Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A25580
|
An ansvver to the Call to humiliation: or, A vindication of the Church of England, from the reproaches and objections of W. Woodward, in two fast sermons, preach'd in his conventicle at Lemster, in the county of Hereford, and afterwards published by him.
|
|
1691
(1691)
|
Wing A3394; ESTC R213077
|
38,282
|
42
|
validity of Foreign Ordinations And thus having separated their Cause from that of other Protestants I proceed to examine what he urges for it and his first Reason is this I. That the word of God makes not difference between the Bishop and the Presbyter or Pastor of a Church and he cites those Texts Acts 20.7.28 and Tit. 1.5 6 7. to prove that those Names are promiscuously used Three ways have been taken to Answer this Objection 1. That both the Names of Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture denote always the Prelatical Bishop and not the Modern Presbyter 2. That even in Scripture the Names are so distinguished that a mere Presbyter alone is never call'd a Bishop tho' a Bishop is often call'd a Presbyter Both these Opinions have been well defended * By Dr. Hammond and Dr. Taylor and perhaps it is impossible to consute them but to cut off all superfluous Disputes it is enough to Answer 3. That tho' the Names of Bishop and Presbyter are not distinct in Scripture yet it is a very fallacious way of arguing from the indistinction of Names to infer the Identity of Offices St. John the Apostle calls himself twice a * 2d Ep. John v. 1. 3d Ep. v. 1. Presbyter †Rom. 16.7 Andronious Junia and * Phil. 2.25 Epapheaditus who according to this Minister's opinion were only Presbyters are reciprocally call'd Apostles Are the Offices of an Apostle and Presbyter therefore really the same This one instance is a clear Demonstration of the Falshood of that Consequence Though there was a confusion of Names there was yet a distinction of Offices and if that can be proved viz. That in the Apostolical Churches some single Persons had a Pre-eminency of Power and Authority over the other Presbyters it will necessarily follow that that Office to which the Name of Bishops is now appropriated is at least of Apostolical Institution Timothy and Titus * See Jus Divinum Ministerii Anglicani p. 71 72. are granted by all sides to have had such a Superiority and the Presbyterians only pretend that their Office was extraordinary and expired with them but this is affirmed without sufficient Proof for what though Timothy be required to do the Work of an Evangelist can they prove that this signifies any more than a Preacher of the Gospel And if it could be proved to be a Temporary Office how does it appear that his Episcopal Power was a part of that Office or that it was not distinct and separate from it On the contrary it may be proved by a Cloud of Witnesses that this Power was not Temporary but was every where derived by Succession upon single Persons and particulably as to the Succession of Timothy and Titus we have the Confession of Du Moulin * In his 3d. Ep. to Bishop Andrews p. 181 182. That the Episcopal Order was of Apostolical institution and that what name soever we give to Timothy and Titus whether Bishops or Evangelists it is manife that they had Bishops for their Successors and Heirs of their pre-eminency And in fine this precarious Pretence of extraordinary Offices may with equal reason be urg'd as we find it is by Anabaptists Quakers and Socinians against the whole Order of the Ministry and if it be admitted as Mr. * In his Christian Directory cited in the Vnreason of Separ p. 264. Baxter once confess'd we leave room for andaecious Wits to question other Gospel Institutions at Pastors and Sacraments and to say they were but for one Age. The Sum is this there is clear Evldence in Scripture that there were some Officers who had Power of Jurisdiction over Presbyters and therefore the Texts which he produces to shew the Community of Names can be no Argument against it But to justifie Ordination by Presbyter he cites 1 Tim. 4.14 where it is intimated that Timothy was ordained by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery To this it is answered * On the brief Account of Church Government in Answer to the writings of the Presbyterians p. 195. c. 1. That Presbytery there is taken for the Office of a Presbyter and so the Sense runs thus neglect not the Gift or Office of a Presbyter which was given thee by Prophecy with the Imposition of hands and this Sense is warranted by the Authority of * Calv. Instit lib. 4. c. 3. sect 16. Calvin and of St. * St Jerom. in Locum Jerome long before him 2. If Presbytery be taken for the Ordainers it may nevertheless be understood of such Presbyters as had a Superior Power over others for as Apostles and Bishops are sometimes called Presbyters so might they Collectively be called Presbytery and accordingly it is observed that the Apostles themselves are called by St Ignatius the Presbytery of the Church 3. It is evident from 2 Tim. 1.6 that St. Paul was the principal if not the only 〈◊〉 ordainer of him and surely it is no good consequence that if Presbyters may assist an Apostle or a Bishop at an Ordmation therefore they may ordain without him He conchides that Augustine Jerome and Chrysostome with many other Greeks and Latins are of his Judgment but he produces no passages out of any of these Authours but asserts roundly that they are all of his mind and 't is as easie to answer that they are all against him however when he shall produce his Testimonies it will be time enough to examine them Secondly He proceeds to justifie his Orders by the Authority of our own and Foreign Churches All our learned Divines at the Reformation from Popery beld that Ordination by the Pastors of Churches he means Presbyters was valid and good Thus he affirms on without proving many Greeks and Latines and all our Divines are only consident Phrases and ought to pass for nothing in short I defie him to produce any one of those Divines that has allowed of Presbyterian Ordinations made in a Schismatical opposition to Bishops and without the Case of necessity But he adds The Twenty third Article of Ministring in the Congregation seems to speak as much That Article declares That it is not lawful to exercise the Ministry without a lawful Calling and that those are lawfully called who are called by Men who have publick Authority given them in the * Quibus potestas publice concessa est in Ecclesia Art Edit 1552 1562. Congnegation i.e. the Church to do it And how impertinent is this Allegation was publick Authority ever given in our Church to Presbyters to ordain Priests or Deacons on the contrary it is expressy provided in the Preface to the * Approved Art 36. and established by Acts of Parl. Reg. Edw. 6. Eliz. p. 58. Form of Ordination in our Liturgy that whereas it is evident unto all Men diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there hath been these Orders of Ministers in Christs Church Bishops Priests and
Deacons therefore to the intent these Orders should be continued and reverently used and esteemed in the Church of England it is requisite that no Man shall execute any of them excep the be called tryed examined and admitted according to the Form hereafter following and I hope it is evident from that form that a Bishop is necessary to Ordination He goes on and affirms That the French Belgick and Helvetick Churches besides many others are of his Judgment All the other Protestant Churches excepting only Geneva have Episoopal Government and that they allow Ordination by Presbyters in opposition to it is an Assertion that may well be thought incredible till it be sufficiently proved and as for the Churches he mentions their Divines account the Non-Conformists Ordinations Schismatical and the best defence of their own is necessity But he needs not name the Church of Scotland for Scotland says he hath justified all our Non-Conformity By Scotland he means the Presbyterian party of that Kingdom * See the Letters about the Persecution Scotland p. 58. the lesser part for the whole but however if Scotland justifies them it is the only Church in the world that do so Lastly He adds our Diocesan Bishops may glory over us as the Kings Bishops or Bishops of the State which is just the Raillery of the Papists Parliament Bishops and Nags-head Bishops But are our Bishops ordained by the King and State are they not Christ's Bishops and Scripture Bishops No for this new Apostle of Patmos does Peremptorily tell them that they must not pretend to be so near in Blood to the Scripture Bishops of the first Two hundred years as the Pastors of single Congregations But with Submission to his Apostleship I reply that the * Jus Divin Minis Aug. 71. Presbyterian Assembly have granted that Timothy and Titus had super out Authority over Presbyters and therefore our Bishops having the same Authority may pretend to Kindred with them 2. * Ibid. p. 140. They acknowledge also after Blondel that above 140 years after Christ Bishops were set over Presbyters so that they grant them to be introduced within 40 or 50 years after the decease of all the Apostles 3. The Epistles of Ignatius who was Contemporary with the Apostles and suffered Martyrdom within nine years after the decease of St. John do manifestly shew that the superiour Authority of Bishops was then established in the Church and therefore certainly by Apostolical Institution And the Authority of these Epistles has been so demonstratively cleared from all Exceptions by Bishop Pearson that there is now no Contreversie about it 4. Mr. Chillingworth at the end of his Book has plainly demonstrated the Apostolical Institution of Episcopacy and he Sums up his Demonstration in these Words Episcopal Government is acknowledged to have been received universally in the Church presently after the Apostles times Between the Apostles times and this presently after there was not time enough for nor possibility of so great an Alteration And therefore there was no such Alterat on as is pretended And therefore Episcopacy being * By Peter du Moulin Beza Chamier Nic. vedetius whom he cites as Confessing it confessed to be so Antient and Catholick must be granted also to be Apostolick Quod erat Demonstrandum And I hope this Minister will condescend to answer this Demonstration when he writes again or however be so modest as not to conclude so confidently when he has proved nothing But behold the Chair of Infallibility Wherefore I say that Ordination by the hands of the Pastors of Churches filled with the Holy Ghost is much more elegible than by Diocesan Bishops a very peremptory Decree but we must not question it for Pythagoras hath said so yet thus much I presume to Answer that Diocesan Bishops are filled with the Holy Ghost as well as parochal Pastors and that Schismaticks have no Title to it We come now to his Third Reason of Non-Conformity the Declaration of Assent and Consent required in the Act of Vniformity to the Book of Common-Prayes And 〈◊〉 He can't Assent to that passage in the Athanasian Creed where it is said that every one that doth not keep that Faith whole shall without doubt perish Everlastingly Now it is certain the Athanasian Creed is entirely * The Judgment of Foreign Reformed Churches p. 32 33. received and approved by all the protestant Churches in the World excepting only the Antitrinitarians as hath been lately observed and therefore this Minister is herein a Non-Conformist to all Protestant Churches as well as to the Church of England and they are all Condemned together as practising a point of Popery in damning all that differ from them Let us see now the Reason upon which all Protestant Churches are condemned by him One Article says he of that Creed is about the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son which the Greek Churches did not believe nor receive and supposing them in an Error he adds I must be very bold if I leap into the Throne of Judgment and pronounce them damned I am as much afraid as he is of invading Christ's Tribunal and pronouncing any one damned much more a whole Church and such a Church as comprehends so many Millions of Christians But 1. The Differences between the Greek and Latine Church about the Article of Procession is by Mr. Field of the Church lib. 3. c. 1. Loads Conf. p. 16. Pearson on the Creed p. 324. Learned men affirmed to be only verbal because the Greeks acknowledged under another Scripture Expression in the same thing which the Latines understand by Procession viz. that the Spirit is of or from the Son as he is of and from the Father That as the Son is God of God by being of the Father so the Holy Ghost is God of God by being of the Father and the Son as receiving that infinite and eternal Essence from them both Thus Bishop Pearson upon the Article and if so it be then there is no difference about the Doctrine it self but only about the word Procession But says this Minister The Procession of the Holy 〈◊〉 Ghost is a most profound Mystery and very much obscured by bringing in word Procession and is not this a most profound Objection Is it not rather profound Non Sense to say that the Procession is obscured by the word Procession And how does the expressing that Mystery by Procession any more obscure it than the infinite Duration of God is obscured by calling it Eternity But the Scripture on that occasion never uses the word In relation to the Father it is used * John 15.26 expresly and in Relation to the Son it is contained virtually in Scripture where the Holy Ghost is often said to be the Spirit of the Son and that is all which is understood by proceeding from him and if no words are to be admitted that are not found in Scripture the old-Subtersuge of the Arrians we