THE HISTORIC EPISCOPATE.

Waiapu Church Times, Volume I, Issue 5, 1 November 1907, Page 3

THE HISTORIC EPISCOPATE.

During the recent session of tlie Diocesan Synod, the following resolution was passed unanimously : — ' % That this Synod, recognising the evils that result from religious divisions, and the serious weakening thereby of the Christian Church in her efforts to cope with wide-spread unbelief and indifference, thankfully notes the efforts which are being made in different parts of the world towards bringing about closer union between Christian bodies, and urges upon the members of the Church in this Diocese the need for earnest prayer that the Divine blessing may rest upon the same." This was preceded by a more or less animated discussion, the tone of which throughout was not in any degree unfriendly towards those bodies of Christians which are not in communion with the Church of England ; the " efforts " alluded to in the resolution being spoken of with strong approval. At the same time it was only natural that reference should be made to the resolution of the Lambeth Conference, which suggests, as a basis of union these four points, viz (I)' The Bible; (2) The Apostles' and the Nicene Creed ; (3) The two Sacraments, Baptism and the supper of the Lord ; and (4) The Historic Episcopate. The mere mention .of the Historic Episcopate seems to have stirred the indignation of a Presbyterian minister in the district, from whose pen there appeared shortly afterwards in one of the local newspapers a violent attack upon the Church of England in general, and the Synod of the Diocese of Waiapu in particular. Of the discussion which resulted in the resolution above quoted this gentleman says, " It is a trial of strength between the evangelical party and the priestly party, and the pristly party has prevailed." This, he says a little further on, ''is a party which abjures the word Protestant, disparages the Eefo'rmatrdh; teaches what can' hard-

ly be distinguished from transubstantiation, imitates the ritual and advocates the polity of the Eoman Church." Again, " Its Church principles socalled, though entirely subversive of the Protestant character of the Church, are summed up in the conception, ' the historic Episcopate.' " A marvellous conclusion truly, whether drawn from the resolution passed by the Synod, or from the magic words, " the Historic Episcopate." The Historic Episcopate was much thought of, at all events, by Thomas Cranmer when he wrote, " It is evident, unto all men diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient Authors that, from the Apostles' time, there have been these orders of Ministers in Christ's Church — Bishops, Priests, and Deacons " ; nor did he consider that the Presbyterian polity, as maintained by various bodies of Christians now, was in accordance with what may be gathered from the New Testament writings, for he goes on to say, " to the intent that these orders may be continued and reverently used and esteemed in the Church of England, no man shall bo accounted or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest or Deacon in the Church of England, or suffered to execute any of the said functions, except he be called, tried, examined and admitted thereunto, according to the Form hereafter following," (i.e.! the Ordinal of the Church of England), " or hath had formerly Episcopal Consecration or Ordination." Much importance is attached by the opponents of the Historic Episcopate to the fact, which no one calls in question, that the title ' Bishop ' is apparently given in the New Testament to presbyters. The question, however, is not one of names or titles, but of offices in the Church. We read in the New Testament of the Apostles ordaining elders, and also of other men doing this, who presumably h?id: ;been'empowered by the Apostles to exercise this function ; .tout • nowhere do we read of ordination by_ presbyters alone,: though they : might . concur

in it in a subordinate capacity. Thus St. Paul, writing to Timothy (2 Tim. i., 6) uses these words, " the gift which is in thee by the putting on of my hands," while in another passage (1 Tim. iv., 13) he speaks apparently of the same gift being given " with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery," in which two passages the different prepositions should be noted. Timothy and Titus are both addressed by "St. Paul as having authority to •ordain, and that independently of any presbyters either in Ephesus or Crete, from which it is a legitimate inference that they had been solemnly set apart to that office which we now call Episcopal. It may be inferred also that other men, such as Artemas and Tychicus held the same office, inasmuch as St. Paul contemplated sending one of them to relieve Titus in Crete. It cannot be denied then that, in the time of the Apostles, there were other men, besides the Apostles, who had authority to ordain, which authority was not enjoyed by presbyters in general, and these men were of the same Order as those called Bishops. Another point on which much stress is laid is the assumption that these men, who had authority to ordain, were not restricted in the exercise of their special functions to any particular locality, except perhaps in the case of St. James, who presided over the Church in Jerusalem. This, however, is a matter of organisation, which has proved to be exceedingly convenient, but which makes no difference whatever in the character of the powers exercised by the holders of the office. Since then there were these Orders of Ministers in the time of the Apostles, from which time they have been continued without intermission to the present day, it is not unreasonable that those who have inherited the " Historic Episcopate " should set a high value on it as an Apostolic institution, which prevailed over the whole Church for fifteen centuries, liotwith standing that some other bodies of Christians during the last iowv hundred and fifty, years have forsaken the Apostolic tradition.