Vindication and Assertion of Calvin and Bezas Presbyterian Principles, Chapter 4
CHAP. Fourth.
Wherein this Pamphleter is examined upon, and expostulat with, anent the impertinency, of his pretended Postulatums, drawn from Calvin and Beza.
HAving thus discovered how insignificant this mans pretended Definitions, are to found and fortify his ensuing Propositions and Demonstrations, we do proceed to examine that which he calls his Postulatums, the first whereof is thus.
Postulatum 1.
That the seventy Disciples (from among whom Matthias was called to be ordained one of the twelve Apostles) were persons in holy Order in the Ministry. To prove this, Calvin is adduced on Luke 10. 1, 16. v. whose words are these, after the Apostles had returned to Christ, he sent more secundary Preachers, and this is the great commendation of the outward Ministry, that Christ declares, That whatsoever honour is given to his faithful Preachers, is given to himself.
Answer.
In Answer to this, we need not contend much in Thesi, anent what is asserted to the Office of the 70 Disciples, only we may advert here, some things that will Castigat and Check his Scope in this Postulatum, as that Calvin asserts, that they were only as it were secundary Preachers, not simply secundary Preachers; he says also, Nulla illis proprie commissa fuit legatio, no Legation or Mission was properly intru…ed to them (which we heard Beza also above assert) Bus as Christs Aparitors, were sent to prepare the peoples hearts to receive his Doctrine.
Next I observe, that though by his inserted Parenthesis, he would have it believed, That Calvin holds Matthias to be one of the s…verity Disciples, yet his Citation out of Calvin, is utterly remote from proving it, Calvin touching nothing of this in his Discourse of the seventy; and in Acts 1. upon v. 21. and the two last verses, where it was very proper to insert this, he has not the least hint of it; Nay, in answering that Objection, why did they not remit it to God? to choose one out of all the multitude, without a previous designation of these two, he has no such thing either, though it was most pertinent here to mention it. In a word, Calvins Principles above-evinced, anent the extraordinary, personal, expired power and inspection of Apostles and Evangelists, as such; and anent the Pastor his being the highest ordinary Officer in the New Testament Church, and his clear and positive assertion of the same equal Function, and official authority of all Pastors, whether he take the seventy Disciples, to be ordinary, or extraordinary Church Officers; It is evident even to a Demonstration, that his words cited in this Postulatum, will bear no conclusion, of his owning such a standing Subordination among Ministers. as this man imputes to him; but that his Doctrine, and Principles utterly overthows the same. Proceed we to the second Postulatum, which is thus.
Postulatum 2.
That Timothy in the Church of Ephesus, and Titus in the Church of Crete, were from their Offices preheminent to other Ministers, invested with a fixed power of Ordination, and Jurisdiction, regulated by Cannons, and ballanced by assisting Ministers, To prove this, he cites Calvin, 1 Tim. 1. 18. v. asserting that Timothy was not one of the common Ministry, but one next to the Apostles, who in the frequent absence of Paul, was in his place. Also, on Tit. 1. v. 5. where he says, That besides the ordinary Office of Pastors, Titus had this charge, That he should constitute a certain Form of Church Policy and Discipline, and likewise ordain Ministers over the Churches.
Answer.
To this I answer in general, that it is already made good, from clear and positive Assertions of Calvin, that the Office both of Apostles and Evangelists, is expired, and that no preheminent Office, over that of the Pastor, is in his Judgment continued in the Church; so that whatever preheminent power over ordinary Pastors, Calvin may suppose, at this time existent in Timothy or Titus, it will never reach this Pamphleters conclusion, anent his asserting a moral standing preheminence, in any ordinar Church Officer, over his Colleagues, which is the point he undertakes to prove.
2. Particularly, if he will prove any thing to his purpose from Calvin, he must shew us his assertion anent a fixed, and not only so, but likewise, (as is said above) an ordinary Power, or of a Moral perpetual Nature, in Ordination and Jurisdiction, over other Ministers, and exercised by Timothy and Titus; which that Calvin disowns, is evident thus.
1. They whose Office, and Official preheminency consequently, was correspondent unto, and of a like extent with that of the Apostles, these had no fixed Presidency over any one Church; but in Calvin's Judgment, the Office and Official Preheminence of Timothy and Titus, was of this nature: Ergo. The Assumption is proved from this, that Calvin asserts, (as is above evinced) the Evangelists Office to be next that of the Apostles, and that their work was to Preach the Gospel every where, and supply the Apostles rooms, when going from one place to another.
2. They whose official Preheminence, and formal Office, supposed the Churches in fieri, and was appointed for assisting the Apostles in Exedifying them, they had in Calvins Judgment, no fixed moral or standing Preheminency over Ministers and Churches; else we shall suppose the Christian Church in its model of Government to be still (with him) in fieri, and the Apostolick Office formerly existent, which we heard above, both Calvin and Beza disown; but the Office of Timothy and Titus, in Calvins Judgment was such, as we heard also above. Ergo.
3. They whose Official Power, is expresly by Calvin distinguished, from that power which is ordinary and of perpetual necessity in the Church Government, their supposed Preheminency lays no foundation for a fixed moral president, preheminent Bishop, over Ministers, as of perpetual necessity in the Church, unless he will make Calvin in contradiction to himself, assert one and the same Office, and Power to be ordinary, and extraordinary, perpetual and temporary, continually necessary, and not necessary; but so it is that Calvin thus distinguishes the Office of Evangelists, from the Pastoral perpetual Office, as we heard above. Ergo.
4. They who by their Office were fixed to no particular Station, or Church in Calvins Judgment, they had no fixed preheminent Power, in Ordination and Jurisdiction over other Ministers; else they should be by their Office, fixed, and not fixed. But so it is that in Calvins Judgment, Timothy and Titus were set over no particular Station, as we heard him above assert. Ergo no Evangelists properly such, were in Calvins judgment fixed to any particular Station; as we heard him above assert. But Timothy and Titus were the Evangelists properly such, as we heard also him affirm. Ergo.
Finally, so absurd is this mans assertion here, that his pretended proofs out of Calvin, furnishes sufficient Weapons to overthrow it; For,
First, If Timothy was none of the common ordinary Ministry, but the Apostle Paul's Depute, sustaining his place in his frequent absence, then (as we heard Calvin above argue and assert) his Official Inspection, was neither ordinary, nor fixed, over any one Church; Ergo, It laid no foundation in Calvin's judgment, for a moral fixed President Bishop, with Official standing Preheminency, over Ministers and Churches, as he would make Calvin affirm.
2. That Office or Charge, which was beyond the limits of the ordinary power of Pastors, that Office and Power in Calvins judgment, is extraordinary and expired; but such was in his judgment the Power and Office of Titus at Crete, as his second passage adduced, by our Pamphleter makes it evident, and several other places of Calvin, of which above. The Major is evident in this, that with Calvin, The Pastor labouring in the Word and Doctrine, is the highest ordinary Officer of a necessary standing nature, as we heard him above assert. The Minor is evident in this plain assertion set down, by this man himself.
3. If we shall compare these places adduced by him, with Calvins Comment: upon the whole Context, this mans absurd imposing upon him will be further evident; Calvin shews in the Argument of the first Chapter, that many things at Ephesus were wanting, which needed Paul's interposed Authority to set in order; and upon the 1. verse, as also in this Argument, he shews, that it was not to Timothy alone he wrote; and upon the 3. verse, that, that Churches necessity forced Paul, to demit such a dear Coajutor to supply his place there, and upon this 18 verse he tells us, that for this end Prophesies went before on Timothy, because he was appointed to hard and great matters, for (says he) he was not, è vnlgo, of the ordinary class and rate of Ministers, but next to Apostles, that therefore he had need of a singular Testimony, that it might appear he was chosen of God himself, that then it was not ordinary or common to be honoured with Elogies of Prophets, but in Timothy there were peculiar Causes, therefore God would not have him set about his Office, but fitted with prophetick Oracles, nor to be admitted by men, until approved by his own Voice, as it was with Paul and Barnabas when sent to teach the Gentiles. In which words let any man judge, whether Calvin doth not hold his Office extraordinary, both upon the account of his Mission, his peculiar Gifts, and the nature of his work and Inspection, as upon the same ground, he holds the Office of Apostles to be such. In the Argument of the Epistle to Titus, he shews that Paul hasting else where, intrusted to Titus the prosecuting of his own Work, and this as to an Evangelist, who was not of the ordinary rate of Ministers, that Paul wrote to him to arm him with his own Authority, upon the 6 v. that he was set by the Apostle, as the Moderator in the ordination of Pastors, that that work might be orderly done, and upon the 7 v. he expresly asserts the Identitie of the Bishop and Presbyters Office as the same, and upon the 5 v. asserting the same thing, he shews that he had no arbibitrary Power in this matter, but that of a Moderator, that sustaining Pauls room, and having his place as it were assigned to him, the Apostle will have him acknowledged as his Vicarious Substitute, that Paul leaving that place, left Work for others, as he was at Corinth the Master-Builder, but others built on his Foundation, the Church still standing in need of Pastors for her increase. But least we take Titus work to be no other than what is competent to ordinary Pastors, he presently rids Marches thus, Sed ultra ordinarium pastorum munus, &c. but beyond the ordinary Office of Pastors, Titus had the care of constituting the Church committed to him; Then (as is above-observed) he distinguishes him in this, from Pastors, who are set over Churches reduced unto Form; But Titus (saith he) had a Work beyond this, even to form Churches not as yet molded, &c. And after stating the Question, whether Titus had not in appearance a Kingly Power over the Colledge of the Pastors, and their decisive Authority, he answers, as is said above, that his Power was not arbitrary, but that of a Moderator &c. Here let any judge, if Calvin assert not that Titus his Inspection, and work was extraordinary, as suited to that Exigence, Case and Time of the Church, and consequently that it was Temporary and not fix…d, as that of the A…ostle Paul, whose Deputy he now was, and likeways that his power did not take away the collegiat decisive Suffrage of Pastors, over who… he w…s for that Exigent only, to exercise an Evangelistick Inspection, and to act the Power and Office of a Moderator, from all which the Impertinency and Falshood of this mans Assertion, is satis super que evident. Proceed we to the Third Postulatum which is thus.
Postulatum 3.
That for the avoiding of Schism, the Primitive Church retained the Government of one single person preheminent in Office unto other Ministers. This is proved by Calvin, Instit. lib. 4. cap. sect. 2. where he asserts, that Presbyters, out of their number in all their Cities, did choose one, to whom especially they gave the title of Bishop; lest from a Pa…ity (as useth to be) Divisions might arise, Ierom says, at Alexandria from Mark the Evangelist, to Heraclas and Dionysius; Presbyters always placed one in a preheminent Degree, whom they called a Bishop.
Answer.
The absurdity of this Inserence, from Calvin's Assertion, is above fully cleared, and that Calvin ownes not a president, with a power in Ordination and Jurisdiction, or preheminent unto other Ministers, or a power Paramount unto their Collegiat, Decisive, Suffrage, and consequently, no warrantable practice of the Church hereanent, as this man absurdly infers from his Words, to make which evident,
First, I enquire, What he means by the Government of one single person, and a preheminence in Office; neither Matter, nor Words, being so found in this passge of Calvin here cited? If he mean such a Power as doth no whit encroach u…on Pastors, Decisive, Conclusive Suffrage and Government, suppose he be fixed in this Sense, he is but a Moderator, and then I would know, how is the Government in this one single person, and his Office preheminent, and above that of his Fellows? …f his Office be so singular, and preheminent of that of Pastors; that it doth infringe their Decisive, Conclusive Suffrage, or importeth a sole Preheminence in Ordination and Jurisdiction, as he must needs hold, and doth assert (Axiom 2. compared with Definition 2 & 3.) This to be Galvin's Judgment, Calvin in the very next Words gives him the Lie, for he adds immediately, neque sic in hon…re & dignitate superior, &c. neither was he so Superior, as to have Dominion over his Colleagues, but what Power the Consul had in the Senat, to enquire the Votes or Sentences, &c. Again this man acknowledges in his Citation, to prove Definition 3. That Calvin asserts the Power of this President Bishop, to be like that of the Consul in the Senat, but will he dare to say, that the Government of the Senat, in Calvin, or any knowing mans Judgment, was confined to the person of the Consul.
2. We said above, that Calvin acknowledges, the Ancients their aberration from the Scripture Rule, in their Church Government, and that this Custom in his own and Ierom's Judgment, was brought in humano consilio, and pro temporum necessit…t, by humane Advice and Counsel, and according to the times exigence, wherein he clearly distinguishes, this from a Divine Institution, authorizing a divine Office of Gods Appointment, for he presently cites that place of Ierom upon Titus, (mentioned above) wherein he shews that by divine Appointment, the Church was governed by Presbyters in common; And that the then Bishops power was only by Custom, not authorized by divine Appointment; So that our Pamphleter will never be able to conclude, from these words, Calvins Recommendation and Approbation of this practice, but on the contrary, Calvin and Ierom both, doth suppose what ever thing in this practice, was an incroachment upon the Presbyters divine Power, was a humane Device and sinful Usurpation, which would be convincingly evident to any that considers.
3. That this Practice of appropriating the name [Bishop] to one, is (as I did above clear) in terminis, condemned by Calvin, as an abuse of the Holy Ghosts Language, and making way for one Pastor, his encroaching upon the Power of his Colleagues. We told him that upon Phil. 1. 1. having asserted the Identity of the Bishop and Presbyter, he tells us, that this place is made use of by Ierom, to prove Presbyters Divine Paritie, he adds, postea invaluit usus, &c. afterward Custom prevailed, that he whom Presbyters set over their collegiat Meeting, was only called the Bishop, but this had its Original from the custom of Men, but is not at all grounded upon Authority of Scripture. In which words, this practice (which our Pasqueller would make us believe hath Calvins Approbation) is clearly Reprobat, as an Aberration from the Rule, and Institution which first took place, and no man can be so irrational, as to imagine that Calvin would put this Censure upon the singularity of the name Bishop, as appropriat to one Minister, and not also upon the singularity of an Official Preheminence, which this man pleads for. Two words more I add on this, that if this man will allow Calvin any Interest, and consent in, and to the Confession of the French Church, he is there told by Calvin, that the true Church ought to be governed by that Policy, which Christ hath ordained, viz. that there be Pasters, Presbyters, Elders and Deacons, and as to a preheminent fixed Presidency, they do thus in terminis disowne it. Again we believe that all true Pastors wherever they be, are endued with equal and the same Power, under one Head and Bishop CHRIST IESVS; Thus expresly disclaiming this preheminent Power in Ordination and Jurisdiction, (which our Pamphleter makes Calvin owne)▪ or any supposed President or Pastor, with official power over his Colleagues, and that upon the same ground of Cyprian, which we heard mentioned, and approved of Calvin, viz. That Christ hath in him the original sole Episcopacy, whereof in a perfect Parity, he has imparted to every Minister an intire and equal share.
Next, I offer to him the sense of the famous Doctor Reynolds, upon these words of Calvin, in his Letter to Sir Francis Knolls, cited at large (Petri. Hist. part 3. pag 400 and 69, 70, 71.) upon Ieroms words, à Marco Evangelista, the Doctor proves, that by the Decree of the 4th Counsel of Carthage, cap 3. anent Presbyters interest in Ordination, (which proves, saith he, that Bishops ordained not then in all places alone, altho Ierom says, Quid facit excepta ordinatione, &c.) And by Ierom's proving Bishops and Presbyters to be all one in Scripture, and even in the right of Ordination. 1 Tim. 4. 14. That Ierom could not mean Bishops, in Alexandria to have had this sole Power. And as for that place of Calvin (instit: lib. 4. cap. 4. Sect. 2.) cited then by Doctor Boncroft. (anent whose Sermon he wrote that Epistle) he shews, that Calvin relating the practice of choosing one to proceed, and giving him the Name of Bishop, doth notwithstanding shew that he was not above the Presbyters in Dignity and Honour, or to rule over them, but was appointed only to ask the Votes, to see that performed that was agreed upon by common consent; And having shewed that this was brought in by consent of Men, in Ieroms Judgment, he adds that Ierom otherwhere shews, how ancient the Custom was, from Marks time to Heraclas, &c. In which words of Calvin (saith the Doctor) seing that the Order of the Church hath evident relation to that before described, and that in describing it, he had said the Bishop, was not so over the rest in honour, yet he had rule over them, it follows that Mr Calvin doth not so much as seem to confess, on Ierom's Report, that ever since Mark's time, Bishops have had a ruling superiority over the Clergy: Adding, that it may easily be made appear from many places of Ierom and Calvin both, as well as from this passage, it's evident that neither of them doth affirm Bishops to have had all that time, such a Superiority as Boncroft, fathered upon them. Wherein the Doctor clearly affirms and proves, that neither of these places of Ierom or Calvin, would bear, either an Assertion of this matter of Fact, viz. the forementioned President his exercising a sole Episcopal Authority, or their approbation of the Government, of one single person, preheminent in Office unto other Ministers, as this Pamphleter suggests. Proceed we to the 4th Postulatum, which is this.
Postulatum 4.
The 7 Angels of the seven Churches written unto in the Book of the Revelation, are encouraged against all the devices of the Ungodly, upon condition of their continuing faithful in their Administrations. To prove this Beza is adduced on Rev. cap. 2: 26. My Works, that is he who shall faithfully perform the work laid upon him; for he bespeaks the Assembly of Pastors, in the person of the President, to whom he promiseth Victory against all the Wicked, if he rely and trust in the Authority and power of that True and only Head of the Church. To which I answer.
Answer.
First, we have proved upon Definition 4, that Beza's taking this Angel for one single person, by whom the rest were to be admonished, will infer in Beza's Sense no preheminence in Office, and Authority over his Colleagues.
2. That Beza disownes even the inference of the necessity, of a fixed Moderator, as necessary following upon his Assertion; Yea,
3. That he holds this practice of the fixed Moderator to be founded only upon a humane Custom; and such a Custom as gave a rise to Antichristian Tyranny; and consequently that the Ministers of these Churches, are owned by Beza as Colleagues, of equal Power and Authority with the President, though by him immediately be-spoken, and so by clear and necessary consequence further, their continuing faithful in their Administrations, can import nothing more in Beza's sense, in the words here cited, then a faithfulness in the exercise of their joynt Collegiat Power and Authority, which Beza holds, was our Lords Institution, and then existent. Thus we have seen this mans Postulatums, as insufficient to found his Conclusion, as the Definitions. Proceed we now to his next Section of Axioms.