An inquiry into the origin of episcopacy, in a discourse preached in June, 1790. By a dignitary of the Church of England

Table of contents

- [titlepage]

- ADVERTISEMENT.

HEBREWS 13th. CHAP. 17th. VERSE. ‘OBEY THEM THAT HAVE THE RULE OVER YOU, AND SUBMIT YOURSELVES; FOR THEY WATCH FOR YOUR SOULS, AS THEY THAT MUST GIVE AN ACCOUNT.’

IN examining a Religion, which pretends to come from God, one of the first things which forceth itself upon our attention, is the Influence of its Doctrines and Precepts upon human Felicity. If the natural tendency of these, be to regulate the passions, and to promote the general Happiness of Mankind; a strong presumption ariseth, that its pretensions to a divine origin, may be well founded. But if a Religion obviously tendeth to lessen human happiness, or to disturb the peace of Society; we may, without further examination, conclude with certainty, that it cometh not from that great, and beneficent Being, who (far from delighting in the misery of his creatures) would have all to be pious, and virtuous, only, that all may be finally, and completely happy, in those realms where Death hath no dominion.

Viewed in this light, Christianity is eminently distinguished above every other religious Institution, which hath hitherto prevailed in the world. It teacheth in perfection, the duties of Man to Man; it affordeth divine aids to human weakness; and encourageth the practice of what it sheweth to be good, by motives the most engaging, and the most exalted.

Christian Religion exhorteth us to be mindful of whatsoever things are true, honest, just, pure, lovely, or of good report—to forgive our enemies, to love our neighbours as ourselves, to do good, as we have opportunity, to every individual of the human race, and, as much as lieth in us, to live peaceably with all men.

In Society only are these duties practicable; and, without Government and Subordination, Society could not subsist. Therefore the divine Author, and Finisher of our Faith, in order to give efficacy to his other commands, enforced obedience to the civil Magistrate by an injunction of the Gospel, requiring his followers to render unto Caesar the things that were Caesar's, as well as unto God the things that were God's.

The same course of salutary instruction, was faithfully pursued by the Apostles, and others, the first Preachers of Christianity; who earnestly exhorted their Converts to render to all their dues; tribute to whom tribute was due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour; to submit themselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake; whether to the King as supreme, or to Magistrates, as unto them, who are sent by him for the Punishment of evil-doers, and for the Praise of them that do well.

To these Precepts of Civil Obedience no objection of importance hath ever been made. They are (on the contrary) applauded both by the believer, and by the unbeliever,—by him who reverenceth the Gospel, as the power of God unto Salvation,—and by him who considereth it as a cunningly devised fable, calculated merely to erect a Dominion over the consciences of men.

But the Precept of my Text, hath frequently been viewed in a light less favourable. It, certainly supposeth an Authority different from that of the civil Magistrate, whose Duty is to watch, not for the Souls, but for the Lives and Properties of his subjects; and to that Authority St. Paul, here, enjoineth an Obedience, which the children of this world are little willing to pay.

It would be idle to reason in support of spiritual Authority with such as doubt, or deny the divine origin of the Gospel; for THESE MEN must be convinced that they HAVE SOULS, before they can be persuaded to enquire WHO are appointed to watch for them; to WHOM, on that account, their obedience is due; or WHAT is the Nature and Extent of the obedience required.

THEY are not, however, ALL infidels, who deny the reality of spiritual Powers;—for many sincere believers in Christianity contend that, under the Gospel-dispensation, there is nothing which bears the smallest resemblance to an exclusive Priesthood; that the Authority which is supposed in my Text, either ceased with the Apostles; or that (if it still continueth in the Church) it can be conferred on one class of Christians, only, by the Election of others; and that, therefore, we are bound to obey it, no farther, than is necessary to preserve Decency and Order in the conduct of public worship.

That, our blessed Lord gave to none of his immediate followers Authority or Jurisdiction, of such a nature as, to interfere with the Rights of the Rulers of the Earth, is, indeed, an undoubted Truth,—for all such Authority was disclaimed by Himself; My kingdom, said He to Pilate, is not of this world—And, upon being asked by a certain person to decide a question of Property between him and his brother, his Reply was, Man—who made me a Judge, or a Divider over you? But when it is considered that, Christ came into the world to turn men from Darkness unto Light, and from the Power of Satan unto God; that, He gave himself for us, that He might redeem us from all Iniquity, and purify to himself a peculiar people zealous of good works—and that of these works very many are such as unregenerate humanity cannot perform; and that the Doctrines which he revealed, are such as human Reason could never have discovered; it will be seen how necessary it was that, when he ascended into Heaven, he should substitute some Authority, on Earth, to illustrate the Revelation which he had given, and to enforce obedience to the Laws which he had enacted.

There is nothing more strictly required of Christians, than that they should live together in Unity; professing the same Faith, joining in the same Worship, and practising the same Virtues on the same Principles. Now, as Men have different Passions, Prejudices, and Pursuits, such Unity would be impossible, were they not linked together in one Society; under the Government of Persons authorised to watch over the Faith, to prescribe the Forms of public Worship, and to inculcate the necessity, and explain the Nature and Extent of the several Virtues.

In the Scriptures of the New Testament, the Society of Christians is (on account of its unity and organization) compared to the human body; for as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office; so we, being many, are one Body in Christ, and every one members one of another. (Rom. XII. 4. 5)▪ This Society of Believers, in our common Deliverer, is called the CHURCH, 'the Kingdom of God',—and 'the Kingdom of Heaven'; and ITS affairs (like the affairs of every other Kingdom) are administered by proper officers in subordination to the one Lord; who when he ascended on high, and led captivity captive, gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastors, and Teachers, for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ; that, henceforth we should be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of Doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness whereby they lie in wait to deceive; but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into Him in all things, which is the Head, even Christ, from whom the whole Body fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love. (Ephes. IV. 11. 12. 14. 15. 16.)

Now,—of this Society (as of a philosophical Sect) it is not left to every man's choice, as a thing indifferent, whether or not he will become a Member. ALL who embrace the Faith of the Redeemer of the world, are required to be baptized, under the pain of forfeiting the benefits of Redemption. (St. Mark, XVI. 16.—St. John, III. 5.) But one great purpose proposed by the institution of Baptism, was the Initiation of Persons into the Church of Christ; For by one Spirit (saith St. Paul, 1 Cor. XII. 13. 27. 28. 29.) are we all baptized into one Body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free.

Of Baptism, (whatever be the Importance) it is evident that to receive it is, not (like moral Justice, or the Veneration of the Supreme Being) a Duty resulting from the Nature of the Relations of Man; and that all its efficacy (which in Scripture is said to be nothing less than the Remission of Sins, Acts II. 38. and XXII. 16.) is derived from positive Institution, and can accompany the external Rite, only, when that Rite is administered in the manner prescribed, and by the persons authorised to administer it.

That all Christians, in common, are not vested with this authority, is plain from the Commission, which (after his Resurrection) the blessed Jesus gave to his Apostles. We are assured that the number of his followers was then five hundred at least; but it was ONLY to the ELEVEN DISCIPLES that He came and spake saying, All power is given unto me in Heaven, and Earth; Go YE therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. (St. Matthew, XXVIII. 16. 17. 18. 19.) Now there is no reason to suppose that there were not many of the five hundred well qualified to instruct either a Jew, or a Gentile, in the doctrines of the the Gospel; and it is certain, that any one of them could have washed his Converts with water in the Name of the Holy Trinity, as well as St. Peter, or St. John: but then, such an unauthorized washing would not have been Christian Baptism, or of equal Validity with it, any more than the Opinion of a Lawyer at the Bar, is the Judgement of a Court of Justice, or of equal obligation: It is the Commission of the Sovereign which gives force to the Judgement of the Court; as it is the COMMISSION OF CHRIST which gives VALIDITY TO BAPTISM.

The same Things hold true of the Lord's Supper; which, if it be not administered by Persons having Authority for such celebration, cannot be deemed a Sacrament of Christ's Institution. These two Rites are the external Badges of our Profession—by the one we are incorporated into that Society, of which God our Saviour is the Head and Sovereign—of the other, with all its Advantages, we have a Right to partake, whilst we continue Members of that Society; but if, by an open and scandalous disregard to the Precepts of the Gospel, we should prove ourselves Despisers of its Privileges: the same Persons who are authorized to admit us into Christ's Church, are likewise vested with Authority to cast us out of it; for to them were given The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, with an assurance that
whatsoever they should bind on Earth, should be bound in Heaven; and whatsoever they should loose on Earth, should be loosed in Heaven.[a]

Now, as Baptism is to be administered, so long as there shall be Persons to be enlisted under the Banner of Christ; and, as the Lord's Supper is to be celebrated so long as it shall be the Duty of Soldiers to adhere to to the Standard of their Leader, and their Head; and as it is to be feared that there never will come a time, when all the servants of Christ shall walk worthy of the vocation wherewith they are called;—It follows undeniably that this Power of the Keys, [b] which was originally vested in the Apostles, must continue in the Church through all Ages, even unto the End of the World. But we have seen that it was not, at first, entrusted to all the Disciples in common, as one of the Privileges inseparable from their Profession; and, as no Body of men can possibly transfer an Authority, of which they themselves were never possessed; it is certain, that even now it cannot, by the Election of one Class of Christians, be delegated to another, but must, by some mode of Succession, be derived from the Apostles, who were sent by Christ, as He was sent by his Father.

To argue from the Origin of civil to that of ecclesiastical Government, although, perhaps, not very uncommon, is yet extremely fallacious.

Of the various Nations of the world (as particular Forms of Government may be devised on Earth, though Government itself is from above) many of the Sovereigns may, indeed, derive their Authority from the Suffrages of their Subjects; because, in a State of Nature, every man has an inherent and undoubted Right to defend his Life, Liberty, and Property; and what he possesses in his own person, he may, for the Good of Society, transfer to another: but no man is by nature, or can make himself, a Member of the Christian Church; and, therefore, Authority, to govern that Society, can be derived only from Him by whom it was founded, and who died that he might gather together in one all the Children of God.

Against such reasoning as this, it hath been sometimes urged that it appeareth inconsistent with the Wisdom and Goodness of God, to make Institutions which, (like Baptism and the Lord's Supper) are generally necessary to the Salvation of all Christians, depend upon the Authority and Commission of a particular Order; Because, by such an Economy, an intolerable Domination would be established over the Souls of Men; and the purpose, for which the Son of God died, might, in some degree, be defeated, by the Caprice of an ignorant and arbitrary Priesthood:—But, this objection, is either of no weight, or it militates with equal force against all Religion, natural as well as revealed[c]; and even against the Wisdom of Providence in the Government of the World.

In every thing relating both to their temporal, and their spiritual Interests, Mankind are all subjected to mutual Dependence. The Rich depend upon the Poor, and the Poor upon the Rich. An Infant, neglected from the Birth, would barely cry and cease to live; nor is it very easily to be conceived how, in the more rigid Climates, a fullgrown man could, without assistance, provide even the Necessaries of mere animal Life. Of RELIGION, it is certain that in such a situation, nothing could be known: For there is not the smallest Reason to imagine that any Individual of the human race—an Aristotle,—a Bacon,—or a Newton,—had he been left alone, from his Infancy, without culture, and without education, could ever, by the native Vigour of his own mind, have discovered the Existence of a God; or that such speculations, as might be supposed to lead to that Discovery, would have employed any Portion of his Time, or his Thoughts.

Even, in Society, it would be impossible for any Man, without the Assistance of others, to understand, in the present Age, the very first Principles of Christianity; for the Scriptures, in which alone, those Principles can be found, are written in Languages which are now, no where vernacular. In the Fidelity of Translators, therefore, every illiterate Disciple of Jesus, must confide for the Truth of those Doctrines, which constitute the Foundation of all his Hopes; and, as no man ever pretended that the Christian Sacraments are more necessary to Salvation than the Christian Faith, where is the impropriety, or inconsistency of those Persons receiving the Sacraments of Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, by the ministration of others, who, by such ministration must, of necessity, receive the Truths of the Gospel?

Having thus shewn that there is in the Church, a STANDING ORDER OF MEN, to whom, in the Affairs of Religion, the great Body of Christians ought, or are bound to pay obedience; it remains to be enquired WHO they are that, among the various Pretenders, have the best Claim to this SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY.

One Party maintains that, originally, the Officers of the Church were ALL, Presbyters of ONE ORDER, and vested with equal Powers; Whilst others (and the Church of England especially) hold that Christ and his Apostles appointed DIVERS ORDERS of Ministers in the Church; that of THESE ORDERS the HIGHST ALONE, was vested with Authority to ORDAIN OTHERS; and that, therefore, Obedience (as to those who watch for our Souls) can be due ONLY to such as are EPISCOPALLY ORDAINED.

This is the famous Question, concerning the apostolic Model of Church-Government, which has (almost from the beginning of the Reformation) been agitated between us, and the Dissenters of the Presbyterian Sect.

The Plea urged in Behalf of the Presbyterians is, that the Titles, Bishop and Presbyter, being in the New Testament indifferently given to the same Persons, cannot be the Titles of distinct ecclesiastical Officers; which appears, it is said, still more evident from the Ordination of Timothy, who (although the first Bishop of Ephesus) was vested with his episcopal Character by the Imposition of the Hands of the Presbytery.

That one and the same Man is, in the New Testament, sometimes called a Bishop, and sometimes a Presbyter, cannot perhaps be denied; but although every apostolic Bishop was, therefore, undoubtedly a Presbyter;—it does not follow that every Presbyter was likewise a Bishop. In the Old Testament Aaron, and his Sons are (without any Discrimination of Order) frequently styled Priests;—as in the New Testament both St. Peter, and St. John call themselves Presbyters. (1 Pet. V. 1.—2 John, 1.— 3 John 1.) And St. Paul upon one occasion, denominates himself a Deacon. (Coloss. 1. 24. 25. See the original) Yet, I believe, no man ever supposed that those Apostles were such ecclesiastical Officers, as modern presbyterian Ministers, or Deacons: And it is universally known that in the Jewish Priesthood, there were different Orders; and that Aaron was of an Order superior to his Sons.

This being the Case; the Presbyters, by the laying on of whose Hands Timothy was made a Bishop, may have been of the same Order with St, Peter, and St. John; and, if so, his Consecration was undoubtedly Episcopal. We are (at all Events) certain that it was not (in the modern sense of the word) Presbyterian; for the Gift, which in the first Epistle is said to have been given to him by Prophecy, with the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery; is in the second said to have been in him by the putting on of the Hands of St. Paul. [d] But by the confession of all Parties, St. Paul was a Bishop in the highest sense in which that word is taken; and the Powers of the Episcopate not being parcelled out among various Partners, of whom each possesses only a share, the Imposition of his Hands was sufficient for every purpose which could have been effected by the Hands of the whole College of Apostles.

It appears, therefore, that (from the promiscuous use of the Titles Bishop, and Presbyter) nothing can with certainty be concluded on either Side of this celebrated Question. But if, instead of resting in single words, (which are always more or less ambiguous) we attend to some important Facts recorded in the New Testament; I think, we shall discover in them sufficient Evidence, that the Government of the primitive Church was prelatical, and not administered by a College of Elders, an our Adversaries are wont to affirm.

During our Saviour's Stay upon Earth, we know that 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. That the Presbyters were superior to the Deacons, and the Apostles superior to both is universally acknowledged; but it hath been said that in Scripture we find no Intimation that the Apostolic Order was designed for continuance.—A Quaker says the same thing of Water-Baptism; and, I know not by what Text of Scripture, or by what Mode of Argument, Those who, upon this Plea, reject the Apostolic Order of Christian Ministers, could overthrow the Principles upon which the Disciples of George Fox reject the Use of that Rite, instituted for the Initiation of Mankind into the Christian Church.

They were the Eleven, alone, to whom our Saviour said Go ye, therefore, and teach all Nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost—teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. (Matthew XXVIII. 16. 19. 20.) And, therefore, although we frequently find Presbyters and Deacons administering the Sacrament of Baptism; we must conclude that (as a Judge administers Justice by Authority derived from his Sovereign, so) those inferior Officers of the Church administered Baptism by Authority derived from the Apostles: Indeed, had they pretended to act by any other Authority, it is not easy to conceive how their Baptism could have been the Baptism of Christ; for it was not with the external washing, by whomsoever performed, but with the Eleven and their Successors that Christ promised to be always, even unto the End of the World.

That the Eleven did not consider this Promise, or the Commission with which it was given, as terminating with their Lives, is evident from their admitting others into their own Order; for which they had competent Authority, as having been sent by Christ, as he was sent by his Father (St. John. XX. 21.)

When St. Paul (to magnify his office, and to procure to it from the Galatians that Reverence which, it appears, they had withdrawn from him, and paid to others, whose Doctrine was probably more palatable) styleth himself an Apostle not of Men, neither by Man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father; He must have known some who derived their Apostolic Mission from Men, otherwise he could have claimed no particular Respect from what was in his own Apostleship no particular Distinction. At that very early Period, therefore, there must have been in the Church, Secondary Apostles, (if I may so denominate them) upon whom by Imposition of Hands[e], or by some other signisicant ceremony, the Eleven had conferred that Authority, which was given to them by their divine Master: Such were Matthias and Barnabas; such likewise, were Timothy, Titus, and many others whose names are mentioned in the New Testament.

That Matthias and Barnabas were of the Apostolic Order has, I believe, never been denied; and that Timothy, and Titus were superior to modern Presbyters is equally evident: Timothy was by St. Paul, empowered to preside over the Presbyters of Ephesus; to receive accusations against them; to exhort, to charge, and even to rebuke them; and Titus was by the same Apostle, left in Crete, for the express purpose of setting things in order, and ordaining Presbyters in every city. Now to exhort, to charge, and (with Authority) to rebuke one's equal, is surely incongruous; and altogether inconsistent with that Parity of Order and Office, for which our Adversaries so strenuosly plead.

Even the Commission given to Titus seems, by much, too extensive for a presbyterian Minister; who after having ordained in one city, could not have proceeded to ordain in another, without the Consent and Assistance of his Brother and Fellow-Labourer. In a word, no man, I think, who, without prejudice, reads the Epistles of St Paul, and the Apocalypse of St. John, can seriously believe that Timothy, Titus, Epaphroditus, Sosthenes, Silas, and the seven Angels[f] of the seven Churches in Asia, were mere Presbyters; or that the Church was, in those days, governed by a College of Elders.

If from the inspired Penmen of the New Testament, we proceed to examine the succeeding writers of the Christian Church, we shall find such multiplied, and concurring evidence of the divine Institution of EPISCOPACY, as it is impossible to resist, without denying the Truth of all ancient History, and even shaking the Pillars of Revelation itself: For in the noble Army of Martyrs the Witnesses of the Episcopal Government of the Church, are earlier, and more numerous by far, than those who testify that the Gospel of St. Matthew was written by that Apostle, or that the Book of the Apocalypse is canonical Scripture.

But it may be said, that although the Government of the Church, as settled by the Apostles, should be granted to have been prelatical, there is nothing in the New Testament, or in the Nature of the Thing to make us imagine a different Constitution absolutely unlawful. The Form of civil Government established by God himself over the Children of Israel, was certainly, Monarchical; and the same Constitution obtained at first in every Nation under Heaven, of which History giveth any account: Yet no man, in the present Age, supposeth a republican, or an aristocratical Government inconsistent with the Order of Providence; and why, then, should it be deemed contrary to the Spirit of Christianity to vary the external Polity of the Church, in conformity to the Manners, or Prejudices, or civil Constitutions of the different Nations in which it is placed?

This Reasoning would be conclusive; were not the Polity of the Church, the Authority of her Ministers, and the Validity of the Christian Sacraments inseparably united.

To Persons, who consider the Religion of our adorable Redeemer, as a mere republication of, what is called, the Religion of Nature; nothing to be sure can appear more trifling, or more justly ridiculous than Disputes about the external Government of the Church. In the opinion of such Men, it must be a matter of perfect Indifference, whether she be governed by Bishops, by Presbyters, or by the People at large; for the only thing in which they can be interested, is the Truth of the Doctrines taught, which rests not upon the Authority of the Teacher, but upon Deductions of Reason, and the Declarations of Scripture, if indeed to the Scripture these Persons allow any Deference to be due.

Those, however, who consider Christianity as an instituted Religion; who believe that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, and to restore to them that forfeited Inheritance, which by no human means they could ever have regained; Persons, who consider Baptism, and the Lord's Supper as of vast Importance in the great Scheme of universal Redemption; and who are convinced that those ordinances derive their Importance, wholly from positive Institution, cannot think it a matter of Indifference, whether the Hand from which they receive them, be the Hand of an Administrator, who derives his Authority from Christ; or of one, who derives it from the People.—VALIDITY or INVALIDITY is then the grand Question; and until the Argument is wound up to this Pitch, little good can be done.

Now, it being certain that, from the Days of the Apostles to those of Calvin, no man was authorized to minister in holy things, but by Ordination from the Hands of a Bishop;[g] and it being equally certain that the Presbyterians derive their Orders from no such Source; it is surely not without Reason, that we doubt whether the ordinances dispensed in their Assemblies, be the ordinances of the Church of Christ; or that we consider the Frequenters of such Assemblies (especially here in England) as guilty of Disobedience to those, to whom by every Law divine as well as human, they are in Conscience bound to submit themselves, as to Rulers who have Authority to watch for their Souls.

Unimportant as this Controversy has often been represented, it appears to me of much greater Moment, than many of those, which make a mighty noise among the cold and philosophical Christians of the present Day.

In all Churches, with which I am acquainted, are to be found speculative Opinions; (UNDER WHICH DENOMINATION I do not by any means include the Doctrines of our Lord's essential Divinity, and the expiatory nature of his Sacrifice upon the Cross) concerning which I may affirm that (although they have been often canvassed with much bitterness of contention, and have sometimes produced all the Evils of Schism) a Layman, who is not obliged to subscribe the public confession of Faith, needs give himself very little trouble to examine whether they be true or false: But a DEFECT, in the of MISSION the Ministers of the Gospel, invalidates the Sacraments, affects the Purity of all Public Worship; and is therefore a matter which deserves to be investigated, by every man who is sincerely a Christian

That it is particularly worthy of Investigation, at present, when the Church of England is assaulted on every side, sometimes by clamorous Invective, and sometimes by insidious Stratagem, none of the children of that Church can possibly doubt. Her Faith, which we have every Reason to believe to be the Faith which was once delivered to the Saints, is undermined by Sophistry, and vilified by Ridicule. Against her Constitution, a thousand artful Cavils have been raised, as if it were unfriendly to civil and religious Liberty; and we have repeatedly been given to understand by men, who agree in nothing but opposition to us, that it would be expedient for the Legislature to abolish her HIERARCHY, and to establish, in its stead, the ecclesiastical Government which prevails among the Presbyterians, or Independents, or any other novel Sect which Fancy, fertile of innovations, might readily suggest.

The Faith hath found many and able Defenders who, with the Sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God, have completely routed that confederate Host, which (with the spirit of Gebal, and Ammon, and Amalek of old) hath lately appeared in Arms against the Divinity of our Lord and Saviour, and the Redemption of the World. But the Constitution of the Church (whether it be thought that the Subject is of little Importance, whilst her Faith is at Stake; or for some other Reason—such as the dread of the popular Cry of High Church,[h] or Priestcraft) hath not, for many years, attracted from those faithful Soldiers of Christ, the Attention to which, in my opinion, it is justly entitled. It seemed therefore, that I could not employ myself with greater Propriety, than by shewing as fully as the Time, usually allotted to these Exercises, could permit, That OUR ECCLESIASTICAL CONSTITUTION hath its FOUNDATION in the HOLY SCRIPTURES, and in the UNIVERSAL PRACTICE of the PRIMITIVE CHURCH; and that, although our Bishops derive many civil immunities, much of their worldly Dignity, and perhaps their whole Revenues from the munificence of the State,—the AUTHORITY to which, in my Text, OBEDIENCE is required, flows to them from ANOTHER SOURCE.

The Supreme Powers in this Kingdom have, in general, approved themselves the nursing Fathers of our religious Establishment; and we may appeal to the History of England, for Proof, that the Members of that Establishment have, in return, been remarkable for their Loyalty and Attachment to the Constitution of their Country: whilst the Sectaries, when they prevailed against the Church, prevailed likewise against the State, and trampled, at once, upon the Mitre, and the Crown.

This constitutional Loyalty let it be our Care always to maintain, and to inculcate upon those among whom we labour in the word and doctrine. From us it is due, not merely by Ties of Allegiance, but as a Debt of Gratitude to that Government, by which we are protected; and to a Sovereign, who shines conspicuous among the Rulers of the Earth, for his Piety, and for every personal and royal Virtue, and who is (by Inclination, as well as by Title) a Defender of the Faith. But, whilst we acknowledge, with all thankfulness, that we are indebted for our Establishment to the Laws of Man, let us never forget that the AUTHORITY, by which we minister in holy Things, cometh to us with the EPISCOPAL ORDER from CHRIST and his APOSTLES; and that it is our bounden Duty to support THAT AUTHORITY, and THAT ORDER against the attacks of these who, like wild Boars out of the wood, wasted our vineyard in the last Century; who in their Zeal for a purer, and more thorough Reformation broke down the carved work (of the Church) with Axes and Hammers; and who have lately given pretty clear Intimations of their Readiness (if they be not restrained within the Limits of Toleration) to work the same work again.

To a Toleration[i] of their Worship, Christians of every Denomination have an indisputable Right, not only by the Laws of England, but by the great original Law of the Creator, who hath constituted men's minds in such a manner as that, on questions complicated and involved, Uniformity of Opinion is sometimes hardly to be expected; and who has at the same time made it the Duty of every Man (after having been at the utmost pains to procure the best information) to regulate his Conduct by his own Conviction of Truth and Rectitude.

But if an established Religion be necessary to the Tranquility of a State (which hath been repeatedly proved by arguments that have not, yet, been overthrown); and if that Religion, which is established, hath, likewise, the BEST Evidence of being TRUE, which, if I mistake not, is, happily, the Case in England; it is, surely, the Duty of those, who are the Clergy of the Establishment, to point out its various Excellencies; and it is as plainly the Duty of those, who are its legal Guardians, to prevent its avowed Enemies from intruding into Stations, whence they might be able to assail it with weapons very different from the Sword of the Spirit.

In all our Contests, however, with such as oppose themselves, let Scripture, History, and Reason be our only Arms; for by these alone, can our Fortress be honourably defended; and it stands in need of no other Defence.

Let us never, in our eagerness to support the Cause of Truth, injure the equally important Cause of universal, tender, heaven directed Charity towards all the Descendants of Adam. Let us remember, that the most vigorous mind, is, perhaps, not completely fortified against the Power of Prejudice; and that, if others differ from us, every Man in the Course of his Life, hath differed from himself.

Let us, therefore, extend to Sectaries, and Dissenters of every Denomination, those Indulgences which, (when they were triumphant, and the Church was in the Dust) we did not enjoy; and whilst Duty requires us to expose their Errors, and to repel their Encroachments; Let our Conduct convince such of them as are open to Conviction, that we can love the Men, whose Principles we disapprove.

FINIS.

Notes

a

St. Matthew, XVI. 19. and XVIII. 18.

And I will give you the Keys of the Gate of this Court, or Kingdom, the Church, of which every one of you is to be the Steward, (as the Keys of the Court were given to Eliakim, Isa. XXII. 22. in token of his being a Steward of the House, to admit, and exclude whom he pleased) that is, both Power, and Ensign of Power, Apoc. III. 7. to exercise censures. and by them to exclude men in case of their impenitence, either by laying some restraint on them in the Church, or to turn them out of the gates of this city, and upon repentance, to receive them into the Church again; and what you do here, as you ought to do, shall be valid in Heaven.

Hammond's Paraphrase.

↵

b
See this matter treated in a very masterly manner by Archbishop Potter, in his discourse of Church Government;—a book which I beg leave to recommend earnestly to every Member of the Church of England; and especially to the younger part of my brethren the Clergy.
↵

c
Although, in conformity with the usual mode of expression, I have distinguished between natural and revealed Religion, I do not imagine that there ever was, or could have been, a consistent scheme of Religion excogitated by the mere strength of human Genius: the Authors who detail to us Systems of, what is called, the Religion of Nature, borrow sometimes (without adverting to it) their Principles from the Holy Scriptures, and then, not unfrequently, turn against Revelation those arms with which it hath furnished them.—In vigour of Intellect Plato and Cicero were, surely, not inferior to Mr. Woolaston; and yet, it is certain, that in their writings are not to be found so many Truths, and so few mistakes, relating to the Supreme Being, as He has exhibited in one small Volume—Whence, then, had the Author of the Religion of Nature delineated this superiority over the greatest Men of Antiquity?—Undoubtedly, from his knowledge of those Truths, which are recorded in the Old and New Testaments, and of which the Philosophers of Athens and Rome, knew nothing, except what had come down to them from the primeval times, through the precarious conveyance of oral tradition.—When a proposition is once known to be true, it requires no extraordinary strength of mind to understand the Grounds of its Truth. He must be a very weak man, who could not be made to understand the demonstration of the Pythagorean Theorem; and yet I hope there is not one of my Readers, who does not think himself indebted to the Sage, who made the discovery.—The Case is similar with respect to Religion. Its doctrines and precepts are now known, and of these doctrines many are of such a nature, that a well-cultivated mind comprehends without difficulty the reasons upon which they rest; concerning others we may well be contented with the plain though narrow view of them, which is laid before us in the sacred writings,—for prying into those Mysteries, like gazing on the Sun, begins in Pain, and ends in Blindness.—The fitness of the Precepts of Revelation for such a Creature is easily discerned; but it does not, therefore, follow that the System could have been excogitated by human Reason, any more than that every man of ordinary capacity is equal to Pythagoras.
↵

d
Persons, who are inclined to rest in the scund of words, and names; and to suppose that the Members of the Presbytery, whose Hands were lain upon Timothy, were of the same Rank and Order with modern Presbyters, would perhaps do well to consider the Import of the Prep sitions
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
and

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

. In the first Epistle, St. Paul exhorts his Son in the Truth not to neglect the
Gift that was given to him by Prophecy 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
In the second he says,
Wherefore I put thee in remembrance, that thou stir up the Gift of God which is in thee 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
—but every Lexicon informs us that
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
with the Genitive case, answers to the latin preposition per, and denotes the instrumental cause; whereas
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
with the same case answers nearly to unà, or unà cum, and denotes only consent and concurrence. The Inference is obvious—that ST. PAUL WAS THE ONLY ORDAINER.
↵

e
This Ceremony of Imposition of Hands in Ordination (at which some Moderns take great ossence) is confirmed from the Practice of the Apostles, and Apostolical Men thus ordaining Deacons, Acts VI. 6.—Pastors or Teachers of the the words, Acts XIII. 3.—and Elders, whether Bishops or Presbyters in every City, Acts XIV. 23. This Practice they certainly derived from the Jews, who created Governors of criminal causes, or ruling Elders, and Masters, Doctors, and Rabins, to be Teachers of the Law, i. e. to labour in the word and doctrine, by Imposition of Hands; as Moses did to Joshua, Numb. XXVII. 23. Deut. XXXIV. 9. and as Maimonides saith he did, when he assumed the Seventy to assist him. St. Cyprian in the third Century speaks of Imposition of Hands, as that which was to be observed and held from divine Tradition, and apostolical observation in the collation to the episcopal Office: and the apostolical constitutions give us this as an ordinance of St. John the Apostle, who, doubtless, (when upon his return from Patmos to Ephesus, he regulated the Churches, and constituted Bishops) did it according to the Rites of the Jews, and Practice of the other Apostles.—Whence we conclude that the laying on of Hands is no •••…dental but a necessary Rite of the due Ordination of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons. (WHITBY on 1 Timothy IV. 14) Thus St. Paul received an outward commission to preach the Gospel, and was ordained by the imposition of hands. (Acts XIII. 1. 2 3. 4.) And, although he was before chosen by Christ to his office, and thence entitles himself at large ‘the Apostle of Jesus Christ’; yet being separated by the command of the Holy Ghost, but at the same time by laying on of hands, he then styles himself (in consideration of the work to which he was especially separated and ordained) ‘the Apostle of the Gentiles.’
↵

f
It is known to every one, that in the Old Testament the Title of Angel is sometimes given to the Jewish High Priest, and particularly by the Prophet Malachi, who calls him
Messenger (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) of the Lord of Hosts.
And that the Angels of the Churches mentioned by St. John, were Christian High Priests, or Bishops presiding over more than one Congregation, is affirmed by all the ancient writers; and hardly will be denied by any man, who shall take the Trouble to compare Scripture with Scripture▪ we are told, Acts XIX. 10. and 20) that ‘in the space of two years, all they, who dwelt in Asia, heard from St. Paul the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks; and that the word of God grew mightily and prevailed.’ But with what Truth or Propriety could this have been said, if at the Time of St. John's writing the Apocalypse, all the Christans of the proconsular Asia were comprized in seven Congregations, which could assemble each with its proper Pastor in one place to perform the duties of public worship?

↵

g
Should it be granted, in Defiance of all Antiquity and, as I think, in contradiction to the clearest Evidence of Scripture; that in the Church, there were at first but two permanent Orders of Ministers, of which the highest were called Bishops or Presbyters indifferently, and the other Deacons; I see no advantage which, from such a concession, could redound to the Presbyterian cause. According to this Supposition, the Apostolical Presbyters must have been invested, as it is contended they were, with all the powers of modern Bishops—with the power of preaching, of administering the Sacraments, and of sending Labourers into Christ's Vineyard: But it is notorious that, at the Reformation, and in every prior period of the Church of which History makes mention, there were three Orders of Ministers, of which the Second was authorized to preach the Gospel, and to administer the Sacraments, but not to send Labourers into Christ's Vineyard, which was the Prerogative of the highest alone: That second Order, being, therefore, upon this supposition, unknown in the Apostolic Age, must have been introduced into the Church, by no competent Authority. But it is from it that the Presbyterians derive their Mission, which, therefore, upon their own Principles, MUST BE TOTALLY VOID. Hence it follows that should the Episcopal Church be granted to have deviated from the Apostolic Model, which (if any Credit be due to the obvious Sense of Scripture, and the unanimous Verdict of Antiquity) she has not done; still she is corrupted only in one part, whereas the Presbyterian Sect rests wholly upon a human foundation.—See this Argument stated more fully, and maintained against much ingenious Sophistry, in DR. WELLS'S Controversial Letters with the Dissenters.
↵

h
On this part of my Subject I beg leave to refer the Reader to the excellent Charge delivered to the Clergy of the Diocese of St. David's, in the course of the Summer 1790, by their illustrious Diocesan.
↵

i
As surely as Persecution is the Mark of the Beast; so is Toleration the Seal of the Living God. This then is our present boast, and it is also our great protection. Our national Church, under a Toleration and a Test, bids fair to promote the progress of true Religion, useful Learning, and legal Liberty to the latest Times.—But from what is said in this discourse of the Law of Toleration, let me not be understood, as if I could suppose, or would insinuate, that this Law has altered the Nature of Schism, which is a Separation from a Church (not because it is established, but because it is) scriptural in its Doctrine,—and apostolical in its government;—an episcopal Society (not Sect) of Christians requiring assent only to the doctrines of the Gospel, as taught in the three venerable Creeds used in our Liturgy.—The Act of Toleration has not, by taking away all civil punishment from the offender, altered the nature of the offence, and rendered it an harmless thing, or an empty name. By no means. Schism, or a causeless Separation from the Episcopal Church of Christ, remains what it was,—a crime deserving condign censure. But of this Separation, whether with or without cause, there is no absolutely adequate Judge, but that Power, who can distinguish between a well and an ill informed Conscience. Very justly therefore do we remit this Question to a higher Tribunal. But this Lenity rather aggravates than mitigates the guilt of Schism, wherever it shall be found hereafter to exist. Schism, let it then be remembered, is no less a crime now, than it was when Civil Authority blindly interfered, to vindicate the honour of Religion from this unhappy Scandal.
↵

AN INQUIRY INTO THE ORIGIN of EPISCOPACY, IN A DISCOURSE PREACHED IN JUNE, 1790.

By a DIGNITARY of the CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

PRINTED BY SIMMONS AND CO. CANTERBURY. 1791.

ADVERTISEMENT.

The Author would feel himself much honoured, and obliged by any Remarks (addressed to his Printer) from those learned Churchmen, to whose consideration these sheets (at present not intended for the public eye) are respectfully submitted.

Information about this book

Title statement

An inquiry into the origin of episcopacy, in a discourse preached in June, 1790. By a dignitary of the Church of England

Berkeley, George, 1733-1795.

Publication

Distributor

University of Oxford Text Archive
Oxford University Computing Services
13 Banbury Road
Oxford
OX2 6NN
ota@oucs.ox.ac.uk

ID [ota]

http://ota.ox.ac.uk/id/3767

ID [isbn10]

1106007662

ID [isbn13]

9781106007667

ID [TCP]

K025723.000

ID [BIBNO]

CW3323002910

ID [ECRP]

1102902400

Availability

Distributed by the University of Oxford under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License

Source

— An inquiry into the origin of episcopacy, in a discourse preached in June, 1790. By a dignitary of the Church of England, Berkeley, George, 1733-1795.. [4],44p. ; 8⁰. Canterbury :: printed by Simmons and Co,. 1791.. [A dignitary of the Church of England = George Berkeley.] [Reproduction of original from the British Library.] [English Short Title Catalog, ESTCT11613.] [Electronic data. Farmington Hills, Mich. : Thomson Gale, 2003. Page image (PNG). Digitized image of the microfilm version produced in Woodbridge, CT by Research Publications, 1982-2002 (later known as Primary Source Microfilm, an imprint of the Gale Group).]

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2p5.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

This electronic text file was keyed from page images and partially proofread for accuracy. Character capture and encoding have been done following the guidelines of the ECCO Text Creation Partnership, which correspond roughly to the recommendations found in Level 4 of the TEI in Libraries Guidelines. Digital page images are linked to the text file.