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.

A Counter-Essay: Or, a Vindication and Asser∣tion of Calvin and Beza's Presbyterian Judg∣ment and Principles, drawn from their VVri∣tings. In Answer to the Imputations of a late Pamphlet, Entituled, An Essay Concerning Church-Government, out of the excellent Writings of Cal∣vin and Beza, attempting to fasten upon them an Episcopal Perswasion.

CHAP. First.

The Scripture Account of Presbyterian Government Exhibite in some plain Positions, out of the Writings of Calvin and Beza.

THat we may Exhibite in the beginning, a clear Prospect of the Judgment, of these Learned Divines, in point of Presbyteri∣an Government, and thereby lay a solid Foundation of the Confutaion of this Pasquel. We offer to the Reader in these plain Assertions, this full Account of Presbyterian Government from their Writings, which are plain, and undenyable Maxims and Axioms, Demonstrating their Judgment herein from Scripture:

First, The ordinary Officers, which Christ Institute, and the Churches practice warrands, are Bishops, Elders, and Deacons; we need not Caution what Calvin means by Bishops, it being obvious to all of com∣mon Sense, who do but read him, that he intends the P••••tor or Mini∣ster, Instit. lib. 4. cap. 6. Sect. 11. with Cap. 4. Sect. 1.

2. Evangelists, were next to Apostles in Office, were to preach eve∣ry where, and were fixt to no certain determined 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 Insti∣tution, 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 Do∣minion in any of them over another, is a sinful impeachment of this their equal Official Power and A••thority, lbid.

5. The passage, Tit. 1. 7. proves aboundantly, that there is no dif∣ference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter, the Apostle using both names indifferently, as Ierom hath observed. Therefore the Office being com∣mon 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 au∣thority. 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 E∣vangelistick Authority, in Crete was a Vicarious Transient, unfixt Mi∣nistry, in Pauls place and name, beyond the limits of this ordinary Fun∣ction of Pastors; supposing the Church not Exedified, and in this diffe∣ring from the Pastoral Office, which doth suppose, this exigence of the Churches state to over. Calvin on Ti••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 Christ•• 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, Pro∣phets 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. In∣stit. lib. 4. cap. 3. sect. 14. But of this further, when we come to exa∣mine the third Definition.

11. The consistorial ordinary Collegiat Authority of Pastors, in or∣dination 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 Or∣dination 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 Insti••: 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 be∣yond the limits of the ordinary Office of Pastors, and in respect of its na∣ure, and time of existency, such as could not be succeeded unto; (Cal∣vin 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 Col∣leagues; and not so much as the necessity of a fixt Moderator, or Presi∣dent, 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 As∣semblies, 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. E∣vangelists were assumed by the Apostles without the Churches suffrage, because the Churches were not as yet Constitte, and were sent hither

and thither, while the Churches were in Planting; Such was the Office of Evangelists peculiarly so called, as Timothy, Titus, Luke, &c. Beza on Galat. 1. v. 1, 2.

19. The Apostolick Office lay in this, to Constitute Churches through the whole World, by a sort of peculiar right, as appears from Christ's Command, and their whole History; therefore Churches being Con∣stitute, 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 Ti∣mothy, 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 Bishop•• 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 Presby∣ters, as Verse 17 of that Chapter, and in first of Timothy. 5. 17. This was then of old the Appellation of Bishop••, 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 founda∣tions of Tyranny in the Church of GOD, the whole administration and Government of the Church, being as it were with the name trans∣••erred upon One, then from the Episcopal Tyranny, it came to Me∣••trapolitants, whom they call Arch-bishops, &c. From Metrapolitants, they advanced to the first four primary Patriarchs, the Christian Re∣publick, 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 con∣demned of Falsehood (falsi) in the Carthaginian Counsel, of (two hundred and seven Fathers) yet such was the ambition, that (the Con∣stantinopolitane Patriarch even now is set over the Churches spread through the East, if they may be called Churches) the Roman has in∣vaded both Churches and Kingdoms of the West, by a just Judgment, depriving them of their Scepters, by whose help, he invaded a Tyran∣ny 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 As∣sembly is to be understood, Beza in locum. All Pastors are servants of that one Legistator, Christ in the Ecclesiastick Office; there is no d••∣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. ••. and as his understanding the A••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 A••∣gel, or President for the time, and the Assembly of his Colleagues; In which passage, the conjunction 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 Evangeli••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, o•• 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 S••a∣viam, the term 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 jux∣ta 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 re∣proach, 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 Autho∣rity of Governing the Church, of teaching and administrating Sa∣craments, 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 infal∣lible 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 Successi∣on, 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, Me∣tropolitants, their Succession to Apostles, or Evangelists (Timothy, Ti∣tus, 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, Ruli••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 stay∣ed 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 perem∣ptorly, ascribing to Bishop and Presbyter, as one and the same appel∣lation, 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, toge∣ther with such Elders, as Paul calls Governments, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 com∣mon, 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 Pow∣er given to some one Pastor above his Colleagues, yet limited by cer∣tain 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 Reve∣lation seems to call the Angel, Iustin calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or President) that this President, excepting this only, that he was the first Mode∣rator 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Rulers, poynting at none of them. Such for the most part was Peter in the Colledge of the A∣postles, &c. If any such Office had been then existent, or such a power of one over his Colleagues, this Officer had b••en by some peculiar name, pointed at in the Epistles, especially seing Paul salutes the Bi∣shops, 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 Ep••phanius arguments, for his humane Epis∣copacy, 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 fa••shood from Scriptures; as main∣ly 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 Timot••y to these Ephesian••, or they had sought him again, being warn∣ed of such hazards; or if another was put in his place, he had peculi∣arly be spoken him, in that Divine Se••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 Evan∣gelist, 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 cit••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 Consec••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 in∣cestuous Corinthian alone, by his Apostlick Authority, but by the Authority of the whole Presbyt••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 suff••ages, or Votes, which Of∣fice 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 a••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, (Iohn•• ••. v. 22.

As likeways chiefly in the day of Pentec••st, adding more wonderfully the external Signs, of this Legation, from which Mission the Apostle doth therefore begin the rehearsal of the Apostolick ••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 omit••ed, a matter so necessary, mentioning only that of the 12 Apostles; and granting it had been, this will not infer any impari∣ty of power, betwixt them and the 12 Apostles, or that Christ made them two distinct Orders, or divided them in two Classes; the after In∣stitution, and addition to the other that's prior, will not prove an In∣feriority 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 ••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 Dis∣ciple most dear to Christ beyond other Disciples, it was the Apostolick•• function, which thereafter gave them a priority of Order, and also of Power, unto other Disciples, Beza resp. ad cap. 1. Sarav. de di∣vers. 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 Presby∣terian 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, s••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, a∣gainst the definition 3d, and the pretended proof of definition 2d.

2. That the Angel had no fixed presidency over other Ministers, a∣gainst 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 Argu∣ment, whereby different degrees of Ministers may be concluded, a∣gainst 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 Church∣es 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. Postu∣latum 4th. Axiom 2d; And finally, that this official Preheminent office over the Pastor, has neither a divine Right, flowing from Christ's im∣mediate 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, parti••••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, pre∣heminent unto, and above Pastors, with a proportioned Power of Jurisdiction over them, is an ordinary standing Officer appoi••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 pre∣heminency he makes them assert, as extended to a whole Diocess, Pro∣vince, or Patriarchat, as he calls it. For proof of which, several pas∣sages of Calvin and Beza (but of Calvin especially) are adduced.

Wherein in general, his obvious Perversion and Abuse of these Di∣vines, is evident to any that compares his Assertions, and Citation; First, in that Calvin and Beza are supposed by him, to hold the Apo∣stolick and Evagelistick Inspection, and Authoirty, which are suppos∣ed in the Scriptures here cited, and in the passages of Calvins Institu∣tions 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, exercis∣ed, by the Apostles or Evangelists; So that if we can prove, that these Divines, did not judge the Authority and Power of Apostles and E∣vangelists, or their formal Office as such, to be of a moral nature, con∣tinued 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 suc∣ceeded,

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 •• ••erence of a ••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 E∣vangelists to be such, or their proper O••ficial Authority, comp••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 Citati∣on 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 Of∣fices 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 Judg∣ment, 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 Ordina∣tion, and Jurisdiction in these places.

3. If these Divines held the Apostolick and Evangelistick Inspecti∣on 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 supe∣rior; 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 ano∣ther, 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 e∣vil, 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 Emi∣nenter a Pastor. How could Calvin quarrel a distinction, and peculi∣arity of a Name to point out a superior Pastor? or how could he affirm that all Pastors without exception have one and the same Function?

2. We heard that Beza and Calvin do hold that the Apostles, and E∣vangelists, 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 ground∣ed 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 Go∣vernment of one single Person, preheminent in Office unto other Mini∣sters, he cites Calvin instit: Cap. 4. Sect. 2. Where Calvin shews, that Presbyters in all Cit••es, choose one out of their Number, to whom especi∣ally 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 ••act, to infer their Approbation of the Practise. 1. For that clear demonstrative Reason already ad∣duced.

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 cor∣ruptions 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 Offic••, 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 Pa∣stor, 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 Presby∣ters Office, from the Apostles using both Names indifferently; As also, (saith he) I••rom hath observed, and that more hath been ascrib∣ed 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 e∣vinced 1 Chapter; If Beza and Calvin make not the Name and Thing of a Scripture Bishop proper to every Pastor, and consequently con∣demn 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 Primi∣tive 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. Com∣paring 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 o∣ver 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 Pri∣viledges, 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 there∣from.

CHAP. Third.

An Examination of the Definitions in Point of Church-Government, im∣puted 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 Asserti∣ons 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 the Gospel. To prove this Definition to be Cal∣vins, he cites instit. Lib. 4. Cap. 4. Sect. 2. annexing these words, this is to be considered, that only the Pastors, and not the whole Multitude laid Hands on their Ministers at Ordination.

Answer.

Hence I infer, First, these Governours who have Right in Ordina∣tion, are the Pastors in Calvin's judgment. 2. If Pastors, as such; then all Pastors, for a Quatenus adomne valet consequentia. 3. Pastors, pro∣perly such, having in Calvin's Judgment one and the same Office, being called to the same function, and no preheminency in one over another allowed, as we heard him above assert; Ergo in Calvin's Judgment, all Pastors have the same and equal Authority in Ordination. 4 The Pastor being with Calvin, the h••ghest ordinary Church-Officer, and the for∣mal Office of Apostles, and Evangelists being expired, as is above cleared: Ergo in Calvin's Judgment, all who have an ordinary standing Interest in Ordination, as Church-Officers of Christ's appointment have it equally, and no ordinary Officer of the New-Testament-Church, hath a supereminent and peculiar Interest therein.

Defin. 2

The second Definition is, That the power of Jurisdiction, is that Right, in the Governours of the Church, to make Cannons which are wanting, or to execute these already made, for the Regulation of Church Members. To prove this, Calvin is adduced on Tit. ch. 1 v. 5. The words cited are, we learned indeed from this place, that there was no such equality among the Ministers of the Church, but that some one was pre-heminent in Authority and Counsel.

Answer.

In Answer to which, First, I Note the impertinency of this Passage, to prove the power of Jurisdiction, here Defined, which speaks only of Counsel and Authority, in Church Governours, not of the Object of it, whereof this Definition speaks.

2. Since the power of Jurisdiction, is correspondent and adequat to the power of Ordination, as our Author expressly assert, (Defini∣tion

3. compared with Axiom 2.) an•• withall, since it is made good, that with Calvin, the power of Ordination is one and the same in all Pastors, as being the highest ordinary Church Officers; Hence it fol∣lows inevitably, That with him the power of Jurisdiction, is the same, and equal in all Ministers of the Word.

3. The Definition seems too narrow, if we take it as importing, all that's beyond that Power of Ordination, first described, that is all the exercise of both the Keys, which will far go beyond the limits of this Description. Besides, these Cannons must be limited by the general Rules of the Word, in Calvin's Judgment, for speaking of the Apo∣stolick Decision (Acts 15.) He says, they would not step beyond the limits of the Word▪ Next, for that Preheminence, which Calvin as∣cribes to those Officers in Authority and Counsel.

I Answer first, What ever this Preheminence was, Calvin limits it to that State and Time of the Church, for he says Tun••, or at that time, wherein those Offices did exist, which he holds to be extraordinary, there was such an Official difference, as is mentioned, otherwise, if our Author say he means a standing Pastoral fixed Authority, he will in∣volve him in a double contradiction; first, in that he says, The Evan∣gelists were Coajutors of the Apostles, and fixed to no Station. 2. In that he shews upon the 7. v. of this Chapter, that there is no Official difference, in the pastoral Office. Again, Calvin shews upon the same place, that Paul enjoyns him not to take an arbitrary power over this Church, but only to preside over the Elections, as Moderator.

This will be convincingly evident, to any that will be at the pains to read Calvin, upon that 5 and 6 verse, For

First, He asserts, That Paul had deputed to Titus, a Vicarious Ad∣ministration in his own room, and that the Apostles having a transient unfixt Ministry, being about to spread the Gospel every where, be∣hoved when going from one place or City to another, to surrogat fit men to finish what they had begun.

2. He asserts in terminis, that this Vicarious Office and Administra∣tion, was ultra ordinarium Pastorum munus, beyond the ordinary Office of Pastors, and that the trust put upon him of Exedifying this Church, was of that Nature; and in this states the difference betwixt his Admi∣nistration, and that of the Pastor, which is ordinary, in that Pa∣stors

are set over Churches already Formed and Constitute; But Ti∣tus had an Office beyond this, viz. To give this Form to Churches, not as yet modelled, as to Government; asserting evdently, that the Evangelistick Office of Titus, in so far as extended beyond that of the Pastor, did suppose the Church as yet, in fieri, as to its Constitution; Yea, and the Existence of the Apostolick Office too, upon whose foun∣dation these Evangelists were to build, and exedifie what they had begun. 3. He asserts expressly, That the preaching Presbyter and Pa∣stor, is the highest ordinary Officer set in the Churches. 4. He moves an Objection, whether this power of Titus, did not seem to infringe the Judicial power of the Colledge of Pastors, or their consistorial de∣cisive Authority in Government, and Answers, that matters were not committed to Ti••us arbitriment, to set up what Pastors he pleased, but he was only to preside over the Elections, as Moderator, &c. as the Consul or Dictator, who held the Court for gathering the Votes. In all which we see, how pitifully this man hath abused his Reader in this Definition.

Defin. 3.

The 3d Definition is thus, The President Bishop is he, who from his Office, preheminent to other Ministers, is invested with a fixed power of Ordination, regulat by Cannons; (to prove this, he adduces Calvin on 2 Tim. 1. v. 6. who asserts, that Paul himself declares, that he a∣lone, and no other Ministers with him, laid hands on Timothy) he adds in the Definition, (and of Jurisdiction, ballanced by assisting Mini∣sters,) for proving which part of the Definition, he adduces Calvin, Instit: lib: 4. cap: 4. Sect: 1. Asserting, That whatever parts the Con∣sul had in the Senat, the same Office did the Bishop always sustain in the meeting of Presbyters.

To the First Branch, I answer, That he is guilty here of pitiful For∣gery, and begging the question, evident to any considering person, upon the very first vie••.

Answer.

For, 1. If Calvin's assertion prove any thing for him, it will prove not only a preheminent power of Ordination, in this supposed Presi∣dent B••shop, but a sole Power, competent to none but himself, as his sole Prerogative; because if he alone (as Paul did) and none else must

lay on hands, he, and no other Minister jure; Ergo, Then this is his sole Prerogative; For certainly the laying on of hands, must import the Power and Exercise of Ordination, in Calvin's Judgment, accor∣ding to that mans pleading, and so this proving too much, proves just nothing.

Answer 2.

2. I ask, whether this supposed Power of Ordination, is to be bal∣lanced, as that of Jurisdiction, by assisting Ministers, or authoritative∣ly concurring; yea, or not; (by assisting he must needs mean this, if he hold to that S••••••ilitude, of the power of the Consul in the Senat, and turn not his President Bishop, to an Absolute Prince, and his power to a power of Dominion over the meeting,) if not, then first, How can be suppose the one to be ballanced thus, in Calvin's Judgment, rather then the other. 2. How will this consist with what he asserts, that according to Calvin, the power of Jurisdiction is of alike nature, and correspondent to that of Ordination; The preheminence in Office and Jurisdiction, being one and the same, in Axiom. 2.

If this Power of Ordination, is to be ballanced in Calvins Judg∣ment by Assisting Ministers, how will he make his Proof quadrat to it, viz, That Paul laid Hands on Timothy alone, and no Minister else; If he infer the Power of his President Bishop from this Assertion, he must call it a Sole Power.

3. I confess he did well to put in the Clause of a Fixed Power, but he must add another Clause and Qualification, viz. an Ordinary Power; And if he can prove from Calvin, that either Apostles or Evangelists exercised a fix'd ordinary Power of Ordination over any particular Churches, his Proof will speak home to the Point; and if we can prove the contrary from Calvin, he is but beating the Air, and rolling Ssiphus-Stone in this Matter. Now this our contrary Proof from Cal∣vin is very easie, for on this 5th Verse, he says, that Apostolis nulla cer∣ta statio erat assignata, that they had no fixed Station, and consequent∣ly neither a fixed nor ordinary Power, thus upon 1 Corinth. 12. 28. he says, Paul reckons up both perpetual and temporary Officers; the Tem∣porary was that of Apostles, who were appointed to found Churches, and erect Christs Kingdom therein, whose Office shortly after ceast and evanish'd; the Apostles were appointed to spread the Gospel through

the World, and had no certain Charges and limits of Paroches, but wherever they came, were to deliver their Message, wherein they dif∣fer from Pastors, who are tyed to their Churches, &c. upon Eph. 4 11. he tells us that the Apostles Office, was to Preach the Gospel in what∣ever place they came into. To plant Churches and erect the Kingdom to Christ, so that they had not every one peculiar proper Churches as∣signed to them, but all of them had a general command to preach the Gospel where••ver they came. To these the Evangelists were next, and had alike Office, only in a different degree of Dignity, of which kind were T••mothy, and such like—of their subsidiary help the Lord made use next to that of Apostles—and having thereafter described the Office of the Pastor and Doctor, he adds, Notandum est ex his officiis quae hic enumerat Paulus, postrema tantum du•• perpetua esse; We must observe, that among these Offices which Paul reckons up, the last two only, are perpetual, for God did for a time only a••o••n his Church with Apostles, Prophets & Evangelists, but without Pastors & Doctors, there can be no Government of the Church, Ergo according to Calvin, with∣out the expired Offices of Apostles and Evangelists, this Government doth subsist. At the Close, he commends Cyprian's Saying, That there is one Episcopacy, which is Christ's alone, whereof every Minister hath intirely a part that none lift up himself above his Fellow. Thus in Instit. lib. 4. cap. 3. sect. 4. speaking of this place of Paul in descri∣bing the New Testament-Church-Officers, he Characterizeth the Apostles thus, that they were the first Founders of the Church through the World, in Preaching the Gospel every where: The Evangelists thus, that they were in Dignity inferior to the Apostles, yet next to them in Office, and consequently did represent them as supplying their Rooms, such were Luke, Timothy and Titus; and such like also the 70 Disciples, which Christ appo••••ted in the second place after the Apostles. These three Functions (viz. Apostles Prophets & Evangelists,) (saith he which seems most consonant to Paul's Scope & Words, were not for this end institute to be perpetual in the Church, but were for some time only, when Churches were to be erected, where none were before, or to be brought from M••ses to Christ. Then speaking of ordinary Off••cers, he thus exp∣esseth himself as before, their Fellow-Pastors and Doctors, which the Church can never want; and the 5th Section he

begins thus, We see what Ministry and Offices in the Government of the Church were Temporary, and what Offices were instituted to en∣dure continually, &c. From all which I dare refer it to any man of Can∣dor and Conscience, whether Calvin hold not

First in general, That the Official Power of Apostles and Evan∣gelists, was temporary, and expired with themselves.

2. That neither the one, nor the other imported a fixed Inspection over any particular Church.

3. That both did suppose the Churches in fieri, and were exercis∣ed in erecting, and edifying of Churches accordingly.

4. That neither the one nor the other was to incroach upon, or in that Age by themselves, or thereafter by any pretended Successors, to derogate any thing from the ordinary decisive Collegiat Power of Pa∣stors.

5. That herein lyes the ordinary necessary Church-Government, to be continued to the end.

Finally, To make it further convincingly evident that Calvin placed the ordinary Collegiat Power of Ordination in Pastors. In this Instit. (lib. 4. Cap. 3. sect. 14.) speaking upon that Passage (Acts 13.) of Paul and Barnabas Separation, by Imposition of Hands, he shews that the Holy Ghost enjoyned this manner of Separation, even of Perso•••• thus singularly elected by himself, that by this grave Document, Ec∣clesiastick Discipline might be preserved, in setting Men apart for the Ministry, viz. by Ministers joynt Authoritative Imposition of Hands; and (Sect. 15.) stating the Question anent a Collegiat Power in the Election of Ministers, whether it ought to have place, or the Minister may be constitute by the Authority of one, for which (saith he) Paul's Word; to Ti•••• (I left thee in Crete to ordain Elders, and his Precept to Timothy, lay hands suddenly on no man) are Cited, he Answers, they are deceived who imagine that either Timothy or Titus, had 〈◊〉〈◊〉 other Power than to moderate-Elections, as the Consul in the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 created new Magistrats, by receiving the Suffrages; which, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 with what is above said, evidently p••oves, that in Calvin's Judgment, the Power of Ordination is a Collegiat Power, seated in the Meeting of Pastors, and exercised by their joynt decisive Suffrage.

Lastly, For that Passage here Cited by him. I Answer first, These

Words here Cited are not found on that 6th Vers. lib. edit: mihi M. D. LXXII. Secondly, Granting them as here set down. 1. Cal∣vin makes it doubtful, whether this Rite was not in the Churches usual Practice performed by one in Name of the rest. 2. He holds it debateable, whether Paul speaks not of the Imposition of Hands, in order to Gifts, where no formal Ordination followed, as Rom. 12. 1 Cor. 13. of of-Ordination; and inclining to the last Opinion, he makes this place parallel with 1 Tim. 4. vers. 14. upon which place he says, they judge right who take the Word [Presbytry] collectively, for the Colledge of Presbyters. So that Calvin will be found to hold, that Paul's Imposition of Hands, though solely, will nothing derogat from the ordinary Collegiat Power of the Presbytry. 1. Because the con∣ferring of Gifts thus, was his Apostolick Priviledge. 2. The simple Imposing of Hands alone will import no sole Authority, since ordina∣ry Pastors might intrust the Ritual Performance to one in their Name. 3. As no Apostolick Prerogative was in Calvin's Sense to encroach up∣on 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 over∣throws 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 endea∣vours 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 Mode∣rator, 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 Appoint∣ment, 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 Hu∣mane Custom, and not Divine Institution. 3. He acknowledgeth, (Sect. 1.) that whatever sincere Aims the Antients had, in conform∣ing to the Scripture in their Church-Government, yet they keep not that Path-Rode exactly, but had their Abe••••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 pre∣heminent 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 Chy∣mera 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 Pa∣triarchat. 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 af∣ter 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 Judg∣ment, a fixed, constant, far less a preheminent Bishop, with a fixed of∣ficial 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 Episcopa••u triplici, ane••t the Episcopus divi∣nus, 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 prehe∣minency or presiding in any Pastor, which encroaches upon the De∣cisive Power of his fellows, to be allowed of God. Finally, To con∣vince 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (to the Angel) to the President, he adds, Sed hinc statui Episcopalis ille gra∣dus, &c. But that Episcopal degree which was afterward brought in∣to 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 perpetu∣al 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 Mo∣derator to be an humane invention, and the poysonous Egg, out of which Antichrist was hatched. Add to all this, that Beza by this mans acknowledgem••nt, calling the other Ministers, the Colleagues of this Pre∣sident, 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 ••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 discovered how insignificant this mans pretended De∣finitions, are to found and fortify his ensuing Propositions and Demonstrations, we do proceed to examine that which he calls his Po∣stulatums, the first whereof is thus.

Postulatum 1.

That the seventy Disciples (from among whom Matthias was cal∣led to be ordained one of the twelve Apostles) were persons in holy Order in the Ministry. To prove this, Calvin is adduced on Luke 10. 1, 16. v. whose words are these, after the Apostles had returned to Christ, he sent more secundary Preachers, and this is the great commen∣dation of the outward Ministry, that Christ declares, That whatsoever honour is given to his faithful Preachers, is given to himself.

Answer.

In Answer to this, we need not contend much in Thesi, anent what is asserted to the Office of the 70 Disciples, only we may advert here, some things that will Castigat and Check his Scope in this Postulatum, as that Calvin asserts, that they were only as it were secundary Preach∣ers, not simply secundary Preachers; he says also, Nulla illis proprie commissa fuit legatio, no Legation or Mission was properly intru••ed to them (which we heard Beza also above assert) Bus as Christs Apari∣tors, were sent to prepare the peoples hearts to receive his Doctrine.

Next I observe, that though by his inserted Parenthesis, he would have it believed, That Calvin holds Matthias to be one of the s••verity Disciples, yet his Citation out of Calvin, is utterly remote from proving

it, Calvin touching nothing of this in his Discourse of the seventy; and in Acts 1. upon v. 21. and the two last verses, where it was very pro∣per to insert this, he has not the least hint of it; Nay, in answering that Objection, why did they not remit it to God? to choose one out of all the multitude, without a previous designation of these two, he has no such thing either, though it was most pertinent here to menti∣on it. In a word, Calvins Principles above-evinced, anent the extra∣ordinary, personal, expired power and inspection of Apostles and Evange∣lists, as such; and anent the Pastor his being the highest ordinary Of∣ficer in the New Testament Church, and his clear and positive asserti∣on of the same equal Function, and official authority of all Pastors, whether he take the seventy Disciples, to be ordinary, or extraordinary Church Officers; It is evident even to a Demonstration, that his words cited in this Postulatum, will bear no conclusion, of his owning such a stan∣ding Subordination among Ministers. as this man imputes to him; but that his Doctrine, and Principles utterly overthows the same. Proceed we to the second Postulatum, which is thus.

Postulatum 2.

That Timothy in the Church of Ephesus, and Titus in the Church of Crete, were from their Offices preheminent to other Ministers, invest∣ed with a fixed power of Ordination, and Jurisdiction, regulated by Cannons, and ballanced by assisting Ministers, To prove this, he cites Calvin, 1 Tim. 1. 18. v. asserting that Timothy was not one of the com∣mon Ministry, but one next to the Apostles, who in the frequent absence of Paul, was in his place. Also, on Tit. 1. v. 5. where he says, That besides the ordinary Office of Pastors, Titus had this charge, That he should constitute a certain Form of Church Policy and Dis∣cipline, and likewise ordain Ministers over the Churches.

Answer.

To this I answer in general, that it is already made good, from clear and positive Assertions of Calvin, that the Office both of Apostles and Evangelists, is expired, and that no preheminent Office, over that of the Pastor, is in his Judgment continued in the Church; so that what∣ever preheminent power over ordinary Pastors, Calvin may suppose, at this time existent in Timothy or Titus, it will never reach this Pam∣phleters conclusion, anent his asserting a moral standing preheminence,

in any ordinar Church Officer, over his Colleagues, which is the point he undertakes to prove.

2. Particularly, if he will prove any thing to his purpose from Cal∣vin, he must shew us his assertion anent a fixed, and not only so, but likewise, (as is said above) an ordinary Power, or of a Moral perpe∣tual Nature, in Ordination and Jurisdiction, over other Mini∣sters, and exercised by Timothy and Titus; which that Calvin disowns, is evident thus.

1. They whose Office, and Official preheminency consequently, was correspondent unto, and of a like extent with that of the Apostles, these had no fixed Presidency over any one Church; but in Calvin's Judgment, the Office and Official Preheminence of Timothy and Titus, was of this nature: Ergo. The Assumption is proved from this, that Calvin asserts, (as is above evinced) the Evangelists Office to be next that of the Apostles, and that their work was to Preach the Gospel e∣very where, and supply the Apostles rooms, when going from one place to another.

2. They whose official Preheminence, and formal Office, supposed the Churches in fieri, and was appointed for assisting the Apostles in Exedifying them, they had in Calvins Judgment, no fixed moral or standing Preheminency over Ministers and Churches; else we shall suppose the Christian Church in its model of Government to be still (with him) in fieri, and the Apostolick Office formerly existent, which we heard above, both Calvin and Beza disown; but the Office of Timothy and Titus, in Calvins Judgment was such, as we heard also above. Ergo.

3. They whose Official Power, is expresly by Calvin distinguished, from that power which is ordinary and of perpetual necessity in the Church Government, their supposed Preheminency lays no foundation for a fixed moral president, preheminent Bishop, over Ministers, as of perpetual necessity in the Church, unless he will make Calvin in con∣tradiction to himself, assert one and the same Office, and Power to be ordinary, and extraordinary, perpetual and temporary, continually necessary, and not necessary; but so it is that Calvin thus distinguish∣es the Office of Evangelists, from the Pastoral perpetual Office, as we heard above. Ergo.

4. They who by their Office were fixed to no particular Station, or Church in Calvins Judgment, they had no fixed preheminent Power, in Ordination and Jurisdiction over other Ministers; else they should be by their Office, fixed, and not fixed. But so it is that in Calvins Judgment, Timothy and Titus were set over no particular Station, as we heard him above assert. Ergo no Evangelists properly such, were in Calvins judgment fixed to any particular Station; as we heard him a∣bove assert. But Timothy and Titus were the Evangelists properly such, as we heard also him affirm. Ergo.

Finally, so absurd is this mans assertion here, that his pretended proofs out of Calvin, furnishes sufficient Weapons to overthrow it; For,

First, If Timothy was none of the common ordinary Ministry, but the Apostle Paul's Depute, sustaining his place in his frequent absence, then (as we heard Calvin above argue and assert) his Official Inspection, was neither ordinary, nor fixed, over any one Church; Ergo, It laid no foundation in Calvin's judgment, for a moral fixed President Bishop, with 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 or∣dinary 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 Pa∣stor labouring in the Word and Doctrine, is the highest ordinary Offi∣cer 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 need∣ed 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 up∣on

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 Mi∣nisters, 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 Ora∣cles, 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 pecu∣liar 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 Argu∣ment of the Epistle to Titus, he shews that Paul hasting else where, in∣trusted 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 arbi∣bitrary 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 Ma∣ster-Builder, but others built on his Foundation, the Church still stand∣ing 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 present∣ly rids Marches thus, Sed ultra ordinarium pastorum munus, &c. but be∣yond the ordinary Office of Pastors, Titus had the care of constituting the Church committed to him; Then (as is above-observed) he distin∣guishes 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 fix••d, as that of the A••ostle Paul, whose Deputy he now was, and likeways that his power did not take away the collegiat decisive Suffrage of Pastors, o∣ver who•• he w••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 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.

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 be∣speaks 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 An∣gel 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 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 Po∣stulatums, 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 Con∣clusion. The first of these Axioms is this.

Axiom. 1.

THe regular Call of any Minister already Ordained, is from an Of∣fice 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 con∣stant Custom, that from the Order of Deacons, the Presbyters were chosen, therefore commonly they have exponed this place, of the ad∣vancement 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 Ad∣ministration, 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 super∣eminent Station] Calvin doth neither absolutely hold this, as always necessary, and cons••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 Cu∣stom 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 Presby∣ter 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 Offi••e; And that, one may and ought to be a fixed President Bi∣shop over them, with a preheminent fixed pow••r of Ordination and Iuris∣diction. Again what means he by [any Minist••••] if all Church Offi∣cers under the New Testament, as he needs must? since he holds there

are various sorts of Ministers under the New Testament, Apostles, Evan∣gelists, Pastors, Deacons, who have all their formal Successors accord∣ing to Calvin; How doth he infer Calvin's Judgment, as to the regu∣lar 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 Mini∣ster or Church-Officer who is not ordained? Ordination being rela∣tive 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 A∣xiom will run thus, the regular Ordination of any Minister already or∣dained, is from an Office of an Inferiour, &c. But this is both redoun∣dant 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 propor∣tioned 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 up•••• these his two Definitions made it good, that this preheminence in Office, and proportioned prehemi∣nence in Jurisdiction, which Calvin in the places therein cited, suppo∣ses 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 jurisdicti∣on,

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 u∣pon 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. Pa∣stors, 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 sub••••••••iencie to any end, wherein the wel•• 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 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 o∣ther 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 prejudg∣ed, 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 Insti∣tution, 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 foremen∣tioned Corollarie, he understands of an express, and formal delineati∣on, 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 Cal∣vins 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 Insti∣tutions, 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 men∣tioned, that hitherto he has spoken, of Church-Government, and Of∣ficers, 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 Insti∣tution, 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 con∣cerned.

Fi••ally, when Calvin (as is above hinted) in stating the distincti∣on betwixt the Ecclesiastick Officers, which have a Divine Right, (I

mean, a moral standing Right, as Church-Officers of perpetual ne∣cessity) 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 ne∣cessity, consequently of these Officers, and of their formal Official Power, and Authority, is expired also, with this its end, which laid the foun∣dation 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 judge∣ment, 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 ea••s with himself, in his former citation, wherein Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, are said to be the only Of∣ficers, 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 con∣victed 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 Apo∣stolick 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 Do∣ctrine off••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 or Pastoral Materially, and Eminenter, and so hath derived from it, a perpetual standing Gospel••Ministry, and Ministerial Authority, ne∣cessarly 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 necessa∣ry for the Church, but without any advantage to this mans scope and design, a•• is obvious to the meanest reflection. But least our Pasquel∣ler, 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 Scrip∣ture Elogi••••, that their feet are beautiful (Isa. 52.) That the Apo∣stles 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 Gos∣pel Ministry, since it's the Administration of the Spirit of Righteous∣ness, and life eternal. Nihil Evangeli•• Ministerio in Ecclesia, magis pr••clarum. Then (Sect. 9.) beginning the second part of the Chap∣ter, 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 ordinari∣um in Ecclesia mu••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, Pro∣phets and Evangelists, he adds, sequuntur Past••re•• & Doctores quious carere nunqua•• pote••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 reg••••ine ••empor••ria Ministeria fuerunt, at que ideo instituta ut pe••petuo duraren••; We see what Offices, or Admini∣strations in the Church Government were temporary; or expired, and what Offices were institut to be of perpetual c••ntinuance. And at the close of this Section, he positiv••ly asserts▪ (which at one dash cancells all this Pamphl••ters pi••iful suggestions here) t••hat Pastors, [s••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 Admi∣nistration 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 My∣steries of God; And that (in Titus 1. 9. v.) the Bishop must hold the faithful word, and by sound Doctrine teach and convince the gain∣sayers; 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 ••his Section, he shews, that this Pastoral Of∣fice, 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 Evan∣gelists, 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 a∣bove 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 Pam∣phleter, upon the premised Definitions, Postulatum••, and Axi∣oms, (as the great projection and scope thereof) examined; the the unsoundness thereof discovered, and the Antitheses of his Proposi∣tions established, and his Demonstrations everted, by Counter-de∣monstrations, from Calvin and Beza.

Having thus evinced to the conviction of the judicious and imparti∣al, the pitiful mis-application, and forgery of all this Mars Citations, out of Calvin and Beza, to fortifie his scope and design, in these as∣sertions, which he calls Definitions, Postulatums, and Axioms; His Demonstrations drawn from them do fall by course, as the Superstru∣c••ure when the Foundation is razed. His Principles being found un∣sound, 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 Posi∣tions, above-examined, is,

That the 12 Apostles were president Bishops, over the 70 Dis∣ciples.

Answer.

In general, I may again animadvert here, that if by being Presi∣dent Bishops, be understood the Apostles univeral directive Authority and Inspection necessarly connected with, and sounded upon their insal∣libility, 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 ima∣gins, that Calvin & Beza, doth this restrict their Presidency or Episco∣pacy 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 e∣vinced) and of all sound Divines. And in whatever respect he can alle••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 uni∣versal over all Churches and Ministers; and therefore if he will from hence infer, successors to them in Calvins judgment, he would make him hold twelve moral standing Primats, and universal Patriarchs or Popes, with infallible directive power over the whole Catholick Church.

2 I observe, that by asserting the Apostles, to be mee•• President Bishops, he would make men believe that he pleads only for a moral standing fixed Presidency; But (as I did above touch) he pleads by this first Proposition and Assumption, for a standing moral Prelatick Dominion, over Church Judicatories serued up to the highest Peg. Follows the Demonstration, whereof the first Proposition is,.

Major.

The President Bishop is he who from his Office preheminent to other Ministers, is invested with a fixed Power of Ordination regulat by Canons, and of Jurisdiction, ballanced by assisting Ministers. For proof of which, he adduces definition 3.

Answer.

This Proposition, as here worded, we did above dis-prove, and did shew, that according to his design in this Citation of Calvin, he must add both a sole power, and likewise an ordinary power; that this place of Galvin will neither prove his holding it fixed, nor an or∣dinary power in the Apostles, both which we have found Calvin doth disown in several places above-cited. Besides the above-evinced in∣consistency of the two Branches, of this Proposition, compared with his pretended proof; so that the Major appears nought. The assump∣tion is,

Assumption.

But in respect to the 70 Disciples, who were all in the holy Mini∣stry (by Postulatum first) and from among whom Matthias was cal∣led to be of the twelve by (Postulatum 1.) The sacred Colledge of the Apostles, had a fixed preheminency, (by Axiom 1.) invest∣ed

with the power of Ordination, regulated by Canons, (by Postula∣tum 1. and Definition 1.) and of Jurisdiction ballanced by assisting Ministers; (by Axiom 2)

Answer.

Not to resume what we have animadverted, upon his Assertion a∣nent the 70 Disciples and Calvin's silence as to Mathias in both the places cited by him, and his Comment upon Mathias Election; As for that which he asserts from Axiom 1▪ anent the Colledge of Apostles, their fixed preheminence, the Axiom itself asserts the regular Call of any Mi∣nister already ordained, is from an Inferior, to a Superior station, we did shew the impertinency of Calvins citation to prove this, and that he neither simply asserts this matter of fact, as he sets it down, nor gives his approbation of it, so that this Axiom is none of Calvins.

2. For his inference from it, that the 12 had a fixed Preheminency over the 70, who sees not its remotness? Behold, the visage of this Reason, Calvin says, that the Church sometimes choosed Presbyters, out of Deacons, ergo he ass••rts that the 12 Apostles had a fixed Prehe∣minence over the 70 Disciples.

3. If by [Fixed] he mean a preheminence ordinary, and to be con∣tinued, we have proved that Calvin denyes and disowns this, in the places above cited, and asserts as evidently as man can speak, that the Apostolick Official Preheminence, as such, was neither Fixed, Limited, nor Ordinary; that they were invested with a power of Ordination regulat by Canons, he tells us is proved by Postulatum 1. and Defini∣tion 1.

The Postulatum says, that the 70 Disciples were in the holy Order of the Ministry, and how he has proved this from Calvin, we have above seen, especially with relation to Mathias; Where we told him that Calvins assertion of the Sameness of the pastoral Function in all ordinary Pastors, and the extraordinary expired Nature of the Apostolick Inspe∣ction and Authority, cutts off his inference of such a standing Subordi∣nation among Pastors, as he imagins him to hold.

Next, what a Rope of Sand is this, the 70 were inferiour to the 12 Apostles, ergo they had a fixed ordinary power of Ordination over them; and (forsooth) regulated by Canons.

He next proves this by Definition 1. Which asserts that the power of

Ordination, is the Right of Governours of the Church to separate per∣sons duely qualified to the Ministry; This Calvin asserts, is proper on∣ly to Pastors, which we proved, doth infer clearly against this mans Design, Calvins asserting the Pastor to be the highest ordinary Officer, and the expired extraordinary Nature of the Apostolick and Evange∣listick Offices, together with the equal Function of all Pastors, which Assertions of Calvin doth render this Inference, Ergo the Apostles were invested with an ordinary power of Ordination and Iurisdiction over Pastors, to be transmitted to the Church, (which is this mans Scope and Conclusion upon the premised general Assertion of Calvin, anent the right of Church-Governours) to be a meer non sequitur, and an ergo, baculus stat in angulo.

The Apostles Preheminency in jurisdiction ballanced by assisting Mi∣nisters, he proves by Axiom 2. which he refers to Definition 2 and 3. Upon which i•• the examination of his Citations, we have proved, that this supposed Apostolick Preheminency is with Calvin neither Fixed, nor ordinary, or of a moral standing Nature, but did expire with these extra∣ordinary Functions; and that in Calvin's principles, it was cumulative unto, not privative of, the ordinary standing collegiat power of Pastors, which is to continue to the end; besides the inconsistency wherein we have observed, he involves Calvin in his Collections upon the place cited by him. Follows our Pamphleters grand Conclusion of his Demonstration.

Conclusion.

Therefore the 12 Apostles were president Bishops over the 70 Dis∣ciples, which was the thing to be demonstrated.

Answer.

If he mean an infallible directive power and presidency as Apostles, it is easily admitted by Calvin; But then, as I said, he foolishly restricts it to the 70 Disciples, which was over the whole Church both Mini••ters and People. If he mean a standing moral ordinary perpetual Presidency, especially relative to the 70, and wherein ordinary Officers were to succeed them, we have proved, that he will as soon squise Water from a Flint, as either premisses or conclusion from the places of Calvin refer∣red unto, in the two Propositions of his Demonstration.

And unto his Demonstration and proposition, I do from what is a∣bove

evinced, oppose his Counter-demonstration, and Antithesis of his Position and Conclusion. The Proposition is.

Proposition.

The Apostles were not fixed President ordinary Bishops over the 70 Disciples.

Demonstration.

They whose pr••sidency was not fixt to any Church or Station, nor Ordinary, but Extraordinary, and universal over the whole Church, both Ministers and Flocks, these had no fixed ordinary moral presiden∣cy, over the 70 Disciples. But the Apostolick presidency was of this Nature, in the Judgment of Calvin; ergo the Apostles were not ordi∣nary fixed president Bishops over the 70 Disciples. The Major is evi∣dent, for to be fixed, and not fixed, ordinary and extraordinary Pre∣sidents, yea, and in relation to the 70 Disciples only, and to the whole Church, Ministers and People, cannot consist. The Minor is cleared above, wherein it is evinced, that Calvin ass••rts the Apostolick Inspection, to be both Universal, Extraordinary and Unfixed. Hence we may safely conclude, ergo the Apostles were not ordinary presi∣dent Bishops, or in a proper and formal Sense over the 70 Disciples, which 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 Jurisdicti∣on, 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 ra∣ther Diocesian or Patriarchal Bishop; as he holds that Calvin and Beza do owne the designation and Office? Is•• he no more than a President who has a preheminent Official Power, yea, according to his forecited Collection from Calvin and Beza) a s••le power in Ordination and Juris∣diction over Pastors.

2. Since he will not say that Calvin will disowne the Apostles Epis∣copal 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 certain∣ly 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, regu∣lated 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 ••nconsistencies. We did also prove from several places of that learned Divine, that he denys this fixed and ordinary stand∣ing Presidency, both to Apostles and Evang••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 a∣nother, 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 Imposi∣tion 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 A∣postles 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 de∣borded, and play the wanton, and run out of their Circle, both De∣monstrations, and Difinitions hath a prudent Limitation annexed; That their power must be regulat by Canons, and well ballanced by assisting Mini∣sters; and yet Paul and Timothy's sole power in Ordination seems para∣mount to these Canons, and far to counter-ballance all Ministers Au∣thority. 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, in∣vested 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 Pam∣phleters Inference of Calvins asserting a moral standing Official Prehe∣minency among Pastors, is most absurd. That with Calvin the Apo∣stolick 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 imperti∣nent 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 Exi∣stence 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 Of∣ficial 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, where∣by 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 mo∣ral 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. There∣fore neither of them had, in his Judgement, a fixed ordinary Episeo∣pal 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 clear∣ly de••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 prov∣ed, 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 Proposi∣tion 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 per∣son preheminent in Office unto other Ministers, this is proved by Po∣stulatum 3. which asserts, that for avo••ding of schism, the primitive Church retained the Government of one single Person, preheminent in Office unto other Ministers, which is proved from Calvins assert∣ing (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 Pre∣sident, he crosses his scope of making him assert the Government to be in this President, if he make him assert more, viz. A sole Prehemi∣nence in Ordination and Jurisdiction, (as is clear he doth, comparing Axiom 2. with Definition 2. and 3.) Calvin gives him the lie, in as∣serting, that this President or Moderator at first set up by his bre∣thren, 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 Cal∣vin 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 Scrip∣ture path, in the matter of Government, so particularly, that this President or Proestos, was brought in humano consilio, and, protempo∣rum 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 Pa∣stor, 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 appro∣priating 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 Offi∣cial Power of Pastors, asserted in Scripture; All which we forti∣fied 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 Ma∣jor Proposition, is palpably false and groundless. Follows the As∣sumption.

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 Defini∣tion 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 ab∣surdities, and inconsistancies which he involves Calvin and himself in∣to, 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 learn∣ed 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 th••s•• 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 transi∣ent 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 Jurisdictions, bal∣lanced by assisting Ministers, (proved by Calvin's asserting, that Paul only laid hands on Timothy,) 2 Tim. 1. 6. And that the Bishop had the power of the Consul, (Instit. lib. 4. cop. 4. Sect. 1.) I have made appear how pitifully this man stumbles and prevaricats. 1. In making Calvin assert a sole power, in this President Bishop, as well as a fixed power. And that 2. in making the Power of Jurisdiction, to be ballanced by assisting Ministers, and not annexing this Clause to the Power of Ordination, he either restricts it to this Power of Jurisdiction, imputing this to Calvin a Chimerical assertion of his own forgery, and involves Calvin and himself in a Contradiction, in that he asserts, that with him the Power of Jurisdiction is of like nature and correspondent to that of Ordination, the preheminence in Office and Iurisdiction, be∣ing one and the same by Axiom 2. or if both Power of Ordination, and Jurisdiction, be held thus ballanced by our Pamphleter, we have discovered that in betaking himself to this shift; he would be but out of the pit into the snare, incidit in s••yllam cupiens vitare Charybdin, for thus he overthrows his proof from Calvins assertion, that Paul and none else laid hands upon Timothy. 2. We have also made appear, that in his 3 Definition, he sayes nothing to his purpose and scope, unless he qualifie the Power of this supposed President Bishop, not only with the property, and adjunct of [fixed] but also with that of (Ordinary) both which that Calvin disowns in the Apostles and Evangelists, we proved from clear places, both of his Commentaries and Institutions.

And for his other proof of that Definition, taken from Calvins equi∣parating, the power of this President. Bishop, with that of the Con∣sul; We did disprove it, not only from Calvins explication, that it reach∣ed only the gathering of the Votes, and seeing the Sentence execute; but likewise, from his plain and positive assertion, that this Proestos or President was subject to his Colleagues, whence by inevitable con∣sequence, it follows, that he had no such Official Preheminence over them, as this man alledges Calvin doth hold.

3. Again, whereas the fixing of this Power in the President Bishop, is, as the other branch of his Assumption, proved by Definition 3.

What we have said to disapprove his scope in this 3 Definition, doth sufficiently evert this Branch, of the Assumption grounded there∣upon

4. Finally, upon Axiom 2. referring to both these his Definitions, we have evinced, that this Preheminence in Office, and proportion∣ed-preheminence in Jurisdiction, which Calvin in the places therein cited, supposes competent to the Apostles and Evangelists, was nei∣ther first Fixed, or secondly Ordinary, nor such as is of a moral stand∣ing nature, but did expire with the Persons of these extra••rdinary Offices; and that 3ly. During the existence of this extraordinary Pre∣heminence, in Office and Jurisdiction, it was in Calvins judgement, cumulative unto, not privative of, the ordinary collegiat authority of Pa∣stors, in Ordination and Jurisdiction; So that, that Axiom, as understood by this man, of a supposed moral standing preheminent president Bishop over Pastors, we have fully proved, in the places above-cited, that Calvin doth disown it, and consequently, the Assumption of this De∣monstration as none of his. The Conclusion is,

Therefore the Fathers of the primitive Church, were President Bi∣shops.

Which doth appear from what is said, to be a meer, yea a gross non sequitur; both Major and Assumption being palpably false, taking this President Bishop, in the extent and nature exprest in both these Propositions. And hereunto his Proposition and Demonstration, I shall oppose these two An••itheses, and Counter-demonstrations. The first Proposition is.

Proposition 1.

None of the Fathers, who were the first Proestos, or Fixed Mode∣rators, had de facto the Government in their Person, or an Official Preheminence in Ordination, and Jurisdiction, over their Brethren, in the Judgement of Calvin or Beza.

Proposition 2.

None who assums this in after times, were allowed of these Di∣vines, as to their pretended jus, or as having a Divine Warrand and Institution. The Proposition is proved thus.

Demonstration. Major.

They who according to Calvin and Beza, were only togather the Vo••es, moderate the Actions of the meeting, and were subject to the meeting, or Church Judicatory, as being chosen by them, these had not the Government in their Persons, or a Fixed Official Prehemi∣nency of Ordination and Jurisdiction over the same.

Assumption.

But the Presidency of the First Pro••st••••e•• or Moderators, was in these Divines Judgement of this nature. Therefore these first Proesto••e••, or Moderators, had no Official Preheminency, in Ordinati••n and Jurisdiction over their Brethren, or the Government of the Judica∣tories in their Persons, as is said. The Major is clear, and is ••ounded upon the Nature and Rule of oppos••ta; For to be subject to he mee∣ing, and to gather the Votes only, and that by their own Election and Choise, cannot consist with having a f••xed, yea, (according to this mans pleasing) a sole Official Power in Ordination and Jurisdicti∣on ••v••r them. The Assumption is above cleared, from the expres••▪ Assertions, of these Divines, wherein it is made good, that Calvin asserts, that this Moderator or Fixed President, at first brought in, was only to moderat the Actions of the meeting, and was subject to them. The same we heard Beza assert, in speaking of his humane E∣pis••••pacy, as subsequent to that which had the Divine Warrand. The Conclusion is legitimatly deduced.

The 2 Proposition, viz. No••e who assumed this sort of Presidency, in aft••••t••mes, viz. An Official Prehemi••ency in Ordination and Juris∣diction over Pastors, were allowed of Calvin or Beza, as having a Di∣vine Warrand, is thus proved.

Demonstration.

These Divines, who disallow of any s••rt of Dominion in a single per∣son, over Church Judicatories, who maintain the equal Function, and Official Power of Pastors therein, who dis••wn the very first con∣tinuing fixed Moderator as a humane invention, and do hold that even this fixed Moderator ought to be sub••ect, to the consistorial judicial Votes o•• ••is Brethren, these do disown a Fixed Official Pr••h••minence, in Ordina••ion and Jurisdiction, in any ordinary Pastor over Church-Judicatories, and do condemn such as assumed this; but Calvin and

Beza do disallow of this Power above exprest, in any pastor above his Brethren. Therefore they disallow of these who in after times assumed this, as having no divine warrand. The Major is Evident upon the same ground on which the former first Proposition is bottomed, which if any deny, they will necessarily involve them in Contradicti∣ons. The ••ssumption is evident, from the above-cited places of Cal∣vin and Beza. We heard Calvin clearly ass••r•• the equal Official power of pastors, and that even extraordinary Offices, were not to encroach upon this power; That the first Proestetes were only to gather the Votes, and were subject to the Meeting, we also heard that Beza calls this Fixed Moderater the ••pisiopus humarus, as dist••nguished from the first divine Bishop, and asserts, that the setting of him up, was an a••er∣ation, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 from the Divine Rule, and that which gave th•• f••rst rise to Antichristian Tyranny; we also heard, that he disown even the inference of a Fixed Moderator, from the Angel of the Church∣es; 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 pa∣stors. The Conclusion therefore of their disowning this Official pre∣heminent power in Ordination and Jurisdiction, assumed, or rather usurped in after times, evidently and necessarily fo••lows; yea, is so evident, that Beza in his Treatise de Episcopatu triphci, calls the Bi∣shop 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 Proposi∣tion 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 ••orgery and abu∣sive Sophilirie in covering himself, and his design all alone g••••der the Cloud, and playing with the general terms of President Epis••••p••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 Me∣thods 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, shape•• 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 admonish∣ed 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 acknow∣ledged 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 dispari∣ty and difference he can assign. But to pass this.

2. Since he referrs to Postulatum 4. where we have the same Pro∣position 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 be∣spoken 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 An∣gel for a single Person, is the utmost conclusion he can draw from this passage, wherein as Beza differs from the ordinary current of Inter∣preters; 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 can∣not

conclude from these words, that Beza asserts his Official Prehe∣minence and Authority, over his Colleagues, which we told him, is so Demonstratively evident, that Beza, disowns even the very infer∣ence of the necessity of a fixed Moderator, as following upon his As∣sertion, anent the president Angel, expressly adding this Proviso & Cauti∣on, to guard against any mis-application, of what he sayes anent the Angel, his being a single person; and thus in terminis gives this Pam∣phleter the lie, as if by a Prophetick Spirit, he had forseen this forgery, And holding the very first fixed Moderators, to have been the hu∣mane 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 be∣speaking 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 Defi∣nition 4. Where we are told that the Angel of any Church represen∣tative, is the President Bishop over other Ministers, within the respe∣ctive 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 Col∣leagues— To you the Angel, the President and the Assembly of your Colleagues.

Answer.

We have upon that Definition fully discovered the folly and im∣pertinency of this inference from the words of Beza, and this Mans pal∣pable 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 ordina∣ry Pastors, of as high a nature as he supposes the Apostle Paul exercis∣ed, 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 Diocesi∣an

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 Patri∣archiall or Diocesian Prelat, with sole power of Ordination and Juris∣diction, 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 under∣stands Colleagues thus; yea, and all this contrair to the express cau∣tion 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 plead∣ed for by him, by these distorted citations) gave the rise to the An∣tichristian tyranny. If this be not shameless imposing, let any rational man judge. The Conclusion is▪

Conclusion.

Therefore the President Episcopacy is approven by Christ in the Book of the Revelation. To which our Pamphleter adds his usual— quod erat demonstrandum.

Answer.

Therefore the president Angel or Moderator is thus approven in Beza's Sense, who hath other Pastors, his Equals and Colleagues in Official power and Authority, is easily admitted; But ergo in Beza's Sense, the very fixed Moderator, far less the Diocesian Patriarchal Pre∣late, with sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction, is approved; Is a Chymerical Conclusion, which (as some Mushroms that Plinie speaks of) grows without a root, and hath no Support of either Major or Minor to fortifie it. And here again, I oppose this Antithesis, and counter-Demonstration, unto the preceeding.

Proposition.

The president Bishop with Official Preheminency, and fixed power of Ordination and Jurisdiction over Pastors, is in Beza's Sense, not approven by Christ, or bespoken by him in the Book of the Revelation, in the person of the Asian-angels.

Demonstration.

These Angels, who in Beza's Sense were bespoken only as Presidents, and Moderators, to whom the other Ministers of these respective Church∣es, were Colleagues of equal Official-power and Authority, and in so far only owned of Christ, these were not be-spoken and owned by him as such president Bishops, who had an Official preheminency, and a fixed Official power of Ordination and Jurisdiction over these Pastors or Ministers.

Assumption.

But these Angels were in the first Sense only be-spoken by Christ, and owned by him, according to Beza.

Conclusion.

Therefore the president Bishop with Official power of Ordination and Jurisdiction over Pastors, was not in Beza's Sense bespoken by Christ, or ordained by him, in the Book of the Revelation in the per∣son of any of the Asian-Angels, which was to be proved.

The Major is clear and necessarly true, by the rule of Opposits; which if we deny, we cannot free our selves, or Beza from a contra∣diction, it being impossible that he could bespeak them both ways, be∣cause these Offices are inconsistent in the same persons, and at the same time. The Assumption is thus proved. If Beza owne these other Pastors, as the Fellow-Colleagues of this president Angel, and will not owne him, so much as necessarly a fixed Moderator, which he holds to be a humane Invention, ascribing also to Satanical Invention, the President with official preheminency in Ordination and Jurisdiction over Pastors; Then in Beza's Sense, these Angels were not bespoken, and owned of our Lord, as having any Preheminence of this nature, but as Moderators only. But the first is evident, and hath been made good from several places of Beza; Therefore so is the other.

CHAP. Seventh.

Wherein is discovered this Pamphleters perversion of the Doctrine of Calvin and Beza, in his Corollaries imputed to them, and the unsoundness of his Demonstrations, brought to fertifie the same.

HAving thus examined this mans Propositions, and Demonstrati∣ons, and discovered the unsoundness of both, and their utter insufficiency, to fortifie his Design in this undertaking, wherein it doth palpably appear, that as he hath wronged the Memory, and perverted, and calumniated the Doctrine of these Divines; so that he hath also penciled himself with ugly Colours of a Calumniator, and that of such Persons and Writings, as he acknowledges excellent. We do now proceed to consider his Corollaries and Demonstrations brought to for∣tifie them, which we will find to be of the same calumnious and sophi∣stical Stuff with the preceeding. The first of these Corollaries is thus.

Corollarie 1.

The president Episcopacyis of divine Right.

Answer.

This Corollarie of it self and abstracting from his Method of proof and Scope therein, is no doubt sound, and might be admitted, and understanding this terme PRESIDENT aright, and laying aside the Propositions, Axiom and Postulatum, discovering his Sense there∣of, we might admit the whole Demonstration ensuing, but consi∣dering his Scope and Manner of proof, let us here remember how he understands that Office, which he smooths over with the term of Pre∣sident Episcopacy, viz. (as is above cleared) such Episcopacy as im∣ports a fixed Official-Preheminency, and is invested with a fixed, yea, a sole Power in Ordination and Jurisdiction over other Ministers, as may be easily evinced, by comparing Definition 3 and 4, with Axiom 2, and his Citations for proof thereof. Now let us hear the Demon∣stration.

Demonstration.

The Major is, The divine Right is manifest in that Ecclesiastick Go∣vernment which is instituted by Christ, and continued by his Apostles,

retained in the primitive Church, and approven by Christ, by a Re∣velation from Heaven, for Subserviency to any end, wherein the well-being of Christianity is nighly concerned. For proof of which we are referred to Axiom 3. whereof this is a Repetition verbatim.

Answer.

This Proposition safely understood, may be easily admitted, keeping closs to that Citation of Calvin, annexed to Axiom 3, viz. that Church Government by Officers mentioned in the close of that Citation; has its Original from Christ's Institution, was continued in the Apostolick and Primitive Church, for Moral standing ends. What we did further animadvert upon this Axiom, touching the unsuitable Phrase of [any end] and the redundancy of that Clause of a [revelation from Heaven] and touching Calvins everting his Scope in pleading for Successors of A∣postles and Evangelists, in their formal official Power, and that he men∣tions only Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, as of a moral standing Necessity, and consequently as only authorized by this divine Right, So above. The Assumption is large, and tottered with a number of his pitiful References, to what is above examined. 'Tis thus.

Assumption.

But the president Episcopacy was instituted by Christ, (by Proposi∣tion 1.) continued by his Apostles; (by Proposition 2) retained in the primitive Church, (by Poposition 3) and approven by Christ by a Revelation from Heaven, (by Proposition 4) for avoiding of Schism, wherein the well-being of Christianity is nighly concerned; (by Po∣stulatum 3.)

Answer.

1. For the first Branch, proved by Proposition 1. wherein it's al∣ledged, the Apostles were president Bishops, over the 70. Disciples; we have above everted this Proposition, and his pretended Proofs, and discovered its absurdity, and that he doth most impertinently restrict the Apostles Presidency, as Apostles to the 70, and imagins Calvin to hold this, that the Apostles presidency; respecting the whole Church, Ministers, and Flocks, he will thus in the Sequel and Series of his Reaso∣ning, make Calvin to assert twelve moral standing Primates or Patri∣archs over the universal Church, with infallible directive Power over the same. We have also in opposition to his Proposition, demonstrat

that the Apostles were not fixed ordinary president Bishops, over the 70 in Calvin's Judgment; so that this main point of the proof of his As∣sumption, appears nought. I cannot but again observe, that with this man, the president Episcopacy, which he imagins Calvin to hold, as of a perpetual necessity, is Pauls sole Apostolick power in ordination and Jurisdiction, and consequently his primitive Fathers, must be of that same Shape and Mold succeeding in, 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 Propo∣sition 2. Touching the president Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus, o∣ver 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 ordi∣nary, 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 Preheminen∣cy 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 Im∣pertinency 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 pre∣heminency 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 Cal∣vin 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 examin∣ed its proof, and discovered his palpably absurd ridiculous Inference of Beza's owning this Diocesian, Patriarchal, Provincial B••shop, (for thus ••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 Mode∣rator, 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, continu∣ance, retention, and approbation, above expressed, viz. For avoid∣ing 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 there∣upon, is resumed upon Proposition 3. in the Demonstration where∣of, this Postulatum is adduced to prove the Major Proposition, in opposition to which, we have offered and proven the two Propositi∣ons above expressed; So that Calvin clearly disowning the appropri∣ating the name [Bishop] to this one President, as contrary to Scrip∣ture 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 Condem∣nation, 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 trac∣ing 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 insti∣tuted by Christ, (as we proved upon Proposition 1. and in the De∣monstrated Antithesis thereof) nor continued by his Apostles (as is proved in the Antithesis of Proposition 2. now retained in the Pri∣mitive 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 Pro∣position 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 Pre∣sident 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 re∣ferred 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 Pre∣sidency in Ordination and Jurisdiction, to be of equal perpetual ne∣cessity, 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 Materi∣ally and Eminenter, from which a Ministerial Authority, and Office of perpetual necessity is derived. In which sense, our Lord's pro∣mised presence with his Apostles, to the end of the World, is to be understood; We have also demonstrate this, and this only, to be Calvins sense, by a large account of the series and contexture of Calvin's discourse, in the Chapter where this passage stands, so that Calvin doth palpably contradict this mans sense, of the president Bishop. Calvin asserting the temporary expired state, and nature of the Apostolick Office, as above that of the Pastor, and like∣wise (in the citation of this Pamphleter immediately preceeding) that Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, are the only Officers, that have a Divine standing Right, of perpetual necessity; That as Cal∣vin makes the Bishop and Presybters Office one and the same, so he makes it in this distinct from the Apostolick and Evangelistick, that the one is ordinary and perpetual, the other not, the one imports

a fixed Charge over a definite Flock, the other not, the one is suit∣ed to the Churches state when exedified, the other, to its state in fieri, &c. Thus we have both admitted the Major, in a sound sense, and everted it in his sense.

Assumption.

But the President Episcopacy, (understand this still according to his mold and pleading) is that Government which is of Divine Right.

Answer.

This Assumption I deny, for proof whereof, he referrs to the pre∣ceeding Corollarie, immediately before everted, and upon which we have demonstrat the Antithesis of the Conclusion, which this man draws out in his Demonstration, brought to fortifie the same. Thus his Assumption is found nought.

Conclusion.

Therefore the want of the President Episcopacy, is prejudicial to the cause of Christ, evanishes into smoak. To which I oppose (as before) this Antithesis and Counter-Corollarie.

Counter-Corollary.

The want of the President Episcopacy, pleaded for by this man, is not in the sense of Calvin and Beza, prejudicial to the cause of Christ, or the Christian Religion. For proof of which, I offer a De∣monstration in his own mold thus.

Demonstration.

The want of that Government, which in the sense of Calvin and Beza, has no Divine Right, or Warrand, is not according to them prejudicial to the cause of Christ, or the Christian Religion. This is his own Proposition upon the matter, for if this Divine Right be

the adequat ground, rendering this want pernicious, then the nega∣tion of this Divine Right, must have the contrary effect, and in sound methods of reasoning, bear the contrary Conclusion, by the Rule of Opposits. I subsume.

Assumption.

But the President Episcopacy pleaded for by this man, is a Go∣vernment of the Church, which has no Divine Right, in the sense of these Divines. This I proved in his own mould, as he refers, for proof of this Divine Right, to the preceeding Corollary; I refer (for evincing this negative) to the confutation of his Positive or Affir∣mative, and the discovery of its falshood, immediately premised. Whereupon I draw out a contradictory conclusion to his; therefore the want of the President Episcopacy, pleaded for by him, is not in the sense of Calvin and Beza, prejudicial to the cause of Christ, or the Christian Religion, which was to be proved; or if he will listen to another Demonstration, he may have it thus.

Demonstration, Major.

If the Churches having the President Episcopacy pleaded for by him, being the sense of Calvin and Beza prejudical to the cause of Christ, then the Churches want of it, cannot be thus prejudicial.

This Major I am hopeful, common reason and learning will not suffer him to deny, Since the denyal thereof, would cause so many clear Rules, of even natural, far more this Gentlemans acquired and habitual Logicks. I subsume.

Assumption.

But so it is, that the existence of that President Episcopacy, (which he pleads for) in the Church, is, in the sense of these Di∣vines, prejudicial to the cause of Christ. This I prove thus; That Episcopacy which in their sense imports, an usurped unlawful Do∣minion over Pastors, and impeaches their Authority allowed them of God, which has thus given a rise to the destructive Antichristi∣an ••yranny over the Church, the existence of that Government in the Church, must needs be in their Judgement prejudicial to the cause of Christ. This Proposition I am confident, he will not de∣ny. I subsume.

But the President Episcopacy which he pleads for, is in the judge∣ment of Calvin and Beza, of this nature and issue. Therefore it is in their Judgement the Churches prejudice, to have been burthened with this Government. The Minor is above fully proved, First as to Calvin, in that as he clearly asserts, all Pastors to have one and the same Function, so the encroachment of one under the peculiar title of Bishop, upon this their equal Authority, we heard him expresly condemn upon Phil, 1. And next for Beza, we heard him clearly assert, that the Episcopus humanus, and the begun encroachments thereof, upon the Collegiat Authority of Pastors, in Churches Go∣vernment, gave the rise to the Oligarchical and Antichristian ty∣ranny, which was the native issue and effect thereof. (upon Rev. 2. 24, 26) And let any judge, if an Episcopacy, with such a pretend∣ed Ap••stolick Official preheminency in Ordination and Jurisdiction, over Pastors, as this man has shappen out, be not of this mould in Beza's and Calvins Judgement, so that we may again safely conclude upon the whole, that therefore the existence of this President Bishop in the Church, (to which our Pamphleter has endeavoured to draw the Patrociny of Calvin and Beza, in these distorted places, above examin∣ed) is by them condemned as an Idol of jealousy, prejudicial to the Cause of Christ, and the Christian Religion, which was to be de∣monstrated.

FINIS.