Welcome to a reading of Historical Theology by Willingham Cunningham, Volume 1. This Reformation MP3 audio resource is a production of Stillwater's Revival Books. Many free Reformation resources, as well as our complete online catalogue containing classic and contemporary Puritan and Reformed books, the Puritan hard drive, digital downloads, MP3s, DVDs and much more at great discounts on the web at www.puretandownloads.com. Also please consider, pray and act upon the important truths found in the following quotation by Charles Spurgeon. As the Apostle says to Timothy, so also he says to everyone, give yourself to reading. He who will not use the thoughts of other men's brains proves that he has no brains of his own. You need to read. Renounce as much as you will all like literature, but study as much as possible sound theological works, especially the Puritanic writers and expositions of the Bible. The best way for you to spend your leisure is to be either reading or praying. And now to SWRB's reading of Historical Theology by William Cunningham, Volume 1, which we hope you find to be a great blessing, and which we pray draws you nearer to the Lord Jesus Christ, for he is the way, the truth and the life, and no man cometh unto the Father, but by him." John 14, verse 6. I'm reading from page 220. Accordingly, the defenders of the papal supremacy have calmly laid down this position and have virtually admitted that it was necessary for them to prove it in order to make it their case. That is, that ever since the formation of the Christian Church, the bishops of Rome, as Peter's successors, have claimed and exercised jurisdiction over the whole flock of Christ. They have not been able to produce anything whatever in support of this position, that is, even the appearance of evidence, though they have certainly displayed the most extraordinary diligence and ingenuity in distorting and perverting the statements of early writers, and the facts and incidents of ancient history in order to extract from them something in support of their claims. Every phrase or expression that is ever dropped from any ancient writer in commendation of Peter or of the Church of Rome or of any of his bishops, every instance in which the bishops of Rome were applied to by anyone for advice or assistance, every case in which they interfered in the discussion or arrangement of any subject, and seem to have contributed in any way or to any extent to its adjustment, everything of this sort is put down as proof, not of the possession of excellence or of influence, but of proper jurisdiction or authority over the Church. But as it may be confidently asserted, that there is not only is there nothing in Scripture which asserts or implies that Peter exercised, or was recognized as entitled to exercise, jurisdiction over the other apostles and the church at large, but much which shows that no such right was then imagined to exist, so the same assertion may be made with equal confidence in regard to the first three centuries and for a considerable period beyond them. We have shown that Bellarmine was forced to admit that the position essential to the establishment of the papal supremacy, i.e. that Christ by arranging that Peter should die Bishop of Rome, intended to indicate his will that his successors in that sea should also succeed him in the government of the whole church, could not be proved from scripture, and therefore was not based jure divino, while he contended that it was founded upon what he called the apostolic tradition of Peter. By this, of course, he meant first that Peter himself had made known to the church that this was his master's will, and secondly, that the knowledge of this important fact, this, that he had done so, rested upon tradition. He then proceeds to specify more particularly what proof there was of this tradition, and which so much depended. And therefore, in support of it, cites general councils, the decrees of popes, and the consent of fathers, and he goes on to produce proofs from these different sources. As to the General Councils, none were held during the first three centuries so that their authority by itself as a proof of apostolic tradition is of no value, while at the same time they do not come under the limits of our present subject. We may merely remark in passing that the first four General Councils which were held, two in the fourth, and too in the 5th century, whose doctrinal decisions upon points of faith are generally admitted by Protestants to have been sound and orthodox, neither said or did anything which affords the slightest countenance to a claim of papal supremacy. The many things in their history and proceedings afford arguments against the papal supremacy with its most learned and ingenious defenders have been unable satisfactorily to answer. That in several instances these councils passed decrees or canons which were opposed and protested against by the Bishop of Rome or his agents, as manifestly inconsistent with claims which he then advanced, even though short of universal supremacy or headship over the whole Church. And that the first general council which really asserted the papal supremacy with anything like explicitness, though no doubt it had been practically established and exercised long before, was the Fourth Lateran Council held by Pope Innocent III in the beginning of the 13th century. Of course new evidence can be derived from general councils in support of the position that Peter taught the Church that his successors in the Sea of Rome were to possess universal supremacy. That is, no evidence which can be regarded as having any weight until after it had been proved that all these assemblies, which the Church of Rome calls General Councils, were possessed of infallibility. The second head of evidence to which Bellarmine refers, in support of the apostolicity of this pretended tradition, is the decrees of Popes. And here too, we would need a previous proof of their infallibility before we can receive their testimony as valid, especially in their own cause, in a matter in which their own claims and interests are so deeply involved. He does not pretend to produce anything in support of this claim from any of the Popes of the first three centuries, and this is enough to show the futility of his appeal to this source of evidence. The first Pope he produces is Julius, who held the See of Rome about the middle of the fourth century, at the time of the famous Council of Sardica, and was probably the author of the canon, if indeed the Council of Sardica ever passed such a canon, which three of his successors so unsuccessfully employed to reduce the African Church to subjection to Rome in the beginning of the next century. But in truth, He has no testimonies, even from bishops of Rome, which bear explicitly upon the point of a claim of proper universal jurisdiction, derived by succession from Peter, till the time of Pope Leo I, about the middle of the 5th century, while there is no evidence that this claim was generally conceded, even in the Western Church, till a much later period. The third source of evidence to which Bellarmine refers is the consent of the fathers. And the only fathers to whom he refers during the period we are at present considering are Irenaeus, Oregon, and Cyprian. To Irenaeus, as asserting the supremacy of the Church of Rome, to Oregon, as asserting the supremacy of Peter, and to Cyprian, as asserting both. We formerly had occasion to remark that Romanists could not produce the consent of the fathers, even of the 4th and 5th centuries, in support of their interpretation of those passages of Scripture on which they found the supremacy of Peter. In regard, for instance, to the passage which affords the only support to the claim that is possessed of anything like plausibility, that is, thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, some of them interpret the rock to mean Christ himself, most of them to mean the faith which Peter confessed on that occasion while the few of them who regard it as referring primarily and in the first instance to Peter himself personally do not interpret it as conferring upon him any power or jurisdiction which was not either then or afterwards conferred upon the other apostles. Now all that can be justly alleged in regard to Oregon is that he seems to have taken the last of these views on the meaning of this passage, while the fact that he was not a believer in Peter's supremacy in the popish sense of it, is established beyond all fair controversy by his having repeatedly, and most explicitly, asserted the full and perfect equality of the apostles in point of power or authority. In regard to Cyprian, the case stands thus. In discussing the subject of the unity of the Church, and we formerly had occasion to mention that he made considerable advances towards developing the Popish doctrine upon that subject, he made some statements about Peter's being appointed by Christ to be the symbol or representative of unity, and about the Bishop of Rome still continuing to service him the purpose. What he meant by this notion it is not easy to say, and the probability is that if we could interrogate him upon the subject, he would himself be unable to tell us clearly what he meant. Barrow calls it subtle and mystical, and adds, I discern little solidarity in this conceit, and little harm. But it is certain that he did not mean by it, to ascribe to Peter and the bishops of Rome, a right to govern the whole church, And the conclusive proof of this is to be found in these three facts. First, that he has repeatedly asserted in the plainest and most unequivocable terms that all the apostles were invested with equal power and authority, no one having jurisdiction over another. Secondly, that he has asserted with equal plainness that all bishops are possessed of equal power and authority, each being entirely independent of any other bishop in his own diocese, and thirdly, that he distinctly and boldly acted upon these principles in his controversy with Stephen, Bishop of Rome, about rebaptising heretics, Stephen indeed not demanding submission upon the ground of any supremacy which he claimed, and Cyprian making it very manifest by the way in which he treated Stephen and his arguments, that if any such claim had been put forth, it would have been openly denied and strenuously resisted. Irenaeus is the only other authority produced during this period. It is not alleged that he has asserted the supremacy of Peter, but it is alleged that he has asserted the supremacy of the Roman Church, and in proof of this, a passage is produced from him, or rather in the Latin translation, for we have not the original Greek of this part of his book, Against Heresies, in which he ascribes to it, parterarum principalitatitum, a passage which, since it is the only plausible testimony which the first three centuries afford in support of the papal supremacy, is much boasted of by popish writers, and has given rise to a great deal of learned discussion. It would be a waste of time to give even an extract of the arguments by which Protestant authors have proved that this passage is utterly insufficient for the purposes to which the Romanists supply it, especially as they could not be stated within any short compass. The import and bearing of the passage are fully discussed in Mosheim's commentaries. It cannot be denied that the statement gives some apparent countenance to the papal claims. but even if it were much more clear and equivocal than it is, it would be utterly insufficient, standing as it does alone, to support the weight which the Church of Rome suspends upon it. Mosheim, after investigating the meaning of the passage and setting forth what he regards as the most probable interpretation of the potior principalities, one which gives no countenance to the papal claim of supremacy, concludes in this way. The Latin statement follows. The negative argument, which is manifestly one of great power and weight in the case of this sort, stands untouched and unbroken. with nothing that can be alleged on the other side except a single obscure and ambiguous passage in a barbarous Latin translation of our Irenaeus, made we know not when or by whom. And the argument is not wholly negative, for there is much in the history of the Church during the first three centuries which affords positive and conclusive proof that the claims of the bishops of Rome To rule or govern the Universal Church was not known then in advance or acknowledged, and indeed was utterly unknown. In surveying the history of this period, with a view of ascertaining from the events which occurred and the course of conduct pursued, whether the bishops of Rome were regarded and treated as the rulers of the Church, the following considerations must be kept in view. The supremacy of the Pope must necessarily imply these two things. First, that the bishops of Rome are, and have always been acknowledged to be, the highest ultimate judges in all theological and ecclesiastical controversies, at least when there were no general councils, and secondly, that communion with the Church of Rome and subjection to the authority of its bishop were held necessary in order to be regarded as being in the communion of the Catholic or General Church. All Romanists admit that the exercise and acknowledgement of a papal supremacy imply these things. It is because Protestants, both in theory and in practice, deny them, that Papists denounce them as throwing off the authority of Christ Vicar, and as putting themselves beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, and thereby excluding themselves from salvation. Keeping these things in view, and then surveying the history of the early Church, we shall meet with much that affords conclusive proof that the papal supremacy was utterly unknown, that the idea of any such right as supremacy implies being invested in the Bishop of Rome had not then entered into men's minds. If Clement had ever imagined that he, as the successor of Peter, was invested with supremacy over the Church, he could not have written such a letter as he did to the Church at Corinth, in which when they were indulging in a spirit of faction and turbulence, he contended himself with laboring to persuade them by scriptural considerations to respect and obey their own presbyters. The facts connected with the two discussions concerning the time of observing Easter, the one about the middle and the other near the end of the second century, not only afford conclusive proof, as we formally showed, of the utter baselessness of all claims, even then to authentic apostolic tradition, but also of the utter ignorance of the whole Church of any right vested in the bishops of Rome to rule or govern it. While the facts connected with the controversy about the re-baptizing of heretics in the 3rd century, and many others that might be mentioned, established the same important position. Indeed, it is an easy matter to trace the whole history of the rise and progress of the papal supremacy from its first faint dawnings to its full establishment. And it is certainly by far the most extraordinary instance of successful imposture and iniquity the world has ever witnessed. It was an object prosecuted for a succession of ages with unwearied zeal. Every incident was most carefully improved for promoting it, and no scruples of conscience, no regard to truth or veracity, no respect for the laws of God or man were ever allowed to stand in the way of extending this usurped dominion over the Church. Popish writers delight to dwell upon the permanency and extensive influence of the prophecy, as contrasted with the comparative brief duration of empires and kingdoms that have risen and passed away. And some of them have really made a striking and impressive picture of this topic, one rather fitted to touch the imagination and call forth feelings of solemnity and veneration. But when, Instead of being satisfied with a mere fancy sketch, we examine it with care and attention. When we consider the utter baselessness of the ground on which the papal supremacy rests, and the way in which this power has been secured and exercised, we cannot but be persuaded that, though in some respects beautifully outwardly, it is within full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. Chapter 8 The Constitution of the Church We proceed now to advert to the testimony of the first three centuries on the subject of church government, and especially of episcopacy, or as it should rather be called, of prelacy. Prelatists have been usually very loud and confident in appealing to the testimony of the primitive church in support of their principles. And if the primitive church meant the church of the 4th and 5th centuries, they could no doubt produce a great body of testimony in their favor. Testimony, however, which becomes feebler and feebler during every generation as we go backwards until the truly primitive New Testament period when it entirely disappears. The substance of what we are persuaded can be fully established upon this point is this, that there was no prelacy in the apostolic age, that there is no authentic evidence of its existence in the generation immediately succeeding that of the apostles, that the first faint traces of prelacy, or rather something like it, are to be seen about the middle of the second century and that the power of prelates continued gradually to increase and extend until by the end of the fourth century it had attained a condition pretty similar to that which modern prelactic churches exhibit, though there was not even then the same entire exclusion of presbyters from all share in the government of the church, which the practice of the Church of England presents. If there be anything approaching to accuracy in this general statement, it would seem very like as if prelacy were a feature or part of the great apostasy from spiritual truth and order, which so early began to manifest itself in the Church, and which at length fully developed in the anti-Christian system of the Church of Rome. In other words, it might seem as if prelacy were a branch or portion of potpourri, The question whether it be so or not is not one of great practical importance, for perhaps at bottom it may resolve itself very much, in one sense, into a dispute about words. And the question whether a prolactic government ought to exist in the church must be determined by an appeal to scripture. But as a general question, which this particular point suggests, that is, as to the grounds on which an allegation with respect to any doctrine or practice that it is popish at rest, and the weight due to such an allegation is one of some importance in theological discussions, it may not be unreasonable to take this opportunity of breaking a few remarks upon it. It has long been a common practice among controversialists to charge their opponents with holding popish views and slantinish, pokish practices, and to adduce this as a presumption, at least, against them. The charge has been sometimes adduced by men of very scanty intelligence and information upon very insufficient grounds, and that, again, has afforded a sort of excuse to others who could not easily defend themselves against such a charge for scouting and ridiculing rather than answering it. For instance, some of the ignorant and foolish secretaries who sprung up in such numbers in England during the period of the Commonwealth were accustomed to allege that Presbytery was just as popish as prelacy was. And Episcopalian controversialists down to the present day are in the habit of quoting some of the statements of those persons to this effect. as if they were proofs of the folly of such a charge against whatever it might be directed. Some persons in our own day have asserted that the doctrine of the obligation of civil rulers to employ their civil authority with a view to the promotion of religion and the welfare of the church is popish, while others, going to the opposite extreme, have adduced the same charge against the doctrine of the entire independence of the Church of all civil control. Though it can be proved, I am persuaded, that both these doctrines are taught in Scripture, and though it is certain that they were maintained, that in a much purer form, by the Reformers as well as by the Church of Rome. These are specimens of the inconsiderate and reckless way in which this charge is often bandied about by ignorant and foolish men. But these, and many other specimens of a similar kind, afford no sufficient proof that the charge is universally ridiculous, or that it is impossible to discriminate between the cases in which it does, and those in which it does not, rest upon a satisfactory foundation. At a very early period, we see plain traces of corruption and declension in the Church of Christ. This continued to increase and extend age after age, until it reached its full development in the matured system of the apostate Church of Rome. The leading features which this progress of declension and corruption assumed, and the principal results to which it tended, are sufficiently discernible. The obscuration, and perversion of the doctrines of grace, the multiplication of rites and ceremonies in the worship of God, and the inscription to them, as well as to the divinely appointed sacramental ordinances of an undue importance and efficacy, the invention of new orders and offices in the government of the Church, all tending to depress and reduce to slavery the Christian people and the office-bearers whom Christ appointed, and terminating at length a system which leads men to build upon a false foundation for salvation and to submit implicitly to the tyranny of their spiritual superiors. Such is potpourri fully matured. But the seeds of the system were early sown and were very gradually developed. Everything which really enters as a component part into this great system of error and corruption may be fairly enough called Popish, and the fact that it can be established that it does not enter into their system, and may therefore be fairly called Popish, forms no doubt a very strong presumption against it. But everything which has been and is held by the Church of Rome must not be regarded as Popish in this obnoxious sense. She has retained a profession of some important scriptural doctrines and principles, though there are none which she has not, more or less extensively, and more or less directly corrupted. She has retained an orthodox profession upon the subject of the Trinity, while she has corrupted the doctrine and worship of God by polytheism and idolatry. But we must not, either because of her having retained so much truth, or of her having joined so much error with it, compare with the Swithcineans in setting aside the doctrine of the Trinity as popish. She has retained the truth of the entire independence of the Church of Christ of civil control, though she has sometimes practically sacrificed this truth to some extent in her unprincipled prosecution of her selfish interests, as, for example, in tolerating patronage. while she has corrupted it, by claiming for the Church control over the civil authorities. But we should not, either because of her holding this truth, or of her having to some extent corrupted it, concur that infidels and Erastians, in denying the independence of the Church, or in subjecting it to the civil power, as if everything else were potpourri, in order then to warrant us in calling any doctrine or practice popish, and urging this as a presumption against his truth. It is not enough that it has been held by the Church of Rome, it should also have been rejected by the great body of the Reformers, those great men to whom the Holy Spirit so fully unfolded the mind of God, as revealed in his word, and whom he raised up and qualified for restoring his truth, and purifying his Church. When both these positions can be fully established, in regard to any doctrine or practice, this, first, that it is held by the Church of Rome, and secondly, that it was denied or rejected by the great body of the Reformers, we are fairly entitled to call it Popish, and we may fairly regard the proof of these two facts as establishing a strong presumption against it. Still it must never be forgotten that there lies an appeal from all human authorities, from fathers or reformers of every age and of every church, to the only certain and unerring standard, the word of the living God, and that neither the allegation nor the proof that a doctrine or practice may be theoric or popish exempts us from the obligation to examine whether its claims put forth any to the sanction of the sacred scriptures be well-founded or not, and to regulate our treatment of it by the result of this examination. Policy has been often designated by Presbyterian writers as popish, and it would be a sufficient foundation for such a charge to prove that it is held both theoretically and practically by the Church of Rome, that it was rejected by the great body of reformers, as well as by those who, in the Middle Ages, were raised up as witnesses against Antichrist, that its introduction formed a step in the process of the corruption of the early Church, and that it afforded some facilities for the growth and development of the papal system, then the charge is well founded, for all these positions can be established against prelacy by satisfactory evidence. The Church of Rome has much more fully and more explicitly asserted the doctrine of prolesy than the Church of England has done. All that the Church of England has ventured to lay down upon this point is contained in the following vague and ambiguous declaration in the preface to the Ordinal for Ordination. It is evident unto all men, diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient authors, that from the apostles' time there have been orders of ministers in Christ's church, bishops, priests and deacons. Whereas the Council of Trent has set forth the doctrine much more explicitly and has required the belief of it because it was generally denied by the reformers under an anathema. The two following canons were passed in the 23rd session of the council and of course formed the standard doctrine of the church. and that in statement follows. The adoption of these canons by the Council of Trent not only proves that prelacy is the doctrine of the Church of Rome, but also proves indirectly what can be conclusively established by direct evidence that it was generally rejected by the reformers. It is an insufficient defence against allegation with respect to a particular doctrine or practice that it is Popish. To prove that it existed in the church before what we commonly call the Popish system was fully developed. The germs or rudiments of that very system can be traced back to the apostolic age. There were men then in the church who loved to have the preeminence, who were for imposing ceremonies and establishing will-worship. And it should not be forgotten that the introduction and establishment of a new office, held by men possessed of higher rank and authority than other office-bearers, presbyters and deacons whom the apostles appointed, and such, we believe, prelacy to have been, runs precisely in the line which ultimately terminated in the universal bishop, and no doubt contributed to extend and strengthen it. At the same time, it is perhaps more proper, and becoming that, out of regard to the valuable services which many prelates and prelatists have rendered to the cause of Protestantism, we should abstain from the application of the term Popish to prelacy, and condemn ourselves with asserting and proving that it has no warrant in Scripture or primitive antiquity, and therefore should not exist in the Church of Christ. But still, when preligists open their case, as they often do, by asserting that prelacy prevailed over the whole Christian world for 1500 years, and was found obtaining over the whole Church at the period of the Reformation, and deduce this as a presumption of its truth, it is neither undercoming nor unreasonable to remind them that, if it prevailed generally to the time of the Reformation, it will be rejected by the great body of the reformers as a popish corruption that we can cut off two or three centuries from the commencement of their 1500 years and that then we can show that some other popish corruptions can be traced back at least in their germs or rudiments as to as venerable and antiquity and enjoyed thereafter a general prevalence as privacy contains. Section 1 Prelacy, the state of the question. The position which the advocates of prelacy commonly lay down upon this subject is to this effect. We find from the writings of the early fathers that from the apostolic age bishops are to be found in all the churches, recognized and obeyed as the highest ecclesiastical office bearers. this state of things could not have existed so early and so generally unless it had been introduced and established by the apostles themselves whence we infer that episcopacy is of apostolic origin and authority. When the subject is presented in this form, the question naturally and obviously occurs whether or not the argument founded on the alleged earliness and universality of the existence of bishops is expected to be received as a proof of a just divinum, a proof of what the apostles did, and what therefore the Church is still bound to do, or merely as a presumption in favour of a certain mode of interpreting some portions of Scripture bearing or alleged to bear upon this subject. Both views have been held by different classes of Episcopalians. Some high church Episcopalians, as for example the Tractarians, have admitted that the divine right of prelacy could not be fully established through scripture, but agreeing in substance with the Church of Rome on the doctrine of tradition, or the principle of Catholic consent. They regard the testimony of the early church as sufficient to prove it, and indeed they expressly adduce this matter of prelacy as a proof of the imperfection of scripture, allegedly that we are dependent upon tradition for conclusive evidence in support of it. Other Episcopalians think they can establish prelacy from scripture, and may refer to the testimony in the primitive church merely as affording some corroboration of the scriptural argument, while a few seem to hover between these two points. Most of them indeed seem to have a sort of lurking consciousness that the scripture evidence for prelacy is not of itself very conclusive, and stands much in need of being corroborated by the testimony of the early church. While they vary among themselves in their mode of stating formally the value and importance of the evidence they profess to produce from antiquity, according to the soundness and clearness of their convictions and impressions, with respect to the sufficiency and perfection of the sacred scriptures and the necessity of a scriptural proof in order to support a gestive inum. It is, however, of the highest importance that in the investigation of all such subjects we retain right impressions of the clear and unchangeable line of demarcation between the testimony of scripture and all merely human authority. and that we do not forget that we are bound to believe and to practice nothing as of divine authority, the proof of one of which cannot be deduced from the word of God. And also that, as we had occasion more fully to explain in treating of the Pope's supremacy, if in order to establish any conclusion which is professionally based upon some scriptural statements, the proof of any matters of fact be necessary to complete the argument. These matters of fact must also be established in Scripture, else the evidence of a just eponym falls to the ground. The facts may be established sufficiently by ordinary human testimony. But if the argument from Scripture cannot be completed conclusively without them, then we are entitled to say that since God has not been pleased to make them known to us through the medium of His Word, He does not require us to receive, as a part of his revelation, and as binding by his authority, the conclusion to the proof of which they are indispensable. Episcopalians often plead their cause as if they had some vague notion of it resting partly upon Scripture, and partly upon antiquity, or upon some indescribable compound of the two, which is neither the one nor the other. It is, however, indispensable that these two things be kept distinct, each having its own proper province and function ascribed to it, that its scripture be indeed the only rule of faith and practice, its due and exclusive prerogative be always fully maintained, and that nothing be allowed to interfere, theoretically or practically, directly or indirectly, openly or latently with its paramount and exclusive authority. It is of some importance that, if possible, the doctrine and practice of the primitive Church upon this point, and upon all points, should be ascertained. But the importance of this sinks into nothing when compared with that of ascertaining the doctrine of Scripture and the practice of the Apostles from the original and only authentic source of information. if it should turn out that the doctrine and practice of the primitive church, after the apostles' time, are in favor of prelacy, and if it be further alleged, as is often done, that there is something peculiar in this case which renders the post-apostolic practice a more certain proof of what the apostles established than in the case of other alleged apostolic traditions, perhaps this alleged peculiarity may be entitled to consideration, though we think enough has been said to show that, as a general position, the prevalence of a doctrine or practice in the 2nd and 3rd centuries affords of itself but a very feeble presumption that it was taught or prescribed by the apostles. The truth, however, is that antiquity affords no stronger evidence in favor of piracy in degree to say nothing of the vast difference in kind than Scripture does. In order to estimate aright the bearing of the testimony of antiquity upon the subject of prelacy, it is of importance to attend, in the first place, to the true and proper state of the question between its advocates and its opponents. For I am persuaded that a considerable proportion of the evidence which prelates are accustomed to abuse from antiquity, derives its whole plausibility from the tacit and insidious influence of the sophism called Ignatio Elenchi, or a mistake as to the precise import of the point to be proved. And I need scarcely remark that the investigation and settlement of the status questionis is equally important whether we are trying to estimate the amount of the scriptural or of the historical evidence. The general question may be correctly stated in this way. Should there exist permanently in the Church of Christ a separate and distinct order of ordinary office bearers superior to pastors, invested with jurisdiction over them, and possessed of an exclusive right of performing certain functions which are essential to the preservation of an organized church, and the ordinary administration of ecclesiastical affairs. So far as the scriptural argument is concerned, the proper question is, have we in scripture any sufficient intimation that it was the mind and will of Christ that this separate and distinct order of office-bearers should exist? And so far as the historical argument is concerned, the question is, Did this superior order exist in the early Church? And if so, does this fact afford any proof or presumption that it was the mind and will of Christ that it should exist permanently in His Church? Or does it, upon any other ground, impose upon the Church an obligation to have it? The proof that it is the true state of the question which has now been given is this. that unless prelatists are prepared openly and manfully to take up the affirmative of these questions, Presbyterians have no real controversy with them, while they can have no material objection to abuse against Presbyterianism. The substance of the fundamental allegation of the Episcopalians is this, that Presbyterians want an important and divinely authorized order of office-bearers which they have, and that in consequence of the want of this order there are certain necessary ecclesiastical functions such as confirmation and ordination exclusively appropriated to this higher order, which cannot be validly, or at least regularly, executed in Presbyterian churches. And on the other hand, the substance of the fundamental allegation of the Presbyterians is that they have all the classes of ordinary office bearers which the Apostles instituted, that the ordinary pastors are fully authorized to execute all the functions which are necessary to the right administration of the affairs of the Church, and that the Episcopalians have introduced a new, unauthorized, and a necessary order of office there is. No Presbyterian contends that the Presbyters should not have a President, or that the President should not have, in virtue of his appointment, a certain measure of superior power or authority. No Presbyterian contends that there is any very definite standard of the precise degree of power or authority which the President or Moderator should possess. or of the precise length of time during which he might be allowed to continue in office, or that in settling these points there is no room for the exercise of Christian wisdom, and in regard to times and circumstances. Many Presbyterians would admit that the main objection, even to a perpetual moderatorship, or the Presbyters appointing one of their number to fill the chair, ad vitem ut culprem, while he still continued a mere presbyter, with no exclusive right to perform certain functions which could not be executed without him, and rendered wholly subject to their jurisdiction, is the general injurious tendency of such arrangement, a tendency, as established by melancholy experience in the history of the Church, to introduce a proper fallacy. Calvin was moderator of the Presbytery of Geneva, as long as he lived, probably just because the other man could take the chair while he was present. But after his death, Beezer, to whom a similar mark of respect would then have been conceded by his colleagues, declined it, and insisted that the practice of having a constant moderator, as our forefathers used to call it, should be abandoned, as likely to lead to injurious results. Presbyterians, too, would generally admit that special and extraordinary circumstances might warrant the church in extending somewhat, for a time, the power of a president or moderator, and more generally in delegating extraordinary powers to individuals. All this goes to prove that the one essential subject of controversy is a proper prelate, holding a distinct ordinary office, higher than that of the presbyters, having jurisdiction over them, in place of being subject to their control and possessed in certain, in virtue of his superior office, of an exclusive power of performing certain functions which they cannot execute without him. Many pragmatists dislike to have the true state of the question brought out distinctly in this way, from a sort of vague consciousness, which is certainly well founded, that much of the evidence which they are accustomed to adduce in support of their principles does really not touch the point in dispute, as we have now explained it, and many of them have laboured to obscure and perplex it. These persons would fain represent the real subject of controversy as turning merely upon this, that is, parity or imparity among ministers, and they are accustomed to talk in this strain, that they do not contend for any certain measure of superior power or authority in bishops, or about the name by which they may be called, but merely for some imparity or superiority and subordination, as may prevent confusion and disorder. One may be tempted, when listening to some of them discussing the state of the question, or rather evading and perplexing it, to believe that the difference was very slight, that efficacy Episcopacy was a very harmless thing that might be tolerated without much danger or much disturbance of the ordinary scriptural arrangements. The history of the Church abundantly refutes this notion, as far as the general tendency of fallacy in any form or degree is concerned. And the whole history of this controversy, as it has been conducted upon both sides, clearly proves that the real point in dispute is not the vague question of parity or imparity, but the warrantableness and obligation of having a distinct class of ordinary office-bearers with inherent official jurisdiction over pastors, and an exclusive right in themselves to execute certain necessary ecclesiastical functions. And here we may remark that the settlement of the true state of the question settles also the Onus Probandi, and throws it upon the Episcopalians. It is admitted on both sides that the Apostles institute the Presbyterate and the Diaconate, and have sufficiently manifested their intention, or rather that of their Master, that these offices should continue permanently in the Church. The question is, did they also, in addition to these, institute another ordinary, distinct, and higher office, that is, that of prelates, which was to enjoy the same prominence. Episcopalians affirm that they did, and are manifestly bound to prove it. Presbyterians deny it, and are merely bound, according to all the rules of sound logic, to answer the Episcopalian arguments, to prove that they are insufficient to establish the conclusion in support of which they are adduced. This is all that can be justly demanded of Presbyterians, and is quite sufficient, when accomplished, to give them the victory, and to leave them in entire possession of the field. But they have never hesitated to undertake to prove, ex abundante, that no such permanent office as that of prelates has been instituted by any competent authority, and that the pastors of congregations are the highest ordinary functionaries in the Church. and are fully warranted to execute all the functions, including ordination, necessary for the preservation of the Church and the administration of ecclesiastical affairs. While it is important, in order to arrive at comprehension of this subject and a fair estimate of the evidence commonly brought to bear upon it, both from scripture and from antiquity, that we should see and remember that the real point in dispute is a permanent order of office there is distinct from and superior to pastors or presbyters. Yet it should not be forgotten that there have been some, calling themselves Episcopalians, who have never maintained the affirmative of the question as we have explained it, and who, not to serve a merely controversial purpose, and to diminish the difficulty of their position in an argumentative point of view, but in all honesty and sincerity have reduced the difference between bishops and presbyters to a very narrow compass. Such a man was the great and good Archbishop Usher, and several others of the most excellent and most eminent men in the Church of England, who have commonly made use in explaining their views of an old scholastic position in support of which many authorities can be produced, even from Romish writers who flounged before the Council of Trent. That is, that bishops and presbyters different tantum gradu non ordine. We may not be able to see very clearly the meaning or the solidarity and value of the distinction which they employ. and may be somewhat surprised that they should continue to call themselves supporters of prelacy, but we should not disregard the great importance of the concession which they make to truth. We should give them credit for the comparative soundness of their views. We should never be willing to manifest courtesy and kindness towards them, and seek rather to demease them than to widen the difference between them and us. especially because the men who have supported this view of the question have usually been greatly superior to other Episcopalians, both in respect to general orthodoxy of doctrine and to general worth and excellence of personal character. Episcopalians of this class all admit that Presbyterian ordinations, performed without a prelate, are valid, though they usually regard them as irregular. And it is not possible that that Presbyterian should view these men and their principles with very different feelings from those with which they contemplate the bigoted high churchmen who regard all Presbyterian ordinations as none and void, and all Presbyterian ministers, though ordained, as Timothy was, by the laying on of hands, as unwarranted intruders into the sacred office and profaners of sacred things. a class of men in regard to whom history testifies that very few of them have given very satisfactory evidence of their living under the influence of genuine Christian principle, and that very few have been honoured with any considerable measure of Christian usefulness. There have been some ethniscopalians who have virtually abandoned all claim to a just divinum in favour of privacy in any sense. and who have contented themselves with labouring to prove that prelacy, though not established by the apostles, was a warrantable arrangement which the civil and ecclesiastical authorities might lawfully introduce into the Church, and to which, when thus introduced, men might lawfully submit. While they think it has many considerations, derived from its antiquity and youthfulness, as from its accordance with the civil constitution, and social arrangements of the particular country to support it. This was in substance the view of the matter taken by many of the reformers of the Church of England, as well as by some Lutheran divines, many of whom, like the Anglicans, have manifested a good deal of an Erastian and Latitudian spirit in matters of outward order. Our dispute with these persons does not properly involve a discussion of the truth of prolactic principles or the obligation and necessity of a prolactic government but must be settled by an investigation of the more general and comprehensive question whether or not it be lawful to introduce into the government of the Church of Christ offices and arrangements which have no spiritual warrant or sanction This, however, is not the object which I have more immediately in view, which is to explain the true state of the question in the pronactic controversy, as an indispensable preliminary to a right estimate of the evidence commonly abused on both sides in order to its decision. In regard then to all the various and abundant materials usually produced and discussed in this controversy, the only proper question is, Do they, or do they not, furnish evidence in support of a distinct order for office barriers superior to presbyters and authorize to execute certain ecclesiastical functions which presbyters cannot perform? Or the various arguments usually adduced and discussed in the prolacted controversy should be brought face to face with this question on which the whole controversy hinges? The only point of very great importance is just to determine whether or not they contain anything that requires or contributes to require us to answer this question in the affirmative. The habitual recollection of this would greatly aid us in discerning and establishing the insufficiency of the prolactic arguments, whether derived from scripture or antiquity. If this be the true state of the question, then all the elaborate attempts in which some Episcopalian controversialists have indulged themselves in order to establish the general position that there ought to be an imparity among the office bearers of the Christian church, especially those derived from the constitution of a Jewish church, and from our Saviour sending out seven disciples as well as twelve apostles are at once swept away as irrelevant. We say they do not affect the real point in dispute. And we say further that a proof of the general position of the propriety, expediency and probability of an imparity or gradation among ecclesiastical office-bearers concludes nothing against us. for we have imparity in the two distinct offices of presbyters and deacons, the one subordinate to the other. Some Episcopalians have thought they could deduce arguments, both from scripture and antiquity, in favour generally of a threefold order among ecclesiastical office bearers. Could they prove generally a threefold order among pastors? or three different ranks or gradations among men, all equally entitled to preach the word and administer the sacraments, this would be something to the purpose. But they do not pretend to produce any proofs or presumptions of a general kind in favor of this position. And as to any general consideration, whether of arguments or authorities, that may seem to turn in favor of the threefold order among ecclesiastical office-bearers, We say, in addition to the general allegation of irrelevancy, that they conclude nothing against us. For we too have a threefold order, inasmuch as the fundamentals of Presbyterian Church government may be correctly stated in this way. First, that two distinct classes of permanent office-bearers were instituted by the Apostles, that is, Presbyterians to perform spiritual offices and to administer the spiritual affairs of the Church. and deacons to manage his temporal or secular affairs, and secondly, that the general class of presbyters is divided by good scriptural warrant into two ranks or orders, commonly called teaching and ruling presbyters, thus making a threefold order among ecclesiastical office-bearers. The other arguments, commonly employed by Episcopalians, are founded upon the alleged fact that James, whether that James was an apostle or not is still a matter of controversial discussion, was settled by the apostles as bishop of the church at Jerusalem, upon the angels of the ancient churches, to whom our risen saviour addressed epistles by his servant John, and upon the cases of Timothy and Titus. In regard to the first of these arguments, from the alleged episcopate of James, it is supposed of at once insofar as it professes to be a scriptural argument, by the consideration formally adverted to, that is, the fact, if fact it be, that James was in the modern sense Bishop of Jerusalem, is not asserted, either directly or by implication, in the scripture itself. For it is little better than ridiculous to adduce, in proof of it, anything contained in the scriptural account of a council of Jerusalem, in the 15th chapter of the Acts. As to the ancient angels even admitting, for the sake of argument, that they were single individuals, though this cannot be proved, and though we think that it is highly improbable, i.e. we think that the preponderance of evidence is against it, yet the very utmost it proves is that there was some one man in these churches who occupied a somewhat prominent or outstanding place as distinguished from others, who was in such a sense the representative of the Church, as to render it a proper and becoming thing, that any communication intended for the Church, as our Lord's epistles unquestionably were, should be addressed to him. After it is proved that these angels were literally single persons, then this further may be regarded as proved, but most assuredly nothing more. And here again, we have to remark that this has not come up to the point I dispute. There is not a vestige of evidence, not even a presumption, that the angel was a prelate, that he belonged to a higher class or order than the presbyters, that he had simply any jurisdiction or authority over them, that he could execute any functions to which they were incompetent. In short, there is not a vestige of evidence, not even a presumption, that he was anything more than the moderator of the presbytery. The argument founded upon the cases of Timothy and Titus, and the power of jurisdiction which they exercised, is the only one adduced in favour of pernicious even scripture, which appears to me to rise even to the rank of causability. The ambishoping of Timothy and Titus to adopt the title of a valuable work of Prince, filled with curious and varied learning, requires a mode of discussion that does not lie within the range of my present object. It is to be effected chiefly by proving what can be conclusively established, that the office which they held was that of an evangelist, and not that of a prelate, or diocesan bishop, and that the office was an extraordinary one, and not intended to be either perpetual or universal, while it may still be competent for the Church to vest somewhat similar powers in special and extraordinary circumstances and for a time in a single individual. Still, the application of the view which has been given of the true state of the question between presbytery and prelacy, the only point with which I am at present concerned, does contribute somewhat to a satisfactory disposal of this argument as well as the others. For it is important to observe that while Timothy and Titus seem to have exercised some jurisdiction over the presbytery of Ephesus and Crete when they were there, there is no proof in anything said in scripture concerning them that their presence was necessary to give validity to any ecclesiastical acts. nothing which implies or indicates that during their repeated and prolonged absences from their alleged dioceses, of which absences we have clear intimations in scripture, the presbyters themselves could not do all that could be done when they were present, or that presbyters could not perform all necessary ecclesiastical acts in other parts of the church where, so far as we learn from scripture, There were no such functionaries as Timothy and Titus, no persons vested with a jurisdiction with the apostles delegated to them. This exclusive right of executing certain ecclesiastical functions, incompetent for ordinary presbyters, is an essential feature of the office of appellate, and there is no evidence whatever that it applied to Timothy and Titus. or to employ a good and useful scholastic distinction, often introduced by old writers in the discussion of these subjects, we admit that the case of Timothy and Titus, could their office be first proved to be ordinary and perpetual, might afford a good argument in favor of Prelates, having a superior potestas jurisdictiones. But we maintain that it would not even then, or upon that supposition, conceded for the sake of argument, afford any evidence in support of their possessing a higher pultestas ordinis, in virtue of which their presence could be held indispensable to the valid, or even the regular, performance of any necessary enthusiastical acts. And if so, then it falls short of furnishing an argument in favour of modern prelacy. This recording ends on page 242. This Reformation audio resource is a production of Stillwater's Revival Books, many free resources as well as our large online catalogue containing classic and contemporary Puritan Reformed and Cabernet books, SWRB's Puritan hard drive, thousands of Puritan and Reformed digital downloads, DVDs, CDs, MP3s and much more at great discount on the web at www.puritandownloads.com We can also be reached by email at swrb at swrb.com by phone at 780-450-3730 by fax at 780-468-1096 or by mail at 4710-37A Avenue, Edmonton, AB, Canada, T6L3TI. If you have a web connection and would like to be added to our email list, please send an email to add at swrb.com or swrb at swrb.com with the word add in the subject line. Once you are on our email list, you will be alerted to all the new free Reformation resources, free MP3s, free electronic books and texts, etc. SWRB makes available on the web as well as at times to our best discounts and super specials. SWRB's email list is a double opt-in list. So once you've sent us your email address, you will be asked by email to confirm that you want to join our list using the email address you have supplied. Your email information will be kept confidential and you can easily remove yourself from our email list by simply emailing us at swrb at swrb.com with the word remove in the subject line. If you do not have a web connection, please request our free printed resources. We also encourage you to reproduce this audio resource and to pass it on to your friends, but we only authorize this as long as the full contents of the message, including the header and trailer, is not altered in any way, and as long as the audio file is given away for free. Thank you again for listening to this SWRB reading, and remember that Isaiah 26.3 states, Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on Thee, because he trusted in Thee. And 2 Corinthians 13.11 concludes, Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect. Be of good comfort. Be of one mind. Live in peace. And the God of love and peace shall be with you.