a law can never be considered settled, until exceptions are accounted for. Confidence in it increases, not only in proportion to the uniformity of the phenomena, but in proportion to the ease with which a rule reconciles all the facts, and develops the causes of exception. So our assurance in this Episcopal regimen is made finally and doubly sure, because the facts are uniform up to a well known historical era; and since that date, every exception is clearly defined, and is acknowledged to have been a voluntary (in some cases, as Calvin's, an ex necessitate, not a willing) departure from historical precedent and usage.
Abbot, Archbishop of Canterbury, who favored [John] Calvin's theological views, records, that, in looking over some papers left by his predecessor, Archbishop Parker, he found that Calvin, and others of the Protestant Churches of Germany and elsewhere, would have had Episcopacy if permitted. And he asserts, that in Edward VI. reign, Calvin wrote a letter to the English reformers on this subject, which was intercepted by Gardiner and Bonner (Popish), who returned him such a reply, writing as if in the name of the Reformers, as effectually prevented his repeating the suggestion. (Chapman's sermons, p.104. Boston, 1844.)
Calvin, even when defending the new system that he had adopted, was true to the "historical precedent." He does not deny a historical "succession," even where he writes, "nothing can be more frivolous than to place the succession in the persons, to the neglect of the doctrine." And in arguing against Romanists, employing for his purpose the fact of the existence of the Greek Church, he asserts that among them there "has never been any interruption of the succession of Bishops."
He holds (of course) the Presbyterian theory, namely: that Bishops and Presbyters are the same order. "In calling those who presided over Churches, Bishops, Elders, and Pastors, without any distinction, I have followed the usage of Scripture. For, to all who discharge the Ministry of the Word, it gives the title of Bishops." But when he is speaking as a historian, he says, "To guard against dissensions, the general consequence of equality, the presbyters in each city chose one of their own number, whom they distinguished by the title of Bishop. The Bishop, however, was not so superior to the rest in honor and dignity, as to have any dominion over his colleagues, but the functions performed by a Consul in the Senate, such as *** to preside over the rest, in the exercise of advice, admonition, and exhortation, to regulate all the proceedings by his authority, and to carry into execution whatever had been decreed by the general voice - such were the functions exercised by the Bishop in the Assembly of Presbyters." A very fair description of a Bishop in the Protestant Episcopal Church.
In the same passage he guards against the idea of "Divine right," quoting Jerome - "let the Bishops know their superiority to the Presbyters is more from custom than from the appointment of the Lord." But he proceeds in his defence of the "historical precedent," to show "the antiquity of this institution," by quoting from the same author (Jerome) "at Alexandria, even from Mark the Evangelist to Heraclos and Dionysius, the Presbyters always chose one of their body to preside over them, whom they called Bishop." Then, in summing up, Calvin adds, "every assembly as I have stated, for the sole purpose of preserving order and peace, was under the direction of one Bishop, who, while while he had the precedence of all others in dignity, was himself subject to the assembly of brethren."
It might be deemed important to prove that Bishops were ordained by Presbyters, if indeed they were of the same order. But Calvin, true to "historical precedent," after declaring that the ancient elections were held "by the Clergy, and submitted to the Magistrates, or Senate, not by the populace," "for the uncertain vulgar are divided by contrary inclinations," proceeds, "there is a decree of the Council of Nice that the Metropolitans should meet with all the Bishops of the province, to ordain him who shall have been selected: but if any be prevented by necessary cause, at least three should meet, and those who are absent should testify their consent by letters." (The rule in the Protestant Episcopal Church.) Quoting Cyprian, he adds, "for the due performance of ordinations, all the Bishops of the same province meet with the people over whom a Bishop is to be ordained." Calvin proceeds, "it was deemed sufficient if they assembled after the election was made, and upon due examination consecrated the person who had been chosen. This was the universal practice, without any exception."
We consider this testimony, of so competent a historian, to be of great value. Calvin here affirms, that, however the election of a Bishop may have been effected, or declared, his consecration never took place except by Bishops, in contradistinction to Presbyters. And he states this still more explicitly at the close of the following passage, in which he is proving that Consecration was by imposition of hands. "I read of no other ceremony practices, except that in the public assembly the Bishops had some dress to distinguish them from the rest of the Presbyters. Presbyters and Deacons also were ordained solely by the imposition of hands. But every Bishop ordained his own Presbyters, in conjunction with the assembly of the other Presbyters of his Diocese. Now, though they all united in the same act, yet, because the Bishop took the lead, and the ceremony was performed under his direction, therefore it was called his ordination. Wherefore it is often remarked by the ancient writers, that a Presbyter differs from a Bishop in no other respect, than that he does not possess the power of ordination."
The two statements now exhibited by this renowned divine, do not appear reconcilable, namely: 1st, that Bishops and Presbyters are the same order; and 2nd, that, every assembly was presided over by one Bishop who had precedence in dignity, and who exercised overseer-ship of the Presbyters, and who was never ordained by them, but always by other Bishops; and that Presbyters differed from Bishops, in that they did not possess the power of ordination.
The historical facts stated by Calvin are undoubted:
*(Calvin's Institutes, London, 1844; Book iv., chaps.1-4.)
