much altered to the worse I shall begin with Ignatius both because his Testimony is Argumentum ad Hominem at least seing my Antagonist and his Party lay so much Stress on his Epistles also because if he speak for Parity it may abate the force of all that they bring out of his Writings to the contrary What I shall alledge from him I find cited by the famous Arch-Bishop Vsher in his Original of Bishops and Metropolitans Ignat. Ep. ad Trallianos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. be subject to the Bishop as to the Lord and after be subject to the Presbytery as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ our Hope Also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. he that doth any thing without the Bishop and the Presbyters and the Deacons such an one is defiled in Conscience And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. farewel in Christ Jesus being subject to the Bishop and also to the Presbyters Here it is plain that Church Authority to which the People must be subject is not given to the Bishop alone but to the Presbytery also and indeed to them both acting conjunctly I need not transcribe what is with much plainness cited to our purpose by Blondel out of both the Clements Polycarpus Justin and others of the first of the Fathers I only mention Clem. Alexand. Strom. Lib. 7. Penes Presbyteros est Disciplina quae facit homines meliores Tertullian Apolog. c. 39. Praesident probati quique Seniores Viz. In their Meetings for Discipline where were Admonitiones Castigationes Censurae Divinae He is speaking of the Discipline of a Congregation and ascribeth the Government of it to a Community not to a single person The Clergy of Rome in their Epistles to Cyprian which is Ep. 31. do plainly declare their Opinion about the receiving the Lapsed that it should be done collatione Consiliorum cum Episcopis Presbyteris Diaconis Confessoribus stantibus Laicis this they mean of the general Method that should be laid down for it it should be Advised about by as many as can give Counsel but when they speak of the Authoritative Sentence they say it should not be done ab uno then not by a Bishop acting by sole Authority Cypr. Ep. 10. § 3. Writing to the Clergy of Carthage and shewing the evil of overturning Church Discipline as had been done by some of their number he telleth them Erunt rei qui praesunt haec fratribus non suggerunt ut instructi à praepositis faciant omnia cum Dei timore Where it is evident that they owned them as praepositi and charge on them the Duty of giving faithful Warning according to that their Character whence it followeth that he did not look on himself as being the only praepositus or Ruler of that Church And Ep. 28. he commendeth the Clergy of Carthage while himself was absent from them that they had debarred from Communicating with them Gaius Presbyter Diddensis and his Deacon who had Communicated with the Lapsed and he telleth them that they had Acted like Men of Integrity and according to the Discipline of the Church integre cum Disciplina fecistis If he had the sole Power this Fact of theirs had been quite contrary to Church Discipline If any say that they did this with the Advice of some of Cyprian's Collegues that is Bishops A. Whether these were Bishops or not we know not but they only gave Advice the Authoritative Act was by the Clergy of Carthage Ep. 55. § 17. Cyprian compareth the number of Presbyters and Deacons who had concurred in condemning affuerunt judicio cognitioni some Schismaticks with the number of them that stood for them which is a clear Argument that the Clergy with the Bishop not onely consulted but judicially determined in Church Affairs And in the same Epist § 21. speaking to Cornelius Bishop of Rome he expresly mentioneth the Clergy as ruling the Church with Cornelius his Words are Florentissimo clero illic tecum praesidenti Also Epist 58. he hath Words of the like importance § 2. Qui cum Episcopo Presbyteri sacerdotali honore conjuncti It is also evident in many of Cyprian's Epistles that he divideth the Clergy in Praepositos which Word doth manifestly signifie Rulers and Deacons So Epist 62 65. and elsewhere I only add out of Cyprian Epist 6. § 4. Doleo enim quando audio nec à Diaconis aut Presbyteris regi posse Pamelius's Note on this Passage maketh it yet more plain for us tho' he was a Papist and no Presbyterian Hinc saith he non obscurè colligitur viguisse adhuc Carthagini aetate auctoris praerogativam Presbyterorum Diaconorum primitivae Ecclesiae qua communi totius Presbyterii i. e. Presbyterorum Diaconorum collegii consilio administrabantur omnia ab Episcopis And he citeth to confirm this Ignatius as I have before cited him If any say Pamelius attributeth to the Presbytery but Consilium it is plain that Cyprian speaketh of their Ruling Power § 37. Contemporary with Cyprian was Firmilianus Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia who doth fully declare for Presbyterial Government in his Epist to Cyprian which is the 75. of Ep. Cypr. for § 3. he hath these Words Qua ex re necessario apud nos fit ut per singulos annos seniores praepositi in unum conveniamus ad disponenda ea quae curae nostrae commissa sunt ut si quae graviora sunt communi consilio dirigantur And § 6. Omnis potestas gratia in Ecclesia est constituta ubi praesident majores natu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qui baptizandi manum imponendi ordinandi possident potestatem It is to be observed that frequent mention is made in this Epistle of Episcopi Bishops and Pamelius thinketh that this Ep. being turned out of Greek into Latine by Cyprian to whom it was written by Praepositus is meant Bishop and by Senior Presbyter whence it is evident that here all Church Power is ascribed to the Presbyter that is given to the Praepositus or Bishop At the same time was Pontius one of Cyprian's Deacons and his constant Attendant and who well knew his Principles he wrote Cyprian's Life and in that History he hath these Words Nulla mora nulla dilatio Presbyterium sacerdotum statum that is presently after his Conversion to Christianity accepit quis enim non omnes honorum gradus crederet tali menti where it is plain that Pontius thought that all Church Degrees were included in Sacerdotium Presbyterium which he taketh for one And a little below he joineth Sacerdotium Episcopatus as the same Office that Cyprian was chosen to while he was Neophytus and as was thought Novellus From all this it appeareth that Cyprian was made Priest Presbyter and Bishop all at once as being the same thing Gregor Nazianz. who flourished in the fourth Century in his Apology telleth us of the Apostles making Canons for
Bishops and Presbyters 1 Tim. 3. and Tit. 1. Whether their Office may be called a Ministry or Rule of Government his Words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He saith likewise of them that they by their promotion to be Presbyters ascend from being ruled to be Rulers that they have Authority not over a Flock but over mens Souls and other very sublime Powers he ascribeth to them And in his Orations he is as profuse in extolling the Dignity and Authority of Presbyters as any other in exalting Bishops He saith as many as are ordain'd are chosen to the high Thrones of Presbytery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he speaketh not of Bishops as distinct from Presbyters is plain for the design of his Discourse especially in his Apology is to shew how the Apostle directed Bishops and Presbyters by the same Canons without distinguishing them or their work and that onely custom had raised the Bishop above them as their Praeses § 38. I next bring Ambrose as a Witnes for us in his Epistle to Syagrius he sheweth that when he and Syagrius had severally passed Sentence on a Delinquent the Church was unsatisfied with the Sentence of Syagrius and gave the reason because he had done it by himself sine alicujus fratris consensu but acquiesced in the Sentence passed by Ambrose because saith he hoc Judicium nostrum cum Fratribus Con-Sacerdotibus participatum processit Whence it is plain to have been the Principle of those days that the Bishop had not sole Jurisdiction however some were then Grasping at it Chrysostom Homil. 11. in 1. Tim. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. omitting the Order of Presbyters he the Apostle passeth to the Deacons Why so Because there is no great Difference for they are Ordained for Teaching and Governing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church and what he had said of Bishops he applyeth to the Presbyters If then Chrysostom was for the Bishop's sole Jurisdiction let any judge August Ep. 19. quanquam secundum honorum vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major sit tamen in multis rebus Augustinus Hieronymo minor est Where it may be observed to our purpose 1. That Augustine placeth the Praelation of a Bishop above a Presbyter in the Title of Dignity but speaketh not a word of Superior Power 2. He not only insinuateth that that Difference such as it was had its Original not from Divine Institution but Humane Custom but he speaketh of it as lately setled jam obtinuit this was after 420 years it was neither constant nor universal till then Salvianus maketh the Levitae Sacerdotes to be the Apostles Successors not mentioning Bishops as distinct So Gildas frequently speaketh of Bishops and Presbyters promiscuously I hope I may also adduce Jerom a Presbyter as a Witness as well as they do other Fathers who were Bishops He giveth all manner of Church Power to Presbyters and not to Bishops only Ep. ad Heliodorum Presbytero saith he si peccavero licet me tradere Satanae in interitum carnis Et Ep. ad Demetrium sunt quos Ecclesia reprehendit quos interdum abjicit in quos nonnunquam Episcoporum Presbyterorum Censura desaevit Ambrose giveth Account Ep. 80. of the Excommunication of Jovinianus and others with him by Syricius Bishop of Rome whose words to Ambrose were omnium nostrum tam Presbyterorum quam Diaconorum quam totius Cleri scissitata fuit Sententia It is shewed § 37. that Penitents were to be received by the Bishop and Clergy as Cypr. Ep. 12. it were then strange if they were cast out by the Bishop alone I desire the Reader who can for further satisfaction would read Paul Baynes Diocesan's Trial and Mr. Peregrin Letters Patents of Presbytery they having somewhat that is singular on this Subject § 39. Let us now examine what he is pleased to bring for the Bishop's sole Power in the Church and against the Parity that we have Asserted And first I shall examine his three Principles above-mentioned The first of which is there were several considerable Acts of Power belonging to the Government and Discipline of the Church which belonged solely to the Bishop several Powers Lodged in his Person which he could manage by himself and without the Concurrence of any other Church-Governour Of this sort he reckoneth eight viz. Confirmation Ordination Settling Presbyters Disposal of Church Revenues Imposing Charitable Contributions Convocating the Presbyters and Deacons Indicting Publick Fasts Delegating two of his Presbyters These I shall consider distinctly with his Proofs for what he Asserteth about them For the first of these Confirmation of the Adult who had in their Infancy been Baptized at first it was no more but after diligent Instructing them in the Grounds of Religion bringing them to the Pastor of the Church and probably before the Eldership that they might be tryed in their Proficiency and so declared fit to receive the Lord's Supper in which nothing can be blamed Afterward it came to be more Theatrically managed and Imposition of Hands was the Ceremony by which it was set off till at last it came to be esteemed a Sacrament Now when it was thus turned from the Simplicity of God's Ordinance to be a Pompous Device of Man not a few of which were crept into the Church in yea before Cyprian's Age it is not strange if they committed not the managing of it to all to whom Christ had committed his Ordinances but to one of their own chusing Our Debate is whether the Bishop had sole Power of managing any of Christ's Ordinances of which number this is not Yet I find litle strength in our Author's Arguments for this Power in the Bishop His first Proof is Cypr. Ep. ad Jubajanum it was the Custom to offer such as were Baptized to the Bishops that by their Prayers and the Laying on of their Hands they might receive the Holy Ghost and be Consummated by the Sign of our Lord which our Author taketh to be the Sign of the Cross Here Cyprian useth the word Praepositis which our Author is pleased to translate Bishops whereas Presbyters also were called by that Name For Cyprian Ep. 3. § 1. the Roman Clergy when they had no Bishop said of themselves that it appeared that they were Praepositi and thence inferred that it was incumbent on them to take Care of the Flock and they speak of idle Shepherds as neglegentes Praepositi whose Reproof was to be a Warning to them And Cypr. Ep. and Jubajan which is 69. § 4. plainly calleth the Successors of the seventy Disciples as well as these of the Apostles Praepositos for of them that place Luc. 10. 16. which he citeth is to be understood And Ep. 62. § 1. he sheweth how Church Discipline is to be regarded à Praepositis Plebe And Ep. 65. § 4. he mentioneth Episcopos Praepositos as distinct And Ep. 21. which is Celerini ad Lucium § 3. quorum jam causa
against Felicissimus and Augendus which they executed against them and some others If this Discourse prove such a Power of Delegation it will also prove such a Power in one Bishop over another which our Author will not allow seing he asserteth p. 27 28 35. that every Bishop is supreme and hath no Ecclesiastical Superior on Earth 2. Sending a Messenger to do for us what we are restrained from doing is not always an Act of Authority one Friend may send another if he yield to it as well as a Master may send his Servant 3. That which hath most Weight in our main Cause tho' it be impertinent to the present purpose is that these Persons were to Excommunicat Felicissimus c. To which I Answer that this Excommunication might be Determined by the Presbytery and it was Cyprian's part as Moderator to intimate it for which he substituteth the Persons named Here is no sole Power of Excommunication This is Countenanced by Cyprian's own words in that Ep. § 2. that Felicissimus had despised both him and the Presbytery Nec meo honore motus nec vestra authoritate fractus It seems he had been tried before them and Sentenced for Contumacy Further he was also suspected of Adultery which Cyprian would not judge by himself but referred it to their Meeting ibid. § 48. Having now examined our Author's first Principle I proceed to the second which he advanceth p. 50 c. It is that in every thing relating to the Government of the Church and her Discipline the Bishop had a Negative over all the other Church-Governours within his District he had the supreme Power of the Keyes He setteth about the proving of this Point with a high Degree of Confidence but let not him that putteth on his Armour boast as he that putteth it off He pretendeth to shew that Presbyters could not Baptize nor Administer the Lord's Supper nor Excommunicate nor Absolve nor Make nor Rescind Ecclesiastical Laws without the Bishop's Allowance For a foundation to our Answer to all his Discourse on this Head I shall re-mind the Reader of a Distinction of Presbyters above-mentioned They were in Cyprian's time of three sorts 1. The Ruling Elders who were no Preachers and who with the Bishop or Parish Minister and other Preaching Presbyters if there were any made up the Consistory by which the Affairs of the Congregation were managed These I confess could Administer no Sacrament neither without nor with the Bishop's Licence And for Acts of Ruling in the Church it is probable enough that they could do nothing without him who was Praeses in their Meetings except may be in some extraordinary Cases 2. There were in some Churches especially in great Cities some Presbyters who were Ordained to the Work of the Ministry but had no particular Charge and were as our Probationers or Students in Divinity Schools only with this Difference that ours are not Ordained these might not Baptize nor Administer the Eucharist yea nor Preach without the Allowance of the Bishop or Parish Minister And it is so also among us if some Ordained Ministers happen to live in a Parish whereof they are not Pastors as sometimes falleth out in great Cities it is disorderly for them to exercise their Ministery within another man's Charge without his Call or Allowance These Presbyters in Cyprian's time were in somethings like Evangelists whom the Bishops imployed when themselves could not overtake all their Work and if these be called the Bishop's Curats as our Author doth all Presbyters I shall not much reclaim These were as the Sons of the Prophets bred by the Bishop for the Ministery of this sort of Presbyters see P. Baynes Diocesan's Tryal p. 63. A third sort of Presbyters were the Ministers of the several Parishes among whom the Moderator of the Presbytery or other Church Judicatory was in a peculiar manner called the Bishop and they also often were called Bishops with respect to their own Parochial Charge Now if our Author mean that a Bishop in a City had such Power over the Presbyters or Ministers in the Villages or Places about that they might not Baptize c. without his Allowance I utterly deny it and maintain that every such Presbyter Minister or Parochial Bishop by what ever name ye design him had in Cyprian's time as full Power in his Parish as the great Bishop had in his tho' the one was more in esteem than the other § 49. I shall now consider his Proofs for what he affirmeth He beginneth with Baptism and pretendeth to prove that Presbyters could not Baptize without the Bishop's Leave His first Citation is Cyprian saith Bishops give the first Baptism to Believers Which we deny not if ye understand it of Parish Ministers But if he mean Bishops in Cities who were the Praesidents in Presbyteries we deny that Cyprian asserteth that His next Testimony is out of Cyprian Ep. 73. and Firmil and Fortunatus Bishop of Thurobaris But it is evident and he confesseth it that the Question by them treated is whether Presbyters who by Heresie or Schism had departed from the Communion of the Church might Baptize and if they they did whether that Baptism was valid or the Person was to be again Baptized and that Baptism esteemed null And in this we do so far agree with these Fathers as to think that all the Administrations of such Hereticks or Schismaticks are irregular and to be condemned and that none ought so to separate from the Church while she keepeth the Way of Truth and requireth no unlawful Terms of Communion of her Ministers or other Members But none of these Fathers did ever Assert that in the Church a sound Presbyter could not Baptize without the Bishop's Leave within the Limits of his own Charge That they mean no more than I say is evident for they plead that none can Baptize out of the Church nor Bind or Loose out of the Church and they say expresly that none can Baptize but they who are Founded in the Evangelical Law and I hope it will not be denyed that Ministers of Congregations are Founded on that Law as well as these of great Cities who were then called Bishops because of their Praecedency in Church Meetings That Bishops are named in these Reasonings as having the Power of Baptizing maketh nothing against us because all Parish Ministers were so called and none without their Allowance ought to intrude on their Charge in this or any other Administration and because the Authority for Baptizing and other Church Work was Communicated from the Presbytery by their Praesident the Bishop he indeed gave the Power but not by his own sole Authority but by that of the Presbytery The testimony of Tertullian cometh next who saith de Baptismo cap. 17. the High Priest who is the Bishop hath the Power of Baptizing and after him or in Subordination to him saith our Author Presbyters and Deacons A. 1. Tertullian doth not speak of Bishops as distinct from the
nor stay unduly at Edinburgh but he must be censured by the Bishop chap. 4. § 3 5. And in general in all these Canons all Church-Discipline is laid on the Ordinary that is the Bishop not a word of Censure inflicted by the Presbyters Without the Bishop no Minister may appoint a Fast not in his own Congregation chap. 14. and chap. 18. § 10. The Sentence of Deprivation of a Presbyter is pronounced only by the Bishop no consent of Presbyters is sought only the presence of three or four whom the Bishop calleth is required § 7. The import of the distinctions he useth for illustrating this Matter must be that our Scots-Bishops have in Jurisdiction and Ordination a chief Power tho' not a sole Power a Power superior to but not exclusive of other Powers a Power without and against which no Power can act but not a Power destroying and disabling all other Powers We should better have understood him if he had opened the terms of these Distinctions I confess qui bene distinguit bene docet but not qui obscurè distinguit I observe none of these Distinctions clear to us whether he thinketh our Bishops can Ordain Depose c. without the concurrence of Presbyters acting authoritatively with them as he alledgeth the Cyprianick-Bishops might do and seing he doth not determine this I know not what his Distinctions serve for but to make a noise with Words His first distinction between chief and sole Power if easily made as he saith is not so easily applyed to the case in hand for our Question is about sole Power and if he deny that to them whatever other Power he give them he maketh them no such Bishops as he after pleadeth for Beside the word chief is ambiguous it may be taken either for Dignity that the Bishop's Power tho' the same with the Presbyters yet is more conspicuous because of the dignity of the Bishops person or office or that the Bishop can do some acts of Power which the Presbyter cannot do or that the Presbyter's Power is derived from the Bishop or that he cannot exercise it unless the Bishop pleaseth The first Sense I suppose will not please our Bishops for it importeth no Imparity of Power In all the other Senses the Bishop's Power is sole at least as to these things about which he hath that Power His second Distinction is the same in different words the third differeth little for if Presbyters cannot act except the Bishop please and if they must follow his Light whatever be their own I see not what Power they have What Power is given to our Bishops by their Constitution I shall not farther determine but it may be made appear that they have exercised and consequently claimed a Power over whole Presbyteries which maketh void all their Power while they have commanded them to desist from proceeding to Censure Scandalous Offenders of which I can give Instances His third and last Remark is that that part of my Definition of a Bishop is loose and ambiguous wherein I call him the Pastour of a Flock for saith he may not a Bishop and his Diocess be called a Pastour and his Flock as well as a Presbyterian Minister and his Parish Answ He might easily have understood my words in our ordinary Dialect now in use and then all Ambiguity had evanished but I cannot make him understand my words unless he will we use not to call a Bishops Diocess the Flock nor him the Pastour nor did Scripture so use these terms seing the Pastour is to feed the Flock Act. 20. 28. which he must do not only by Ruling but also by Teaching which I am sure a Bishop cannot to his Diocess That a Bishop in our modern sense was called the Pastour and such a Diocess as ours his Flock in Cyprian's time we deny and shall consider his Proofs of this when he shall propose them I have run over his large field and find not what fruit he hath reaped from it nor the escapes that he thinketh it so easy to insist on p. 2. at the end § 8. In the sense he giveth of what I had asserted which he enlargeth upon p. 3. I have little to observe for I am ready to maintain all that he there maketh to be my Opinion except â—hat he saith that in the Presbyterian sense a Moderator as such is no Church-Governour which I cannot agree to but because he hath this over again and improves against us that Notion which is his own none of ours p. 35 36. I shall there consider it viz. § 20. It is true the Vindication of Ch. of S. in Answer to the the ten Questions Q. 1. § 5. Saith that a Moderator as such is no Church-Governour but it is evident to any who impartially considereth what is there said that no more is meant but that he is not a Church-Governour of another Species from the rest or who hath another sort of Authority than they or a Superior Power to them not as our Author would improve it that it is not needful that he hath the same Church Power with the rest but may be a Heathen as he affirmeth p. 35 36. Also because he inferreth from what I had said that my Opinion is that in Cyprian's time the Church was governed by Presbyters Acting in Parity after the Presbyterian Model p. 4. It will be needful before I examine his Arguments to give a more full and distinct Account of my thoughts in this Matter than is done in that short hint which his whole Book is imployed against and this is the rather needful because my Antagonist doth not so plainly as were to be wisht state the Controversie when he saith p. 4. If I shall prove first that a Bishop in Cyprian's time was more than the Pastour of a Flock or Moderator of a Presbytery in the Presbyterian sense 2. That he had really Genuine Episcopal or Prelatick Power 3. That he Acted in a real Superiority over not in Parity with Pastours our Author is bound to acknowledge himself and his Brethren to be Schismaticks I shall state the Question a little more distinctly but not disown any of the Terms in which he hath put the Questions all which three are indeed but one Question § 9. Let it then be considered first that we never thought nor said that Church-Government was in all it's Modes and Circumstances in the third Century in which Cyprian lived the same with what it is now among Scots Presbyterians the Substance of Government may remain and yet considerable Alterations be made in the Modes of mannaging it in the Succession of Years much more of Ages We confess many words relating to Church-Offices Officers and Administrations signified another thing then than they do in our Modern Dialect these we call Moderators and my Antagonist calleth Bishops were then constant among us they serve in that Station but for some small time and give place to others in the Affrican Church these they
that the High Priest was to all the Levites in the world Cyprian's Reasons brought from the High Priest have much more Sense in them than these of our Author For he pleadeth no more from that Topick but that as the High Priest was to be obyed and not resisted so is the Bishop As the High Priest was reverenced even by Christ so is the Bishop we say the same that a Bishop acting in his Sphere with his Consistory or Presbytery should be obeyed and respected and we count it the same sort of Sin in Schismaticks who rebel against this Church Authority with Kora's Rebellion against Aaron but it is utterly inconsequential to infer Church Monarchy from Aaron's Power I wish he had brought any thing that might look like proof of this consequence He saith p. 34. that the Christian Hierarchie was copied from that of the Jews and he bringeth Arguments for it such as they are one is from the Names Priest Priesthood Altar Sacrafice c. which he calleth a pregnant Argument I cannot but still observe how much the Papists owe him not only for their Pope but for their unbloody Sacrifice what must we have all that of the Old Testament whereof we retain the Names If so we must have a new Gospel This Argument is easily delivered of its Pregnancy by denying the Consequence His other Argument is from an Ep. of Clement of Rome who lived in the Apostles times wherein he exhorteth to Order and every ones keeping his Station and then reckoneth up several Subordinations under the Old Testament A. Clement useth the Old Testament hierarchy as a simile to illustrate New Testament Subordination of Officers in the Church ergo we must have the same Officers and they must have the same Power that these had non sequitur Neither was such a Consequence intended by Clement For a second Answer our Author may know that that and others of the Epistles that go under Clement's name are rejected as none of his by Learned Men and on solid Grounds § 35. He hath a long Discourse beginning p. 34. at the end to shew that my Definition of a Bishop is consistent with none of the three Principles last mentioned which were current in the Cyprianick Age much less with all three together I have already shewed how far these Principles were held in that Age and how our Notion of a Bishop agreeth with them all What seemeth to be further Argumentative in this Harangue I shall consider He saith the Bishops being the Principle of Vnity doth not consist with his being a single Presbyter where there were fourty six Presbyters as at Rome there would rather be fourty six Principles of Divisions and make the Church a Monster with fourty six Heads Answ 1. I retort this Argument In the first Council of Nice for Example where were three hundred Bishops what was the Principle of Unity or were they three hundred Principles of Division And a Church Meeting or a Church Representative that was so Monstrous as to have three hundred Heads What he will answer in the one case I will answer in the other And indeed this Argument destroyeth the Parity of Bishops which he pleadeth for as well as of Presbyters and its Native Conclusion is we must either have the Papacy over the Church or Anarchy in it A. 2. Where there are many such Presbyters as our Author pleadeth for we say the Bishop was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not a single Presbyter A. 3. In a particular Flock where are many Ruling but not Teaching Presbyters the Bishop or Minister is such a Principle of Vnity as I have above owned and where there are more Bishops in one Church the Principle of Unity is their Teaching the same Doctrine as is above explained He next alledgeth that a Moderator cannot be the Principle of Vnity in a Presbytery seing as such he is neither Pastor Governour nor Christian but may be a Heathen A. This wild Notion that a Heathen may be Moderator in a Presbytery I have fully refuted § 8. To the first part of his Argument I say that not the Moderator alone but with the Presbytery is the Principle of Vnity while they all Teach the same Truths and adhere to the one Rule of our Faith and Practice the Word of God any other Bond or Cement by which Men can be United which lyeth in the Authority of a Man rather than in the true Doctrine is an Antichristian Fancy and tendeth to enslave the Conscience to the Will of Man We know no such Uniting Head as he telleth of but Christ Ephes 4. 15 16. Neither did ever Cyprian dream of such a Head of the Church Next he will make our Notion of a Bishop inconsistent with his other Principls the Bishop's Supremacy and Independency I have already shewed that the Church in Cyprian's Time knew no such Supremacy nor Independency but held and Practised a Subordination not of many to one but of every one to the Collective Body and of every lesser Body to the greater of which it was a part I see no Reason nor Scripture Ground for Independency whether of single Pastors and Congregations or of Presbyteries or of Bishops and their Provincial Synods His third Principle the Hierarchy under the Gospel being the same with that under the Old Testament I have refuted as a groundless Fancy and therefore am under no Obligation to shew the Consistency of our Parity with it § 36. From p. 37. he layeth down Principles that would afford stronger and more pertinent Arguments than any we have yet met with if he can but sufficiently establish these Principles He mentioneth three viz. 1. The Bishop's sole Power in many Acts of Government and Discipline 2. His Negative in all 3. That all Presbyters were subject to his Authority and Jurisdiction If all this be true our Cause is lost but we are not afraid to try it with him through his help whose Cause we plead Before I engage in this Debate with him I desire the Reader will reflect on what I observed § 10. that if we can bring Testimonies to prove a Parity of Power among Presbyters and that Domination over them by one was condemned or disowned in Cyprian's Time his bringing Testimonies to the contrary will not be found Concludent for Contradictory Assertions derogate from the Authority of the Asserter or seeming Contradictions must be reconciled by a fair Exposition or such Testimonies will prove that the Practice and Principles of the Churches of that Age were not Uniform any of which would weaken his Cause I shall not here repeat the Citations that are full to this purpose which I have on diverse Occasions mentioned Nor need I confine my self to Cyprian's Age alone seing our Author pretendeth to no less Antiquity for his Way than from the Apostles down ward yea all the Ages of the Church and all the Churches of every Age and we acknowledge that after the third Century Church-Government was
a Bishop by himself placed Ministers this cannot be inferred from one single instance and that in a time of Persecution and Dissipation and where there was so signal appearance of Divine determination that Cyprian's words are admonitos nos instructor dignatione divina sciatis ut Numidicus Presbyter adscribatur Presbyterorum Carthaginiensium numero Any who desireth to be fully satisfied in this Point of Election of Pastors let him read Blondel Apolog. Pro sententia Hieron from p. 379. to the end even to p. 548. where it is traced through all the Ages of the Church § 46. The Bishop's fourth Priviledge is he had the Disposal of all the Revenues of the Church This our Author maintaineth p. 44 c. he had the full Power of this saith he ibid. I here observe that if we should yield all that he asserteth it maketh nothing for the sole Power of the Bishop in Jurisdiction or Government of the Church for these distributions were always reckoned a Service not any Act of Government in the Church the Object of Church Power are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Further I observe that the Authoritative Direction in managing these Matters did belong to all Church Rulers The Apostles had the Power but they were not at leisure to attend the managing of these things as our Author's Bishop is but committed it to Deacons who were Officers appointed for that very end Act. 6. I observe thirdly that however to be thus imployed might sute well with the way and temper of the the Bishops of our time who generally are more imployed about Secular Affairs than in Preaching it was not consistent with the Labour of the Primitive Bishops about the Gaining of Souls Fourthly it is evident that in the Ages after the Apostles the Deacons had the Charge of the bona Ecclesiastica ergo not the Bishop only Origen in Matth. 16. Mensis Ecclesiasticarum pecuniarum Diaconi praesunt Item Diaconi qui non bene traetant pecuniarum Ecclesiasticarum mensas semper de eis fraudant ipsas quas dispensant non secundum justitiam dispensant divites fiunt de rebus pauperum ipsi sunt numularii pecuniarum mensas habentes quas evertet Dominus It is fifthly to be observed how absurd it is and what a snare for any one man to have the sole Disposal of all the Goods of the Church who may take what he will of them for his propria portio to use our Author's words and give what he will to the other Church-Officers and to the Poor This is a Trust might make bad Bishops and such there were even in Cyprian's time a Scandal and might expose the best to Obloquie and lay a Foundation for perpetual Grumblings and Discontents in the Church to prevent which the Lord by his Apostles appointed Deacons to superintend that Affair Act. 6. Let us now hear what our Author pleadeth for his Opinion he telleth us that the Bishop not only had his propria portio which he will have to be the third of all and he observeth that this made Fortunatianus and Basilides so earnest for Restitution to their Sees after Deposition and in our days maketh many Sell or Ruine the Church for these Lucrative Promotions but he affirmeth the Bishop had also the Disposal of the rest For which his Proof first as to the Clergies part Felicissimus is blamed for contending about his share contrary to his Duty to his Bishop and others are praised who took their shares as the Bishop should please to dispense them A. 1. That the Bishop here is meant in his sole or single Capacity and not rather in Conjunction with the Presbytery wherein he praesided is denyed and can never be proved Yea the contrary is evident Ep. 41. which he citeth where speaking of them who were so tractable he useth these words vobis acquiescere maluisse that is submitted to their the Presbyteries Determination about their shares 2. If a School Boy should make such a Version of Latine into English as our Author here doth he would be lasht for it He turneth Episcopo Dispensante as the Bishop should please to Dispense them whereas the Bishop's Dispensing was nothing but his giving out Sentence as the Presbytery had Determined not as he by himself pleased Likewise he taketh no notice of these words vobis acquiescere maluisse which is a great Error in Translation 3. It is evident from Cyprian's own words that he did not act solely in this Matter but with the Authoritative Concurrence of the Presbytery for a little before the words cited he saith cumque post haec omnia nec loci mei honore motus nec vestra authoritate praesentia fractus c. where he blameth Felicissimus for despising the Bishops honour and the Presbyters Authority clearly insinuating the Difference of the Bishop and Presbyters of his time that he had more Honour than they but not more Authority The same way are we to understand Cyprian's promoting Aurelius and Celerinus only to the Degree of Lectors but entitleing them to the Maintenance of Presbyters viz. that Cyprian might propose this to the Presbytery tho' he could not effect it without them his words are Presbyterii honorem designasse me illis ut sportulis iisdem he designed it because they were choice Young-men but it was the Presbytery concurring with him that must make this effectual He saith for the Poors part the Bishop's Power in Distributing it is so evident from Ep. 5. and 41. that I need not insist on it A. In Ep. 41. which is that we were just now Debating about there is not one word to that purpose but that he had sent some to relieve the Necessities of some Sufferers but out of what Fond whether his propria portio or any other is not said And if it were out of the Churches Stock it is not said he did this without the Presbytery he might very well say he did it when the Presbytery appointed it and he put it in Execution What he saith in the 5. Ep. is as fully against our Author's Design as any thing can be He bids them both in Discipline and Diligence act both their own parts and his And he hath these words quantum autem ad sumptus suggerendos sive illis qui gloriosa voce Deum confessi in carcere sunt constituti sive iis qui pauperes indigentes laborant tamen in Domino perseverant peto ut nihil desit cum summa omnis quae redacta est illic sit apud Clericos distributa propter ejusmodi casus c. Is it not here evident that the Clergy are intrusted with the Poors Money and are to distribute it as need requireth and that this Distribution in Cyprian's Absence was a doing of their own Work and his so that they Acted not as his Delegats Further they Acted their own part and his when one of them did praeside in their Meetings in his Absence which
negligent in their Ministerial Work 6. We also encourage and admit to the Government them that do well 7. Letters that concern a particular Congregation are with us directed to the Minister these concerning the Presbytery to the Moderator we also cast out bad Ministers and such as adhere to them if the Cause be weighty but we use moderation to the people who are led away by Schismatical Ministers when their Separation is founded on lesser mistake if in this we differ from the Cyprianick Age his Party should not blame us having tasted so much of our lenity Let it then be considered how impertinent this whole Discourse is and how insufficient to prove the Episcopacy of the Cyprianick-Age that he pleadeth for § 60. He useth several enforcements of this Argument p. 88 89. which I shall briefly consider 1. The Colledge of Bishops are still considered as Church-Governours notoriously distinguished from Presbyters Answ This distinction lay in the dignity that the declensions of that time from Apostolick simplicity gave them not in any Power that they had which Presbyters had not 2. A Presbyter was never called a Bishops Collegue Answ If this were granted such a negative Argument and that drawn from words and ways of speaking which doth often vary is not very concludent I have shewed that the same Power is ascribed to them see § 62. where the contrary of what he asserteth is shewed 3. We have no Vestige of a Presbyterian Moderator in these times Answ There was then a Moderator who was called the Bishop who presided in their Meetings tho' there was no such changing of the Moderator as is among us that I have yielded but the fixedness of the Moderator and the parity of the Power are consistent tho' I deny not that the one made way for destroying the other as After-ages did shew 4. Our Author repeateth all the Acts of and concerning Bishops that he had insisted on and affirmeth that they could not consist with a single Presbyter or Moderator which I have above-denyed and made the contrary evident That he calleth all the Acts of Government and Discipline his the Bishops and his alone is to beg the Question for we deny it and he should prove it § 61. I must now return to p. 78 and glean some Passages which I was obliged to overlook that I might have this long Argument stretching from thence to p. 90. intirely in view and give a general Answer to it He maketh the Bishop the Principle of Vnity to a particular Church and the Colledge of Bishops the Principle of Vnity to the Catholick Church and Christ the Principle of Vnity to that Colledge And addeth I hope not being a Romanist you will not require that I should prove the highest Step of this Gradation Here I observe first the Discourse is about a visible Head or Principle of Vnity to the Church which cannot be ascribed to Christ Wherefore this is wholly impertinent or if it have any sense it tendeth to make his Reader a Romanist whom he supposeth not to be one already For if the particular and Catholick Church have a visible Principle of Vnity and that which he maketh to be the Vniting Principle have nothing that is visible to make them one among themselves they who can receive his Doctrine about a Principle of Vnity will see a necessity of a Pope to unite the Bishops as much as of a Bishop to unite the Presbyters 2. If Christ be the Vniting Principle of the Colledge of Bishops why doth he not serve for the same use to Presbyters yea to all Christians And indeed he is the real Vniting Principle to all they only are in the Union of the Church who cleave to his Doctrine and observe his Laws even tho' they separate from the Bishop who departeth out of that Way 3. I desire to know of him why he thinketh the Romanists will put him to prove the highest Step of this Gradation more than Protestants will Doth any of them deny Christ to be the Principle of Vnity to the Church They only make the Pope his Vicar in this because they think such an one is needful in the Church who is visibly Conversant among men and doth not our Author suppose the same necessity of such a visible Uniter till he come to the Colledge of Bishops and he leaveth them Headless that is without a visible Head Where it may be rationally concluded that this Doctrine is either Popish or palpably absurd The next thing I notice is p. 79. he saith all Christians hold one Faith to be necessary to the Vnity of the Church but in Cyprian's time one Communion was thought as indispensible they held there is but one Church and that this could not be without one Communion If by one Communion he mean for he walketh in a Cloud in this Matter whether of Design or not I know not that Communion of Saints which is an Article of the Creed which consisteth in Union of them all with Christ and Unity in Faith and Love c. I acknowledge the necessity of it but I know not what respect it hath to Episcopacy more than Presbytery If he mean Local Communion it is impossible either in the Catholick Church or in the Diocess of a modern Bishop If he mean Communion by having the same Ceremonies and Government in the Church Tho' I confess that is desireable and by all good means should be endeavoured for we should have no Ceremonies but these which are of Divine Institution and the one Church Government that he hath appointed should be every where exercised yet there may be one Church where this Communion is not and if the Cyprianick Age was somewhat too strick in this Matter it was their Mistake of which above but it is no Proof of Episcopacy in the sense of our Debate to have been in that Age. And indeed if our Author maintain this Principle he will consequentially to it Unchurch most of the Reformed Churches as the Papists do them all on the same score if by this one Communion he mean that all Christians must be United to some one Bishop or other which Bishops agree among themselves and have Communion in the Episcopal Colledge he will find hard to prove that Cyprian taught so Yea then there is no Communion in the Church without an oecumenick Council of Bishops which we have litle hope to see and many doubt that the World did ever see it tho' there have been Councils so called because in them were represented all the Churches of the Empire Further if this was the Opinion of Cyprian's time how will he prove that these Bishops in whom Churches were to be United were any more than Parish Ministers and that the one Communion of that time was more than that every Christian must be the Member of one Church where Christ's Ordinances are dispensed by a Bishop that is a Minister of the Gospel § 62. Tho' I am not concerned to
expresly referred that Objection to be Answered by some seen in State-Affairs it being Political rather than Theological 2ly That I pleaded an Inter-regnum in the time of the Rabbling and would not allow it in the Dr's Case is no inconsistency for in the first case the Exercise of Government was impossible in the other there was actual Exercise of it 3ly When it was said the Representative of the Nation had owned William as their King it was not meant as he hath a mind to understand it as complexly such but as Exercising the Supreme Regal Power and designed to be compleatly King I could give Scripture-Instances of such manner of speaking of Kings if it were fit to enlarge as much on this Head as he doth 4ly If it was not a Contempt of the Authority of the Nation to disobey the Command of it's highest Power for the time even tho' one should attempt to give Reasons unless these Reasons were also sufficient of which none of us are Judge let any give Sentence 5ly He subtilizeth the Distinction too much between being King and exercising the Regal Power but to help out his fine Notion he behoved to alter the Phrase putting Right to Exercise for Exercising it self I hope these two may be distinguished and that there may be not only a Physical but a Moral impediment for a time of a Moral Right His Notion of Exercising the Regal Power before taking the Oath and that there is no Obligation to take the Oath before the Coronation I cannot yield to but leave to Statesmen and Lawers to Debate it with him I say the same of his Discourse of Hereditary and Elective Kings § 18. That I called K. J. our lawful Soveraign he saith was a striking at the Root of the present Settlement Answer if I had so called him with respect to the time of the present Government what he saith were true But to say that he was so before this Government had it's being and before the Nation in its Representative had found and declared the contrary is far from that blame Next he unfairly representeth what I had said that Episcopacy cannot be restored I hope it never shall and I am sure it never can without crossing the Institution of Christ But whether the restoring of it be consistent with the Civil Rights and Priviledges of the Nation as things are now stated I leave it to States-men and Lawers to discuss His Commendation of the Cameronians and blaming me for speaking to their Disadvantage is not out of kindness to them but in odium tertii that he might make the sober Presbyterians for I cannot be bantered out of that Distinction more hateful as being worse than they I should think it lost time to examine his quibbles about the Presbyterian Ministers not preaching so much as he and his Complices thought was meet against the Rabling these things were sufficiently declared against by some and that where such Disorders were most rampant and regnant but Preaching could not Stem that Tide many of these men would hear non of us nor will they to this day tho' through mercy not a few of them are reclaimed and some who listned to other Doctrine would not hear that He hath a wise inference I had said these courses were preached against both before they were acted for preventing them and after for reproving them Ergo saith he it was a consulted and deliberat Politick and the Ministers were privy to it and yet did not warn the poor men that they might have escaped being rabled I shall not give this its due Name as he frequently giveth ill and undue Names to my Words Ministers knew an inclination to Disorders in some that they went beyond their Stations by an ill guided Zeal and this they warned against yea and some Presbyterian Ministers did protest against all these exasperated men when they beheld it But that they knew Designs for these Disorders in particular is false and doth not follow from what was said He saith he can name more than one or two of the first Rank of sober Presbyterian Ministers such a Blunder and Repugnancy in me would have been called Ignorance Non-sense Impudence and what not who advised to these Courses I solemnly declare I know not any of them and if I did I should blame them § 19. He cometh next to Contradictions some of which are fancied others are real but of his own making by mis-citing words One is I have said where there are Bishops the Presbyters have no Power in another Book we do not say that Bishops take all Power from Presbyters Any who will be at the pains to consult the places that he citeth will find that the first speaketh of Governing Power the other speaketh of Power in General which comprehendeth preaching Power but it is there expresly said that they take away all Governing Power Where is then the Contradiction Next it is said he knoweth not where it seems nor do I that King James's Indulgence was against Law And yet 2d Vendic p. 43. the Parliament had given the King such Power The first Assertion I find not another Assertion that to him will infer it is the Law was for publick Meetings Ergo privat Meetings were against Law It is a pitiful Consequence Where Liberty is allowed as now in England the Law is for both ways Wherefore the second Assertion maketh no Contradiction But if both had been said there are just Laws and unjust which may without a Contradiction in the Assertion be said to contradict one another This Distinction removeth also the next pretended Contradiction between a Forefeiture being unjust that the Authority of the Nation laid on and Ministers having no legal Right to their Stipends when the Authority of the Nation have determined otherwise Parliaments may both do right and do wrong Another Contradiction he fancieth Animadv on Stillingf Jrenic It is asserted that all Ministers having got equal Power from Christ they cannot so devolve their Power on one of themselves as to deprive themselves of it their Power being not a License only but a Trust This he thinketh is contradicted indirectly by delegating Members to the General Assembly To this I answer Delegation to the General Assembly is a Temporary transient thing for the exercise of one or a few Acts and necessity doth warrant it seing the Ministers of a whole Nation cannot meet without leaving almost the whole Nation destitute of Preaching and other Ordinances for a considerable time This is not to be compared with devolving of the Power of the Ministers of a whole Province on one Bishop who is perpetually ad vitam aut culpam to exercise the whole power of the Church in all the Acts of it so as all the rest are deprived of it and cannot exercise it nor give account to God for the Management of it The one is very consistent with that Parity that Christ made in communicating Church Power to his Servants the other is not
and time as there is of the Solemn League and Covenant or the Sanquhar Declaration this sheweth more of his Spite against that Church-Office than of his Skill to refute it § 15. It might have been expected from this peremptory Confidence that he should have attempted a Refutation of what many Learned Men have written on that Subject if he lookt into that Controversie the London Ministers whom he citeth could have taught him at least to speak more soberly so Blondel de Jure Plebis p. 79. c. Smectym L'Arroque Conformity of the Discipline of the Church of France with the Primitive Church Calvin P. Martyr and many later Writers at least he might have had some regard to Arch-Bishop Whitgift a Zealous Pleader for Prelacy as he is cited by Synod Lond. Vindication of Presbyterial Government I know saith he that in the Primitive Church they had in every Church Seniors to whom the Government of the Church was committed but that was before there was any Christian Prince or Magistrat I hope then that it was in Cyprian's time will not be denyed May be on second thoughts he will abate a little of this Confidence when he considereth these few Citations following which do plainly prove that both before and after Cyprian's time there were Ruling Elders who were not Preachers acknowledged in the Church Origen Lib. 3. contra Celsum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. There are some appointed who do enquire into the Life and Manners of them who are Admitted that they may debar from the Congregation such as commit vile things and receive such as abstain from these and make them daily better Tertul. Apol. C. 3. Praesident probati quique Seniores honorem istum non praetio sed testimonio adepti These were before Cyprian After him were Jerom on Isaiah 3. 2. Et nos habemus in Ecclesia Senatum nostrum c. August Ep. 137. Dilectissimis Fratribus Clero Senioribus Vniversae Plebi Ecclesiae Hipponensis Where he maketh a plain Distinction between the Clergy and these other Elders and also the Body of the People these Elders then were not Teachers and they were above the People The like he hath contra Crescentium Lib. 3. C. 1. Omnes vos Episcopi Presbyteri Diaconi Seniores scitis Et ibid. C. 56. Peregrinus Presbyter Seniores Ecclesiae Musticanae c. The same Augustin in his account of the Purgation of Caecilianus and Felix accused by the Donatists mentioneth several Letters Recorded in the publick Acts which must certainly speak the Language of that Age wherein Ruling Elders distinguished from Preaching Presbyters are plainly and often mentioned as Episcopi Presbyteri Diaconi Seniores again Clerici Seniores Cirthensium also a Letter directed Clero Senioribus and another Clericis Senioribus Likewise the Epistle of Purpurens to Sylvanus hath these words Adhibeâ—e Clericos Seniores Plebis Ecclesiasticos Viros inquirant diligenter quae sint istae Dissentiones where it is clear that the Ecclesiastical Consistory was then made up of these Elders as one sort of its Constituent Members and that they had Authority to take Course with Disorders in the Church in Conjunction with the Teachers of the Church Even Gregorius Magnus the Pope in the end of the sixth Age sheweth that such Elders were still in the Church Tabellarium saith he cum consensu Seniorum Cleri memineris ordinandum Also Lib. 2. Epist 19. Si quid de quocunque Clerico ad aures tuas pervenerit quod te justè possit offendere facile non credas sed praesentibus Ecclesiae tuae Senioribus est perscrutanda veritas tunc si qualitas rei poscit Canonica Districtio culpam feriat delinquentis Is it imaginable that there were no Ruling Elders in Cyprian's time in the third Century and yet after three hundred years they were revived again when Episcopal Tyranny and manifold Corruptions in the Church were come to a greater height Isidor Hispal Sent. Lib. 3. C. 43 Prius docendi sunt Seniores Plebis ut per eos infra positi facilius doceantur § 16. It is yet more fully against this Author's bold Assertion that even in Cyprian's time it self this Office was in the Church as Witness the Writers of that Age Basil in Psal 33. Quatuor gradus Ministrorum constituit quod sciz alii sunt in Ecclesia instar Oculorum ut Seniores alii instar Linguae ut Pastores alii tanquam Manus ut Diaconi c. And Optat. Milevit Lib. 1. adv Parmen telleth us of certain precious Utensils of the Church which in a time of Persecution could neither safely be transported nor hid in the Earth and therefore they were committed to the Custody of the faithful Elders of the Church From all this it is evident that if express and distinct mention be not made of this sort of Elders by Cyprian it is either because he had no occasion or that he comprehended them under the general name of Presbyters as the Scripture sometimes doth under the name of Bishops for it is not to be imagined that Cyprian in this was of a different Sentiment from the Church before in and after his time § 7. His third Foundation for his Argument is that the Bishops Power Authority Pastoral Relation extended to all Christians within his District and a little after the Bishops Prelation what ever it was related not solely to the Clergy nor solely to the Laity but to both equally and formally this we are no way concerned to oppose for we think every Minister hath a Relation to the Universal Church and Authority with Respect to all the Members of it and more particularly within the Presbytery whereof he is a Member and yet more fully toward these of the Congregation he is set in whether Elders or People Neither is our Question about the Extent of the Bishop's Power as to Persons so much as about the Solitude of this Power whether Church Power reside in his Person alone or be in the Community of Presbyters I might dismiss this whole Section but that his Proofs seem not so much levelled at this Conclusion as at some other things which we cannot so easily comply with he telleth us of Cyprian's defining the Church to be a People united to the Priest and a Flock adhering to their Pastour he bringeth Citations to prove that where a Bishop is wanting the People hath no Ruler the Flock no Pastour the Church no Governour Christ no Prelate and God no Priest and he will have Presbyters to be but Vice-Pastours Now how far is all this from his Conclusion viz. that the Bishop's Power extendeth to all the People All this tendeth to prove the Bishop's sole Jurisdiction which is afterward to be considered where he insisteth on that point on purpose but here here he doth nothing but make a Parade with a parcel of impertinent Citations I shall only now tell him that this may be well understood of
that he was ordained by Imposition of Hands I deny not that even an ordained Presbyter behoved to be chosen to the Office of Bishop before he could exercise it so it is with our Moderator That there was more Solemnity in installing a Bishop then than we use in making a Moderator cannot be denyed that was consequential to the Bishops being constantly and for Life in that Office and to that Prelation or Dignity above other Presbyters that he then had Neither shall I contend with him about Imposition of Hands to have been in that case used tho' after search I cannot find the place he citeth for it is well known that in the Apostolick Church and it is like it continued in after Ages Imposition of Hands was used when Men were sent into a special piece of Work tho' no new Office or new Power was given as Act 13. 3. I hope he will not say that Saul by that Imposition of Hands was promoted unto a higher or new Office being already an Apostle But our Question is whether the Bishop had a superior Power over Presbyters which resided in his person alone this we deny and affirm that it is not proved by the Citations he hath brought The Zeal that even false Bishops used to have all the Formalities in their promotion that were used by any other which is one of his Topicks is as little probative Nor should I wonder if they exceeded they had need of all the Pomp that could be to make up the want of Real Right to strenthen their weak Title He concludeth p. 15. that now my Definition of a Bishop is routed a second time Let the Reader judge § 24. He cometh to apply his former propositions and to conclude his Argument from them How saith he can the Maxime of but one Bishop at once consist with the Bishops being a single Presbyter seing in Rome and Carthage were many Presbyters and yet each of these was but one Church Ans 1. It consisteth well with the Notion of a Moderator 2. It consisteth well with the Notion of a Bishop in lesser places where was no such plurality of Presbyters of which before 3. I have said enough above to discredit this Maxime in the sense our Author useth it 4. There might be a plurality of Presbyters in a particular Congregation not only Presbyters that were only ruleing but-Preachers also For it is observed by some that in the primitive Times they ordained many more preaching Presbyters in Churhes than they had present Work for So Mr Clerkson primitive Episcopacy Ch. 5. p. 93. and he buildeth on Nazianzens Authority who Orat. 1. Sheweth that the Officers in Churches were some times as many as these whom they had the Charge of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is probable that then the Christians having no Universities the Churches especially in great Cities or where were learned Bishops were Colledges for Breeding men to the Ministry and that when they were ripe they ordained them and imployed them that so they might be Seminaries out of which vacant Parishes might he provided and if any will say that the Bishop had such Authority over these Presbyters as our Professors of Divinity have over the Students It may pass for a probable Conjecture Only these were ordained ours we do not ordain till we fix them in Churches and in that time I find no such unordained Licentiats as we have § 25. He again asketh If a Bishop were but a single Presbyter why such a do and so many Bishops conveened to elect and ordain him This is in part answered above I add we also have a Meeting of many Ministers to ordain a Presbyter to a single Flock and also when a Moderator is chosen As for calling Bishops of a whole province to Elect and instal a Bishop at Rome and at Carthage that was needful because these were the fixed Moderators in these Provinces So our Moderator of a provincial Synod is chosen by no fewer than the Ministers of a whole Province and the Moderator of the General Assembly by Ministers from the whole National Church What he saith about their New Ordination is already Answered That which he calleth ridiculous is pretty ridiculously by him proposed Viz. that so much ado was made about making two men Presbyters of Rome who were already Presbyters of Rome He meaneth Cornelius and Novatianus It was about making them Moderators of the Colledge of Presbyters not in Rome but in the whole Province and indeed it was lamentable rather than ridiculous Both that that Promotion began then to be more esteemed than was meet and was lookt on as a Prelation above the other Brethren tho' it was far short of what our Author contendeth for and also that there should be such unchristian Contests made about it Alas some such things have fallen out where a Diocesan Episcopacy was not pretended to Our Sentiments about a constant Moderator he entertaineth in ridicule p. 16. rather than refuteth them by Arguments this I do little regard Had the excellent men of the Cyprianick Age seen or known the fatal Consequents of it as we have I judge they would not have allowed it as they did I. refer the Reader for satisfaction in this Point to Mr. Baillie Vnlawfulness and danger of limited Episcopacy and another peice bearing the same Title which he defendeth against a Reply made to it That the Presbyters of Rome did often meet during the Vacancy of the See and that they had a Moderator in their Meetings none will deny but what he inferreth is in consequential that they might as easily have chosen a Bishop if he had been but Moderator For not only the Custom of having the Moderator fixed made it more hard than to choose one to be their Mouth for one Meeting or two but also as I have said the whole Province was to be concerned in him He argueth p. 17. in many words if he were Moderator why the people was to choose him or why was it needful that he should be chosen in their presence A. Because also he was to be Pastor of that Flock That he was no Church-Governour as Moderator is answered above But it cannot be said he was no Church-Governour under another Relation viz. as Pastor of the Congregation of Rome or a Congregation in it That he was chosen by 16 Bishops i. e. saith our Author sixteen Moderators was not then needless seing he was to be Moderator over them to that is over that Province If sixteen parochial Bishops met to choose a Moderaror of a Presbytery or sixteen Moderators from sixteen Presbytries met to Elect him who was to praeside continually in the Synod This cannot infer either sole or superior Jurisdiction Further if we should grant that in these days a Presbyterie used to take the help of other Presbyteries or their Moderators or that help was by Custom imposed on them this will indeed prove that some of the
and I think that it will not be denyed that Presbyters are Praepositi and are set over the Church he saith no more then but the Church is founded on the Bishop that is his sound Doctrine as was before explained and her Affairs are ruled by the same Praepositi that is the Bishops and others having Ecclesiastical Authority with them For Presbyters are the same with Bishops in this and that Cyprian meaneth so may be gathered from his varying the word Episcopus into Praepositus Again granting that all the Acts of the Church are ruled by the Bishop this will not prove that they are ruled by him alone His other Testimony out of what he calleth Epistle 43 is far less to his purpose Felicismus with his Faction who formerly had opposed Cyprian's Election to be Bishop in his retirement not only without him but without the Concurrence of the Presbytery or Congregational Eldership I shall not determine which of these the Church of Carthage was then governed by received some of the lapsed which I as well as my Antagonist do reckon a very disorderly Action this Cyprian doth justly blame And that on this Ground that they set up another Altar in that Church that is they threw off the Church Authority that was regularly placed in Carthage and set up another beside we also would blame them who would cast off the Authority of the Presbytery or Kirk-Session and set up another What is Cyprian's meaning is yet clearer from what our Author unwarily citeth out of his Book de unittae Ecclesiae An esse sibi cum Christo videtur qui adversus Christi Sacerdotes facit Qui se à cleri ejus Plebis societate secernit Where he describeth Schisme to be when some depart from the Rulers and Members of the Church not from the Bishop alone and that is to be understood while they keep God's way § 30. His third Preposition is that Cyprian maketh the contempt of one Bishop or undutifulness to him the original of Schisme I am so far from opposing him in this that I think when people begin to quarrel with the meanest of Christs Ministers unless his Life or Doctrine or Government give just cause that they sin against God contemn his Ordinance and are on the brink of Schisme if not Haeresie also And I am sure all that he citeth out out of Cyprian on this head amounteth to no more except a word or two which I shall a little consider When he speaketh of one Bishop I understand him of one Praeses whether in a Congregational or Classical Presbytrey and that in conjunction with them who opposeth such Authority opposeth Christ's Institution He mentioneth p. 23. as also p. 32. The Bishops Monarchical power in the Church and maketh Cyprian prove it by the Bees who have a King the Beasts who have a Captain and Robbers who have a Chiftain It is evident to any who consider Cyprian's other Writings that he never arrogated to himself a Monarchical Power over the Church for he plainly disowneth it as we shall after have occasion to shew But he is here dealing with one Pupianus who had reproached Cyprian as proud and arrogant here Cyprian defendeth himself and retorteth the same Charge of Arrogance on Pupianus in that he took on him to arraign the Bishops and Rulers of the Church and had denyed his power in the Church and he sheweth what Inconveniency it were to the Church if all this time the Church of Carthage had been governed by a Man who had no Authority and in this he bringeth the similitude of the Bees c. Will any think that Cyprian was so weak as to take this for a sufficient Argument to prove Monarchical Power in the Church he only bringeth it as a similitude to illustrate this Truth that there must be a Government in the Church and it had been ill with the Church of Carthage if so long a time they had One over them who was no lawful Ruler which is no Determination of the Extent of Cyprian's power Neither was that the Question between him and Pupianus § 31. I proceed to his fourth Proposition p. 24. The Bishop was so much the principle of Vnity the people had such Dependence on him and was so virtually in him that what he did as Bishop was reputed the Deed of the whole Church which he ruled And to confirm this he bringeth Instances that Churches were blamed for communicating with criminal Bishops and that they did not separat from them and are commended for the Bishops owning the Truth Had our Author thought fit to peruse and consider his Papers before he printed them it is like we should not have been troubled with such crude Notions For 1. How can this be reconciled to what he had a little before-pleaded concerning the horrid sinfulness of separating from their Bishop and this without any distinction or Limitation 2. He is so unwise as to add one word that spoileth all his Design viz. As Bishop for what a Bishop acteth as Bishop he acteth in the Consistory or the Presbytery and by the plurality of their Votes and that is indeed the Fact of the Church Representative and of the Church diffusive too if they shew no dislike of it But this is no Semblance of Proof of the Power of Bishops that he pleadeth for Cyprian's Rhetorical flourish in saying that when Cornelius confessed the Faith before the Persecutors the whole Roman Church confessed Is no more but that Cornelius gave a faithful Testimony to that Doctrine that he had preached among that People and that they received and did still owne is this an Argument that Cornelius had the sole Power of Church-Government in Rome Yea all this might have been said of any Member of that Church who had so confessed and the Church did not reclaim but professed the same Truth It is far less probative that Cyprian desired to suffer at Carthage rather than else where that he might in Confession be the Mouth of them all And least of all is it an Argument that he calleth them his Bowels his Body their Grief was his Grief c. We must abandon all Sense and Reason if these pass for concludent Arguments Of the same weight is what he bringeth out of Pontius of the Blessedness of the people of Carthage who suffered together with such a Bishop I beg the Readers pardon for troubling him with such silly Arguments which need no Answer § 32. His fifth Proposition that the Bishops being the principle of Vnion to his Church was held before the Cyprianick Age This I say needeth no further Animadversion for it bringeth no new thing Neither is it to be imagined that Ignatius whom he citeth meant that the sole Authority of the Bishop rather than the Doctrine that he taught from the infallible Word of God was the Principle of Vnity to the Church Or that they who belong to Christ are with the Bishop whether he teacheth Truth or
audita praeceperunt eos Praepositi sic esse donec Episcopus constituatur And de Lapsis § 4. Praepositos superbo tumore contemnere it is spoken of all the Rulers of the Church For a further Refutation of this his Principle it may be observed that this Confirmation of which Cyprian here speaketh is not that which in our days goeth under that Name but that used in the Apostolick Church the Effect of which was the giving of the Holy Ghost as is clear from his citing Act. 8. 14 c for the Pattern of what they did and their Warrant for it Now that Imposition of Hands was not given to all the Baptized but only to such as were ad ministerium ordinandi saith Lightfoot it was not ad sanctificationem sed ad dona extraordinaria saith the same Author Piscator Beza Grotius do also so expound this place wherefore it proveth nothing except our Author can tell us what Cyprian meant by it which I can not seing the extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost were then ceased for any thing that we know His next Citation out of Firmilian destroyeth what it is brought for for he ascribeth to Bishops the Power of Baptism Confirmation Ordination his Word is they possess this Power I hope he will not say that Presbyters had no Power in Baptism wherefore by Bishops here Firmilian must mean the Pastors of the Church all of whom were frequently called Bishops at that time yea himself confesseth that these spoken of were the majores natu whom he most absurdly pleadeth to be Bishops as distinct from preaching Presbyters Of as little weight is what Cornelius saith of Novatianus Eusebius maketh Cornelius say this of Novatus chap. 42. that he was not confirmed by the Bishop for in that place Cornelius questioned not only the Confirmation of Novatus but his Baptism and that he speaketh not of the ordinary Confirmation but of that which belonged to Priests is clear for he saith how then came he by the Holy Ghost and he is there pleading his incapacity to be a Bishop on that account But of this too much for it doth not hurt our Cause if it be granted that Bishops then were so far distinguished from other Presbyters that they usurped a Power which our Lord had not given to them nor any man else at that time what ever he had before done to them whom he immediatly sent and extraordinarly endowed § 40. The second Act of Power that he ascribeth to the Cyprianick Bishop alone is He had the sole Power of Ordination and that of whatsoever Clergy-men within his District Ordinations could not be performed without him but he could perform them regularly without the concurrence of any other Church-Officer And he saith this hath so frequently and fully been proved by learned men that he need insist little on it All which we deny neither do I find any Argument here brought by him nor have I found in the Writings of his learned men and I may without vanity say I have seen the strongest of them which might be a rational ground of Conviction Before I examine his Proofs for this Assertion I shall prove the Antithesis That Presbyters did in that age and before joyn in the Ordination of Presbyters And first it is evident from Jerom's words so much insisted upon by our Episcopal Brethren Alexandriae a Marco evangelista usque ad Heracleam Dionysium Espiscopos Presbyteri semperunum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant Whence it may fairly be deduced that till An. Christi 246 all the Power or Authority that the Bishop had was given him by the Presbyters they elected him nor had he any other Ordination or Communication of Power but what he had from them in the Opinion of Jerome If then the Presbyters made a Bishop it could not be he alone but the Bishop with them and as one of them who made Presbyters 2. Hilarius who lived in the midle of the fourth Century in Eph. 4. hath these words apud Aegyptum Presbyteri consignaverunt si praesens non fuit Episcopus Whether ye interpret Consignaverunt of Confirmation as some or Consecration of Church-Officers as others it cometh to the same Conclusion seing our Author and his Complices reserve both these Powers to the Bishop and it is probable they were not divided That they did it absente Episcopo doth imply that they had that Authority for without it they could not have done it at all 3. Novatus a Presbyter in Carthage while Cyprian was Bishop Ordained Felicissimus This Ordination tho' no doubt it was irregular being done without the Moderator and the Presbytery yet it was not lookt on as null but Novatus was after that owned by Cyprian and Felicissimus continued to be a Deacon To this our Author answereth p. 42. that not Novatus but neighbouring Bishops by the procurement of Novatus did it But Cyprian's words are plain Felicissimum diaconum sua factione constituit That this Deacon was ordained by Bishops is gratis dictum I have also elsewhere proved that in Scotland there were Presbyters ruling the Church long before they had Bishops which could not be if none but Bishops could Ordain them § 41. Cyprian Ep. mihi 33. in ordinationibus clericis solemus vos ante consulere ut mores merita singulorum communi consilio ponderarem c. In that Ep. he telleth the Church what was his usual practice and we have cause to think that he lookt on it as his Duty not to Ordain without the Presbyters Commune consilium here can import no less than Deliberation and Authoritative Decision for it was common to him and them In the following part of the Epistle he excuseth his Ordaining Anrelius a Lector without them from the evidence of a Divine Call and the present Distress and Scattering of the Church might excuse this necessary diverting from the common Road yet he telleth them he did not this by himself but hunc igitur fratres dilectissimi à me à collegis qui praesentes aderant ordinatum sciatis quod vos scio libenter amplecti optare tales in Ecclesia nostra quem plurimos ordinari He maketh the like Excuse Ep. 24. for his Ordaining Saturus a Lector and Optatus a Sub-deacon only here he had before hand the common consent but his Circumstances being in his Retirement did not suffer this to be done in and with the Presbytery but that he did it not alone we may gather from the former instance This doth sufficiently shew that Ordinations were not performed without the Determination of the Presbytery But it is also manifest that in the solemnizing of them by imposition of Hands the Presbyters had their Share with the Bishop Cypr Ep. 10. § 2. There is mention of impositio manum Episcopi cleri and that two several times If it be said that this Imposition of Hands was for absolving Penitents the consequence is good
from the one to the other seing our Author joyneth Confirmation in order to Communion of which this is a sort with Ordination as two Powers reserved to the Bishop alone Ep. 67. § 4. he saith of Cornelius Bishop of Rome that he was ordained Suffragi◠Cleri Plebis Concil Carthag 3. Canon 22. Nullus ordinetur clericus non probatus vel Episcoporum not Episcopi examine vel populi testimonio Concil Carthag 4. Can. 3. Presbyter cum ordinatur Episcopo eum benedicente manum super caput ejus tenente etiam omnes presbyteri qui adsunt manus suas juxta manum Episcopi super caput ejus teneant This is exactly our practice if ye allow the Moderator to be the Cyprianick Episcopus Our Author himself seemeth to insinuat that the Presbyters with Cyprian used to concur in Ordination while he premiseth to his proofs for sole Ordination that passage out of Ep. 14. as he quoteth it a primordio Episcopatus mei statueram nihil sine consilio vestro sine consensu plebis mea privatim sententia gerere I say if this be not meant of Ordination it is here very impertinently brought in Nor can his Comment on Cyprian's words help him viz. That this was his voluntary Condescendence that he was not bound to To prove which he putteth Statueram in majusculis as if it were not usual with good men when they enter on an Office to resolve to keep within the bounds of their power to manage it lawfully as well as to cede in what is their Right But that Cyprian's words cannot bear that sense I prove by the Reason he giveth sic mutuus honor exposcit the mutuus honor must be that due regard that he had to their Authority in the Church and they ought to have to his it had been a dishonouring of them and setting them lower than Christ had set them in his Church for him to mannage her Affairs without them And Ep. 18. he maketh this Matter yet clearer Quae res cum omnium nostrum consilium sententiam spectet praejudicare ego soli mihi rem communem vindicare non audeo Where it is manifest that it was conscience of Duty and not good Nature onely that induced him to this Conduct Also that he attributeth to Presbyters not consilium onely but sententiam not onely a consultative Power but also definitive or decisive The Apostle who had indeed a sole Jurisdiction spake in another Dialect 1 Cor. 5. I have judged already Cyprian durst not do so because he knew he had not that sole Power § 42. Let us now hear his Proofs for the Bishop's sole Power of Ordination The first is What is said of the Ordination of Aurelius which I have already shewed to be against him Wherefore I shall onely take notice of his Observes on this Passage by which he would force it to speak for him 1. That his Power was the same in all Ordinations I shall not much contend about this only if they put the Power of Ordaining Officers of their own devising into the hands of whom they would it doth not thence follow that they might or did so dispose of Ordaining Power with respect to these whom God had appointed and about whose Ordination he had given Rules in the Word 2. He used only to ask their Counsel about the manners and Merits of the person to be Ordained not their concurrence in the Act of Ordination This is a Mistake he asked not their Counsel only but their joynt Suffrage as is above shewed That their Concurrence in the Act of Ordination is not here mentioned is not to his purpose seing it is consequential to their Office and Church Power That it is fairly imported in the instance of Aurelius that they used not to concur is a groundless Imagination For this is a single Instance in an extraordinary case and he spendeth a whole Epistle in making Apologie for it Yea he more than insinuateth the contrary when he telleth what he used to do and giveth a singular Reason for what he now did I wonder that common Sense doth not teach him that such an Act doth not import a Custom 3. That it was intirely of his own easiness and condescendency that he consulted them in the matter This I have above refuted and it is inconsistent with what himself elsewhere saith that the Bishop was the Monarch and the Presbyters his Senate I hope he will not say that it is ex beneplacito that Kings consult their Parliaments Unless he be for the Turkish Government both in Church and State § 43. Another Testimony which he calleth Remarkable p. 40. is Cyprian Ep. 41. had given a Deputation to Caldonius and some others to examine the Ages Qualifications and Merits of some in Carthage that he whose Province it was to promote Men to Ecclesiastical Offices might be well informed about them and promote none but such as were meek and humble and worthy His Remark is he speaks of himself in the singular Number as having the power of promoting and he founds that Power and appropriats it to himself upon his having the care of the Church and the Government of Her committed to him For A. I observe a few things on this discourse 1. This Delegation of Caldonius and the rest was not to Carthage as our Author dreameth which appeareth by the end of the Epistle in which he bids Caldonius c. read this Ep. to the Brethren and transmit it to Carthage to the Clergy which had been incongruous if their Errand and Work had been at Carthage Next this is in consistent with what Cyprian and our Author saith was his Practice viz. to consult the presbyters about who were fit to be ordained It is strange that he should send Strangers to Carthage for such Enquiry and to inform him with the neglect of the Presbytery 2. It is also clear from the Epistle § 1. That this Negotiation was about some Sufferers who belonged to the Church of Carthage may be banished or imprisoned or confined some where where they were in necessity for he saith he sent them ut expungeretis necessitates fratrum nostrorum sumptibus c. That they might pay their Debts as Pamelius expoundeth it and that they might furnish them for following their Trades if they so inclined And the enquiry about their fitness for Church-Work seemeth to be intended on the by for he bringeth it in with simul etiam 3. That he speaketh of himself in the singular Number doth no way infer that he alone was to promote any who were qualified among these Sufferers Neither his having the care of Church Government committed to him For ego cui cura incumbit promoverem saith nothing at all of sole care nor of sole Power Not only a Moderator but any Member of a Presbytery to whom the Ordination of Ministers belongeth might say as much might desire to know worthy persons and give the Reason that it is not
Curiosity but it belongeth to my Office to Ordain such as are fit and therefore I desire to know their qualities His next Citation hath no more strength For it saith no more than that some in a State of Schisme have been ordained by false Bishops whence he inferreth that all Ordinations in the true and in the false Church were performed by Bishops This is not the Question but whether they were ordained by Bishops acting each of them alone § 44. He next bringeth Ep. 39. where Cyprian writeth to his Clergy that he had Ordained Celerinus and Ep. 29. Saturus and Optatus and that tho' some of them were but young and he Ordained them to Inferior Offices yet he designed they should sit with him in their Riper Years that is saith our Author he designed them for the Presbyterate And he very Learnedly observeth that Cyprian telleth his Presbyters this in a very Authoritative Stile even in a Stile by which Superiors used to signifie their Will and Pleasure to their Subjects with a be it known unto you Here a little Reflection will serve 1. Here is still the old Fallacy Cyprian Ordain'd these Persons ergo he did it alone 2. It is so far from that that of Celerinus he saith expresly it was done by him and his Collegues Ep. 34. § 1. As in the former Ep. 33. he had said of Aurelius 3. The present Dissipation of the Church made some things necessary which were neither usual nor commendable out of that Case as that Cyprian with such as he could then get to concur with him Ordained some Persons without the Concurrence of the Presbytery who then it seems through the Persecution that was at Carthage could not get that Work managed 4. For Cyprian's Stile in his Epistle to the Presbytery I think many moe will smile at his Fancy than will be convinced by the strength of his Reason drawn from it Cyprian's word is Sciatis which our Author putteth in majusculis to give his Argument some more pith but who knoweth not that this Expression signifieth barely a notifying of a thing to another and is commonly used especially in the Latine Tongue to Superiors Inferiors or Equals It is a token of a mind deeply impressed with the Majesty of a Bishop as he elsewhere expresseth himself when this word doth so sound in his ears The Ordination of Novatianus which he next bringeth as an Argument for him rather is against him it was an Act condemned by the Clergy and People by Cyprian's constant Practice and that which he lookt on as Duty as hath been shewed before and was the Practice of an Aspiring Pope yea which himself promised should not be made a Praecedent Can any body think this is a good Argument to prove the Custom of that Age Neither can it be made appear that this Ordination was performed by the Bishop alone especially seing our Author saith the Bishop prevailed and Ordained him It is like he prevailed with some at least of the Clergy tho' they did at first much resist it He saith p. 42. that any concurrence of Presbyters with the Bishop in Ordination is not to be found in Cyprian ' s Works nor in his Age. I hope the Reader is by this time convinced of the contrary He next p. 43. bringeth for Proof the second Canon of the Apostles commonly so called which is let a Presbyter be Ordained by one Bishop as likewise a Deacon and the rest of the Clergy But our Author might know that the Authority of these Canons is controverted even among Papists as Sixtus Senensis Lib. 2. ad vocem Clemens p. mihi 62 63. And Caranza Summa Concilior and others shew The Contentions that are about the number of them make them to be all suspected Rivet Critic Sacr. Lib. 1. C. 1. p. 93. and P. Martyr Loc. Com. Class 4. C. 4. p. mihi 779. bring sufficient Grounds for rejecting them as neither done by the Apostles nor collected by Clement as is alledged Again if this Canon were admitted it proveth not the Conclusion for one Bishop Ordaineth when the Moderator with the Presbytery doth it and that Canon is observed when no more are called together to the Ordination of a Presbyter His Comparison of the Bishop's Power in this with the Rights of Majesty in giving Commissions is vain Talk unless he can prove a Monarchy and that absolute in the Church which can never be done for the Canon mentioned being universally received in Cyprian's time it is not without Doubt as he alledgeth for all Beveregius's Arguments which he boasteth of but produceth none of them One thing I cannot pass p. 44. he telleth that after Cyprian's time it was appointed by the Canons that Presbyters should concur with the Bishop in Ordinations which overthroweth all his Discourse of the Bishop's Majesty Soveraignty Incontrollable and Vnaccountable Power c. And it is evident to any who is Conversant in the History of the Church that Episcopal Power did rather continually increase than suffer Diminution till it arrived at the height of the Papacy which in the best sense is his Sublime Fastigium Sacerdotii And then indeed the Pope began to clip the Wings of other Bishops that he might crow over them § 45. His third Prerogative of the Bishop in Cyprian's time is his full Power without asking the consent or concurrence of either Clergy or People to setle Presbyters within his District And on this occasion he ridiculeth our Principle of the peoples Power of choosing their own Ministers All the Prooff of this confident Assertion and insolent Contempt of them who are otherwise minded is Cyprian Ep. 40. wrote to Carthage that they should receive Numidicus as a Presbyter among them and our Author addeth probably he was ordained before 1. If our Author had pleased to state and argue the Question about the Power of Election I should have been willing to joyn Issue with him Or if he had thought fit to answer what I have elsewhere written on that Head in a Book that he hath seen and cited when he thought he could say something against it I should have considered the strength of what he would say but he doth wisely shun that Controversie neither shall I dip in it further than is necessary for answering his Book 2. If Numidicus was ordained before then was he also placed in Carthage before and we have cause to think that he was ordained by the consent and concurrence of the Presbyters of Carthage at least our Author cannot prove the contrary which is necessary for establishing his Conclusion 3. He who animadverteth on Pamelius's Notes on Cyprian hath these Words on the beginning of the Epistle Etsi vocatio Numidici magis erat extraordinaria quam ordinaria tamen non sine plebe Carthaginense Presbyterio ascribitur whence he inferreth that Ordinations without their consent are profanae irritae 4. His work is to prove that it was the Practice and Principle of the Cyprianick-Age that
Lapsed Nothing of this I contradict except what I now said He hath run thus far without a Check and therefore ariveth at the Confidence to say p. 58. now consider what followeth and speak your Conscience and tell me if St. Cyprian was not more than either single Presbyter or Presbyterian Moderator I shall yield him yet a little more in what he saith of Cyprian's Meekness and Humility of his being alarmed with this Practice that this was an unparalelled Practice and that Cyprian did zealously and vigorously oppose it And for all this I shall speak my Conscience and shall give Reason for my Light that Cyprian was no Diocesan Bishop in our modern sense and that he neither had nor claimed sole Power nor a Negative in the Government of the Church and that bating what I yielded in stating the Question § 9 10. He was no more but a single Presbyter that is a Parish Minister or Presbyterian Moderator And indeed all that he here bringeth and looketh on as so strongly Argumentative is already Answered he having cited all or most of the places before which he here quoteth He bringeth three Epistles of Cyprian to prove his Assertion § 52. The first is that to the Confessors and Martyrs where I find nothing but a sharp Reproof of them for going without their Line and he blameth those Presbyters who had absolved the Lapsed so disorderly only what seemeth here to contain an Argument is that they should have Petitioned the Bishop for restoring of these Lapsed and not done it without him The Answer here is easie and often before given that the fault of these turbulent Presbyters was that they took this Act of Church Power on themselves without the Presbytery whereas the regular way had been to Petition the Bishop that he might call the Presbytery and that he with them might cognosce of that Affair I have laid down sufficient warrant for thus understanding his words from his declared purpose founded on Conscience of Duty to do nothing without the Concurrence of the Presbytery see § 12. And it is like I may after bring yet further Evidence that his Principles led him to this Conduct At present I take notice of that plain Passage Ep. 15. ad Clerum speaking of receiving the Lapsed quaeres saith he cum omnium nostrum Concilium Sententiam spectet praejudicare ego soli mihi rem communem vindicare non audeo And he desireth that that Affair might be put off donec pace nobis à Domino redditâ in unum convenire singulorum causas examinare possumus if Cyprian seem to my Adversary to speak in pure Prelatical Stile as he saith p. 6. He seemeth to me here to speak in the Stile of a Presbyterian Moderator Of the same Importance is the next Epistle cited which was to the Clergy of Carthage he doth not call them his Clergy as our Author wordeth it and if he had there had been no Argument in it he sharply reproveth not the Presbyters in common as our Author fouly representeth the matter for he writeth in a loving Stile to them but some of the Presbyters who had received some of the Lapsed most irregularly and that because they had not taken the due course for receiving these Lapsed which should have been done per impositionem manuum Episcopi Cleri not by the Bishops sole Authority He doth indeed here speak like a Bishop that is a faithful Pastor but not as a Bishop pretending to sole Jurisdiction or a Negative in the Government of the Church His third Epistle is to the People where we have the same Complaint of the Irregularity of the Schismatical Presbyters and complaineth that the honour of his Priesthood and of his Chair was not reserved to him This can never evince that Cyprian pretended to a Power to manage that Affair by himself I see nothing here inconsistent with the Power or the Stile of the Moderator of a Presbytery or Pastor of a Congregation save that the Moderator then being constant his part in the management of publick Affairs was more obvious and therefore more taken notice of He hath yet a further Citation wherein Cyprian telleth the Clergy that they ought to inform him of every thing that happens that so I may saith he Advisedly and Deliberatly give Orders concerning the Affairs of the Church let any one compare this Translation with Cyprian's own words which are faithfully enough set down by our Author in the Margin Is limare Consilium to give Order It is to polish and amend his Advice and make it more exact he then in his Retirement wills them to write often and distinctly to him of all Occurrences that he as making such a figure in their Society might give the more accurate Advice about what was to be done this is no Prelatical but a plain Presbyterian Stile § 53. On this occasion he is pleased p. 61 62. to take notice of and tragically aggravate a Passage in rational Defence of Non-conformity p. 179. where he thinketh Cyprian is reflected on as shewing too much Zeal in that Cause viz. of his Episcopal Authority being neglected and that possibly he stretched his Power a little too far as afterward many did he was a holy and meek man but such may be a little too high This he stretcheth his Invention to expose as contradictory to it self injurious to Cyprian and an uncharitable or ignorant Sugestion his more sedate Thoughts after all this Huffiness may inform him better That Author as he was not so straitned with his learned Adversaries Arguments as he imagineth they being the very same which now I have examined so he was far from speaking Contradictions nor did he seek to reconcile Pride and Patience Superciliousness and Self-denyal Huffiness and Humility carnal hight and Christian Holiness He was far from thinking on such ill Qualities with respect to that excellent person Further than that the best of men have sinful Infirmity mixed with their Graces and best Gifts He might know and I shall not charge him with Ignorance in this that Sin and Grace are consistent in gradu saltem remissiore And that tho' it were ridiculous to say that Moses was the meekest Man on Earth and yet he was Huffie and Proud and Passionate or that Job was most patient and yet he was impatient Notwithstanding it may be said with our Author's leave that neither of these holy Men was so perfect in the grace for which he is commended as to have nothing of the contrary evil Further I am of Opinion that what might be imputed to the excellent Cyprian was rather the Fault of the Age he lived in than his personal Fault there was then a Tendency toward Church-Domination which did shew it self much more afterward Tho' I still maintain it was not arrived at that Pitch that this Author imputeth to that time He spendeth a great many words to prove that Cyprian did not stretch his Power too far
in this matter all which is lost labour for that was no otherways imputed to him than with a possibility and on Account of his mentioning his own Episcopal Power more than he did the power of the Presbytery which power of the Presbytery he doth yet clearly owne as I have proved This had a shew of Usurpation and did in time introduce it It was the Genius of that age to have too big thoughts of that Praelation of being primus Presbyter And the best of men in that time were tinctured with this mistake Wherefore he might have superceded his proving what Figure the Martyrs then made I know their Interest went far as to receiving the lapsed yet I still think that they neither pretended to nor was then ascribed to them formal Church-Authority What he largely discourseth p 64. of Cyprian's dealing with the disorderly Presbyters not by Huffing but by reason and Argument is as little to our purpose in that he did rationally and Christianly Yet in these Reasonings as he in words taketh more notice of his Episcopal Authority than of the Presbytries Power so upon the matter doth not derogate from the one nor unduely highten the other as hath been already shewed I wonder at the Insinuation that my learned Antagonist maketh p. 65. as if any had imagined it questionable whether Cyprian or the Presbyters that he blameth were guilty of Vsurpation They did usurp most intollerably in doing that by themselves which should have been done by Cyprian and the Presbytery And it was no Usurpation to reprove and threaten them with Censure for so doing The power of the Presbytery was not here questioned but the power of particular Presbyters who took the Power of the Presbytry upon them And therefore the Presbytery who were not guilty had no Right of their own to defend against Cyprian but had just cause to joyn with him against these Usurpers It is as insignificant that the seditious Presbyters repented excused themselves and desired a Form from Cyprian For it is ordinary for some to go from one Extreme to another Besides that seeking a Form from him was to ask it from him and the Presbytery not from him alone That these Presbyters were generally condemned for their factious Practices I think none doubteth and it is to little purpose to prove it so laboriously as our Author doth § 54. Yet because in his Proofs of it some things are interspersed which may look like Arguments against what I plead for I shall make some Observes on this Discourse He giveth us account of Cyprian's writing to the Presbytery at Rome they having then no Bishop This I hope is a Token that Cyprian thought not that all Church Power at Rome dyed with the Bishop but that Presbyters are Church Rulers and not the Bishop only In the return that the Presbytery at Rome made to Cyprian he fancieth that he findeth some Arguments for Episcopal sole Power which I shall a little consider He saith they ascribe to him a supreme and unaccountable Power I find no words that can be so constructed in either of the two Epistles that they write to him on that Subject but on the contrary they seem to insinuate a Parity with him while they frequently call him Frater It would be thought great sauciness in our days for Presbyters to write in that Stile to so great a Bishop as Cyprian was esteemed to have been by our Prelats Next they compare him to the Master of a Ship who doeth not act in parity with the other Sea-men A. omne simile claudicat a Moderator of a Presbytery may be so compared as having a main hand in the Conduct of Affairs Again the words of that Epistle import no more than making Cyprian the Steersman who tho' he be at the Helm and the Safety of the Ship dependeth much on his Skill and Management yet he is not always the Commander of the Ship and the Safety of the Ship should yet more depend on the Steersman if he were fixed and always so imployed as Cyprian was in the Ecclesiastical Ship at Carthage He saith that the Roman Clergy tell Cyprian and pray take notice of it saith he that they could determine nothing in that matter wanting a Bishop This is a Misrepresentation for they tell their Mind plainly in the first of their two Epistles to Cyprian that he did well in repressing that Insolency of some Presbyters that the lapsed should not be suddenly received and give the Reason recens est hoc lapsorum vulnus adhuc in tumorem plaga consurgens idcirco certi sumus quod spatio productioris temporis impetu isto consenescente amabunt hoc ipsum ad fidelem se delatos medicinam And in the second Epistle they add another Reason why it was fit to delay that Affair of of censuring the lapsed because they wanted a Bishop not because the Bishop was to be the sole Judge in that matter but because the Bishop was he qui omnia ista moderetur these are their own words he was to preside in that Affair Seing then there was another reason for delaying even where there was a Bishop as in Carthage it was a superadded reason why at Rome it should be delayed the Presbyterie being incomplete by the want of a significant Member If it be said could they not choose a Moderator Answ That Office through custom being then fixed and the Honour and Revenue that belonged to it being so considerable it was not easie to get it done of a sudden and the iniquity of that time of Persecution did add to the difficulty as themselves express it Nondum enim Episcopus propter rerum temporum difficultates constitutus Our Author vitiareth their words when he maketh them say who onely could define c. There is no such words in this Epistle it is said indeed of the Bishop eorum qui lapsi sunt possit cum authoritate consilio habere rationem But that saith nothing of sole Authority but such as was to be acted in the Presbytery and with their concurrence § 55. He observeth likewise that they commend Cyprian that he did not determine in that matter by himself alone but took the advice of many and this they impute not to the incompetency of his Authority for it but to his condescendence Ans He doth wholly mistake this Matter for the Roman Clergy in their Letter to Cyprian do not at all take notice of what he did or might do with respect to his own District nor his advising with his own Presbytery but that he had taken the advice in such a weighty case of general concernment of other Bishops and of the Clergy at Rome And it is certain that he with the Presbytery at Carthage might have determined in this Matter with respect to themselves and it was Prudence and not want of Power that made him advise with others He bringeth another Testimony to the plenitude of Episcopal Power from an