A Counter-Essay: OR, A VINDICATION and Assertion of CALVIN and BEZA'S Presbyterian Judgement and Principles; Drawn from their Writings, in Answer to the Imputations of a late Pamphlet, Entitled, An Essay, concerning Church Government, out of the Excellent Writings of CALVIN and BEZA, Attempting to fasten upon them an Episcopal Persuasion.  
Wherein is exhibit their Assertions of Presbyterian Government from Scripture, and this Author's Perversion of their Doctrine in his pretended Definitions, Postulatums, and Axioms, imputed to them, is discovered, the Falsehood of his Propositions and Corollaries, and the Sophistry of his Demonstr●●ons founded upon the whole, detected: And the Truth confirmed by Counter-Positions and Demonstrations, exhibited from the Principles of these Divines.  
By occasion whereof, some chief Sinews of the Episcopal Plead, from the nature of the Apostolic and Evangelistick Office, the Authority of the seven Asian Angels of the Churches, etc. are dissolved, and the equal Power and Authority of Pastors in Government, as the highest ordinary Church Officers evinced▪ Exod. 19.16. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Psal. 56. 5. Every day they wrest my words. 2 Cor. 13. 8. For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.  
Qui resistit non credit, Adversarius est radio lucis quo penetrandus est; non aver●t aciem, sed 〈◊〉 mentem. August, tractat. 27. in loan, 〈◊〉 haeresis, no● recipit quasdam scripturas & si quas recipit, adjectionibus, & detractionibus ad dispositionem institus sut intervertit— tantum 〈◊〉 chs●ruxit adulter sensus, qantum & corruptor 〈◊〉. Tertull, de Praescrip▪ 〈◊〉.  
Lactantius de falsa sapientia, cap. 1,  
Idem. ' Divinar. Instut. Epitome, cap. 6  
By a Minister of the true Presbyterian Church of Scotland, estab'lshed by Law.  
Edinburgh, Printed by the Heir of Andrew Anderson, Printer To their most Excellent Majesties, Anno Dom. 1692.   

The PREFACE.  
THe question concerning the true frame of the Lords Tabernacle, the New Testament Church, in point of Government, hath been a Ball of disput long tossed in this Island; this Contest might have long since had its exit, and issued in sound and solid Peace, and union upon this head, had we all with a single heart and eye, looked to the Pattern showed upon the Mount, and listened to the discoveries so often made to us, from the lovely Oracles of the Word, Ezek. chap. 43. v. 11. of the form of the House, and the fashion thereof, and the goings out thereof, and the come in thereof, & all the forms thereof, and all the Ordinances thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the Laws thereof, that we might keep the whole form thereof, and all the Ordinances thereof, and do them. Had we renounced the wisdom of the flesh, and got the penitent heart, and been ashamed for all we have done amiss; and, (as the Author of this Paper well expresses it in his Preface) preferred Religion to Interest, and the power of Godliness to that of Dominion. But restless Ambition, and love of Dominion over the House of God, and over their Brethren, and fellow servants, as they began in the Christian Churches Infancy, and had an early tincture in the Apostles (though our Lord nipped the first buds of this bitter Root, and crushed this Cockatrice in the shell, showing them, that humble Ministerial Diligence was the apex of their greatness) so the fermentation of this distemper continuing in most men, and by the influence of Satan upon man's wicked heart, diffusing itself in after Generations, hath been a spreading gangrene, still hindering the reception, and improvement of this Ordinance, of the Gospel Church-Government, whereof Scripture and Experience are irrefragable witnesses. The Apostle Paul tells us: the mystery of iniquity was working in his time, and the Embryo of the Prelatical Hierarchy, and a Papistical, consequently, then form; which we find after stirring in the counteractings, and contradiction of a Diotrophes, (that early aspiring Primate,) even unto the Apostle John. Hence the Apostle Peter in his exhortation to Pastors of the Church, doth so enixly dehort them from those two grand & Satanical enchantments, viz. Covetousness, and Lording over God's Heritage; which no doubt had its influence for checking these evils for a considerable time. But the early-sown tears of the Evil one, did by piece-meal discover themselves, first, in the advance of Beza's humane Episcopacy, the fixed Moderator, or proestos, which was next, (by the influence of the restless temper) screwed up to the Satanical, as he calls it, viz. the Diocesion Prelacy, swallowing up, and enhansing all the decisive Authority and Power of Pastors in Government; then the ascension was made to the Archbishops, and Metropolitans● Office, and Power, and by an inevitable necessity to the Culmen of the Papal Monarchy at last. The Lord having in this evening of time, and the days of Reformation, by the light of the Gospel, discovered the mystery of iniquity, and of the Papal Hierarchy consequently; and caused his People to hear his call, to come out of Babylon, and be separated from that detestable Synagogue, the Reformed Churches has generally had so deep a sense of the connexion of Popry and Prelacy, that together with the one, they found themselves obliged to reject the other; and in their Confessions, and by the Writings of their most famous, burning and shining Lights, have witnessed against this corruption of Government, as well as against that Synagogues errors in point of Doctrine; whereof the Patrons of Popry are so convinced, that one of them, Nicholas le Mastery, in a piece, Entitled, The Restauration of the ancient principality of Bishops, dedicated to Cardinal Richeleiu, Printed at Paris anno 1633, In the Dedicatory Epistle informs, that the Majesty of the Pontifical and Episcopal jurisdiction is so conjoined, and confederated together, that the enemies cannot so guide their hands, but with the same audacity, wherewith they assaulted the Pope's Crown, they likewise shaked the Bishop's Mitres, and as it were with one bloody Wound pierced both their sides— that when, and where the Pope's greatness is violated, the splendour of the Episcopal is grown contemptible. Hence we see it comes to pass (saith he) by a certain divine assent and counsel, that the Authority of Bishops should be expelled out of the same Province, out of which unhappy lust had thrust out the Papal Majesty. By what methods the Episcopal Hierarchy hath been retained in our neighbour Church of England, and what has been the issues thereof, what wrestle against it, what disputs and discoveries of its evils, by the famous Divines of that Church, until it came to be condemned, and voted against by both Houses of Parliament, and by the venerable Assembly of Divines at Westminster, anno 1600, we cannot now resume, nor shall we trace the long tract of doleful effects, corruption of judgement and practice, barbarous and bloody Persecution, funest inextricable Broils, and dissensions among all Ranks, advances of Popery, and desolation of our Church, etc. which has attended (as always before) the late erection of it in this Land, whereof our honourable Estates of Parliament discovered their deep sense, in condemning, and abolishing it in the late happy Revolution.  
But the judgement and Writings of so many Divines, and Churches abroad, striking against this Hierarchy, being found by the Promotters of that interest, such a heavy bur●en, and gripping argument, there hath several methods been used to shake off, and dissolve the same: Hence, since the late erection of prelacy, several Pamphlets have appeared, endeavouring to reconcile this Hierarchy with the judgement of the Reformed Churches, and the most famed Writers thereof. But with what success they have managed this work, the impartial and judicious have sufficiently discovered, and that in this endeavour, they have been rolling Sisyphus stone which 〈◊〉 still returned upon them, and renewed their inextricable Labour.  
Among the foreign Divines which have appeared against Prelacy, Calvin and Beza, being for Piety and Learning, men of chief name, and among the glorious Cloud of Christ's witnesses against the beast, since the Reformation, such as not only deserve a place among the thirty, but among the first three, hence it is, that this endeavour has been mainly fixed upon them; and what ever thing in their writings might seem to savour of indifferency a●e●t Presbyterian Government (whereof they are generally acknowledged to have been both by their Writings and Practices, the strenuous and constant asserters) or to cast a favourable aspect upon Prelacy, searched out, and by the outmost Artifice of near drawn Sophistry, and by the most remote consequences, stretched upon the tenter pins, to reach such a Conclusion. Hence, not only their Commentaries upon the Scriptures, and divers Passages of their other Writings, have been pitifully curtelled and disjointed, but their very Missives, a●d Letters upon various, and remote occasions from this point, brought in to witness against their avowed judgement to the World, when disputing and handling this question ex professo. Whether respect to truth, or partial respect to their cause, that e●prompted these men to such a practice, is ●asie to judge. If the base visage and stain of lying and detractions, and false witness bearing in the judgement even of sober Heathens, and of all men of the most common sense, or morality, had been with a conscientious conviction duly pondered, they had never abandoned themselves to such impious folly. The practice of abusing and counterfiting Writters, for the advantage of their Cause, hath been so much condemned in Papists, (those slaves of the man of Sin, given up to the power of lies and delusions) that Protestants might, even upon this ground, have been long since ashamed of it. It had been every way a more generous undertaking, to have offered their Answers to the Plead and Arguments of those Divines against the Hierarchy, and to have endeavoured by, fair wrestling, to wring these Weapons out of their hands, rather thus faintly to abandon the Disput, and pretending an accord with their Antagonists than upon this head. But what has been observed of Ignatius writings, that they suffered Martyrdoom when he was gone, hath been the fate (sure) of the Writings of these Divines, which notwithstanding, have hitherto, and will yet farther speak for themselves.  
For the Essays of the Author of this Paper, in this method, I shall not anticipat, what is performed in the ensuing Reply, by offering here a previous large discovery of its unsoundness; only, I may be bold to say, never any was more unhappy than he, in this undertaking, and that upon first reading of the Pamphlet, these things were obvious, and may be so to any considering Person. (1.) That the series and structure of his reasoning do clearly involve Calvin and Beza in contradictions, comparing his inferences with the Passages cited; and that he thus crosses his character of Excellent, which he bestows upon their Writings, 2dly, That disguising the Bishop, making Calvin and Beza to own, by his Epithet of the Precedent Bishop, he would seem to plead only for the constant Moderator, or Proestos, early brought in, and that he intends no further improvement of these places of Calvin and Beza; or to stretch their principles in Judgement to any greater length, yet notwithstanding in the series of his reasoning, ascribing a pre-eminence in Office, and jurisdiction to this Precedent over other Ministers, yea, & such as extends to a whole Province or Patriarchat; he shows the Inconsistency of this smooth, but foolish pretence, and hath made it as transparent, as the Crystal of the watch, 3dly. Insome of his citations, particularly in that which is adduced to prove Definition. 4th, his abuse and mistaks is so very gross and palpable, that any who reads some lines forward will find his Inference in terminis contradicted, that it's truly a wonder how any of common sense, or ingenuity, who ever read the place, could be guilty of so bold, or ignorant Forgery. 4thly, That either crassly, or willingly, ●e has been ignorant of, and disingenuously cocealed Calvin and Beza's distinction of the Ordinary and Extraordinary Church-Officers, and takes his measures of their judgement, anent the constant Government of the Church, from what they speak of the Office of Apostles, and Evangelists; whom, all that ever read these Authors, must needs acknowledge, that they hold to be Extraordinary and expired. 5ly, That as some of his citations are so palpably remote, from what he has adduced them to prove, that they do not so much as relate to one and the same purpose and subject; so all his demonstrations are founded upon gross mistakes of the subject and state of the question; and thus in stead of a mounting to demonstrative Arguments (and these so evident as to be presented in a Euclyds dress of a quod erat demonst●andum) they are pitiful beggings of the Question, and Sophisms flowing from the ignoratio Elenchi.  
He addresses in his Preface the moderate Presbyterian, but certainly the man Proselyted to this Persuasion of Calvin and Beza, as pleading from Scripture, for the Divine Right of the Precedent Bishop, with Pre-eminence in Office and jurisdiction over the Pastors of a whole Province, or Patriarchat, (which is the white of the Mark, that all his proofs are leveled at) ceases to be either Moderate, or Presbyterian; not Presbyterian, because embracing a Persuasion, and principles diametrally opposite to that Government; not moderate, because assenting to the power of a Prelate, which is beyond all limits of equity and moderation, and encroaches upon Presbyters and Pastor's Office and Authority, allowed them in Scripture, and likewise, because holding no just or moderate opinion of Calvin and Beza, who never asserted such a thing, but do hold the quite contrary.  
The Author offers his Essay to the Moderate Presbyterian's Censure and Ingenuity; and I am hopeful, that what is here replied, shall be found such a just and ingenuous Censure, and Discovery of his mistakes, as do merit his acknowledgements, and will obtain the same, if he be endued with that Moderation, Charity, Self-denial, and love to the power of Godliness, which he has here pro●est; and however, will come under the favourable Construction of a just and ingenuous Censure, with all who are truly of this frame.  
One thing I am fully agreed in with this Author, viz. That if picques and recentments were kindled into Charity, and prejudices, and worldly designs laid aside, Religion preferred to Interest, and the power of Godliness to that of Dominion, the powers of Hell could not make this Protestant Church divide about Church Government. I am confident, were we all sincerely of this Frame, We should quickly unite, in acknowledging the true Government of the House of God, which has had so evident an influence upon the power of Godliness, and jointly, and zealously oppose that Prelatical Hierarchy, which has had so deplorable an influence upon profanity and Error, and has been the great bane of both Purity and Unity in his Church, and I am bold to add, That had we all been so happy, as to be under the influence of this excellent Soul-frame, here described, we had never seen such a Pamphlet as this Essay of his, nor any of this nature, wherein there is so sad a presence of Picques and Resentments, to Charity, prejudices of Education, and Worldly designs, Interest, and an unlawful Hierarchical Dominion, to true Religion, and the power of Godliness; and no doubt, if that Prayer of his for purity and Unity, in order to the ends which he mentions, be so hearty, as be professes, the discoveries here made, will set him to endeavour our Union upon other grounds and principles, than these presented in his Pamphlet, viz. by an adherence to that Presbyterian Government, now happily restored in this Church, which Calvin and Beza do so enixly and evidently plead for, as being recommended (to use his own method and words in arguing) by the Divine institution, the Apostolic practice, the reception of the primitive Church, and the solemn approbation of a Revelation from Heaven. Otherwise if he, or such as he, professing Learning and knowledge, and by the more polite Logic Methods, to plead for Truth, and to lead us in to the sense of Calvin and Beza upon this head, continue to ply such Artifices, they will deserve such a lash, and Censure, as I find Lactantius in another case, put upon a Philosopher, in his time. Nam si qui nostrum affuerunt quantumvis temporum gratia conticerent, animo ●amen d●risete, ut pote cum vidissent hominem profitentem se illuminaturum alios, cum ipse caecus esset, reducturum alios ab errore, cum ipse ignoraret ubi pedes suos poneret, eruditurum alios ad veri●atem, eujus ille ne scintillam quidam unam vidisset, quip cum sapientiae professor, profligare sapientiam niteretur, O Philosophum adulatorem ac tempori servientem! verum hic pro sua inanitate contemprusest, qui & gratiam quam speravit, non adeptusest, & gloria, quam captavit, in culpam reprehensionemque conversa est. Lactantius Lib. de justitia, cap. 2. The same Lactantius upon this ground, will put this lesson to them, who profess to study, or teach Wisdom, in reference to Truth and Simplicity in this endeavour. Est enim nesas eum qui veritati s●ude●, in aliqua re esse fallacem, at atque ipsa quam sequitur virtute, discedere. In hac justitiae virtutumpque omnium via. nullus mendacio locus est. Itaque viator ille verus ac justus, non dicet illud Lucilianum, homini amico ac familia●i non est mentiri meum, sed etiam inimico atque ignoto existimabit non esse mentiri suum. Nec aliquando commiter, ut lingua interpre● animi à sensu & cogitation discedet, de vero cultu, cap. 18:  
For the Grounds of my undertaking this Reply, and the manner of performance, take this just and true Account. This Paper was, a little after it came abroad, put into my hand by a Gentleman, who, together with a Minister, requested my undertaking the Vindication, of Calvin and Beza, from the Imputation thereof, which I declineed upon several Grounds, which appeared to me considerable; for beside my Disability, and the then public hurry and consternation upon occasion of the Viscount of Dundee, his prevalency in the North, my own personal Circumstances were such, as did put considerable Remora's and Impediments in my way, which might deter from such a Work as this, being then far from my Books, liable to many Toss, and several important Ministerial Duties, so exercising me, that I could promise myself no suitable opportunities, or help for this performance; espeicially having upon first view of this Pamphlet discovered, that as a full and exact perusal of Calvin and Beza was needful for a satisfying Confutation, so the author's mistakes were so palpable, that probably it would be reckoned by the generality of all who should see it, as among those thing— Quae spreta exolescunt; and like Beslus in the Comedy be secured from Censure in its own want of worth; or if any Answer were judged requisite, this Work would be performed by some better hand than mine, and to much more advantage; and indeed I was once informed, that this was done by a person of known ability for such undertaking. But being pressed by the persons before mentioned, to take this Paper to consideration, I did at some spare hours, mould this ensuing Answer, intending at first my own private satisfaction only, and of some Friends, which after a considerable times lurking, I caused Transscribe, and some having perused it, whose judgement I am bound to reverence, who encouraged to a publication as useful, I have yielded to this motion, If the Prolixity offend, I have this Apology, that having many diversions while a Writing, I could but now and then take a little touch of it; and besides, having at first written the Animadversions, contained in the second Chapter, and upon a review of Calvin and Beza, drawn out these Positions, contained in Cap. 1 I judged it would make this Reply more full & clear to annex them. likeways the Author's Demonstrations being made up of References to his premised Definitions, Postulatums, and Axioms, this put me some way under a necessity of a compendious Resuming of what is Answered upon them; since an Answer to his demonstrations (which are the Elixir distilled from his former Chapters of Definitions, Postulatums and Axioms, and the main Projection thereof) made up of mere References, though in itself sufficient, yet to most Readers would appear too mean, obscure, and superficial. I did also judge it not improbable, that some Readers would in the first place, if not only, view what is Replied to his Demonstrations; who thus have a compendious view, of what is Replied to the whole Pamphlet, presented to them, rendering the Eversion of his Demonstrations the more convincing and conspicuous, and likewise the solidity of the Counter-Demonstrations subjoined.  
I have traced the Author's Method, as in the Series of the matter; so likeways in Tendering the Passages cited only in English, except in some few places. It seems he mainly Addressed the plain English Readers, and so do I in this Answer, I hope the Passages cited, will be found justly Translated, and that I am so far from, designing any advantageous Addition or Interpretation, that on the contrary, through study of Brevity, the Weight and Emphasis of some places is obscured.  
The slow appearance of this Reply in public, will seem no strange thing to any who consider the account of this Undertaking, immediately Premised. If what is here offered, shall be found a Word in season, for Vindicating Truth, and strengthening the hearts of any sincere contenders for the Faith, I have my Design in Writing, and the upright Readers also in the Perusal. If this shall meet with opposition from a proud, hardened, and self-conceited Party of Men, who continue to state themselves in Terms of Contradiction to the true Government of this Church, and her just and legal Establishment, as it will be no surprisal to me (the morning Light of Reformation being to such as the shadow of death) so, under the safe, and honourable Conduct, and Shield of Truth, I will not be afraid, how weak soever in myself, to speak with them in the gate. The weakest Believer, and follower of the Lamb, can do some thing for Truth, and finds the way of Truth their strength, and the strongest, proudest Adversaries can do nothing against it. It is certainly a great piece of the work of our day, to plead for our Mother, according to our capacity, when so many are pleading against her (and her provocations most sadly) as also to plead with her, that her Abominations may be put out of the sight of her provocked jealous Lord. The Adversaries have (Proteous like) form themselves into various versatile shapes, and taken odd measures in opposing her Restauration. When of a sudden, the Dragon (as it were) was with his Angels cast to the Earth, Prelacy, and Supremacy, together with the Agents and Instruments thereof baffled, and pulled down by a Parliamentary Decision, these men were for some times amused into a silent Consternation. But straight this Essay pleading for a precedent moderate Episcopacy, in an Engine set awork to restore and heal the Beast of its deadly Wounds, but this project is found ineffectual, Presbyterian Government being Established in the hands of Presbyterians. But behold another Engine and Method of opposition, they do closely but vigorously assist at this time the Armed Rebels, within and without the Kingdom. But these men (the Egyptian Reed they lean to) are broken and brought under, and the Waters overflows this Hiding-place, and Refuge of Lie. Another method of assulting this Church is, to ply the King with their Oratory, or if he be inexorable to them, the Church of England must be set upon this work. and carressed with the outmost Diligence, and Artifices; the English Service must be set up in Edinburgh, in separate meetings, and Pamphlets spread through England, stuffed, with Tragical complaints of their Sufferings, and with whole Legends of manifold lies and calumnies, cast upon our Assemblies, and the faithful Ministry of this Church, as also upon several persons of eminency concerned in promoting the Lord's Work. If this will not do, and the bright beams of discovered Truth, and our Church's innocency dispel this Cloud, the fruitful invention of these Assailiants sets awork another project, 'tis an old one made new again, take 〈◊〉 in, let us build with you— Addresses are made for receiving them into the Judicatories of this Church, But what wit or honesty hath appeared in their several attempts this way, and in plying this Engine, Time (whose Daughter Truth is) has already in part, and ere long will further discover; (though our Church has always witnessed a willingness to receive them upon terms, consisting with the safety of the Government) This certainly is a project, that of itself, hath much of the Old Serpent's subtlety in it; Traitors within the Walls of City, are the most formidable Enemies. We all know the story of the Trojan Horse, and who said, Equo ne credite ●eucri, and— timeo Danaor & dona ferentes. The feigned Submission of a considerable number of Hannibal's Army to the Romans, when both Armies were standing in procinctu, and ready to join Battle, proved an efficacious Stratagem, whereby that subtle redoubted General gave them a great and bloody overthrow, at the Field of Canna; These new supposed Auxiliaries having thus, because among them a greater advantage to do them mischief in time of the Battle, than any other of his Army. I must here add, That the unsound Tincture (in many things) and dangerous design of a late Paper, bearing the specious Title of, A further Vindication of the present Government of the Church of Scotland, looks very like a correspondence with the same project of her Enemies. But He who is higher than the highest, (whose weakness is stronger than man, and His foolishness wiser than man) regards, and has an early Eye in the Morning Watch, through the Cloud, upon the Egyptians. Let us lament after him, and lift up our ardent cries unto this great Shepherd of the Sheep, in this signal juncture of Difficulties, when the Children are brought to the Birth, and there seems no strength to bring forth, that he would stop the way against Adversaries, give His judgements to our King, holy sagacity to scatter the Wicked with His Eyes, and bring the Wheel over them; that He would revive His Work, and People, behold, and visit this Vine, lay yet the Stones of this poor tost-Church, with fair colours, and her foundations with Saphires, bring back His Glory to His House, and Plant His Tabernacle among us for evermore.   

A Counter-Essay: Or, a Vindication and Assertion of Calvin and Beza's Presbyterian Judgement and Principles, drawn from their Write. In Answer to the Imputations of a late Pamphlet, Entitled, An Essay Concerning Church-Government, out of the excellent Writings of Calvin and Beza, attempting to fasten upon them an Episcopal Persuasion.  

CHAP. First.  
The Scripture Account of Presbyterian Government Exhibit in some plain Positions, out of the Writings of Calvin and Beza.  
THat we may Exhibit in the beginning, a clear Prospect of the Judgement, of these Learned Divines, in point of Presbyterian 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 undeniable Maxims and Axioms, Demonstrating their Judgement herein from Scripture:  
First, The ordinary Officers, which Christ Institute, and the Church's practice warrants, are Bishops, Elders, and Deacons; we need not Caution what Calvin means by Bishops, it being obvious to all of common Sense, who do but read him, that he intends the P●●tor or Minister, Instit. lib. 4. cap. 6. Sect. 11. with Cap. 4. Sect. 1.  
2. Evangelists, were next to Apostles in Office, were to preach every where, and were fixed 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 Institution, Comment on Philip. 1.  
4. The reason of this is, that all Pastors or Presbyters, have one and the same, and an equal Function, and Official Authority, so that Dominion in any of them over another, is a sinful impeachment of this their equal Official Power and Authority, lbid.  
5. The passage, Tit. 1. 7. proves abundantly, that there is no difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter, the Apostle using both names indifferently, as jerom hath observed. Therefore the Office being common to all Pastors; it is an absurd perversion of Scripture Language, to give this Official name (Bishop) to one, robbing the rest of the Pastors, thereof; Ibidem. And if he quarrel the robbing of them, of their Official Name, therefore much more the robbing them of any piece of their Official Power and Authority.  
6. The Bishops, to whom Paul committed the Charge of the Church of Ephesus, in his last farewell, were Presbyters, Bishops of equal authority. Calvin on Act. 20. 28. He observes, That all Presbyters are called Bishops indifferently, and therefore the Bishops differs nothing from Presbyters; hence he holds, that both Name and Thing of a Scripture Bishop, is proper to every Pastor.  
7. All Pastors have equal right in Ordination, Pastors only Ordain, and not the People. They have all one and the same Official Power and Function, to which they are called of God. Instit. lib. 4. cap. 4. sect. 2: Comment. on Phil, 1. 1.  
8. The Pastors are the highest ordinary Church Officers, Titus his Evangelistick Authority, in Crete was a Vicarious Transient, unfixt Ministry, in Paul's place and name, beyond the limits of this ordinary Function of Pastors; supposing the Church not Exedified, and in this differing from the Pastoral Office, which doth suppose, this exigence of the Church's state to over. Calvin on Ti●us 1. cap. 5. and 6 verse.  
9 This Evangelistick Authority, while existing, was not to wrong, or deerogate 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 fixed 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; wherein they differ from Apostles, Prophets and Evangelists, who are temporary and expired, and not thus necessary for the Churches ordinary and perpetual Government. There is one Episcopacy, which is Christ's alone, whereof every Minister of the Gospel hath an entire and equal share, Calvin on Ephes. 4. 11. Instit. lib. 4. cap. 3. sect. 14. But of this further, when we come to examine the third Definition.  
11. The consistorial ordinary Collegiate Authority of Pastors, in ordination and imposition of hands, is examplified in the imposition of the Prophet's hands at Antioch upon Paul, as Gods standing order and method in point of Ordination. Neither Timothy, nor any Evangelists authority, was to encroach upon this; and the Apostolic Precepts to Timothy and Titus, Lay hands suddenly on no man; and that other, I left thee in Crete, to ordain elders, are groundlessly and impertinently pleaded, to prove the sole authority of any one Church Officer, in Ordination or Jurisdiction; but this authority is in the Collegiate 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, etc. and Instil: lib: 4. cap. 4. sect: 2. at the close, their work was only to moderate the Meeting, and gather the Votes, etc. Comment on Tit, 1. vers. 5. 6.  
13. As Timothy and Titus, their Evangelistick Inspection, was beyond the limits of the ordinary Office of Pastors, and in respect of its naure, and time of existency, such as could not be succeeded unto; (Calvin on Tit 15, 6, verses, compared with Comment: 1 Tim. 1. and 6. with v. 18.) so what our Lord enjoins to the seven Asian Angels, doth nothing impeach this, even taking them for single persons, or Precedents, since they were such, as had the rest of the Minister or Angels, their Colleagues; and not so much as the necessity of a fixed Moderator, or Precedent, can be drawn from this Assertion, Beza on Rev. 2. 24, 26, verse.  
14. The fixing of Precedent 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 john 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, opposite thereunto, which is the Relics of Papacy, and will bring Epicurism into the Church, if admitted, Bez. Ipist. 79. to john 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 Ancients, were deceived. Ibid.  
17. There was among the Apostles met together, no distinction of degrees, but only of Order, as in other Ecclesiastical Meetings and Assemblies, until the humane Episcopacy, was brought into the Church, which shortly turned into Satanical, Beza on Acts. 1. 23.  
18. The Apostles had an immediate Call to their Office, to which Office was annexed an extraordinary measure of the Holy Ghost, which is Termed Infused; This immediate Call is the true and genuine Mark of the Apostolic Calling, which expired with the death of the Apostles themselves, when they had fulfilled their work in framing Churches. Evangelists were assumed by the Apostles without the Church's 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, etc. Beza on Galat. 1. v. 1, 2.  
19 The Apostolic Office lay in this, to Constitute Churches through the whole World, by a sort of peculiar right, as appears from Christ's Command, and their whole History; therefore Churches being Constitute, this Office also of necessity was taken away; it is therefore a Tyrannical Term, for any to profess himself, an Apostle by succession, Evangelists being Attendants, and helpers of the Apostles, as was Timothy, who is by name called an Evangelist, this Office was therefore Temporary also. The Doctors and Pastors are of perpetual necessity in the Church- Beza on Ephes. 4. v. 11.  
20. The Brethren mentioned, as with Paul. (Gal. 1. 2.) were the whole Presbytery 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 Watchmen, do watch over and inquire into the Doctrine, and the conversation of the Flock committed to them; such were these in Act. 20. 28. who are sometime called by the general name of Presbyters, as Verse 17 of that Chapter, and in first of Timothy. 5. 17. This was then of old the Appellation of 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 Precedent, began to be peculiarly called the Bishop; from hence the Devil began to lay the first foundations of Tyranny in the Church of GOD, the whole administration and Government of the Church, being as it were with the name transferred upon One, then from the Episcopal Tyranny, it came to Me●trapolitants, whom they call Archbishops, etc. From Metrapolitants, they advanced to the first four primary Patriarches, the Christian Republic, 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 Controversy never decided unto tlis day, sometimes the one, sometimes the other avouching himself the universal Patriarch. The Roman Bishop in the mean time, being condemned of Falsehood (falsi) in the Carthaginian Counsel, of (two hundred and seven Fathers) yet such was the ambition, that (the Constantinopolitan Patriarch even now is set over the Churches spread through the East, if they may be called Churches) the Roman has invaded both Churches and Kingdoms of the West, by a just Judgement, depriving them of their Sceptres, by whose help, he invaded a Tyranny over the Churches. Behold, of how great moment and consequence it is, to decline even in a hair breadth from the Word▪ of GOD. Beza on Phil. Cap. 1. 1.  
21. The presbytery 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 [presbytery] any such Assembly is to be understood, Beza in locum. All Pastors are servants of that one Legistator, Christ in the Ecclesiastic Office; there is no dominion of one over another, he only excels 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 Precedent, 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) etc. is to be understood of the A●gel, or Precedent for the time, and the Assembly of his Colleagues; In which passage, the conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or, and, is necessarily 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 man's 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 Paul's Epistles, Beza, Respon: and caput sextum Sarav No Apostle or Evangelist was above another, and both these Officers are ceased. Beza ad Cap 9 Numb 15. apud S●aviam, the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Leader, which the Apostle useth thrice, Heb.  
13. and which our Lord expones, john. 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 term Proestos, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to them, who preceded over the Assembly of their Colleagues, not as more eminent in Degree, but only as being first in order. lbid, Numb. 20. secundum. Sarav.  
2. The Office of Pastor and Doctor, are the chief functions of the Church, perpetually necessary, Beza. resp. and Cap. 11. Numb. 3 juxta Sarav.  
3. Such as deny the Office of Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists to be temporary and ceased, they must either conclude, that the work of building and completing the Churches, is left by them imperfect and manck, which is most false, and cannot be said without their reproach, or that afterward, the whole Edifice is so far subverted, that for its Restitution, we need not only faithful Pastors, Doctors and Presbyters, but Architects to lay the foundation again, Evangelists, for the Superstructure; last Prophets, and other gifts of the Spirit, for confirming their Work. Beza. ad Cap. 16. Numb. 3. with Sarav., The preserving this Edifice entire, 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, Baptising and governing the Church with Pastors and Presbyters, was ordinary, their unconfined Inspection, Apostolic Authority, in planting and watering Churches, was temporary and expired. Beza. Ibid. Numb. 11. The ordinary perpetual Government they committed to Pastors, Doctors, Elders, and Deacons. Ibid. Numb. 12. The perpetual form and Authority of Governing the Church, of teaching and administrating Sacraments, yea, and of her Restauration and Propagation, is committed to Pastors, Doctors, and Elders, and remains as thus committed to them, and prescribed by the Apostles and Evangelists; Yet their infallible Authority of founding and completing Churches, is ceased with their life. Numb. 13. Their function and Office died with them, not the form and rule of Government, committed to Pastors, Doctors, etc. 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 Apostolic 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 promised to the ordinary Ministry Beza. ad Cap. 17. Numb. 2. apud. Sarav.  
5. An Episcopal Degree, with some show of Apostolic Authority, is no where to be found in Scripture, is condemned, Luke 22. 25. gave the raise of that oligarchy and Tyranny which came into the Church, and therefore there is no divine Right left for such a Succession, ad Cap. 16. Numb. 17. apud Sarav. As the Apostles Gifts are such, so their Power and Authority is not succeeded to, by any ordinary Church-Officers, nor hath the Church power to set up any such Office. Ad Cap. 17. Numb. 3. The pretence of Archbishops, Primates, Metropolitants, their Succession to Apostles, or Evangelists (Timothy, Titus, Mark) and a continuation of their power or authority in the Church, is a groundless Conjecture, condemned in Sarav. Beza in Cap. 18. Sarav. the same condemned ad Cap. 19 Numb. 3.  
6. The Office of Precedent 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, Ruling Elders, are to join with Pastors; Beza. resp: ad Cap. 20. Numb. 1. The state of this Controversy is, whether he who is set over the Meeting of Pastors, of any Church, has any command or power over these his Colleagues, as inferiors 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 enjoined to deliver the Incestuous man to Satan, when gathered together, were the Pastors and Presbyters of Corinth, who by Ecclesiastic Judgement and Censure, were to purge the Church of this Leaven. As every Church after its first beginnings had Pastors and Presbyters; so it is not supposable, that Paul who stayed there half a year, and Apollos who followed him, did not upon the first opportunity, furnish that Church with a Presbytry. Ad cap 23. Numb: 17: and Numb 2, and 3. Apud Sarav: at large setting down Ieroms testimony in Epist. ad Oceanum & ad Euagrum Comment. in Epist. ad Titum, together with the Scripture proofs, anent the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter, showing that the Bishop's superiority over the Presbyters, was founded on Custom, not Divine warrant; upon which Beza collects thus, this coth jerom assert, not in one place only, or few, or as of a thing doubtful, but often, copiously, and peremptorly, ascribing to Bishop and Presbyter, as one and the same appellation, so one and the same function, Ad. cap: 13. Numb: 2 and 3.  
8. The divine Bishop, or who is institute by divine Right, is the same Office, with that which is pointed 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 distinguished, 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 College, or meeting of these Pastors, and Bishops, together with such Elders, as Paul calls Governments, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are the same who are called the Presbytry, 1 Tim. 4. v. 14. Beza de Episcop. triplici. initio. Their Office was to attend the Word and Prayer in public and private, and to govern the Church jointly, and in common, Ibid.  
10. The humane Bishop that is brought into the Church out of humane prudence, beside the express Word▪ of God, is a sort of Power given to some one Pastor above his Colleagues, yet limited by certain Rules and Cannons against Tyranny. ibid. That this Function was not brought in, from the Word of God, is evident from this, that we cannot find in the New Testament the least jot, from which we may draw such a conjecture; for although there is no doubt that all things ought to be done orderly in the house of God, and that therefore there has been some Precedent in every meeting (whom john in the Revelation seems to call the Angel, justin calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Precedent) that this Precedent, excepting this only, that he was the first Moderator in the Ecclesiastic Actions in the Assembly, had no power over this Colleagues, far less exercised any Office superior unto them, ibid. Hence as jerom observes, the Author to the Heb. calls all the whole Assembly of Presbyters, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rulers, pointing at none of them. Such for the most part was Peter in the College of the Apostles, etc. 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 seeing Paul salutes the Bishops, and Deacons of the Philippians in the plural number; which since it was not done, it appears, that among these Rulers, there was none in degree Superior 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, etc. ibid. Thereafter he refutes Ep●phanius arguments, for his humane Episcopacy, as if it were the Divine. Wherein we see how peremptor Beza was as to this Distinction; and mentioning Epiphanius argument from that precept (against an Elder receive not an accusation) to prove Timothy's Episcopacy, he refutes this by many arguments, calling this the Error of Epiphanius, that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus; which he tells him may be convicted of falsehood from Scriptures; as mainly from this, that he was Paul's 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, until 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 jerusalem, never to return to Ephesus, he had either (upon Epiphanius supposition) restored Timot●y to these Ephesian●, or they had sought him again, being warned of such hazards; or if another was put in his place, he had peculiarly be spoken him, in that Divine 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 Evangelist, adorned with so many and singular Gifts, in degree superior to Prysbyters, and for a time constitute there, by Apostolic 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 denied, 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 itself, not by the Authority of any one Superior. After he cites Augustin (Epistle 19) asserting, that by the Church's custom 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 excommunicate the incestuous Corinthian alone, by his Apostolic 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 rend 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 tacit custom, advancing by degrees, so we must understand of this human episcopacy, as Antecedaneous to the Satanical, whatsoever justin, Ignatius and other eminent Writers, do speak of Bishops, or rather of the first Precedents Authority.  
10. The Moderator of the Ecclesiastic Synod, or Consistory, who is to ask the Votes, and moderate the whole affairs, is for this one end to be chosen by their common suffrages, or Votes, which Office must expire and end with the close of the Synod: Beza in Quest: secunda, referente Saravia pag 92.  
11. No Scripture truth can be produced for a standing mission of the 70 Disciples, to preach the Gospel, after our Lord's Ascension, of a like nature and continuance, with that of the twelve Apostles, or that they were sent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or immediately; The Apostles Mission, Math. 10. Luk. 9, Mark 5. Was not that which is called peculiarly and properly Apostolic, 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 afterwards sent by a new Vocation, and wholly different from the first, for planting Churches through the whole World, adorning them with a peculiar and abundant 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 Apostolic ●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 divers 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 omitted, a matter so necessary, mentioning only that of the 12 Apostles; and granting it had been, this will not infer any imparity of power, betwixt them and the 12 Apostles, or that Christ made them two distinct Orders, or divided them in two Classes; the after Institution, and addition to the other that's prior, will not prove an Inferiority in that Mission of the 70, which Luke only commemorates. What degree will we find, whereby they may be subjected to the 12. Who had a prior ●ission? That the Apostles were assumed by Christ, as domestics, will no more ground their imparity, with other Disciples, than it will make john superior to the other Apostles, because a Disciple most dear to Christ beyond other Disciples, it was the Apostolic function, which thereafter gave them a priority of Order, and also of Power, unto other Disciples, Beza resp. ad cap. 1. Sarav. de divers. Minist. Evangel. grad. Refuting after the argument, drawn from the addition of the 70 Elders to Moses.  
Now from these passages of Calvin and Beza, how clearly Presbyterian Government is asserted in its whole Structure and Frame, and the opposite Fabric 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 mere Battalogy, and an attempt to show 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 denied.  
3ly. That no extraordinary Power of Apostles, and Evangelists, can ground a standing presidency over Presbyters.  
4. That Church Government under the New Testament, is to be administered by their joint decisive Suffrage.  
5. That the Ruling Elder is standing Church Officer appointed by Christ, &c: And in opposition to this Pamphleteers forged Definitions, Postulatums and Actions, how easy is it from what is premised, to bring forth Calvin and Beza's counter-assertions, and present these great Divines, as jointly witnessing him a Liar and Calumniator therein. As first, that there was no standing pre-eminence in any Churchofficer above the Pastor, allowed to Christ to be continued in the Church, against the definition 3d, and the pretended proof of definition 2d.  
2. That the Angel had no fixed presidency over other Ministers, against what is pretended definition 3d.  
3. That what is set down in Scripture anent the 70 Disciples, sent out after the 12 Apostles, will not give the least shadow of an Argument, whereby different degrees of Ministers may be concluded, against the scope of Postulatum first.  
4. That the Inspection of Timothy and Titus over Ephesus and Crete, had no fixed power of Ordination and Jurisdiction, over these Churches included therein, in contradiction to Postulatum 2d.  
5. That the preeminency of one single person in Office unto other Ministers, was never by God's Warrant, retained or practised by the Church for remedy of Schism, against the scope of Postulatum 3d.  
6. That these first Precedents introduced by the primative Church, were not preheminent in Office unto other Ministers; whereby the same Postulatum is again convict of Falsehood.  
7. That not so much as a constant Precedent 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 Preeminency, of an ordinary Churchofficer, over the Pastor, in contradiction to the scope of Definition 3d 4. Postulatum 4th. Axiom 2d; And finally, that this official Preheminent office over the Pastor, has neither a divine Right, flowing from Christ's immediate Institution, nor Apostolic from the Apostles doctrine, and practise, or of the Apostolic 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, particularly Postulatum 3d, 4th, Axiom 2d, 3d, 4th.   

CHAP. Second.  
THe Author's 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 Judgement, a precedent Bishop with a fixed Power of ordination, preheminent unto, and above Pastors, with a proportioned Power of Jurisdiction over them, is an ordinary standing Officer appointed 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 preeminency he makes them assert, as extended to a whole Diocese, Province, or Patriarchat, as he calls it. For proof of which, several passages of Calvin and Beza (but of Calvin especially) are adduced.  
Wherein in general, his obvious Perversion and Abuse of these Divines, is evident to any that compares his Assertions, and Citation; First, in that Calvin and Beza are supposed by him, to hold the Apostolic and Evagelistick Inspection, and Authoirty, which are supposed in the Scriptures here cited, and in the passages of calvin's Institutions here adduced, to be ordinary, and of perpetual necessity. Thus he grossly 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 Church's infancy, exercised, by the Apostles or Evangelists; So that if we can prove, that these Divines, did not judge the Authority and Power of Apostles and Evangelists, or their formal Office as such, to be of a moral nature, continued in the Church, or that there are constant necessary Officers succeeding them, in preeminency or superiority in office, all that he says falls to the ground. To prove this, first in general, it is evident from what is said, that both Calvin and Beza, with all sound Protestant Divines, do hold the Offices of Apostles and Evangelists, and consequently their official Power, as such, to be expired, and that neither of them are succeeded, in idem officium, § eundem ministerii gradum, this is evident to all who have read these Divines; and for evincing it, I would but ask this Pamphleter, whether Calvin and Beza do not hold and suppose, that our blessed LORD was, when upon earth, the Churches visible universal Head and Monarch, and that the Apostles afterward had an universal, unconfined Inspection and Authority over the whole Church; and that particularly and Apostle john, 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 therence 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 Evangelists to be such, or their proper Official 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 Citation of Calvin, to confirm Axiom third, viz. his Instit. lib. 4. Cap: 6. Sect: 11. The Primacy of the Roman See takes not its Original from Christ's Institution, nor the custom of the Ancient Church, as the other Offices have done, (viz. of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, cap: 4 Sect: 1) mentioned already. Now surely if he had judged other Offices perpetual and warranted by Christ's institution, and the ancient Church's 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 showing what Offices 〈…〉, and the ancient Church's Custom will allow as warrantable. To show 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 Calvin's Judgement, 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 fixed power of Ordination, and Jurisdiction in these places.  
3. If these Divines held the Apostolic and Evangelistick Inspection and Authority, to be moral and perpetual, than they behoved to hold it such, either as one and the same with the pastoral Office, and a superior degree thereof, or as an Office specifically distinct, and superior; But neither of the two can be said to them: not the first, for we heard them both assert, that all Pastors do hold one and the same Function, and that none of them have any official Authority over another, particularly we heard that Calvin, (whom our Phamphleter mainly appeals to) upon Phil. 1. reprehending the abuse of the Word [Bishop] in appropriating it to one Pastor only, he gives this Reason; That from this abused Signification of the Word, there hath followed this evil, that as if all Presbyters, were not Colleagues, called to the same Function, one hath usurped to himself a Dominion over the rest, under pretext of this new Appellation, So that he holds the Pastoral Official Authority, to be one and the same in all Pastors, and none to have an Authoritative Inspection over the rest.  
Again, Calvin could not hold this fixed Preheminent Authority to be continued in the Church, as importing an Office specifically distinct from, and superior to that of the Pastor.  
First, for the Reason already given; for since that supposed inferior Officer were thus, both an ordinary Officer, and were likewise Eminenter a Pastor. How could Calvin quarrel a distinction, and peculiarity of a Name to point out a superior Pastor? or how could he affirm that all Pastors without exception have one and the same Function?  
2. We heard that Beza and Calvin do hold that the Apostles, and Evangelists, had no fixed Station, over which they were set; and so could not as in that capacity, have any fixed Power of ordination and jurisdiction.  
A second perversion of the Doctrine, and sense of these Divines in this point, and false Supposition, which this Authors arguing is grounded upon, is this, that he distinguishes not, their simple Narration of a practice 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 undeniable instance from Calvin, (whom as I said our Author mainly appeals to) To prove his, 2 Postulatum, viz. that in calvin's judgement, the Church warrantably retained the Government of one single Person, preheminent in Office unto other Ministers, he citys Calvin instit: Cap. 4. Sect. 2. Where Calvin shows, that Presbyters in all City's, choose one out of their Number, to whom especially they gave the Title of Bishop, lest from a parity Division might arise; That Jerom says at Alexandria from Mark the Evangelist, to Heracleas' and Dyonysius, Presbyters always placed one in a preheminent degree, whom they called a Bishop. The same we heard Beza acknowledge, as to the matter of Fact. Now I say it is gross Perversion from Beza or calvin's Narration of this matter of ●act, to infer their Approbation of the Practice. 1. For that clear demonstrative Reason already adduced.  
2. This cannot be held and obtruded as their Judgement, 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 practice of the fixed Precedent, and his appropriate Name of Bishop, as giving the rise to all the ensuing corruptions of the Church-Government, so doth Calvin evidently on Phil. 1. forecited, condemn two points of this Practice. First, in setting one Presbyter in a superior Degree over another, for he affirms they are all Colleagues, called to one and the same Function, having the same Work, the same Ordination, the same Official Power and Authority; ergo he owns a perfect Parity, and disowns an Imparity in the Offic●, and preeminency in Degree in one above another, and therefore by further necessary consequence, he disowns and cannot allow of the Practice of this at Alexandria, as warrantable.  
2. If Calvin disowns this Imparity and Dominion, as fomented and having its rise from the appropriating the Name [Bishop] to one Pastor, rather than to another, than he disowns the appropriating the Name to this preheminent Presbyter, as a badge of this Preeminency, 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 Identity of the Bishop and Presbyters Office, from the Apostles using both Names indifferently; As also, (saith he) I●rom hath observed, and that more hath been ascribed to men's pleasures, and inventions, than did become, in preferring men's habituated term, to the Language of the Holy Ghost; And speaking of the first Moderator's early brought in, he shows 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 profane Boldness; and that upon Act. 20. 28. He concludes that all the Presbyters, have both Name and Thing of the Scripture Bishop, appropriate unto them.  
Here let any rational Man judge, especially from what is above evinced 1 Chapter; If Beza and Calvin make not the Name and Thing of a Scripture Bishop proper to every Pastor, and consequently condemn not the abovementioned 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 God's Institution, and Language in Scripture. And whether it be not most consonant to Reason, to collect Beza and calvin's Judgement, upon their Assertions and Inferences from Scripture, when reasoning the Point ex professo, rather than from their simple Narration of a matter of Fact, and practice of the Church.  
If he say that his third Postulatum, speaks only of what the Primitive Church retained in calvin's Judgement. I answer, First, what will a simple Practice in itself signify, to infer a Rule and Duty, without any more; Or calvin's Narration, to infer his Approbation. 2. Comparing Postulatum 2. and his Assertion of calvin's Judgement, anent the fixed Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction, which Timothy and Titus exercised over other Ministers at Ephesus and Crete, with Definition 3. Anent and Precedent Bishop, his preheminent Office, in Ordination over other Ministers, and what he asserts (Axiom 3 and 4.) viz. that Calvin holds this to be necessary to the very Being of the Church, it's evident, he must be thus understood, as asserting Calvin Approbation of the practice. This Man will not deny that the state of the Question is, what the Church retained upon Divine warrant, in Calvin and Beza's Judgement. 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 mere 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, mars the whole Digestion of Sarav: his arguings against Beza) viz. That the different and extraordinary Privileges, of Christ's first Ministers, the Apostles and Evangelists, doth also diversify the Essentials of the Pastoral Office itself, so as to infer different standing Degrees thereof, an Error, which though frequently told of by Beza, he doth nothing but repeat in his whole Dispute; But that our Authors Mistakes may further appear, we do proceed to a particular Examination of his Definitions, Postulatums, and Axioms, and the Propositions, Demonstrations, and Corollaries drawn therefrom.   

CHAP. Third.  
An Examination of the Definitions in Point of Church-Government, imputed by this Pamphleter to Calvin and Beza, wherein is discovered his gross Perversion of the Doctrine of these Divines.  
I Confess, that upon first reading of these Definitions, I was a little surprised, to find this Man, (who by his Profession, no doubt is skilled in the Nature and Terms of Definitions) Found these Assertions upon what he here citys 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 Governors of the Church, to separate Persons duly qualified unto the holy Ministry of the Gospel. To prove this Definition to be calvin's, he citys 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 Governors who have Right in Ordination, are the Pastors in Calvin's judgement. 2. If Pastors, as such; then all Pastors, for a Quatenus adomne valet consequentia. 3. Pastors, properly such, having in Calvin's Judgement one and the same Office, being called to the same function, and no preeminency in one over another allowed, as we heard him above assert; Ergo in Calvin's Judgement, all Pastors have the same and equal Authority in Ordination. 4 The Pastor being with Calvin, the highest ordinary Churchofficer, and the formal Office of Apostles, and Evangelists being expired, as is above cleared: Ergo in Calvin's Judgement, 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 Governors 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 preheminent 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 Governors, 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, (Definition 3. compared with Axiom 2.) an● withal, 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 follows 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 Judgement, for speaking of the Apostolic Decision (Acts 15.) He says, they would not step beyond the limits of the Word▪ Next, for that Pre-eminence, which Calvin ascribes to those Officers in Authority and Counsel.  
I Answer first, What ever this Pre-eminence 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 involve him in a double contradiction; first, in that he says, The Evangelists were Coadjutors of the Apostles, and fixed to no Station. 2. In that he shows upon the 7. v. of this Chapter, that there is no Official difference, in the pastoral Office. Again, Calvin shows upon the same place, that Paul enjoins 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 Administration in his own room, and that the Apostles having a transient unfixt Ministry, being about to spread the Gospel every where, behoved when going from one place or City to another, to surrogate fit men to finish what they had begun.  
2. He asserts in terminis, that this Vicarious Office and Administration, 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 Administration, and that of the Pastor, which is ordinary, in that Pastors are set over Churches already Form and Constitute; But Titus had an Office beyond this, viz. To give this Form to Churches, not as yet modelled, as to Government; asserting eudently, 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 Apostolic Office too, upon whose foundation these Evangelists were to build, and exedifie what they had begun. 3. He asserts expressly, That the preaching Presbyter and Pastor, 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 College of Pastors, or their consistorial decisive Authority in Government, and Answers, that matters were not committed to Ti●us arbitrament, to set up what Pastors he pleased, but he was only to preside over the Elections, as Moderator, etc. 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 Precedent Bishop is he, who from his Office, preheminent to other Ministers, is invested with a fixed power of Ordination, regulate by Cannons; (to prove this, he adduces Calvin on 2 Tim. 1. v. 6. who asserts, that Paul himself declares, that he alone, and no other Ministers with him, laid hands on Timothy) he adds in the Definition, (and of Jurisdiction, balanced by assisting Ministers,) for proving which part of the Definition, he adduces Calvin, Instit: lib: 4. cap: 4. Sect: 1. Asserting, That whatever parts the Consul had in the Senate, 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 Forgery, 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 Precedent 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 Judgement, according to that man's pleading, and so this proving too much, proves just nothing.   

Answer 2.  
2. I ask, whether this supposed Power of Ordination, is to be balanced, as that of Jurisdiction, by assisting Ministers, or authoritatively 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 Senate, and turn not his Precedent Bishop, to an Absolute Prince, and his power to a power of Dominion over the meeting,) if not, than first, How can be suppose the one to be balanced thus, in Calvin's Judgement, rather than 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 pre-eminence in Office and Jurisdiction, being one and the same, in Axiom. 2.  
If this Power of Ordination, is to be balanced in calvin's Judgement 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 Precedent 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 fixed 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 Calvin is very easy, for on this 5th Verse, he says, that Apostolis nulla certa statio erat assignata, that they had no fixed Station, and consequently neither a fixed nor ordinary Power, thus upon 1 Corinth. 12. 28. he says, Paul reckons up both perpetual and temporary Officers; the Temporary was that of Apostles, who were appointed to found Churches, and erect Christ's Kingdom therein, whose Office shortly after ceased and evanished; the Apostles were appointed to spread the Gospel through the World, and had no certain Charges and limits of parochs, but wherever they came, were to deliver their Message, wherein they differ from Pastors, who are tied to their Churches, etc. upon Eph. 4 11. he tells us that the Apostles Office, was to Preach the Gospel in whatever place they came into. To plant Churches and erect the Kingdom to Christ, so that they had not every one peculiar proper Churches assigned to them, but all of them had a general command to preach the Gospel whereover 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, without 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 entirely 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 describing 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 Officers, he thus expesseth 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 endure continually, etc. From all which I dare refer it to any man of Candour and Conscience, whether Calvin hold not  
First in general, That the Official Power of Apostles and Evangelists, 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 exercised in erecting, and edifying of Churches accordingly.  
4. That neither the one nor the other was to encroach upon, or in that Age by themselves, or thereafter by any pretended Successors, to derogate any thing from the ordinary decisive Collegiate Power of Pastors.  
5. That herein lies the ordinary necessary Church-Government, to be continued to the end.  
Finally, To make it further convincingly evident that Calvin placed the ordinary Collegiate 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 shows that the Holy Ghost enjoined this manner of Separation, even of Perso●● thus singularly elected by himself, that by this grave Document, Ecclesiastic Discipline might be preserved, in setting Men apart for the Ministry, viz. by Ministers joint Authoritative Imposition of Hands; and (Sect. 15.) stating the Question anent a Collegiate 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 Magistrates, by receiving the Suffrages; which, 〈◊〉 with what is above said, evidently proves, that in Calvin's Judgement, the Power of Ordination is a Collegiate Power, seated in the Meeting of Pastors, and exercised by their joint 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. Calvin 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 College of Presbyters. So that Calvin will be found to hold, that Paul's Imposition of Hands, though solely, will nothing deerogate from the ordinary Collegiate Power of the Presbytry. 1. Because the conferring of Gifts thus, was his Apostolic Privilege. 2. The simple Imposing of Hands alone will import no sole Authority, since ordinary Pastors might intrust the Ritual Performance to one in their Name. 3. As no Apostolic Prerogative was in Calvin's Sense to encroach upon the ordinary Power of Pastors, and consequently not this of Paul's sole Imposition of Hands, though supposed, so his Supposition anent the Presbytries' Authoritative Concurrence in this Action, clearly overthrows our Pamphleteers pleading and scope.  
To the proof of the second Branch, anent a fixed preheminent Power of Jurisdiction, in this Precedent Bishop, which our Author endeavours to evince from Calvin Instit. lib. 4. cap. 4. sect. 2. It's answered (beside what is said above) That 1. the Word (always) is not found in all that Section. 2. Calvin clearly asserts, that this Titular Bishop had no dominion over his Colleagues, but what parts (not whatever parts) the Consul had in the Senate, 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 Judgement, as to Infringe the joint Collegiate, Decisive Power of Presbyters, to whose Votes, he was tied; and what differed this from that of a Moderator, if we except his being fixed.  
Next, Whatever Power he might Exercise beyond that of a Moderator, Calvin tells us, that this was Humano consensu inductum pro temporum necessitate, by Humane Advice and for the times Necessity; therefore he holds it not to be received for a fixed divine Appointment, citing jerom for the Judgement 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 preeminency from Humane Custom, and not Divine Institution. 3. He acknowledgeth, (Sect. 1.) that whatever sincere Aims the Ancients had, in conforming 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 Precedent Bishop, was subject to the Assembly of his Brethren; so that a fixed preheminent Precedent Bishop, having an Authority preheminent over the Votes and Suffrages of Presbyters, and not subject to the, with a peculiar Title of Bishop, as thus preheminent, was not received by the Church de facto in her first purest times, far less jure divino; and never after Warrantably, or as a Divine Officer in Calvin's Judgement; from all which it is demonstratively evident, that our Pamphleteers 3d Definition, is none of Calvin's, but a Chimaera of his own Fancy. We come then to the 4th Definition, which is this.    

Definition 4.  
The Angel of any Church Representative, is the Precedent Bishop over other Ministers, within their respective Diocese, Province, or Patriarchat. To prove this, Beza is adduced on Rev. 2 c. 1, and 24 v. To the angel, that is to the Precedent, 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 Precedent 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 Patriarches, this cast even of Diocesian and Provincial Churches, will hardly, if at all be found, till 260 years after Christ. 2. How proves he from these words, that Beza esteemed every Representative Church, to be either that of a Diocese, 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 Judgement, a fixed, constant, far less a preheminent Bishop, with a fixed official Presidency over other Ministers? May not all this be verified of a Moderator, pro tempore, or a Speaker of the Parliament, viz. That an Epistle from the King, to the Synod or Parliament, is especially to be addressed to these Precedents, 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, anent the Episcopus divinus, humanus & Satanicus. He would have kept off this fantastic 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 preeminency or presiding in any Pastor, which encroaches upon the Decisive Power of his fellows, to be allowed of God. Finally, To convince yet further, of the folly of this Citation, out of Beza, let us hear how in the same place, he antidotes this man's washpish extraction out of his words, for after he has Exponed that Clause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (to the Angel) to the Precedent, he adds, Sed hinc statui Episcopalis ille gradus, etc. But that Episcopal degree which was afterward brought into the Church of God, certainly, neither can, nor aught to be hence concluded, nay not so much as the necessity of the Office of a perpetual Precedent, as the thence arising Olligarchical Tyranny, whose Head is the Antichristian Beast, now at length, with the most certain ruin not of the Church only, but of the World also, makes manifest; so the Beza (as is from hence above cleared) holds the very fixed Moderator to be an humane invention, and the poisonous Egg, out of which Antichrist was hatched. Add to all this, that Beza by this man's acknowledgement, calling the other Ministers, the Colleagues of this Precedent, doth in that very term deny to him, a supereminent 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 preceding, 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 man's pretended Definitions, are to found and fortify his ensuing Propositions and Demonstrations, we do proceed to examine that which he calls his Postulatums, the first whereof is thus.  

Postulatum 1.  
That the seventy Disciples (from among whom Mathias was called 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 commendation 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 Preachers, not simply secundary Preachers; he says also, Nulla illis proprie commissa fuit legatio, no Legation or Mission was properly intruded to them (which we heard Beza also above assert) Bus as Christ's Aparitors, were sent to prepare the people's hearts to receive his Doctrine.  
Next I observe, that though by his inserted Parenthesis, he would have it believed, That Calvin holds Mathias to be one of the severity 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 proper 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 mention it. In a word, Calvins Principles above-evinced, anent the extraordinary, personal, expired power and inspection of Apostles and Evangelists, as such; and anent the Pastor his being the highest ordinary Officer in the New Testament Church, and his clear and positive assertion 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 standing 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, invested with a fixed power of Ordination, and Jurisdiction, regulated by Cannons, and balanced by assisting Ministers, To prove this, he citys Calvin, 1 Tim. 1. 18. v. asserting that Timothy was not one of the common 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 Discipline, 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 Judgement continued in the Church; so that whatever preheminent power over ordinary Pastors, Calvin may suppose, at this time existent in Timothy or Titus, it will never reach this Pamphleteers conclusion, anent his asserting a moral standing pre-eminence, 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 Calvin, he must show us his assertion anent a fixed, and not only so, but likewise, (as is said above) an ordinary Power, or of a Moral perpetual Nature, in Ordination and Jurisdiction, over other Ministers, and exercised by Timothy and Titus; which that Calvin disowns, is evident thus.  
1. They whose Office, and Official preeminency 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 Judgement, the Office and Official Pre-eminence 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 every where, and supply the Apostles rooms, when going from one place to another.  
2. They whose official Pre-eminence, and formal Office, supposed the Churches in fieri, and was appointed for assisting the Apostles in Exedifying them, they had in calvin's Judgement, no fixed moral or standing Preeminency 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 Apostolic Office formerly existent, which we heard above, both Calvin and Beza disown; but the Office of Timothy and Titus, in Calvin's Judgement was such, as we heard also above. Ergo.  
3. They whose Official Power, is expressly by Calvin distinguished, from that power which is ordinary and of perpetual necessity in the Church Government, their supposed Preeminency lays no foundation for a fixed moral precedent, preheminent Bishop, over Ministers, as of perpetual necessity in the Church, unless he will make Calvin in contradiction 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 distinguishes 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 calvin's Judgement, 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 calvin's Judgement, Timothy and Titus were set over no particular Station, as we heard him above assert. Ergo no Evangelists properly such, were in calvin's judgement fixed to any particular Station; as we heard him above assert. But Timothy and Titus were the Evangelists properly such, as we heard also him affirm. Ergo.  
Finally, so absurd is this man's 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, than (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 judgement, for a moral fixed Precedent Bishop, with Official standing Preeminency, over Ministers and Churches, as he would make Calvin affirm.  
2. That Office or Charge, which was beyond the limits of the ordinary power of Pastors, that Office and Power in calvin's judgement, is extraordinary and expired; but such was in his judgement the Power and Office of Titus at Crete, as his second passage adduced, by our Pamphleter makes it evident, and several other places of Calvin, of which above. The Major is evident in this, that with Calvin, The Pastor labouring in the Word and Doctrine, is the highest ordinary Officer of a necessary standing nature, as we heard him above assert. The Minor is evident in this plain assertion set down, by this man himself.  
3. If we shall compare these places adduced by him, with Calvin's Comment: upon the whole Context, this man's absurd imposing upon him will be further evident; Calvin shows in the Argument of the first Chapter, that many things at Ephesus were wanting, which needed Paul's interposed Authority to set in order; and upon the 1. verse, as also in this Argument, he shows, that it was not to Timothy alone he wrote; and upon the 3. verse, that, that Church's necessity forced Paul, to demit such a dear Coajutor to supply his place there, and upon this 18 verse he tells us, that for this end Prophecies went before on Timothy, because he was appointed to hard and great matters, for (says he) he was not, è unlgo, of the ordinary class and rate of Ministers, but next to Apostles, that therefore he had need of a singular Testimony, that it might appear he was chosen of God himself, that then it was not ordinary or common to be honoured with Eulogies of Prophets, but in Timothy there were peculiar Causes, therefore God would not have him set about his Office, but fitted with prophetic Oracles, nor to be admitted by men, until approved by his own Voice, as it was with Paul and Barnabas when sent to teach the Gentiles. In which words let any man judge, whether Calvin doth not hold his Office extraordinary, both upon the account of his Mission, his peculiar Gifts, and the nature of his work and Inspection, as upon the same ground, he holds the Office of Apostles to be such. In the Argument of the Epistle to Titus, he shows that Paul hasting else where, entrusted 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 expressly asserts the Identity of the Bishop and Presbyters Office as the same, and upon the 5 v. asserting the same thing, he shows that he had no arbibitrary Power in this matter, but that of a Moderator, that sustaining Paul's room, and having his place as it were assigned to him, the Apostle will have him acknowledged as his Vicarious Substitute, that Paul leaving that place, left Work for others, as he was at Corinth the Master-Builder, but others built on his Foundation, the Church still standing in need of Pastors for her increase. But lest we take Titus work to be no other than what is competent to ordinary Pastors, he presently rids Marches thus, Sed ultra ordinarium pastorum munus, etc. but beyond the ordinary Office of Pastors, Titus had the care of constituting the Church committed to him; Then (as is above-observed) he distinguishes him in this, from Pastors, who are set over Churches reduced unto Form; But Titus (saith he) had a Work beyond this, even to form Churches not as yet moulded, etc. And after stating the Question, whether Titus had not in appearance a Kingly Power over the College of the Pastors, and their decisive Authority, he answers, as is said above, that his Power was not arbitrary, but that of a Moderator etc. 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 fixed, as that of the Apostle Paul, whose Deputy he now was, and likeways that his power did not take away the collegiat decisive Suffrage of Pastors, over 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 Falsehood of this man's Assertion, is satis super que evident. Proceed we to the Third Postulatum which is thus.    

Postulatum 3.  
That for the avoiding of Schism, the Primitive Church retained the Government of one single person preheminent in Office unto other Ministers. This is proved by Calvin, Instit. lib. 4. cap. sect. 2. where he asserts, that Presbyters, out of their number in all their Cities, did choose one, to whom especially they gave the title of Bishop; lest from a Parity (as useth to be) Divisions might arise, jerom says, at Alexandria from Mark the Evangelist, to Heraclas and Dionysius; Presbyters always placed one in a preheminent Degree, whom they called a Bishop.  

Answer.  
The absurdity of this Inserence, from Calvin's Assertion, is above fully cleared, and that Calvin owns not a precedent, with a power in Ordination and Jurisdiction, or preheminent unto other Ministers, or a power Paramount unto their Collegiate, Decisive, Suffrage, and consequently, no warrantable practice of the Church hereanent, as this man absurdly infers from his Words, to make which evident,  
First, I inquire, What he means by the Government of one single person, and a pre-eminence in Office; neither Matter, nor Words, being so found in this passage 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 Pastors; that it doth infringe their Decisive, Conclusive Suffrage, or importeth a sole Pre-eminence in Ordination and Jurisdiction, as he must needs hold, and doth assert (Axiom 2. compared with Definition 2 & 3.) This to be Galvin's Judgement, Calvin in the very next Words gives him the Lie, for he adds immediately, neque sic in hon●re & dignitate superior, etc. neither was he so Superior, as to have Dominion over his Colleagues, but what Power the Consul had in the Senate, to inquire the Votes or Sentences, etc. Again this man acknowledges in his Citation, to prove Definition 3. That Calvin asserts the Power of this Precedent Bishop, to be like that of the Consul in the Senate, but will he dare to say, that the Government of the Senate, in Calvin, or any knowing man's Judgement, was confined to the person of the Consul.  
2. We said above, that Calvin acknowledges, the Ancients their aberration from the Scripture Rule, in their Church Government, and that this Custom in his own and Ierom's Judgement, was brought in humano consilio, and pro temporum necessit●t, by humane Advice and Counsel, and according to the times exigence, wherein he clearly distinguishes, this from a Divine Institution, authorising a divine Office of God's Appointment, for he presently citys that place of jerom upon Titus, (mentioned above) wherein he shows that by divine Appointment, the Church was governed by Presbyters in common; And that the than Bishop's power was only by Custom, not authorized by divine Appointment; So that our Pamphleter will never be able to conclude, from these words, Calvin's Recommendation and Approbation of this practice, but on the contrary, Calvin and jerom both, doth suppose what ever thing in this practice, was an encroachment upon the Presbyters divine Power, was a humane Device and sinful Usurpation, which would be convincingly evident to any that considers.  
3. That this Practice of appropriating the name [Bishop] to one, is (as I did above clear) in terminis, condemned by Calvin, as an abuse of the Holy Ghosts Language, and making way for one Pastor, his encroaching upon the Power of his Colleagues. We told him that upon Phil. 1. 1. having asserted the Identity of the Bishop and Presbyter, he tells us, that this place is made use of by jerom, to prove Presbyters Divine Parity, he adds, postea invaluit usus, etc. afterward Custom prevailed, that he whom Presbyters set over their collegiat Meeting, was only called the Bishop, but this had its Original from the custom of Men, but is not at all grounded upon Authority of Scripture. In which words, this practice (which our Pasqueller would make us believe hath Calvin's 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 appropriate to one Minister, and not also upon the singularity of an Official Pre-eminence, which this man pleads for. Two words more I add on this, that if this man will allow Calvin any Interest, and consent in, and to the Confession of the French Church, he is there told by Calvin, that the true Church ought to be governed by that Policy, which Christ hath ordained, viz. that there be Pasters, Presbyters, Elders and Deacons, and as to a preheminent fixed Presidency, they do thus in terminis disowne it. Again we believe that all true Pastors wherever they be, are endued with equal and the same Power, under one Head and Bishop CHRIST JESUS; Thus expressly disclaiming this preheminent Power in Ordination and Jurisdiction, (which our Pamphleter makes Calvin own)▪ or any supposed Precedent or Pastor, with official power over his Colleagues, and that upon the same ground of Cyprian, which we heard mentioned, and approved of Calvin, viz. That Christ hath in him the original sole Episcopacy, whereof in a perfect Parity, he has imparted to every Minister an entire and equal share.  
Next, I offer to him the sense of the famous Doctor Reynolds, upon these words of Calvin, in his Letter to Sir Francis Knolls, cited at large (Petri. Hist. part 3. pag 400 and 69, 70, 71.) upon Ieroms words, à Marco Evangelista, the Doctor proves, that by the Decree of the 4th Counsel of Carthage, cap 3. anent Presbyters interest in Ordination, (which proves, saith he, that Bishops ordained not then in all places alone, although jerom says, Quid facit excepta ordinatione, etc.) 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 jerom could not mean Bishops, in Alexandria to have had this sole Power. And as for that place of Calvin (instit: lib. 4. cap. 4. Sect. 2.) cited then by Doctor Boncroft. (anent whose Sermon he wrote that Epistle) he shows, that Calvin relating the practice of choosing one to proceed, and giving him the Name of Bishop, doth notwithstanding show that he was not above the Presbyters in Dignity and Honour, or to rule over them, but was appointed only to ask the Votes, to see that performed that was agreed upon by common consent; And having showed that this was brought in by consent of Men, in Ieroms Judgement, he adds that Ierom otherwhere shows, how ancient the Custom was, from Marks time to Heraclas, etc. In which words of Calvin (saith the Doctor) seeing 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 jerom and Calvin both, as well as from this passage, it's evident that neither of them doth affirm Bishops to have had all that time, such a Superiority as Boncroft, fathered upon them. Wherein the Doctor clearly affirms and proves, that neither of these places of jerom or Calvin, would bear, either an Assertion of this matter of Fact, viz. the forementioned Precedent his exercising a sole Episcopal Authority, or their approbation of the Government, of one single person, preheminent in Office unto other Ministers, as this Pamphleter suggests. Proceed we to the 4th Postulatum, which is this.    

Postulatum 4.  
The 7 Angels of the seven Churches written unto in the Book of the Revelation, are encouraged against all the devices of the Ungodly, upon condition of their continuing faithful in their Administrations. To prove this Beza is adduced on Rev. cap. 2: 26. My Works, that is he who shall faithfully perform the work laid upon him; for he bespeaks the Assembly of Pastors, in the person of the Precedent, to whom he promiseth Victory against all the Wicked, if he rely and trust in the Authority and power of that True and only Head of the Church. To which I answer.  

Answer.  
First, we have proved upon Definition 4, that Beza's taking this Angel for one single person, by whom the rest were to be admonished, will infer in Beza's Sense no pre-eminence 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 Precedent, 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, than a faithfulness in the exercise of their joint Collegiate Power and Authority, which Beza holds, was our Lord's Institution, and then existent. Thus we have seen this man's Postulatums, as insufficient to found his Conclusion, as the Definitions. Proceed we now to his next Section of Axioms.     

CHAP. Fifth.  
THe Axioms in point of Church Government, imputed by this Pamphleter to Calvin, examined, and found impertinent to fortify his Scope and Conclusion. The first of these Axioms is this.  

Axiom. 1.  
THe regular Call of any Minister already Ordained, is from an Office of an Inferior, to another of a preheminent Station. To prove this, Calvin is adduced on 1 Tim. 3. 13. saying, That because in one or two Centuries, after the Death of the Apostles, it was the constant Custom, that from the Order of Deacons, the Presbyters were chosen, therefore commonly they have exponed this place, of the advancement to a superior Degree.  
First, as to the pertinency of this Citation, to prove the Axiom as here set down, I answer.  

Answer.  
First Calvin hath no such words, that it was the Constant or Universal 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 Paul's words, that they are worthy of no small honour, who do well acquit themselves in this Administration, because it is not a base, but a very honourable Office; so that what ever this man would make of this Axiom [that the regular Call of a Minister already ordained, is from an Inferior to a supereminent Station] Calvin doth neither absolutely hold this, as always necessary, and consequently the Axiom is not true in his Judgement, nor doth he hold, that the practice as to matter of fact, was constant and universal.  
3. Giving, not granting, that Calvin held the Custom, to have been throughout these Centuries, to ordain none Presbyters, but such as were before Deacons, unless he can prove, that Calvin held the Custom to be founded on divine Warrard, this will only prove that Calvin held it to be an humane Custom, and consequently alterable; ergo in Calvin's Judgement, 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 stretched upon the Tenter-pins till they crack, viz. that every Presbyter or Minister, must be first a Deacon before he be Ordained, ergo what? I would fain know by what Logic he would fasten his grand Conclusions to this Principle, viz. That there are different degrees in the Pastoral Office; And that, one may and aught to be a fixed Precedent Bishop over them, with a preheminent fixed pow●r of Ordination and jurisdiction. Again what means he by [any Minist●●] if all Church Officers under the New Testament, as he needs must? since he holds there are various sorts of Ministers under the New Testament, Apostles, Evangelists, Pastors, Deacons, who have all their formal Successors according to Calvin; How doth he infer Calvin's Judgement, as to the regular Call of all, from what he Asserts as to the practice of one? Again what calls he [a Minister already ordained?] Can there be any Minister or Churchofficer who is not ordained? Ordination being relative to some Church-Officers Administration. Finally, what means he by the [regular Call] of this ordained Minister? If his Instalment into a higher Office, than this is formally his Ordination; So that Axiom will run thus, the regular Ordination of any Minister already ordained, is from an Office of an Inferior, etc. But this is both redoundant in sense, the Ordination of one already ordained, being necessary from a lower to a higher Station, and likewise impertinent to his Scope and Design, viz▪ to prove that none were ordained Pastors, who were not first (in Calvin's Sense) ordained Deacons; If by [regular Call] he mean the Call to the exercise of his Function else where, than 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 Judgement in this point, yea, and hardly reconcilable to sound Sense.    

Axiom. 2.  
The 2 Axiom, the pre-eminence in any Office, includes a proportioned Jurisdiction, over the Officers, who are under them. For proof of this Axiom we are referred to Definition 2, and 3.  

Answer.  
To which I Answer, We have up●● these his two Definitions made it good, that this pre-eminence in Office, and proportioned pre-eminence in Jurisdiction, which Calvin in the places therein cited, supposes competent to the Apostles, and Evangelists, was in his Judgement, neither.  
First, a fixed Pre-eminence 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 calvin's Judgement, it was such as did expire, with the persons of these extraordinary New-Testament Officers; And that 3. That this Pre-eminence in Office and jurisdiction, while these expired Offices did exist, is by Calvin asserted to be cumulative unto, not privative of, the ordinary Collegiate Authority of Pastors, in Ordination and Jurisdiction, and was not to encroach upon this their standing essential Interest, and Power in Government; which in Calvin's sense, necessarily continues their fixed Privilege to the end.  
So that in a word, if he should apply this general Maxim, to these necessary Officers, which Calvin holds to be of perpetual use, viz. Pastors, Elders, Deacons, it shall be easily admitted, but without the least help to his design; If he apply it to his supposed fixed Precedent, with Official Pre-eminence 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 Ecclesiastic 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 Catholic Church is only with them: Because it hath not taken its original from Christ's Institution, nor the custom of the Ancient Church, as the other Offices have done, (viz. Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons, Cap. 4. Sect. 1.) mentioned already.  

Answer.  
This Maxim needs not a very long animadversion, since the scope he drives at, is not in the least reached by it, nor our cause prejudged, restricting it unto, and confining it within the limits of that place of Calvin here cited, viz. That the Church Government by the Officers mentioned in the close of this citation, has its original from Christ's Institution, was continued in the Apostolic, and Primitive Church, for moral standing ends.  
But 2. Comparing it as here worded, and understood by him, with his first Corollary, wherein we have the knack of his Project, and improvement thereof, we must a little further animadvert, and observe here; That,  
First it exceeds the limits of this Citation of Calvin, in that clause of [approbation from Heaven by revelation] which in the forementioned Corollary, he understands of an express, and formal delineation, in the Epistles to the 7. Churches of Asia, upon his supposition, or rather distortion of Bezas' meaning, anent the Office and Authority of the Angel written unto; for either he must understand it, (as it's evident he doth in that Corollary) of an approbation, Thus specifially distinct from both the preceding Clauses, and so the assertion is none of calvin's in this place, or else if it be the same, with what is said of Christ's Institution and continuation by his Apostles, and the Primitive Church's Retention, this Clause is pitifully redoundant, and a mere 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 degenerate, from Apostolic purity, and Institutions, in point of Government; so that in his Sense, the Primitive Church's practice, simply considered, will not make a complete and just Square for Government. If we compare what he says, chap. 3. and 4. initio, This will be evident, for he tells us in the place last mentioned, that hitherto he has spoken, of Church-Government, and Officers, as purely institute by God in his Word; insinuating, that the ancient Church, had quickly her additions, so that Calvin makes not the Ancient Church's Retention, any part of the Rule simply, but makes it Regulable by the Divine Warrant and Institution. I may add, that as calvin's citation makes no mention, of the end of this Institution, whatever may be gathered from it, so it is certain, that in all reason, and in calvin's Principles, the Church-Government, which has an entire Divine Right, must be commensurat, not to any only, but to all the ends, wherein the well being of Christians is concerned.  
Finally, when Calvin (as is above hinted) in stating the distinction betwixt the Ecclesiastic Officers, which have a Divine Right, (I mean, a moral standing Right, as Church-Officers of perpetual necessity) and such as have it not, but are founded upon the Church's custom, which Calvin distinguishes, from this Right, when I say, speaking of the first, he refers us only to these mentioned, it is certain, he excluds this man's supposed Successors of Apostles and Evangelists, in a standing preheminent presidency, over ordinary Pastors; and consequently holds, that the immediate end, grounding a necessity of Apostles and Evangelists, their Institution, being temporary, and passing off with that exigence of the Church's infant state, the necessity, consequently of these Officers, and of their formal Official Power, and Authority, is expired also, with this its end, which laid the foundation thereof.    

Axiom 4.  
The want of that Government in the Church, which is of Divine Right, is pernicious to the Gospel, and Christian Religion. This is proved by Calvin (Instit. lib. 4. cap. 8. Sect. 2.) The words cited are, for neither the light, and heat of the Sun, meat or drink, are so nourishing, and sustaining this present life, as the Apostolic and Ministerial Office for preserving a Church upon Earth.  

Answer.  
This Axiom is no doubt very sound, and consonant to Calvin's judgement, and of all sound Divines, and therefore taken in a sound sense, can be easily admitted, without the least prejudice of it to our cause. But   

Answer.  
2. Taking it in the Sense and Intendment of this Pasqueller, and comparing his scope in this, and the preceding Citation, which is to prove, that Calvin makes an Apostolic standing pre-eminence, 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 itself; We say, he offers violence to Calvin, and pitifully involves him in Contradictions.  
First, in that he makes him to hold the Apostolic 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 Officers, which have a divine standing Right of perpetual necessity; unless he will say, that Calvin holds the Apostolic and Episcopal Office, to be in a formal Sense, one and the same, which assertion is above convicted of falsehood▪ out of calvin's 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 Apostolic 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 Church's state when exedified, the other to its Infant state, and in fieri, etc.  
3. For the passage here cited, or rather miscited by this Man, take a full account of calvin's 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 Christ's giving to men a Vicarious Ministry, supplying the want of his visible presence, adding several reasons, viz. To show 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 shows himself present, and puts forth the Power and Virtue of his Spirit, thus grow we up (saith he) if Preaching be vigent among us, if we receive the Apostles, despise not the Doctrine offered to us, adding the words miscited by this Pamphleter, (as in cap. 8 Sect. 2.) viz. That neither light of the Sun, meat or drink, etc. are so needful, as the Apostolic, and Pastoral Office, that is, in so far as the Apostolic Office contains the Ministerial or Pastoral Materially, and Eminenter, and so hath derived from it, a perpetual standing Gospel●Ministry, and Ministerial Authority, necessarily 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, until the end of the World.  
Thus I say, the Apostolic and Ministerial Office, may according to Truth, and in calvin's principles, be said to be perpetually necessary for the Church, but without any advantage to this man's scope and design, a● is obvious to the meanest reflection. But lest our Pasqueller, quarrel 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 shows the dignity of the Gospel Ministry, by the Scripture Elogi●●, that their feet are beautiful (Isa. 52.) That the Apostles are called, the light of the World, and the salt of the Earth, (Matth. 5. 13, 14. v.) He that hears you, hears me, Luk. 10. 16. Then citing the 2 Corin: 3. and 9 v. He says▪ The Apostle shows, there is nothing more glorious, and excellent in the Church than the Gospel Ministry, since it's the Administration of the Spirit of Righteousness, and life eternal. Nihil Evangeli● Ministerio in Ecclesia, magis pr●clarum. Then (Sect. 9) beginning the second part of the Chapter, he descends to speak particularly, of the Persons to whom Church Government is committed, they are nominat (saith he) by Paul, first Apostles, secondary Prophets, thirdly Evangelists, fourthly Pastors, lastly Doctors. Then he adds, ex quibus, duo tantum ultimi ordinarium 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, Prophets and Evangelists, he adds, sequuntur Past●re● & Doctores quious career 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 Administrations in the Church Government were temporary; or expired, and what Offices were institut to be of perpetual continuance. And at the close of this Section, he positively asserts▪ (which at one dash cancels all this Pamphleteers pitiful suggestions here) t●hat Pastors, [s●ting aside the Apostles extraordinary Privileges] eandem cum Apostolis sustinuit Provinciam, has the same employment, and perpetual pastoral Office assigned to them with the Apostles.  
Then offering to clear further, what this Office and Province is, he doth accordingly (Sect. 6.) reason thus, That the Apostles Patent and Commission, bearing the preaching of the Word, and the Administration of the Sacraments, as the substantials and main piece of their Office, the Pastors are properly their Successors, in their Official Power; That Paul said not of himself only, but of Pastors, (let a man so account of us, as Ministers of Christ, and Stewards of the Mysteries of God; And that (in Titus 1. 9 v.) the Bishop must hold the faithful word, and by sound Doctrine teach and convince the gainsayers; lashing expressly Prelates 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 shows, that this Pastoral Office, in relation to the Administration of the Word and Sacraments, includes and imports the preservation, and exercise, of the Discipline and Government of the Church.  
Thereafter (Sect. 8) he proves from Titus 1. 5. Phil. 1. 1. Act. 20. 17. That the Office of the Bishop, Presbyter and Pastor, is one and the same, Section 5. He proves, that the Election of Pastors, is by his Colleague— Pastors with the People's 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 appendent Power of Jurisdiction, and Church-Government included therein, which he asserts to be of as perpetual necessity in the Church, as the Sun, and Meat and Drink are to the World, and not the formal temporary Office of Apostles, and Evangelists, as such, or as including any Superiority over the Pastoral Office, the Man, I say, who needs any further proof of this, than what is above touched, hath a crack in his intellectuals, and may be set to his Horn Book again.     

CHAP. Sixth.  
THe Propositions and Demonstrations drawn out by this Pamphleter, upon the premised Definitions, Postulatum●, and Axioms, (as the great projection and scope thereof) examined; the the unsoundness thereof discovered, and the Antitheses of his Propositions established, and his Demonstrations everted, by Counter-demonstrations, from Calvin and Beza.  
Having thus evinced to the conviction of the judicious and impartial, the pitiful mis-application, and forgery of all this Mars Citations, out of Calvin and Beza, to fortify his scope and design, in these assertions, which he calls Definitions, Postulatums, and Axioms; His Demonstrations drawn from them do fall by course, as the Superstructure when the Foundation is razed. His Principles being found unsound, his Demonstrations, (the birth of them) will appear lighter than vanity; And like the little bag which Children finds in the Fields, and call the witch-ball, will be found to evaporat into Smoke with a small touch.  

The first Proposition he undertakes to Demonstrat from his Positions, above-examined, is,  
That the 12 Apostles were precedent Bishops, over the 70 Disciples.  

Answer.  
In general, I may again animadvert here, that if by being Precedent Bishops, be understood the Apostles univeral directive Authority and Inspection necessarily connected with, and sounded upon their infallibility, 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 imagines, that Calvin & Beza, doth this restrict their Presidency or Episcopacy to the 70 Disciples, for thus they were precedent Bishops, over the universal Church, both Ministers and People, and that while they lived; In the same respect, and upon the same ground, upon which they had this presidency over the 70 Disciples, they had it universally over all, both in the judgement of Calvin (as is above evinced) and of all sound Divines. And in whatever respect he can allege Calvin, to hold their Presidency, to be universal, over the 70 Disciples, it's easy to prove that he holds this Presidency, to be universal over all Churches and Ministers; and therefore if he will from hence infer, successors to them in calvin's judgement, he would make him hold twelve moral standing Primats, and universal Patriarches or Popes, with infallible directive power over the whole Catholic Church.  
2 I observe, that by asserting the Apostles, to be mee● Precedent 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 Prelatic Dominion, over Church Judicatories served up to the highest Peg. Follows the Demonstration, whereof the first Proposition is,.   

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

Answer.  
This Proposition, as here worded, we did above dis-prove, and did show, 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 ordinary power in the Apostles, both which we have found Calvin doth disown in several places above-cited. Besides the above-evinced inconsistency of the two Branches, of this Proposition, compared with his pretended proof; so that the Major appears nought. The assumption is,   

Assumption.  
But in respect to the 70 Disciples, who were all in the holy Ministry (by Postulatum first) and from among whom Mathias was called to be of the twelve by (Postulatum 1.) The sacred College of the Apostles, had a fixed preeminency, (by Axiom 1.) invested with the power of Ordination, regulated by Canons, (by Postulatum 1. and Definition 1.) and of Jurisdiction balanced by assisting Ministers; (by Axiom 2)   

Answer.  
Not to resume what we have animadverted, upon his Assertion anent 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 College of Apostles, their fixed pre-eminence, the Axiom itself asserts the regular Call of any Minister already ordained, is from an Inferior, to a Superior station, we did show the impertinency of calvin's 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 calvin's.  
2. For his inference from it, that the 12 had a fixed Preeminency 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 Pre-eminence over the 70 Disciples.  
3. If by [Fixed] he mean a pre-eminence ordinary, and to be continued, we have proved that Calvin denies and disowns this, in the places above cited, and asserts as evidently as man can speak, that the Apostolic Official Pre-eminence, as such, was neither Fixed, Limited, nor Ordinary; that they were invested with a power of Ordination regulate by Canons, he tells us is proved by Postulatum 1. and Definition 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 Calvin's assertion of the Sameness of the pastoral Function in all ordinary Pastors, and the extraordinary expired Nature of the Apostolic Inspection and Authority, cuts off his inference of such a standing Subordination among Pastors, as he imagines him to hold.  
Next, what a Rope of Sand is this, the 70 were inferior 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 Governors of the Church to separate persons duly qualified to the Ministry; This Calvin asserts, is proper only to Pastors, which we proved, doth infer clearly against this man's Design, calvin's asserting the Pastor to be the highest ordinary Officer, and the expired extraordinary Nature of the Apostolic and Evangelistick 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 jurisdiction over Pastors, to be transmitted to the Church, (which is this man's Scope and Conclusion upon the premised general Assertion of Calvin, anent the right of Church-governors) to be a mere non sequitur, and an ergo, baculus stat in angulo.  
The Apostles Preeminency in jurisdiction balanced by assisting Ministers, 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 Apostolic Preeminency is with Calvin neither Fixed, nor ordinary, or of a moral standing Nature, but did expire with these extraordinary 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 Pamphleteers grand Conclusion of his Demonstration.   

Conclusion.  
Therefore the 12 Apostles were precedent Bishops over the 70 Disciples, 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 Minister's 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 premises or conclusion from the places of Calvin referred unto, in the two Propositions of his Demonstration.  
And unto his Demonstration and proposition, I do from what is above evinced, oppose his Counter-demonstration, and Antithesis of his Position and Conclusion. The Proposition is.    

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

Demonstration.  
They whose presidency was not fixed 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 presidency, over the 70 Disciples. But the Apostolic presidency was of this Nature, in the Judgement of Calvin; ergo the Apostles were not ordinary fixed precedent Bishops over the 70 Disciples. The Major is evident, for to be fixed, and not fixed, ordinary and extraordinary Precedents, 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 Apostolic Inspection, to be both Universal, Extraordinary and Unfixed. Hence we may safely conclude, ergo the Apostles were not ordinary precedent 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 precedent Bishop over the Church of the Ephesians, and Titus over the Church of the Cretians.  

Answer.  
Before I come to his Demonstration, I again inquire, first if he mean such a Bishop as hath a preheminent Power in Ordination and Jurisdiction, or a mere Precedent, 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 [Precedent Bishop] and not rather Diocesian or Patriarchal Bishop; as he holds that Calvin and Beza do own the designation and Office? Is● he no more than a Precedent who has a preheminent Official Power, yea, according to his forecited Collection from Calvin and Beza) a s●le power in Ordination and Jurisdiction over Pastors.  
2. Since he will not say that Calvin will disowne the Apostles Episcopal Presidency over Timothy and Titus, as over the 70 Disciples, who with Calvin might be Evangelists, he should rather have ascribed to the Apostles, a moral standing Arch-Episcopacy or Patriarchat; for certainly a precedent Bishop, over such a great Precedent Bishop as Timothy and Titus, merits that Name.  
The first Proposition of his Demonstration, is thus.  
These are precedent Bishops who are from their Office preheminent unto other Ministers, invested with a fixed power of Ordination, regulated by Canons, and of Jurisdiction, balanced 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 man's pitiful Prevatication, and his involving Calvin and himself in palpable inconsistencies. We did also prove from several places of that learned Divine, that he denys this fixed and ordinary standing Presidency, both to Apostles and Evangelists, and holds that such fixed Precedents, 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 preeminency in any Pastor over another, and expressly 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 preceding) it is grounded, appears to be a rotten Fabric, and a bowing Wall, and tottering Fence.  
I cannot but further observe, that he makes this goodly Proposition, containing his Definition of the precedent Bishop, serve both Paul, and the other Apostlesturn, for proof of his Episcopal Presidency, and likewise Timothy with the inferior sort of Bishops, thus equiparating them, and shaping their Episcopacy with one and the same Standard and Measure; The place of Calvin which speaks of Paul's sole Imposition of Hands upon Timothy, whereby he would fortify 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 calvin's Sense of the power of the Apostles and Evangelists, any who have read Calvin can easily judge.  
Again (which makes good Jest) left Paul his first and high Bishop, and his Scholar the younger Bishop Timothy should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deborded, and play the wanton, and run out of their Circle, both Demonstrations, and Difinitions hath a prudent Limitation annexed; That their power must be regulate by Canons, and well balanced by assisting Ministers; and yet Paul and Timothy's sole power in Ordination seems paramount to these Canons, and far to counterbalance all Minister's Authority. Follows the Assumption of his Demonstration.   

Assumption.  
But Timothy in the Church of Ephesus, and Titus in the Church of Crete, from their Offices, had a preeminency over other Ministers, invested with a fixed power of Ordination and Jurisdiction, regulate by Canons, and balanced by assisting Ministers; For proof of this we are referred to Postulatum 2.   

Answer.  
For evincing the Falsehood 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 preeminency of both Apostles and Evangelists, being expired, and dying with their persons, our Pamphleteers Inference of calvin's asserting a moral standing Official Preeminency among Pastors, is most absurd. That with Calvin the Apostolic and Evangelistick Preeminency being neither fixed nor ordinary, his Inference of a fixed and ordinary Preeminency, upon what Calvin asserts of the power of Apostles and Evangelists, is obviously impertinent and groundless; We did also offer some Topics and Arguments, from Calvin's 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 Organic Mold and Constitution; As likeways the Existence of the Apostolic Office, that Calvin expressly distinguishes, the official Presidency or Preeminency exercised by Timothy and Titus, as being extraordinary, from the ordinary and perpetual necessary Official Power of Pastors; Likeways that with Calvin, neither Timothy nor Titus were fixed to any certain particular and determinat Station; and are in this distinguished from ordinary and perpetually necessary Church-Officers. We did also show that the place of Calvin, whereby he would fortify 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 calvin's, but a couple of fantastic Chimeras of his own brain. The Conclusion.   

Conclusion.  
Therefore Timothy was a precedent Bishop over the Church of the Ephesians, and Titus over the Church of the Cretians; From what is said upon both Major and Minor appears to be a Cretian, idest, a lying Conclusion, and to have neither Geometrical or Logical Measures, though our Pasquiller adds unto it (as unto the former, and likeways the ensuing) his (quod erat demonstrandum) to make it appear so It hath neither vim consequentiae, nor a fixed ordinary moral standing Preeminency of Timothy and Titus, over these Churches, neither having any truth in itself, 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 Preeminency, over Ministers and flocks in the judgement of Calvin.   

Demonstration.  
They whose Official Pre-eminence, or Presidence over these Churches, was Transient, and Temporary, supposing the existence of the Apostolic Office, was for modelling Churches as yet in fieri, as to their organic Being and constitution, and in all these respects, is expressly 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 calvin's judgement, no fixed moral standing Pre-eminence Episcopal over these Churches. But the Official Presidence, and pre-eminence of Timothy and Titus, at Ephesus and Crete, was of this nature in Calvin's judgement. Therefore neither of them had, in his Judgement, a fixed ordinary Episeopal Pre-eminence over these Churches, which was to be proved. The Major Proposition none can deny, who will not offer to reconcile contradictions, and involve Calvin therein.  
The Minor hath been abundantly proved, from clear and positive assertions, of Calvin in the places above cited. The conclusion is clearly de●uced.  
Proceed we to the next proposition of our Author.    

Proposition 3.  
The Fathers of the Primitive Church were Precedent Bishops,  

Answer.  
Here it's worthy of this Man's serious thoughts, how he has proved, or can prove, from any places of Calvin and Beza, that they honour none with this Epithet of Fathers of the primitive Church, but his supposed Precedent Bishops; were all the ancient famous Divines, or Writers of the primitive Church, the knowledge of whom has reached us, such Precedent Bishops, thus Authorized, as he imagines these Fathers were, in Calvin and Bezas' judgement, sure he will not dare to assert this, and so the subject of the Question in this Proposition is uncertain. If he say, that he means these Fathers, who had this Official Power, and by this Description distinguishes them from other Fathers, besides that he is liable to the former inconvenience, of imputing a notion and Phrase to these Divines, which they own not, the Proposition thus seems ridiculous, it being equivalent to this, the Precedent Bishops were Precedent Bishops.  
— Come we to the Demonstration, whereof the 1. Proposition is thus   

Major.  
The Primitive Church retained the Government of one single person preheminent in Office unto other Ministers, this is proved by Postulatum 3. which asserts, that for avoiding of schism, the primitive Church retained the Government of one single Person, preheminent in Office unto other Ministers, which is proved from calvin's asserting (instit. lib. 4. cap. 4. Sect. 2.) That Presbyters in all Cities choose one, to whom especially they gave the name of Bishop; That jerom 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 falsehood of this Collection from these words of Calvin; as likewise in my general animadversions upon the whole Pasquel; I did show 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 show, that if he make Calvin allow merely of a constant Precedent, he crosses his scope of making him assert the Government to be in this Precedent, if he make him assert more, viz. A sole Pre-eminence in Ordination and Jurisdiction, (as is clear he doth, comparing Axiom 2. with Definition 2. and 3.) Calvin gives him the lie, in asserting, that this Precedent or Moderator at first set up by his brethren, had no power over his Colleagues; but such as the Consul had in the Senate, to ask the Votes, etc. That he thus absurdly makes Calvin assert the Government of the Senate, to have been in the Person of the Consul. I did also offer unto him Calvin and Ierom's Judgement in this point, thus, that as there was an early aberration from the Scripture path, in the matter of Government, so particularly, that this Precedent or Proestos, was brought in humano consilio, and, protemporum necessitate, by humane advice and counsel, and according to the times exigence, whereof as to Calvin, we offered two convincing proofs. 1. In that Calvin immediately after the words cited by this Pamphleter, makes mention, and approves of Ieroms Testimony upon Titus, asserting the Bishop's power, in so far, as above that of the Pastor, to be founded upon custom only, not divine appointment, asserting also the identity of the Bishop and Presbyter by divine Right, and the Official parity of all Pastors. And 2. that this Practice of appropriating the term Bishop to one, as a badge of an Official Power, of one Pastor, above another, is in terminis condemned by Calvin, as an abuse of the Holy Ghost's language, and contrair to the equal Official Power of Pastors, asserted in Scripture; All which we fortified by the assertion of this Divine parity of Pastors, in the French Confession: and by the learned account both of Calvin and Ieroms judgement in this matter, exhibit by Dr. Rynalds; So that this Major Proposition, is palpably false and groundless. Follows the Assumption.   

Assumption.  
But the Pre-eminence 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 Precedent Bishop, by Definition 3.   

Answer.  
To the first part of the proof, Pre-eminence 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 fortify, but doth overthrow this Power, of the moral standing Precedent Bishop, which therefrom, he undertakes to prove; we have also discovered the absurdities, and inconsistancies which he involves Calvin and himself into, by these his Definitions; we discovered that the place of Calvin annexed to Definition 2. speaks of Authority itself, 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 Calvin's sense, that learned Divine must consequently hold, the Power of Ordination, and Jurisdiction, to be one and the same in all Pastors, which clearly everts this man's scope, and his sense of th●s● places of Calvin cited by him; we also proved, that the Official Pre-eminence, supposed existent among Church-officers, in that place of Calvin annexed to Definition 2. is by him expressly limited to that time and case of the Church; And that upon Tit. 1. v. 5, 6. He asserts Timothy's inspection to be transient and unfixed; and in this commensurable to that of the Apostles; And that asserting likewise timothy'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 twice contradict himself if it were otherwise.  
Upon Definition 3. asserting in this Precedent Bishop, a fixed Power of Ordination regulated by Canons, and of Jurisdictions, balanced 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 Precedent Bishop, as well as a fixed power. And that 2. in making the Power of Jurisdiction, to be balanced 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 pre-eminence in Office and jurisdiction, being one and the same by Axiom 2. or if both Power of Ordination, and Jurisdiction, be held thus balanced 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 calvin's assertion, that Paul and none else laid hands upon Timothy. 2. We have also made appear, that in his 3 Definition, he says nothing to his purpose and scope, unless he qualify the Power of this supposed Precedent 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 calvin's equiparating, the power of this Precedent. Bishop, with that of the Consul; We did disprove it, not only from calvin's explication, that it reached 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 consequence, it follows, that he had no such Official Pre-eminence over them, as this man alleges Calvin doth hold.  
3. Again, whereas the fixing of this Power in the Precedent 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 thereupon  
4. Finally, upon Axiom 2. referring to both these his Definitions, we have evinced, that this Pre-eminence in Office, and proportioned-preheminence in Jurisdiction, which Calvin in the places therein cited, supposes competent to the Apostles and Evangelists, was neither first Fixed, or secondly Ordinary, nor such as is of a moral standing nature, but did expire with the Persons of these extraordinary Offices; and that 3ly. During the existence of this extraordinary Pre-eminence, in Office and Jurisdiction, it was in calvin's judgement, cumulative unto, not privative of, the ordinary collegiat authority of Pastors, in Ordination and Jurisdiction; So that, that Axiom, as understood by this man, of a supposed moral standing preheminent precedent Bishop over Pastors, we have fully proved, in the places above-cited, that Calvin doth disown it, and consequently, the Assumption of this Demonstration as none of his. The Conclusion is,  
Therefore the Fathers of the primitive Church, were Precedent Bishops.  
Which doth appear from what is said, to be a mere, yea a gross non sequitur; both Major and Assumption being palpably false, taking this Precedent Bishop, in the extent and nature expressed in both these Propositions. And hereunto his Proposition and Demonstration, I shall oppose these two Antitheses, and Counter-demonstrations. The first Proposition is.    

Proposition 1.  
None of the Fathers, who were the first Proestos, or Fixed Moderators, had de facto the Government in their Person, or an Official Pre-eminence 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 Divines, as to their pretended jus, or as having a Divine Warrant and Institution. The Proposition is proved thus.  

Demonstration. Major.  
They who according to Calvin and Beza, were only together 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 Preeminency 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 Preeminency, in Ordination and Jurisdiction over their Brethren, or the Government of the Judicatories 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 meeing, and to gather the Votes only, and that by their own Election and Choice, cannot consist with having a f●xed, yea, (according to this man's pleasing) a sole Official Power in Ordination and Jurisdiction ●v●r them. The Assumption is above cleared, from the express▪ Assertions, of these Divines, wherein it is made good, that Calvin asserts, that this Moderator or Fixed Precedent, at first brought in, was only to moderate the Actions of the meeting, and was subject to them. The same we heard Beza assert, in speaking of his humane Episcopacy, as subsequent to that which had the Divine Warrant. The Conclusion is legitimatly deduced.  
The 2 Proposition, viz. No●e who assumed this sort of Presidency, in aftertimes, viz. An Official Preeminency in Ordination and Jurisdiction over Pastors, were allowed of Calvin or Beza, as having a Divine Warrant, is thus proved.   

Demonstration.  
These Divines, who disallow of any s●rt of Dominion in a single person, over Church Judicatories, who maintain the equal Function, and Official Power of Pastors therein, who disown the very first continuing 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 Pre-eminence, in Ordination 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 expressed, in any pastor above his Brethren. Therefore they disallow of these who in after times assumed this, as having no divine warrant. 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 Contradictions. The assumption is evident, from the above-cited places of Calvin 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 Moderator the ●pisiopus humarus, as distinguished from the first divine Bishop, and asserts, that the setting of him up, was an a●eration, 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 Churches; we have also frequently Observed, how that Calvin disowns the peculiarity of the very name (Bishop) to one Pastor, as giving the least semolance of any difference in the Official power and function of pastors. The Conclusion therefore of their disowning this Official preheminent power in Ordination and Jurisdiction, assumed, or rather usurped in after times, evidently and necessarily follows; yea, is so evident, that Beza in his Treatise de Episcopatu triphci, calls the Bishop assuming, in after times this pre-eminence in Ordination and jurisdiction over Pastors, the Satanical Bishop, and the poisoned egg, out of which Antichrist was hatched. Come we to the 4th Proposition of our pamphleter, which is this thus.    

Proposition 4.  
The precedent Episcopacy is approven by Christ, in the Book of the Revelation.  

Answer.  
Upon the Proposition itself, I shall only here again animadvert, and remind the Reader of this man's pitiful palpable forgery and abusive Sophilirie in covering himself, and his design all alone g●●der the Cloud, and playing with the general terms of Precedent 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 Methods of arguing, do sufficiently unmask his pitiful folly, for they do make these Divines plead for a Hierarchial Diocesian, or Patriarchal Prelate of the highest degree, with a fixed sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction; yea, shape● out after the measures of Apostolic Authority. The first Proposition of his Demonstration, whereby the premised assertion, is fastened upon Beza, is thus. Demonstration.    

Proposition 1.  
The seven Angels of the seven Churches, written unto by St. john 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 itself considered, we may safely admit, without the least prejudice to our cause, or help to his design. We might on the by here tell him (as our learned Mr. Gilespie admonished some of his fellows) that the Scripture Saints, (we may add, and inspecial, such an eminent Saint, and Divine, as the Apostle john) needs no titles of Honour out of the Pope's calendar, and was acknowledged such by the Churches, before this Canonising came in use. And inquire whether our Author useth to prefix St. to Aaron when he names him, who is called the Saint of the Lord, together with Moses, and other old Testament Saints, and what ground of disparity and difference he can assign. But to pass this.  
2. Since he refers to Postulatum 4. where we have the same Proposition with an annexed Sentence of Beza, on Revel, 2. 26. v. Where he expons, My Works, etc. of the faithful performance of the works laid upon this Angel, and shows that the Assembly of Pastors, are bespoken in the person of the Precedent, to whom victory is promised, if he rely upon Christ's power, etc. I shall here only resume what we have answered upon that 4 Postulatum, viz. That Bezas taking the Angel for a single Person, is the utmost conclusion he can draw from this passage, wherein as Beza differs from the ordinary current of Interpreters; So we have evinced the gross palpable folly, and forgery of this man's design and inference here-from, viz. That Beza owns this precedent Bishop, which he hath shapen out, and described, since he cannot conclude from these words, that Beza asserts his Official Pre-eminence and Authority, over his Colleagues, which we told him, is so Demonstratively evident, that Beza, disowns even the very inference of the necessity of a fixed Moderator, as following upon his Assertion, anent the precedent Angel, expressly adding this Proviso & Caution, to guard against any mis-application, of what he says anent the Angel, his being a single person; and thus in terminis gives this Pamphleter the lie, as if by a Prophetic Spirit, he had foreseen this forgery, And holding the very first fixed Moderators, to have been the humane Custom, subsequent and opposite to the first divine appointment, and practice of the Official complete parity among Pastors, our Lords enjoining the Pastors, faithfulness in their administrations, and bespeaking them thus in the person of the Precedent, we told him, will therefore in Bezas' sense and words, import no more, than a faithful exercise, of their joint Collegiate Power and Authority, which Beza holds, was our Lord's Institution, and at this time is existent. So we see the Major is nought. The Assumption is   

Assumption.  
But the Angels were Precedent Bishops over other Ministers, within their respective Churches: For proof of this we are referred to Definition 4. Where we are told that the Angel of any Church representative, is the Precedent Bishop over other Ministers, within the respective Diocese, Province, or Patriarchat, which is proved by Beza, Rev. 2. and 24. His words are, To the Angel, that is the Precedent, whom it behoved especially to be admonished, and by him his fellow Colleagues— To you the Angel, the Precedent and the Assembly of your Colleagues.   

Answer.  
We have upon that Definition fully discovered the folly and impertinency of this inference from the words of Beza, and this Man's palpable shameless imposings upon him, as if these words, would bear the Conclusion, of his owning a Precedent Bishop, with an Official, yea, sole Pre-eminence in Ordination and Jurisdiction, over ordinary Pastors, of as high a nature as he supposes the Apostle Paul exercised, which appears by Definition 3. compared with its proof, this his arguing, we said is, a shameless imposing, both in that he supposes Beza to hold these Angels to be Patriarchat, Provincial, or Diocesian Angels or Bishops, above 260 years, before such a mould and cast of Churches was existent, as likewise, that every representative Church is Provincial, Diocesian, or Patriarchal, and inferring this high Patriarchiall or Diocesian Prelate, with sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction, from Bezas' simple assertion of a precedent Angel in whom the rest of the Pastors were bespoken, yea and bespoken as his fellow Colleagues, viz of equal Official Authority in Bezas' sense, unless he will make him contradict, not only himself, but Calvin, who expons, and understands Colleagues thus; yea, and all this contrair to the express caution of Beza, in the same very place, who asserts, that this his sense and exposition of the Precedent 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 Prelate of this Man's mould (and pleaded for by him, by these distorted citations) gave the rise to the Antichristian tyranny. If this be not shameless imposing, let any rational man judge. The Conclusion is▪   

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

Answer.  
Therefore the precedent 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 Prelate, with sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction, is approved; Is a Chimerical Conclusion, which (as some Mushrooms that Pliny speaks of) grows without a root, and hath no Support of either Major or Minor to fortify it. And here again, I oppose this Antithesis, and counter-Demonstration, unto the preceding.    

Proposition.  
The precedent Bishop with Official Preeminency, 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 Precedents, and Moderators, to whom the other Ministers of these respective Churches, 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 precedent Bishops, who had an Official preeminency, 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 precedent 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 person of any of the Asian-Angels, which was to be proved.  
The Major is clear and necessarily true, by the rule of Opposites; which if we deny, we cannot free ourselves, or Beza from a contradiction, it being impossible that he could bespeak them both ways, because these Offices are inconsistent in the same persons, and at the same time. The Assumption is thus proved. If Beza own these other Pastors, as the Fellow-Colleagues of this precedent Angel, and will not own him, so much as necessarily a fixed Moderator, which he holds to be a humane Invention, ascribing also to Satanical Invention, the Precedent with official preeminency in Ordination and Jurisdiction over Pastors; Then in Beza's Sense, these Angels were not bespoken, and owned of our Lord, as having any Pre-eminence 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 Pamphleteers 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 man's Propositions, and Demonstrations, and discovered the unsoundness of both, and their utter insufficiency, to fortify 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 fortify them, which we will find to be of the same calumnious and sophistical Stuff with the preceding. The first of these Corollaries is thus.  

Corollary 1.  
The precedent Episcopacyis of divine Right.  

Answer.  
This Corollary of itself and abstracting from his Method of proof and Scope therein, is no doubt sound, and might be admitted, and understanding this term PRESIDENT aright, and laying aside the Propositions, Axiom and Postulatum, discovering his Sense thereof, we might admit the whole Demonstration ensuing, but considering his Scope and Manner of proof, let us here remember how he understands that Office, which he smooths over with the term of Precedent Episcopacy, viz. (as is above cleared) such Episcopacy as imports 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 Demonstration.   

Demonstration.  
The Major is, The divine Right is manifest in that Ecclesiastic Government which is instituted by Christ, and continued by his Apostles, retained in the primitive Church, and approven by Christ, by a Revelation 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 closely 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 Apostolic 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 Apostles and Evangelists, in their formal official Power, and that he mentions 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 precedent Episcopacy was instituted by Christ, (by Proposition 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 Postulatum 3.)   

Answer.  
1. For the first Branch, proved by Proposition 1. wherein it's alleged, the Apostles were precedent 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 imagines 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 Reasoning, make Calvin to assert twelve moral standing Primates or Patriarches 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 precedent Bishops, over the 70 in Calvin's Judgement; so that this main point of the proof of his Assumption, appears nought. I cannot but again observe, that with this man, the precedent Episcopacy, which he imagines Calvin to hold, as of a perpetual necessity, is Paul's sole Apostolic power in ordination and Jurisdiction, and consequently his primitive Fathers, must be of that same Shape and Mould succeeding in, and thus continuing this formal apostolic official Power, and how absurdly any man imputs this to Calvin or Beza, as their Judgement, and how hypocritically under the simple notion of a Precedent 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 precedent Bishop was continued by the Apostles; for proof of which we are referred to Proposition 2. Touching the precedent Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus, over Ephesus and Crete; This Proposition together with the pretended proofs thereof, we have above examined and everted, and proven that with Calvin, the Evangelistick official Inspection of Timothy and Titus over these Churches, was (as that of Apostles) neither fixed nor ordinary, but suited to that Exigence and Infant-state of the Church, and died with their persons, and have herein consequently discovered the Absurdity of this man's Inference, of an official standing Preeminency 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 Preeminency over Ministers and Flocks, in the judgement of Calvin.  
In the third part of the Assumption we are told, that this precedent Episcopacy, was retained in the primitive Church by Proposition 3.   

Answer.  
The Falsehood of this Proposition is above demonstrate, and the Impertinency of his Citations to prove it, taking this precedent 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 preeminency in Ordination and Jurisdiction over their Brethren; in the Judgement of Calvin and Beza.  
2. That none who assumed this in after times, were allowed of Calvin or Beza, as having a Divine Warrant, 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 precedent Episcopacy, is approven by Christ, by a Revelation from Heaven; for which we are referred to Propostion 4.   

Answer.  
This Proposition we have also clearly everted above, and fully examined its proof, and discovered his palpably absurd ridiculous Inference of Beza's owning this Diocesian, Patriarchal, Provincial B●shop, (for thus ●e explains this Precedent in the places referred to,) from his simple assertion of a Precedent Angel, who had the rest of the Ministers for his Colleagues, in the Official Power of Government, especially Beza disowning the very Inference, of the necessity of a fixed Moderator, as following upon his assertion, as is said above; In opposition to which forgery of this Man, we have made good this Proposition; that the precedent Bishop, with Official Preeminency, 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 precedent Bishop, his pretended Institution, continuance, retention, and approbation, above expressed, viz. For avoiding of Schism, wherein the well being of Christianity is nighly concerned. This is proved by Postulatum 3.   

Answer.  
This Postulatum is above examined, and what we have said thereupon, is resumed upon Proposition 3. in the Demonstration whereof, this Postulatum is adduced to prove the Major Proposition, in opposition to which, we have offered and proven the two Propositions above expressed; So that Calvin clearly disowning the appropriating the name [Bishop] to this one Precedent, as contrary to Scripture language and Institution, his narration of this matter of fact, in reference to this end of avoiding Schism, cannot (as we have often told him) import or infer, his approbation thereof, unless we will make him fall in that Sin, which Paul affirms, doth expose to just Condemnation, viz, an Approbation of evil, that good may come of it.   

Conclusion.  
The Precedent Episcopacy is of Divine Right; doth thus appear groundless and absurd, taking this Precedent Episcopacy in his sense, above expressed, the proofs thereof being found false and frivolous. And to his Corollary, I do oppose this Antithesis and Demonstration ensuing.    

Counter-Corollarie.  
The Precedent Episcopacy pleaded for by this Pamphleter, is not (in the sense of Calvin and Beza) of Divine Right. To prove which I offer a Counter-demonstration, pressing his steps, and tracing his method thus.  
That Episcopacy which is not institute by Christ, continued by his Apostles, retained in the Primitive Church, nor approven by Christ, by a Revelation from Heaven, for subserviency to all, or any end, wherein the well being of Christianity is nighly concerned, is not of Divine Right. This Proposition is his own, and therefore he cannot deny it. The Assumption shall be, the Antithesis and Negative of his own thus.  
But the Precedent Episcopacy, pleaded for by him, and not instituted by Christ, (as we proved upon Proposition 1. and in the Demonstrated Antithesis thereof) nor continued by his Apostles (as is proved in the Antithesis of Proposition 2. now retained in the Primitive Church, (as is proved in the Antithesis of Proposition 3.) Nor approven by Christ by a Revelation from Heaven (as we have made good in the Antithesis of Proposition 4,) for the avoiding of Schism, wherein the well being of Christianity is nighly concerned, (as we have made good upon Postulatum 3. and resumed upon Proposition 3.) Therefore the Precedent Episcopacy, pleaded for by this Pamphleter, is not of Divine Right, which was to be proved, The 2. Corollary is thus.   

Corollary 2.  
The want of the Precedent Episcopacy is prejudicial to the cause of Christ.  

Answer:  
We need no more resume, what this man understands by the Precedent Episcopacy. Let us hear the Demonstration.   

Demonstration, Major.  
The want of that Govarnment in the Church, which is of Divine Right, is pernicious to the Christian Religion; for which we are referred to Axiom, 4.   

Answer.  
Upon this Axiom, I have told him, that as of itself, 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 Apostolic and Ministerial Office, for the Church's Preservation, wherein he supposes him to assert, an Apostolic standing preeminency, and Official Presidency in Ordination and Jurisdiction, to be of equal perpetual necessity, with the Pastoral Office itself, 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 sound understood of the Ministerial Office, as continued in that of the Apostolic Materially and Eminenter, from which a Ministerial Authority, and Office of perpetual necessity is derived. In which sense, our Lord's promised presence with his Apostles, to the end of the World, is to be understood; We have also demonstrate this, and this only, to be calvin's 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 man's sense, of the precedent Bishop. Calvin asserting the temporary expired state, and nature of the Apostolic Office, as above that of the Pastor, and likewise (in the citation of this Pamphleter immediately preceding) that Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, are the only Officers, that have a Divine standing Right, of perpetual necessity; That as Calvin makes the Bishop and Presybters Office one and the same, so he makes it in this distinct from the Apostolic 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 suited to the Church's state when exedified, the other, to its state in fieri, etc. Thus we have both admitted the Major, in a sound sense, and everted it in his sense.   

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

Answer.  
This Assumption I deny, for proof whereof, he refers to the preceding Corollary, immediately before everted, and upon which we have demonstrat the Antithesis of the Conclusion, which this man draws out in his Demonstration, brought to fortify the same. Thus his Assumption is found nought.   

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

Counter-Corollary.  
The want of the Precedent 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 Demonstration in his own mould thus.  

Demonstration.  
The want of that Government, which in the sense of Calvin and Beza, has no Divine Right, or Warrant, 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, than the negation of this Divine Right, must have the contrary effect, and in sound methods of reasoning, bear the contrary Conclusion, by the Rule of Opposites. I subsume.   

Assumption.  
But the Precedent Episcopacy pleaded for by this man, is a Government 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 preceding Corollary; I refer (for evincing this negative) to the confutation of his Positive or Affirmative, and the discovery of its falsehood, immediately premised. Whereupon I draw out a contradictory conclusion to his; therefore the want of the Precedent 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 Precedent Episcopacy pleaded for by him, being the sense of Calvin and Beza prejudical to the cause of Christ, than 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 denial 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 Precedent Episcopacy, (which he pleads for) in the Church, is, in the sense of these Divines, prejudicial to the cause of Christ. This I prove thus; That Episcopacy which in their sense imports, an usurped unlawful Dominion over Pastors, and impeaches their Authority allowed them of God, which has thus given a rise to the destructive Antichristian tyranny 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 deny. I subsume.  
But the Precedent Episcopacy which he pleads for, is in the judgement of Calvin and Beza, of this nature and issue. Therefore it is in their Judgement the Church's prejudice, to have been burdened 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 expressly condemn upon Phil, 1. And next for Beza, we heard him clearly assert, that the Episcopus humanus, and the begun encroachments thereof, upon the Collegiate Authority of Pastors, in Church's Government, gave the rise to the Oligarchical and Antichristian tyranny, which was the native issue and effect thereof. (upon Rev. 2. 24, 26) And let any judge, if an Episcopacy, with such a pretended Apostolic Official preeminency in Ordination and Jurisdiction, over Pastors, as this man has shappen out, be not of this mould in Beza's and calvin's Judgement, so that we may again safely conclude upon the whole, that therefore the existence of this Precedent Bishop in the Church, (to which our Pamphleter has endeavoured to draw the Patrociny of Calvin and Beza, in these distorted places, above examined) is by them condemned as an Idol of jealousy, prejudicial to the Cause of Christ, and the Christian Religion, which was to be demonstrated.  
FINIS.