station Calvin on Act. 21. 8. Speaking of Philip the Evangelist the same he hath on Tit. 1. 5. Nulla certa statio assignata Evangelistis 3. Appropriating the Name Bishop as peculiar to one Pastor set over others is an abuse of Scripture Language and the Divine Institution Coment on Philip. 1. 4. The reason of this is that all Pastors or Presbyters have one and the same and an equal Function and Official Authority so that Dominion in any of them over another is a sinful impeachment of this their equal Official Power and Aâ—thority lbid 5. The passage Tit. 1. 7. proves aboundantly that there is no difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter the Apostle using both names indifferently as Ierom hath observed Therefore the Office being common to all Pastors it is an absurd perversion of Scripture Language to give this Official name Bishop to one robbing the rest of the Pastors thereof Ibidem And if he quarrel the robbing of them of their Official Name therefore much more the robbing them of any piece of their Official Power and Authority 6. The Bishops to whom Paul committed the Charge of the Church of Ephesus in his last farewell were Presbyters Bishops of equal authority Calvin on Act. 20. 28. He observes That all Presbyters are called Bishops indifferently and therefore the Bishops differs nothing from Presbyters hence he holds that both Name and Thing of a Scripture Bishop is proper to every Pastor 7. All Pastors have equal right in Ordination Pastors only Ordain and not the People They have all one and the same Official Power and Function to which they are called of God Instit. lib. 4. cap. 4. sect 2 Coment on Phil 1. 1. 8. The Pastors are the highest ordinary Chruch Officers Titus his Evangelistick Authority in Crete was a Vicarious Transient unfixt Ministry in Pauls place and name beyond the limits of this ordinary Function of Pastors supposing the Church not Exedified and in this differing from the Pastoral Office which doth suppose this exigence of the Churches state to over Calvin on Tiâ—us 1. cap. 5. and 6 vers 9. This Evangelistick Authority while existing was not to wrong or derogat any thing from the consistorial decisive ordianry authority of Pastors in Church Government Ibid. in answer to an Objection 10. The Apostle had a transient unfixt Ministry their Office lay in founding Churches and planting Christâ— Kingdom in them they had no certain limits assigned them for the exercise of their Ministry but were spread the Gospel through the World this their Office evanisht and died with themselves in this they differ from Pastors who are fixt to their Charges Calvin on 1 Cor. 12. 28. vers none of them had peculiar proper Charges assigned to the but all of them a common Command to Preach the Gospel wherever they came Evangelists were like to them in Office but in different degrees of Dignity such were Timothy Titus and such like of their subsidiary help the Lord made use of next to that of the Apostles Pastors and Doctors are next to them and perpetually necessary without whom there can be no Government of the Church wherin they differ from Apostles Prophets and Evangelists who are temporary and expired and not thus necessary for the Churches ordinary and perpetual Government There is one Episcopacy which is Christs alone whereof every Minister of the Gospel hath an intire and equal share Calvin on Ephes. 4. 11. Instit lib. 4. cap. 3. sect 14. But of this further when we come to examine the third Definition 11. The consistorial ordinary Collegiat Authority of Pastors in ordination and imposition of hands is examplified in the imposition of the Prophets hands at Antioch upon Paul as Gods standing order and method in point of Ordination Neither Timothy nor any Evangelists authority was to incroach upon this and the Apostolick Precepts to Timothy and Titus Lay hands suddenly on no man and that other I left thee in Crete to ordain elders are groundlesly and impertinently pleaded to prove the sole authority of any one Church Officer in Ordination or Jurisdiction but this authority is in the Collegiat Meeting Instit lib 4. cap 3. sect 14 and 15. compared with what is said above 12. As every ordinary Pastor de jure owes a subjection to the Prophets or ordinary Pastors in the Lord so the first Proestotes or fixed Moderators were de facto thus subject and so had no juridical official pre-eminence over the Judicatiories Calvin on that place The Spirits of the Prophets c. and Instiâ— lib 4. cap. 4. sect 2. at the close their work was only to moderat the Meeting and gather the Votes c. Coment on Tit 1. vers 5. 6. 13. As Timothy and Titus their Evangelistick Inspection was beyond the limits of the ordinary Office of Pastors and in respect of its naure and time of existency such as could not be succeeded unto Calvin on Tit 15 6 verses compared with Coment 1 Tim. 1. and 6. with v. 18. so what our Lord enjoyns to the seven Asian Angels doth nothing impeach this even taking them for single persons or Presidents since they were such as had the rest of the Minister or Angels their Colleagues and not so much as the necessity of a fixt Moderator or President can be drawn from this Assertion Beza on Rev. 2. 24 26 vers 14. The fixing of President Bishops over Church Judicatories with Official pre-eminence over them gave the rise to Antichrists Oligarchical Tyranny over the Church and all the mischiefs thereof Beza Ibid. 15. The Presbyterian Government which Iohn Knox brought into this Church of Scotland is the right Order and true Government of the House of God the hedge and wall of the Doctrine without which it cannot be kept pure The want of which Government is the cause why the Gospel is preached to many in wrath All are to contend for this Government who wish well to this Church and to oppose the Re-introduction of Episcopacy opposit thereunto which is the Relicts of Papacy and will bring Epicurism into the Church if admitted Bez. Ipist 79. to Iohn Knox. 16. The pretence of Unity or curing Schism by this Episcopacy is a pretence as false and lying as it is flattering whereby many of the best Antients were deceived Ibid. 17. There was among the Apostles met together no distinction of degrees but only of Order as in other Ecclesiastical Meetings and Assemblies until the humane Episcopacy was brought into the Church which shortly turned into Satanical Beza on Acts. 1. 23. 18. The Apostles had an immediat Call to their Office to which Office was annext an extraordinary measure of the Holy Ghost which is Termed Infused This immediat Call is the true and genuine Mark of the Apostolick Calling which expired with the death of the Apostles themselves when they had fulfilled their work in framing Churches Evangelists were assumed by the Apostles without the Churches suffrage because the Churches were not as yet
perpetual Ministry is of Pastors to Pastors Doctors to Doctors Elders to Elders Deacons to Deacons Ibid. Numb 15. The Apostolick Authority differs from the ordinary and perpetual authority of Pastors as likewise their gifts not only as to Manner and Measure but in the Nature thereof from these promist to the ordinary Ministry Beza ad Cap. 17. Numb 2. apud Sarav 5. An Episcopal Degree with some shew of Apostolick Authority is no where to be found in Scripture is condemned Luke 22. 25. gave the raise of that Oligarchie and Tyranny which came into the Church and therefore there is no divine Right left for such a Succession ad Cap. 16. Numb 17. apud Sarav As the Apostles Gifts are such so their Power and Authority is not succeeded to by any ordinary Church-Officers nor hath the Church power to set up any such Office Ad Cap. 17. Numb 3. The pretence of Arch-bishops Primates Metropolitants their Succession to Apostles or Evangelists Timothy Titus Mark and a continuation of their power or authority in the Church is a groundless Conjecture condemned in Sarav Beza in Cap. 18. Sarav the same condemned ad Cap. 19. Numb 3. 6. The Office of President in Church Assemblies imports only a right of Governing and ordering the common actions of the Meeting without any command or rule over the Members thereof in which Meetings Ruliâ—g Elders are to joyn with Pastors Beza resp ad Cap. 20. Numb 1. The state of this Controversie is whether he who is set over the Meeting of Pastors of any Church has any command or power over these his Colleagues as inferiours by Divine Right This is that which I deny Numb 2. The setting up this Episcopal degree of the Bishop above his Colleagues has been greatly prejudicial to the Church Numb 8. 7. These to whom Paul injoyned to deliver the Incestuous man to Satan when gathered together were the Pastors and Presbyters of Corinth who by Ecclesiastick Judgment and Censure were to purge the Church of this Leaven As every Church after its first beginnings had Pastors and Presbyters so it is not supposable that Paul who stayed there half a year and Apollos who followed him did not upon the first opportunity furnish that Church with a Presbytry Ad cap 23. Numb 17 and Numb 2 and 3. Apud Sarav at large setting down Ieroms testimony in Epist. ad Oceanum ad Euagrum Comment in Epist. ad Titum together with the Scipture proofs anent the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter shewing that the Bishops superiority over the Presbyters was founded on Custom not Divine warrand upon which Beza collects thus this coth Ierom assert not in one place only or few or as of a thing doubtful but often copiously and peremptorly ascribing to Bishop and Presbyter as one and the same appellation so one and the same function Ad. cap 13. Numb 2 and 3. 8. The divine Bishop or who is institute by divine Right is the same Office with that which is poynted out by the peculiar name of Pastor whom Paul affirms that the holy Ghost made Bishops to feed the Church of God Acts. 20. 18. and this is the proper name of them both in the New Testamen whereby with Paul they are distinguisht from Apostles Prophets and Evangelists which Officers were for a time only one Ephes. 4. cap. 11. and from Deacons 2 Tim. 3. Phil. 1. they are called Bishops with respect to Souls committed to them 9. The Colledge or meeting of these Pastors and Bishops together with such Elders as Paul calls Governments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the same who are called the Presbytry 1 Tim. 4. v. 14. Beza de Episcop triplici initio Their Office was to attend the Word and Prayer in publick and private and to govern the Church joyntly and in common Ibid. 10. The humane Bishop that is brought into the Church out of humane prudence beside the express Word of God is a sort of Power given to some one Pastor above his Colleagues yet limited by certain Rules and Cannons against Tyranny ibid. That this Function was not brought in from the Word of God is evident from this that we cannot find in the New Testament the least jot from which we may draw such a conjecture for altho there is no doubt that all things ought to be done orderly in the house of God and that therefore there has been some President in every meeting whom Iohn in the Revelation seems to call the Angel Iustin calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or President that this President excepting this only that he was the first Moderator in the Ecclesiastick Actions in the Assembly had no power over this Colleagues far less exercised any Office superior unto them ibid. Hence as Ierom observes the Author to the Heb. calls all the whole Assembly of Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rulers poynting at none of them Such for the most part was Peter in the Colledge of the Apostles c. If any such Office had been then existent or such a power of one over his Colleagues this Officer had bâ—en by some peculiar name pointed at in the Epistles especially seing Paul salutes the Bishops and Deacons of the Philippians in the plural number whch since it was not done it appears that among these Rulers there was none in degree Superiour to his Colleagues and fellow Bishops but that the Churches were then ruled by their Presbyters Every one of them having equal and alike power with his fellow Presbyter c. ibid. Thereafter he refutes Epâ—phanius arguments for his humane Episcopacy as if it were the Divine Wherein we see how peremptor Beza was as to this Distinction and mentioning Epiphanius argument from that precept against an Elder receive not an accusation to prove Timothy's Episcopacy he refutes this by many arguments calling this the Error of Epiphanius that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus which he tells him may be convicted of faâ—shood from Scriptures as mainly from this that he was Pauls attendant sent hither and thither and therefore made Bishop overno one Church that he was an Evangelist that Paul requested him to stay at Ephesus 1 Tim. 1. 3. v. and for the special end viz. to attend that Church untill again recalled which in the other Epistle he doth 2 Tim. 4. 9 v. Do thy diligence to come to me quickly that when going to Ierusalem never to return to Ephesus he had either upon Epiphanius supposition restored Timotâ—y to these Ephesianâ— or they had sought him again being warned of such hazards or if another was put in his place he had peculiarly be spoken him in that Divine Seâ—mon of his but of this we read not but only that he admonished the Presbyters whom he sent for of their general and common duty Thereafter he adds that as an Evangelist adorned with so many and singular Gifts in degree superior to Prysbyters and for a time constitute there by Apostolick Authority he did administrat the Affairs of
Official standing Preheminency over Ministers and Churches as he would make Calvin affirm 2. That Office or Charge which was beyond the limits of the ordinary power of Pastors that Office and Power in Calvins judgment is extraordinary and expired but such was in his judgment the Power and Office of Titus at Crete as his second passage adduced by our Pamphleter makes it evident and several other places of Calvin of which above The Major is evident in this that with Calvin The Pastor labouring in the Word and Doctrine is the highest ordinary Officer of a necessary standing nature as we heard him above assert The Minor is evident in this plain assertion set down by this man himself 3. If we shall compare these places adduced by him with Calvins Comment upon the whole Context this mans absurd imposing upon him will be further evident Calvin shews in the Argument of the first Chapter that many things at Ephesus were wanting which needed Paul's interposed Authority to set in order and upon the 1. verse as also in this Argument he shews that it was not to Timothy alone he wrote and upon the 3. verse that that Churches necessity forced Paul to demit such a dear Coajutor to supply his place there and upon this 18 verse he tells us that for this end Prophesies went before on Timothy because he was appointed to hard and great matters for says he he was not è vnlgo of the ordinary class and rate of Ministers but next to Apostles that therefore he had need of a singular Testimony that it might appear he was chosen of God himself that then it was not ordinary or common to be honoured with Elogies of Prophets but in Timothy there were peculiar Causes therefore God would not have him set about his Office but fitted with prophetick Oracles nor to be admitted by men until approved by his own Voice as it was with Paul and Barnabas when sent to teach the Gentiles In which words let any man judge whether Calvin doth not hold his Office extraordinary both upon the account of his Mission his peculiar Gifts and the nature of his work and Inspection as upon the same ground he holds the Office of Apostles to be such In the Argument of the Epistle to Titus he shews that Paul hasting else where intrusted to Titus the prosecuting of his own Work and this as to an Evangelist who was not of the ordinary rate of Ministers that Paul wrote to him to arm him with his own Authority upon the 6 v. that he was set by the Apostle as the Moderator in the ordination of Pastors that that work might be orderly done and upon the 7 v. he expresly asserts the Identitie of the Bishop and Presbyters Office as the same and upon the 5 v. asserting the same thing he shews that he had no arbibitrary Power in this matter but that of a Moderator that sustaining Pauls room and having his place as it were assigned to him the Apostle will have him acknowledged as his Vicarious Substitute that Paul leaving that place left Work for others as he was at Corinth the Master-Builder but others built on his Foundation the Church still standing in need of Pastors for her increase But least we take Titus work to be no other than what is competent to ordinary Pastors he presently rids Marches thus Sed ultra ordinarium pastorum munus c. but beyond the ordinary Office of Pastors Titus had the care of constituting the Church committed to him Then as is above-observed he distinguishes him in this from Pastors who are set over Churches reduced unto Form But Titus saith he had a Work beyond this even to form Churches not as yet molded c. And after stating the Question whether Titus had not in appearance a Kingly Power over the Colledge of the Pastors and their decisive Authority he answers as is said above that his Power was not arbitrary but that of a Moderator c. Here let any judge if Calvin assert not that Titus his Inspection and work was extraordinary as suited to that Exigence Case and Time of the Church and consequently that it was Temporary and not fixâ—d as that of the Aâ—ostle Paul whose Deputy he now was and likeways that his power did not take away the collegiat decisive Suffrage of Pastors over whoâ— he wâ—s for that Exigent only to exercise an Evangelistick Inspection and to act the Power and Office of a Moderator from all which the Impertinency and Falshood of this mans Assertion is satis super que evident Proceed we to the Third Postulatum which is thus Postulatum 3. That for the avoiding of Schism the Primitive Church retained the Government of one single person preheminent in Office unto other Ministers This is proved by Calvin Instit. lib. 4. cap. sect 2. where he asserts that Presbyters out of their number in all their Cities did choose one to whom especially they gave the title of Bishop lest from a Paâ—ity as useth to be Divisions might arise Ierom says at Alexandria from Mark the Evangelist to Heraclas and Dionysius Presbyters always placed one in a preheminent Degree whom they called a Bishop Answer The absurdity of this Inserence from Calvin's Assertion is above fully cleared and that Calvin ownes not a president with a power in Ordination and Jurisdiction or preheminent unto other Ministers or a power Paramount unto their Collegiat Decisive Suffrage and consequently no warrantable practice of the Church hereanent as this man absurdly infers from his Words to make which evident First I enquire What he means by the Government of one single person and a preheminence in Office neither Matter nor Words being so found in this passge of Calvin here cited If he mean such a Power as doth no whit encroach uâ—on Pastors Decisive Conclusive Suffrage and Government suppose he be fixed in this Sense he is but a Moderator and then I would know how is the Government in this one single person and his Office preheminent and above that of his Fellows â—f his Office be so singular and preheminent of that of Pastors that it doth infringe their Decisive Conclusive Suffrage or importeth a sole Preheminence in Ordination and Jurisdiction as he must needs hold and doth assert Axiom 2. compared with Definition 2 3. This to be Galvin's Judgment Calvin in the very next Words gives him the Lie for he adds immediately neque sic in honâ—re dignitate superior c. neither was he so Superior as to have Dominion over his Colleagues but what Power the Consul had in the Senat to enquire the Votes or Sentences c. Again this man acknowledges in his Citation to prove Definition 3. That Calvin asserts the Power of this President Bishop to be like that of the Consul in the Senat but will he dare to say that the Government of the Senat in Calvin or any knowing mans Judgment was confined to the person of the Consul 2.
We said above that Calvin acknowledges the Ancients their aberration from the Scripture Rule in their Church Government and that this Custom in his own and Ierom's Judgment was brought in humano consilio and pro temporum necessitâ—t by humane Advice and Counsel and according to the times exigence wherein he clearly distinguishes this from a Divine Institution authorizing a divine Office of Gods Appointment for he presently cites that place of Ierom upon Titus mentioned above wherein he shews that by divine Appointment the Church was governed by Presbyters in common And that the then Bishops power was only by Custom not authorized by divine Appointment So that our Pamphleter will never be able to conclude from these words Calvins Recommendation and Approbation of this practice but on the contrary Calvin and Ierom both doth suppose what ever thing in this practice was an incroachment upon the Presbyters divine Power was a humane Device and sinful Usurpation which would be convincingly evident to any that considers 3. That this Practice of appropriating the name Bishop to one is as I did above clear in terminis condemned by Calvin as an abuse of the Holy Ghosts Language and making way for one Pastor his encroaching upon the Power of his Colleagues We told him that upon Phil. 1. 1. having asserted the Identity of the Bishop and Presbyter he tells us that this place is made use of by Ierom to prove Presbyters Divine Paritie he adds postea invaluit usus c. afterward Custom prevailed that he whom Presbyters set over their collegiat Meeting was only called the Bishop but this had its Original from the custom of Men but is not at all grounded upon Authority of Scripture In which words this practice which our Pasqueller would make us believe hath Calvins Approbation is clearly Reprobat as an Aberration from the Rule and Institution which first took place and no man can be so irrational as to imagine that Calvin would put this Censure upon the singularity of the name Bishop as appropriat to one Minister and not also upon the singularity of an Official Preheminence which this man pleads for Two words more I add on this that if this man will allow Calvin any Interest and consent in and to the Confession of the French Church he is there told by Calvin that the true Church ought to be governed by that Policy which Christ hath ordained viz. that there be Pasters Presbyters Elders and Deacons and as to a preheminent fixed Presidency they do thus in terminis disowne it Again we believe that all true Pastors wherever they be are endued with equal and the same Power under one Head and Bishop CHRIST IESVS Thus expresly disclaiming this preheminent Power in Ordination and Jurisdiction which our Pamphleter makes Calvin owne or any supposed President or Pastor with official power over his Colleagues and that upon the same ground of Cyprian which we heard mentioned and approved of Calvin viz. That Christ hath in him the original sole Episcopacy whereof in a perfect Parity he has imparted to every Minister an intire and equal share Next I offer to him the sense of the famous Doctor Reynolds upon these words of Calvin in his Letter to Sir Francis Knolls cited at large Petri. Hist. part 3. pag 400 and 69 70 71. upon Ieroms words à Marco Evangelista the Doctor proves that by the Decree of the 4th Counsel of Carthage cap 3. anent Presbyters interest in Ordination which proves saith he that Bishops ordained not then in all places alone altho Ierom says Quid facit excepta ordinatione c. And by Ierom's proving Bishops and Presbyters to be all one in Scripture and even in the right of Ordination 1 Tim. 4. 14. That Ierom could not mean Bishops in Alexandria to have had this sole Power And as for that place of Calvin instit lib. 4. cap. 4. Sect. 2. cited then by Doctor Boncroft anent whose Sermon he wrote that Epistle he shews that Calvin relating the practice of choosing one to proceed and giving him the Name of Bishop doth notwithstanding shew that he was not above the Presbyters in Dignity and Honour or to rule over them but was appointed only to ask the Votes to see that performed that was agreed upon by common consent And having shewed that this was brought in by consent of Men in Ieroms Judgment he adds that Ierom otherwhere shews how ancient the Custom was from Marks time to Heraclas c. In which words of Calvin saith the Doctor seing that the Order of the Church hath evident relation to that before described and that in describing it he had said the Bishop was not so over the rest in honour yet he had rule over them it follows that Mr Calvin doth not so much as seem to confess on Ierom's Report that ever since Mark 's time Bishops have had a ruling superiority over the Clergy Adding that it may easily be made appear from many places of Ierom and Calvin both as well as from this passage it 's evident that neither of them doth affirm Bishops to have had all that time such a Superiority as Boncroft fathered upon them Wherein the Doctor clearly affirms and proves that neither of these places of Ierom or Calvin would bear either an Assertion of this matter of Fact viz. the forementioned President his exercising a sole Episcopal Authority or their approbation of the Government of one single person preheminent in Office unto other Ministers as this Pamphleter suggests Proceed we to the 4th Postulatum which is this Postulatum 4. The 7 Angels of the seven Churches written unto in the Book of the Revelation are encouraged against all the devices of the Ungodly upon condition of their continuing faithful in their Administrations To prove this Beza is adduced on Rev. cap. 2 26. My Works that is he who shall faithfully perform the work laid upon him for he bespeaks the Assembly of Pastors in the person of the President to whom he promiseth Victory against all the Wicked if he rely and trust in the Authority and power of that True and only Head of the Church To which I answer Answer First we have proved upon Definition 4 that Beza's taking this Angel for one single person by whom the rest were to be admonished will infer in Beza's Sense no preheminence in Office and Authority over his Colleagues 2. That Beza disownes even the inference of the necessity of a fixed Moderator as necessary following upon his Assertion Yea 3. That he holds this practice of the fixed Moderator to be founded only upon a humane Custom and such a Custom as gave a rise to Antichristian Tyranny and consequently that the Ministers of these Churches are owned by Beza as Colleagues of equal Power and Authority with the President though by him immediately be-spoken and so by clear and necessary consequence further their continuing faithful in their Administrations can import nothing more in Beza's sense in the
needs mean this if he hold to that Sâ—â—â—ilitude of the power of the Consul in the Senat and turn not his President Bishop to an Absolute Prince and his power to a power of Dominion over the meeting if not then first How can be suppose the one to be ballanced thus in Calvin's Judgment rather then the other 2. How will this consist with what he asserts that according to Calvin the power of Jurisdiction is of alike nature and correspondent to that of Ordination The preheminence in Office and Jurisdiction being one and the same in Axiom 2. If this Power of Ordination is to be ballanced in Calvins Judgment by Assisting Ministers how will he make his Proof quadrat to it viz That Paul laid Hands on Timothy alone and no Minister else If he infer the Power of his President Bishop from this Assertion he must call it a Sole Power 3. I confess he did well to put in the Clause of a Fixed Power but he must add another Clause and Qualification viz. an Ordinary Power And if he can prove from Calvin that either Apostles or Evangelists exercised a fix'd ordinary Power of Ordination over any particular Churches his Proof will speak home to the Point and if we can prove the contrary from Calvin he is but beating the Air and rolling Ssiphus-Stone in this Matter Now this our contrary Proof from Calvin is very easie for on this 5th Verse he says that Apostolis nulla certa statio erat assignata that they had no fixed Station and consequently neither a fixed nor ordinary Power thus upon 1 Corinth 12. 28. he says Paul reckons up both perpetual and temporary Officers the Temporary was that of Apostles who were appointed to found Churches and erect Christs Kingdom therein whose Office shortly after ceast and evanish'd the Apostles were appointed to spread the Gospel through the World and had no certain Charges and limits of Paroches but wherever they came were to deliver their Message wherein they differ from Pastors who are tyed to their Churches c. upon Eph. 4 11. he tells us that the Apostles Office was to Preach the Gospel in whatever place they came into To plant Churches and erect the Kingdom to Christ so that they had not every one peculiar proper Churches assigned to them but all of them had a general command to preach the Gospel whereâ—ver they came To these the Evangelists were next and had alike Office only in a different degree of Dignity of which kind were Tâ—mothy and such like of their subsidiary help the Lord made use next to that of Apostles and having thereafter described the Office of the Pastor and Doctor he adds Notandum est ex his officiis quae hic enumerat Paulus postrema tantum duâ— perpetua esse We must observe that among these Offices which Paul reckons up the last two only are perpetual for God did for a time only aâ—oâ—n his Church with Apostles Prophets Evangelists but without Pastors Doctors there can be no Government of the Church Ergo according to Calvin without the expired Offices of Apostles and Evangelists this Government doth subsist At the Close he commends Cyprian's Saying That there is one Episcopacy which is Christ's alone whereof every Minister hath intirely a part that none lift up himself above his Fellow Thus in Instit. lib. 4. cap. 3. sect 4. speaking of this place of Paul in describing the New Testament-Church-Officers he Characterizeth the Apostles thus that they were the first Founders of the Church through the World in Preaching the Gospel every where The Evangelists thus that they were in Dignity inferior to the Apostles yet next to them in Office and consequently did represent them as supplying their Rooms such were Luke Timothy and Titus and such like also the 70 Disciples which Christ appoâ—â—ted in the second place after the Apostles These three Functions viz. Apostles Prophets Evangelists saith he which seems most consonant to Paul's Scope Words were not for this end institute to be perpetual in the Church but were for some time only when Churches were to be erected where none were before or to be brought from Mâ—ses to Christ. Then speaking of ordinary Offâ—cers he thus expesseth himself as before their Fellow-Pastors and Doctors which the Church can never want and the 5th Section he begins thus We see what Ministry and Offices in the Government of the Church were Temporary and what Offices were instituted to endure continually c. From all which I dare refer it to any man of Candor and Conscience whether Calvin hold not First in general That the Official Power of Apostles and Evangelists was temporary and expired with themselves 2. That neither the one nor the other imported a fixed Inspection over any particular Church 3. That both did suppose the Churches in fieri and were exercised in erecting and edifying of Churches accordingly 4. That neither the one nor the other was to incroach upon or in that Age by themselves or thereafter by any pretended Successors to derogate any thing from the ordinary decisive Collegiat Power of Pastors 5. That herein lyes the ordinary necessary Church-Government to be continued to the end Finally To make it further convincingly evident that Calvin placed the ordinary Collegiat Power of Ordination in Pastors In this Instit. lib. 4. Cap. 3. sect 14. speaking upon that Passage Acts 13. of Paul and Barnabas Separation by Imposition of Hands he shews that the Holy Ghost enjoyned this manner of Separation even of Persoâ—â— thus singularly elected by himself that by this grave Document Ecclesiastick Discipline might be preserved in setting Men apart for the Ministry viz. by Ministers joynt Authoritative Imposition of Hands and Sect. 15. stating the Question anent a Collegiat Power in the Election of Ministers whether it ought to have place or the Minister may be constitute by the Authority of one for which saith he Paul's Word to Tiâ—â— I left thee in Crete to ordain Elders and his Precept to Timothy lay hands suddenly on no man are Cited he Answers they are deceived who imagine that either Timothy or Titus had 〈◊〉 other Power than to moderate-Elections as the Consul in the 〈◊〉 created new Magistrats by receiving the Suffrages which 〈◊〉 with what is above said evidently pâ—oves that in Calvin's Judgment the Power of Ordination is a Collegiat Power seated in the Meeting of Pastors and exercised by their joynt decisive Suffrage Lastly For that Passage here Cited by him I Answer first These Words here Cited are not found on that 6th Vers. lib. edit mihi M. D. LXXII Secondly Granting them as here set down 1. Calvin makes it doubtful whether this Rite was not in the Churches usual Practice performed by one in Name of the rest 2. He holds it debateable whether Paul speaks not of the Imposition of Hands in order to Gifts where no formal Ordination followed as Rom. 12. 1 Cor. 13. of of-Ordination and inclining to the last
Opinion he makes this place parallel with 1 Tim. 4. vers 14. upon which place he says they judge right who take the Word Presbytry collectively for the Colledge of Presbyters So that Calvin will be found to hold that Paul's Imposition of Hands though solely will nothing derogat from the ordinary Collegiat Power of the Presbytry 1. Because the conferring of Gifts thus was his Apostolick Priviledge 2. The simple Imposing of Hands alone will import no sole Authority since ordinary Pastors might intrust the Ritual Performance to one in their Name 3. As no Apostolick Prerogative was in Calvin's Sense to encroach upon the ordinary Power of Pastors and consequently not this of Paul's sole Imposition of Hands though supposed so his Supposition anent the Presbytries Authoritative Concurrence in this Action clearly overthrows our Pamphleters pleading and scope To the proof of the second Branch anent a fixed preheminent Power of Jurisdiction in this President Bishop which our Author endeavours to evince from Calvin Instit. lib. 4. cap. 4. sect 2. It 's answered beside what is said above That 1. the Word always is not found in all that Section 2. Calvin clearly asserts that this Titular Bishop had no dominion over his Colleagues but what parts not whatever parts the Consul had in the Senat to report Matters ask Votes Consult Admonish govern the Action by his Authority and see it Execute which was by Common Council decreed Ergo his Office was not so preheminent in Calvin's Judgment as to Infringe the joint Collegiat Decisive Power of Presbyters to whose Votes he was tyed and what differed this from that of a Moderator if we except his being fixed Next Whatever Power he might Exercise beyond that of a Moderator Calvin tells us that this was Humano consensu inductum pro temporum necessitate by Humane Advice and for the times Necessity therefore he holds it not to be received for a fixed divine Appointment citing Ierom for the Judgment of the Ancients on this point who asserts upon the Epistle of Titus the Bishop and Presbyter to be one and the then Bishops to have had this preheminency from Humane Custom and not Divine Institution 3. He acknowledgeth Sect. 1. that whatever sincere Aims the Antients had in conforming to the Scripture in their Church-Government yet they keep not that Path-Rode exactly but had their Abeâ—â—ations from it and in a Word towards the Close of that second Section he tells us that this President Bishop was subject to the Assembly of his Brethren so that a fixed preheminent President Bishop having an Authority preheminent over the Votes and Suffrages of Presbyters and not subject to the with a peculiar Title of Bishop as thus preheminent was not received by the Church de facto in her first purest times far less jure divino and never after Warrantably or as a Divine Officer in Calvin's Judgment from all which it is demonstratively evident that our Pamphleters 3d Definition is none of Calvin's but a Chymera of his own Fancy We come then to the 4th Definition which is this Definition 4. The Angel of any Church Representative is the President Bishop over other Ministers within their respective Diocess Province or Patriarchat To prove this Beza is adduced on Rev. 2 c. 1 and 24 v. To the angel that is to the President as whom it behoveth especially to be admonished touching these matters and by him both the rest of his Colleagues and the whole Church v. 24. But unto you that is unto you the Angel the President and the Assembly of your Colleagues and to the rest that is to the whole Flock Upon this we need not much insist the absurdity of his Scope and Inference being abundantly evinced from what is above touched and is obvious to the meanest Reflection 1. How proves our Pamphleter from Beza's words That these Angels did climb up so high as the Patriarchs this cast even of Diocesian and Provincial Churches will hardly if at all be found till 260 years after Christ. 2. How proves he from these words that Beza esteemed every Representative Church to be either that of a Diocess Province or Patriarchat he must have Lyncian-Eyes that will see this in these words of Beza 3. Granting that by Angel Beza understands one single person who was especially to be admonished and his fellows by him How proves he from these words that he was in Beza's Judgment a fixed constant far less a preheminent Bishop with a fixed official Presidency over other Ministers May not all this be verified of a Moderator pro tempore or a Speaker of the Parliament viz. That an Epistle from the King to the Synod or Parliament is especially to be addressed to these Presidents and by them to be communicated to their Colleagues or fellows 4. Had this man pondered what Beza asserts in his Treaties de Episcopaâ—u triplici aneâ—t the Episcopus divinus humanus Satanicus He would have kept off this phantastick conceit For we find Beza therein exclude as beyond the limits of the Divine Bishop whatever power in Government is assumed by any beyond that of a Pastor and that he acknowledged no preheminency or presiding in any Pastor which encroaches upon the Decisive Power of his fellows to be allowed of God Finally To convince yet further of the folly of this Citation out of Beza let us hear how in the same place he antidots this mans washpish extraction out of his words for after he has Exponed that Clause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Angel to the President he adds Sed hinc statui Episcopalis ille gradus c. But that Episcopal degree which was afterward brought into the Church of God certainly neither can nor ought to be hence concluded nay not so much as the necessity of the Office of a perpetual President as the thence arising Olligarchical Tyranny whose Head is the Antichristian Beast now at length with the most certain ruine not of the Church only but of the World also makes manifest so the Beza as is from hence above cleared holds the very fixed Moderator to be an humane invention and the poysonous Egg out of which Antichrist was hatched Add to all this that Beza by this mans acknowledgemâ—nt calling the other Ministers the Colleagues of this President doth in that very term deny to him a super-eminent fixed Authority over them and Calvin whom he will not say Beza doth in this point contradict since he acknowledges their Writings on this Subject excellent expones Colleagues to be such as have one and the same â—unction and upon this very ground reprehends as we heard above the making the name Bishop peculiar to any one of them from all which the forgery and vanity of this Definition and of the preceeding as relating to his Scope doth convincingly appear CHAP. Fourth Wherein this Pamphleter is examined upon and expostulat with anent the impertinency of his pretended Postulatums drawn from Calvin and Beza HAving thus
was to be proved Come we to the second Proposition which is this Proposition 2. Timothy was a president Bishop over the Church of the Ephesians and Titus over the Church of the Cretians Answer Before I come to his Demonstration I again enquire first if he mean such a Bishop as hath a preheminent Power in Ordination and Jurisdiction or a meer President who is only to ask the Votes and gather them and thus a Moderator allenarly This last he will not say for it would clearly cross his Demonstration and if the first why calls he him by this discriminating smoothing term President Bishop and not rather Diocesian or Patriarchal Bishop as he holds that Calvin and Beza do owne the designation and Office Isâ— he no more than a President who has a preheminent Official Power yea according to his forecited Collection from Calvin and Beza a sâ—le power in Ordination and Jurisdiction over Pastors 2. Since he will not say that Calvin will disowne the Apostles Episcopal Presidency over Timothy and Titus as over the 70 Disciples who with Calvin might be Evangelists he should rather have ascribed to the Apostles a moral standing Arch-Episcopacy or Patriarchat for certainly a president Bishop over such a great President Bishop as Timothy and Titus merits that Name The first Proposition of his Demonstration is thus These are president Bishops who are from their Office preheminent unto other Ministers invested with a fixed power of Ordination regulated by Canons and of Jurisdiction ballanced by assisting Ministers To prove which we are referred again to Definition 3. Answer We did upon this Definition collated with his proof out of Calvin discover this mans pitiful Prevatication and his involving Calvin and himself in palpable â—nconsistencies We did also prove from several places of that learned Divine that he denys this fixed and ordinary standing Presidency both to Apostles and Evangâ—lists and holds that such fixed Presidents as the Church did after set up did not infringe the collegiat power and Authority of Pastors but were subject to them And that Calvin disowns an official preheminency in any Pastor over another and expresly a peculiar Designation of Bishop as an abuse of Scripture language and contrair to the Divine Institution So that the Major of his Demonstration and this Definition whereupon as the preceeding it is grounded appears to be a rotten Fabrick and a bowing Wall and tottering Fence I cannot but further observe that he makes this goodly Proposition containing his Definition of the president Bishop serve both Paul and the other Apostlesturn for proof of his Episcopal Presidency and likewise Timothy with the inferiour sort of Bishops thus equi-parating them and shaping their Episcopacy with one and the same Standard and Measure The place of Calvin which speaks of Paul's sole Imposition of Hands upon Timothy whereby he would fortifie this part of the Definition relating to Ordination serves also with him for Timothy's like Episcopacy giving thus to them both a sole power in Ordination And how consistent this is with Calvins Sense of the power of the Apostles and Evangelists any who have read Calvin can easily judge Again which makes good Jest left Paul his first and high Bishop and his Schollar the younger Bishop Timothy should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deborded and play the wanton and run out of their Circle both Demonstrations and Difinitions hath a prudent Limitation annexed That their power must be regulat by Canons and well ballanced by assisting Ministers and yet Paul and Timothy's sole power in Ordination seems paramount to these Canons and far to counter-ballance all Ministers Authority Follows the Assumption of his Demonstration Assumption But Timothy in the Church of Ephesus and Titus in the Church of Crete from their Offices had a preheminency over other Ministers invested with a fixed power of Ordination and Jurisdiction regulat by Canons and ballanced by assisting Ministers For proof of this we are referred to Postulatum 2. Answer For evincing the Falshood of this Assumption I do refer to what is answered on that Postulatum wherein we have made it appear that with Calvin the Official power and preheminency of both Apostles and Evangelists being expired and dying with their persons our Pamphleters Inference of Calvins asserting a moral standing Official Preheminency among Pastors is most absurd That with Calvin the Apostolick and Evangelistick Preheminency being neither fixed nor ordinary his Inference of a fixed and ordinary Preheminency upon what Calvin asserts of the power of Apostles and Evangelists is obviously impertinent and groundless We did also offer some Topicks and Arguments from Calvins Doctrines and Principles as to Apostles and Evangelists which do clearly demonstrat the absurdity of his Collection in this Postulatum from the words of Calvin annexed thereunto as that with Calvin the Official Power of Timothy and his Inspection was in extent Correspondent to that of Apostles that it did suppose the Churches in fieri as to their Organick Mold and Constitution As likeways the Existence of the Apostolick Office that Calvin expresly distinguishes the official Presidency or Preheminency exercised by Timothy and Titus as being extraordinary from the ordinary and perpetual necessary Official Power of Pastors Likeways that with Calvin neither Timothy nor Titus were fixed to any certain particular and determinat Station and are in this distinguished from ordinary and perpetually necessary Church-Officers We did also shew that the place of Calvin whereby he would fortifie his Postulatum doth palpably overthrow it both in his asserting Timothy to be the Apostles Depute sustaining his room and none of the ordinary Ministry and likeways in his express asserting his Power to be beyond the limits of the ordinary power of Pastors So that the Assumption of this Demonstration is also false as the Major Proposition and none of them Calvins but a couple of phantastick Chymeraes of his own brain The Conclusion Conclusion Therefore Timothy was a president Bishop over the Church of the Ephesians and Titus over the Church of the Cretians From what is said upon both Major and Minor appears to be a Cretian idest a lying Conclusion and to have neither Geometrical or Logical Measures though our Pasquiller adds unto it as unto the former and likeways the ensuing his quod erat demonstrandum to make it appear so It hath neither vim consequentiae nor a fixed ordinary moral standing Preheminency of Timothy and Titus over these Churches neither having any truth in it self nor in the least following upon or being deduceable from any place of Calvin which this Man hath cited but rather the contrary Which I make good in the Antithesis of this Proposition and counter demonstration ensuing Antithesis 2. Neither Timothy nor Titus had in Ephesus or Crete a fixed ordinary Episcopal Preheminency over Ministers and flocks in the judgement of Calvin Demonstration They whose Official Preheminence or Presidence over these Churches was Transient and Temporary supposing the existance of the
Apostolick Office was for modelling Churches as yet in fieri as to their organick Being and constitution and in all these respects is expresly by Calvin distinguished from the ordinary Official Power and Authority of Pastors which is moral and perpetually necessary for Church Government these Officers had in Calvins judgement no fixed moral standing Preheminence Episcopal over these Churches But the Official Presidence and preheminence of Timothy and Titus at Ephesus and Crete was of this nature in Calvin's judgement Therefore neither of them had in his Judgement a fixed ordinary Episeopal Preheminence over these Churches which was to be proved The Major Proposition none can deny who will not offer to reconcile contradictions and involve Calvin therein The Minor hath been abundantly proved from clear and positive assertions of Calvin in the places above cited The conclusion is clearly deâ—uced Proceed we to the next proposition of our Author Proposition 3. The Fathers of the Primitive Church were President Bishops Answer Here it 's worthy of this Mans serious thoughts how he has proved or can prove from any places of Calvin and Beza that they honour none with this Epithet of Fathers of the primitive Church but his supposed President Bishops were all the ancient famous Divines or Writers of the primitive Church the knowledge of whom has reached us such President Bishops thus Authorized as he imagines these Fathers were in Calvin and Bezas judgement sure he will not dare to assert this and so the subject of the Question in this Proposition is uncertain If he say that he means these Fathers who had this Official Power and by this Description distinguishes them from other Fathers besides that he is lyable to the former inconvenience of imputing a notion and Phrase to these Divines which they owne not the Proposition thus seems rediculous it being equivalent to this the President Bishops were President Bishops Come we to the Demonstration whereof the 1. Proposition is thus Major The Primitive Church retained the Government of one single person preheminent in Office unto other Ministers this is proved by Postulatum 3. which asserts that for avoâ—ding of schism the primitive Church retained the Government of one single Person preheminent in Office unto other Ministers which is proved from Calvins asserting instit lib. 4. cap. 4. Sect. 2. That Presbyters in all Cities choose one to whom especially they gave the name of Bishop That Ierom says that at Alexandria from Mark the Evangelist to Heracleas and Dyonysius the Presbyters placed one in a Preheminent degree whom they called a Bishop Answer I have at large upon that Postulatum evinced the Impertinency and falshood of this Collection from these words of Calvin as likewise in my general animadversions upon the whole Pasquel I did shew the inconsistances into which he involves Calvin and himself also in this assertion his impertinent inserting Calvin's approbation of the jus from his simple narration of the matter of fact and practice of the Church I did also shew that if he make Calvin allow meerly of a constant President he crosses his scope of making him assert the Government to be in this President if he make him assert more viz. A sole Preheminence in Ordination and Jurisdiction as is clear he doth comparing Axiom 2. with Definition 2. and 3. Calvin gives him the lie in asserting that this President or Moderator at first set up by his brethren had no power over his Colleagues but such as the Consul had in the Senat to ask the Votes c. That he thus absurdly makes Calvin assert the Government of the Senat to have been in the Person of the Consul I did also offer unto him Calvin and Ierom's Judgement in this poynt thus that as there was an early aberration from the Scripture path in the matter of Government so particularly that this President or Proestos was brought in humano consilio and protemporum necessitate by humane advice and counsel and according to the times exigence whereof as to Calvin we offered two convincing proofs 1. In that Calvin immediately after the words cited by this Pamphleter makes mention and approves of Ieroms Testimony upon Titus asserting the Bishops power in so far as above that of the Pastor to be founded upon custom only not divine appointment asserting also the identity of the Bishop and Presbyter by divine Right and the Official parity of all Pastors And 2. that this Practice of appropriating the term Bishop to one as a badge of an Official Power of one Pastor above another is in terminis condemned by Calvin as an abuse of the Holy Ghost's language and contrair to the equal Official Power of Pastors asserted in Scripture All which we fortified by the assertion of this Divine parity of Pastors in the French Confession and by the learned account both of Calvin and Ieroms judgement in this matter exhibite by Dr. Rynalds So that this Major Proposition is palpably false and groundless Follows the Assumption Assumption But the Preheminence in Office includs a proportional Jurisdiction over the Officers who are under them by Axiom 2. and the Power of Jurisdiction is fixed in the President Bishop by Definition 3. Answer To the first part of the proof Preheminence in Office includs a proportional Jurisdiction over the Officers who are under them by Axiom 2. which refers to Definition 2. and 3. I Answer We have upon these his two Definitions here referred unto fully discovered That the places of Calvin annexed unto them do not fortifie but doth overthrow this Power of the moral standing President Bishop which therefrom he undertakes to prove we have also discovered the absurdities and inconsistancies which he involves Calvin and himself into by these his Definitions we discovered that the place of Calvin annexed to Definition 2. speaks of Authority it self not of its Object defined by him That Calvin holding the Function and Official Power of all Pastors to be one and the same and consequently their Power of Ordination and the power of Jurisdiction being with this Pamphleter commensurable thereunto in Calvins sense that learned Divine must consequently hold the Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction to be one and the same in all Pastors which clearly everts this mans scope and his sense of thâ—sâ— places of Calvin cited by him we also proved that the Official Preheminence supposed existent among Church-officers in that place of Calvin annexed to Definition 2. is by him expresly limited to that time and case of the Church And that upon Tit. 1. v. 5 6. He asserts Timothies inspection to be transient and unfixed and in this commensurable to that of the Apostles And that asserting likewise Timothie's Office to be beyond the ordinary power of Pastors he doth in both respects contradict the scope of this this Definition and would thus twise contradict himself if it were otherwise Upon Definition 3. asserting in this President Bishop a fixed Power of Ordination regulated by Canons and of
judge The Conclusion is Conclusion Therefore the President Episcopacy is approven by Christ in the Book of the Revelation To which our Pamphleter adds his usual quod erat demonstrandum Answer Therefore the president Angel or Moderator is thus approven in Beza's Sense who hath other Pastors his Equals and Colleagues in Official power and Authority is easily admitted But ergo in Beza's Sense the very fixed Moderator far less the Diocesian Patriarchal Prelate with sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction is approved Is a Chymerical Conclusion which as some Mushroms that Plinie speaks of grows without a root and hath no Support of either Major or Minor to fortifie it And here again I oppose this Antithesis and counter-Demonstration unto the preceeding Proposition The president Bishop with Official Preheminency and fixed power of Ordination and Jurisdiction over Pastors is in Beza's Sense not approven by Christ or bespoken by him in the Book of the Revelation in the person of the Asian-angels Demonstration These Angels who in Beza's Sense were bespoken only as Presidents and Moderators to whom the other Ministers of these respective Churches were Colleagues of equal Official-power and Authority and in so far only owned of Christ these were not be-spoken and owned by him as such president Bishops who had an Official preheminency and a fixed Official power of Ordination and Jurisdiction over these Pastors or Ministers Assumption But these Angels were in the first Sense only be-spoken by Christ and owned by him according to Beza Conclusion Therefore the president Bishop with Official power of Ordination and Jurisdiction over Pastors was not in Beza's Sense bespoken by Christ or ordained by him in the Book of the Revelation in the person of any of the Asian-Angels which was to be proved The Major is clear and necessarly true by the rule of Opposits which if we deny we cannot free our selves or Beza from a contradiction it being impossible that he could bespeak them both ways because these Offices are inconsistent in the same persons and at the same time The Assumption is thus proved If Beza owne these other Pastors as the Fellow-Colleagues of this president Angel and will not owne him so much as necessarly a fixed Moderator which he holds to be a humane Invention ascribing also to Satanical Invention the President with official preheminency in Ordination and Jurisdiction over Pastors Then in Beza's Sense these Angels were not bespoken and owned of our Lord as having any Preheminence of this nature but as Moderators only But the first is evident and hath been made good from several places of Beza Therefore so is the other 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 'T is 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
erection of it in this Land whereof our honourable Estates of Parliament discovered their deep sense in condemning and abolishing it in the late happy Revolution But the Iudgment and Writings of so many Divines and Churches abroad stricking against this Hierarchy being found by the Promotters of that interest such a heavy burâ—en and gripping argument there hath several methods been used to shake off and dissolve the same Hence since the late erection of prelacy several Pamphlets have appeared endeavouring to reconcile this Hierarchy with the judgment of the Reformed Churches and the most famed Writers thereof But with what success they have managed this work the impartial and judicious have sufficiently discovered and that in this endeavour they have been rolling Sisiphus stone which 〈◊〉 still returned upon them and renewed their inextricable Labour Among the forraign Divines which have appeared against Prelacy Calvin and Beza being for Piety and Learning men of chief name and among the glorious Cloud of Christ's witnesses against the beast since the Reformation such as not only deserve a place among the thirty but among the first three hence it is that this endeavour has been mainly fixt upon them and what ever thing in their writings might seem to savour of indifferency aâ—eâ—t Presbyterian Government whereof they are generally acknowledged to have been both by their Writings and Practices the strenuous and constant asserters or to cast a favourable aspect upon Prelacy searched out and by the outmost Artifice of near drawn Sophistry and by the most remote consequences stretched upon the tenter pins to reach such a Conclusion Hence not only their Commentaries upon the Scriptures and divers Passages of their other Writings have been pitifully curtell'd and disjoynted but their very Missives aâ—d Letters upon various and remote occasions from this point brought in to witness against their avowed judgment to the World when disputing and handling this question ex professo Whether respâ—ct to truth or partial respect to their cause that eâ—prompted these men to such a practice is â—asie to judge If the base visage and stain of lying and detractions and false witness bearing in the judgment even of sober Heathens and of all men of the most common sense or morality had been with a conscientious conviction duely pondered they had never abandoned themselves to such impious folly The practice of abusing and counterfiting Writters for the advantage of their Cause hath been so much condemned in Papists those slâ—ves of the man of Sin given up to the power of lyes and delusions that Protestants might even upon this ground have been long since ashamed of it It had been every way a more generous undertaking to have offered their Answers to the Pleadings and Arguments of those Divines against the Hierarchy and to have endeavoured by fair wrestling to wring these Weapons out of their hands rather thus faintly to abandon the Disput and pretending an accord with their Antagonists than upon this head But what has been observed of Ignatius writings that they suffered Martyrdoom when he was gone hath been the fate sure of the Writings of these Divines which notwithstanding have hitherto and will yet farther speak for themselves For the Essays of the Author of this Paper in this method I shall not anticipat what is performed in the ensuing Reply by offering here a previous large discovery of its unsoundness only I may be bold to say never any was more unhappy than he in this undertaking and that upon first reading of the Pamphlet these things were obvious and may be so to any considering Person 1. That the series and structure of his reasoning do clearly involve Calvin and Beza in contradictions comparing his inferences with the Passages cited and that he thus crosses his character of Excellent which he bestows upon their Writings 2dly That disguising the Bishop making Calvin and Beza to owne by his Epithet of the President Bishop he would seem to plead only for the constant Moderator or Proestos early brought in and that he intends no further improvement of these places of Calvin and Beza or to stretch their principles in Judgment to any greater length yet notwithstanding in the series of his reasoning ascribing a preheminence in Office and Iurisdiction to this President over other Ministers yea such as extends to a whole Province or Patriarchat he shewes the Inconsistency of this smooth but foolish pretence and hath made it as transparent as the Cristal of the watch 3dly Insome of his citations particularly in that which is adduced to prove Definition 4th his abuse and mistaks is so very gross and palpable that any who reads some lines foreward will find his Inference in terminis contradicted that it 's truly a wonder how any of common sense or ingenuity who ever read the place could be guilty of so bold or ignorant Forgery 4thly That either crassly or willingly â—e has been ignorant of and dis-ingenuously cocealed Calvin and Beza's distinction of the Ordinary and Extraordinary Church-Officers and takes his measures of their Iudgment anent the constant Government of the Church from what they speak of the Office of Apostles and Evangelists whom all that ever read these Authors must needs acknowledge that they hold to be Extraordinary and expired 5ly That as some of his citations are so palpably remote from what he has adduced them to prove that they do not so much as relate to one and the same purpose and subject so all his demonstrations are founded upon gross mistakes of the subject and state of the question and thus in stead of a mounting to demonstrative Arguments and these so evident as to be presented in a Euclyds dress of a quod erat demonstâ—andum they are pitiful beggings of the Question and Sâ—phisms fâ—owâ—ng from the ignoratio Elenchi He addresses in his Preface the moderat Presbyterian but certainly the man Proselyted to this Perswasion of Calvin and Beza as pleading from Scripture for the Divine Right of the President Bishop with Preheminence in Office and Iurisdiction over the Pastors of a whole Province or Patriarchat which is the white of the Mark that all his proofs are levelled at ceases to be either Moderat or Presbyterian not Presbyterian because imbracing a Perswasion and principles diametrally opposit to that Government not moderat because assenting to the power of a Prelat which is beyond all limits of equity and moderation and encroaches upon Presbyters and Pastors Office and Authority allowed them in Scripture and likewise because holding no just or moderat opinion of Calvin and Beza who never asserted such a thing but do hold the quite contrary The Author offers his Essay to the Moderat Presbyterian's Censure and Ingenuity and I am hopeful that what is here replyed shall be found such a just and ingenuous Censure and Discovery of his mistakes as do merit his acknowledgments and will obtain the same if he be endued with that Moderation Charity Self-denyal and love to the
that Church and that though it were granted to Epiphanius that he had some singular power there it may be denyed that he could have obtained any power over the Presbytery of Ephesus if he did not been an Evangelist adding this reason that Paul himself declares 1 Tim. 4. v. 14. That imposition of hands was done in name of Presbytry it self not by the Authority of any one Superior After he citâ—s Augustin Epistle 19. asserting that by the Churches custome only Episcopacy was greater than the Presbyterat and Chrisostom saying on the first of Tim. 1 3. That in Ordination only the Bishop differs from the Presbyter that is saith he as Theophylact more clearly in the ceremony of Consecâ—ation only citing also Theodoret who upon Phil. I. writes that of old the name of Bishop and Presbyter were promiscuously used as one and the same He adds afterward that Paul did not excommunicat the incestuous Corinthian alone by his Apostlick Authority but by the Authority of the whole Presbytâ—y and that Peter doubts not to call himself a fellow Presbyter that if all eminency of one Pastor over his Colleagues had been forbidden or rather never brought in by Men the ensuing contests about Supremacy had never rent the Church so far is this Device from being a remedy of Schism and finally he tells us upon his head that as this humane Episcopacy came in by a tacite custome advancing by degrees so we must understand of this human episcopacy as Antecedaneous to the Satanical whatsover Iustin Ignatius and other eminent Writers do speak of Bishops or rather of the first Presidents Authority 10. The Moderator of the Ecclesiastick Synod or Consistory who is to ask the Votes and moderat the whole affairs is for ths one end to be chosen by their common suffâ—ages or Votes which Office must expire and end with the close of the Synod Beza in Quest secunda referente Saravia pag 92. 11. No Scripture truth can be produced for a standing mission of the 70 Disciples to preach the Gospel after our Lords Ascension of a like nature and continuance with that of the twelve Apostles or that they were sent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or immediately The Apostles Mission Math. 10. Luk. 9 Mark 5. Was not that which is called peculiarly and properly Apostolick for which the Apostles were then wholly unfit but only a sort of preludie that all might run to hear Christ himself but these twelve Christ aâ—terward sent by a new Vocation and wholly different from the first for planting Churches through the whole World adorning them with a peculiar and aboundant grace of the Spirit both before his ascension into Heaven Iohnâ—â— v. 22. As likeways chiefly in the day of Pentecâ—st adding more wonderfully the external Signs of this Legation from which Mission the Apostle doth therefore begin the rehearsal of the Apostolick â—unction and of others added thereunto Ephes 4. 10. v. 11. But of these 70 where is there any mention either about the time of our Lord's Ascension or after That Mission mentioned Luk. 10 is wholly diverse from that of Apostles Institute after our Lord's Ascension Had the 70. had such a standing Mission the Sacred Writers neither would nor could have omitâ—ed a matter so necessary mentioning only that of the 12 Apostles and granting it had been this will not infer any imparity of power betwixt them and the 12 Apostles or that Christ made them two distinct Orders or divided them in two Classes the after Institution and addition to the other that 's prior will not prove an Inferiority in that Mission of the 70 which Luke only commemorates What degree will we find whereby they may be subjected to the 12. Who had a prior â—ission That the Apostles were assumed by Christ as domesticks will no more ground their imparity with other Disciples than it will make Iohn superior to the other Apostles because a Disciple most dear to Christ beyond other Disciples it was the Apostolickâ— function which thereafter gave them a priority of Order and also of Power unto other Disciples Beza resp ad cap. 1. Sarav de divers Minist Evangel grad Refuting after the argument drawn from the addition of the 70 Elders to Moses Now from these passages of Calvin and Beza how clearly Presbyterian Government is asserted in its whole Structure and Frame and the opposite Fabrick of Prelacy subverted is obvious to the meanest capacity to conclude so that to insist in drawing forth Propositions to clear this sâ—ems a meer Battalogy and an attempt to shew the Sun with a candle Here we have asserted the extraordinary expired nature of the Function first of Apostles secondly of Evangelists as such Next that the Pastor who labours in the Word and Doctrine is the highest Officer left by Christ in his Church who has no Superior in Church administrations and therein the Prelates pretended Official Superiority is flatly denyed 3ly That no extraordinary Power of Apostles and Evangelists can ground a standing presidencie over Presbyters 4. That Church Government under the New Testament is to be administred by their joynt decisive Sufferage 5. That the Ruling Elder is standing Church Officer appointed by Christ c And in opposition to this Pamphleters forged Definitions Postulatums and Actions how easie is it from what is premised to bring forth Calvin and Beza's counter-assertions and present these great Divines as joyntly witnessing him a Liar and Calumniator therein As first that there was no standing preheminence in any Church-Officer above the Pastor allowed to Christ to be continued in the Church against the definition 3d and the pretended proof of definition 2d 2. That the Angel had no fixed presidency over other Ministers against what is pretended definition 3d. 3. That what is set down in Scripture anent the 70 Disciples sent out after the 12 Apostles will not give the least shadow of an Argument whereby different degrees of Ministers may be concluded against the scope of Postulatum first 4. That the Inspection of Timothy and Titus over Ephesus and Crete had no fixed power of Ordination and Jurisdiction over these Churches included therein in contradiction to Postulatum 2d 5. That the preheminency of one single person in Office unto other Ministers was never by Gods Warrand retained or practised by the Church for remedy of Schism against the scope of Postulatum 3d. 6. That these first Presidents introduced by the primative Church were not preheminent in Office unto other Ministers whereby the same Postulatum is again convict of Falshood 7. That not so much as a constant President can be warranted from the Angel of the 7 Churches against the scope of Postulatum 4th 8. That neither Apostles nor Evagelists their Office did found a standing official lawful Preheminency of an ordinary Church-Officer over the Pastor in contradiction to the scope of Definition 3d 4. Postulatum 4th Axiom 2d And finally that this official Preheminent office over the Pastor has neither a divine
Right flowing from Christ's immediate Institution nor Apostolick from the Apostles doctrine and practise or of the Apostolick and primitive Church and consequently that the having not the wanting of such a Government is pernicious to the Gospel and Christian Religion which overturns the scope of the whole Pamphlet partiâ—â—larly Postulatum 3d 4th Axiom 2d 3d 4th CHAP. Second THe Authors groundless Suppositions and Perversion of these Divines cleared in general from the Structure of his Reasoning THe Scope of this Author is to prove that in Calvin and Beza's Judgment a president Bishop with a fixt Power of ordination preheminent unto and above Pastors with a proportioned Power of Jurisdiction over them is an ordinary standing Officer appoiâ—ted by Christ in the Church of the New-Testament This is clear by comparing Definition 3. with Axiom 2 3 and 4. and with Postulatum 2 and 3 And this preheminency he makes them assert as extended to a whole Diocess Province or Patriarchat as he calls it For proof of which several passages of Calvin and Beza but of Calvin especially are adduced Wherein in general his obvious Perversion and Abuse of these Divines is evident to any that compares his Assertions and Citation First in that Calvin and Beza are supposed by him to hold the Apostolick and Evagelistick Inspection and Authoirty which are supposed in the Scriptures here cited and in the passages of Calvins Institutions here adduced to be ordinary and of perpetual necessity Thus he grosly perverts the subject and state of the Question which is this What is that ordinary ministerial Authority and these Officers which they hold to be of a perpetual continuing Nature and Necessity and not what they might suppose to be de facto in the Churches infancy exercised by the Apostles or Evangelists So that if we can prove that these Divines did not judge the Authority and Power of Apostles and Evangelists or their formal Office as such to be of a moral nature continued in the Church or that there are constant necessary Officers succeeding them in preheminency or superiority in office all that he says falls to the ground To prove this first in general it is evident from what is said that both Calvin and Beza with all sound Protestant Divines do hold the Offices of Apostles and Evangelists and consequently their official Power as such to be expired and that neither of them are succeeded in idem officium § eundem ministerii gradum this is evident to all who have read these Divines and for evincing it I would but ask this Pamphleter whether Calvin and Beza do not hold and suppose that our blessed LORD was when upon earth the Churches visible universal Head and Monarch and that the Apostles afterward had an universal unconfined Inspection and Authority over the whole Church and that particularly and Apostle Iohn who outlived all the rest had solly as an Apostle an universal Authority and Inspection over the same but will he or any man of common sense infer from this that Calvin and Beza are for a moral standing Primacy over the Church universal or a visible political Head and Deput-Vicar under Christ Certainly he would rationally assert this â—â—erence of a â—apist against Calvin and Beza to be very gross and impertinent and no less is his own throughout this Pamphlet 2. If these Divines do hold that Bishops Presbyters and Deacons are the only standing Church Officers of a moral nature perpetual use and necessity Then they did not hold the Office of Apostles and Evangelists to be such or their proper Oâ—ficial Authority compâ—tent to them as in that capacity to be of this nature But the first is true ergo so is the second the Ma or is evident for this man will not say that Calvin and Beza do hold their Offices one and the same with Pastors and that Apostles and Evangelists were not distinct from and superior unto them in their Official Power The Minor is evident from what is above adduced from Calvin and Beza Yea even from his own Citation of Calvin to confirm Axiom third viz. his Instit. lib. 4. Cap 6. Sect 11. The Primacy of the Roman See takes not its Original from Christs Institution nor the custom of the Ancient Church as the other Offices have done viz. of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons cap 4 Sect 1 mentioned already Now surely if he had judged other Offices perpetual and warranted by Christs institution and the antient Churches practice he would not in this place have mentioned with such Emphasis these three only and none else when in opposition to the unlawful Popish Primacy he is shewing what Offices 〈…〉 and the ancient Churches Custom will allow as warrantable To shew it further take this passage of Calvin whom I find our Pamphleter doth mainly insist upon speaking of Philip the Evangelist he tells us that Evangelists were set in the middle betwixt Apostles and Doctors had an office next to that of Apostles that they might every where preach the Gospel for no certain station was assigned to them Now to make their Office and Authority ordinary in Calvins Judgment this Author is obliged by his Argument to say that he held them to be fixed to some certain Station for in Postulatum 2 he holds that according to Calvin Timothy in Ephesus and Titus in Crete were from the nature of their Office invested with a fixt power of Ordination and Jurisdiction in these places 3. If these Divines held the Apostolick and Evangelistick Inspection and Authority to be moral and perpetual then they behoved to hold it such either as one and the same with the pastoral Office and a superior degree thereof or as an Office specifically distinct and superior But neither of the two can be said to them not the first for we heard them both assert that all Pastors do hold one and the same Function and that none of them have any official Authority over another particularly we heard that Calvin whom our Phamphleter mainly appeals to upon Phil. 1. reprehending the abuse of the Word Bishop in appropriating it to one Pastor only he gives this Reason That from this abused Signification of the Word there hath followed this evil that as if all Presbyters were not Colleagues called to the same Function one hath usurped to himself a Dominion over the rest under pretext of this new Appellation So that he holds the Pastoral Official Authority to be one and the same in all Pastors and none to have an Authoritative Inspection over the rest Again Calvin could not hold this fixed Preheminent Authority to be continued in the Church as importing an Office specifically distinct from and superior to that of the Pastor First for the Reason already given for since that supposed inferior Officer were thus both an ordinary Officer and were likewise Eminenter a Pastor How could Calvin quarrel a distinction and peculiarity of a Name to point out a superior Pastor or how could he affirm that all
the Gospel To prove this Definition to be Calvins he cites instit Lib. 4. Cap. 4. Sect. 2. annexing these words this is to be considered that only the Pastors and not the whole Multitude laid Hands on their Ministers at Ordination Answer Hence I infer First these Governours who have Right in Ordination are the Pastors in Calvin's judgment 2. If Pastors as such then all Pastors for a Quatenus adomne valet consequentia 3. Pastors properly such having in Calvin's Judgment one and the same Office being called to the same function and no preheminency in one over another allowed as we heard him above assert Ergo in Calvin's Judgment all Pastors have the same and equal Authority in Ordination 4 The Pastor being with Calvin the hâ—ghest ordinary Church-Officer and the formal Office of Apostles and Evangelists being expired as is above cleared Ergo in Calvin's Judgment all who have an ordinary standing Interest in Ordination as Church-Officers of Christ's appointment have it equally and no ordinary Officer of the New-Testament-Church hath a supereminent and peculiar Interest therein Defin. 2 The second Definition is That the power of Jurisdiction is that Right in the Governours of the Church to make Cannons which are wanting or to execute these already made for the Regulation of Church Members To prove this Calvin is adduced on Tit. ch 1 v. 5. The words cited are we learned indeed from this place that there was no such equality among the Ministers of the Church but that some one was pre-heminent in Authority and Counsel Answer In Answer to which First I Note the impertinency of this Passage to prove the power of Jurisdiction here Defined which speaks only of Counsel and Authority in Church Governours not of the Object of it whereof this Definition speaks 2. Since the power of Jurisdiction is correspondent and adequat to the power of Ordination as our Author expressly assert Definition 3. compared with Axiom 2. anâ— withall since it is made good that with Calvin the power of Ordination is one and the same in all Pastors as being the highest ordinary Church Officers Hence it follows inevitably That with him the power of Jurisdiction is the same and equal in all Ministers of the Word 3. The Definition seems too narrow if we take it as importing all that 's beyond that Power of Ordination first described that is all the exercise of both the Keys which will far go beyond the limits of this Description Besides these Cannons must be limited by the general Rules of the Word in Calvin's Judgment for speaking of the Apostolick Decision Acts 15. He says they would not step beyond the limits of the Word Next for that Preheminence which Calvin ascribes to those Officers in Authority and Counsel I Answer first What ever this Preheminence was Calvin limits it to that State and Time of the Church for he says Tunâ— or at that time wherein those Offices did exist which he holds to be extraordinary there was such an Official difference as is mentioned otherwise if our Author say he means a standing Pastoral fixed Authority he will involve him in a double contradiction first in that he says The Evangelists were Coajutors of the Apostles and fixed to no Station 2. In that he shews upon the 7. v. of this Chapter that there is no Official difference in the pastoral Office Again Calvin shews upon the same place that Paul enjoyns him not to take an arbitrary power over this Church but only to preside over the Elections as Moderator This will be convincingly evident to any that will be at the pains to read Calvin upon that 5 and 6 verse For First He asserts That Paul had deputed to Titus a Vicarious Administration in his own room and that the Apostles having a transient unfixt Ministry being about to spread the Gospel every where behoved when going from one place or City to another to surrogat fit men to finish what they had begun 2. He asserts in terminis that this Vicarious Office and Administration was ultra ordinarium Pastorum munus beyond the ordinary Office of Pastors and that the trust put upon him of Exedifying this Church was of that Nature and in this states the difference betwixt his Administration and that of the Pastor which is ordinary in that Pastors are set over Churches already Formed and Constitute But Titus had an Office beyond this viz. To give this Form to Churches not as yet modelled as to Government asserting evdently that the Evangelistick Office of Titus in so far as extended beyond that of the Pastor did suppose the Church as yet in fieri as to its Constitution Yea and the Existence of the Apostolick Office too upon whose foundation these Evangelists were to build and exedifie what they had begun 3. He asserts expressly That the preaching Presbyter and Pastor is the highest ordinary Officer set in the Churches 4. He moves an Objection whether this power of Titus did not seem to infringe the Judicial power of the Colledge of Pastors or their consistorial decisive Authority in Government and Answers that matters were not committed to Tiâ—us arbitriment to set up what Pastors he pleased but he was only to preside over the Elections as Moderator c. as the Consul or Dictator who held the Court for gathering the Votes In all which we see how pitifully this man hath abused his Reader in this Definition Defin. 3. The 3d Definition is thus The President Bishop is he who from his Office preheminent to other Ministers is invested with a fixed power of Ordination regulat by Cannons to prove this he adduces Calvin on 2 Tim. 1. v. 6. who asserts that Paul himself declares that he alone and no other Ministers with him laid hands on Timothy he adds in the Definition and of Jurisdiction ballanced by assisting Ministers for proving which part of the Definition he adduces Calvin Instit lib 4. cap 4. Sect 1. Asserting That whatever parts the Consul had in the Senat the same Office did the Bishop always sustain in the meeting of Presbyters To the First Branch I answer That he is guilty here of pitiful Forgery and begging the question evident to any considering person upon the very first vieâ— Answer For 1. If Calvin's assertion prove any thing for him it will prove not only a preheminent power of Ordination in this supposed President Bâ—shop but a sole Power competent to none but himself as his sole Prerogative because if he alone as Paul did and none else must lay on hands he and no other Minister jure Ergo Then this is his sole Prerogative For certainly the laying on of hands must import the Power and Exercise of Ordination in Calvin's Judgment according to that mans pleading and so this proving too much proves just nothing Answer 2. 2. I ask whether this supposed Power of Ordination is to be ballanced as that of Jurisdiction by assisting Ministers or authoritatively concurring yea or not by assisting he must
discovered how insignificant this mans pretended Definitions are to found and fortify his ensuing Propositions and Demonstrations we do proceed to examine that which he calls his Postulatums the first whereof is thus Postulatum 1. That the seventy Disciples from among whom Matthias was called to be ordained one of the twelve Apostles were persons in holy Order in the Ministry To prove this Calvin is adduced on Luke 10. 1 16. v. whose words are these after the Apostles had returned to Christ he sent more secundary Preachers and this is the great commendation of the outward Ministry that Christ declares That whatsoever honour is given to his faithful Preachers is given to himself Answer In Answer to this we need not contend much in Thesi anent what is asserted to the Office of the 70 Disciples only we may advert here some things that will Castigat and Check his Scope in this Postulatum as that Calvin asserts that they were only as it were secundary Preachers not simply secundary Preachers he says also Nulla illis proprie commissa fuit legatio no Legation or Mission was properly intruâ—ed to them which we heard Beza also above assert Bus as Christs Aparitors were sent to prepare the peoples hearts to receive his Doctrine Next I observe that though by his inserted Parenthesis he would have it believed That Calvin holds Matthias to be one of the sâ—verity Disciples yet his Citation out of Calvin is utterly remote from proving it Calvin touching nothing of this in his Discourse of the seventy and in Acts 1. upon v. 21. and the two last verses where it was very proper to insert this he has not the least hint of it Nay in answering that Objection why did they not remit it to God to choose one out of all the multitude without a previous designation of these two he has no such thing either though it was most pertinent here to mention it In a word Calvins Principles above-evinced anent the extraordinary personal expired power and inspection of Apostles and Evangelists as such and anent the Pastor his being the highest ordinary Officer in the New Testament Church and his clear and positive assertion of the same equal Function and official authority of all Pastors whether he take the seventy Disciples to be ordinary or extraordinary Church Officers It is evident even to a Demonstration that his words cited in this Postulatum will bear no conclusion of his owning such a standing Subordination among Ministers as this man imputes to him but that his Doctrine and Principles utterly overthows the same Proceed we to the second Postulatum which is thus Postulatum 2. That Timothy in the Church of Ephesus and Titus in the Church of Crete were from their Offices preheminent to other Ministers invested with a fixed power of Ordination and Jurisdiction regulated by Cannons and ballanced by assisting Ministers To prove this he cites Calvin 1 Tim. 1. 18. v. asserting that Timothy was not one of the common Ministry but one next to the Apostles who in the frequent absence of Paul was in his place Also on Tit. 1. v. 5. where he says That besides the ordinary Office of Pastors Titus had this charge That he should constitute a certain Form of Church Policy and Discipline and likewise ordain Ministers over the Churches Answer To this I answer in general that it is already made good from clear and positive Assertions of Calvin that the Office both of Apostles and Evangelists is expired and that no preheminent Office over that of the Pastor is in his Judgment continued in the Church so that whatever preheminent power over ordinary Pastors Calvin may suppose at this time existent in Timothy or Titus it will never reach this Pamphleters conclusion anent his asserting a moral standing preheminence in any ordinar Church Officer over his Colleagues which is the point he undertakes to prove 2. Particularly if he will prove any thing to his purpose from Calvin he must shew us his assertion anent a fixed and not only so but likewise as is said above an ordinary Power or of a Moral perpetual Nature in Ordination and Jurisdiction over other Ministers and exercised by Timothy and Titus which that Calvin disowns is evident thus 1. They whose Office and Official preheminency consequently was correspondent unto and of a like extent with that of the Apostles these had no fixed Presidency over any one Church but in Calvin's Judgment the Office and Official Preheminence of Timothy and Titus was of this nature Ergo. The Assumption is proved from this that Calvin asserts as is above evinced the Evangelists Office to be next that of the Apostles and that their work was to Preach the Gospel every where and supply the Apostles rooms when going from one place to another 2. They whose official Preheminence and formal Office supposed the Churches in fieri and was appointed for assisting the Apostles in Exedifying them they had in Calvins Judgment no fixed moral or standing Preheminency over Ministers and Churches else we shall suppose the Christian Church in its model of Government to be still with him in fieri and the Apostolick Office formerly existent which we heard above both Calvin and Beza disown but the Office of Timothy and Titus in Calvins Judgment was such as we heard also above Ergo. 3. They whose Official Power is expresly by Calvin distinguished from that power which is ordinary and of perpetual necessity in the Church Government their supposed Preheminency lays no foundation for a fixed moral president preheminent Bishop over Ministers as of perpetual necessity in the Church unless he will make Calvin in contradiction to himself assert one and the same Office and Power to be ordinary and extraordinary perpetual and temporary continually necessary and not necessary but so it is that Calvin thus distinguishes the Office of Evangelists from the Pastoral perpetual Office as we heard above Ergo. 4. They who by their Office were fixed to no particular Station or Church in Calvins Judgment they had no fixed preheminent Power in Ordination and Jurisdiction over other Ministers else they should be by their Office fixed and not fixed But so it is that in Calvins Judgment Timothy and Titus were set over no particular Station as we heard him above assert Ergo no Evangelists properly such were in Calvins judgment fixed to any particular Station as we heard him above assert But Timothy and Titus were the Evangelists properly such as we heard also him affirm Ergo. Finally so absurd is this mans assertion here that his pretended proofs out of Calvin furnishes sufficient Weapons to overthrow it For First If Timothy was none of the common ordinary Ministry but the Apostle Paul's Depute sustaining his place in his frequent absence then as we heard Calvin above argue and assert his Official Inspection was neither ordinary nor fixed over any one Church Ergo It laid no foundation in Calvin's judgment for a moral fixed President Bishop with
would make him hold twelve moral standing Primats and universal Patriarchs or Popes with infallible directive power over the whole Catholick Church 2 I observe that by asserting the Apostles to be meeâ— President Bishops he would make men believe that he pleads only for a moral standing fixed Presidency But as I did above touch he pleads by this first Proposition and Assumption for a standing moral Prelatick Dominion over Church Judicatories serued up to the highest Peg. Follows the Demonstration whereof the first Proposition is Major The President Bishop is he who from his Office preheminent to other Ministers is invested with a fixed Power of Ordination regulat by Canons and of Jurisdiction ballanced by assisting Ministers For proof of which he adduces definition 3. Answer This Proposition as here worded we did above dis-prove and did shew that according to his design in this Citation of Calvin he must add both a sole power and likewise an ordinary power that this place of Galvin will neither prove his holding it fixed nor an ordinary power in the Apostles both which we have found Calvin doth disown in several places above-cited Besides the above-evinced inconsistency of the two Branches of this Proposition compared with his pretended proof so that the Major appears nought The assumption is Assumption But in respect to the 70 Disciples who were all in the holy Ministry by Postulatum first and from among whom Matthias was called to be of the twelve by Postulatum 1. The sacred Colledge of the Apostles had a fixed preheminency by Axiom 1. invested with the power of Ordination regulated by Canons by Postulatum 1. and Definition 1. and of Jurisdiction ballanced by assisting Ministers by Axiom 2 Answer Not to resume what we have animadverted upon his Assertion anent the 70 Disciples and Calvin's silence as to Mathias in both the places cited by him and his Comment upon Mathias Election As for that which he asserts from Axiom 1 anent the Colledge of Apostles their fixed preheminence the Axiom itself asserts the regular Call of any Minister already ordained is from an Inferior to a Superior station we did shew the impertinency of Calvins citation to prove this and that he neither simply asserts this matter of fact as he sets it down nor gives his approbation of it so that this Axiom is none of Calvins 2. For his inference from it that the 12 had a fixed Preheminency over the 70 who sees not its remotness Behold the visage of this Reason Calvin says that the Church sometimes choosed Presbyters out of Deacons ergo he assâ—rts that the 12 Apostles had a fixed Preheminence over the 70 Disciples 3. If by Fixed he mean a preheminence ordinary and to be continued we have proved that Calvin denyes and disowns this in the places above cited and asserts as evidently as man can speak that the Apostolick Official Preheminence as such was neither Fixed Limited nor Ordinary that they were invested with a power of Ordination regulat by Canons he tells us is proved by Postulatum 1. and Definition 1. The Postulatum says that the 70 Disciples were in the holy Order of the Ministry and how he has proved this from Calvin we have above seen especially with relation to Mathias Where we told him that Calvins assertion of the Sameness of the pastoral Function in all ordinary Pastors and the extraordinary expired Nature of the Apostolick Inspection and Authority cutts off his inference of such a standing Subordination among Pastors as he imagins him to hold Next what a Rope of Sand is this the 70 were inferiour to the 12 Apostles ergo they had a fixed ordinary power of Ordination over them and forsooth regulated by Canons He next proves this by Definition 1. Which asserts that the power of Ordination is the Right of Governours of the Church to separate persons duely qualified to the Ministry This Calvin asserts is proper only to Pastors which we proved doth infer clearly against this mans Design Calvins asserting the Pastor to be the highest ordinary Officer and the expired extraordinary Nature of the Apostolick and Evangelistick Offices together with the equal Function of all Pastors which Assertions of Calvin doth render this Inference Ergo the Apostles were invested with an ordinary power of Ordination and Iurisdiction over Pastors to be transmitted to the Church which is this mans Scope and Conclusion upon the premised general Assertion of Calvin anent the right of Church-Governours to be a meer non sequitur and an ergo baculus stat in angulo The Apostles Preheminency in jurisdiction ballanced by assisting Ministers he proves by Axiom 2. which he refers to Definition 2 and 3. Upon which iâ— the examination of his Citations we have proved that this supposed Apostolick Preheminency is with Calvin neither Fixed nor ordinary or of a moral standing Nature but did expire with these extraordinary Functions and that in Calvin's principles it was cumulative unto not privative of the ordinary standing collegiat power of Pastors which is to continue to the end besides the inconsistency wherein we have observed he involves Calvin in his Collections upon the place cited by him Follows our Pamphleters grand Conclusion of his Demonstration Conclusion Therefore the 12 Apostles were president Bishops over the 70 Disciples which was the thing to be demonstrated Answer If he mean an infallible directive power and presidency as Apostles it is easily admitted by Calvin But then as I said he foolishly restricts it to the 70 Disciples which was over the whole Church both Miniâ—ters and People If he mean a standing moral ordinary perpetual Presidency especially relative to the 70 and wherein ordinary Officers were to succeed them we have proved that he will as soon squise Water from a Flint as either premisses or conclusion from the places of Calvin referred unto in the two Propositions of his Demonstration And unto his Demonstration and proposition I do from what is above evinced oppose his Counter-demonstration and Antithesis of his Position and Conclusion The Proposition is Proposition The Apostles were not fixed President ordinary Bishops over the 70 Disciples Demonstration They whose prâ—sidency was not fixt to any Church or Station nor Ordinary but Extraordinary and universal over the whole Church both Ministers and Flocks these had no fixed ordinary moral presidency over the 70 Disciples But the Apostolick presidency was of this Nature in the Judgment of Calvin ergo the Apostles were not ordinary fixed president Bishops over the 70 Disciples The Major is evident for to be fixed and not fixed ordinary and extraordinary Presidents yea and in relation to the 70 Disciples only and to the whole Church Ministers and People cannot consist The Minor is cleared above wherein it is evinced that Calvin assâ—rts the Apostolick Inspection to be both Universal Extraordinary and Unfixed Hence we may safely conclude ergo the Apostles were not ordinary president Bishops or in a proper and formal Sense over the 70 Disciples which
Jurisdictions ballanced by assisting Ministers proved by Calvin's asserting that Paul only laid hands on Timothy 2 Tim. 1. 6. And that the Bishop had the power of the Consul Instit. lib. 4. cop 4. Sect. 1. I have made appear how pitifully this man stumbles and prevaricats 1. In making Calvin assert a sole power in this President Bishop as well as a fixed power And that 2. in making the Power of Jurisdiction to be ballanced by assisting Ministers and not annexing this Clause to the Power of Ordination he either restricts it to this Power of Jurisdiction imputing this to Calvin a Chimerical assertion of his own forgery and involves Calvin and himself in a Contradiction in that he asserts that with him the Power of Jurisdiction is of like nature and correspondent to that of Ordination the preheminence in Office and Iurisdiction being one and the same by Axiom 2. or if both Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction be held thus ballanced by our Pamphleter we have discovered that in betaking himself to this shift he would be but out of the pit into the snare incidit in sâ—yllam cupiens vitare Charybdin for thus he overthrows his proof from Calvins assertion that Paul and none else laid hands upon Timothy 2. We have also made appear that in his 3 Definition he sayes nothing to his purpose and scope unless he qualifie the Power of this supposed President Bishop not only with the property and adjunct of fixed but also with that of Ordinary both which that Calvin disowns in the Apostles and Evangelists we proved from clear places both of his Commentaries and Institutions And for his other proof of that Definition taken from Calvins equiparating the power of this President Bishop with that of the Consul We did disprove it not only from Calvins explication that it reached only the gathering of the Votes and seeing the Sentence execute but likewise from his plain and positive assertion that this Proestos or President was subject to his Colleagues whence by inevitable consequence it follows that he had no such Official Preheminence over them as this man alledges Calvin doth hold 3. Again whereas the fixing of this Power in the President Bishop is as the other branch of his Assumption proved by Definition 3. What we have said to disapprove his scope in this 3 Definition doth sufficiently evert this Branch of the Assumption grounded thereupon 4. Finally upon Axiom 2. referring to both these his Definitions we have evinced that this Preheminence in Office and proportioned-preheminence in Jurisdiction which Calvin in the places therein cited supposes competent to the Apostles and Evangelists was neither first Fixed or secondly Ordinary nor such as is of a moral standing nature but did expire with the Persons of these extraâ—rdinary Offices and that 3ly During the existence of this extraordinary Preheminence in Office and Jurisdiction it was in Calvins judgement cumulative unto not privative of the ordinary collegiat authority of Pastors in Ordination and Jurisdiction So that that Axiom as understood by this man of a supposed moral standing preheminent president Bishop over Pastors we have fully proved in the places above-cited that Calvin doth disown it and consequently the Assumption of this Demonstration as none of his The Conclusion is Therefore the Fathers of the primitive Church were President Bishops Which doth appear from what is said to be a meer yea a gross non sequitur both Major and Assumption being palpably false taking this President Bishop in the extent and nature exprest in both these Propositions And hereunto his Proposition and Demonstration I shall oppose these two Anâ—itheses and Counter-demonstrations The first Proposition is Proposition 1. None of the Fathers who were the first Proestos or Fixed Moderators had de facto the Government in their Person or an Official Preheminence in Ordination and Jurisdiction over their Brethren in the Judgement of Calvin or Beza Proposition 2. None who assums this in after times were allowed of these Divines as to their pretended jus or as having a Divine Warrand and Institution The Proposition is proved thus Demonstration Major They who according to Calvin and Beza were only togather the Voâ—es moderate the Actions of the meeting and were subject to the meeting or Church Judicatory as being chosen by them these had not the Government in their Persons or a Fixed Official Preheminency of Ordination and Jurisdiction over the same Assumption But the Presidency of the First Proâ—stâ—â—eâ— or Moderators was in these Divines Judgement of this nature Therefore these first Proestoâ—eâ— or Moderators had no Official Preheminency in Ordinatiâ—n and Jurisdiction over their Brethren or the Government of the Judicatories in their Persons as is said The Major is clear and is â—ounded upon the Nature and Rule of opposâ—ta For to be subject to he meeing and to gather the Votes only and that by their own Election and Choise cannot consist with having a fâ—xed yea according to this mans pleasing a sole Official Power in Ordination and Jurisdiction â—vâ—r them The Assumption is above cleared from the expresâ— Assertions of these Divines wherein it is made good that Calvin asserts that this Moderator or Fixed President at first brought in was only to moderat the Actions of the meeting and was subject to them The same we heard Beza assert in speaking of his humane Episâ—â—pacy as subsequent to that which had the Divine Warrand The Conclusion is legitimatly deduced The 2 Proposition viz. Noâ—e who assumed this sort of Presidency in aftâ—â—tâ—mes viz. An Official Prehemiâ—ency in Ordination and Jurisdiction over Pastors were allowed of Calvin or Beza as having a Divine Warrand is thus proved Demonstration These Divines who disallow of any sâ—rt of Dominion in a single person over Church Judicatories who maintain the equal Function and Official Power of Pastors therein who disâ—wn the very first continuing fixed Moderator as a humane invention and do hold that even this fixed Moderator ought to be subâ—ect to the consistorial judicial Votes oâ—â—is Brethren these do disown a Fixed Official Prâ—hâ—minence in Ordinaâ—ion and Jurisdiction in any ordinary Pastor over Church-Judicatories and do condemn such as assumed this but Calvin and Beza do disallow of this Power above exprest in any pastor above his Brethren Therefore they disallow of these who in after times assumed this as having no divine warrand The Major is Evident upon the same ground on which the former first Proposition is bottomed which if any deny they will necessarily involve them in Contradictions The â—ssumption is evident from the above-cited places of Calvin and Beza We heard Calvin clearly assâ—râ— the equal Official power of pastors and that even extraordinary Offices were not to encroach upon this power That the first Proestetes were only to gather the Votes and were subject to the Meeting we also heard that Beza calls this Fixed Moderater the â—pisiopus humarus as distâ—nguished from the first divine Bishop and asserts that the setting of him
up was an aâ—eration and 〈◊〉 from the Divine Rule and that which gave thâ— fâ—rst rise to Antichristian Tyranny we also heard that he disown even the inference of a Fixed Moderator from the Angel of the Churches we have also frequently Observed how that Calvin disowns the peculiarity of the very name Bishop to one Pastor as giving the least semolance of any difference in the Official power and function of pastors The Conclusion therefore of their disowning this Official preheminent power in Ordination and Jurisdiction assumed or rather usurped in after times evidently and necessarily foâ—lows yea is so evident that Beza in his Treatise de Episcopatu triphci calls the Bishop assuming in after times this preheminence in Ordination and Iurisdiction over Pastors the Satanical Bishop and the poysoned egg out of which Antichrist was hatched Come we to the 4th Proposition of our pamphleter which is this thus Proposition 4. The president Episcopacie is approven by Christ in the Book of the Revelation Answer Upon the Proposition it self I shall only here again animadvert and remind the Reader of this man's pitiful palpable â—orgery and abusive Sophilirie in covering himself and his design all alone gâ—â—der the Cloud and playing with the general terms of President Episâ—â—pâ—cie to give some semblance of truth unto his proofs as knowing that Calvin and Beza do express themselves modestly of the first Proestotes or Fixed Moderators who first took place but his Mediums and Methods of arguing do sufficiently unmask his pitiful folly for they do make these Divines plead for a Hierarchial Diocesian or Patriarchal Prelat of the highest degree with a fixed sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction yea shapeâ— out after the measures of Apostolick Authority The first Proposition of his Demonstration whereby the premised assertion is fastned upon Beza is thus Demonstration Proposition 1. The seven Angels of the seven Churches written unto by St. Iohn in the Book of the Revelation are encouraged against all the devices of the ungodly upon condition of their continuing faithful in their Administrations for proof of which we are referred to Postulatum 4. Answer 1. This Proposition in it self considered we may safely admit without the least prejudice to our cause or help to his design We might on the by here tell him as our learned Mr. Gilespie admonished some of his fellows that the Scripture Saints we may add and inspecial such an eminent Saint and Divine as the Apostle Iohn needs no titles of Honour out of the Popes Callendar and was acknowledged such by the Churches before this Canonizing came in use And enquire whether our Author useth to prefix St. to Aaron when he names him who is called the Saint of the Lord together with Moses and other old Testament Saints and what ground of disparity and difference he can assign But to pass this 2. Since he referrs to Postulatum 4. where we have the same Proposition with an annext Sentence of Beza on Revel 2. 26. v. Where he expons My Works c. of the faithful performance of the works laid upon this Angel and shews that the Assembly of Pastors are bespoken in the person of the President to whom victory is promised if he rely upon Christs power c. I shall here only resume what we have answered upon that 4 Postulatum viz. That Bezas taking the Angel for a single Person is the utmost conclusion he can draw from this passage wherein as Beza differs from the ordinary current of Interpreters So we have evinced the gross palpable folly and forgery of this mans design and inference here-from viz. That Beza ownes this president Bishop which he hath shapen out and described since he cannot conclude from these words that Beza asserts his Official Preheminence and Authority over his Colleagues which we told him is so Demonstratively evident that Beza disowns even the very inference of the necessity of a fixed Moderator as following upon his Assertion anent the president Angel expressly adding this Proviso Caution to guard against any mis-application of what he sayes anent the Angel his being a single person and thus in terminis gives this Pamphleter the lie as if by a Prophetick Spirit he had forseen this forgery And holding the very first fixed Moderators to have been the humane Custom subsequent and opposite to the first divine appointment and practice of the Official compleat parity among Pastors our Lords enjoyning the Pastors faithfulness in their administrations and bespeaking them thus in the person of the President we told him will therefore in Bezas sense and words import no more then a faithful exercise of their joynt Collegiat Power and Authority which Beza holds was our Lords Institution and at this time is existent So we see the Major is nought The Assumption is Assumption But the Angels were President Bishops over other Ministers within their respective Churches For proof of this we are referred to Definition 4. Where we are told that the Angel of any Church representative is the President Bishop over other Ministers within the respective Diocess Province or Patriarchat which is proved by Beza Rev. 2. and 24. His words are To the Angel that is the President whom it behoved especially to be admonished and by him his fellow Colleagues To you the Angel the President and the Assembly of your Colleagues Answer We have upon that Definition fully discovered the folly and impertinency of this inference from the words of Beza and this Mans palpable shameless imposings upon him as if these words would bear the Conclusion of his owning a President Bishop with an Official yea sole Preheminence in Ordination and Jurisdiction over ordinary Pastors of as high a nature as he supposes the Apostle Paul exercised which appears by Definition 3. compared with its proof this his arguing we said is a shameless imposing both in that he supposes Beza to hold these Angels to be Patriarchat Provincial or Diocesian Angels or Bishops above 260 years before such a mold and cast of Churches was existent as likewise that every representative Church is Provincial Diocesian or Patriarchal and inferring this high Patriarchiall or Diocesian Prelat with sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction from Bezas simple assertion of a president Angel in whom the rest of the Pastors were bespoken yea and bespoken as his fellow Colleagues viz of equal Official Authority in Bezas sense unless he will make him contradict not only himself but Calvin who expons and understands Colleagues thus yea and all this contrair to the express caution of Beza in the same very place who asserts that this his sense and exposition of the President Angel will not so much as bear the Conclusion of the necessity of a fixed Moderator which he holds to be a humane invention and that the Prelat of this Mans mold and pleaded for by him by these distorted citations gave the rise to the Antichristian tyranny If this be not shameless imposing let any rational man
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 Bâ—shop for thus â—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