« PreviousContinue »
Apostles immediatły, or perfonally admitted Officers, were temporary; whereby the Church would now be utterly deprived of the Presbyterate, and of the Diaconate, yea of all order,
and power of ordination; Since the Apostles in their own perThe proof fons, ordained both Elders Act. 14. 23. and Deacons, A&.b 1, of the affirma.
2, 3. &c. This mischiefis avoided, and the mistake which cautive.
fech it, by a right understanding of the nature of ordination, atitit in which be it administred by the Apostles, or by any other law
fully impowred from the Law-giver downward to the end of the world is not, nør never was any temporary, or arbitrary thing, but a permanent Church act grounded upon Christs institution, and promise to perpetuate the ministry. This muft ministerially commence in Apoftoliek ordination, but wasic thereforeremporary? to whom did Christ promise a perpetul al ministry, but to the first Church whereof the Apoftles were Ministers? What ! did they see the date and expiration of that promise? Is the worlds end, and the Apostles lives-end Syncaima's, and terms equivalent ? or did that world then ccafe, and another begin fmce? certainly ifit be fill the same world, if there beany of the All fpoken of by Sem who are yet to come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect managem.c. they are yndyrathe same promise, and have the same means of its' acolodgment. This the
London Divines acknowledge, they fay, For ordination of MiniJus divin. fters, we have not onelyApostolical example, but Apoftolical precept, to par palo 1 Tin. 5. 22. Ifür be further.
objeded, thaty'ordination mentioned in the text forenamed was only for those times and not to continue to the end of the world.
Anf. This is not true; for if the ministry be to continue to the end of the world, then the way to enter into the mixifiry enjgned by the Apofikes, is alforo continue: And there can be no realan brought mby the one should be abolished, and not the piber. Thus they. And herehence is eafily colligible, that they dink whatever the Apostles commanded concerning ordivation is practicable unto the end of the world; whereunto ladd that ordination pra&iced by the Apostles, was only the fir-ft link of the chain of the fuccession of Church-officers, because unless duly ordained officers, till, and at this day are ordained, a'd do ordain as truly, and into the same commission, as if the Apostles were ftill alive, and afsifted in those a&tions; the commission, ordination and promise are all loft, and the Church hath eyer fince the death of thof-Apoftles boen governed by new eracted officers.
This truth is perpetually attested by all the Antients, they ún-
Zanchy's reasons for the temporariness ofthe first Church-officers, namely, either because they A breif rewere chosen by Revelation, or because they were Apoftolically capitulation, ordained, and we hope if what we have written-meet with un- ment of our prejudiced Readers, it will convince their consciences of the instances ainvalidity of those reasons, let them be considered either gainst Zanjoyntly,or separately.
chyes reasons If they be considered joyntly, and Revelation associate with for the tempo. Apoftolical ordination determine the tenporariness of Officers, Church-offithen Revelation in conjunction, is the confusion of ordination ; cers. and Scepticks in religion may deservedly question how following ordinations can perpetuate any ecclefiaftical Officer, since new Revelations may be pretended to discontinue them, which will as little contradict Christs promise, or the Churches pra&tife, as the fornier did, they being both of them as express for the continuance of those Ministers, which former Revelations made temporary; As for the perpetuation of those Minifters, which till these new ones come, we judge continuing.
If they be confidered separately, then to recapitulate fum up, and breifly enforce what hath already been more largely handled. We may tell those who maintain the contrary.
That divine Revelation did not make any Officer temporary, because all Church-officers are founded upon Revelation;, which in its first discoveries gives them to, and leaves them with the Church; to abide with her until the end of the world, and till we all come in the unity of the faith, &c. And if any fucceeding Revelation shouldann uthe former, the divine right of the Ministry is utterly loft,fince both the Primitive, and present Church are under one, and the same Mediatorian Government. And as, we may tell them this, fo alfo,
That the ordination of the Apostles by Chrift, did not make themselves, or those whom they ordained temporary. First not themselves, for that the Apostles themselves were Q
ordained, instead of convincing us of their temporariness, leads us into the consideration of a Law-giver, who constituted them. This Lawgiver was Jesus Chrift our Lord, whole appointment of the Apostles, or of any other Officers in his Church, was no extraordinary thing (nothing more properly, or ordinarily belonging to a Legislator, then to make Laws, and appoint Officers to put them in execution) neither was the Office temporary, because the Law-giver appointed the first Officers, for all orders, whether civil, or ecclefiaftical, mult have their commencement, some must be the original Officers, but folong as the society is the same, the office, though not the officers is the same. To conclude, we have not the same Miniftry, because we have not the same Individual Ministers, is mot desperate, it killing all Laws, in the death of the present administrators.
Secondly, not others; Because the Apostles power to ordain others, was derived from Christs promise of a perpetual prefence, which settled Apostles themselves to the worlds end, officially, though ngt. Personally; according to their pra&ice, not conjectured aubyafter'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 persons were all tenporary, and two of them, or Timothy and Titus were Evangelists, not considering that if the temporaryness of the Apostles were granted, this imposeth a fresh necessity upon them to Thew, how the Apostles could derive what was temporary in themselves, unto others temporarily, or for term of life, derivation of official trafts being the most undoubted evidence, both of the perpetuation of offices, and fuccession of officers. This one thing were suffici
ent to warrant our dismission of Zanchy's reasons as invalid in gument afligned by later this controverfie about the temporaryness of officers, and to Presbyters to prepare our way to the arguments confirming our denyal of the
limitation of any officers to the Apostles dayes. temporariness
But we must respite the latter for a little space, because we Church-offi- find others of Zandby's opinion have somewhat more to add why cers, and to a- Judgment should not be given against him, or them : Wemust void the force therefore beg our Readers patience a while till we have examinof the argu- ed it, and then we shall God willing proceed. their continu. Our latter Presbyters perceiving the Cogency of some of the ance ; Itis. forméiuftances, are enforced to grant that Apoftolical acts of
A new ar
of the first
office, or what was done by the Apoftles, or committed by
. the Cenfures, &c. was derived downward into fome hands, and continued dispensable by those Trustees 'unto this day and must perpetually continue fo till the end of the Churches militancy. But to secure their Principles, they start a quekion about the orders of those Trustees, whether it were the same with the Apoftolate (higher it cannot be) or distinct and infe, ricur. The former part ofthe quæry they ialist not much uppon, for affirmed and proved, it maintains our opinion, and resolutely opposeth the temporaryness of any of the first Minifters; and that with reason, since it gives Chrifts inftitution the anthority to direct Apoftolick practice, whereas the con- The Apotrary nullifies Christs institution by Apoftolick practice. There their officefore they build upon the latter
wherein they are so forward, & work unto a clamorous that(though Judge,& party) they have outfaced somedistin&, and part of the reformed Christian world, that themselves are the inferiour orApoftles descendants, and successors in those trusts. Where-der of offiby we have not an abolition of the office, but a mutation of pers, viz.unto the order of the officers. This is a high, and till out time un- Their reaheard of notion, requiring little less then a second descent of fons for it. our Saviour for its authorization. But this they do not, nor dare pretend unto; let us consider impartially, and in the fear of God what they alledge.
Firft, Our Assembly feign a sophistical diftin&tion, whereby Firt, the when the whole practice of the Apostles will serve their turns, sometimes as they arrogate it, because qui Apostoli, or those who were Apo- Apostles Atles acted as Presbyters, but when it will not they renounce it, sometimes as and say the Apostles therein wrought quả Apoftoli, or as they Presbyters. were Apostles; but Idare fay (without any partial reflection senters p. 52. upon
these times) that this is a meer jugle, and shift to palliate and p:55. their boistrous extrusion of Episcopacy, and fallacious intrusion. This distinof their Antiscriptural Government upon the Church of Eng- &tion is, first land, for as it confounds two distinct offices (of which more by Secondly and by) fo all our Divines thus censure it in Bellarmin, who Popish. endeavoureth to prove, That none of all the Apostles, but St Bellar
. de Peter had succeffors, because as he faith, The powers given to Rom. Pontif. him, and i bemjoyntly as Apostles, were particularly settled up-Se&. refponon him and his fucceffors, as the ordinary Paftor.! And the deo magnum truth is this diftin&ion grows out of such pliable timber as Ar-efe difcrimen. tifts may make fcampum,aut Priapum,Confiftory, or Pope, or what they please out of it.
Secondly, The Ministers at Wight frove Presbyters to be Secondly, officers may standing Apostles, because at they say There may be succession fucceed each into the same work, though not into the same commiffon, or office. other into Thus they, but if it bea reason why Presbyters succeed Apotheir work, : flesy it transcends my capacity, and I shall by and by, give my not into their commisi,on.
reasons why I cannot understand it.. Ministers at
But least some fallacious evasion lurk in these general terms, Wight. same works, and fame office : We desire our Reader (ere we
2. Paper. make a direct answer) to carry in his memory our former diis fallaciously ftin&tion concerning ecclefiaftical works, viz. into common propounded works, or poorks done by both orders, and distinci works, or works by them. done by only one of them; for we cannot deny present Presbyters And is by us, a faculty to do what ever was officially done by former Presby
ters, though those works were commonly, and promiscuously done both by Apostles, and Presbytei's. This we do deny, that Presbyters fucceed Apostles, or that their performance of common works, will intitle them to do whać was distinctly done by the Apostles in the Primitive time; for then all diAtinction betwixx Apoftolical, and Presbyterial order, is utterly removed; then the first Presbyters lived, and dyed ignorant of their cheifeft priviledges, and 'tis either a Tautology in St Luke, or an usurpation in the Apostles, or both, that he diftributes the officeirs of the Church at Jerusalem, 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 commission, and never communicated to former Presbyters, is derived as a work unto present Presbyters, who make no pretence or challenge to the commisions, either of the first Apostles, or Presbyters. That they pretend not to an Apoftolical commission, this assertion of the Wight Divnes informs us. And that they do not make claim to the commissions of the first Presbyters, hath been partly shewed in the fifth Exception, and shall be hereafter more fully evidenced, in answer to the third Presbyterian reason of the Apoftles derivation of their office-works uuto Presbyters.
Thus have we shewed what the Divines at Wight have said, Secondly and what they are to prove; They have affirmed without readenyed be
son that Presbyters succeed Apostles in their work, though not
in their office : false, and of We deny it for the following reasons. dangerous First?tis false, and of dangerous consequence, that any one consequence. should succeed another into his officework, but not into his comIts falle
miffion or office: ?Tis false, because the commission and office hood.