the rules by which churches are governed, as to
their spiritual concerns. The reformers having renounced the pope as
antichrist, and having laid it down as their fundamental principle, that
Scripture is the only rule of faith, and that it is the privilege of
every man to interpret it according to his own judgment, had to consider
in what manner the churches which they had formed were to be regulated;
and there soon arose among them upon this point diversity of sentiment.
Melancthon and the earliest reformers viewed with veneration the
hierarchy which had so long subsisted, as also many of the ceremonies
which for ages had been observed; and they expressed their readiness to
continue that distinction of pastors which their researches into the
history of the church had enabled them to trace back to the early ages
of Christianity. But while they declared in favour of this form of
ecclesiastical polity, they did so, not upon the ground that it was of
divine institution, or positively required by the author of Christianity
as inseparable from a church; but on the ground, that taking into
estimation every thing connected with it, it appeared to them eminently
adapted to carry into effect that renovation of piety, and that
religious influence, which they were so eager to promote. They thus made
ecclesiastical polity a matter of expediency, or of prudential
regulation; the one thing in their view, binding upon all Christians,
being to strengthen the practical power of religion. That this is a just
representation of the state of opinion among the first Protestants, will
be placed beyond a doubt by a few quotations from the confession of
Augsburg, and from the works of some of the most eminent divines who
then flourished. Speaking of this subject, the compilers of the
confession declare, “that they were most desirous to preserve the
ecclesiastical polity, and those degrees in the church which had been
introduced by human authority, knowing that, for wise and good purposes,
the discipline, as described in the canons, had been introduced by the
fathers.” “We wish,” they add, “to testify that we would willingly
preserve the ecclesiastical and canonical polity, if the bishops would
cease to act with cruelty against our churches.” And once again they
remark, that they had often declared that they venerated not only the
ecclesiastical power which was instituted in the Gospel, but that they
approved of the ecclesiastical polity which had subsisted, and wished,
as much as was in their power, to preserve it. It is quite plain from
these passages, that the framers of that confession, and those who
adhered to it as the standard of their faith, viewed ecclesiastical
polity as a matter of human appointment; and that, although they
venerated that form of it which had long existed, they looked upon
themselves as at liberty, under peculiar circumstances, to depart from
it. The truth, accordingly, is, that a great part of the Lutheran
churches, as we shall afterward find, did introduce many deviations from
that model for which their founders had expressed respect and
admiration; although episcopacy was in several places continued.
2. In consequence, however, of the exertions of Calvin, what were
denominated the reformed churches deemed it expedient wholly to change
this form of polity, and to introduce again the equality among pastors
which had existed in the primitive times. That celebrated theologian,
resting upon the undisputed fact, that in the Apostolic age no
distinction subsisted between bishops and presbyters, thought himself at
liberty to frame a system of polity upon this principle, persuaded that,
by doing so, he would most effectually guard against those abuses that
had given rise to the Papal tyranny which Protestants had abjured. He
accordingly introduced his scheme where he had influence to do so; and
he employed all the vigour of his talents in pressing upon distant
churches the propriety of regulating, in conformity with his sentiments,
their ecclesiastical government. But, while he was firmly persuaded that
an equality among pastors was agreeable to the Apostolic practice, he
has shown that he did not conceive this equality to be so absolutely
required by Scripture, that there could in no case be a departure from
it. He was, in fact, convinced that all the purposes of religion might
be accomplished under a form of polity in which it was not recognised:
“Wherever,” he says, “the preaching of the Gospel is heard with
reverence, and the sacraments are not neglected, there at that time
there is a church.” Speaking of faithful pastors, he describes them to
be “those who by the doctrine of Christ lead men to true piety, who
properly administer the sacred mysteries, and who preserve and exercise
right discipline.” In tracing the progress of the hierarchy, he
observes, that “those to whom the office of teaching was assigned were
denominated presbyters; that to avoid the dissensions often arising
among equals, they chose one of their number to preside, to whom the
title of bishop was exclusively given; and that the practice, as the
ancients admitted, was introduced by human consent, from the necessity
of the times.” That this exaltation of the bishop, and, of course, this
departure from parity, did not, in his estimation, render the church
unchristian, is apparent from what he says of it after the change was
introduced: “Such was the severity of these times, that all the
ministers were led to discharge their duty as the Lord required of
them.” Even after archbishops and patriarchs had arisen, he merely says,
in recording their introduction, “This arrangement was calculated to
preserve discipline.”
3. What Calvin thus taught in his “Institutes,” he confirmed in many of
the interesting letters which he wrote to various eminent persons. In
these letters he speaks with the highest respect of the church of
England, where the distinction of clerical orders was preserved. He
corresponds with the highest dignitaries of that church in a style which
he assuredly would not have adopted, had he considered them as upholding
an antichristian polity; and he repeatedly avows the principle, that, in
regulating the government of the church, attention must be paid to the
circumstances in which its members were placed. Beza, who was warmly
attached to presbytery, and who upon every occasion, strenuously
defended it, still admits that the human order of episcopacy was useful,
as long as the bishops were good; and he professes all reverence for
those modern bishops who strive to imitate the primitive ones in the
reformation of the church according to the word of God: adding that it
was a calumny against him, and those who entertained his sentiments, to
affirm, as some had done, that they wished to prescribe their form of
government to all other churches. In the excellent letter which he
addressed to Grindal, bishop of London, and in which he pleads the cause
of those ministers who scrupled to use the ceremonies which their
brethren approved, he bears his testimony to the conformity of the
church of England in doctrine with his church, expresses himself with
the highest respect of the prelate to whom he was writing, and concludes
by asking his prayers in his own behalf, and in that of the church of
Geneva; all of which is quite inconsistent with the tenet, that
presbytery is absolutely prescribed by divine authority.
4. The same general principle was avowed by the most eminent English
divines. Cranmer explicitly declared, that bishops and priests were of
the same order at the commencement of Christianity; and this was the
opinion of several of his distinguished contemporaries. Holding this
maxim, their support of episcopacy must have proceeded from views of
expediency, or, in some instances, from a conviction which prevailed
very generally at this early period, that it belonged to the supreme
civil magistrate to regulate the spiritual no less than the political
government; an idea involving in it that no one form of ecclesiastical
polity is of divine institution. At a later period, during the reign of
Queen Elizabeth, we find the same conviction, that it was no violation
of Christianity to choose different modes of administering the church.
Archbishop Whitgift, who distinguished himself by the zeal with which he
supported the English hierarchy, frequently maintains, that the form of
discipline is not particularly, and by name, set down in Scripture; and
he also plainly asserts, “that no form of church government is, by the
Scriptures, prescribed or commanded to the church of God.” This
principle is admirably illustrated and confirmed by the venerable
Hooker, in the third book of his work on ecclesiastical polity; and
another divine of the English church, who lived about the same period,
has laid down what he conceives to be an unquestionable position, “that
all churches have not the same form of discipline; neither is it
necessary that they should, because it cannot be proved that any
particular form of church government is enjoined by the word of God.” We
have, indeed, a succession of testimonies from the introduction of the
reformation down through the reign of Elizabeth,--testimonies given by
the primates, and bishops, and theologians, who have been venerated as
the luminaries of the church of England, that the divine right or
institution of episcopacy constituted no part of their faith; and this
is confirmed by their correspondence with reformed divines, who did not
live under the episcopal model, but who, notwithstanding, were often
consulted as to the ecclesiastical arrangements which the convocation
should adopt. The same general sentiment is to be traced in those
churches which had reverted to the primitive equality among the
ministers of Christ. In the second Helvetic confession, which was
approved by many churches, it is taught, that bishops and presbyters in
the beginning governed the church with equal power, none exalting
himself above another; the inequality which soon was introduced
originating from the desire of preserving order. Various passages from
Cyprian and Jerom are quoted in confirmation of this; and the article
thus concludes: “Wherefore no one can be lawfully hindered from
returning to the ancient constitution of the church of God, and to adopt
it in preference to what custom has introduced.” Had the compilers
believed that this ancient constitution was of divine obligation, they
would have expressed themselves much more strongly with respect to it;
and instead of representing the return to it as what ought not to be
hindered, they would have enjoined it, as what it was a violation of the
law of God to neglect.
5. The reformation in Scotland, conducted by Knox, who had spent a
considerable part of his life at Geneva, and who had imbibed the
opinions of Calvin, proceeded upon those views of polity which that
reformer had adopted. Still, however, he authorized a modification of
these opinions, accommodated to the state of his native country; for
although the title of bishop was not used, superintendents, with powers
little inferior to those committed to prelates in England, were
sanctioned by the first Book of Discipline; and these superintendents
were classed, in the acts of different general assemblies, among the
necessary ministers of the church. The necessity must have arisen out of
the circumstances of the period when the book was framed; for the polity
which it prescribed was said to be only for a time; and the office of
superintendent, as has been strenuously urged by some of the most
zealous defenders of presbytery, was not intended to be permanent. The
Lutheran church, with the exception of those branches of it established
in Denmark and Sweden, has adopted a kind of intermediate constitution
between episcopacy and presbytery. While it holds that there is no
divine law creating a distinction among ministers, it yet contends that
such a distinction is on many accounts expedient; and accordingly a
diversity in point of rank and privileges has been universally
introduced, approaching in different places, more or less, to the
hierarchy which subsisted before the reformation. But, although it has
thus regulated its own practice, it unambiguously admits, that as the
Gospel is silent as to any particular form of polity, different forms
may be chosen, without any breach of Christian union.
6. It appears from the statement which has now been given, that all
Protestants immediately after the reformation, while they abjured the
papal supremacy, were united in holding that the mode of administering
the church might be varied, some of them being attached to episcopacy,
others to presbytery; but all founding this attachment upon the judgment
which they had formed as to the tendency or utility of either of these
modes of government. An idea soon was avowed by some of the reformers,
that the whole regulation of the church pertained to the magistrate;
this branch of power being vested in him no less than that of
administering the civil government; and to this opinion the name of
Erastianism, from Erastus, who first defended it, was given. Cranmer, in
an official reply which he made to certain questions that had been
submitted for his consideration, declared, “that the civil ministers
under the king’s majesty be those that shall please his highness for the
time to put in authority under him; as, for example, the lord
chancellor, lord great master, &c; the ministers of God’s word under his
majesty be the bishops, parsons, vicars, and such other priests as be
appointed by his highness to that ministration; as, for example, the
bishop of Canterbury, &c. All the said officers and ministers, as well
of the one sort as the other, be appointed, assigned, and elected in
every place by the laws and orders of kings and princes.” By the great
majority of Protestants, however, the tenets of Erastus were condemned;
for they maintained that the Lord Jesus had conveyed to his church a
spiritual power quite distinct from the temporal; and that it belonged
to the ministers of religion to exercise it, for promoting the spiritual
welfare of the Christian community. But, while they disputed as to this
point, they agreed in admitting there was no model prescribed in the New
Testament for a Christian church, as there had been in the Mosaical
economy for the Jewish church; and that it was a branch of the liberty
of the disciples of Christ, or one of their privileges, to choose the
polity which seemed to them best adapted for extending the power and
influence of religion.
their spiritual concerns. The reformers having renounced the pope as
antichrist, and having laid it down as their fundamental principle, that
Scripture is the only rule of faith, and that it is the privilege of
every man to interpret it according to his own judgment, had to consider
in what manner the churches which they had formed were to be regulated;
and there soon arose among them upon this point diversity of sentiment.
Melancthon and the earliest reformers viewed with veneration the
hierarchy which had so long subsisted, as also many of the ceremonies
which for ages had been observed; and they expressed their readiness to
continue that distinction of pastors which their researches into the
history of the church had enabled them to trace back to the early ages
of Christianity. But while they declared in favour of this form of
ecclesiastical polity, they did so, not upon the ground that it was of
divine institution, or positively required by the author of Christianity
as inseparable from a church; but on the ground, that taking into
estimation every thing connected with it, it appeared to them eminently
adapted to carry into effect that renovation of piety, and that
religious influence, which they were so eager to promote. They thus made
ecclesiastical polity a matter of expediency, or of prudential
regulation; the one thing in their view, binding upon all Christians,
being to strengthen the practical power of religion. That this is a just
representation of the state of opinion among the first Protestants, will
be placed beyond a doubt by a few quotations from the confession of
Augsburg, and from the works of some of the most eminent divines who
then flourished. Speaking of this subject, the compilers of the
confession declare, “that they were most desirous to preserve the
ecclesiastical polity, and those degrees in the church which had been
introduced by human authority, knowing that, for wise and good purposes,
the discipline, as described in the canons, had been introduced by the
fathers.” “We wish,” they add, “to testify that we would willingly
preserve the ecclesiastical and canonical polity, if the bishops would
cease to act with cruelty against our churches.” And once again they
remark, that they had often declared that they venerated not only the
ecclesiastical power which was instituted in the Gospel, but that they
approved of the ecclesiastical polity which had subsisted, and wished,
as much as was in their power, to preserve it. It is quite plain from
these passages, that the framers of that confession, and those who
adhered to it as the standard of their faith, viewed ecclesiastical
polity as a matter of human appointment; and that, although they
venerated that form of it which had long existed, they looked upon
themselves as at liberty, under peculiar circumstances, to depart from
it. The truth, accordingly, is, that a great part of the Lutheran
churches, as we shall afterward find, did introduce many deviations from
that model for which their founders had expressed respect and
admiration; although episcopacy was in several places continued.
2. In consequence, however, of the exertions of Calvin, what were
denominated the reformed churches deemed it expedient wholly to change
this form of polity, and to introduce again the equality among pastors
which had existed in the primitive times. That celebrated theologian,
resting upon the undisputed fact, that in the Apostolic age no
distinction subsisted between bishops and presbyters, thought himself at
liberty to frame a system of polity upon this principle, persuaded that,
by doing so, he would most effectually guard against those abuses that
had given rise to the Papal tyranny which Protestants had abjured. He
accordingly introduced his scheme where he had influence to do so; and
he employed all the vigour of his talents in pressing upon distant
churches the propriety of regulating, in conformity with his sentiments,
their ecclesiastical government. But, while he was firmly persuaded that
an equality among pastors was agreeable to the Apostolic practice, he
has shown that he did not conceive this equality to be so absolutely
required by Scripture, that there could in no case be a departure from
it. He was, in fact, convinced that all the purposes of religion might
be accomplished under a form of polity in which it was not recognised:
“Wherever,” he says, “the preaching of the Gospel is heard with
reverence, and the sacraments are not neglected, there at that time
there is a church.” Speaking of faithful pastors, he describes them to
be “those who by the doctrine of Christ lead men to true piety, who
properly administer the sacred mysteries, and who preserve and exercise
right discipline.” In tracing the progress of the hierarchy, he
observes, that “those to whom the office of teaching was assigned were
denominated presbyters; that to avoid the dissensions often arising
among equals, they chose one of their number to preside, to whom the
title of bishop was exclusively given; and that the practice, as the
ancients admitted, was introduced by human consent, from the necessity
of the times.” That this exaltation of the bishop, and, of course, this
departure from parity, did not, in his estimation, render the church
unchristian, is apparent from what he says of it after the change was
introduced: “Such was the severity of these times, that all the
ministers were led to discharge their duty as the Lord required of
them.” Even after archbishops and patriarchs had arisen, he merely says,
in recording their introduction, “This arrangement was calculated to
preserve discipline.”
3. What Calvin thus taught in his “Institutes,” he confirmed in many of
the interesting letters which he wrote to various eminent persons. In
these letters he speaks with the highest respect of the church of
England, where the distinction of clerical orders was preserved. He
corresponds with the highest dignitaries of that church in a style which
he assuredly would not have adopted, had he considered them as upholding
an antichristian polity; and he repeatedly avows the principle, that, in
regulating the government of the church, attention must be paid to the
circumstances in which its members were placed. Beza, who was warmly
attached to presbytery, and who upon every occasion, strenuously
defended it, still admits that the human order of episcopacy was useful,
as long as the bishops were good; and he professes all reverence for
those modern bishops who strive to imitate the primitive ones in the
reformation of the church according to the word of God: adding that it
was a calumny against him, and those who entertained his sentiments, to
affirm, as some had done, that they wished to prescribe their form of
government to all other churches. In the excellent letter which he
addressed to Grindal, bishop of London, and in which he pleads the cause
of those ministers who scrupled to use the ceremonies which their
brethren approved, he bears his testimony to the conformity of the
church of England in doctrine with his church, expresses himself with
the highest respect of the prelate to whom he was writing, and concludes
by asking his prayers in his own behalf, and in that of the church of
Geneva; all of which is quite inconsistent with the tenet, that
presbytery is absolutely prescribed by divine authority.
4. The same general principle was avowed by the most eminent English
divines. Cranmer explicitly declared, that bishops and priests were of
the same order at the commencement of Christianity; and this was the
opinion of several of his distinguished contemporaries. Holding this
maxim, their support of episcopacy must have proceeded from views of
expediency, or, in some instances, from a conviction which prevailed
very generally at this early period, that it belonged to the supreme
civil magistrate to regulate the spiritual no less than the political
government; an idea involving in it that no one form of ecclesiastical
polity is of divine institution. At a later period, during the reign of
Queen Elizabeth, we find the same conviction, that it was no violation
of Christianity to choose different modes of administering the church.
Archbishop Whitgift, who distinguished himself by the zeal with which he
supported the English hierarchy, frequently maintains, that the form of
discipline is not particularly, and by name, set down in Scripture; and
he also plainly asserts, “that no form of church government is, by the
Scriptures, prescribed or commanded to the church of God.” This
principle is admirably illustrated and confirmed by the venerable
Hooker, in the third book of his work on ecclesiastical polity; and
another divine of the English church, who lived about the same period,
has laid down what he conceives to be an unquestionable position, “that
all churches have not the same form of discipline; neither is it
necessary that they should, because it cannot be proved that any
particular form of church government is enjoined by the word of God.” We
have, indeed, a succession of testimonies from the introduction of the
reformation down through the reign of Elizabeth,--testimonies given by
the primates, and bishops, and theologians, who have been venerated as
the luminaries of the church of England, that the divine right or
institution of episcopacy constituted no part of their faith; and this
is confirmed by their correspondence with reformed divines, who did not
live under the episcopal model, but who, notwithstanding, were often
consulted as to the ecclesiastical arrangements which the convocation
should adopt. The same general sentiment is to be traced in those
churches which had reverted to the primitive equality among the
ministers of Christ. In the second Helvetic confession, which was
approved by many churches, it is taught, that bishops and presbyters in
the beginning governed the church with equal power, none exalting
himself above another; the inequality which soon was introduced
originating from the desire of preserving order. Various passages from
Cyprian and Jerom are quoted in confirmation of this; and the article
thus concludes: “Wherefore no one can be lawfully hindered from
returning to the ancient constitution of the church of God, and to adopt
it in preference to what custom has introduced.” Had the compilers
believed that this ancient constitution was of divine obligation, they
would have expressed themselves much more strongly with respect to it;
and instead of representing the return to it as what ought not to be
hindered, they would have enjoined it, as what it was a violation of the
law of God to neglect.
5. The reformation in Scotland, conducted by Knox, who had spent a
considerable part of his life at Geneva, and who had imbibed the
opinions of Calvin, proceeded upon those views of polity which that
reformer had adopted. Still, however, he authorized a modification of
these opinions, accommodated to the state of his native country; for
although the title of bishop was not used, superintendents, with powers
little inferior to those committed to prelates in England, were
sanctioned by the first Book of Discipline; and these superintendents
were classed, in the acts of different general assemblies, among the
necessary ministers of the church. The necessity must have arisen out of
the circumstances of the period when the book was framed; for the polity
which it prescribed was said to be only for a time; and the office of
superintendent, as has been strenuously urged by some of the most
zealous defenders of presbytery, was not intended to be permanent. The
Lutheran church, with the exception of those branches of it established
in Denmark and Sweden, has adopted a kind of intermediate constitution
between episcopacy and presbytery. While it holds that there is no
divine law creating a distinction among ministers, it yet contends that
such a distinction is on many accounts expedient; and accordingly a
diversity in point of rank and privileges has been universally
introduced, approaching in different places, more or less, to the
hierarchy which subsisted before the reformation. But, although it has
thus regulated its own practice, it unambiguously admits, that as the
Gospel is silent as to any particular form of polity, different forms
may be chosen, without any breach of Christian union.
6. It appears from the statement which has now been given, that all
Protestants immediately after the reformation, while they abjured the
papal supremacy, were united in holding that the mode of administering
the church might be varied, some of them being attached to episcopacy,
others to presbytery; but all founding this attachment upon the judgment
which they had formed as to the tendency or utility of either of these
modes of government. An idea soon was avowed by some of the reformers,
that the whole regulation of the church pertained to the magistrate;
this branch of power being vested in him no less than that of
administering the civil government; and to this opinion the name of
Erastianism, from Erastus, who first defended it, was given. Cranmer, in
an official reply which he made to certain questions that had been
submitted for his consideration, declared, “that the civil ministers
under the king’s majesty be those that shall please his highness for the
time to put in authority under him; as, for example, the lord
chancellor, lord great master, &c; the ministers of God’s word under his
majesty be the bishops, parsons, vicars, and such other priests as be
appointed by his highness to that ministration; as, for example, the
bishop of Canterbury, &c. All the said officers and ministers, as well
of the one sort as the other, be appointed, assigned, and elected in
every place by the laws and orders of kings and princes.” By the great
majority of Protestants, however, the tenets of Erastus were condemned;
for they maintained that the Lord Jesus had conveyed to his church a
spiritual power quite distinct from the temporal; and that it belonged
to the ministers of religion to exercise it, for promoting the spiritual
welfare of the Christian community. But, while they disputed as to this
point, they agreed in admitting there was no model prescribed in the New
Testament for a Christian church, as there had been in the Mosaical
economy for the Jewish church; and that it was a branch of the liberty
of the disciples of Christ, or one of their privileges, to choose the
polity which seemed to them best adapted for extending the power and
influence of religion.