The Remains of John Corbet, Section 9 – Section 13
§ 9. The BISHOPS Plen of being the Apoſtles Succeſſors in their Governing-Power, examined.
THO the Apoſtles in reſpect of that in them, which was common to other officers, call themſelves Presbyters and Miniſters, but never biſhops; yet it is aſſerted by the aſſerters of Prelacy, that biſhops ſuperior to Presbyters are the Apoſtles ſucceſſors, and thereupon have a governing-power over Presbyters. Wherefore the Apoſtles governing-power, and the ſaid biſhops right of ſucceſſion thereunto, is neceſſarily to be conſidered.
As touching this claimed ſucceſſion in the governing power, the defenders of prelacy ſay, that Presbyters, qua Presbyters, ſucceed the Apoſtles in the office of governing. But the Scripture doth not warrant this dividing of the office of teaching and governing. And if the diviſion cannot be proved, in caſe there be a ſucceſſion, it muſt be into the whole, and not into a part; and ſo the Presbyters muſt ſucceed as well in ruling as in teaching: Beſides it hath been already proved, that an authoritative Teacher of the Church is qua talis a Ruler.
The Apoſtles had no ſucceſſors in their ſpecial office of Apoſtleſhip. For not only the unction or qualification of an Apoſtle, but alſo the intire Apoſtolick office as in its formal ſtate or ſpecifick difference, was extraordinary, and expired with their perſons. It was an office by immediate Vocation from Chriſt without the intervention of man by election or ordination, for the authentick promulgation of the Chriſtian Doctrine, and the erecting of the Chriſtian Church throughout the World, which is built on the foundation of their Doctrine, and for the governing of all churches wherever they came; and it eminently contained all the power of ordinary biſhops and paſtors The continuation of teaching and governing in the Church, doth no more prove that the office of teaching and governing in the Apoſtles was quoad formale, an ordinary office, than that the office of teaching and governing in Chriſt himſelf was ſo: But their teaching and governing was by immediate call, and authentick and uncontrolable, and therefore extraordinary. And I do not know that the biſhops ſay they are Apoſtles, tho they ſay they are the ſucceſſors of the Apoſtles.
Moreover in proper ſpeaking, the ordinary biſhops or elders cannot be reckoned the ſucceſſors of the Apoſtles, for they were not ſuccedaneous to them, but contemporary with them from the firſt planting of churches, and did by divine right receive and exerciſe their governing-power. And the biſhops or elders of all ſucceeding ages are properly the ſucceſſors of thoſe firſt biſhops or elders, and can rightfully claim no more power than they had.
Nevertheleſs let the Apoſtles governing power be inquired into, as alſo what intereſt the biſhops of the Hierarchical ſtate have therein. And in this query it is to be conſidered; That the Presbyters, whom the Apoſtles ordained and governed, were biſhops both in name and thing, and conſequently their example of ordaining and ruling ſuch Presbyters, is not rightly alledged to prove that biſhops as their ſucceſſors have an appropriated power of ordaining and ruling Presbyters of an inferior order, which in Scripture times were not in being. Further it is to be conſidered; Whether the ſaid governing-power were only a ſupereminent authority which they had as Apoſtles, and infallible, and to whom the laſt appeals in matters of religion were to be made; or an ordinary governing power over the Churches, and the biſhops or elders thereof. I conceive it moſt rational to take it in the former ſenſe: For we find that the ordinary ſtated government of particular Churches was in the particular Biſhops or Elders, and we find not that any of the Apoſtles did take away the ſame from them, or that it was ſuperceded by their preſence, or that they reſerved to themſelves a negative voice in the government of the Churches.
Now if their governing power were only the ſaid ſupereminent Apoſtolick authority, they had no ſucceſſors therein; and tho teaching and ruling be of ſtanding neceſſity, and conſequently of perpetual duration in the Church, yet there is no ſtanding neceſſity of that teaching and ruling as taken formally in that extraordinary ſtate and manner as before expreſſed.
But if they exerciſed an ordinary governing-power over the Churches and biſhops to be continued by ſucceſſion, ſuch kind of Biſhops, over whom that power was exerciſed, cannot claim a right of ſucceſſion into the ſame; but they muſt be officers of an higher orb. Conſequently if the Hierarchical Biſhops claim the right of ſucceſſion to the Apoſtles in their governing-power, they muſt needs be of a higher orb than the firſt Biſhops of particular Churches over whom that power was exerciſed: And if this Hypotheſis of the Apoſtles having an ordinary governing-power over the Churches and Biſhops, do ſufficiently prove the right of the ſucceſſion of Biſhops of a higher orb in the ſame power, I ſhall not oppoſe it; But only I take notice, that theſe higher Biſhops are not of the ſame kind with thoſe firſt biſhops that were under that governing power, and of which we read in Scripture.
That the Apoſtles ſhould be Dioceſan Biſhops was not conſiſtent with their Apoſtolick office, being a general charge extending to the Church univerſal. That any Apoſtle did appropriate a Dioceſs to himſelf, and challenge the ſole Epiſcopal authority therein, cannot be proved. The ſeveral Apoſtles for the better carrying on of the work of their office, did make choice of ſeveral regions, more eſpecially to exerciſe their function in. There was an agreement that Peter ſhould go to the Circumciſion, and Paul to the Uncircumciſion: But as it doth not hence follow that Peter was a fixed Biſhop of the Jews, and Paul of the Gentiles, no more were any of the Apoſtles fixed Biſhops in thoſe places where they were more eſpecially imployed, and we know that they made frequent removes.
§. 10. Of the Epiſcopacy of Timothy and Titus.
THE Name of Biſhop is not given either to Timothy or Titus, except in the Poſtſcripts of the Epiſtles. But thoſe Poſtſcripts are taken for no part of Canonical Scripture. For if they were free from the objected Errors about the places from which the Epiſtles were written, they cannot in reaſon be ſuppoſed to be Pauls own words, and written by him when the Epiſtles were written.
Moreover the travels of Timothy and Titus do evidently ſhew, that they were not dioceſan biſhops, nor the ſetled Overſeers of particular churches.
And thoſe paſſages 1 Tim. 1.3. I beſought thee to abide ſtill at Epheſus; and Tit. 1.5. For this cauſe I left thee in Crete, ſhew an occaſional and temporary employment. And whatſoever ſtreſs may be laid upon theſe texts to prove they were biſhops of thoſe places, yet they do not ſound like the fixing of them each in their proper dioceſs.
The name of an Evangeliſt is expreſly given to one of them, 2 Tim. 4.5. and the work enjoined both of them, and accordingly performed by them, being throughout of the ſame kind, there is all reaſon to believe that they had the ſame kind of office.
Now by ſeveral texts of Scripture compared together, we find the work of Evangeliſts to be partly ſuch as belonged to the Apoſtles, whoſe Agents or Adjuncts they were; and partly ſuch as was common to Paſtors and Teachers, whoſe office was included in theirs. Their work in common with the Apoſtles, was the planting and ſetling of churches, by travelling from place to place; and in this regard they have been well called Apoſtles of the Apoſtles. And in doing this Vice-apoſtolick ſervice, they did alſo that which was common to paſtors and teachers, in teaching and ruling, but with this difference, that the ordinary paſtors did it ſtatedly in thoſe churches where they were fixed; but theſe tranſiently in ſeveral churches, which they were ſent to erect or eſtabliſh, or to ſet things in order therein, as the Apoſtles ſaw need.
Or if Timothy and Titus were not in an office eſſentially divers from the ordinary paſtors and teachers; yet they were in extraordinary ſervice, as being the Apoſtles Agents, and being in that capacity, might have their intrinſick ſpiritual power enlarged to a greater extent, and higher pitch of exerciſe than the ordinary Miniſters. Howbeit I rather judg that they had an office ſpecifically different from that of the ordinary paſtors, becauſe in the enumeration of the ſeveral ſacred offices, Paul mentions the office of an Evangeliſt as a diſtinct kind from the reſt.
But if it can be proved that the Superiority of Timothy and Titus over biſhops or elders of particular churches, was not as they were the Apoſtles aſſiſtants, or as extraordinary and temporary officers, but as ordinary ſuperiors, it will indeed follow that Archbiſhops, or biſhops of biſhops, are of divine Right. Nevertheleſs the Epiſcopal authority of biſhops or presbyters of particular churches (ſuch as the Scripture-biſhops were) remains unſhaken.
§ 11. Of the Angels of the Churches.
ANother allegation for the divine right of biſhops of an higher order than presbyters, is from the Angels of the ſeven Churches, Apoc. 1. and 2. To which many things are ſaid by thoſe of the other perſuaſion; As, that thoſe Angels are not called Biſhops, nor any where implied to be biſhops in the preſent Vulgar ſenſe of the word: That the denomination of Angels and Stars in the judgment of ancient and modern Writers, do belong to the Miniſters of the Word in general: That in myſterious or prophetick Writings, and Viſional Repreſentations, a number of things or perſons is uſually expreſſed by ſingulars; and that it is very probable, that the term Angel is explained under that plurality you, diſtinguiſhed from the reſt, Apoc. 2.24. but to you and the reſt in Thyatira, &c. and to be a collective name expreſſing all the Elders of that church.
Alſo ſome obſerve, that it might be expreſſed in the ſame manner as Gods providence in the adminiſtration of the World by Angels is expreſſed, wherein one being ſet as chief over ſuch a countrey, the things which are done by many, are attributed to one Angel preſident.
It is further to be conſidered, that in the church of Epheſus, one of the ſeven, the Scripture makes mention of many biſhops, who were no other than presbyters, Acts 20.28. Againſt this ſome ſay, That the Elders there mentioned, were not the presbyters of the church of Epheſus, but the biſhops of Aſia then gathered together at Epheſus, and ſent for by Paul to Miletum. But 1. This is affirmed altogether without proof. 2. The text ſaith, Paul ſent from Miletum to Epheſus to call the elders of the church, which in rational interpretation muſt be the Elders of the church to which he ſent. 3. If the biſhops of all Aſia had been meant, it would have been ſaid the Elders of the churches. For in Scripture, tho we find the Chriſtians of one city called a church, yet the Chriſtians of a Region did ever make a plurality of churches, as the churches of Judea, the churches of Galatia, and the churches of Aſia. 4. There is not the leaſt hint given of the meeting of the biſhops of Aſia at Epheſus, when Paul ſent for the elders of the Church. 5. The aſſerters of prelacy hold that Timothy was the firſt biſhop of Epheſus; now Paul did not ſend for him, for he was already preſent with him, and accompanied him in his travels: Nor did he commit the charge of the church to him, but to the Elders that were ſent for. 6. It could not be the ſence of the church of England, that thoſe Elders who are declared to be biſhops, were biſhops in the Vulgar meaning of the word, when ſhe appointed that portion of Scripture to be read at the ordination of Presbyters, to inſtruct them in the nature and work of their Office.
Some ſay, That by the Angel of the church is meant the Moderator or Preſident of the Presbytery, who might be either for a time, or always the ſame perſon; and the Epiſtle might be directed to him in the ſame manner as when the King ſends a Meſſage to the Parliament, he directs it to the Speaker. Now ſuch a Moderator or Preſident makes nothing for biſhops of a higher order than Presbyters.
§ 12. A further Conſideration of the Office of an EVANGELIST, and of a general Miniſter.
COncerning the Office of Evangeliſts, ſuch as Timothy and Titus, the query is, Whether it was temporary or perpetual. An eminent Hierarchical Divine, ſaith, That Evangeliſts were Preſbyters of principal ſufficiency, whom the Apoſtles ſent abroad, and uſed as Agents in Eccleſiaſtical Affairs, wher…ver they ſaw need. Now this deſcription doth not make them of a ſpecifically different Order from the ordinary presbyters, and it ſeems to confine their Miniſtry to the Apoſtles times. Grotius ſaith, they were presbyters tyed to no place, and that many ſuch Evangeliſts were ordained long after; and thereupon concludes, that not to ordain without a title to ſome particular place, is not of divine right.
Indeed if the office of an Evangeliſt be no other than that of a general Miniſter, or a presbyter tyed to no place, it ſeems not only to have been requiſite in the Apoſtles times, but to be of ſtanding conveniency, if not of neceſſity in the church And his not being limited to one church, is but the extending of the common office of a presbyter or biſhop, and not the making of a new office. For this more extenſive power of a general Miniſter, is only the having of that in ordinary exerciſe, which, every Miniſter hath in actu primo, by vertue of his relation to the Catholick church (in which Teachers and Paſtors are ſet, 1 Cor. 12.28.) and into which his miniſterial acts of teaching and baptizing have influence; yea, which he hath by vertue of his relation to Chriſt as a ſteward to an houſholder in his Family, and as a delegate to the chief paſtor for the calling of the unconverted, as well as for the confirming of Converts. Now the more or leſs extenſive exerciſe of an Office, is a matter of humane prudence, and variable according to time and place.
But that a general Miniſter be of a higher order than fixed biſhops or presbyters, is not of ſtanding or perpetual neceſſity. Nor is it always neceſſary that he be in a ſtate of ſuperintendency over them. Nevertheleſs, if a ſuperintendency be granted to him by the conſent of the churches and paſtors, for the common good, or by the Magiſtrate, as to his delegate in his authority in Eccleſiaſtical affairs, I cannot condemn it, but rather judg that it may be ſometimes not only expedient, but neceſſary. Yet it is not of divine right, but of prudential determination.
§ 13. A further Conſideration of the Angels of the Churches, and of a Preſident biſhop.
AS touching the Angel of a Church, it being a myſtical expreſſion in a myſtical book, it may be rationally queſtioned, Whether it be meant of one perſon, or of a number of Colleagues; as may appear by what hath been already noted. But if it be meant of one perſon, it is not neceſſarily to be underſtood of one that is the ſole paſtor and biſhop of a Church. Nay, by what hath been already noted, it may with as great, if not greater probability, be underſtood of a Prefident biſhop, who is not of a ſuperior order to the reſt of the biſhops, but the firſt or chief in degree of the ſame order, and like the Moderator of an Aſſembly, a Chair-man in a Committee, and Mayor in a Court of Aldermen.
And for ſuch a preſidency, there needs no divine inſtitution, it being not a holy order or office of a different ſpecies from that of the reſt of the Paſtors, but a priority in the ſame office for orders ſake: For it is orderly and convenient, that where there are many Presbyters or elders of a particular Church, that for concords ſake they conſent that one that is ableſt among them ſhould ſtatedly have a guiding power among them in the ordering of Church-affairs.