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
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
or Pastoral Materially and Eminenter and so hath derived from it a perpetual standing Gospelâ—Ministry and Ministerial Authority necessarly to be continued and propagated in the Church till the end of time In which respect our Lord promised his presence with his Apostles and their Successors in the Gospel Ministry and Legation untill the end of the World Thus I say the Apostolick and Ministerial Office may according to Truth and in Calvins principles be said to be perpetually necessary for the Church but without any advantage to this mans scope and design aâ— is obvious to the meanest reflection But least our Pasqueller quarel this as my Commentary for his further conviction in the clearing of this Point let me detain the reader a little further in the view of that Chapter Sect. 3. He shews the dignity of the Gospel Ministry by the Scripture Elogiâ—â— that their feet are beautiful Isa. 52. That the Apostles are called the light of the World and the salt of the Earth Matth. 5. 13 14. v. He that hears you hears me Luk. 10. 16. Then citing the 2 Corin 3. and 9. v. He sayes The Apostle shews there is nothing more glorious and excellent in the Church then the Gospel Ministry since it 's the Administration of the Spirit of Righteousness and life eternal Nihil Evangeliâ— Ministerio in Ecclesia magis prâ—clarum Then Sect. 9. beginning the second part of the Chapter he descends to speak particularly of the Persons to whom Church Government is committed they are nominat saith he by Paul first Apostles secondarly Prophets thirdly Evangelists fourthly Pastors lastly Doctors Then he adds ex quibus duo tantum ultimi ordinarium in Ecclesia muâ—us habent That is of whom the two last only have an ordinary Office in the Church Then discoursing of the Grounds and Reasons of the extraordinary peculiar Function of Apostles Prophets and Evangelists he adds sequuntur Pastâ—reâ— Doctores quious carere nunquaâ— poteâ—t Ecclesia there follows Pastors and Doctors whom the Church can never want clearly distinguishing them in this from these expired Functions of Apostles and Evangelists Then descending to speak how the Apostles are succeeded as to a perpetual standing Ministry Sect. 5. 6. 7. He begins Sect. 5. thus videmus quae in Ecclesia regâ—â—ine â—emporâ—ria Ministeria fuerunt at que ideo instituta ut peâ—petuo durarenâ— We see what Offices or Administrations in the Church Government were temporary or expired and what Offices were institut to be of perpetual câ—ntinuance And at the close of this Section he positivâ—ly asserts which at one dash cancells all this Pamphlâ—ters piâ—iful suggestions here tâ—hat Pastors sâ—ting aside the Apostles extraordinary Priviledges eandem cum Apostolis sustinuit Provinciam has the same imployment and perpetual pastoral Office assigned to them with the Apostles Then offering to clear further what this Office and Province is he doth accordingly Sect. 6. reason thus That the Apostles Patent and Commission bearing the preaching of the Word and the Administration of the Sacraments as the substantials and main piece of their Office the Pastors are properly their Successors in their Official Power That Paul said not of himself only but of Pastors let a man so account of us as Ministers of Christ and Stewards of the Mysteries of God And that in Titus 1. 9. v. the Bishop must hold the faithful word and by sound Doctrine teach and convince the gainsayers lashing expresly Prelats who pretend to succeed Apostles and yet neglect the great work while holding sayeth he idle dignities And near the close of â—his Section he shews that this Pastoral Office in relation to the Administration of the Word and Sacraments includes and imports the preservation and exercise of the Discipline and Government of the Church Thereafter Sect. 8 he proves from Titus 1. 5. Phil. 1. 1. Act. 20. 17. That the Office of the Bishop Presbyter and Pastor is one and the same Section 5. He proves that the Election of Pastors is by his Colleague Pastors with the Peoples consent Now the Man that shall need any further demonstration than this Plain-reading of Calvin to convince him that it was the perpetual Pastoral Office in relation to the Administration of the Word and Sacraments and the appendant Power of Jurisdiction and Church-Government included therein which he asserts to be of as perpetual necessity in the Church as the Sun and Meat and Drink are to the World and not the formal temporary Office of Apostles and Evangelists as such or as including any Superiority over the Pastoral Office the Man I say who needs any further proof of this than what is above touched hath a crack in his intellectualls and may be set to his Horn Book again CHAP. Sixth THe Propositions and Demonstrations drawn out by this Pamphleter upon the premised Definitions Postulatumâ— and Axioms as the great projection and scope thereof examined the the unsoundness thereof discovered and the Antitheses of his Propositions established and his Demonstrations everted by Counter-demonstrations from Calvin and Beza Having thus evinced to the conviction of the judicious and impartial the pitiful mis-application and forgery of all this Mars Citations out of Calvin and Beza to fortifie his scope and design in these assertions which he calls Definitions Postulatums and Axioms His Demonstrations drawn from them do fall by course as the Superstrucâ—ure when the Foundation is razed His Principles being found unsound his Demonstrations the birth of them will appear lighter then vanity And like the little bag which Children finds in the Fields and call the witch-ball will be found to evaporat into Smoak with a smal touch The first Proposition he undertakes to Demonstrat from his Positions above-examined is That the 12 Apostles were president Bishops over the 70 Disciples Answer In general I may again animadvert here that if by being President Bishops be understood the Apostles univeral directive Authority and Inspection necessarly connected with and sounded upon their insallibility as being so many living Oracles from whom the mind of Christ was infallibly to be sought both by Ministers and People as to every point of their respective duties such a Presidency will be easily admitted but in this respect he doth foolishly restrict or imagins that Calvin Beza doth this restrict their Presidency or Episcopacy to the 70 Disciples for thus they were president Bishops over the universal Church both Ministers and People and that while they lived In the same respect and upon the same ground upon which they had this presidency over the 70 Disciples they had it universally over all both in the judgement of Calvin as is above evinced and of all sound Divines And in whatever respect he can alleâ—dge Calvin to hold their Presidency to be universal over the 70 Disciples it 's easie to prove that he holds this Presidency to be universal over all Churches and Ministers and therefore if he will from hence infer successors to them in Calvins judgment he
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
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
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
that Church and that though it were granted to Epiphanius that he had some singular power there it may be denyed that he could have obtained any power over the Presbytery of Ephesus if he did not been an Evangelist adding this reason that Paul himself declares 1 Tim. 4. v. 14. That imposition of hands was done in name of Presbytry it self not by the Authority of any one Superior After he citâ—s Augustin Epistle 19. asserting that by the Churches custome only Episcopacy was greater than the Presbyterat and Chrisostom saying on the first of Tim. 1 3. That in Ordination only the Bishop differs from the Presbyter that is saith he as Theophylact more clearly in the ceremony of Consecâ—ation only citing also Theodoret who upon Phil. I. writes that of old the name of Bishop and Presbyter were promiscuously used as one and the same He adds afterward that Paul did not excommunicat the incestuous Corinthian alone by his Apostlick Authority but by the Authority of the whole Presbytâ—y and that Peter doubts not to call himself a fellow Presbyter that if all eminency of one Pastor over his Colleagues had been forbidden or rather never brought in by Men the ensuing contests about Supremacy had never rent the Church so far is this Device from being a remedy of Schism and finally he tells us upon his head that as this humane Episcopacy came in by a tacite custome advancing by degrees so we must understand of this human episcopacy as Antecedaneous to the Satanical whatsover Iustin Ignatius and other eminent Writers do speak of Bishops or rather of the first Presidents Authority 10. The Moderator of the Ecclesiastick Synod or Consistory who is to ask the Votes and moderat the whole affairs is for ths one end to be chosen by their common suffâ—ages or Votes which Office must expire and end with the close of the Synod Beza in Quest secunda referente Saravia pag 92. 11. No Scripture truth can be produced for a standing mission of the 70 Disciples to preach the Gospel after our Lords Ascension of a like nature and continuance with that of the twelve Apostles or that they were sent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or immediately The Apostles Mission Math. 10. Luk. 9 Mark 5. Was not that which is called peculiarly and properly Apostolick for which the Apostles were then wholly unfit but only a sort of preludie that all might run to hear Christ himself but these twelve Christ aâ—terward sent by a new Vocation and wholly different from the first for planting Churches through the whole World adorning them with a peculiar and aboundant grace of the Spirit both before his ascension into Heaven Iohnâ—â— v. 22. As likeways chiefly in the day of Pentecâ—st adding more wonderfully the external Signs of this Legation from which Mission the Apostle doth therefore begin the rehearsal of the Apostolick â—unction and of others added thereunto Ephes 4. 10. v. 11. But of these 70 where is there any mention either about the time of our Lord's Ascension or after That Mission mentioned Luk. 10 is wholly diverse from that of Apostles Institute after our Lord's Ascension Had the 70. had such a standing Mission the Sacred Writers neither would nor could have omitâ—ed a matter so necessary mentioning only that of the 12 Apostles and granting it had been this will not infer any imparity of power betwixt them and the 12 Apostles or that Christ made them two distinct Orders or divided them in two Classes the after Institution and addition to the other that 's prior will not prove an Inferiority in that Mission of the 70 which Luke only commemorates What degree will we find whereby they may be subjected to the 12. Who had a prior â—ission That the Apostles were assumed by Christ as domesticks will no more ground their imparity with other Disciples than it will make Iohn superior to the other Apostles because a Disciple most dear to Christ beyond other Disciples it was the Apostolickâ— function which thereafter gave them a priority of Order and also of Power unto other Disciples Beza resp ad cap. 1. Sarav de divers Minist Evangel grad Refuting after the argument drawn from the addition of the 70 Elders to Moses Now from these passages of Calvin and Beza how clearly Presbyterian Government is asserted in its whole Structure and Frame and the opposite Fabrick of Prelacy subverted is obvious to the meanest capacity to conclude so that to insist in drawing forth Propositions to clear this sâ—ems a meer Battalogy and an attempt to shew the Sun with a candle Here we have asserted the extraordinary expired nature of the Function first of Apostles secondly of Evangelists as such Next that the Pastor who labours in the Word and Doctrine is the highest Officer left by Christ in his Church who has no Superior in Church administrations and therein the Prelates pretended Official Superiority is flatly denyed 3ly That no extraordinary Power of Apostles and Evangelists can ground a standing presidencie over Presbyters 4. That Church Government under the New Testament is to be administred by their joynt decisive Sufferage 5. That the Ruling Elder is standing Church Officer appointed by Christ c And in opposition to this Pamphleters forged Definitions Postulatums and Actions how easie is it from what is premised to bring forth Calvin and Beza's counter-assertions and present these great Divines as joyntly witnessing him a Liar and Calumniator therein As first that there was no standing preheminence in any Church-Officer above the Pastor allowed to Christ to be continued in the Church against the definition 3d and the pretended proof of definition 2d 2. That the Angel had no fixed presidency over other Ministers against what is pretended definition 3d. 3. That what is set down in Scripture anent the 70 Disciples sent out after the 12 Apostles will not give the least shadow of an Argument whereby different degrees of Ministers may be concluded against the scope of Postulatum first 4. That the Inspection of Timothy and Titus over Ephesus and Crete had no fixed power of Ordination and Jurisdiction over these Churches included therein in contradiction to Postulatum 2d 5. That the preheminency of one single person in Office unto other Ministers was never by Gods Warrand retained or practised by the Church for remedy of Schism against the scope of Postulatum 3d. 6. That these first Presidents introduced by the primative Church were not preheminent in Office unto other Ministers whereby the same Postulatum is again convict of Falshood 7. That not so much as a constant President can be warranted from the Angel of the 7 Churches against the scope of Postulatum 4th 8. That neither Apostles nor Evagelists their Office did found a standing official lawful Preheminency of an ordinary Church-Officer over the Pastor in contradiction to the scope of Definition 3d 4. Postulatum 4th Axiom 2d And finally that this official Preheminent office over the Pastor has neither a divine
Right flowing from Christ's immediate Institution nor Apostolick from the Apostles doctrine and practise or of the Apostolick and primitive Church and consequently that the having not the wanting of such a Government is pernicious to the Gospel and Christian Religion which overturns the scope of the whole Pamphlet partiâ—â—larly Postulatum 3d 4th Axiom 2d 3d 4th CHAP. Second THe Authors groundless Suppositions and Perversion of these Divines cleared in general from the Structure of his Reasoning THe Scope of this Author is to prove that in Calvin and Beza's Judgment a president Bishop with a fixt Power of ordination preheminent unto and above Pastors with a proportioned Power of Jurisdiction over them is an ordinary standing Officer appoiâ—ted by Christ in the Church of the New-Testament This is clear by comparing Definition 3. with Axiom 2 3 and 4. and with Postulatum 2 and 3 And this preheminency he makes them assert as extended to a whole Diocess Province or Patriarchat as he calls it For proof of which several passages of Calvin and Beza but of Calvin especially are adduced Wherein in general his obvious Perversion and Abuse of these Divines is evident to any that compares his Assertions and Citation First in that Calvin and Beza are supposed by him to hold the Apostolick and Evagelistick Inspection and Authoirty which are supposed in the Scriptures here cited and in the passages of Calvins Institutions here adduced to be ordinary and of perpetual necessity Thus he grosly perverts the subject and state of the Question which is this What is that ordinary ministerial Authority and these Officers which they hold to be of a perpetual continuing Nature and Necessity and not what they might suppose to be de facto in the Churches infancy exercised by the Apostles or Evangelists So that if we can prove that these Divines did not judge the Authority and Power of Apostles and Evangelists or their formal Office as such to be of a moral nature continued in the Church or that there are constant necessary Officers succeeding them in preheminency or superiority in office all that he says falls to the ground To prove this first in general it is evident from what is said that both Calvin and Beza with all sound Protestant Divines do hold the Offices of Apostles and Evangelists and consequently their official Power as such to be expired and that neither of them are succeeded in idem officium § eundem ministerii gradum this is evident to all who have read these Divines and for evincing it I would but ask this Pamphleter whether Calvin and Beza do not hold and suppose that our blessed LORD was when upon earth the Churches visible universal Head and Monarch and that the Apostles afterward had an universal unconfined Inspection and Authority over the whole Church and that particularly and Apostle Iohn who outlived all the rest had solly as an Apostle an universal Authority and Inspection over the same but will he or any man of common sense infer from this that Calvin and Beza are for a moral standing Primacy over the Church universal or a visible political Head and Deput-Vicar under Christ Certainly he would rationally assert this â—â—erence of a â—apist against Calvin and Beza to be very gross and impertinent and no less is his own throughout this Pamphlet 2. If these Divines do hold that Bishops Presbyters and Deacons are the only standing Church Officers of a moral nature perpetual use and necessity Then they did not hold the Office of Apostles and Evangelists to be such or their proper Oâ—ficial Authority compâ—tent to them as in that capacity to be of this nature But the first is true ergo so is the second the Ma or is evident for this man will not say that Calvin and Beza do hold their Offices one and the same with Pastors and that Apostles and Evangelists were not distinct from and superior unto them in their Official Power The Minor is evident from what is above adduced from Calvin and Beza Yea even from his own Citation of Calvin to confirm Axiom third viz. his Instit. lib. 4. Cap 6. Sect 11. The Primacy of the Roman See takes not its Original from Christs Institution nor the custom of the Ancient Church as the other Offices have done viz. of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons cap 4 Sect 1 mentioned already Now surely if he had judged other Offices perpetual and warranted by Christs institution and the antient Churches practice he would not in this place have mentioned with such Emphasis these three only and none else when in opposition to the unlawful Popish Primacy he is shewing what Offices 〈…〉 and the ancient Churches Custom will allow as warrantable To shew it further take this passage of Calvin whom I find our Pamphleter doth mainly insist upon speaking of Philip the Evangelist he tells us that Evangelists were set in the middle betwixt Apostles and Doctors had an office next to that of Apostles that they might every where preach the Gospel for no certain station was assigned to them Now to make their Office and Authority ordinary in Calvins Judgment this Author is obliged by his Argument to say that he held them to be fixed to some certain Station for in Postulatum 2 he holds that according to Calvin Timothy in Ephesus and Titus in Crete were from the nature of their Office invested with a fixt power of Ordination and Jurisdiction in these places 3. If these Divines held the Apostolick and Evangelistick Inspection and Authority to be moral and perpetual then they behoved to hold it such either as one and the same with the pastoral Office and a superior degree thereof or as an Office specifically distinct and superior But neither of the two can be said to them not the first for we heard them both assert that all Pastors do hold one and the same Function and that none of them have any official Authority over another particularly we heard that Calvin whom our Phamphleter mainly appeals to upon Phil. 1. reprehending the abuse of the Word Bishop in appropriating it to one Pastor only he gives this Reason That from this abused Signification of the Word there hath followed this evil that as if all Presbyters were not Colleagues called to the same Function one hath usurped to himself a Dominion over the rest under pretext of this new Appellation So that he holds the Pastoral Official Authority to be one and the same in all Pastors and none to have an Authoritative Inspection over the rest Again Calvin could not hold this fixed Preheminent Authority to be continued in the Church as importing an Office specifically distinct from and superior to that of the Pastor First for the Reason already given for since that supposed inferior Officer were thus both an ordinary Officer and were likewise Eminenter a Pastor How could Calvin quarrel a distinction and peculiarity of a Name to point out a superior Pastor or how could he affirm that all
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.
to prove that the Catholick Church is only with them Because it hath not taken its original from Christs Institution nor the custome of the Ancient Church as the other Offices have done viz. Bishops Presbyters and Deacons Cap. 4. Sect. 1. mentioned already Answer This Maxim needs not a very long animadversion since the scope he drives at is not in the least reached by it nor our cause prejudged restricting it unto and confining it within the limits of that place of Calvin here cited viz. That the Church Government by the Officers mentioned in the close of this citation has its original from Christs Institution was continued in the Apostolick and Primitive Church for moral standing ends But 2. Comparing it as here worded and understood by him with his first Corollarie wherein we have the knack of his Project and improvement thereof we must a little further animadvert and observe here That First it exceeds the limits of this Citation of Calvin in that clause of approbation from Heaven by revelation which in the forementioned Corollarie he understands of an express and formal delineation in the Epistles to the 7. Churches of Asia upon his supposition or rather distortion of Bezas meaning anent the Office and Authority of the Angel written unto for either he must understand it as it 's evident he doth in that Corollarie of an approbation Thus specifially distinct from both the preceeding Clauses and so the assertion is none of Calvins in this place or else if it be the same with what is said of Christs Institution and continuation by his Apostles and the Primitive Churches Retention this Clause is pitifully redoundant and a meer Battollogy which this Pretender to such exact concisness should be ashamed to be guilty of 2. We said already that Calvin holds that the Primitive Church did in several things degenerat from Apostolick purity and Institutions in point of Government so that in his Sense the Primitive Churches practice simply considered will not make a compleat and just Square for Government If we compare what he sayes chap. 3. and 4. initio This will be evident for he tells us in the place last mentioned that hitherto he has spoken of Church-Government and Officers as purely institute by God in his Word insinuating that the ancient Church had quickly her additions so that Calvin makes not the Ancient Churches Retention any part of the Rule simply but makes it Regulable by the Divine Warrand and Institution I may add that as Calvins citation makes no mention of the end of this Institution whatever may be gathered from it so it is certain that in all reason and in Calvins Principles the Church-Government which has an entire Divine Right must be commensurat not to any only but to all the ends wherein the well being of Christians is concerned Fiâ—ally when Calvin as is above hinted in stating the distinction betwixt the Ecclesiastick Officers which have a Divine Right I mean a moral standing Right as Church-Officers of perpetual necessity and such as have it not but are founded upon the Churches custom which Calvin distinguishes from this Right when I say speaking of the first he referrs us only to these mentioned it is certain he excluds this mans supposed Successors of Apostles and Evangelists in a standing preheminent presidency over ordinary Pastors and consequently holds that the immediat end grounding a necessity of Apostles and Evangelists their Institution being temporary and passing off with that exigence of the Churches infant state the necessity consequently of these Officers and of their formal Official Power and Authority is expired also with this its end which laid the foundation thereof Axiom 4. The want of that Government in the Church which is of Divine Right is pernicious to the Gospel and Christian Religion This is proved by Calvin Instit. lib. 4. cap. 8. Sect. 2. The words cited are for neither the light and heat of the Sun meat or drink are so nourishing and sustaining this present life as the Apostolick and Ministerial Office for preserving a Church upon Earth Answer This Axiom is no doubt very sound and consonant to Calvins judgement and of all sound Divines and therefore taken in a sound sense can be easily admitted without the least prejudice of it to our cause But Answer 2. Taking it in the Sense and Intendment of this Pasqueller and comparing his scope in this and the preceeding Citation which is to prove that Calvin makes an Apostolick standing preheminence and Official Presidency in Ordination and Jurisdiction over Pastors of as perpetual necessity for preservation of the Gospel and the Gospel Church as the Pastoral Office it self We say he offers violence to Calvin and pitifully involves him in Contradictions First in that he makes him to hold the Apostolick Office to be perpetually necessary for the Churches being and consequently not expired but ordinary in express contradiction to what we heard Calvin above assert 2. He sets him by the eaâ—s with himself in his former citation wherein Bishops Presbyters and Deacons are said to be the only Officers which have a divine standing Right of perpetual necessity unless he will say that Calvin holds the Apostolick and Episcopal Office to be in a formal Sense one and the same which assertion is above convicted of falshood out of Calvins words in several clear passages wherein it is evinced that Calvin holds the Bishop and Presbyter to be all one and their Offices to be in this distinguished from the Apostolick and Evangelistick that the one is ordinary and perpetual the other not the one imports a definite charge over a fixed Flock the other not the one is suited to the Churches state when exedified the other to its Infant state and in fieri c. 3. For the passage here cited or rather mis-cited by this Man take a full account of Calvins mind thus In libro quarto capite quarto In the 1. 2 and 3. Sect. He speaks of the end use and necessity of a Gospel-Ministry in the general of Christs giving to men a Vicarious Ministrie supplying the want of his visible presence adding several reasons viz. To shew his condescendency to our weakness 2. To inure us to humble obedience To be a Bond of Love and unity while some teach and others are taught exponing and applying that of the Ephes 4. 5 6 7. Sect. 2. He gathers hence that the Ministry of Men is the chief Nerve whereby the Godly coheres in one Body That thus our Lord shews himself present and puts forth the Power and Vertue of his Spirit thus grow we up saith he if Preaching be vigent among us if we receive the Apostles despise not the Doctrine offâ—red to us adding the words mis-cited by this Pamphleter as in cap. 8 Sect. 2. viz. That neither light of the Sun meat or drink c. are so needful as the Apostolick and Pastoral Office that is in so far as the Apostolick Office contains the Ministerial
words here cited then a faithfulness in the exercise of their joynt Collegiat Power and Authority which Beza holds was our Lords Institution and then existent Thus we have seen this mans Postulatums as insufficient to found his Conclusion as the Definitions Proceed we now to his next Section of Axioms CHAP. Fifth THe Axioms in point of Church Government imputed by this Pamphleter to Calvin examined and found impertinent to fortifie his Scope and Conclusion The first of these Axioms is this Axiom 1. THe regular Call of any Minister already Ordained is from an Office of an Inferior to another of a preheminent Station To prove this Calvin is adduced on 1 Tim. 3. 13. saying That because in one or two Centuries after the Death of the Apostles it was the constant Custom that from the Order of Deacons the Presbyters were chosen therefore commonly they have exponed this place of the advancement to a superior Degree First as to the pertinency of this Citation to prove the Axiom as here set down I answer Answer First Calvin hath no such words that it was the Constant or Vniversal Custom in these Centuries to Ordain Presbyters after this manner as this man would insinuat all that Calvin says is that invaluerat usus this practice came in use and prevailed through process of time but it might be so though it was neither universal nor constant through all times and places 2. Calvin disowns both this Custom as constant and necessary and likewise the Exposition of this passage of and its Application to such a Custom as is evident to any that will read him upon that place for to these words here cited he adds quasi Apostolus as if the Apostle called to the Honour of the Presbyterat such as have acquit themselves faithful Deacons then adds although I do not deny that the order of Deacons may sometimes be a Seminary out of which Presbyters may be taken Yet I do more simply take Pauls words that they are worthy of no small honour who do well acquit themselves in this Administration because it is not a base but a very honourable Office so that what ever this man would make of this Axiom that the regular Call of a Minister already ordained is from an Inferiour to a supereminent Station Calvin doth neither absolutely hold this as always necessary and consâ—quently the Axiom is not true in his Judgment nor doth he hold that the practice as to matter of fact was constant and universal 3. Giving not granting that Calvin held the Custom to have been throughout these Centuries to ordain none Presbyters but such as were before Deacons unless he can prove that Calvin held the Custom to be founded on divine Warrard this will only prove that Calvin held it to be an humane Custom and consequently alterable ergo in Calvin's Judgment this cannot found a Maxim or Axiom at to that which is always necessary to be done 4. Granting the utmost which Calvin's words may be drawn to when stretcht upon the Tenter-pins till they crack viz. that every Presbyter or Minister must be first a Deacon before he be Ordained ergo what I would fain know by what Logick he would fasten his grand Conclusions to this Principle viz. That there are different degrees in the Pastoral Offiâ—e And that one may and ought to be a fixed President Bishop over them with a preheminent fixed powâ—r of Ordination and Iurisdiction Again what means he by any Ministâ—â— if all Church Officers under the New Testament as he needs must since he holds there are various sorts of Ministers under the New Testament Apostles Evangelists Pastors Deacons who have all their formal Successors according to Calvin How doth he infer Calvin's Judgment as to the regular Call of all from what he Asserts as to the practice of one Again what calls he a Minister already ordained Can there be any Minister or Church-Officer who is not ordained Ordination being relative to some Church-Officers Administration Finally what means he by the regular Call of this ordained Minister If his Instalment into a higher Office then this is formally his Ordination So that Axiom will run thus the regular Ordination of any Minister already ordained is from an Office of an Inferiour c. But this is both redoundant in sense the Ordination of one already ordained being necessary from a lower to a higher Station and likewise impertinent to his Scope and Design viz to prove that none were ordained Pastors who were not first in Calvin's Sense ordained Deacons If by regular Call he mean the Call to the exercise of his Function else where then he would make Calvin with the Independents to put a New Ordination for a new Application of the Office Thus the Maxim as here set down appears impertinent to his Scope impertinent as to a Discovery of Calvin's Judgment in this point yea and hardly reconcilable to sound Sense Axiom 2. The 2 Axiom the preheminence in any Office includes a proportioned Jurisdiction over the Officers who are under them For proof of this Axiom we are referred to Definition 2 and 3. Answer To which I Answer We have upâ—â— these his two Definitions made it good that this preheminence in Office and proportioned preheminence in Jurisdiction which Calvin in the places therein cited supposes competent to the Apostles and Evangelists was in his Judgment neither First a fixed Preheminence and Jurisdiction nor 2. Ordinary or such as is of a moral standing Nature of constant use and necessity in Church-Government But that in Calvins Judgment it was such as did expire with the persons of these extraordinary New-Testament Officers And that 3. That this Preheminence in Office and jurisdiction while these expired Offices did exist is by Calvin asserted to be cumulative unto not privative of the ordinary Collegiat Authority of Pastors in Ordination and Jurisdiction and was not to encroach upon this their standing essential Interest and Power in Government which in Calvins sense necessarily continues their fixed Priviledge to the end So that in a word if he should apply this general Maxim to these necessary Officers which Calvin holds to be of perpetual use viz. Pastors Elders Deacons it shall be easily admitted but without the least help to his design If he apply it to his supposed fixed President with Official Preheminence over Pastors as his Marginal Proofs do oblige him Calvin in the places above cited denys such an Officer and the Maxim and Axiom consequently founded upon these two definitions is none of his Axiom 3. The Divine Right is manifest in that Ecclesiastick Government which is instituted by Christ continued by his Apostles retained in the primitive Church and approven from Heaven by Revelation in subâ—â—â—â—iencie to any end wherein the welâ— being of Christianity is nearly concerned This is proved by Calvin instit lib. 4. cap. 6. Sect. 1. His words are We have not before touched upon the Primacy of the Roman See whence the Papists strive
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