(?H&P. X�.] 4?it DERS. 3vhich we could give many examples. 2. Every pious, qualified, and fhithful pastor is a successor of the apostles. For in respect of their ex*traordinary calling, miraculous gifts, and aposfieship, the apostles have properly n?) successors. That, therefore, to which the apostles were specially appointed is the thing wherein they were properly suc- ceeded. But this was the preaching of the gospel. So the burden of their commission from our Lord was to preach tAe go?el, end teacA it to the world. Matt xxviii, 18, 19; Mark xvi, 15; Luke xxiv, 47. So St. Paul saith he u?s z?nt to preo?h, not to ba-pt?ze. I Cur. i, 17. 'Phis also appears from Isaiah, where he saith, in the name of the I,ord, '" My words which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor of thy seed's seed," Isa. lix, 21. The promise of succession, we see, is principally in the preaching of tl?e gospel, which appertaineth as well to other ministers as to bishops. Add to this, that bishops and presbyters were 'neither in name nor office distin?[uished in the apostles' time, it fol- lows, that either the apostles assigned no succession while they lived, nor appointed their successors, or that indifferently all faithful pastors
- ?nd preachers of the apostolic faith are the apostles' successors.
- 5. When the (leacons were elected, Christians were mostly confined
to Jerusalem; the apostles, therefore, principally attended to preach- ing the word. But afterward, when they had ordained pastors in other churches, to them also was the word of reconciliation committed. "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evan- gelism; and some, pastors and teachers," Eph. iv, 11. So that pastors ?Lnd teachers, though first ordained by the apostles, had authority-to preach without any farther license or restraint from the apostles. 4. Their doctrine on this point is both absurd and contradictory. They say it is not proper for the priesthood to preach, but only to have power tosacrifice the body of Christ; but it is proper for the bishop to preach. We answer: First, then the bishop is properly the pastor of erery flock and congregation in his discess, for he that feedeth is pro- perly the pastor. Therefore the minister having pastoral charge of the congregation or parish is the mere substitute or vicar of the bishop. But what bishop is able to bear so great a burden as to have the spe- cial charge of all the souls in his discess ? Although he may properly enough have a cqrtain jurisdiction over them, yet to suppose that he is their pastor, and hath the power and principal charge of souls in teach- 'ing and feeding, is absurd in the extreme. Secondly, the Rhemists inform us, that many who are not able to preach are qualified to be bishops ;* consequently it is not proper for bishops to preach. Then whose dnty is it to preach, if neifizer for bishops nor inferior pastors ? 'Phirdly, they make but seven orders of ecclesiastical ministers, and the priesthood is the chief; for a bishop and a priest, according to many of them, make but one order. But to none of all these orders is it proper to preach; for seeing it does not properly belong to the priest, ssone of the inferior orders can challenge it. Thus they attach so little importance to the principal part of the minister's work, which is the preaching of the gospel. Indeed, preaching the gospel, according to .them, is not so necessary a duty but that it can well be dispensed with. Finally, one part of the priest's duty is to preach; yet it is under
- ?ote on I Tim. v, 17.'
Digitized by ?002Ic
�
