the Bishop, some IV. III. PART times as a court whose action is a condition precedent to his. In the legislative department all authority is, in each diocese, committed to a mixed convention of Clergy and laity. In the United Church, the same principle is applied by placing in the General Convention, a House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, co-ordinate to the House of Bishops, without whose assent no action of that body is binding. Q. iv. How are the relative rights of the Clergy and laity secured? A. By giving to each a negative upon the other in all legislative action, whether in the General or the Diocesan Conventions. The mode of doing so is, that a small number of persons are authorized to call for a vote by orders. The clerical and lay members of the body then vote separately, and unless a majority of the two concur nothing is done. In the election of a Bishop, a matter which is entirely committed to the regulation of each Diocesan Convention, the general, if not universal, practice is for the Clergy to nominate a candidate whom the laity either reject or confirm. Q. v. How are the rights of individual dioceses secured? A. By giving them, in the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, an equal representation; and by authorizing each diocese to call for a vote by dioceses: when the voice of each is equal, whether the number of its deputies present be large or small. Q. vi. Upon what principle is this done? A. Upon several. In the ancient Church, the diocese seems to have been considered as the unit, and accordingly, in all councils, the votes of all Bishops who only at that time voted in councils were equal. Again, the American Church is a union of dioceses, not of individuals. Moreover, looking at the subject in the light of expediency, it is not considered right that a large diocese should attain such a position, as, by its large representa- CHAP. tion, virtually to govern the whole Church. Q. vii. What are the boundaries between the authority of the General Convention and that of the Diocesan Conventions? A. They are not well ascertained, further than that the General Convention shall have exclusive authority in matters relating to the Prayer Book and to the trial of Bishops, the Diocesan Conventions in matters relating to the election of Bishops, and the trial of presbyters and deacons. In other matters, the practice has been for each to legislate on any subject, not expressly allotted to the other, which might seem to require attention. So long as the canons of the two bodies can stand together, both classes are respected. What would be the result in case of collision, or by what rules such a case would be decided, it is impossible to say, since nothing of the kind has yet occurred. V. CHAPTER V. OF THE RELATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. Q. i. WHAT are the relations of the Church and the State in the United States? A. They are entirely independent of each other. A. That each society has a right to regulate its concerns without reference to the will of the other. Q. iii. But has it not been said, that, in a Christian country, Church and State are two names PART for one society, because both are composed of the same members? III. A. It has been so said; but it is not true. In the first place, the two societies are not composed of the same members theoretically. In the second place, they are not composed of the same members practically. In the third place, if they were composed of the same members, that would not make them one society. Q. iv. Why are they not composed of the same members theoretically? A. Because there are in every State unbaptized children, and even adults, who are not members of the Church, and excommunicated persons who are hardly such. On the other hand, the Church in every nation is a part of the Church Catholic; and every member of that Church is, for the time, a member of that branch of it within whose bounds he may at any time be found; although he may be an alien, or even an enemy to the State within whose territory it is placed. Q. v. How are they not practically composed of the same members? A. Because there are, in every nation, numbers of persons who have, at most, a nominal but unpractical connexion with the Church. Besides in every country in which any freedom of opinion is allowed, there will be many open dissenters from the Church. Q. vi. Have any experiments been made to bring about an actual existence of identity between the members of the Church and those of the State? One, A. Yes; and in three different modes. that of compelling, by persecution, all persons to unite themselves with the Church. In Spain, Portugal, and Italy, this course has been successful, so far as externals are concerned. The Puritans of New England took a second mode by confining |