In England, and the Northern Kingdoms, and partly in Germany,* the ancient Episcopal form of Church Government was still continued after the Reformation, under certain limitations. But in Switzerland, and the Low Countries, where a Re- publican policy was adopted in the State, all preeminence of order in the Church also was destroyed, and that form of ecclesiastical government established, which has been since called Presby terianism. See Slater's Original Draught of the Primitive Church;-Bishop Sage's Principles of the Cyprianic age, with regard to Episcopal power and jurisdiction;-Dr. Maurice's Vindication of the Primitive Church and Diocesan Episcopacy;-Dr. Cave's Government of the ancient Church Archbishop Usher's Opuscula duo de Episcoporum et Metropolitanorum origine;-and Calder's Priesthood of the Old and New Testament by succession. DISTINGUISHING DOCTRINE.-The distinguishing tenet of the members of this denomination is, that Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are three distinct subordinate callings in the Church, and that the Bishops have a superiority over the other two orders, jure divino: or, in other words, that all ecclesiastical ministers, superior to the rank of Deacons, are not co-ordinate and equal, but the latter address all such in the words of Isaiah, "Look into the rock from whence ye are hewn," &c.? * See the Church Government of the German Lutherans below. that there hath ever existed a third and higher class, (by whatever name the members of it may have been distinguished,) to which both the others have all along been indebted for their authority, and responsible for their conduct. They and the Presbyterians are fully agreed in this-that no man can lawfully arrogate to himself the office of a minister of the Gospel, but that he must receive his authority from those that have power to grant it; so that here they are jointly at issue with all self-constituted teachers. But they widely differ between themselves in this further position, which is strenuously maintained by Episcopalians, that such power, does not belong to Presbyters, but is vested in the hands of Bishops. In proof of their doctrine, the friends of Episcopacy think that there is complete scriptural evidence of the Apostolical institution of Episcopacy, in the presidency of St. James over the Presbyters of Jerusalem ;—in the presidency of Timothy and Titus over the Presbyters of Ephesus and Crete; and in the authority which the Seven Angels unquestionably possessed over all the Presbyters of Asia Minor. They allege, that during our Saviour's stay upon earth, he had under him two distinct orders of ministers-the twelve and the seventy; and after his ascension, immediately before which he had enlarged the powers of the eleven, we read of Apostles, Presbyters, and Deacons in the Church: -and, that the Apostolic, or highest order, was designed to be permanent in the Bishops, is evi dent from Bishops being instituted by the Apostles. themselves, to succeed them in great cities, as Timothy at Ephesus, Titus at Crete, &c. It appears that Timothy and Titus were superior to modern Presbyters, from the offices assigned them. Thus, Timothy was empowered by St. Paul, to preside over the Presbyters at Ephesus, to receive accusations against them, to exhort, to charge, and even to rebuke them; and Titus was, by the same Apostle, left at Crete for the express purpose of setting things in order, and ordaining Presbyters in every city. It is said in I. Timothy, 5. v. 19. "Against an Elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses."-Therefore, say they, Timothy was a judge, Presbyters were brought before him, and he was superior to them. Thus should it not be admitted, that there is a positive institution in Scripture of the Episcopal form of Church Government; yet Episcopalians insist, that they have primitive and even Apostolical practice for their precedent, which they think equivalent to an institution. Accordingly, the more strict Episcopalians maintain, that if it be not expressed, it is at least implied, in Scripture, that the Episcopal form of Church Government should be exclusively adhered to in all ages and nations. And from their doctrine, it follows, that ordination is not valid when conveyed by a College of Presbyters without a Bishop; and that the Sacraments administered by persons who have received this defective ordination, do not fulfil the purposes for which they were instituted.* Others again, as Bishops Stillingfleet and Pretyman, Mr. Gisborne, &c. admit a greater latitude of opinion, and conceive, that the Scriptures do not prescribe or enjoin any definite form of Church Government;-that though the Apostles themselves adopted, in their practice, the Episcopal form, yet they left no command which rendered Episcopacy universally indispensable in future times, if other forms should evidently promise, through local opinions and circumstances, greater benefit to religion:-Or, that “as i: hath not pleased our Almighty Father to prescribe any particular form of civil government for the security of temporal comforts to his rational creatures; so neither has he prescribed any particular form of Ecclesiastical polity as absolutely necessary to the attainment of eternal happiness."+ "Such," says Mr. Gisborne, alluding to this last, "such is the general sentiment of the present Church of England on this subject."-Perhaps the opinion on this head of her governors and members in general, cannot be better expressed than in the language of the Anti-Jac. Reviewers;-" On the authority of those Clergymen who officiate in Churches that have rejected the *See in the Scholar Armed, a Discourse on the qualifi cations requisite to administer the Sacraments, by Mr C. Leslie. † Bishop Pretyman's Elements of Christian Theology, vol. ii. p. 398.-and Mr. Gisborne's Survey, p. 497. Episcopal order and succession, it belongs not to us to pass any judgment. Whilst we feel it to be our duty to ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and to walk therein, that we may find rest for our souls,' we shall leave those who have traced out for themselves new paths, to the judgment of the supreme Bishop of souls, who, as he knows our frailties, will make every possible allowance for unavoidable ignorance, and even for incorrigible ignorance."* As to the form of Government which has long been adopted in the Church of Rome;-the doctrine of the Pope's being the only source of ecelesiastical power, and universal Bishop over all the Bishops and Churches in the world, (although the members of that Church pretend to have derived it all the way down from St. Peter,) was unknown in the primitive Church, and may be considered as a kind of excrescence which grew up on the body of Episcopacy in the 7th century.t * Vol. ix. p. 241. The first that assumed the title of Universal Bishop, was John, Patriarch of Constantinople: against whom Gregory I, surnamed the Great, wrote with much spirit, and said that none of his own predecessors, Bishops of Rome, did ever assume such an arrogant title, which he also calls blasphemous, and said that whoever did arrogate it to himself was a Lucifer for pride, and the fore-runner of AntiChrist. Yet Pope Boniface III. next successor but one to Gregory I. took this very title, given him by the tyrant Phocas in 606.-The progress of this usurpation of the Popes, and the struggle of the Bishops against it, may be tra |
