A counter-essay, or, A vindication and assertion of Calvin and Beza's presbyterian judgment and principles drawn from their writings, in answer to the imputations of a late pamphlet, entituled, An essay concerning church-government ... attempting to fasten upon them an episcopal perswasion ... / by a minister of the true Presbyterian Church of Scotland, established by law.

Postulatum 3.

That for the avoiding of Schism, the Primitive Church retained the Government of one single person preheminent in Office unto other Mi∣nisters. 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 Pa••ity (as useth to be) Divisions might arise, Ierom says, at Ale∣xandria from Mark the Evangelist, to Heraclas and Dionysius; Presby∣ters 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 con∣sequently, 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, be∣ing so found in this passge of Calvin here cited? If he mean such a Power as doth no whit encroach u••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? ••f his Office be so singular, and preheminent of that of Pa∣stors;

that it doth infringe their Decisive, Conclusive Suffrage, or im∣porteth 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 hon••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 en∣quire 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 Con∣sul.

2. We said above, that Calvin acknowledges, the Ancients their a∣berration 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 necessit••t, by humane Advice and Counsel, and according to the times exigence, wherein he clearly di∣stinguishes, 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 Appoint∣ment, the Church was governed by Presbyters in common; And that the then Bishops power was only by Custom, not authorized by di∣vine Appointment; So that our Pamphleter will never be able to con∣clude, from these words, Calvins Recommendation and Approbation of this practice, but on the contrary, Calvin and Ierom both, doth sup∣pose 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 a∣buse 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 Pres∣byter, 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 Scrip∣ture. 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 Con∣fession of the French Church, he is there told by Calvin, that the true Church ought to be governed by that Policy, which Christ hath or∣dained, 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 Ordi∣nation and Jurisdiction, (which our Pamphleter makes Calvin owne)▪ or any supposed President or Pastor, with official power over his Col∣leagues, 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 Coun∣sel of Carthage, cap 3. anent Presbyters interest in Ordination, (which proves, saith he, that Bishops ordained not then in all places alone, al∣tho 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 Bi∣shops, 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 agre∣ed upon by common consent; And having shewed that this was brought in by consent of Men, in Ieroms Judgment, he adds that Ierom other∣where shews, how ancient the Custom was, from Marks time to Hera∣clas, &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 af∣firm 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 Go∣vernment, of one single person, preheminent in Office unto other Mi∣nisters, as this Pamphleter suggests. Proceed we to the 4th Postulatum, which is this.