Both these novel systems had their weight in England. But there the Reformation began simply as Catholicism without the Pope, though under Edward VI. there was a swift though brief movement towards the continental pattern. The ancient ministry was retained, and survived even when, after the Marian reaction, England became definitely Protestant. This survival of antiquity had to be justified. Why, it was asked, is the English ministry different from that of the other reformed churches? The answer given, and found satisfactory on the continent, was that the or dination of its ministry is a matter within the power of each national church. The English, in its discretion, had chosen to retain the ancient use. It did not condemn other reformed churches which, of choice or of necessity, had dispensed with bishops. It recognized their ministries, and conversely they did the same, though each had no doubt that it had chosen the better course. This was the line taken by Ken, the future bishop and non-juror, when resident in Holland as chaplain to Mary, who was to be the queen of William III. But such tolerance did not satisfy the keener spirits on any side, and when the English Presbyterians under Elizabeth protested that English orders, because con ferred by bishops, were invalid, Bancroft and his followers re torted that it was the orders of their critics that were invalid, because given by presbyters. When such arguments were in use reconciliation was no longer possible.
But, at any rate, both sides in this debate believed that it was Divinely ordered that churches should be national, covering the whole ground and including all citizens. Early in the Reformation period a contrary doctrine had been taught, chiefly, though not exclusively, by Anabaptists. This doctrine was that the little Apostolic churches, each independent of the others and united only in love, were the permanent pattern which Christians were bound to follow. Certain devout people felt drawn together. They associated freely; none might be compelled to join the society, nor might it be forced to admit any to membership. Every such society was complete in itself, and was immediately under Christ. By His authority it chose its minister, or ministers. But the choice, once made, was binding, for it was in the name of Christ, and by His inspiration, that it had been made, and the members must recognize His Will in it. Such was the doctrine in its best and most definite shape. But unhappily there can be no doubt that in many instances the appointment of a minister among Congregationalists has been practically a business agree ment in which higher considerations have not lastingly prevailed. Their mode of religious organization has had little vogue outside the peoples of English speech; and in England their chief histori cal importance is that under Cromwell they frustrated the attempt to set up a Presbyterian church. One effect of this temporary victory was that they reduced the English Presbyterians from an organized society to a number of separate congregations, which were unable to escape the same declension from their original standard in regard to the ministry that had affected their rivals.
It remains to speak of the Methodist ministry. It is often said that John Wesley was driven out of the national church. But Wesley had reached the conviction that the Presbyterians were right as to the parity of ministers; he held that he had as much right to ordain as to administer the Lord's supper. He believed also in the value for practical religion of the society which he had founded, and organized with much skill. For him it was authenticated by its usefulness, and he was resolved to gain for it the loyalty of his adherents, for so he would be assured of their continuance in piety. To this end he ordained ministers first for America and Scotland, and finally for England. He did not realize that this meant separation ; but he had inspired so strong a Methodist patriotism that his followers, many of whom had never been churchmen, had little attachment to the Church of England. They therefore continued to appoint ministers after his death in 1791 though they did not practice the laying on of hands till 1836, when they resumed it while carefully stating that it is not essential. Methodists, in all its forms, reject the Presbyterian theory of the transmission of the ministry. The corporate Metho dist body claims to have the right of conferring the ministry, and holds that spiritual success verifies the claim.
Three great systems, we have seen, lay stress in different ways on corporate life; the historical, within which the authority of the ministry has been differently explained, the Presbyterian, which claimed to be a reversion to a primitive type which ought never to have been forsaken, and the Methodist, which frankly justifies itself by its success in edification. We have also con sidered the isolating type, in which the single congregation invested by Christ with His authority, appoints its minister. In none of these systems, widely as they may differ, is there any hesitation in asserting that a Power higher than human is at work. Even where, as with the Friends, the ministry may seem to a superficial observation to be reduced to insignificance because it was, and for the most part, except in the United States, still is voluntary, it is really taken most seriously as a Divine appoint ment. Not only in practice, but in principle, the Christian min istry is recognized universally as a providential ordinance, neces sary for the maintenance of the society and for the sustenance of the spiritual life of its members.