Vindication and Assertion of Calvin and Bezas Presbyterian Principles, Chapter 7
CHAP. Seventh.
Wherein is discovered this Pamphleters perversion of the Doctrine of Calvin and Beza, in his Corollaries imputed to them, and the unsoundness of his Demonstrations, brought to fertifie the same.
HAving thus examined this mans Propositions, and Demonstrations, and discovered the unsoundness of both, and their utter insufficiency, to fortifie his Design in this undertaking, wherein it doth palpably appear, that as he hath wronged the Memory, and perverted, and calumniated the Doctrine of these Divines; so that he hath also penciled himself with ugly Colours of a Calumniator, and that of such Persons and Writings, as he acknowledges excellent. We do now proceed to consider his Corollaries and Demonstrations brought to fortifie them, which we will find to be of the same calumnious and sophistical Stuff with the preceeding. The first of these Corollaries is thus.
Corollarie 1.
The president Episcopacyis of divine Right.
Answer.
This Corollarie of it self and abstracting from his Method of proof and Scope therein, is no doubt sound, and might be admitted, and understanding this terme PRESIDENT aright, and laying aside the Propositions, Axiom and Postulatum, discovering his Sense thereof, we might admit the whole Demonstration ensuing, but considering his Scope and Manner of proof, let us here remember how he understands that Office, which he smooths over with the term of President Episcopacy, viz. (as is above cleared) such Episcopacy as imports a fixed Official-Preheminency, and is invested with a fixed, yea, a sole Power in Ordination and Jurisdiction over other Ministers, as may be easily evinced, by comparing Definition 3 and 4, with Axiom 2, and his Citations for proof thereof. Now let us hear the Demonstration.
Demonstration.
The Major is, The divine Right is manifest in that Ecclesiastick Government which is instituted by Christ, and continued by his Apostles, retained in the primitive Church, and approven by Christ, by a Revelation from Heaven, for Subserviency to any end, wherein the well-being of Christianity is nighly concerned. For proof of which we are referred to Axiom 3. whereof this is a Repetition verbatim.
Answer.
This Proposition safely understood, may be easily admitted, keeping closs to that Citation of Calvin, annexed to Axiom 3, viz. that Church Government by Officers mentioned in the close of that Citation; has its Original from Christ's Institution, was continued in the Apostolick and Primitive Church, for Moral standing ends. What we did further animadvert upon this Axiom, touching the unsuitable Phrase of [any end] and the redundancy of that Clause of a [revelation from Heaven] and touching Calvins everting his Scope in pleading for Successors of Apostles and Evangelists, in their formal official Power, and that he mentions only Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, as of a moral standing Necessity, and consequently as only authorized by this divine Right, So above. The Assumption is large, and tottered with a number of his pitiful References, to what is above examined. 'Tis thus.
Assumption.
But the president Episcopacy was instituted by Christ, (by Proposition 1.) continued by his Apostles; (by Proposition 2) retained in the primitive Church, (by Poposition 3) and approven by Christ by a Revelation from Heaven, (by Proposition 4) for avoiding of Schism, wherein the well-being of Christianity is nighly concerned; (by Postulatum 3.)
Answer.
1. For the first Branch, proved by Proposition 1. wherein it's alledged, the Apostles were president Bishops, over the 70. Disciples; we have above everted this Proposition, and his pretended Proofs, and discovered its absurdity, and that he doth most impertinently restrict the Apostles Presidency, as Apostles to the 70, and imagins Calvin to hold this, that the Apostles presidency; respecting the whole Church, Ministers, and Flocks, he will thus in the Sequel and Series of his Reasoning, make Calvin to assert twelve moral standing Primates or Patriarchs over the universal Church, with infallible directive Power over the same. We have also in opposition to his Proposition, demonstrat that the Apostles were not fixed ordinary president Bishops, over the 70 in Calvin's Judgment; so that this main point of the proof of his Assumption, appears nought. I cannot but again observe, that with this man, the president Episcopacy, which he imagins Calvin to hold, as of a perpetual necessity, is Pauls sole Apostolick power in ordination and Jurisdiction, and consequently his primitive Fathers, must be of that same Shape and Mold succeeding in, and thus continuing this formal apostolick official Power, and how absurdly any man imputs this to Calvin or Beza, as their Judgment, and how hypocritically under the simple notion of a President Bishop (which Calvin and Beza do acknowledge creeped early into the Church) is above evinced.
Answer.
The 2 Branch of the Assumption is, that this president Bishop was continued by the Apostles; for proof of which we are referred to Proposition 2. Touching the president Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus, over Ephesus and Crete; This Proposition together with the pretended proofs thereof, we have above examined and everted, and proven that with Calvin, the Evangelistick official Inspection of Timothy and Titus over these Churches, was (as that of Apostles) neither fixed nor ordinary, but suited to that Exigence and Infant-state of the Church, and died with their persons, and have herein consequently discovered the Absurdity of this mans Inference, of an official standing Preheminency among Pastors (who are by Calvin distinguished, from both Apostles and Evangelists, as Officers perpetually necessary and ordinary, from Officers extraordinary and temporary) in their official Power. In opposition whereunto, we have demonstrate this Antithesis; Neither Timothy nor Titus had in Ephesus or Crete a fixed ordinary Preheminency over Ministers and Flocks, in the judgment of Calvin.
In the third part of the Assumption we are told, that this president Episcopacy, was retained in the primitive Church by Proposition 3.
Answer.
The Falshood of this Proposition is above demonstrate, and the Impertinency of his Citations to prove it, taking this president Bishop, as here described by him; in opposition to which, we have made good these two Propositions.
1 That none of the Fathers, who were the first Proestotes or fixed Moderators had the Government in their Persons, or an Official preheminency in Ordination and Jurisdiction over their Brethren; in the Judgment of Calvin and Beza.
2. That none who assumed this in after times, were allowed of Calvin or Beza, as having a Divine Warrand, For a further discovery of his Impertinencies, in the proof of this 3 Proposition, so above.
The 4 Branch of the Assumption is, that this president Episcopacy, is approven by Christ, by a Revelation from Heaven; for which we are referred to Propostion 4.
Answer.
This Proposition we have also clearly everted above, and fully examined its proof, and discovered his palpably absurd ridiculous Inference of Beza's owning this Diocesian, Patriarchal, Provincial B…shop, (for thus …e explains this President in the places referred to,) from his simple assertion of a President Angel, who had the rest of the Ministers for his Colleagues, in the Official Power of Government, especially Beza disowning the very Inference, of the necessity of a fixed Moderator, as following upon his assertion, as is said above; In opposition to which forgery of this Man, we have made good this Proposition; that the president Bishop, with Official Preheminency, and fixed power of Ordination and Jurisdiction over Pastors, is in Beza's sense, neither approven of Christ, nor bespoken by him, in the Angels of the Churches.
The 5. and last Branch of this Assumption, it respects the end, of this supposed president Bishop, his pretended Institution, continuance, retention, and approbation, above expressed, viz. For avoiding of Schism, wherein the well being of Christianity is nighly concerned. This is proved by Postulatum 3.
Answer.
This Postulatum is above examined, and what we have said thereupon, is resumed upon Proposition 3. in the Demonstration whereof, this Postulatum is adduced to prove the Major Proposition, in opposition to which, we have offered and proven the two Propositions above expressed; So that Calvin clearly disowning the appropriating the name [Bishop] to this one President, as contrary to Scripture language and Institution, his narration of this matter of fact, in reference to this end of avoiding Schism, cannot (as we have often told him) import or infer, his approbation thereof, unless we will make him fall in that Sin, which Paul affirms, doth expose to just Condemnation, viz, an Approbation of evil, that good may come of it.
Conclusion.
The President Episcopacy is of Divine Right; doth thus appear groundless and absurd, taking this President Episcopacy in his sense, above exprest, the proofs thereof being found false and frivolous. And to his Corollary, I do oppose this Antithesis and Demonstration ensuing.
Counter-Corollarie.
The President Episcopacy pleaded for by this Pamphleter, is not (in the sense of Calvin and Beza) of Divine Right. To prove which I offer a Counter-demonstration, pressing his steps, and tracing his method thus.
That Episcopacy which is not institute by Christ, continued by his Apostles, retained in the Primitive Church, nor approven by Christ, by a Revelation from Heaven, for subserviency to all, or any end, wherein the well being of Christianity is nighly concerned, is not of Divine Right. This Proposition is his own, and therefore he cannot deny it. The Assumption shall be, the Antithesis and Negative of his own thus.
But the President Episcopacy, pleaded for by him, and not instituted by Christ, (as we proved upon Proposition 1. and in the Demonstrated Antithesis thereof) nor continued by his Apostles (as is proved in the Antithesis of Proposition 2. now retained in the Primitive Church, (as is proved in the Antithesis of Proposition 3.) Nor approven by Christ by a Revelation from Heaven (as we have made good in the Antithesis of Proposition 4,) for the avoiding of Schism, wherein the well being of Christianity is nighly concerned, (as we have made good upon Postulatum 3. and resumed upon Proposition 3.) Therefore the President Episcopacy, pleaded for by this Pamphleter, is not of Divine Right, which was to be proved, The 2. Corollarie is thus.
Corollarie 2.
The want of the President Episcopacy is prejudicial to the cause of Christ.
Answer:
We need no more resume, what this man understands by the President Episcopacy. Let us hear the Demonstration.
Demonstration, Major.
The want of that Govarnment in the Church, which is of Divine Right, is pernicious to the Christian Religion; for which we are referred to Axiom, 4.
Answer.
Upon this Axiom, I have told him, that as of it self, it's found and consonant to the Principles of Calvin, and all found Divines, so taking it as restricted to his scope expressed, in his citation of Calvin, (instit. lib. 4. cap. 8. Sect. 2.) anent the necessity of the Apostolick and Ministerial Office, for the Churches Preservation, wherein he supposes him to assert, an Apostolick standing preheminency, and Official Presidency in Ordination and Jurisdiction, to be of equal perpetual necessity, with the Pastoral Office it self, we have in Answer to this told him, that as he has mistaken the place of Calvin; which we have put in its right room; so these words may be soundly understood of the Ministerial Office, as continued in that of the Apostolick Materially and Eminenter, from which a Ministerial Authority, and Office of perpetual necessity is derived. In which sense, our Lord's promised presence with his Apostles, to the end of the World, is to be understood; We have also demonstrate this, and this only, to be Calvins sense, by a large account of the series and contexture of Calvin's discourse, in the Chapter where this passage stands, so that Calvin doth palpably contradict this mans sense, of the president Bishop. Calvin asserting the temporary expired state, and nature of the Apostolick Office, as above that of the Pastor, and likewise (in the citation of this Pamphleter immediately preceeding) that Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, are the only Officers, that have a Divine standing Right, of perpetual necessity; That as Calvin makes the Bishop and Presybters Office one and the same, so he makes it in this distinct from the Apostolick and Evangelistick, that the one is ordinary and perpetual, the other not, the one imports a fixed Charge over a definite Flock, the other not, the one is suited to the Churches state when exedified, the other, to its state in fieri, &c. Thus we have both admitted the Major, in a sound sense, and everted it in his sense.
Assumption.
But the President Episcopacy, (understand this still according to his mold and pleading) is that Government which is of Divine Right.
Answer.
This Assumption I deny, for proof whereof, he referrs to the preceeding Corollarie, immediately before everted, and upon which we have demonstrat the Antithesis of the Conclusion, which this man draws out in his Demonstration, brought to fortifie the same. Thus his Assumption is found nought.
Conclusion.
Therefore the want of the President Episcopacy, is prejudicial to the cause of Christ, evanishes into smoak. To which I oppose (as before) this Antithesis and Counter-Corollarie.
Counter-Corollary.
The want of the President Episcopacy, pleaded for by this man, is not in the sense of Calvin and Beza, prejudicial to the cause of Christ, or the Christian Religion. For proof of which, I offer a Demonstration in his own mold thus.
Demonstration.
The want of that Government, which in the sense of Calvin and Beza, has no Divine Right, or Warrand, is not according to them prejudicial to the cause of Christ, or the Christian Religion. This is his own Proposition upon the matter, for if this Divine Right be the adequat ground, rendering this want pernicious, then the negation of this Divine Right, must have the contrary effect, and in sound methods of reasoning, bear the contrary Conclusion, by the Rule of Opposits. I subsume.
Assumption.
But the President Episcopacy pleaded for by this man, is a Government of the Church, which has no Divine Right, in the sense of these Divines. This I proved in his own mould, as he refers, for proof of this Divine Right, to the preceeding Corollary; I refer (for evincing this negative) to the confutation of his Positive or Affirmative, and the discovery of its falshood, immediately premised. Whereupon I draw out a contradictory conclusion to his; therefore the want of the President Episcopacy, pleaded for by him, is not in the sense of Calvin and Beza, prejudicial to the cause of Christ, or the Christian Religion, which was to be proved; or if he will listen to another Demonstration, he may have it thus.
Demonstration, Major.
If the Churches having the President Episcopacy pleaded for by him, being the sense of Calvin and Beza prejudical to the cause of Christ, then the Churches want of it, cannot be thus prejudicial.
This Major I am hopeful, common reason and learning will not suffer him to deny, Since the denyal thereof, would cause so many clear Rules, of even natural, far more this Gentlemans acquired and habitual Logicks. I subsume.
Assumption.
But so it is, that the existence of that President Episcopacy, (which he pleads for) in the Church, is, in the sense of these Divines, prejudicial to the cause of Christ. This I prove thus; That Episcopacy which in their sense imports, an usurped unlawful Dominion over Pastors, and impeaches their Authority allowed them of God, which has thus given a rise to the destructive Antichristian …yranny over the Church, the existence of that Government in the Church, must needs be in their Judgement prejudicial to the cause of Christ. This Proposition I am confident, he will not deny. I subsume.
But the President Episcopacy which he pleads for, is in the judgement of Calvin and Beza, of this nature and issue. Therefore it is in their Judgement the Churches prejudice, to have been burthened with this Government. The Minor is above fully proved, First as to Calvin, in that as he clearly asserts, all Pastors to have one and the same Function, so the encroachment of one under the peculiar title of Bishop, upon this their equal Authority, we heard him expresly condemn upon Phil, 1. And next for Beza, we heard him clearly assert, that the Episcopus humanus, and the begun encroachments thereof, upon the Collegiat Authority of Pastors, in Churches Government, gave the rise to the Oligarchical and Antichristian tyranny, which was the native issue and effect thereof. (upon Rev. 2. 24, 26) And let any judge, if an Episcopacy, with such a pretended Ap…stolick Official preheminency in Ordination and Jurisdiction, over Pastors, as this man has shappen out, be not of this mould in Beza's and Calvins Judgement, so that we may again safely conclude upon the whole, that therefore the existence of this President Bishop in the Church, (to which our Pamphleter has endeavoured to draw the Patrociny of Calvin and Beza, in these distorted places, above examined) is by them condemned as an Idol of jealousy, prejudicial to the Cause of Christ, and the Christian Religion, which was to be demonstrated.
FINIS.
End of the text · Thomas Forrester, Vindication and Assertion of Calvin and Bezas Presbyterian Principles (1692)