of Saxony, the Patron of that DIOCESE; and Julius Pflugius, whom the Canons of the Colledge chose, was refused. Luther placed him in the BISHOPRICK Jan. 20, An. 1542. This thing, as many conceived, gave occasion to other stirres: and very much offended the Emperour, who much affected Pflugius for divers respects. Of this we see more in Amsdorf's life. After this Luther wrote a book in the German tongue, and call'd it, 'The Pattern of the inauguration of a true Christian Bishop.'" (s)

"The Gospel," says one of the Lutheran Articles, "gives to those that are set over the Churches, a Command to teach the Gospel, to remit Sins, to administer the Sacraments, and Jurisdiction also. And by the Confession of all, even our Adversaries, 'tis manifest, that THIS POWER is, by DIVINE RIGHT, COMMON TO ALL that are set over the Churches, whether they be called PASTORS, or PRESBYTERS, or BISHOPS."

"But one thing made a Difference AFTERWARDS between Bishops and Presbyters, viz: Ordination, because 'twas order'd that one Bishop should ordain Ministers in several Churches: But since Bishops and Pastors are NOT different Degrees by Divine Right, 'tis manifest, that an ORDINATION "performed by a Pastor in his own Church, is valid; and that the common Jurisdiction of Excommunicating those that are guilty of manifest crimes, does belong to all Pastors." (t)

66

The FRENCH CHURCH, and the REFORMED CHURCH in GERMANY, both maintain equality of Bishops and Presbyters. The SYNOD of Dort, representing the Reformed Church of Germany, adopted the Confession of Faith belonging to the Belgick church. The 31st Article contains this statement: As regards the Ministers of the Divine Word, they have every where the same power and authority." The Pastors and Seniors of the French churches, met in National Council at Vitry, in 1682, subscribed the same Confession. King James sent some English Bishops and Divines to the Synod of Dort. They gave their suffrages to this Confession, along with the rest of the Divines, as is clearly stated in Session 146. This consent was caught at by some to impugn the very existence of an Order of Bishops at all in the Church of England, even as a mere prudential or Ecclesiastical arrangement. Carlton, Bishop of Chichester, who was one of those that had been present at the Synod of Dort by the order of King James, replied to this misinterpretation of their consent to that article, and shewed that he and his colleagues had objected to such a construction of the sense of the articles as would encourage opposition to all exercise of Superintendency by one class of Ministers over others. The members of the Synod with whom he conversed, declared they wished some such Superintendency as they supposed the English Bishops exercised, as calculated to promote good order, and to prevent divisions in the Church. Yet they ALL, the ENGLISH BISHOPS AND DIVINES TOO, gave their VOTES for the Confession just quoted, that, (s) Page 102.

(t) Abridgement of Mr. Jas. Owen's Plea, pages 40-41.

as regards the Ministers of the Divine Word, they have every where the SAME POWER and AUTHORITY." The case seems to be this:* They all believed that, by divine right, all Ministers of the Divine Word, Bishops and Presbyters, were equal; but that as a prudential, ecclesiastical arrangement, an order of Bishops as Superintendents over other Ministers, was not antiscriptural, nor ungodly; but calculated to promote order and peace in the church, and to prevent divisions. This has certainly been the general opinion and practice of the church from the beginning of the second century, up to this day. The church is placed between two evils; the tyranny of the people, and the tyranny of Ministers. The Divine plau favors neither. The Scriptures lay down only general principles, and leave the details of church government to every society; and whilst nothing is done contrary either to the letter or the spirit of Scripture, by either Ministers or people, we may approve of all, and leave all to the full exercise of their own choice. Whoever takes upon him to condemu those who keep to these limits, is an enemy to the peace of the church.

It is a plain scriptural principle that MINISTERS are to govern the PEOPLE; —that they are to govern ACCORDING to the LETTER and SPIRIT of their COMMISSION;—and that, whilst they so govern, the people are bound by the authority of the word of God to submit to their government, and to honor them as those who watch for their souls; but when Ministers violate the law of their commission, their authority so far ceases, and the people are, in that proportion, free from the obligation to obey them. A well guarded Superintendency of one class of Ministers over other Ministers, if determined upon by the church, is allowable; and is a useful arrangement All such plans must be judged by their own character and administration Every reflecting reader will equally admire the Divine wisdom in what is defined, and in what is undefined. What is defined, guards against Anarchy; what is undefined, guards against Tyranny. May heaven grant both Ministers and people to see and preserve their privileges, without abusing the same either to ANARCHY OF TYRANNY!

The REMONSTRANTS perfectly acquiesced in the above principles, as may be seen in their Apology by Episcopius. (u)

The WALDENSES had the same principles. There are two reasons for mentioning this remarkable people here. The first is, an occasional pretence by some churchmen, that they have had their orders of Episcopacy by divine right through this church; another is, a feeble and ineffectual attempt of the MORAVIANS to lay claim to some superiority on the same ground. The Moravians profess to have their Episcopacy from Stephen,

* So Bishop Carlton, in his Treatise of Jurisdiction, p. 7, quoted by Calamy in his Defence of Moderate Nonconformity: "The power of Order, by all writers that I could see, even of the Church of Rome, is understood to be immediately from Christ given to ALL Bishops and Priests ALIKE in their Consecration." Calamy, Vol. I. p. 104, edit. 1703.

(u) Episcopii Opp. Vol. II. (b) p. 226, fol. ed. 1665.
N

whom THEY call Bishop of the Waldenses, in 1467. If the Waldenses neither taught this doctrine of high church Bishops, nor maintained such an order, then, of course, they could not give what they possessed not themselves; and all the authority derived from them for these pretensions comes to nothing.

The doctrine of Episcopacy by divine right, IF TRUE, is a matter of the very first importance: all who held it, must have felt it to be so. Had they held this, they would have spoken accordingly, in clear, strong, defined terms. Thus they did speak on all subjects they believed to be of great magnitude. It may then be taken as a sure rule, that, whilst the subject was constantly before them, and yet they never say clearly and strongly that the order of Bishops, as having Superintendency over Presbyters, was by Divine right; that this negative evidence is proof they did not hold such a doctrine. But when they say much to the contrary, the proof strengthens still more. Besides, where were the Waldenses to get the notion? We have seen that the Roman Church never held it: and the Greek Church never held it: the Scriptures do not teach it: where then were they to get it? He that affirms they held it, must prove his affirmation. I deny it; let it be proved. -I might rest the matter safely here.

The early and authentic writings of the Waldenses are very few; yet some light may be obtained from them. Let the reader keep one thing in mind; viz. that suppose it could be proved, as a fact, that they had Presbyters and Bishops, still this would not prove that they held the high church notions of Episcopacy by divine right. Jerome constantly mentions Bishops in the church, in his day, as a fact, but positively denies the divine right of Episcopacy. The church of Rome had the distinction between Bishops and Presbyters as a fact, but never maintained the divine right of Episcopacy. The Reformers of the English Church established the distinction as a fact, but never maintained the divine right. By overlooking or denying this difference between the fact and the divine right, many showy volumes have been written in favour of Episcopacy, which are nothing but SPLENDID SOPHISMS from end to end. However I doubt the fact of the Waldenses having had Bishops and Presbyters in their earliest history. I believe it cannot be proved from any of their documents, written before the time when the Moravians profess to have received the Episcopal order from them, viz. 1467. Any later evidence will be inconclusive. Much to the contrary certainly appears in their writings before that period, as the following extracts will shew. They speak of Ministers in the following manner :

66

They who are Pastors ought to preach to the people, and feed them often with Divine Doctrine; and chastise the sinners with Discipline." Written A. D. 1100. "Feeding the flock of God NOT for filthy lucre sake, or (nor) as having SUPERIORITY OVER THE CLERGY." "As touching Orders, we ought to hold that order is called the power which God gives to

man, duly to administer and dispense unto the church the word and sacraments. But we find nothing in the Scriptures touching such orders as they" (the Papists) "pretend, but only the custom of the church." Treatise of Antichrist, A. D. 1220. "All other Ministerial things may be reduced to the aforesaid." Ibid. "Those that being partakers of the outward ceremonies, instituted ONLY by human Inventions, do believe and hope to partake of the reality of Pastoral cures and offices if they be shaved or shorn like lambs, and anointed or daubed like walls," &c. Having described the ceremonies then used by the Romish Church in Confirmation, they say, "This is that which they call the sacrament of Confirmation, which we find not instituted either by Christ, or his Apostles-therefore such sacrament is not found needful to Salvation; whereby God is BLASPHEMED, and which was introduced by the devil's instigation, to seduce the people, and to deprive them of the faith of the church, and that by SUCH MEANS they might be induced the more to believe the ceremonies, and the NECESSITY of the BISHOPS." Ibid. Speaking of "Pastors," without any distinction, they say, "We Pastors do meet together once every year, to determine of our affairs in a General Council. Amongst other powers and abilities which God hath given to his Servants, he hath given authority to chuse Leaders to rule the People, and to ORDAIN Elders (PRESBYTERS) in their charges according to the diversity of the work, in the unity of Christ which is proved by the saying of the Apostle, in the first chapter of his Epistle to Titus: For this cause I have left thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and ORDAIN Elders (PRESBYTERS) in every city as I have appointed thee.' When any of us, the aforesaid Pastors, falls into any gross sins, he is both excommunicated and prohibited to preach." FROM M.SS. SEVERAL HUNDRED YEARS BEFORE LUTHER OR CALVIN. Here it is remarkable, that their quotation from Titus STOPS, in such a way, as NOT to introduce the term BISHOP, Occurring in the next verse. Why was this? Reinerus, the oldest authority on their tenets, as an historian, (having written about 1250,) says, "they considered Prelates, to be but Scribes and Pharisees; that the POPE and ALL THE BISHOPS were murderers, because of the wars they waged;-that they were NOT to OBEY THE BISHOPS, but God only; that in the church no one was greater than another: that they HATED the very NAME of PRELATE, as POPE, BISHOP, &c" A similar statement is given by Æneas Sylvius: "The Roman Bishop, and all Bishops are equal. Amongst Priests, or Ministers of the Gospel, there is no difference. The name of a Presbyter does not signify a dignity, but superior merit. (w)

Perrin remarks, that "The Monk Reinerus reported many things concerning the vocation of the Pastors of the Waldenses which are MERE FICTIONS: as that they had a greater Bishop and two followers, whom he called the Elder Son, and the Younger, and a Deacon; that he laid his

(w) Catalog. Test. Veritat. Vol. II.

hands upon others with a sovereign authority, and sent them where he thought good, like a Pope."

66

'Against these IMPOSTURES, here follows what is found in their writings, concerning the vocation of their Pastors."—He then gives the same account from their own writings as we have given in the text, but no account of an Order of Bishops is found in them. There is no distinction amongst them but what age, or wisdom, or piety might confer.

Leger gives the Monk Reiner's account of this matter a little differently. He introduces him speaking of the Barbes or Pastors, saying, "that they had always amongst them some chief Pastor, endowed with the authority of a Bishop, with two coadjutors, one of whom he called his Eldest Son, and the other his Younger."(x) This is certainly more consistent with the other statements of Reiner. For how could he say they had a greater Bishop, when he says they reprobated the very name of Bishops. But he might say that some chief Pastor was endowed with the authority of a Bishop, &c. Their own writings say, "The last received Pastors must do nothing without the license of their SENIORS: as also those that are first are to undertake nothing without the approbation of their companions, that every thing may be done amongst us in order. WE PASTORS do meet together once every year to determine of our affairs in a General Council." (y) This is the authority the SENIORS had. Such have the Lutheran and Wesleyan Methodist Superintendents. Such had the Bishops in the days of Cyprian. Yet the Waldenses. do not appear to have had the NAME of Bishop. They are said to have hated the very name. Much less had they the doctrine of DIVINE RIGHT.

Hence it would appear that they had no such name as Bishop for any of their Pastors, but that, according to the earliest Historians who knew them best, "they reprobated the very name of Bishops." Their Pastors fed the flock, ruled the flock, and ordained others to the ministry of the word. The Waldenses, then, had no doctrine of the Divine Right of Bishops to govern the Church, and to have the sole right of superintending and ordaining other Ministers. The pretence of deriving the Divine right of Episcopacy through the Waldenses, is, in truth, without any solid foundation whatsoever.

The Moravian Bishops have no superintendency by the power of their order over all other Ministers; they are ordained by the authority of the Elders or Presbyters; and are subject to the Conference of Presbyters. They, by the authority of the Presbyters, ordain other Ministers. This office of ordaining Ministers is their only important difference from Presbyters, and as they do it by the authority of the Presbyters, it amounts to nothing but a mere ecclesiastical arrangement.

All the Reformers viewed the Bohemian Brethren's church government in this light.

(x) See Peyran's Historical Defence of the Waldenses, Lond. 1826. App. p. 491.-2.

(y) Perrin, Part 2, B. 1, chap. 10