The Hierarchical Bishops Claim Tried at the Scripture-Bar, Part 1 · Chapter 1
CHAP. I. The Doctor's stating of the Question, Examined: Together with his first Argument taken from the Institution of our Saviour.
BEING about to Examin the Pleadings of this Doctor, for the Divine Right of Episcopacy; it is necessary, that we first view how he states the Question. All do know that a right Understanding of the State and Terms of the Question, is indispensibly needful for the Decision of any Controversy. To give then, the state of the Question in the Drs. terms, which he represents in a distinct character page 388. He thus exhibits the Claim of both Parties; having told us, that the Presbyterial and Episcopal, are the two main rival Forms of Church Government, pretending to Divine Institution: The Presbyterian, saith he, is that which is seated in an Equality or Parity of Church Officers: The Episcopal, is that which is placed in a superior Order of Church Officers, called Bishops, to whom the other Orders of Presbyters and Deacons are subject and subordinat. The Latter of which, he undertaks to prove, to be the true form of Government institut by our Saviour: And that 1. from our Saviours Institution. 2. From the Practice of the Holy Apostles. 3. From the punctual Conformity of the Primitive Church to both. 4. From our Saviours declared Allowance and Approbation of the Primitive Practice in this Matter.
First, As to the State of the Question: I find the Dr. doth pitifully prevaricat and mistake his Measures. 1. In representing Presbyterian Government, as consisting in a parity of Church Officers; whereas, it is evident, we own & maintain a Beautiful Subordination, both of Officers and Courts in Church Government; that Parochial Sessions are subordinate to Presbytries; Presbytries to Provincial Synods; Synods in a National Church, to National Assemblies: Thus likewise, we hold the Pastors Office, to be above that of the Ruling Elder; the Ruling Elders Office, above that of the Deacon: Tho upon most solid Grounds, we maintain against Prelatists, an Equality in the Pastoral Office: And that among the New Testament Officers, both Ordinary and Extraordinary, there is a Partity, in their own kind, no Apostle above another, no Evangelist above another (both which Offices taken in a proper formal Sense, we hold to be expired) Thus as to Ordinary Officers, no Pastor above another, nor Elder, &c. 2. He represents Episcopal Government, as feated in a Superior Order of Church Officers, called Bishops, to whom the Orders of Presbyters and Deacons are subject; but doth not particularly condescend upon the Nature of that Superiority, which in stating the question, should have been premised, and whether he understands it of a Superiority Specifical or Gradual, and in Order or Jurisdiction, or both: However, the Dr. in the strain of his Dispute, gives us to understand, that he takes the Superiority of the Bishop, as importing such an Absolut and Essential Interest in Government, as leaves the Pastor nothing but the Doctrinal Key; wherein he disowns Two Points of a Concession, owned by many, if not most Episcopalians: (and in so far discovers the Singularity and Unsoundness of his Pleading) First, That the Bishop, is no Officer, properly or essentially distinct from the Presbyter, but only an Officer made distinct for order of Government: Thus K. Charles I. in his Conference with Mr. Henderson, who certainly had the Sense and Judgment of all the English Episcopal Doctors, at that time: And the present Bishop of Salisbury, in his last Dialogues, authorized by our Episcopal Church, and published in Defence thereof, in K. Charles II. Reign, 4th. Conference, pag. 310, 311. tells us, That he is not clear anent the Notion (as he calls it) of the distinct Offices of Bishop and Presbyter, and acknowledges the Presbyter, to be of the highest Office in the Church, telling us, That the Prelat is but a different Degree in the same Office: And he gives this Reason of his Judgment, That since the Sacramental Actions, are the highest of Sacred Performances, he cannot but acknowledg, that such as are impowered for them, must be of the highest Office in the Church: And thus expresly disowns the Drs. Distinction betwixt a Bishop and a Presbyter, as a meer groundless Notion, and by consequence the whole Foundation of his Pleading. Secondly, Our Scots Episcopalians, and many of the English, plead for such an Episcopal Power, as is managed in conjunction with Presbyters, and profess to own only such a fixed Presidency of the Bishops over the Pastors, in Government, as allows them a Share and Interest therein, and do consequently disown what the Dr. asserts, That the Bishop is the Sole Subject of Government. Let any peruse Bp. Honyman, part 2. Survey of Naph. Bp. Burnet ubi supra, Bp. Lightons Two Letters, in reference to the Case of Accommodation; yea Bp. Hall himself, in the Defence of his Remonstrance, presented to the Parliament of England, against Smectymnuus, printed An. 1641. And this will be convincingly evident, the Bishop, in that Defence, is so angry at the Word Sole, in the Debate about the Bishops Power and Authority in Government, that he desires his Presbyterian Antagonists, to keep their Sole, for the use of their Shoes. It is then clear, that in the State of the Question, or Ground of this Debate, the Dr. is not one with his Fellows, which will be further discovered by Examining the Grounds he walks upon.
The Divine Right of Episcopacy, See page 388, 389, 390, 391.he endeavours, First, to prove by the Institution of our Saviour: And his great Argument is, That Christ in His Lifetime, institut two Orders of Ministers, viz. That of the Apostles, and the Seventy Disciples, whose Office he proves to be subordinat to that of the Apostles, from this Ground, That they are mentioned a part as Distinct, and the Apostles placed first in the Catologue. Eph: 4.11. 1 Cor. 12.28. That the Scripture mentions the Twelve, and the other Disciples distinctly, and the Twelve as Chosen out from among the Disciples, and by this Call and Ordination of Christ, separate to distinct Offices from the Disciples; that the Apostles immediate Successors, were chosen out from the seventy Disciples, for most part: Thus sayes he, Simeon the Son of Cleophas succeeded Iames at Ierusalem; Philip Paul at Caesarea; Clement Peter at Rome, by the Testimony of Dorotheus, Eusebius; And that by the same Testimony of Eusebius, together with Epiphanius and Ierem, Matthias was one of the Seventy, that was Chosen and Ordained by the Apostles, to succeed Iudas in the Apostalate, Acts 1.16. And a Succession saith be, in Office supposes the superior Power in the Person, in whose place another succeeds, and that the person succeeding, had not that Power and Office before his Succession. That these Disciples were instructed with Ministerial Authority, he proves from Luk 10.16. compared with v. 1. where not only we find that our Lord sent them before His Face, but shews that such as heard them, did hear him, &c. As also from this, That Ananias one of them, Baptized Paul. Acts 9.18. Philip, another of them, the Eunuch Acts 8. and also preached the Gospel.
Answer. This Discours and Argument, with reference to the Drs. Scope, with a very ordinary Attention, will appear, to be but a beating of the Air, and to consist of Magisterial Dictates, instead of proof: For First, it is evident, That the generality of all Protestant Divines, and Churches, yea many Episcopalians themselves, do hold that the Office, of Apostles and Evangelists is expired, and died with their Persons, so that neither the one nor the other admitted of a Succession: And indeed the thing it self is evident, and by our Divines proved from the Apostles immediat Mission, unconfined Inspection, extraordinary Gifts, &c. And that the Evangelists Office, did suppose the existant Office of the Apostolate, and did consist in a planetary Motion, to Water where they Planted, and bring Reports of the State of the Churches to the Apostles, and Commissions from the Apostles to the Churches; as they make evident in the many Journies, up and down, of Timothy and Titus, in order to this end. So that upon this Supposition, tho a Subordination were granted; yet if both Offices are expired, it can found no Argument for a Subordination among ordinary Officers, or essentially distinct Orders, in the Pastoral Office, which is the Point he has to prove. This will be convincingly clear, upon Two Grounds. (1.) That the body of all Protestant Divines, do hold, That neither Apostle nor Evangelist, had any fixed Posts or Charges, and so consequently, the one could not Succeed the other therein, nor could any ordinary Officer Succeed either of them, in this their Function. And (2.) That the Office, as well of the one, as the other, was suted to that Infant State and Exigence of the Church; the Apostles Work being to found Churches through the World, to plant the Gospel Government and Officers therein; and the Evangelists Work to Water their Plantations, as is above exprest. And therefore, that State and Exigence of the Church, being gone off, so are these Offices, suted thereunto. And among many other Proofs, I would fain know, what he, or any of his Perswasion, will look upon as the Scope and Intendment of their Gifts recorded in Scripture, viz. Their Gifts of Tongues, Gifts of Healing, raising the Dead, striking with Death, and extraordinary Judgments the Obstinat, as Peter, Ananias and Saphira; Paul, Elim…s the Sorcerer, &c. if not thus to Discriminat their Office. If sutab…e Gifts be the Badg of an Office, as, to be apt to Teach, is of the Pastoral Office, (it being certain that the Gifts and the Work bears a proportion one to another, and the Office has a relation to both) then certainly, Extraordinary Gifts & Works, must be the Badg of that Office, which is Extraordinary: So that the Drs. Proof of fixed, standing, distinct Orders and Degrees among Ordinary Church Officers, from this Instance, is quite overturned, if the Office, either of the Apostles, or of the Seventy be found Extraordinary.
Next, the weakness of the Drs. Proof, further appears, in that, instead of Proving, he takes for Granted without Proof. First, That the Apostles had a Superior distinct Mission, from that of the Seventy; for nothing of his pretended Proofs, give the least shadow of this. The Dr. acknowledges they were sent to Preach, as the Apostles themselves were, and for what appears from Scripture, with the same Authoritative Mission, since the Seventy were sent out after the Twelve, and superadded to them, Luk. 9.1, 2. &c. and 10.1, 2, 3. &c. And for the Point of Succession (of which afterwards) the Dr. affords no shadow of Proof, of either of these Two. (1.) That there were Successors to the Apostles, in their formal Office of Apostolate. (2.) That these his supposed Successors, were of the number of the Seventy Disciples, for which he must offer a Divine Scripture Proof, or he says nothing. Again (in the 3d. place) Tho we should grant to the Dr. that these Seventy were placed in Inferior order to the Twelve Apostles; yet so weak is his Cause and Pleading, that even upon this Supposition, it is utterly lost and ruined, unless he can make it appear, that these Seventy had in their Commission, the Doctrinal Key only, but no interest in the Government, which is his Supposition all along, as to the Pastoral Office. Now, it is evident, beyond contradiction, that all which the Dr. has offered in this Argument, amounts not to the least shadow of a Proof of this point, viz. That the Twelve Apostles were the only Subjects of Church Government, had both the Keys committed unto them only, and that therein the 70 Disciples had no interest, having the Doctrinal Key only intrusted unto them: And therefore this is utterly remote from his Conclusion, viz. That our Lord established such ordinary Officers, as are called Bishops, in a superior order to Pastors, as specifically distinct from them, intrusting the whole Power of Government to the First, as well as the Power of Order, and nothing at all thereof to the Second, but the Doctrinal Key only.
Before I proceed,See pag. 392. let us hear what the Dr. answers to the Objection, taken from the Apostles Extraordinary office: His Answer is, That this is a begging of the question, since we allow that Christ institut the Office, but gave no signification, that it was but for a Season. But First, How comes the Dr. thus to beg the question, in supposing, that we acknowledg our Lord gave no such Signification? He should know that we own, and can make good the contrary: And the current of all Protestant Divines, owning the Apostolick Office, to be extraordinary and expired, must and do by necessary consequence hold, That the Temporary Nature of the Office, hath in the Scripture Accounts thereof, our Lords implicit and consequential Intimation, that the Office was not to Continue, but to Expire with the Persons who carried it. The Dr. may thus prove quidlibet ex quolibet, if allowed to draw a Conclusion from a Concession, which is not ours, but by him falsly imputed to us. Next, the Office it self, in its Nature and End, being, as is said, Temporary (and owned so, by the Body of all our Divines) It necessarly follows, that our Lords Institution, terminat upon and relative to the Office, was likewise thus Temporary, and determined to a certain Season: As under the Law, Gods Institution of Sacrifices and other Levitical Ordinances, being to represent Christs Death, the very Nature of the Institution, did determin the Continuance till Christs coming, and offering Himself, and no longer: As likewise the shadowing Typical Priesthood of Aaron being thus limited, did expire at his Death. Nay, our Lord in commanding His Apostles to Preach to all Nations, to every Creature, and instituting them universal Officers of the whole Catholick Church, in actu exercito, both planted and to be planted, to which they had an immediat Relation, and instructing them, with extraordinary Gifts of Tongues, of Miracles, &c. did thus ex natura rei, and from the Nature of the Institution it self, discover His design, as to the transient Office, thus institut, and that being suted to that Exigence of the Church, it was to pass off with the same. Sure, should a Papist plead for the Perpetuity of Extreme Unction, because of the Apostles anointing with Oyl, or for the continuance of such Gifts, as the Dr. will acknowledg expired, because of our Lords Institution, and giving the Gifts, and no where Intimating that they were to be for a Season, and that these Gifts were joined to the Apostolical Office; he would answer, That the temporary transient Nature of the Gift it self, now comprobat by the Event, discovers the temporary Design thereof, and that it was not to Continue; and that therefore, there was no need, that our Lord should have given such an express Declarator, in the Institution, or Collation of the Gift: Which Answer, he may bestow for us, upon himself, as to the Point in hand.
Again, to discover further the Inconsistency and Self-contradicting Method of his Reasoning upon this Head, let it be enquired what he means by a Successor to the Apostles. If he mean a Succession to their Office, in its Nature and Extent, as delineat in Scripture, then he runs himself into gross Absurdities: For, 1. He must thus hold that our Lord Institut, and that de facto, there succeeded Twelve Patriarchs, with an universal, unconfined Inspection over the whole Catholick Church, to be continued therein, with a Collateral and Equal Power. 2. If he say this (as he needs must, if he speak to the Point, and consequentialy) he will contradict what he asserts of their immediat Successors, from among the 70 Disciples, viz. Simeon Son of Cleophas, his succeeding St. Iames at Ierusalem; Philip, St. Paul at Cesarea; Clement, St. Peter at Rome. For if these Persons succeeded the Apostles in their unconfined Inspection over the whole World, where Churches were planted, or to be planted; how comes he to assign them fixed Stations at Ierusalem, Cesarea, and Rome? If their Ministry was confined to these Posts, how could they succeed the Apostles in their universal Inspection? And consequently how could they succeed them in the Apostolick Office? To say that a Person fixed at such and such Posts, succeeds the Apostolick Office, which was of this universal Extent, makes as good Sense and Harmony, as to say, that the Person, who is installed Dean of Canterburry, succeeds to the Archiepiscopal Chair thereof, and the Metropolitick Office of that Prelat, and his Primacy over England. 3. I would know, whether the Dr. in this Argument from Succession, doth equiparate and make paralel his adduced illustrating Instances, viz. the Succession of Matthias in the place of Iudas, with these other Instances of Simeon, Philip and Clement, at Ierusalem, Cesarea, and Rome? If he do not, then his paralel Argument, as to the Point of Succession, is by his own Confession, like the Legs of the Lame, not equal; it being palpably absurd to prove the Succession by Instances, while the Persons instanced, as succeeding, are not of the same and equal Power and Authority: If he say, That he understands Successors, in the same Apostolick Power; then I would fain know, how he will paralel the Authority of Simeon, with a fixed Post at Ierusalem, Philip at Cesarea, Clement at Rome, with the Succession of Matthias, in the Apostolick Office, by the Divine Appointment, without the least hint of any fixed Station, but with an universal Inspection, as the other Apostles had.
But to proceed to the other Branch of the Dilemma: If he mean by Successors to the Apostles, a Succession in a supposed Superiority over Presbyters, in a certain Precinct, not unto their Office and Authority every way, or with reference either to their Gifts, their immediat Mission, their extensive Authority in the Planting and Watering of Churches (as some Episcopalians, who speak more cautiously than the Dr. do express and limit this Succession) then it is easy, to make good that the Dr. in this Branch of the Answer, is as much in a Premunire, and that his Answer may be easily broken with a Wedg of his own setting, and that his Adversary may easily pull his Spear out of his Hand and Kill him with it▪ For, 1. His Answer to those who alledg the Apostolick Office and Power, to be Temporary as suted to the Necessity and Exigence of that Time, and Case of the Church, without intention of deriving it into a Succession, is, First, That this is said without so much as a plausible colour of Reason:p. 392. And if there be no plausible colour of Reason, in denying a Succession to the Apostolick Office, the Dr. in embracing this Answer, is without all colour of Reason. 2. He tells us, That we acknowledg our Saviour institut the Apostolick Office, and that in His Institution He gave no Intimation, that it was but for a Season, and that thus in calling the Apostolick Office such, we presum to make Christs Institutions Temporary, without producing the Intimations of His Will, and that upon this Ground, we may repeal all Institutions of Christianity. &c. But I pray, whether doth not the Dr. in this Answer, make our Lords Institution of the Apostolick Office Temporary, as in its Nature suited to that Exigence of the Time, and Infant State of the Church? And whether, he is not upon his own Ground, obliged to produce the Intimation of our Lords Will hereanent? And if he cannot produce it, or rather doth hold it clearly intimat in the Nature of the Office it self, then the Dr. must either confess our Exception and Answer to his premised Argument, about a Succession to the Apostles, to be valid and sound, or this his Answer and Evasion to be nought, and that he is therein contradictory to himself, and liable to that Absurdity, wherewith he charges us, viz. Of making temporary, and cassing all our Lords Institutions, and over-ruling the Will of God by arrogant Presumption: Which is the high-flown Imputation, the Dr. puts upon our Answer.
But to bring this Matter to a short Issue, and to strick out the Bottom of his great Notion and Topick. The Power of the Keys, or the Power of Order and Jurisdiction, lying in authoritative Dispensing of Gospel Ordinances, viz. The Preaching of the Word and Administration of the Sacraments, together with the appendent Power of Disciplin and Government, which was the substantial & main Piece of the Apostolick Authority and Office, and to be derived in a Succession, as necessary for the Churches Preservation, in all times; we hold to be seated properly in the Pastoral Office, which succeeds to that of the Apostles, in the respect, and for the end mentioned, and in point of this Authority and Power, we hold, that any Pastor is equal to an Apostle; which, beside many other Reasons, that might be adduced, appears demonstratively, by this Scripture Ground, viz. That it is evident in Scripture, that the Apostles in the first Constitution of Churches, planted Presbyters or Pastors therein, as the highest Ordinary Officers, to feed with the Word and Government, Acts 14.23. Tit. 1.5. with Act. 20.17. 1 Cor. 5.4, 12. v. compared with 2 Cor. 2.6. &c. And not only so, but left these Presbyters or Pastors, as their immediat Successors, committing the whole Government to them, in their last Farewels to the Churches, without the least hint of a Superinstitution of any Officers of an higher Order, Act. 20.17.18.28. 1 Pet. 5.2, 3, 4. compared with 1 Thess. 5.12, 13. &c. Hence it may be thus Argued, These, whom the Apostles placed as Chief, in the first Constitution of the Churches, and left as their immediat Successors, in their last Farewels, which they gave to the Churches, these have no ordinary Officers, superior to them, in the Church, by Divine or Apostolick Warrant: But the Apostles placed first, Presbyters or Pastors, feeding immediatly with the Word, Doctrin and Government, as their proper immediat Successors, and to these they committed the Churches, in their last Farewels: Therefore, the Pastor hath no ordinary superior Officer to him, in Church Government, by Divine or Apostolick Warrant.
Thus, we see the utter Insufficiency of the Drs. Proof, from this Argument, anent the Seventy Disciples, which may save us the labour of pursuing such Advantages, as the Exact and Critical Disputant might have against him, in his way of handling this Argument. It is not clear from his Discourse, whether he place these Seventy Disciples in the Office of Evangelists, or of ordinary Ministers: If he suppose and assert the First, the Strength of his Argument, is sufficiently Refuted, by what is said above: it being palpably absurd, to infer different Degrees of the Pastoral Office, from the Superiority of Apostles to Evangelists. If the Second, the Consequence is as absurd; the many Prerogatives of Apostles above ordinary Pastors, making such an Inference, palpably ridiculous. His Proof of the Succession of these Seventy to Apostles, in their Office, upon which he founds his Assertion of the Subordination of the one to the other, is drawn from the Succession of Simeon to Iames at Ierusalem; Philip to Paul at Cesarea; Clemens to Peter at Rome: In which he palpably falls short, as to two essential Points thereof. 1. He offers no Divine, but an Human Testimony, as to this Matter of Fact, viz. of Dorotheus, Eusebius. 2. He offers no Proof from Scripture, that the Persons instanced, were of those Seventy, mentioned Luk. 10. whom our Lord sent forth after the Twelve Apostles. That the Apostles were chosen from among the Disciples, or that they are first named in the Catalogue of Church Officers Ephes. 4. is a pitiful hungry Proof: For the Dr. will not say, that the Seventy were not also taken from among the number of Disciples, or that all coming under this general Denomination, were Church Officers. And as to the other point of the Nomination of the Apostles first in the Catalogue of Church Officers, even supposing it will import some special Prerogatives of these Twelve, it is utterly remote from proving either, First, that these Seventy might not have been in the character of Evangelists, and consequently had a correspondent Authority, eo nomine: Or Secondly, That supposing them by their Mission, to have had the same extensive Authority with the Twelve Apostles, that the foresaid Prerogatives of Apostles did enervat this their Authority and Commission, which was immediatly from our Lord, as well as that of the Apostles, and in its Nature and Extent, never retracted or limited, for any thing can be seen in Scripture. For what the Dr. objects anent the Superiority of the Apostles over the Seventy, as being in Office, not in Power and Jurisdiction: To which he answers, That the Office including the Power, must import a Superiority in Power. It is, 1. here impertinent to the Purpose and Point, he has to prove: For upon supposition, that both Offices were Extraordinary and Ceast, even admitting a Superiority of Apostles to the Disciples, it will never prove essentially different Degrees in the Pastoral Office, as is said. And 2. Admitting some special Prerogatives, in the Apostolick Office, above that of the Seventy, with a special respect to their Gifts, the Jurisdiction and Power, of both the one and the other, with a general Respect to Church Government, and the great and standing Ends thereof, might notwithstanding be of the same Nature and Extent. It is also here very noticeable, how the Dr. prevaricats, p. 393. and falls off the Hinges of the Point, when he makes it to ly in this, That our Lord appointed a Superiority and Subordination between Ecclesiastick Officers: Which in general, he cannot but know, that Presbyterians do accord unto, since we hold the Pastoral Office, to be above that of the Elder; and that of the Elder, above the Deacon: Whereas, the State of the Question, and the Drs. Undertaking therein, is anent a superior Order of Officers called Bishops, to whom the Order of Pastors is subject and subordinat; or essentially different Functions in the Pastoral Office, or Degrees thereof. Now to prove this special, specifical Subordination instanced, from a Subordination of Ecclesiastick Officers in general, is to argue, a genere ad speciem affirmative. Est animal; Ergo est homo. By which Reasoning, our poorest Tyrones in the Logicks, would thus derid their Fellows (I shall not say the Dr. for good Manners sake) Es animal; Ergo es brutum. And so, I dismiss the Drs. first Argument.