93

To the above testimonies might be added others to an unlimited extent. We have only selected the most prominent out of the different countries of Christian Europe. We must not conclude, however, without some notice of one further eminent individual, and of one other remarkable Synod connected with a distinguished seat of theological learning. Grotius, the celebrated lawyer and statesman, the acute metaphysician and divine, well known to all the Christian world as an able "defender of the Faith,' thus sums up the argument between the Episcopalian writers and their adversaries in his time. "So light and foolish is what the latter have put forth in answer to the former, that to have read the one is to have already refuted the other especially touching the angels of the Churches, concerning whom, that which the disturbers of ecclesiastical order bring, is so absurd and contrary to the sacred text itself, that it deserves not confutation 1." In another work he remarks that "Episcopacy had its beginning in the apostolic times."-"The Bishop is of approved Divine right. For this assertion the Divine Apocalypse affords an irrefragable argument."-"The histories of all times manifest the vast advantages that have accrued to the Church by Episcopacy."—"Those who think Episcopacy repugnant to God's will, must condemn the whole primitive Church of folly and impiety 2."

To quote as was proposed, one more authority from the same quarter-namely, Holland—and to end as we began, with the judgment of an Assembly of Divines: the Presbyterian Synod of Dort, called together for the establishment of Calvinism in that country, bear the same testimony with Grotius, who belonged to the Arminian party, their opposers. The Synod, on being urged by the English Church respecting the necessity of Episcopal government on the Apostolic plan, replied, that "they had a great honour for

Cambridge, A. D. 1572, and both became Fellows of that Society: the former remained till his death, A. D. 1580; the latter was instituted to the living of Clacton Magna, and dying a. D. 1591, was buried at St. John's College.

1 Discussio de Primatu Papæ.

2 Grot. de imper. Summ. Potest. circa sacra. Cap. xi. sect. 5; also Brett on Church Government, and note (B) at the end of the volume.

the Church of England, and heartily wished that they could establish themselves upon this model; lamenting that they had no prospect of such a happiness; and since the civil government had made their desires impracticable, they hoped God would be merciful to them 1."

The reader may perhaps imagine that we have adduced supernumerary evidences for establishing this point; but it is important for the purposes of this essay to ascertain the opinions of the principal reformers, while their minds were as yet neither biassed by party spirit, nor heated in the struggles of controversy.

The veneration for Episcopacy entertained at first by persons whom necessity compelled to the adoption of a different system, could not be expected to continue long. Hostility to the Church of Rome would naturally be increased by opposition and persecution. It would seem desirable, in the tumultuous conflict, not only of words, but frequently of the sword; when strife not only raged in the polemic theatre, but in the field of blood; and when, to a multitude of sufferers by inquisitorial torture, in the dungeon, on the scaffold, or at the stake, were added the victims of open war; to remove as far as possible, both in doctrine and in discipline, from that detested communion. It would also be thought expedient, by persons thus severely tried, to stand on higher ground, with respect to Church polity, than the ground of mere necessity; and to make some show of argument from Scripture, or from primitive antiquity, in behalf of the new constitution which had been devised. Accordingly, many of those very persons whose writings have been quoted, spoke afterwards

1 Collier's Eccles. Hist. vol. ii. p. 718.

The testimonies in the text have reference principally to the subject of Episcopacy, but I cannot forbear subjoining an eulogium from the celebrated M. Daillé, on the entire polity of the Anglican Church. "As to the Church of England, purged from foreign wicked superstitious worships and errors, either impious or dangerous, by the rule of the Divine Scripture; approved of by many and illustrious martyrs: abounding with piety towards God, and charity towards men, and with most frequent examples of good works; flourishing with an increase of most learned and wise men from the beginning of the reformation to this time: I have always had it in true and just esteem, and till I die, I shall continue in the same due veneration of it."-De Confess. advers. H. Hammond, c. i. p. 97, 98.

with far less favour of the ancient system for which they originally professed and felt so much esteem. The enmity of their disciples grew more and more decided and unequivocal. The authority of Bishops was represented as a presumptuous encroachment on the rights and privileges conveyed to Presbyters by the apostles. Popery and Prelacy were declared to be so closely in alliance, as even to be virtually synonymous. For the space of above two centuries and a half, up to our present times, a regular system of aggressive warfare has been maintained by the scholars and successors of Calvin, against that very form of Church government, respecting which we have seen their great master declaring, that the man was worthy of all condemnation, who should not reverently and with the utmost deference receive it.

The question then proposed for examination in this essay is, whether the opinions on the subject of Episcopacy entertained by the founders of the anti-episcopalian system, or the opinions entertained by their successors, were more correct in other words, whether an ecclesiastical constitution prevailing, as we have seen, at the period of the reformation, throughout the whole Christian world; handed down from remote antiquity as an apostolical institution; and nowhere departed from but by necessity: did possess, in reality, the high origin which it claimed, and was actually entitled to the universal reverence which it received.

But before examining the question, there are three particulars necessary to be premised, in reference to the kind and degree of proof in this case to be expected; that the examiner may be properly prepared to enter on the discussion. For though the subject is not necessarily obscure, yet from inattention to the meaning of ancient words and phrases, from the introduction of irrelevant inquiries, and from the frequent demand of evidence which could not possibly be afforded, and which, in corresponding instances, is not required, continual sources of confusion and perplexity have been opened.

1. We may begin by premising, that on the subject of Church polity, we cannot reasonably look in Holy Scripture for any regular discussion, or explicit statements. What has often been remarked with respect to doctrine, and

to morals, is also true with respect to discipline and to government. As the New Testament contains no systematic treatise on Christian doctrine, nor any formal digest of Christian morals, but leaves the teacher or the disciple to construct his moral and theological system by a diligent comparison of text with text, and of precept with precept: so we see also, in the case of discipline and of polity, a similar disregard of scholastic arrangement. The Apostles and Evangelists, not addressing themselves to the learned, but writing more immediately for the use of ordinary persons, all of whom were well acquainted with the existing constitution of the Church, rather make allusion to things with which the persons addressed were familiar, than afford explanation for the satisfaction of others. It is, therefore, not only necessary, but a proper exercise of candour and fairness, to compare, one with another, the various scriptural passages connected with the subject; to consult the authority of history and the analogies of language; and to use the various aids to interpretation which, in common cases, are thought desirable, nay, indispensable. And the conclusion would be unwarranted, that because Church polity is not fully and systematically treated of, the question, therefore, must be unimportant, or must remain obscure in spite of all examination.

There is, in this respect, a striking contrast between the Jewish and the Christian revelation. The law of Moses, being written in the wilderness before the Israelites had effected the conquest of the promised land, and before their system of Church polity could be fully brought into operation; is minutely accurate in prescribing the regulations, ceremonial and civil, which were to be afterwards established. Without some such distinct previous delineation in a regular code, it would have been impossible for the intended scheme of ecclesiastical polity among the Jews to have been put in practice. The Christian dispensation, on the contrary, was already complete; the great sacrifice for sin offered; the Holy Ghost sent; the Church constituted; and its ministers, in their various grades, appointed and ordained, before the Gospels and Epistles were composed. It seems, therefore, idle to expect in those writings any formally digested rules for Church government. Allusion,

indeed, is often made by those writers to ordinances already existing, and to circumstances which require the exercise of apostolical authority; and from these allusions, a system may be clearly gathered or inferred, although no system be didactically enlarged upon 1.

2. Again, we must not imagine it an infringement of sound protestant principles, to consult, on the question now before us, ecclesiastical as well as scriptural antiquity; to consult the records of the Church as well as the Bible itself. The maxim that "the Bible, and the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants," has been sometimes supposed to signify that no appeal to the primitive Fathers on any point, whether of doctrine or of discipline, is allowable in a true Protestant; but that all points must be decided by Scripture, and by Scripture alone. How far this rigid and unbending application of Chillingworth's maxim would be approved by that pious author himself', and how far Pro

1 "When they farther dispute, that if any such thing" (as Episcopal government) were needful, Christ would in Scripture have set down particular statutes and laws, appointing that Bishops should be made, and prescribing in what order, even as the law doth, for all kind of officers which were needful in the Jewish regiment; might not a man, that would bend his wit to maintain the fury of the Petrobrusian heretics, in pulling down oratories, use the selfsame argument with as much countenance of reason? If it were needful that we should assemble ourselves in Churches, would that God, which taught the Jews so exactly the frame of their sumptuous temple, leave us no particular instructions in writing, no, not so much as which way to lay any one stone? Surely such kind of argumentation doth not so strengthen the sinews of their cause, as weaken the credit of their judgments which are led therewith."-Hooker's Eccles. Pol. B. vii. Sec. 13.

Let me add a short quotation to the same effect from Bishop Butler, premising only that, with characteristic caution, he understates his own case. "Let it however be granted for the sake of arguing, that no particular form of Church government is commanded in the scripture, yet we cannot thence conclude, that all Christian Churches have equally the support of Divine authority. For the inspired Apostles formed the first Christian Church after a particular model, and if any modern Church has the example of the Apostles on its side, all other things being by the supposition equal, the Episcopal Church has a preponderance of argument in its favour."

2 Chillingworth himself published a short treatise on Episcopacy, the main argument of which is drawn from universal tradition. He concludes somewhat singularly in a syllogistic form, as follows:

"Episcopacy