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
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
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
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
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
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.