Another argument employed by the Episcopalians is taken from the Epistles to the seven Asiatic churches, mentioned in the Apocalypse. The epistles alluded to are not addressed either to the churches in general, or to any assembly of the rulers in these churches, but to an individual, called in each instance " the angel of the church," ( Rev. ii. I.) " To the an gel of the Church of Ephesus, write these things :" "To the angel of the Church of Smyrna, say ;"—and so in all the other cases. Now, the Episcopalians maintain, that the individuals here denominated the Angels of the Churches, were the bishops of these ) churches. The language, they say, is taken from that in common :Ise among the Jews when speaking of the synagogue ; a circumstance which, in their opinion, gives additional strength to the argument : For if the angel of the synagogue was the individual who presided over the synagogue, it follows, by ana . logy, that the angel of the church was the individual who presided oser the church, that is, the bishop. It is allowed, however, by some of the Episcopalian writers, that the argument derived from the mode in i which the Asiatic churches are addressed, is corro merely : They admit, that by the angel of the church may he understood, either the pastor of that church, or the bishop under whose government it was ; hut they contend, that Episcopacy being es tablished on other considerations, the mode of ad dressing the Asiatic churches gives to these consi derations a weight or force which renders them alto gether irresistible.
In addition to the arguments already mentioned, the patrons of the hierarchy assert, that the autho rity of the early fathers is wholly on their side ; an authority the more to be valued, because, from the times in which they lived, they must have had the best opportunity of knowing the true characters of the primitive institution. At the head of the fathers, to whom they allude, stands Ignatius. According to Chrysostom, he was the frequent and familiar associate of the apostles, and received episcopal or dination from them by the imposition of hands. In an epistle to the Magnesians, ascribed to this emi nent person, he distinctly refers to three orders of functionaries existing in the same church : mention ing Danias as bishop of Magnesia, Bassus and Apol lonius as presbyters, and Totian as deacon. In his Epistle to the Philadelphians, a similar enumeration is given : " Attend," says he, " to the bishop, to the presbytery, and to the deacons." A passage from his Epistle to the Trallians is yet more empha tic and conclusive : " Be ye subject," he says, " to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, to the presbyters as the apostles of Jesus Christ, and to the deacons a; mini sters of the mysteries of Jesus Christ ;" and he adds, with an anxiety and earnestness not to be expect ed in so early a writer upon such a subject, these remarkable words, " without these there is no elect church, or congregation of holy men." To the same purpose the authority of Clement, bishop of Alexandria, who also lived in the second century, is adduced He, too, speaks of the three orders of func tionaries existing in the church, and mentions several persons who had arrived at the episcopal dignity, Through the intermediate gradations of presbyter and deacon. To the testimonies cf Ignatio s and Cle
ment, the Episcopalians add those of Tertulliau, of Ongen, and Jerome, and boldly and clamorously af firm, that the voice cf all antiquity is in favour of the model for which they contend.
Such is a short, and, we trust, an impartial account of the arguments by which the Presbyterians and Epis copalians endeavour to support their respectise tenets ; end so much have the authors on both sides been per suaded that their opinions are well founded, that they have maintained, on the one hand, the divine rigid of Presbytery, and, on the other, the divine right of Episcopacy. There are, however, at present, in this kingdom, men of education and judgment, who think,. that both parties have proceeded too far, and claimed too much. They see, that there is no form of eccle siastical polity established, by specific precept, in the inspired writings, and are willing to admit, that even the practice of the apostles in this respect was not the consequence either of distinct information received from the Author of our religion, or of immediate in spiration from above ; but that it was, as in the choice of the deacons, the result of the circumstances in which they were placed. According to these persons, any form of ecclesiastical government, which shall se cure the intelligence and diligence of the clergy, and the regular instruction of the people, may be consci entiously adopted. Nor is this opinion at all peculiar to the time in which we live. It appears to have been that of the celebrated Mr Locke. " A church," says this distinguished philosopher, " I take to be a society of men, joining themselves together of their own accord, in order to the public worship of God, in such a manner as they judge acceptable to him, and effectual to the salvation of their souls." (Letter on Toleration, p. 40.) And having stated the objec. tion, that no society can be regarded as a true church unless it shall have in it a presbyter, or bishop, de riving his authority from the apostles, he continues, " To those who make this objection, I answer, let them show me the edict by which Christ has imposed that law on his church : And let not any man think me impertinent, if, in a thing of this consequence, I require that the terms of that edict be very express and positive ; for the promise he has made us, that wherever two or three are gathered together in his name, he trill be in the midst of them, seems to imply the contrary." p. 44., 45.) In conformity with these sentiments, many learned doctors of the English church have admitted, that Episcopacy was to be supported, not so much as a divine institution, or established by, apostolical authority, hut because it was the mode of church-government best adapted to the people of England, and acknowledged by the custom and ordinances of that kingdom. This is said to have been the opinion of Cranmer and others among the reformers, as well as that of Brydges, Whitgift, and even of Hooker himself. Archbishop Usher and Burnet are likewise said to have maintain ed this ophilon. See Stillingfleet's frenicon, c. 8. ; Euri..et's Hist. of Reform. i. Ap. p. 321. ; and Vindic. rfibe Church of Scot. p. 336.