LECT. VI.] PRELACY OVERTHROWN BY SCRIPTURE. 133 which such claims are based. But in canvassing the scriptural title of this doctrine of prelatic succession, which is made to supersede and to overthrow every other, we cannot be expected to discover any such scripture proofs for its support, when even our opponents have failed to produce them from the divine. record. On the contrary, as has been already seen, but little pretension has been made, by the ablest defenders of this system, to any thing like an express divine warrant. As, therefore, those particular passages which are adduced in refutation of the claims of presbyters, and in substantiation of those of prelates, will be more fitly considered when we are prepared to advance our own demands, we will in this lecture present some general considerations, by which we would hope to show, that this entire scheme is most gratuitously ascribed to God's holy word. Now, that we may not unnecessarily prolong this discussion, we would remark, that it has been fully and elaborately shown, by a recent and very learned episcopal writer of the evangelical school, that this whole system of high-church prelacy, and this exclusive claim to apostolical descent in particular, is in direct 1) That prelatists can make some show of scripture proof, and appear to rest upon it as authority, is nothing to the point, since, as Dr. Bowden allows, (Wks. on Epis. vol. i. p. 109,) "it is scarcely possible to produce texts of scripture for any point whatever, that may not be obscured by plausible objections. Ingenuity is never at a loss; and when it is excited to exertion by prejudice, and by an attachment to a particular hypothesis, it is extremely difficult to diminish its vigor, and to divest it of all its subterfuges." "They cannot, however, prove," says Dr. Mitchell, in his Letters to Bishop Skinner, (p. 85,) "that any subordination, implying authority on the one hand and subjection on the other, existed among christian ministers in the apostolic church; nor can they find their three orders among the offices instituted by the apostles. Hence, lest the exhibition of the three orders, consisting of our Lord himself, his apostles, and the seventy, should not put to silence all gainsayers, they have recourse to the following curious stratagem. They fix upon a passage, in which Paul enumerates eight different orders of ecclesiastical officers, who were all supernaturally endowed and set in the church, not by the apostles, who were them- "I have looked over antagonism to the whole spirit and genius of our Lord's teaching. This heavy charge he substantiates by an examination of several of the most prominent of our Lord's parables and predictions. The same conclusion he has also drawn from an extensive induction of particulars in the Book of Acts, the first and the only inspired record of the early church; and in which, if any where in scripture, these doctrines must have been fully brought out. It is unnecessary for us, as this work has been republished, and is in circulation among us, to enter at length into this same argument. We would, however, call attention to a few remarks. When prelatic writers quote in proof of their exclusive powers such passages of scripture as these,-"as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you"-"I am with you always, even unto the end of the world"-"I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed me," it is sufficient to reply, that their applicability depends on the assumption as true, of the very question in dispute; and that they can have no pertinency whatever, as an argument in favor of prelates, until the appointment of such an order of ministers, as of permanent and necessary standing in the church, has been otherwise made plain. Until this is done, we claim all such passages, in all the fulness of their meaning, for the ministry of the church in 3 1) See Ancient Christianity, vol. i. See also Potter on Ch. Govt., pp. 124, 125, who explains the parables as referring to church offices while there is manifestly no allusion to different orders, but to one only. 2) See Percival on the Apost. Succ. p. 61. 3) Paley, after quoting these very passages, (as my Father hath sent, &c.,) adds: (Works, vol. vi. p. 91,) "These are all general directions, supposing, indeed, the existence of a regular ministry in the church, but describing no specific order of preeminence or distribution of office and authority. If any other instances can be adduced more circumstantial than these, they will be found, like the appointment of the seven deacons, the collections for the saints, the laying by in store upon the first day of the week, to be rules of the society, rather than laws of the religion-recommendations and expedients fitted to the state of the several churches by those who then administered the affairs of them, rather than precepts delivered with a solemn design of fixing a constitution for succeeding ages. "I have been sometimes disposed to think," says Dr. Mitchell in his Letters to Bishop Skinner, (p. 87,) "that 'Lo, I am with you always unto the end of the world,' means, 'I will never cease to support the religion which I have commissioned you to publish;' and that it is parallel to the promise which follows: 'On this rock will I build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it' and that both promises refer rather to the stability and duration of the religion itself, than to those of the highest order of its ministers. I was the more confirmed in this opinion, by having read that christianity has subsisted in some places, and even flourished, independently of diocesan bishops. But it seems I have been in a mistake. Both the passages referred to, must relate to the duration of episcopacy, till the heavens and earth fly away: so that 'On this rock will I build my church' must signify, 'On this rock will I LECT. VI.] UNIVERSALITY OF PRESBYTERY. 135 general. And since it is not disputed that presbyters were divinely instituted as a perpetual order in the christian ministry; while for the order of prelates, we boldly deny that there is any warrant from God; therefore do we appropriate these glorious declarations-until wrested from them by well-grounded assurance to the order of presbyters. It is "indeed," says Dr. Mitchell, in his Letters to Bishop Skinner, "an apostolic precept, which our vindicator does not suffer us to forget-'obey them that have rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give an account.' But the obedience and submission here enjoined, of whatever nature they may be, are exacted from the people to their pastors, not from one order of ecclesiastics to another. Nay, I can produce some passages in which all christians, both pastors and people, are commanded to 'be subject to one another, and to submit themselves one to another, in the fear of God.' But I have not met with a passage, which says either explicitly, or by implication, 'presbyters and deacons, obey them that have the rule over you, for they watch for your souls.' When high-church shall show me a passage to this purpose, I shall acknowledge that her divine model, like the image of the great goddess Diana, and the Paladium of Troy, undoubtedly fell down from Jupiter." It is certainly very remarkable, that we may apply to presbyters the words of Jablonski, as quoted by Mr. Percival, and which he applies to prelates,2 "that there is no doctrine or tenet of the christian religion, in which all christians in general have, for the space of eighteen hundred years, so unanimously agreed, as in this of 'presbytery, as being a certain and necessary order of the christian ministry."" "In all ages and times down from the apostles, and in all places through Europe, Asia, and Africa, wheresoever there were christians, there were also presbyters; and even where christians differed in other points of doctrine build the episcopate,' and presbyterians and independents 'shall not prevail against it.'" We will here present also the judgment of Archbishop Usher, as given by Dr. Bernard, (Certain Discourses by the late Archbishop of Armagh, Lond., 1657, p. 157.) "That last speech of our Saviour, (Matt. xxviii., Lo I am with you, &c.,) cannot be limited to the persons of the apostles, (with whose deaths these administrations did not expire,) but must be understood collectively of the whole body of the ministry, then, as it were, in their loins who should or custom, and made schisms and divisions in the church, yet did they all remain unanimous in retaining their presbyters.' As there is this universal consent as it regards the order of presbyters, while for the order of prelates, as held forth in this doctrine of prelatical succession, there can be given no proof either from holy writ, or the earliest ages,2-then surely these 1) Dr. Edwards, a very learned divine of the reign of Queen Anne, (Theolog. Reformat. vol. i., p. 523,) after a careful examination of the several texts bearing on the subject, draws the following conclusion: "Thus we can show the time when WE ARE SURE THERE was a PRESBY TERY; but we CAN'T say THERE was EPISCOPACY at THAT time in the CHURCH. This is owned by some of the most celebrated writers of our church; and even Mr. Dodwell, who was thought by his friends to be as able a defender of episcopacy as any they had, confesses there were no such fixed rulers as bishops in the church at first. (De Jure Leic. cap. 3, § 14.) Dr. Whitby shows the same, and is large in the proof of it, (Ann. on 1 Thess. ch. 5.)" Dr. Edwards then goes on to chastise a confident braggadocio, the author of the "Rehearsal," and asks, "Where, then, is our great boaster, who challenges all mankind to prove that presbyters were before bishops? Is it not plain, from all the afore cited scriptures, viz., Acts xi. 29, 30; Acts xiv. 23; Acts xv. 2, 4, 6, 22, 23; Acts xvi. 4; Acts xx. 17, 28, and Titus, i. 5; James, v. 4; 1 Pet. v. 1; and the suffrage of episcopal writers themselves, that presbyters had the start of bishops, whatever this pretender makes a show of, and notwithstanding his telling us, that this is the single point, on which the whole controvery depends? If it be so, he must own himself baffled, and all his pretensions are empty and insignificant." See also note C. 2) "As for those proofs," says Mr. Baynes, in his Diocesan's Tryall, Lond. 1621, p. 45,) "that bishops have been, throughout all churches from the beginning, they are weak. For first, the council of Nice useth аπ alxns, not simpliciter, but secundum quid, in order happily to that time wherein the custom began, which was better known to them than to us; the phrase is so used, Acts xv. 8, in respect to some things which had not continued many years. They cannot mean the apostles' times, for then metropolitans should have actually been from the apostles' time. Secondly, the phrase of the council of Ephesus is likewise equivocal; for they have reference to the fathers of Nice, or at least the decrees of the fathers, who went before the council of Nice. For, those words being added definitiones Nicenae fidei, seem to explain the former, canones apostolorum. It is plain, the decree of the council doth ascribe this thing only to ancient custom no less than that of Nice, Constantinople, and Chalcedon; and, therefore, cannot rise to the authority of sacred scriptures. Let him show, in all antiquity, where sacred scriptures are called canons of the apostles. Finally, if this phrase note rules given by the apostles, then the apostles themselves did set out the bounds of Cyprus and Antioch. for the authority of Cyprian, he doth testify what was communicated in his time, bishops ordained in cities; not universaliter, as if there were no city, but had some. Secondly, he speaketh of bishops who had their churches included in cities, not more than they might meet together in one, to any common deliberations. They had no diocesan churches, nor were bishops who had majority of rule over their presbyters, nor sole power of ordination. As for the catalogue of succession, it is pompae aptior quam pugnae; Rome can recite their successors. But because it hath no bishops, ergo, æcumenical bishops, is no consequence. All who are named bishops in the catalogue were not of one cut, and in that sense we controvert." As "Now as to the business in hand," says Bishop Croft, in his Naked Truth, or the True State of the Primitive Church, (Scott's Coll. of Tr. vol. vii., p. 302,) "I cannot yield, that the scripture is very doubtful in it, or scarce doubtful at all; for, though in scripture it is not in ter LECT. VI.] CHRIST'S CONDEMNATION OF PRELACY. 137 and all similar passages, must be understood of presbyters, and must be considered as conclusive warrant for their divine prerogatives. According to the plain and evident meaning of his words, our Lord Jesus Christ expressly denounces this system of prelatical supremacy, in its embryo spirit, when he told his disciples-"ye know that they who are accounted to rule over the Gentiles, exercise lordship over them, and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it be among you." (Mark x. 42, 43.) For, in making their ambitious request, the sons of Zebedee desired not merely an elevated post of honor, but such an one as would exalt them above their brethren. It was the desire of official pre-eminence, and a higher rank and order in the arrangements of their fondly imagined hierarchy, which our Saviour so severely rebuked, when he told them, that among the rulers of his spiritual kingdom-the ministers of his church,-there should be no such distinctions of rank, all being of one order, and equal in power.1 To strengthen this conviction in their minds, our Lord presented to them his own example, saying, "For even the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister." So, also, when the disciples had contended among themselves who should be greatest, (see Mark ix. 33-37,) that is, who should be first amongst the apostles, in their expectation of the speedy establishment of his kingdom, our Lord "checked their ambitious designs," by the declaration, "He that is greatest among you," in his own ambitious aspirations, "let him be as the younger. minis said, presbytery and episcopacy are both one and the same order, yet the same circumstantial expressions are (as I have showed) so strong and many, that they are equivalent to a clear expression in terminis. Secondly. This is not a matter of any indifferency, but of vast and dangerous consequence, if mistaken. That a church without such bishops as you require, cannot be truly called a church, and so we shall exclude many godly reformed churches; for if bishops be of such a superior, distinct order as you pretend, if the power of ordination be inherent in them only; then, where no bishop, no true priests ordained; where no priests, no sacraments; where no sacraments, no church. Wherefore I humbly beseech you, be not too positive in this point, lest thereby you do not only condemn all the reformed churches, but the scrip ture and St. Paul also." See their alleged distinctions between bishops and presbyters, largely confuted in the Altare Damascenum Davidis Calderwood, p. 149-190, &c., and cap. 4. p. 86-143. 1) The Rev. T. H. Horne, prebendary of St. Paul's, says: "Jesus Christ prohibited all disputes concerning rank and pre-eminency in his kingdom." "Ye know," says he, "that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you; but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant.' Matt. xx. 25-27. 2) Hinds' Family Lecturer, Oxford, 1829, p. 127. 3) See ibid., p. 128. |