In the modern Church the Ecmanists and High Episcopalians claim divine right for their system of government. The Roman Catholic doctrine is thus stated (The Catechism of the Council of Trent, published by command of pope Pius V, Donovan's translation, Baltimore, n. d., 8vo) : " Sitting in that chair in which Peter the prince of tlie apostles sat to the close of life, the Catholic Church recognises in his ]ierson the most exalted degree of dignity and the full amplitude of jurisdiction — a dignity and a jurisdiction not based on sj'nodal or other human constitutions, but emanating from no less an authority than God himself. As the successor of St. Peter, and the true and legitimate vicar of Jesus Christ, he therefore presides over the universal Church, the father and governor of all the faithful, of bishops also, and of all other prelates, be tlieir station, rank, or power what the}' may" (p. 222). And (p. 82), speaking of the power of the keys, " it is a power not given to all, but to bishops and priests only." The following extracts from bishop Forbes's Explanation of the Thirty-nine Articles (London and New York, 18G7-8, 2 vols. 8vo) present a High-Church Episcopalian view of this subject : "Thus one depart- ment of the Church is to be called the Ecclesia docens. To the hierarchy, as distinguished from the great body of Christians, is committed the duty of handing down and communicating these truths" (Art. xix, p. 268 of vol. i). . . . " It having been shown in the preceding article that the Ecclesia docens hath ])Ower to decree rites and ceremonies, and hath authority in contro^ versies of faith, we come to consider one great channel or organ of that power — the oecumenical council. Given that the Church has this power, by whom or how is it to be exercised ? By whom but liy the apos- tolical ministry, who are appointed ' for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edi- f}ing of the body of Christ;' by those to whom was committed the power of the keys, who had, among other duties connected with admission to communion,
ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY 41 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY
to test the orthodoxy of applicants ; by those whose important office it was to hand on the form of sound words which they had received to tiieir successors" (Art. xxi, p. 288-9 of vol. i). . . . '-Our Lord is the immediate founder of the hierarchy, because it was he who ordained the apostles bishops when he said to them, 'As my Father sent me, so send I j'ou ; receive tlie Holy Ghost : go ye into all the world and make disciples of every creature ; whatsoever ye shall bind or loose on earth shall be bound or loosed in heaven.' These words denote a power without limit; its meas- ure is the wants of humanitj% its held of action the world. At the beginning; of the Churcli tliere was one general episcopate" (Art. xxxvi, p. (JOO of vol. ii). . . . " It is needless to add tliat the discipline as well as the doctrine of the Church was a purely internal matter, in which the state had no interest nor control. . . . The power of binding and loosing was tlie char- ter of all Church discipline, for it relegated the sanc- tion of the visible Church into the unseen world. If salvation depended, clave non erraiife, upon Church membership, and Cluirch membership, under certain laws, Avas in the hands of the hierarchy, it placed the control of the Church absolutely in their hands" (Art. xxxvii, p. 728-9 of vol. ii). The moderate Episcopa- lians (including Methodists and Moravians) generally hold tliat episcopacy is in harmony' with Scripture, but is not divinely ordained as essential. For a temperate argument in favor of the conformity of the Episcopal Church organization to the Scriptures and the practice of the early Churcli, see Browne's Exposition on the Thtrty-nine Articles (Amer. ed. N. Y. 1865, Art. xxiii, p. 549-57C). Arcli bishop Whately (The Kingdom of Christ, 2d ed. N. Y. 1843, 12m(0 says (p. 93): "Thus a further contirmatiou is furnished of the view that has been taken, viz., that it was the plan of the sacred writers to lay down clearly the principles on which Christian churches were to be formed and governed, leaving the mode of application of those principles un- determined and discretionary." And again (p. 213): "They," i. e. reformers compelled to separate, "have an undoubted rigiit, according to the principles I have been endeavoring to estaljlish, to appoint such orders of Christian ministers, and to allot to eacli such func- tions as the}' judge most conducive to the great ends of the societj' ; they may assign to the whole, or to a portion of these, the office of ordaining others as their successors ; thej' may appoint one superintendent of the rest, or several, under the title of patriarcli, arch- bishop, bishop, moderator, or any other that they may prefer ; they ma}' make the appointment of them for life or for a limited period, by election or b}- rotation, with a greater or a less extens\\ e jurisdiction," Mr. Wesley {Works, vii, 284, N. Y. 12'-)b) saj's : "As to my own judgment, I still believe 'the episcopal form of Church government to be scriptural and apostolical.' I mean, well agreeing with the practice and writings of the apostles. But that it is prescribed in Scripture I do not believe." Some Presbj'terian writers claim that the Presbyterian polit}' is the only one divinely ordained. (See especially The Divine Right of Chvrch Government, wherein it is proved tliat the Presbyterian government, by preaching and ruling elders, in ses- sional, presbyterial, and synodical assemblies, may lay the only lawful claim to a divine right according to the holy Scriptures, l)y sundry ministers of Christ within the city of London. With an Appendix, containing extracts from some of the best authors who have writ- ten on Church government, N. Y. 184-1, 12ir.o.) The same ground is taken by many of the advocates of the Congregational system (see especially Dexter, On Con- gregationalism, Boston, 1865, 8vo, ch. ii).