The term ‘ecclesiology’ refers to the biblical theology and command for us to unite the Church under apostolic tradition! What does this look like in terms of church government and polity in our modern era? There has been one primary form of government and polity throughout the age of the Church called the “Episcopacy.” This paper seeks to establish the very thought of the Episcopacy and how it is to naturally/spiritually flow from the authority of the Scriptures and the Apostles, in contrast to one of the 16th century movements that thought it necessary to begin an entirely new form of Church polity.

Paul’s Emphasis on Ecclesiology

The Bible is saturated with ecclesiological standards, but this theology of church government/polity does not jump out at us like we would like it to. Ecclesiastical terms and conditions were still in formation during the time of the Apostles and so a plain type of language by the authors of Scripture was used according to the current needs. Let’s briefly examine the ecclesiology of Paul and the emphasis he placed on it being a vital aspect of the Gospel.

St. Paul refers to the ecclesiastical authority in every one of his letters: Romans; First and Second Corinthians; Galatians; Ephesians; Philippians (1:12-18); Colossians 1:26-29 (the mystery has been revealed to His “saints” and then speaks of those who preach); First Thessalonians (in the first chapter he says that they became followers of “us” and that the gospel did not come to them in “word only” but, in power through the Spirit, i.e., people. In 2:7, he describes the comforting power of the apostles as a mother. In 5:12-13, Paul commands the church to honor those that have authority over them); First Timothy (an entire chapter on the Bishop, Pastor and Deacon); Second Timothy (2:2 says that the Word should be committed to “faithful men.” He then says in verses 24 and 25 that a servant of the Lord must be able to teach and be humble. In 3:10 he says that they have followed what? Paul’s “doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, perseverance, persecution, afflictions…But evil men and imposters will grow worse.” Paul is speaking of a very special authority here: the authority of human leadership that can actually demonstrate love through things such as “manner of life, longsuffering, and persecution; something written Word alone cannot do, but God’s chosen men with the help of the Word can); Titus; Philemon (personal letter about Paul’s leadership).

Pauline theology is very ecclesiastical. In 1 Corinthians he devotes two chapters (11 and 12) on the assembly of the saints and gives special Eucharistic instruction in the second half of chapter 11. Also, in Colossians 2:12, Paul links our Baptism to Christ’s death and resurrection. Paul’s theology clearly concentrates on Christ’s ekklesia as a vital and unifying factor of the Church.

Ecclesiastical Authority 

Now that we have established the fact that the Bible lays heavy emphasis on ecclesiology, let us now consider how this fits into the authority of the Gospel and the written text of Scripture. The early church did indeed gather around the written Word of the Old Testament and the Apostolic Epistles, but did St. Paul ever mention a canon or any compilation of Epistles (apart from the human leadership of the Church) as being the very authority of the church? He did command that his work be read to other churches (1 Thessalonians 5:27; Colossians 4:16), but again, he does not emphasize the written word like he does the ecclesiastical aspect of sacrament, spiritual gifts, and pastoral office. This does not mean that the Bible is not authoritative. It simply means that God has chosen His people to pass this authority through the ages.

Ecclesiology involves an authoritative presence in which we actually represent Christ here on earth. Every church practices a form of this authority, but not all modern churches agree on what this looks like. There is, though, one form of ecclesiology that has more tenor than the others, one that has often been ridiculed through sectarian groups as well as Reformed churches: the Episcopalian form of Church polity and her primacy of the Bishop.

From Apostle to Bishop

The pre-canonical church in the first four centuries was not at all a precursor to the Christian church. It was not at all a silent period of mediation. It was the real deal! And this real deal sought the spoken word and this new outlook of the Old Testament and how it points to Christ and His Church through the bishops of the church. The bishops were the arbitrators of this new type of theology (New Covenant) while the canon was being formed/forming the church. Again, it was the real deal! The church was growing into its canonical form in a very organic manner – no temporary building blocks or interment positions were formed so that a canon could take over and magically govern the Church. The Gospel is not about a fairy tale come-true with talking books and magic sayings. The Gospel is about a movement of people that God has ordained to receive and transmit sacred authority with humility of conscience.

The very succession of apostolic authority to the later patriarchs was a permanent and therefore ecclesiastical part of the Church. For it was out of this group of bishops that the canon of the New Testament was formed. Therefore, to believe in the canon is to believe in the very authority of these bishops. Did God bring forth His Law through an invalid office or through just some man (Moses) that happened to be available at the time? Or did He make a prophet out of Moses? Likewise, did God choose the writings of the Holy Scriptures to be written by whomever the people of God currently had, or did he appoint the man Saul to a specific and anointed office of Apostle? Why then would God appoint the very gathering and confirming of his Holy Scriptures to an office and calling that does not spiritually or physically exist?  How could this even happen except that one presuppose some sort of Balaam’s Ass theology? But we know that the Bishops of the early church were not equivalent to such a grotesque concept.  

In the beginning of the second century Bishop Ignatius (A.D. 35-A.D. 117) referred to the written Word of God and later in the second century we find Irenaeus bringing forth the idea of two separate Testaments. Around this same time, the heretic Marcion, compiled his own canon, forcing the Church to adopt an official canon. F.F. Bruce describes this act:

“Augustine’s [canonical] ruling supplied a powerful precedent for the western church from his own day to the Reformation and beyond. In 393 a church council held in [Bishop] Augustine’s see of Hippo laid down the limits of the canonical books along the lines approval by Augustine himself. The proceedings of this council have been lost but they were summarized in the proceedings of the Third Council of Carthage (397), a provincial council. These appear to be the first church councils to make a formal pronouncement on the canon.[1]”

So there we have it! The bishops formulated the canon, by gathering and confirming its text. It is clear that the office of the Bishop was a part of the very unification of the Church. The very Word of God was entrusted to them by God and His people for its consecration.      

We find another statement, regarding the centrality of the Bishop and the Eucharist, from Bishop Ignatius in his letter to the Smyrneans:  

“See that you all follow the Bishop, as Christ does the Father, and the presbyterium as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as a command of God. Let no one do anything connected with the Church without the Bishop. Let that be considered a certain (bebaia) eucharist which is under the leadership of the Bishop, or one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the Bishops appears, there let the multitude of the people be; just as wherever Christ Jesus is, there is the catholic Church. It is not permitted without the Bishop either to baptize or to celebrate an agape; but whatever he shall approve of, that is well-pleasing also to God, so that everything that is done may be assumed and certain.”             

This is a serious command by St. Ignatius that can only be taken seriously if his ecclesiological authority is presupposed. We must believe that the very office of Bishop was indeed ordained by God to be as Ignatius says (Philad 7:1-2) the “voice of God.” Ignatius is presupposing, here, an epistemological dichotomy. He is not saying that God actually has an audible voice for the New Testament prophet as He did with Moses. He is saying that the invisible becomes visible through the bishop. The New Testament voice of God works both over and under the foundational revelation of the prophets of the Old Covenant, so there is no need to be paranoid that the Bishop is going to manifest unbiblical revelation. It is important to note here that the Bishop does not obtain, and never has obtained, his pronouncements by a sort of direct revelation from God, apart from the rest of the Church. This is what Rome has made the office of the Roman Bishop out to be by claiming the doctrine of ex cathedra; although that doctrine in itself has obviously never really manifested itself like the First Vatican Council of 1870 first intended it to.            

Regarding the Church being a part of the Bishops pronouncements, Cyprian declares that the Bishop is to do nothing without the advise of his presbyters and the consent of the people. He writes, ‘as well as a rule of discipline and manner of (church) life, requires that we, the Bishops, with the clergy, and in the presence of the steadfast laity, should settle all matters by piously consulting together.’[2]It was not until the Church began to embrace a more global outreach that the bishopric took on more of a clerical corporation and eventually a near tyranny by the Middle Ages. The bishopric grew not out of control but into too much control (It was never “controlled,” in the sense of authority, by the people, but by the working out of Christ’s heavenly authority and then guided and manifested by the people).

According to ancient church history, in the very beginnings the Church had already recognized a bishop as the first among equals in order to contain the unity of the Church (1Corinthians 1:12).[3] In St. Jerome’s view, as the Apostles passed away and the heretics began to prevail against the Church, distinguishing the very name and call of the Episcopacy was completely necessary. Not that it had to be invented of sort, but what already had been practiced by the likes of Christ’s disciples and their disciples, needed to take on theological meaning (emphasis mine). St. Jerome writes, ‘When every man began to think those whom he had baptized to be his own, and not Christ’s, it was decreed throughout the world that one chosen out of the presbyters should be set above the rest, to whom the care of the whole Church should appertain, that thus the seeds of division might be rooted out.’[4]

The New form of Polity?

 Many teachers of the Reformation taught that the Episcopal form of church government was not the biblical form that we should follow (some of the more prominent ones, as we will see later, actually approved of the Episcopacy); yes, even though it can be traced to the first century. But now, there are a number of fast-growing Protestant denominations (see Calvary Chapel or Sovereign Grace Ministries) that are borrowing large parts of this Episcopal model in order that they escape the notorious and vicious battles brought forth by unlearned parishioners and elders. The Presbyterian model of polity – the largest and oldest threat to the Episcopal model – has enabled the Presbyterian Church to split into dozens of different denominations, and has even broken off to form hundreds of sectarian and Evangelical groups.

Dr. Greg Bahnsen, from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (the first group to break from the mainline, now liberal Presbyterian Church of the United States), confirms the Presbyterian concern of church government:

You will hear people say, without reflection, that the government of the church is a relatively trivial matter, not something over which loving Christians should worry or argue. But then on the other hand, if you take a hard look around you at what actually happens in various churches, you will notice that the most prevalent reason why people get upset and leave a congregation is not really because of doctrinal differences, but is tied in one fashion or another to the way that congregation was governed or disciplined (or not disciplined). People get fed up, disputes are not peacefully resoled, regular oversight and counseling are not pursued, congregations argue and divide – all because the Biblical blueprint for government and discipline has been ignored.”[5]  

The Role and History of the Elder

The irony of Bahnsen’s statement is that the Presbyterian government, to many of us Anglicans, actually fuels the very problem of church conflict that Bahnsen is advocating to remedy. When one has conflict in the Presbyterian Church, he must submit to the authority of the pastor and his group of Ruling Elders, which are not ordained as pastors, and have not even a desire to become pastors. There are a few, such a Greg Bahnsen, that recognize no such calling as the Ruling elder, and that a church must be governed by multiple pastors as elders, but these Presbyterian churches are almost non-existent today.

The largest Reformed (and continuing) Presbyterian Church of our day, the Presbyterian Church of America, states in her 2006 Book of Church Order the following:

7-2. The ordinary and perpetual classes of office in the Church are elders and deacons. Within the class of elder are the two orders of teaching elders and ruling elders. The elders jointly have the government and spiritual oversight of the Church, including teaching. Only those elders who are specially gifted, called and trained by God to preach may serve as teaching elders. The office of deacon is not one of rule, but rather of service both to the physical and spiritual needs of the people. In accord with Scripture, these offices are open to men only. 8-8. As there were in the Church under the law, elders of the people for the government thereof, so in the Gospel Church, Christ has furnished others besides ministers of the Word with gifts and commission to govern when called thereunto, who are called ruling elders.”

Notice that it says there are “the two orders of teaching elders and ruling elders.” This is a post-modern concept of thinking. Although Calvin, in the modern age of the Reformation/Renaissance spoke of two callings of Elders, one to be the primary teacher and the other to rule (see Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion) he did not intend for there to be some sort of pastor that is not allowed to teach or practice the Lord’s Supper – this is the belief of the more post-modern Presbyterian. I refer to this belief as “post-modern” because it seems to primarily be an appeal to the post-reformation times, that there be men who can be pastors without having to bear the burden that the pastor is called to. I believe this is a result of the modern egalitarian concept of society, that the hierarchy be soft-pedalled and that the laymen may participate in ecclesiastical callings for a type of appeasement to him.

The concept of Ruling elder actually contradicts the Reformation view of Priesthood of all Believers. The Priesthood of all Believers states that men not ordained into the ministry do indeed have a part in God’s kingdom, even as they do such tasks within the culture. They are working for the kingdom, regardless of the fact that they are not working within ecclesiastical matters. To insist that a man who is called to, say, the market place, must have a part in the ecclesiastical matters of the Church, again, is to say that his calling in the culture is simply not enough for his sanctification and general call to conform to Christ.

Niether Scripture nor Church tradition supports such a two-fold view of the pastorate. When St. Paul says in 1 Timothy 5:17 that we must give the elders who “rule well…especially in word and doctrine be counted for double honor,” he is not saying that there are two types of elders, one that is an ordained pastor and one that is a layman. He is saying that out of the elders the ones that are Primus inter pares (first among equals) are to be counted for double honor.

Note:Certainly St. Paul does not make the distinction of “Bishop” and “Elder” in his epistles for no apparent reason. Paul is not known for having a philosophy that is arbitrary! In 1 Timothy 5:17, Paul does use the term “presbos,” but a Bishop is indeed a presbos. He is the “first among” presbos,’ as Paul implies. Paul is referring to the Bishop, the same office that he refers to in 1 Timothy 3, and goes as far as creating qualifications for this very office. This is not to say that these qualifications do not apply to the pastors. On the contrary, they do apply as standards for the presbos, but Paul is directing our attention to the bishop, so that he be made the “spectacle” and example for the others to rule the “Church of God” (the universal/catholic “Church” and not merely the assembly, as the text portrays).                

Below, the PCA raises their arms in victory as if there is no other ecclesiological teaching of the Holy Scriptures than that of the Presbyterian model; as if one that receives the office of Bishop, an office that has been traced within the Church as long as papyri documents themselves have been in their infancy of production (i.e. there are no ancient docs that oppose the Bishopric and proclaim the Presbyterian government) – that this man who receives such a call is outside of the authority of the Scriptures. Based on the rest of the teachings of the BCO, found in only a few paragraphs prior, this is what the below dogma presupposes: that there is no other justifiable form of Church government.

7-3. No one who holds office in the Church ought to usurp authority therein, or receive any official titles of spiritual preeminence, except such as are employed in the Scriptures. ”           

If the PCA, or any of the Reformed Presbyterian denominations do believe that the Episcopacy is a justifiable form of Church government, then why is it that they divide over such an acceptable form of government? One may say that they do not divide over it, but that they are “connected in Spirit.” If this is the case, then no one has to even attend church and commit themselves to her, because they can simply be invisibly connected.           

We have seen that already, based on a perspective of universal unity (catholicity) the largest Presbyterian denomination in America, according to their written standard, is opposed to the visible unity to the more ancient and historical Episcopes polity. I realize that saying the Episcopes is more historical than Presbyterianism may make some Presbyterians a bit uncomfortable, but my intention is not to be rhetorical about ecclesiology but simply to respect the very sovereignty of God and how He has allowed the Episcopal order to prevail for over one thousand years.            

It is very important to note, as I referenced to earlier in this paper, that there has been no known dissension about the Episcopal form of government by any of the early fathers.  Certainly if the Episcopes was an unbiblical form of polity there would have been a council to meet over such a thing, or at the very least, rebukes made! The early church grappled over the most detailed of doctrines, and they held to an extremely high level of intelligent, given the fact that they were so limited to ancient forms of writing and publishing. Given this fact that they would have most definitely argued the Episcopacy, it is simply not an intelligent ascertain to state that the immediate succession of Church government from the Apostles was that of Presbyterianism. 

Aside from the biblical and spiritual mandate that Anglicans hold to regarding the Episcopacy, there are very practical and pragmatic reasons why this is the very route that God has ordained (remember, if the Bishopric is not a genuine calling, then even the Canon of Scripture could be at risk.) Take for example the need to counsel with a pastor regarding a dispute within a Presbyterian church. When there is a dispute in the Presbyterian Church, a parishioner must meet with the session of un-ordained pastors (ruling elders) to resolve the dispute. Is it wise to put your spiritual well being in the hands of laymen that are admittedly not called to the pastorate? And when there is no resolution to the conflict, the individual must take their case to the Presbytery – without an advocate, on their own, to face multitudes of learned pastors within one court-like forum. In other words, you are not given the legal right to have a man that has been recognized as a mature and seasoned pastor (what Anglicans call the “Bishop”) to come out personally to mediate and speak on the Church’s behalf. Rather, you must face the Presbyterian court.

Church Discipline within Presbyterianism 

Below is a section from the PCA, Book of Church Order that states the procedure of dissolving a disagreement between the parishioner and elders of the church that cannot be resolved. There is no position of neutrality, that gives the parishioner the right to a different tradition or ethic of the Orthodox faith, there is only the pronouncement of sin to the Christian that has been outnumbered by votes! Chapter 26-2 demonstrates that a 2/3 or 3 /4 majority must be conclude in order to make a motion. This voting system of both Ruling and Teaching Elders (13-1) also comes to play during an excommunication (32-15), and the accused may not bring in an advocate to defend them unless the advocate is from his same church (32-19). This makes it very difficult to find a learned advocate that can present sound argument for the case. This is like saying one can have a lawyer only of there is one on your block! With this system in place as it is it makes the Presbyterian Church nearly invincible to other traditions such as the Episcopacy. For instance, if one comes in conflict with his brother over doctrinal and ethical matter that the Presbyters are foreign to, it is then very unlikely that they will be persuaded toward the accused since they are unable to present a thorough theological argument that will withstand the rigorous court. The defendant not only has a very slim chance of wining his case, but he will also be excommunicated from the Sacraments as well as the Church fellowship.

13-6…Whereas,_______, a member of this church has been by sufficient proof convicted of the sin of   , and after much admonition and prayer, obstinately refuses to hear the Church, and has manifested no evidence of repentance: Therefore, in the name and by the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, we, the Session of church do pronounce him to be excluded from the Sacraments, and cut off from the fellowship of the Church.” 

The scriptural reasoning behind excommunicating the accused from the Supper is based on 1 Corinthians 11:27-32.

27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. 30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.” 

Besides the difficulty of the Elder position that the Presbyterian Church imposes, there is also another element of polity that causes the church to fragment: the excommunication of Christians from the Lord’s Supper! It’s hard to say how many Christians the PCA has excommunicated, being a more Evangelical and tolerant church in our day, but there are many other continuing Presbyterian movements that will not hesitate to bar a Christian for a variety of reasons.

St. Paul says in the Scripture above that there were Christians casting judgment on themselves through partaking the Supper while in a state of unrepentance. But Paul speaks of this as a good thing for the Church and goes as far as saying that the Supper, through the Lord, chastens us so that we are not condemned with the world. This is why Paul does not say that these Christians should not be partaking in the Supper. Instead he simply proclaims the power of the Supper in its disciplinary form.

If we were to excommunicate unrepentant sinners from the Supper, who then would be worthy of partaking in the Supper? No one. Certainly a divisive person that is schismatic cannot partake, but only on the basis that he has an agenda to divide the Church, not because he has not matured in his ethics.  Nowhere do we find in Scripture the authority to excommunicate those that the elders deem to be unrepentive. Any pastor can find a section of a parishioner’s life where they are unrepentive.

Church Discipline within Anglicanism

As implied in the previous section, it is very difficult for a parishioner to receive any sort of arbitration, counsel, mediation or any general closure of a dispute within the Presbyterian model. When the session of the local church arrives at gridlock on a dispute there is no pastoral/relational remedy to venture. There is only the very lengthy process where the Presbytery is summoned and the bureaucratic process snowballs to the point of both the parishioner and pastor becoming spiritually and physical exhausted.  

The Episcopal model of governing is much more pastoral. When a conflict arises, there are no complicated bureaucratic hoops to jump through. When neither the parishioner nor the pastor will repent, the Bishop travels to the church to counsel. If the parishioner feels that the Bishop is in error, then there are courts to appeal to, but how likely is that when the Church of God has labored in blood and tears (far beyond what they do to choose pastors) to choose Godly men for the bishopric.

Regarding discipline for the “unrepentant” Christian, they are not to be barred from the Lord’s Supper, but only nonbelievers to are to be barred from the Supper, those that do not have any commitment to Christ’s Church. Article XXIX of the 39 Articles of Faith, found in the back of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer explains how it is the wicked that are not to partake of the Supper.

Of the Wicked which do not eat the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord’s Supper

The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.”

 Article XXXIII explains how the Anglican Church does indeed excommunicate people from the Church, but again, these are not unrepentant Christians, they are those that are clearly nonbelievers.

The Reformers on the Episcopacy

Interestingly enough, we can find nowhere that Calvin and other prominent Reformers condemned the Episcopal for of polity. In fact, as we will see, the Reformers advocated an Episcopate. It remains debatable as to why then certain countries within the time of the Reformation formed into Presbyterian models, but the one thing to be certain is that the Reformers were wise enough to recognize this biblical form of government.  G.D. Henderson, ex-moderator of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, states that “Episcopacy has unquestionable Bible warrant and no Presbyterian ever denied this.” [6]Below are some quotes that show that the very foundation of Presbyterian government is based on the necessity of that time, rather than a sort of biblical doctrine over and against the ancient doctrine of the Episcopes.

Luther, speaking concerning the authority which Bishops would have among the Reformers, if any of them should adopt reformed principles, says, “We would acknowledge them as our fathers, and willingly obey their authority, which we find supported by the Word of God.”

Melancthon, after the adoption of Presbyterianism, says, “I would to God it lay in me to restore the government of Bishops; for I see what manner of Church we shall have, the ecclesiastical polity being dissolved.” “By what right or law we may dissolve the ecclesiastical polity, if the Bishops will grant to us that which in reason they ought to grant; and if it were lawful for us to do so, yet surely it is not expedient. Luther was ever of this opinion.” He says moreover, “Zwingli is not in his senses. At one stroke he would abolish all ceremonies, and he would have no Bishops.”

Martin Brucer says, “by the perpetual observation of all Churches, even from the Apostles’ times, we see that it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, that among presbyters there should be one who should have the charge of divers Churches, and the whole Ministry be committed to him; and by reason of that charge he was above the rest; and therefore the name of Bishop was attributed peculiarly to those chief rulers.”

Calvin.Abbot, Archbishop of Canterbury, who favored 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 defense 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 he had the precedence of all others in dignity, was himself subject to the assembly of brethren.”[7] 

On Church and Sate

The Anglican churches in America have their roots in the Church of England. It is common knowledge that the Church of England promotes a Christian government and has had a history of generally being linked to the state. There are divisions of thought in this doctrine, but the vast majority of Anglicans believe that the state is to be subjected to the Church regarding morality. Many of the Reformation Presbyterians believed the same. John Calvin says, the Church is to be “the conscience of the state.”

Nowhere will you find a dogma within the Anglican Church that refutes the participation of the Church and her spiritual calling to take dominion and propose the Law of God to institutions such as the state. But in modern Presbyterianism, apposed to traditional Presbyterianism, the Church nearly commands that there be no involvement in the issues of Sate. Thee 2006 PCA, Book of Church Order says this:

3-4. The power of the Church is exclusively spiritual; that of the State includes the exercise of force. The constitution of the Church derives from divine revelation; the constitution of the State must be determined by human reason and the course of providential events. The Church has no right to construct or modify a government for the State, and the State has no right to frame a creed or polity for the Church. They are as planets moving in concentric orbits: “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21).”

The statement “They are as planets moving in concentric orbits” is so strange that it is hardly worth commenting on. But how about where they say that the Church has no right to form a government? No wonder this country is in such deep trouble. If the State is not to follow Christianity then what religion are they to follow? Secularism, Buddhism, Islam…? The very church (Presbyterian) that fought against the English Church and her army, in the Revolutionary War, killing thousands of men for this government of America, is now saying that they want nothing to do with this government!            

There are small splinters of the Presbyterian Church that uphold the traditional view (found in the Original Westminster Confession of Faith) that the Church is to form the government and even turn heretics over to the state for due punishment and protection from. But those small segments of the Presbyterians, called theonomists, are now being called heretics by the likes of many PCA churches, as well as many other Presbyterian churches, including The Free Church of Scotland. This ridiculous notion that the Church is to have no dominion over the state deserves an entire paper, or book for that matter – which Dr. Greg Bahnsen has written – but it must be stated in a paper that distinguishes Anglican polity from the Presbyterian polity that Anglicans believe in taking dominion over the state, and that the state must protect the rights and well being of the Church. There is no tradition within Anglicanism that has believed otherwise.            

To be a mature Anglican is to understand that Christ’s Church is to influence all spheres of life, including the state. Bishop John Hooper (d. 1555) says, “to the magistrates it doth appertain, not only to have regard unto the commonwealth, but also unto ecclesiastical matters, to take away and to overthrow all idolatry and false serving of God, to destroy the kingdom of Antichrists and all false doctrine, to promote the glory of God and to advance the kingdom of Christ, to the cause of the word of the Gospel everywhere to be preached, and the same to maintain unto death…”[8]Presbyterians call this type of belief theonomic, but it’s really  nothing but true and traditional Anglican thought.

For Unity Sake?           

One would think from studying the history of Church government, the Scriptures themselves, and the ecclesiastical beliefs of many of the Protestant Reformers (the founding fathers of the Presbyterian Church) that the Presbyterian Church would jump at the chance to unite with the Episcopal Church. But it was not the case in the late part of the 19th century and through the early 20th century.[9] 

Following the General Convention of 1886 proposing four articles as a basis of Church union, the House of Bishops declared ‘their desire and readiness to enter into brotherly conference with all or any Christian bodies seeking the restoration of the organic unity of the Church with a view to the earnest study of the conditions under which so priceless a blessing might happily be brought to pass,’ and appointed a Commission on Christian Unity. The Lutheran Churches divided over the Episcopacy and the Nicene Creed. The Baptists did not even bother to reply and insisted on independence. And the Methodists also did not bother to reply.  The Presbyterian Church did establish a lasting relationship with the Episcopal Church at this time, but declined to unite with them on the basis that the Episcopal Church could not change their form of government due to the ecclesiastical standards of the ancient tradition found in the Prayer Book.  

Conclusion             

Through the exposition of the Scriptures, the witness of Church history and even the Reformers themselves, as well as the lack of applicable ethics that is found within the Presbyterian system, one would think that Presbyterianism would be absorbed by the Episcopal tradition through some sort of adoption.You be the judge. Does the Episcopal Church give up what has clearly been in place for the near entirety of the New Testament Church-age, to a structure that is but only 500 or so years old and continually fragmenting into sects and even cults at an alarming rate ever since its inception (Joseph Smith’s Mormonism is a prime example)? Or should the modern church of Presbyterianism give into at least the basic framework of the Episcopal Church? I know it is not quite as simple as these few sentences, or even this paper, for that matter. But what is ancient and apostolic should not be given over to be destroyed, especially since the early fathers were so adamant about this Episcopes. Modernity will never stop biting at our heals, and if we give into it, it will likely reduce us to a pile of rubble!