Vindication and Assertion of Calvin and Bezas Presbyterian Principles, Chapter 2
CHAP. Second.
THe Authors groundless Suppositions and Perversion of these Divines, cleared in general from the Structure of his Reasoning.
THe Scope of this Author is to prove, that in Calvin and Beza's Judgment, a president Bishop with a fixt Power of ordination, preheminent unto, and above Pastors, with a proportioned Power of Jurisdiction over them, is an ordinary standing Officer appoi…ted by Christ in the Church of the New-Testament. This is clear by comparing Definition 3. with Axiom 2, 3 and 4. and with Postulatum 2, and 3; And this preheminency he makes them assert, as extended to a whole Diocess, Province, or Patriarchat, as he calls it. For proof of which, several passages of Calvin and Beza (but of Calvin especially) are adduced.
Wherein in general, his obvious Perversion and Abuse of these Divines, is evident to any that compares his Assertions, and Citation; First, in that Calvin and Beza are supposed by him, to hold the Apostolick and Evagelistick Inspection, and Authoirty, which are supposed in the Scriptures here cited, and in the passages of Calvins Institutions here adduced, to be ordinary, and of perpetual necessity. Thus he grosly perverts the subject and state of the Question, which is this, What is that ordinary ministerial Authority, and these Officers, which they hold to be of a perpetual continuing Nature and Necessity? and not what they might suppose to be de facto, in the Churches infancy, exercised, by the Apostles or Evangelists; So that if we can prove, that these Divines, did not judge the Authority and Power of Apostles and Evangelists, or their formal Office as such, to be of a moral nature, continued in the Church, or that there are constant necessary Officers succeeding them, in preheminency or superiority in office, all that he says falls to the ground. To prove this, first in general, it is evident from what is said, that both Calvin and Beza, with all sound Protestant Divines, do hold the Offices of Apostles and Evangelists, and consequently their official Power, as such, to be expired, and that neither of them are succeeded, in idem officium, § eundem ministerii gradum, this is evident to all who have read these Divines; and for evincing it, I would but ask this Pamphleter, whether Calvin and Beza do not hold and suppose, that our blessed LORD was, when upon earth, the Churches visible universal Head and Monarch, and that the Apostles afterward had an universal, unconfined Inspection and Authority over the whole Church; and that particularly and Apostle Iohn, who outlived all the rest, had solly, as an Apostle, an universal Authority and Inspection over the same; but will he, or any man of common sense, infer from this, that Calvin and Beza are for a moral standing Primacy over the Church universal, or a visible political Head, and Deput-Vicar under Christ? Certainly he would rationally assert this … …erence of a …apist against Calvin and Beza to be very gross and impertinent, and no less is his own throughout this Pamphlet.
2. If these Divines do hold that Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons, are the only standing Church Officers, of a moral nature, perpetual use and necessity; Then they did not hold the Office of Apostles and Evangelists to be such, or their proper O…ficial Authority, comp…tent to them, as in that capacity, to be of this nature; But the first is true, ergo so is the second; the Ma;or is evident, for this man will not say that Calvin and Beza do hold their Offices, one and the same with Pastors, and that Apostles and Evangelists were not distinct from, and superior unto them in their Official Power: The Minor is evident from what is above adduced from Calvin and Beza; Yea, even from his own Citation of Calvin, to confirm Axiom third, viz. his Instit. lib. 4. Cap: 6. Sect: 11. The Primacy of the Roman See takes not its Original from Christs Institution, nor the custom of the Ancient Church, as the other Offices have done, (viz. of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, cap: 4 Sect: 1) mentioned already. Now surely if he had judged other Offices perpetual and warranted by Christs institution, and the antient Churches practice, he would not in this place have mentioned with such Emphasis these three only, and none else, when in opposition to the unlawful Popish Primacy, he is shewing what Offices …, and the ancient Churches Custom will allow as warrantable. To shew it further, take this passage of Calvin, (whom I find our Pamphleter doth mainly insist upon) speaking of Philip the Evangelist, he tells us that Evangelists were set in the middle betwixt Apostles and Doctors, had an office next to that of Apostles, that they might every where preach the Gospel, for no certain station was assigned to them; Now to make their Office and Authority ordinary, in Calvins Judgment, this Author is obliged by his Argument to say, that he held them to be fixed to some certain Station, for in Postulatum 2, he holds that according to Calvin, Timothy in Ephesus, and Titus in Crete, were from the nature of their Office invested, with a fixt power of Ordination, and Jurisdiction in these places.
3. If these Divines held the Apostolick and Evangelistick Inspection and Authority, to be moral and perpetual, then they behoved to hold it such, either as one and the same with the pastoral Office, and a superior degree thereof, or as an Office specifically distinct, and superior; But neither of the two can be said to them: not the first, for we heard them both assert, that all Pastors do hold one and the same Function, and that none of them have any official Authority over another, particularly we heard that Calvin, (whom our Phamphleter mainly appeals to) upon Phil. 1. reprehending the abuse of the Word [Bishop] in appropriating it to one Pastor only, he gives this Reason; That from this abused Signification of the Word, there hath followed this evil, that as if all Presbyters, were not Colleagues, called to the same Function, one hath usurped to himself a Dominion over the rest, under pretext of this new Appellation, So that he holds the Pastoral Official Authority, to be one and the same in all Pastors, and none to have an Authoritative Inspection over the rest.
Again, Calvin could not hold this fixed Preheminent Authority to be continued in the Church, as importing an Office specifically distinct from, and superior to that of the Pastor.
First, for the Reason already given; for since that supposed inferior Officer were thus, both an ordinary Officer, and were likewise Eminenter a Pastor. How could Calvin quarrel a distinction, and peculiarity of a Name to point out a superior Pastor? or how could he affirm that all Pastors without exception have one and the same Function?
2. We heard that Beza and Calvin do hold that the Apostles, and Evangelists, had no fixed Station, over which they were set; and so could not as in that capacity, have any fixed Power of ordination and jurisdiction.
A second perversion of the Doctrine, and sense of these Divines in this point, and false Supposition, which this Authors arguing is grounded upon, is this, that he distinguishes not, their simple Narration of a practise from their positive Approbation of it; which any man of sense will distinguish in any Author, and which if confounded, we cannot eschew the horrid Blaspheming of the Spirit of God in Scripture. To clear this, take an undenyable instance from Calvin, (whom as I said our Author mainly appeals to) To prove his, 2 Postulatum, viz. that in Calvins judgment, the Church warrantably retained the Government of one single Person, preheminent in Office unto other Ministers, he cites Calvin instit: Cap. 4. Sect. 2. Where Calvin shews, that Presbyters in all Cit…es, choose one out of their Number, to whom especially they gave the Title of Bishop, lest from a parity Division might arise; That Jerom says at Alexandria from Mark the Evangelist, to Heracleas and Dyonysius, Presbyters always placed one in a preheminent degree, whom they called a Bishop. The same we heard Beza acknowledge, as to the matter of Fact. Now I say it is gross Perversion from Beza or Calvins Narration of this matter of …act, to infer their Approbation of the Practise. 1. For that clear demonstrative Reason already adduced.
2. This cannot be held and obtruded as their Judgment, without contradicting them in other places, and making them inconsistent with themselves, which this Author, who holds their Writings, (and that deservedly) to be excellent, must by all means eschew, for as we heard Beza evidently disown this practise of the fixed President, and his appropriat Name of Bishop, as giving the rise to all the ensuing corruptions of the Church-Government, so doth Calvin evidently on Phil. 1. forecited, condemn two points of this Practice. First, in setting one Presbyter in a superior Degree over another, for he affirms they are all Colleagues, called to one and the same Function, having the same Work, the same Ordination, the same Official Power and Authority; ergo he ownes a perfect Parity, and disowns an Imparity in the Offic…, and preheminency in Degree in one above another, and therefore by further necessary consequence, he disowns and cannot allow of the Practice of this at Alexandria, as warrantable.
2. If Calvin disowns this Imparity and Dominion, as fomented and having its rise from the appropriating the Name [Bishop] to one Pastor, rather than to another, then he disowns the appropriating the Name to this preheminent Presbyter, as a badge of this Preheminency, and by consequence the practice of this at Alexandria; but so it is that Calvin (which we also have evinced of Beza) In terminis, condemns this appropriating of the Name Bishop, to one Pastor, for the end mentioned, therefore he condemns this practice in so far. We heard that upon Tit. 1. 7. he collects the Identitie of the Bishop and Presbyters Office, from the Apostles using both Names indifferently; As also, (saith he) I…rom hath observed, and that more hath been ascribed to mens pleasures, and inventions, than did become, in preferring mens habituated terme, to the Language of the Holy Ghost; And speaking of the first Moderator's early brought in, he shews that the Name of the Office viz. (that of Bishop) is commune to all; And that to rob the rest thereof, is injurious and absurd, a perversion of the Holy Ghosts Language, and prophane Boldness; and that upon Act. 20. 28. He concludes that all the Presbyters, have both Name and Thing of the Scripture Bishop, appropriat unto them.
Here let any rational Man judge, especially from what is above evinced 1 Chapter; If Beza and Calvin make not the Name and Thing of a Scripture Bishop proper to every Pastor, and consequently condemn not the above-mentioned Official Difference, and appropriating the Name Bishop, to a supposed preheminent Pastor, above another at Alexandria, as a perversion and abuse of the Spirit of Gods Institution, and Language in Scripture. And whether it be not most consonant to Reason, to collect Beza and Calvins Judgment, upon their Assertions and Inferences from Scripture, when reasoning the Point ex professo, rather than from their simple Narration of a matter of Fact, and practice of the Church.
If he say that his third Postulatum, speaks only of what the Primitive Church retained in Calvins Judgment. I answer, First, what will a simple Practice in it self signifie, to infer a Rule and Duty, without any more; Or Calvins Narration, to infer his Approbation. 2. Comparing Postulatum 2. and his Assertion of Calvins Judgment, anent the fixt Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction, which Timothy and Titus exercised over other Ministers at Ephesus and Crete, with Definition 3. Anent and President Bishop, his preheminent Office, in Ordination over other Ministers, and what he asserts (Axiom 3 and 4.) viz. that Calvin holds this to be necessary to the very Being of the Church, it's evident, he must be thus understood, as asserting Calvin Approbation of the practice. This Man will not deny that the state of the Question is, what the Church retained upon Divine warrand, in Calvin and Beza's Judgment. Thus we have laid open his fundamental Mistakes, ad perversion of these Passages of Calvin and Beza, cited by him; consequently discovered, his arguing in this Pamphlet, to be founded upon a meer petitio principii, and Ignoratio Elenchi, and that he intertains himself, and imputs to Calvin and Beza that Error (which I find as an Error in the first Concoction, marrs the whole Disgestion of Sarav: his arguings against Beza) viz. That the different and extraordinary Priviledges, of Christs first Ministers, the Apostles and Evangelists, doth also diversifie the Essentials of the Pastoral Office it self, so as to infer different standing Degrees thereof, an Error, which though frequently told of by Beza, he doth nothing but repeat in his whole Dispute; But that our Authors Mistakes may further appear, we do proceed to a particular Examination of his Definitions, Postulatums, and Axioms, and the Propositions, Demonstrations, and Corollaries drawn therefrom.