A new argument affigned by later Presbyters to prove the temporariness of the firft ordained, inftead of convincing us of their temporariness, leads us into the confideration of a Law-giver, who conftituted them. This Lawgiver was Jefus Chrift our Lord, whofe appointment of the Apoftles, or of any other Officers in his Church, was no extraordinary thing (nothing more properly, or ordinarily belonging to a Legiflator, then to make Laws, and appoint Officers to put them in execution) neither was the Office temporary, becaufe the Law-giver appointed the firft Officers, for all orders, whether civil, or ecclefiaftical, must have their commencement, fome must be the original Officers, but fo long as the fociety is the fame, the office, though not the officers is the fame. To conclude, we have not the fame Minifiry, because we have not the fame Individual Minifters, is most defperate, it killing all Laws, in the death of the prefent adminiftrators. Secondly, not others; Because the Apoftles power to ordain others, was derived from Chrifts promife of a perpetual prefence, which fettled Apoftles themselves to the worlds end, officially, though not perfonally; according to their practice, not conjectured at by after ages, but plainly recorded in Scripture, was in their lives time to derive their Office unto others: as unto Mathias, Timothy, Titus, and others. But here the Shoe wrings, and Presbyterian Divines cry out importunately that these perfons were all temporary, and two of them, or Timothy and Titus were Evangelifts, not confidering that if the temporaryness of the Apostles were granted, this impofeth a fresh neceffity upon them to fhew, how the Apoftles could derive what was temporary in themselves, unto others temporarily, or for term of life; derivation of official trusts being the moft undoubted evidence, both of the perpetuation of offices, and fucceffion of officers. This one thing were fufficient to warrant our difmiffion of Zanchy's reasons as invalid in this controverfie about the temporarynefs of officers, and to prepare our way to the arguments confirming our denyal of the limitation of any officers to the Apostles dayes. But we must refpite the latter for a little space, because we Church-offi- find others of Zandby's opinion have fomewhat more to add why cers, and to a- Judgment fhould not be given against him, or them: We must void the force therefore beg our Readers patience a while till we have examinof the argu- ed it, and then we fhall God willing proceed. ments for their continu- Our latter Presbyters perceiving the Cogency of fome of the ance; It is. formeinftances, are enforced to grant that Apoftolical acts of office office, or what was done by the Apoftles, or committed by them to others, relative to the Churches propagation, and government, whether by ordination of Minifters, or exercife of the Cenfures, &c. was derived downward into fome hands, and continued difpenfable by thofe Trustees unto this day; and muft perpetually continue fo till the end of the Churches militancy. But to fecure their Principles, they start a question about the orders of thofe Trustees, whether it were the fame with the Apoftolate (higher it cannot be) or diftinct and infericur. The former part of the query they infift not much uppon, for affirmed and proved, it maintains our opinion, and refolutely oppofeth the temporarynefs of any of the first Minifters; and that with reafon, fince it gives Chrifts inftitution the authority to direct Apoftolick practice, whereas the con- The Apotrary nullifies Chrifts inftitution by Apoftolick practice. There- les derived fore they build upon the latter,wherein they are fo forward, & work unto a clamorous that (though Judge,& party) they have outfaced fome diftinct, and part of the reformed Chriftian world, that themselves are the inferiour orApoftles defcendants, and fucceffors in thofe trufts. Where-der of offiby we have not an abolition of the office, but a mutation of Presbyters. the order of the officers. This is a high, and till our time un- Their reaheard of notion, requiring little less then a fecond defcent of fons for it. our Saviour for its authorization. But this they do not, nor dare pretend unto; let us confider impartially, and in the fear of God what they alledge. their office cers, viz. unto Anf. to dif Firft, Our Affembly feign a fophiftical diftinction, whereby Apostles acted First, the when the whole practice of the Apoftles will ferve their turns, fometimes as they arrogate it, because qui Apoftoli, or those who were Apo- Apostles ftles acted as Presbyters, but when it will not they renounce it, fometimes as and fay the Apostles therein wrought quá Apoftoli, or as they Presbyters. were Apoftles; but I dare fay (without any partial reflection fenters p. 52. upon these times) that this is a meer jugle, and fhift to palliate and p. 55. their boiftrous extrufion of Epifcopacy, and fallacious intrufion This diftinof their Antifcriptural Government upon the Church of Eng-ation is, first land, for as it confounds two diftinct offices (of which more by Secondly and by) fo all our Divines thus cenfure it in Bellarmin, who Popish. endeavoureth to prove, That none of all the Apostles, but St Bellar. de Peter had fucceffors, because as he faith, The powers given to Rom. Pontif. him, and them joyntly as Apostles, were particularly fettled up- Se&. refponon him and his fucceffors, as the ordinary Paftor. And the deo magnum truth is this diftinction grows out of fuch pliable timber as Ar- effe difcrimen. tifts may make fcammum,aut Priapum,Confiftory, or Pope, or what they please out of it. Secondly, fallacious, lib 4. ca.B Secondly, officers may fucceed each other into their work, not into their Wight. This reason is fallaciously ted. Secondly, The Minifters at Wight prove Presbyters to be ftanding Apoftles, because af they fay; There may be fucceffion into the fame work, though not into the fame commiffion, or office. Thus they, but if it be a reafon why Presbyters fucceed Apoftles, it tranfcends my capacity, and I fhall by and by, give my reafons why I cannot understand it. But leaft fome fallacious evafion lurk in thefe general terms, fame works, and fame office: We defire our Reader (ere we make a direct answer) to carry in his memory our former diftinction concerning ecclefiaftical works, viz. into common propounded works, or works done by both orders, and distinct works, or works; by them. done by only one of them; for we cannot deny prefent Presbyters And is by us, a faculty to do what ever was officially done by former Presby1. Explicaters, though those works were commonly, and promifcuoufly done both by Apoftles, and Presbyters. This we do deny, that Presbyters fucceed Apoftles, or that their performance of common works, will intitle them to do what was distinctly done by the Apostles in the Primitive time; for then all diftinction betwixt Apoftolical, and Presbyterial order, is utterly removed; then the firft Presbyters lived, and dyed ignorant of their cheifeft priviledges, and 'tis either a Tautology in St Luke, or an ufurpation in the Apostles, or both, that he diftributes the officers of the Church at Jerufalem, into Apostles and Elders; It lies therefore upon the contrivers of this reason, or Paradox, To prove, that what official act the Apostles did by distinct commiffion, and never communicated to former Presbyters, is derived as a work unto prefent Presbyters, who make no pretence or challenge to the commiffions, either of the first Apostles, or Presbyters. That they pretend not to an Apoftolical commiffion, this affertion of the Wight Divnes informs us. And that they do not make claim to the commiffions of the first Presbyters, hath been partly fhewed in the fifth Exception, and fhall be hereafter more fully evidenced, in anfwer to the third Presbyterian reason of the Apoftles derivation of their office-works unto Presbyters. Thus have we fhewed what the Divines at Wight have faid, and what they are to prove; They have affirmed without reafon that Presbyters fucceed Apoftles in their work, though not in their office: Secondly denyed be caufe Firft, 'tis falfe, and of dangerous We deny it for the following reafons. Firft'tis falfe, and of dangerous confequence, that any one confequence. fhould fucceed another into his officework, but not into his comIts falfemiffion or office: 'Tis falfe, because the commiffion and office hood. gives the relation betwixt officers & people,& office works are the actual performance of the duties belonging to that relation. Now as there can be no effect without its immediate cause, so neither can the fame work be done without the fame relation; relation and work, not being contradiftind, bnt fubordinate, fo that it can no more be the fame work where the office is divers, then it can be the fame duty without the fame relation. I prove this by an inftance too too familiar in these Schifmatical times: A Lay, or unordained perfon, may actually baptize, or celebrate the Communion in the prefcribed forme, but is his the work of a Minifter? or is he made a Minifter by doing it? Indeed it is a like act, bnt 'tis not the fame, because the Adminiftrator, and a Minifter have not the fame Church relation., There is the fallacy, and here is the Its dange danger of the notion; for if the fame work may be done with- ronfefs. out the fame office, then all the Church acts of an unordai. ned intruder (fo they be done in common, and ordinary form) are juftifiable and valid, or none are,because what he,and an or dained officer doth, are the fame works. And when he is rebuked for meddling with the Minifterial office, he may answer, and alledge in his own defence, that he pretends not to the Minifterial cffice, but to the work, for doing whereof he is unjustly blamed, fince Minifters themselves grant there may be a fucceffion into the fame work, though not into the Commiffion, Secondly, or office. Reafon being thus irreconcilable to this irrational 'tis contrary notion, we take it for granted, that fo is Scripture the rather, to the nature because these Wight Divines alledge none in favour ofit, of Chrifts wherefore not finding it bottomed either upon reafon, or Scripcommission ture, we suppose it to be borrowed from the oft interrupted tranfactions of temporal Princes, who themfelves, commiffions, offices and officers, are all temporary, alterable, and perishing; which as not prefcriptive in this cafe, and violently drawing Chrift to an imitation of humane formalities(it implying his keeping a Patent office, where when one officer dyes, another comes and receives a new Commiffion for his office) we cenfure for a prophane, and Phanatick novelty. And do in a direct oppofition maintain, that King Jefus who never dyes, never is put by, or depofed from the Regiment of his Church, but is yesterday to day, the fame day for ever, he who is, was, and is to come the Almighty;perpetually grants the fame offices,& impowers to perform the fame works by the fame Commiffion, without renual or alteration Nor can it want proofto a diligent Q3 observer " 3. Reaf. Presbyters were conftituted by a obferver, of Mat. 28. 18, 19, 20. Ephef. 4. 11, 12, 13. that his Commiffion is iffued forth, directed, and confirmed, not to a perfonal and ftinted number of officers, fince they decay, alter, and dye dayly,but to a perpetual and unchangeable office,capacitating fucceffive officers to preach, baptize, and perfect the faints, work in the ministry, and edifie the body of Chrift, till the end of the world, and till we all come in the unity, &c. Suffice this to be spoken against the second Reason, or Paradox. But there is more behind, for the Wight Divines present us with monftrous affertions (as the unclean beafts entered the Ark) in couples, but with this difference, they were both of a kind, these diverse, and being conceived of mingled feed, áre by far the more monftrous; behold the Beast. Thirdly, The fame Wight Divines explicatively of the former Affertion (fire there was need) add in the fame place, these words, The ordinary officers, which are to manage the works of dateless Apo- teaching, and government are conftituted, fettled, and limited by ftolical pra&tice, not by warrant of Scripture, as by another commiffim, then that which Chrifts com- the Apoftles had. I trembled in my felf at reading of this fond, and perillous diftinction, fond, because it is a diftinction without a difference; Chrifts Commiffion to my fenfe being warrant of Scripture, and warrant of Scripture being Chrifts This diftin-Commiffion Perillous because if it be a lawful diftinction, and Яtion is fond wartant of Scripture, and Christs Commiffion do conftitute diand perillous. vers officers to do the fame works of feeding, and governing, miffion. Wight Divines second paper. then an officer by Chrifts Commission is none by warrant of Scripture: And an officer by warrant of Scripture, is none by Chrifts Commiffion. Befides many, and perplexed were my thoughts, and enquiries what this warrant of Scripture should -be, whether fomewhat preceding, or fomewhat fucceeding Chrifts -Commiffion; If preceding, I refolved Chrift would not impofe -null Commiffions upon his Church. If fucceeding, I perceived not how her officers could hold their places by a better Pa-tent, then their Kings, and Lawgivers. After I had fufficiently wearied my felf, I found thefe Divines elsewhere thus delivering themselves in this matter. They fay, The ordinary powers of teaching and governing, are fett led in the hands of ordinary officers, In the fame by a new warrant and commiffion, according to the rules of ordinatifecond Paper not far before, and calling in the Word. This refolved me, that this pre-tended Scripture warrant, was pofteriour to Chrifts Commiffion, and if thefe Divines (ay true, Chrift committed one thing to the Apoftles, and they practiced another; but I was not fo the end. farr |