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.”[1]