Vindication of the Dissertations Concerning Episcopacy, Chapter 1 · Section 14
Section XIV.
Of Beza's Interpretation, of the Praeſident.
THe ſecond followes upon a ſuppoſition (but not grant) that theſe Angels were perſonae ſingulares, and that the word Angel is to be taken individually, yet they conceive this will not at all advantage the Epiſcopall cauſe. For 1. Mr. Beza (no great friend to Epiſcopacy) acknowledgeth that by theſe words to the Angel is meant foreign to the Praeſident, as whom it behooved specially to be admoniſhed touching thoſe matters, and by him both the reſt of his Collegues, and the whole Church likewiſe; but then he addeth, But that Epiſcopal degree which was afterward by humane invention brought into the Church of God, certainly neither can nor ought to be from hence concluded. Nay, not ſo much as the Office of a perpetuall Preſident ſhould be of neceſſity as the thence ariſing Oligarchical tyranny (whoſe head is the Antichriſtian beaſt) now at length with the moſt certaine ruine, not of the Church onelyonly, but of the word alſo, maketh manifest; By which quotation it is evident, that though Beza held the Angel to be a ſingular perſon, yet he held him to be Angelus Praeſes, not Angelus Princeps; and that he was Praeſes pro tempore, juſt as a Moderator in an Aſſembly, or as a Speaker in Parliament.
2. To this I reply, 1. that Mr. Beza's interpretation, as it was foreknown and formerly mentioned by us, ſo was it not in reaſon to be of any force or authority with us, if it be but upon the ſcore intimated here, that he was not onelyonly no great friend, but a knowne profeſt enemy of Epiſcopacy, and ſo was obliged to be, by the courſe wherein he was engaged at Geneva. All that his authority concludes, is, that to avoid a plaine teſtimony, which is not for his turne, a man may be induced to affirme that confidently, for which he hath no ground of proofe, nay, wherein all wayes of evidence, that th… matter is capable of, are abſolutely againſt him.
3. Thus 'tis certainly in this matter, for when Beza hath here acknowledged that the Angel was the foreign Preſident, who will be the moſt competent Judge or Witneſſe, to determine what was meant by the foreign Praeſident] in the Primitive Church, what kind of Praeſidency he had, whether onelyonly of place or order, and that onelyonly for a time, or of ſuperiority of power and office, and that perpetuall? In all reaſon this is to be fetcht from thoſe firſt Writers which ſpeake of it, and either uſe the very word foreign Preſident, for ſuch a Biſhop, as we now aſſert (a ſingular perſon in every Church, having a power for life over all the Officers and Members of the Church, and ſucceeding ſome Apoſtle, or Apoſtolicall perſon in that power) or elſe in other words affirme the ſame thing.
4. Of this, ſtore of evidences are*Diſſert. 4. elſewhere produced, in the explication of the ſeverall titles, by which this ſingular prefect was antiently knowne, whether of Apoſtle, in a ſecondary uſe of that word, of Angel, of Biſhop, of Elder, of Ruler, of Paſtor, of Doctor, of Steward, of Preſident, of Prieſt; Againſt which the bare authority of Mr. Beza's name, who hath fancied a temporary Preſident or Prolecutor, and brought no manner of reaſon to confirme it, will have very little validity in it.
5. What is proved by the bare teſtimony of Beza, is farther confirmed by a like citation out of the Reverend Divines at the Iſle of Wight, who by the example of the King ſending a meſſage to both Houſes, and directing it To the Speaker of the Houſe of Peeres, which inferres not that … the Speaker is alwayes the ſame perſon, or the Governour, or Ruler of the two Houſes in the leaſt, conclude, that notwithſtanding this direction of Chriſt's Epiſtle to the Angels, yet they might be neither Biſhops, nor yet perpetuall Moderators.
6. But the authority of thoſe Divines, which had this anſwer from Beza, addes nothing of weight, becauſe nothing of proofe to it; As for their ſimilitude, it concludes nothing but this, that theſe Divines thought fit to make uſe of this inſtance of a Speaker in Parliament, to ſhew the thing poſſible to have been, not to prove that ſo it was, And the matter of our preſent inquiry, is not, what a kinde of preſident Chriſt and his Apoſtles might, if they would, have left in each Church, but what really they did; And that muſt be conteſted by the beſt Records of thoſe times, not by a ſimilitude of a Speaker in our Parliaments. And that is all I neede to ſay to that Section.