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
Constitte and were sent hither and thither while the Churches were in Planting Such was the Office of Evangelists peculiarly so called as Timothy Titus Luke c. Beza on Galat. 1. v. 1 2. 19. The Apostolick Office lay in this to Constitute Churches through the whole World by a sort of peculiar right as appears from Christ's Command and their whole History therefore Churches being Constitute this Office also of necessity was taken away it is therefore a Tyrannical Term for any to profess himself an Apostle by succession Evangelists being Attendants and helpers of the Apostles as was Timothy who is by name called an Evangelist this Office was therefore Temporary also The Doctors and Pastors are of perpetual necessity in the Church Beza on Ephes. 4. v. 11. 20. The Brethren mentioned as with Paul Gal. 1. 2. were the whole Presbyterie of the Church of Antioch whence this Epistle was written Beza in locum The Bishopâ— in Philippi Phil. 1. 1. are the Pastors Doctors and Presbyters who attend the word and doctrine and who as the Greek word imports like Sentinels and Watch-men do watch over and inquire into the Doctrine and the conversation of the Flock committed to them such were these in Act. 20. 28. who are sometime called by the general name of Presbyters as Verse 17 of that Chapter and in first of Timothy 5. 17. This was then of old the Appellation of Bishopâ— until he who was in the Assembly Caetu or Meeting was set over the rest of the Brethren whom Justinus calls the Proestos or President began to be peculiarly called the Bishop from hence the Devil began to lay the first foundations of Tyranny in the Church of GOD the whole administration and Government of the Church being as it were with the name transâ—erred upon One then from the Episcopal Tyranny it came to Meâ—trapolitants whom they call Arch-bishops c. From Metrapolitants they advanced to the first four primary Patriarchs the Christian Republick being as it were divided unto four men until the fortuitus occasion of the fifth because of the Dignity of new Rome hence arose perpetual Contests till the rest ceding the Contest continued with 〈◊〉 of Rome and Constantinople a Controversie never decided unto tlis day sometimes the one sometimes the other avouching himself the universal Patriarch The Roman Bishop in the mean time being condemned of Falsehood falsi in the Carthaginian Counsel of two hundred and seven Fathers yet such was the ambition that the Constantinopolitane Patriarch even now is set over the Churches spread through the East if they may be called Churches the Roman has invaded both Churches and Kingdoms of the West by a just Judgment depriving them of their Scepters by whose help he invaded a Tyranny over the Churches Behold of how great moment and consequence it is to decline even in a hair breadth from the Word of GOD. Beza on Phil. Cap. 1. 1. 21. The Presbytrie mentioned 1 Tim. 4. 14. who imposed hands upon Timothy is to be understood of the Meeting or Assembly of Pastors Bishops or Presbyters at Lystra who laboured in the Word and Doctrine and by this word Presbytrie any such Assembly is to be understood Beza in locum All Pastors are servants of that one Legistator Christ in the Ecclesiastick Office there is no dâ—minion of one over another he only excells among Ministers who is most diligent and averse from all ambitious usurping over his fellow-servants Beza in Math. 20. 25. paralelling this place with the 1. Pet. 5. â— and as his understanding the Aâ—gel Rev. 2. 1. of the President by whom his Colleagues were to be admonished will not so much as found the humane Bishop after brought into the Church so that clause Rev. 2. 24. viz. to you and the rest c. is to be understood of the Aâ—gel or President for the time and the Assembly of his Colleagues In which passage the conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or and is necessarly to be understood or read Beza lbid from Beza in his Answer to Sarav de diversis mi nistrorum gradibus there are innumerable clear Testimonies adduceable against this mans design and pleading He tells us that the Evangeliâ—s properly so called were helpers of the Apostles in perfecting the Structure of Churches distinguished from ordinary Preachers in this that for a time they only were set over some Churches to confirm oâ— constitute them fully sometimes in one place sometimes in another as the matter required as appears from Pauls Epistles Beza Respon and caput sextum Sarav No Apostle or Evangelist was above another and both these Officers are ceast Beza ad Cap 9. Numb 15. apud Sâ—aviam the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Leader which the Apostle useth thrice Heb. 13. and which our Lord expones Iohn 10. 4. is attributed to Ministers only with respect to the Flock committed to them that the same is to be judged of the term Bishop appears from Act. 8. 28. Hence as the Church shortly after felt it was a dangerous custom to transfer the terme Proestos and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to them who preceded over the Assembly of their Colleagues not as more eminent in Degree but only as being first in order lbid Numb 20. secundum Sarav 2. The Office of Pastor and Doctor are the chief functions of the Church perpetually necessary Beza resp and Cap. 11. Numb 3 juxta Sarav 3. Such as deny the Office of Apostles Prophets and Evangelists to be temporary and ceast they must either conclude that the work of building and compleating the Churches is left by them imperfect and manck which is most false and cannot be said without their reproach or that afterward the whole Edifice is so far subverted that for its Restitution we need not only faithful Pastors Doctors and Presbyters but Architects to lay the foundation again Evangelists for the Superstructure lastly Prophets and other gifts of the Spirit for confirming their Work Beza ad Cap. 16. Numb 3. with Sarav The preserving this Edifice intire is committed to these perpetual Officers Pastors Doctors Ruling-Elders and Deacons Ibid Num. 10. with Sarav 4. The Apostles and Evangelists work of preaching Baptizing and governing the Church with Pastors and Presbyters was ordinary their unconfined Inspection Apostolick Authority in planting and watering Churches was temporary and expired Beza Ibid. Numb 11. The ordinary perpetual Government they committed to Pastors Doctors Elders and Deacons Ibid. Numb 12. The perpetual form and Authority of Governing the Church of teaching and administrating Sacraments yea and of her Restauration and Propagation is committed to Pastors Doctors and Elders and remains as thus committed to them and prescribed by the Apostles and Evangelists Yet their infallible Authority of founding and compleating Churches is ceast with their life Numb 13. Their function and Office died with them not the form and rule of Government committed to Pastors Doctors c. Numb 14. The ordinary succession of a
Pastors without exception have one and the same Function 2. We heard that Beza and Calvin do hold that the Apostles and Evangelists had no fixed Station over which they were set and so could not as in that capacity have any fixed Power of ordination and jurisdiction A second perversion of the Doctrine and sense of these Divines in this point and false Supposition which this Authors arguing is grounded upon is this that he distinguishes not their simple Narration of a practise from their positive Approbation of it which any man of sense will distinguish in any Author and which if confounded we cannot eschew the horrid Blaspheming of the Spirit of God in Scripture To clear this take an undenyable instance from Calvin whom as I said our Author mainly appeals to To prove his 2 Postulatum viz. that in Calvins judgment the Church warrantably retained the Government of one single Person preheminent in Office unto other Ministers he cites Calvin instit Cap. 4. Sect. 2. Where Calvin shews that Presbyters in all Citâ—es choose one out of their Number to whom especially they gave the Title of Bishop lest from a parity Division might arise That Jerom says at Alexandria from Mark the Evangelist to Heracleas and Dyonysius Presbyters always placed one in a preheminent degree whom they called a Bishop The same we heard Beza acknowledge as to the matter of Fact Now I say it is gross Perversion from Beza or Calvins Narration of this matter of â—act to infer their Approbation of the Practise 1. For that clear demonstrative Reason already adduced 2. This cannot be held and obtruded as their Judgment without contradicting them in other places and making them inconsistent with themselves which this Author who holds their Writings and that deservedly to be excellent must by all means eschew for as we heard Beza evidently disown this practise of the fixed President and his appropriat Name of Bishop as giving the rise to all the ensuing corruptions of the Church-Government so doth Calvin evidently on Phil. 1. forecited condemn two points of this Practice First in setting one Presbyter in a superior Degree over another for he affirms they are all Colleagues called to one and the same Function having the same Work the same Ordination the same Official Power and Authority ergo he ownes a perfect Parity and disowns an Imparity in the Officâ— and preheminency in Degree in one above another and therefore by further necessary consequence he disowns and cannot allow of the Practice of this at Alexandria as warrantable 2. If Calvin disowns this Imparity and Dominion as fomented and having its rise from the appropriating the Name Bishop to one Pastor rather than to another then he disowns the appropriating the Name to this preheminent Presbyter as a badge of this Preheminency and by consequence the practice of this at Alexandria but so it is that Calvin which we also have evinced of Beza In terminis condemns this appropriating of the Name Bishop to one Pastor for the end mentioned therefore he condemns this practice in so far We heard that upon Tit. 1. 7. he collects the Identitie of the Bishop and Presbyters Office from the Apostles using both Names indifferently As also saith he Iâ—rom hath observed and that more hath been ascribed to mens pleasures and inventions than did become in preferring mens habituated terme to the Language of the Holy Ghost And speaking of the first Moderator's early brought in he shews that the Name of the Office viz. that of Bishop is commune to all And that to rob the rest thereof is injurious and absurd a perversion of the Holy Ghosts Language and prophane Boldness and that upon Act. 20. 28. He concludes that all the Presbyters have both Name and Thing of the Scripture Bishop appropriat unto them Here let any rational Man judge especially from what is above evinced 1 Chapter If Beza and Calvin make not the Name and Thing of a Scripture Bishop proper to every Pastor and consequently condemn not the above-mentioned Official Difference and appropriating the Name Bishop to a supposed preheminent Pastor above another at Alexandria as a perversion and abuse of the Spirit of Gods Institution and Language in Scripture And whether it be not most consonant to Reason to collect Beza and Calvins Judgment upon their Assertions and Inferences from Scripture when reasoning the Point ex professo rather than from their simple Narration of a matter of Fact and practice of the Church If he say that his third Postulatum speaks only of what the Primitive Church retained in Calvins Judgment I answer First what will a simple Practice in it self signifie to infer a Rule and Duty without any more Or Calvins Narration to infer his Approbation 2. Comparing Postulatum 2. and his Assertion of Calvins Judgment anent the fixt Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction which Timothy and Titus exercised over other Ministers at Ephesus and Crete with Definition 3. Anent and President Bishop his preheminent Office in Ordination over other Ministers and what he asserts Axiom 3 and 4. viz. that Calvin holds this to be necessary to the very Being of the Church it 's evident he must be thus understood as asserting Calvin Approbation of the practice This Man will not deny that the state of the Question is what the Church retained upon Divine warrand in Calvin and Beza's Judgment Thus we have laid open his fundamental Mistakes ad perversion of these Passages of Calvin and Beza cited by him consequently discovered his arguing in this Pamphlet to be founded upon a meer petitio principii and Ignoratio Elenchi and that he intertains himself and imputs to Calvin and Beza that Error which I find as an Error in the first Concoction marrs the whole Disgestion of Sarav his arguings against Beza viz. That the different and extraordinary Priviledges of Christs first Ministers the Apostles and Evangelists doth also diversifie the Essentials of the Pastoral Office it self so as to infer different standing Degrees thereof an Error which though frequently told of by Beza he doth nothing but repeat in his whole Dispute But that our Authors Mistakes may further appear we do proceed to a particular Examination of his Definitions Postulatums and Axioms and the Propositions Demonstrations and Corollaries drawn therefrom CHAP. Third An Examination of the Definitions in Point of Church-Government imputed by this Pamphleter to Calvin and Beza wherein is discovered his gross Perversion of the Doctrine of these Divines I Confess that upon first reading of these Definitions I was a little surprised to find this Man who by his Profession no doubt is skilled in the Nature and Terms of Definitions Found these Assertions upon what he here cites out of Calvin and Beza and to present them under this Character but to view them shortly Defin. 1. The first is this The Power of Ordination is that Right in the Governours of the Church to separate Persons duely qualified unto the holy Ministry of
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
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
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
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