§ 7. This view of the apostolic churches confirmed by prelatists themselves. It is universally conceded by all antiquity, that all things in the ancient church were ordered and transacted by the general consent of presbyters. This position is established at great length by Mr. Thorndike,1 and by bishop Stillingfleet, who says, 'there was still one ecclesiastical senate which ruled all the several congregations of the cities in common, of which the several presbyters of the congrega. tions were members, and in which the bishop acted as president of the senate. Archbishop Usher testifies to the same thing; 'of the many presbyters,' says he, 'who in common thus ruled the church of Ephesus, there was one president, whom our Saviour in his epistle unto this church, in a peculiar manner, styleth the angel of the church.'3 I maintain,' says Saravia, certainly one of the most learned and judicious of the defenders of prelacy, 'that there is one order of all bishops; only there is an inequality of provinces, and a diversity of degrees.'4 'The Institution of a Christian Man,' which was approved by the king, and twenty-one archbishops and bishops, in 1537, most fully warrants our conclusion, that the power of jurisdiction belongs, 'BY GOD'S LAW,' to presbyters. In treating of the sacrament of orders,' it holds this language. 'Forasmuch as after the mind of certain doctors of the church, this whole power and authority belonging unto priests (presbyters) and bishops, (presbyters are named first, as being the generic order,) is divided into two parts, whereof the one is called protestas ordinis, and the other is called protestas jurisdictionis; and forasmuch, also, as good consent. and agreement hath alway been in the church, concerning the said first part, and contrary, much controversy for this other part of jurisdiction; we think it convenient, that all bishops and preachers shall instruct and teach the people committed unto their charge, that the jurisdiction COMMITTED UNTO PRIESTS (presbyters) and bishops, BY THE AUTHORITY OF GOD'S LAW, (and not, therefore, by any ecclesiastical license or custom,) consisteth in three special points. The first is, to rebuke and reprehend sin, and to excommunicate 1) Prim. Govt. of the Ch. 2) Iren. pp. 354-356. 3) Reduction of Episc. 4) Defens. p. 286, in Baxter on Episc. p. 47. the manifest and obstinate sinners, &c.1 The second point wherein consisteth the jurisdiction committed unto priests and bishops, by the authority of God's law, is, to approve and admit such persons, as being nominated, elected, and presented unto them, to execute the office and room of preaching the gospel, and of ministering the sacraments, and to have the care of jurisdiction over these certain people, within this parish, or within this diocese, who shall be thought unto them meet and worthy to exercise the same; and to reject and repel from the said room, such as they shall judge to be unmeet therefor,2 &c. The third point is, to make and ordain certain rules or canons, concerning holy days, fasting days, the manner and ceremonies to be used in the ministration of the sacraments, THE DIVERSITY OF DEGREES AMONG THE MINISTRY,' &c.3 Thus manifest is it, that the church of England, in her first reformation, did authoritatively set forth the great presbyterian principle, that, by authority of God's word, there is but one order of ministers, called indifferently presbyters and bishops, and that to these presbyters was committed the whole power of the church, both as it regards ordination and jurisdiction. This latter power was also continued in the English church, in the common usage of the ecclesiastical courts, in which a presbyter is appointed to denounce the sentence of excommunication, though the chancellor decrees it. Nor is this excommunication complete, till a presbyter has denounced it in the congregation. In the form of their ordination also, until the year 1662, this power was formally committed to presbyters.5 § 8. This view of the apostolic churches explains all the difficulties thrown in our way by prelatists. We have dwelt at such length upon this position, because we regard it as of primary importance in this controversy. This view of the primitive order of the church, will at once account for all subsequent changes; meet all the difficulties of the case; and resolve all the problems which are proposed. Thus, when prelatists draw out their lists and catalogues of successive bishops, in the several apostolic churches, we find them at once, so far as they are credible, in these presidents, who 1) See this point fully dwelt on, at p. 108. 2) See this point fully dwelt on, at pp. 109, 110. 3) Ibid, at pp. 110, 111-123. the civil powers, certain other ministers, or officers, who should have certain power,' &c., enumerating every ministerial function, p. 101. 5) See Corbet on the Church, pp. 45, 46, would naturally constitute the individual representatives of their brethren and contemporaries. In later times, when there were several congregations in the same presbytery, the president was made pastor of the ecclesia principalis, the avertin καθεδρα, which was ιδιος θρονος his peculiar throne, and thus would he in every way shine forth among the other stars, as the most eminent and brilliant. But, even then, these presidents were eminent only as the first in rank among their colleagues in the same order and office, just as were archdeacons among the deacons, archpresbyters among the presbyters, archbishops among the bishops, and patriarchs among the archbishops. Thus, also, among the archontes at Athens, while all were equal in power, yet was one called archon, by way of eminence. His name alone was inserted in the public records of that year, which was reckoned from him. And so also, was it among the five ephori at Sparta, of whom, in like manner, one was chosen as president, and actually denominated лоeσtos, as Plutarch informs us. So that a succession of single persons named above the rest in the apostolic churches, would never prove that they were any other than what we have described the лQоεσTTEс or presidents of the churches, especially, as this title is given to presbyters as well as bishops, even by Cyprian himself.4 6 Again, when prelatists taunt us with the evident existence of diocesan prelacy at an early period, we find its origin in the corruption and abuse of this apostolic presbyterianism, or parochial episcopacy.5 For,' says the learned Whitaker, the darling of the church of England, 'as at the first one presbyter was set over the rest of the presbyters and made a bishop; so afterwards one bishop was set over the rest of the bishops. And thus that custom hatched the pope with his monarchy, and by degrees brought him into the church.'" 'It was the judgment of her founders, (that is, of the church of England,) PERHAPS UNANIMOUSLY, but at all events generally, that the bishop of the primitive church was merely a presiding elder; a presbyter ruling over presbyters; identical in order and commission; superior only in degree and authority.'7 1) Baxter, as above, pp. 108, 109, and auth. there. 2) See Henderson's Rev. and Consid. p. 336, &c. 3) See Stillingfleet, Iren. p. 301. 4) See Ep. 15 and 21, and Boyse's Anct. Episc. pp. 270, 271. 5) Mr. Goode, in his Div. Rule of Faith, vol. ii. pp. 62, 63, and 65, offers no other proof for prelacy than this admitted presidency among the pres byters, and thus begs the whole question. He is ignorant enough, also, to adduce Calvin, Grotius, Bucer, and others, as favoring prelacy, because they approved of this episcopacy, pp. 66, 67, and 68. 6) Quæst. De Pontif. Rom. i. cap. 3, § 29, in Jameson, Cyp. Isot. p. 281. 7) Essays on the Church, p. 251, by an Episcopalian. § 9. Proofs from the fathers, that presbyters possess the power of discipline and excommunication, the highest acts of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and the power generally. As it regards the power of discipline, and of excommunication, Theodoret describes poorαoia, jurisdiction, as belonging to every presbyter, he having the government of the church; and in the exercise of it often grieving delinquents, they being ill-affected to him, will be apt to bring false accu sations.'1 Jerome, though a presbyter, distinctly claims the power of excommunication.2 He asserts that it belongs to presbyters to deliver the offender to Satan by excommunica tion.3 Chrysostom, while a presbyter, threatened some of his auditory with excommunication.4 Justinian, as late as the sixth age, plainly teaches, in his constitutions, that presbyters might excommunicate.5 Hilary, the deacon, on Eph. 4: 2, says, that presbyters ordain, (consignant,) or, as Mr. Palmer would translate it, confirm in the bishop's absence,' 'for both are priests.' And this privilege still remains a part of the power of presbyters, throughout the eastern churches. Tertullian says, 'the presbyters have the charge of excommunication and censures.' He also teaches, that the presidents who bear rule are certain approved elders, (presbyters,) who have obtained this honor not by reward but by good report;' who were no other, according to archbishop Usher, than those from whose hands they used to receive the sacrament of the eucharist.' As it regards this power, generally, we know that presbyters alone have governed the church of Rome for years together, when it had no bishop; that presbyters sat regularly in the provincial, and in many cases in the general councils, also; and that they did not sit always in the latter, because, as Dr. Field says, it was necessary to limit the number of members.10 Hence, presbyters are still mem 420. 6 6) Palmer on the Ch. vol. ii. p. 7) In Rutherford's Plea, p. 17. 8) Reduction of Episc. in Jameson's Cyp. p. 450. 9) See instances in Baxter on Episc. part ii. p. 107 ; and Blondel, § 3, pp. 183, 184. 10) See examples, in Baxter on Episc. part ii. pp. 110, 113, 115; and Blondel, § 3, pp. 202-207; and Dr. Field on the Ch. lib. v. ch. xxvii. and bers of the convocation, with full power to vote and deliberate, and are in many other ways recognised as inherently possessing this power of jurisdiction.1 Polycarp exhorts the Philippians, 'to submit themselves to the presbyters and deacons, as to Christ.' Irenæus, his disciple, admonishes the faithful of the same duty.? Tertullian we have already examined. Ignatius commits the government of the church to ‘a senate of pastors or presbyters, who,' as Usher declares, 'then had a hand, not only in the delivery of the doctrine and sacraments, but also in the administration of the discipline of Christ. Origen and Ruffinus compare the presbytery to the senate of a city; Cyprian and Firmilianus ascribe to them, and the other officers, the power of the keys. So also, according to Socrates, says the Nicene Council.5 Clemens Alexandrinus places discipline in the hands of the presbyters." Augustine and Gregory, both give the power of censures to presbyters." Quotations to the same effect from Dionysius Alexandrinus, Ambrose, Jerome, Chrysostom, Eusebius, Zonaras, Theodoret, and Nazianzen, may be seen in Ruther ford, who also proves that this was the doctrine of the Waldenses, and of the reformers.9 Before leaving the subject, however, we would adduce one example of the practical exercise of this power by presbyters, as late as the third age, and as it is recorded by Epiphanius, one of the most arrogant of the prelatic fathers. It will, from this history, be made clear, that, even then, bishops had no other power than that derived from his office of moderator. 'After him,' says he, namely, Bardesanes, another heretic, Noetus, appeared, not many years hence, but about 130, an Ephesian by birth, who, being inspired by a strange spirit, adventured to affirm and teach such things, which neither the prophets, nor the apostles, nor the kirk from the beginning held, nor ever thought of. Wherefore, being puffed up by a 1) See enumerated in Baxter, as above, p. 111. 2) Lib. iv. c. 43, and cap. 44. See quoted in Rutherford's Plea, p. 17. 3) Reduction of Episcop. in Jameson, p. 449. See fully quoted in Rutherford, as above. 4) See Ep. 14, 33, 10, 68. 5) In Rutherford, ibid. 6) Alex. Stromat. lib. vii. quoted in Rutherford. 7) Contra Crescon, 1. iii. c. 5, 6, and Epist. 136. Greg. 1. ii. Ep. 16. 8) Plea, p. 18. 9) Ibid, p. 19. See also quotations from Cyprian, Firmilian, Gregory, Naz., Chrysostom, Augustine, Isidore, Salvianus, Gildas, &c. In Causa Episcopat. Hierarch. Lucifuga, Edinb. 1706, p. 25, &c. See also numerous proofs to the same effect, in Baxter on Episc. ch. xiii. part ii. p. 104, &c., and ch. xiv. where he quotes from many of the greatest prelatists. See also numerous proofs given in Smectymnuus, pp. 38-40, § 9. |