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
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
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
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
Error It is a vast mistake that he saith that Cyprian Ep. 33. pleadeth for the divine Right of Episcopacy in that Ep. which is mihi 27 he pleadeth for the Divine Authority of the Church and her Bishops that is Pastours not for a Divine Warrant for the Praelation of some of them above others nothing can be more evident than the concurrent Testimonies of Antiquity against this Fancy Scripture and the most Antient of the Fathers speak of Bishops and Presbyters indistinctly when the Distinction began to be taken notice of Jerome saith that it was brought in by the Presbyters themselves Ep. ad Evagr. as also on Tit. and Aug. Ep. 10. referreth to Ecclesiae usus Yea Concil Nic. 1. Can. 6. maketh the Distinction of Bishops as Metropolitans c. To be mos antiquus All that followeth § 37 37 36. doth also confute this Opinion But this I insist not on because our Author hath put off the proof of that Divine Institution of Episcopacy to his next Essay p. 94. His sixth and last Proposition is that the Principle of the Bishops being the Center of Vnity is most reasonable and accountable in it self We may now expect some Herculean Argument and the highest Effort of his Skill And I am willing that the whole Controversie be hanged on this Pin. All that he bringeth for Argument is every particular Church is an Organical political Body and there can be no Organical Body without a Principle of Vnity on which all the Members must hang and from which being separated they must cease to be Members and who so fit for being Principle of Vnity to a Church as he who is Pastour Ruler Governour Captain Head Judge Christs Vicar c. Not his Conclusion only but an Assumption is understood viz. the Bishop is all this ergo he is the Center of Vnity and his quod erat demonstrandum followeth a little after it is scarce possible to prove any thing of this nature more demonstratively One might make sport with this Argument which is introduced and backed with such Parade But I am in earnest in this Debate There are here no less than three Premisses expressed and a fourth necessarily understood before we can reach the Conclusion which every Logician will condemn and when we are at last through all these Stages arived at the Conclusion it is above distinguished and his Argument can reach no more than is by us confessed Besides this it is hard to shew how these his Premisses hang together or what Connection they have Further that the principle of Vnity in a political Body is one person and cannot be a Society the Consistory or the Presbytery in the Church will hardly be proved by this Argument there can be no Unity in a Common-wealth but only in Monarchy Aristocracy and Democracy in a Nation are here not only made unlawful but impossible that the Bishop is fittest to be the Principle of Unity in the Church is gratis dictum Yea it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Notwithstanding of the metaphorical Appellations that our Author giveth him from some of the Antients Yea if a Society cannot be the Center of Unity in a particular Church who shall be the Center of Unity among Bishops we must surely have the Pope for this use which is indeed the native conclusion of our Author's Argument that he braggeth so much of But this will afterward occurre § 33. He cometh now p. 27. to another Argument a Bishop in Cyprian's age was supreme in his Church immediatly subject to Christ had no Ecclesiastical Superior on Earth the Church was one but divided into many Precincts each had its Bishop who was their Supreme I am no further concerned in what he saith on this head but what he bringeth for the Bishops Supremacy Wherefore I insist not on his first Proposition concerning the Equality of Bishops I only observe that he is for Parity in the Church and if it be found among Bishops I know no Scripture nor Reason that condemneth it among Presbyters To the same purpose is his second Preposition and his Third all which are levelled against the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome whose cause I do not intend to plead Wherefore I come to examine his 4th Proposition p. 31. by the Principles of these times every Bishop was Christs Vicar within his own District So say I is every Minister of the Gospel understanding by Vicar one who deriveth his Power from Christ and to him must give account of it He saith further that a Bishop had a Primacy in his own Church If he mean that he was primus Presbyter I denyed it not if that he had the sole Power in his own person or that the Presbyters had not a coordinate power with him in the Government of the Church I deny it Neither is it proved by Cyprian's words which he citeth Cathedram sibi constituere primatum assumere which I cannot find by what Directions he giveth and therefore cannot tell what might be further said for vindicating them The next Expression admiteth of the same Answer viz. that he managed the Ballance of Government it is not said that he did this by himself Our Moderator manageth the Ballance of Government but with the Presbytery The sublime Sacerdotii fastigum signifieth no more than primus Presbyter The Antients use as big words for as low things neither do I know any higher Degree in those days If my Antagonist will prove it he must use other Topicks than words that may admit various significations the same I say of the Expressions that follow the vigor Episcopatus the sublimis divina potestas gubernandae Ecclesiae This last may agree to the meanest Member of a Presbytery Are not Presbyters called by Cyprian such as are divino sacerdotio honorati and gloriosi sacerdotes as himself citeth p. 7. To what purpose he citeth Jerome for the Parity of Bishops and saith that I will not reject his Testimony I understand not I shall neither oppose him nor Jerome in that Principle § 34. He bringeth another Argument p. 32. from the High Priest among the Jews and saith that a Bishop was the same to Christians that he was to the Jews I see the learned Author is very unhappy in stumbling upon popish Arguments and he can say litle for his Bishop but what they say for their Pope And it is evident that the Papists from this Medium argue with much more shew of Reason For the High Priest had universal supream Authority over the universal Church that then was The Papists infer the Pope's universal Head-ship tho' I am far from thinking this Argument concludent for them yet what shew of Confequence can it have for a Bishops Power in his Diocess Or with what Face can this Author say that a Bishop is the same to Presbyters and Deacons that he was to the Levites unless he say that a Bishop was the same to all the Presbyters and Deacons in the World
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
was in these days his peculiar Work neither do we find that he Deputed one to praeside but left it to the Presbytery to choose whom they thought fit He next bringeth the 38. and 41. Canons of the Apostles to prove what he designed I have above shewed what Weight is to be laid on their Authority Nor do they give this Power to the Bishop alone but the Bishop is to be lookt on with respect to what is there said as praesiding in the Presbytery What he citeth out of Justine Martyr saith no more but the Bishop hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Care of the Ecclesiastical Goods which we willingly yield to him and to every one of the Presbytery but it is not said he alone hath this Care He would have us believe that this sole Power of the Bishop is fairly founded on Scripture but citeth no place I know no more where to find these places of Scripture than I know where to find some places of Cyprian that he citeth I am sure Act. 6. maketh nothing for him but on the contrary Neither 2 Corinth 8. and 9. Chapters For Paul was a Delegate in carrying that Contribution to Judea and if he had claimed more Power it will be hard to prove the Bishop's Power to extend as far as that of an Apostle § 47. The Bishop's fifth Power that he alone possessed is of imposing charitable Contributions on all the Christians within his District for the Relief of Strangers c. For which he referreth to Ep. 62. and 78. but citeth no words I can find nothing to that purpose in either of them as in my Book For his alledging Soter Bishop of Rome whom Dionysius of Corinth commendeth for this Practice cited by Eusebius Lib. 4. Cap. 23. mihi 22. there is no more in it but that Dionysius commendeth that Church for their wonted charitable Distributions to other Churches and that Soter had observed and improved this Custom this may be fairly expounded of exhorting to Charity without Authoritative Imposing of Contributions which any Minister may do And if he did impose it is not said he did it by himself tho' he is only mentioned as perhaps being singularly active in stirring up both the Presbytery and the People and he was to publish in the Church the Presbyteries Determination in this What is there in all this for a sole Power in this Matter His next full Power is Indicting of Fasts for which he citeth Tertullian de Jejun But it is observable that Tertullian speaketh of Bishops in the plural number now it is not to be thought that no Fasts were Indicted but by a Meeting of Diocesans wherefore Episcopi must be the Presbytery Or if he mean the several Bishops in their several Churches it may be rationally understood of the Bishop's intimating to the People what is by common Consent Determined not what he enjoyneth by his sole Authority The seventh Branch of the Bishop's Prerogative is to Convocate the Presbytery and Deacons And let him enjoy it for it is what we grant to our Moderator and there is a natural necessity that it be in the Power of some person to call them together when any emergent doth require it And seing in Cyprian's time the Bishop was the constant Moderator it was consequential that he should be the constant Conveener But what Prerogative or sole Power this doth infer or what Ecclesiastick Authority above the Brethren it importeth I cannot understand Let any who hath clear use of reason judge how this proveth the Bishop's managing the Affairs of the Church like a chief Governour as our Author dreameth p. 48. Neither doth it appear that the Bishop might convocate the Presbyters at pleasure as he fancieth but when there was cause as in the Instance he bringeth there was He bringeth in on this Occasion an Observation that Cornelius received these persons about whom he called the Presbytery without asking the Peoples consent but acquainted them after it was done But our Author hath forgot what he had a few Lines before said that after they were received in the Presbytery the People were made acquainted with it not one word of the Bishop's receiving them by himself This is nothing contrary to Presbyterian Principles and Practices Yea as if he had design'd to refute himself he citeth a Letter of these Persons shewing that they were reconciled to the Bishop and to the whole Clergy where is then the Bishop's sole Power of receiving Penitents He propoundeth to himself an Objection that the Presbyters at Rome met in a Vacancy after the Bishop's Death and at Carthage in the time of Cyprian ' s Retirement To the second Instance he Answereth that Cyprian left a Delegation for their Meeting which he proveth strangely he wrote Ep. 5. that they should faithfully perform his Office and their own where saith he we have distinct Offices and an express setling of a Delegation A. For distinct Offices his Mistake of the Latine Word hath misled him it is fungamini illic vestris partibus meis I see not but one Presbyter may say this to another For his Delegation I think few others can perceive it in these words may not any Member of a Presbytery but especially the Moderator say the same by a Letter to the Presbytery It importeth no more but a Warning to be vigilant in their Work See § 46. His next Citations is out of Ep. 14. It is Ep. 6. Where Cyprian commands them to perform the Office of Vicars to him Cyprian's words are hortor mando ut vice mea fungamini circa gerenda ea quae administratio religiosa deposcit Here is no more but what any of Christ's Ambassadours may say he chargeth them to do their Duty and he had Authority from Christ not as Bishop but as a Pastor of the Church and Christ's Ambassadour to enjoyn this If Cyprian had our Author's meaning then all Religious Administration must cease without the Bishop's presence or Delegation which is absurd For his mea vice it signifieth no more but that his Absence might be supplied by their Diligence Cyprian's warm recenting what some of them did without his allowance shall be elsewhere considered it was that some Presbyters without both their Moderator and the Presbytery received some of the Lapsed which was wholly irregular and blame worthy He next to the Presbyters Meeting sede vacante Answereth that they might meet but they might only determine in ruled cases That is gratis dictum but if they might act in any case it is an Argument that they had Church Power in their Persons and that it was not solely in the Bishop The last of the Bishop's Prerogatives that he pleadeth for tho' he telleth us p. 50. that he could collect more is his Delegating not his Presbyters in common but two of them Rogatianus and Numidicus with two Bishops Caldonius and Herculanus to consider the state of the Poor at Carthage and to pronounce the Sentence of Excommunication
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
Pastors of particular Flocks but from Presbyters who had no Charge if this Author put another meaning on his words let him prove it 2. Tertullian a little above puto autem licuit tingere cui licuit praedicare I hope he will not say that Tertullian thought that no Minister might Preach without the Bishop's Leave tho' he might think that the unsetled Presbyters ought to Preach in no man's Charge without his Leave 3. Tertullian a little below alloweth Laicks yea Women to Baptize in case of necessity without the Bishop's Leave as he doth in the place cited the Deacons to do it with the Bishop's Leave all which I look on as spoken without Warrant 4. Tertullian groundeth his Discourse on this that the honour of the Church requireth that the Bishop's Allowance should be had and on this occasion condemneth Emulation as the Mother of Schism and citeth that place all things are lawful but all things are not expedient From all which it is easie to gather that he only condemned them who Baptized without Church Authority which the Bishop as Mouth of the Presbytery did Communicat 5. It is wholly without Warrant that this Learned Author addeth to Tertullian's Words and in Subordination to him dehinc which is that Father's Word doth neither signifie nor can import so much all that can be built on it is a prior Dignity to the Bishop in this and other parts of the Ministerial Work His last Citation is Ignatius it is not lawful to Baptize without the Bishop A. That is without the Authority of the Presbytery which the Bishop as their Praeses conveyeth § 50. He Asserteth next p. 52. that no Presbyter could Administer the Eucharist within the the Bishop's District without his Leave or against his Interdict To this what hath already been said is a full Answer No Presbyter might do this within the Charge of a Parish Bishop without his Leave nor yet in a Presbyterial District without the Allowance of the Presbytery given out by their Episcopus Praeses His Proofs are exactly like the former Cyprian severely and justly lasheth some Schismatical Presbyters who by themselves without Cyprian and without the Presbytery did Administer the Lord's Supper to some of the Lapsed who were not duely Reconciled to the Church I know no Presbytery that would not condemn this if it were done within their Bounds yea they would think their Authority contemned and their Moderator slighted who should have been Applyed to to call the Presbytery for Consulting about this who with them should have Authoritatively Determined in this Matter and this Neglect of the Bishop was in that time the more conspicuous that his Praecedency was constant and known to all which was the cause the Bishop is so often named in these things that concerned not him alone but the whole Community It is to the same purpose which he next alledgeth of Dionysius Bishop of Alexandrià giving a Command that any Lapsed in danger of Death if Supplicating for it should have the Eucharist For that may be understood of Dionysius enjoyning this to the unfixed Presbyters of Alexandria that it should be done within that Parish whereof Dionysius was Pastor or of the Presbytery by Dionysius their Praeses to be observed within their District What Ignatius saith that that is only to be esteemed a firm and valid Eucharist which is Celebrated by the Bishop or by his Authority this I say admitteth of the same Answer that none ought to Celebrate that Holy Ordinance in any Congregation but the Pastor of it or whom he doth call to do it for him I might call in Question the Authority of these Epistles of Ignatius which he citeth but I will not digress into that Controversie sub judice lis est Theologi certant There is nothing of any more Weight in his next Citation where Cyprian against the Novatians declareth that there could be no true Sacrament among them because they are out of the Church and had assumed to themselves an Episcopal Chair and a Power of Baptizing and Offering It is plain that this is meant of them who had cast off the Churches Authority that was exercised by her Pastors who are here called Bishops but it no way proveth that some Pastors of the Church must depend on one of them for this Authority It is tedious to repeat the same thing so often in Answer to so many Arguments which are materially the same After all these numerous Testimonies he cometh p. 55. to an Artificial Argument in which kind of Arguings he seemeth not to be very formidable he supposeth he hath fully proved the Bishop to be the Principle of Vnity the Chief Governour that by Consequence the supreme Power of the Keyes belongeth to him that he was the visible Head of the Church it is highly reasonable on that account that he should have the chief Power of Dispensing the Sacraments and that they might not be Dispensed without him I have already shewed the Weakness of all these Grounds he buildeth upon and therefore the Consequence built on them must fall to the ground we are no less sensible than he is of the evil of Receiving and continuing unworthy Persons in the Church and that the Governours of the Church must be Judges in this matter but we are not yet convinced that the Bishop by himself rather than the Community of Church Rulers are that Judge and I must take leave to tell him that however it was in the Primitive Times in our Days the excluding of unworthy Persons Ministers and others hath been much more to be observed where the Church is ruled by a Parity of Presbyters than where it is governed by one Prelate § 51. This Learned Author supposing that he had proved the Bishop's Negative in Administration of the Sacraments hence inferreth his Soveraign Interest in Excommunication Absolution Enjoyning Pennance c. Which Consequence I shall not contest with him but I hope the Reader is now satisfied that he hath not sufficiently established the Antecedent nor will we yield that Cyprian or his Contemporaries had or laid Claim to such a Prerogative But our Author tho' he thinketh he might supersede the Proof of his Negative in these other things yet because he will give all possible Satisfaction he undertaketh a Deduction of further Powers in the Person of Cyprian of which we have a long History beginning at p. 56. I have nothing to observe on the account he giveth of Cyprian's Conversion Promotion save what I have observed out of Pontius of his Promotion to be Presbyter and Bishop simul semel but what ever be in that it hath no great Influence on our Cause the Opposition he met with his Eminency for Grace and Gifts the wicked Courses his Enemies took while under the Persecution by Decius he retired from Carthage how they got some of the Confessors and Martyrs to Countenance them and they upon this were emboldened by themselves to Absolve some of the
question the Practice of Bishops sending their Communicatory Letters to signifie that they were promoted Yet I see no sufficient Proof of it from the two or three Instances that he bringeth It must be either a Law or a great Train of Instances in many several Nations in greater and lesser Churches and under diverse Circumstances and Cases of these Churches` that will bear the weight of so universal a Conclusion But I pass this for it doth not much concern our main Question He will find it also hard to prove that these Letters were sent to all other Bishops as he affirmeth p. 80. that had been a Work of no small Labour I suppose they did thus correspond with some next adjacent Bishops or who were of special note which we also do as I shewed before That there were Metropolitans in Cyprian's time he asserteth and I deny it not But they were but Moderators of the greater Meetings as the Bishops were of lesser ones of the Parochial Ministers and Elders as also were the Primats and in Affrick especially the eldest Bishop or Minister had this Dignity but it was Praecedency and Dignity wherein they were above their Brethren not Power and Authority but this our Author toucheth but transiently and so I shall not insist on it only I ask him how do Metropolitans in our modern sense agree with his Opinion that every Bishop was supreme and had no Ecclesiastical Superior on Earth See § 9. p. 82. where he is Discoursing of purging out a Heretical Bishop his thoughts seem to run somewhat muddy He saith the Colledge of Bishops might do to him the equivalent of a formal Deposition they could refuse him their Communion and thereby exclude him from their Episcopal Colledge and they could oblige all the Christians within his District to abandon him And because he saw that his former Assertion of the supreme Power of a Bishop and his having no Ecclesiastical Superior would be objected he saith no Bishop was superior to another in point of Power and Jurisdiction How to make all this hang together is not easie to know 1. To wreath the yoke of the Bishop's Domination on the Church he establisheth Independency among Bishops whereas no Reason can be given why Parishes should not be Independent on one another as well as Provinces I look on both these sorts of Independency as contrary to the Unity of the Church and on Subordination as of Natural and Divine Right 2. If the Colledge of Bishops had not formal Power to depose a Heretical Bishop by what Authority could they oblige the Christians to abandon him and to choose another if he say the Fundamental Law of sound Faith and Unity or as he speaketh of one Faith and one Communion obliged the Christians to this A. That is antecedent to the interposing of the Authority of the Episcopal Colledge and they were obliged to it tho' there were no such Colledge 3. That no Bishop hath Power over another Bishop is no more than we say of Presbyters But it is strange that the Community of Bishops hath not formal and direct Power over every one of their own number both with respect to his Communion with them and with respect to his particular Charge that maketh a wider door both for Heresie and Schism and for Peoples Beeing without remedy under the Plague of bad Ministers than any thing that Parity can be charged with 4. The People are here left Judges of the Bishop's Haeresie and other Incapacitating ill Qualities and so to determine whether they will leave him or not the Colledge of Bishops can do no more but inform them and tell them what they are obliged by the Laws of one Faith and one Communion to do 5. What if the Bishop will not leave his Charge nor the People abandon him hath Christ left no Ordinance in his Church as a Remedy of this Case The Colledge of Bishops cannot excommunicat him nor them that were to exercise formal Authority over him or them if they then will not yield to the Colledges Information or Advice they may go on in their way without further Controlement Thus we see that men will venture to ruine the Soundness Peace and Purity of the Church that they may establish a Lordly Prelacy over the People of God What he insisteth so much on p. 86 87. about directing publick Letters to the Bishops and their being signed by them is not worth our notice We also count it regular for our Moderators to be so treated but there was some peculiar Reason why it was so punctually observed in that Age because the Praeses of their Meeting was fixed and it was Interpretatively a Degrading of him or questioning his Title to do otherwise but this importeth no superior Jurisdiction He telleth p. 87. that every Haeretical or Schismatical Bishop and all who adhered to him were ipso facto out of the Church This I do not believe for how shall a man be known to be Haeretical till he were tryed and judged His Proofs amount to no more but that such were dealt with as out of the Church and may be the manner of Process against them is not mentioned but such a negative Argument will not prove that no more was done to cast them out if that be the Episcopal course of Censure wee intend not to follow it and if that were the way in the Cyprianick Age it maketh its Example less Venerable and Argumentative but it saith nothing for the Bishop's sole Power he saith p. 89. that a Bishop never called a Presbyter his Collegue A. If it be understood of Presbyters without a Charge there is Reason for it he had no joynt Charge of the Congregation we use the same way of Appellation But if it be meant of a Moderator with respect to the other Brethren I answer we find Presbyters calling the Bishop Brother as was noted before Yea Concil Carthag 4. Canon 35. it is Decreed that tho' a Bishop in consessu Presbyterorum sublimior sedeat intra domum Collegam se Presbyterorum cognoscat This its true was a litle after Cyprian's time but it was when Church-Domination was rather growing than decreasing § 63. His strength is now far spent when in the end of his Book he wasteth so many words to set off an Argument which is fitter to be smiled at than laboriously answered It is that the Christian Bishops in Cypria ' s time made such a Figure in the Church that they were the Chief Butt of the Malice of Persecutors others might live in Peace at Home when they were forced to Flee And he is at pains to prove this which I think was never questioned in any Age of the Church Their Station made them conspicuous for I deny not they were above Presbyters in Dignity their Parts some of them made them to be jealoused their Zeal for God made them hateful to the Promoters of Satan's Kingdom But all this can never prove that they had the sole
p. 22. That the Bishops Deed is the Churches Act. p. 24. That Episcopacy is of Divine Institution p. 26. That he is subordinate to none p. 27 28 35. That the Bishop is a supream Ecclesiastical Magistrat p. 43. And Majesty is ascribed to him Ibid. he is called a Soveraign and Peerless Governour p. 65. Supream and unaccountable Power is ascribed to him p. 67. These and many more such Assertions are the Stars by which his Treatises is bespangled And each of them might afford matter for a long Discourse to one who hath nothing else to do A fourth Remark is that through the whole course of his Argumentations he useth such confidence and these Pretences to conclusive and irrefragable evidence as may fright an unintelligent or unwarrie Reader while the Strength of his Ratiocinations is no way proportionable but apparent to be built on Words rather than Matter Every one knoweth that the Signification of several Words used about Ecclesiastical Things in Cyprian's time was far different from what is our modern Dialect The truth of this will I hope be more fully manifest in our considering his particular Arguments § 5. My Assertion against which his Book is levelled he seemeth to wonder at as strangely rash and a putting our being or not being Schismaticks on a desperate Issue The Assertion is a Bishop in Cyprian's time was not a Diocesan with sole Power of Jurisdiction and Ordination If he prove that we shall give Cyprian and him leave to call us Schismaticks A Bishop then was the Pastour of a Flock or the Moderator of a Presbyterie If he can prove that we separate from our Pastours or from the Presbytery with their Moderator under whose Inspection we ought to be let him call us what he will But we disown the Bishops in Scotland from being our Bishops we can neither own their Episcopal Authority nor any pastoral Relation they have to us He seemeth p. 1. to divide his Book into two parts First to take to Task what I had said to wit the words above set down 2. to add perchance something concerning our main Argument The first part he hath largely insisted on with what Strength or Success I am now to examine Of the 2 I find nothing but that p. 94. he hath fairly waved it But with confidence that he could accomplish it and leaving to the person to whom he directeth this long Letter to command him to prosecute what is left undone The Import of which is that it is much more his Inclination to write ad hominem against a particular person than ad rem for that which he taketh to be the truth of God § 6. His first work is to expose the above-mentioned Passage in my Book as yielding a large Field if one had a mind to catch at Words and that it were easie to insist on such escapes if one had a mind for it His first Remark is Suppose the word Diocess was not in use in St. Cyprian's time as applyed to a Bishops District doth it follow that the thing now signified by it was not then in use Answ Pray Sir who made that Consequence the Words cited catch at them as much as you will import no such Consequence and design no more but that which we call now a Diocesan Bishop with sole Power of Jurisdiction and Ordination was not in that Age. His next Remark is in this Question What could move him the Author of the Passage now under Debate to insinuate that we assign the sole power of Jurisdiction and Ordination to our Diocesan Bishop Answ It is a greater wonder what should move this Author to except against our thinking that they assign such Power to their Bishop seing himself ascribeth all that Power to the Cyprianick-Bishop and affirmeth him to be of Divine Institution as hath been already observed Hath he not said that the Bishops Power is Monarchial pag. 23 32. and expresly pag. 38. near the end he saith the Bishop had the sole Power of Ordination and saith it hath been frequently and fully proved by learned men that he need not insist on it and pag. 39. telleth us of Cyprian's Ordaining without asking the consent of the Clergy or People and pleading for this as the Right of all Bishops If he do not ascribe this sole Power to his Scots-Bishops then ex tuo ore they are not the Bishops that Christ instituted Nor these of the Cyprianick-Age nor these for whom the learned men that he speaketh of hath pleaded neither can I guess what kind of Animals he will make them they must be a species of Bishops that never man pleaded for but himself I suppose his Lords the Bishops will give him small thanks thus for pleading their Cause What I have now observed sheweth his Questions to be impertinent viz. When did our Bishops claim that Power and when was it ascribed to them by this Constitution When did they exercise it When was it thought necessary for raising a Bishop to all the due Elevations of the Episcopal Authority I give this general Answer to all these Questions our Scots Bishops look on themselves and are lookt on by their Underlings and by this Author as Scripture-Bishops or at least as Primitive-Bishops and the Bishops that the learned men of this and the preceeding Ages have pleaded for but our Author saith these had the Power we now speak of and therefore he must say that that Power was given them by the Institution that they do claim it and ought to claim it that it is necessary for their due Elevation If they shun to exercise it at least openly by not laying on of Hands without Presbyters it is because they know that practice cannot take nor be born with in a Nation where Parity hath been so much known and generally liked I always understood that the main thing debated between us and the Prelatists was about the sole Power of Jurisdiction and Ordination and I am not alone in this the Synod of London Vindication of Presbyterial Government pag. 24. proposeth the Controversie in the same Words So doth also Smectymnus § 8 9. and I think he will not find many if any one of either side who handleth this Controversie without respect to this Power To his Question When was it ascribed to them by the Constitution I Answer it was done with respect â—o Ordination anno 1635 in the Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical chap. 2. § 3. where the Examination of the Candidate and consequently the Power of determining who shal be ordained is laid on the Bishop and he is allowed to perform this Examination by himself or his Chaplain And for Jurisdiction a person ordained to a Charge may not Preach unless he be also licensed by the Bishop ibid. chap. 7. § 5 Nor may he refute Error preached by another unless he first ask and obtain leave of the Bishop ibid. § 7. Yea a Presbyter may not go a Journey for some time without the Bishops leave
caeteris esset C. etiam 6. ostendit jurisdictionem episcopalem ortam partim ex distinctione nominis Episcopi a Presbyteri appellatione partim principum Christianorum indulgentia partim pontificum Romanorum aliorumque ambitione usurpatione Who then can imagine that he thought that in Cyprian's time which was before the Church had Christian Princes the Bishops had sole Jurisdiction The last of his Authors that he citeth is the Provincial Assembly of London what Book he meaneth I know not neither doth he himself for what appeareth For the Vindication of Presbyterian Government Ministry by the Ministers and Elders of the provincial Synod of London hath not a word on that Head neither for him nor against him wherefore I can guess at none but jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici written as the Title page beareth by sundry Ministers of Christ within the City of London In that Book I find nothing that hinteth the Concession that he alledgeth But on the contrary p. 140. interpreting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned 1 Cor. 12. 28. they have this passage not the Prelatical Bishops pretending to be an Order above preaching Presbyters and to have the Reins of all Church-Government in their Hands only For in Scripture Bishop and Presbyter are all one Order hereunto also the Judgement of Antiquity evidently subscribeth accounting a Bishop and a Presbyter to be one and the same Office in the Church as appeareth particularly in Ambrose Theodoret Jerome and others I shall not hope to say any that is convincing if what I have brought do not perswade the unbyassed Reader that our famous Presbyterians have the same Sentiments of the Judgement of the first Antiquity about the power of Presbyters in the Church that I expressed in the place that our Author maketh such a pother about he bringeth also Spanhem against me which I wonder at seing the words himself citeth amount to no more than manifesta 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which none of us ever denyed to have crept early into the Church but he dealeth not fairly with that learned Writer if this Appellation may be used without his offence for he curtaileth his words leaving out what displeaseth him viz. quanquam de primis Episcopis controversum diversine an superioris ordinis haberentur he dealeth yet less Christianly with the same Author both in detracting from his knowledge of Antiquity and also in mis-representing his words out of which he would make good his Charge in that he saith Spanhem denyeth Exorcists to have been in the Church in the third Century whereas he doth not mention Exorcists in that place but only Ostiarios Copiatas Acolythos These last our Author will prove to have been in the Church in Cyprian's time out of Cyprian Ep. 7. 34 45 59 and 77. And mentioneth several Names of Men in that Office I was at the pains to read over all these Epistles on this occasion and find not a word in any of them either of Acolyths or of any of the persons whom he nameth it is like the Epistles of Cyprian are diversly numbred in diverse Editions my Edition of Cyprian is 1593 cum notis Pamelii I find the Epistle of Cornelius in Eusebius Lib. 6. C. 42. he calleth it 43 how genuine that Epistle of Cornelius is or the Account that Ensebius giveth of it I shall not now enquire what I am now concerned in is that the Learned World beareth Testimony to Spanhemius so as this Author will not be able to derogate from his Credit And I doubt not but he can give grounds for what he wrote I hope I have said enough to shew that I am not so arrogant nor so rash as to reced in this matter from the Sentiments of these great Patrons of Presbytery that he hath brought against me § 14. He proceedeth pag. 5. to his other Arguments His first Argument which he manageth to pag. 11. is built on three Foundations or Pillars the first is that every Church was in Cyprian ' s time ruled by a Bishop Presbyters and Deacons This I deny not only I observe a few things one is that our Controversie is not about the Name Bishop being appropriat to one and not given in common to all the Presbyters as at first but about that Bishop or first Presbyter's Power which this his Discourse doth not touch Another thing that I observe is that it cannot be denyed that the Deacons in that Age and may be sooner had more Hand in the Government of the Church than was allowed by Divine Institution by which they were only Servants not Rulers and their work was only about the Poor I thirdly observe our Author's unwarriness in here asserting that the Church was ruled by Bishops Presbyters and Deacons and yet he pleadeth for the Bishops sole Jurisdiction in most of his Book This I impute to want of a good memory What he hath p. 6. of Superinducing a Bishop where one already was and that there could be but one Bishop in a Church will after fall in to be considered where he insisteth more directly and fully on it His second ground that his Argument is built on is that the Presbyters in that Age were Preaching-Presbyters and not Ruling-Elders such as we have in the Presbyterian Church That the Bishop in that Age was distinct even from Preaching-Elders or Ministers we deny not and that there were many such where was but one Bishop we acknowledge so it is with us there are many Ministers where there is but one Moderator and many Ruling-Elders where there is but one Minister or Parochial Bishop What sort of Officers in the Church the Presbyters distinguished from the Bishop were in the Primitive times is controverted among some Dr. Hammond held that only Bishops were of Divine Institution and were in the Apostolick-Church the consequent of which is that Presbyters must be a device of men and brought in afterward this is solidly refuted by the learned Mr. Durham on Revelation ch 3. p. mihi 230. The Author of the Book Intituled An Inquiry into the Constitution c. of the Primitive-Church in the first 300 years who pretendeth that this work is done by an impartial Hand he also hath a like Notion p. 72. and maintaineth that Presbyters are not necessary to the Constitution of a Church that they are equal to a Bishop in Order and have all the Power that he hath but inferior in Degree that they were ordained Preachers but had no particular Charge but were imployed by the Bishop in any piece of Church-work as he thought fit and so were his Curats or Assistants But of this afterward I deny not that there were Presbyters in the third Century such as our Author contendeth for that is persons authorized to preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments distinct from Bishops For his Sarcasm against Ruling-Elders who have no Authority to Preach affirming pag. 8. that there is as profound silence of them in Cyprian ' s Writings
an Ordinative Power in that he ordereth the Meeting to avoid Confusion and many call it pre re natâ but he acquireth no Decisive Power he getteth a Power to be their Mouth not their Will or Commanding Faculty to keep Order in the Management of what cometh before them not to Determine what is Debated among them as it is expressed in the place he citeth and which might have prevented this Cavil if he had heeded what was said To conclude what I have to Reply to this his Argument it is no Proof of such a Prelacy in Cyprian's time as he pleadeth for that it related to the Laity as well as the Clergy for so doth that of our Moderator that is he ordereth the Affairs which concern them which are managed in the Presbytery and that Cyprian did more or that he managed the Affairs concerning the Laity without the same Authoritative Concurrence of the Presbyters is the Question and is not concluded by this Argument § 21. He undertaketh p. 11. easily to collect another Demonstration against my Notion of a Bishop from the way how in Cyprian's time he was promoted to his Chair to that Sublime Top of the Priesthood as he calleth it This is to fright us with big bur empty Words if he bring a concludent probable Argument tho' short of a Demonstration we must stoop To Cyprian's Words the Sublime Top of Priesthood I should not doubt to give a satisfying Answer if I could find the place and consider the purpose he is speaking of but my Antagonist hath made my Work very difficult not by the strength of his Arguments but by leaving me at uncertainty where to find any one of his Citations unless I either stumble on them casually or read all Cyprian's Epistles for every place that is cited for he knoweth there are several Editions of Cyprian and he hath neither told what Edition he useth I have no other at present but that Printed by Le Preux 1593. nor nameth he to whom the Epistle is Directed whether this be done de industriâ or not I shall not judge but I am sure it is a great neglect especially considering that Cyprian's Epistles are quite otherways numbred by Scultetus than in the Edition mentioned but I find neither of these can help me to find his Citations All that I shall say about this Sublimity he talketh of is that the Fathers used to speak big words concerning the Gospel Ministry which both Papists and Prelatists have abused also the Bishops Power was elevated to a higher Dignity tho' not greater Authority than the Presbyters and that was their Sublime Fastigium Sacerdotii This his Argument also he buildeth on several Propositions The first is There could be no lawful Promotion to a Bishoprick where a Bishop had been setled unless there were a clear Canonical and unquestionable Vacancy it was a received Maxim then that there could be but one Bishop at once in a Church Our present Debate is no way concerned in this Principle whether it be true or false For taking a Bishop for Moderator we think there should be but one at one time and that another ought not to be chosen till the place be void by Death Deposition from that Office or Cession If by Bishop you understand the Pastor of a Flock whether there be one or more over a Congregation is nothing to our purpose seing the Question is about the Power of the Bishop whether it be in one or more Persons § 22. Yet I shall observe a few things on his Discourse of this his Principle 1. If I were willing to be very critical I would ask him what did they in those days when there was a real and lawful Vacancy but not clear nor unquestionable as in the Contest between Cornelius and Novatianus at Rome and many other Instances that might be given of most Unchristian and sometimes Bloody Contentions between Bishops pretending to the same See I hope the sound Party might and did place a Bishop tho' the Vacancy was questioned Next I oppose to his Principle Dr. Hammond on Rev. 11. p. 662. who telleth us there were two Bishops at once in Jerusalem Antioch Ephesus and Rome he nameth them and giveth Reasons why distinct Congregations under their respective Bishops in each City were necessary he saith also it was so in other Cities and his Reasons do prove that it must be so in all Cities where there are many People I insist not on the Bishops at Philippi Phil. 1. 1. At Ephesus whom the Holy Ghost had made Bishops Act. 20. 20. Thirdly I observe that all the Citations he here bringeth hath this Tendency to shew that Novatus in intruding himself in the Bishop's See at Rome was to be blamed seing Cornelius was already duly setled in that Place This was a plain Case the Presbyters and People of Rome had chosen Cornelius to be Pastor of a Flock and their constant Moderator as was the Practice of that Time Novatianus was not only unsound in other things but he got a Faction to choose him for Pastor and their Moderator and he with them set up another Presbytery in Opposition to that wherein Cornelius was fixed I know no Presbyterian who would not condemn this Practice as much as Cyprian did and it is observable that the Citations here brought by our Author do not so much concern the Unity of a Bishop as the Unity of a Church which indeed Novatianus had broken I confess Cyprian here used Expressions a little too vehement in that he not only denyeth them who make such Rents to be Pastors being unduly Chosen and Ordained but denyeth them to be Christians it was a great Sin and deserved the highest Censure but it is hard to Unchristian all who make a Schism but I impute this Fervor to the Temper of that Age rather than of the Holy and Meek Cyprian and it is like these Wise Men saw a peculiar Reason at that time for thus Opposing the Seeds of Ruine to the Church which often lurk unobserved in Schism § 23. His second pillar of this Argument is this Assertion there was no canonical vacancy but where the Bishop whose the Chair had been was dead had ceded or was canonically deposed Let this pass The third is when a See was thus canonically vacant the Bishops of that province met choosed and ordained one in presence of the people whom he was to govern I object nothing against this save that the Bishops choosed the Man to be ordained we say the People had the choice with the Eldership but this Controversie he waveth as not belonging to this Argument and so do I. His fourth Proposition is that the person elected received new Imposition of Hands and new Ordination tho' he had been ordained a Presbyter before this he prosecuteth p 14. and citeth many Testimonies to prove what he alledgeth he saith no doubt that each of these was raised to the Episcopacy by a new Ordination and of Sabinus
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
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
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
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
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
Epistle from the Clergy of Rome while they wanted a Bishop to the Clergy of Carthage when their Bishop was in his retirement in which case saith he they had the best occasion of speaking their mind freely of the power of Presbyters and the usurpation of Bishops in this Epistle he fancieth that he findeth Arguments for Episcopal sole Power as first they say of themselves and these at Carthage that they were only seemingly the Governours of these respective Churches and only keep the Flock instead of the respective Pastors the Bishops I had occasion to consider this Passage before I blame his want of Wisdom that seing he is pleased to give us this Translation of this Passage he hath yet set down the Latine in the Margine out of which one may easily discover his Error without turning to the Epistle it self It is a strange Translation Videmur Praepositi that is we only seem to be Governours I am sure the Marginal Notes on this Epistle saith they were Pastores constituti And Pamelius from this Passage argueth for the Authority of the Church of Rome over other Churches and he that animadverteth on Pamelius saith Clerus Romanus Carthaginensem agnoscit quemadmodum alios aliarum Ecclesiarum pastores esse Christiani gregi praepositos wherefore videmur must rather signifie certainty than doubting in this place it appeareth not only to our selves but to all we are acknowledged for such And that they did not mean by vice Pastoris a vicarious Power delegated from the Bishop is manifest for the Bishop was dead and we find no Power he left them neither could he do it Yea it is evident that they lookt on a Power residing in themselves of which they were to give an account si negligentes inveniamur quoniam perditum non requisivimus c. What is said of the lapsed continuing in their Penitency that they might obtain Indulgence from them who can give it the Word being ab eo qui potest praestare It might be understood of Pardon from Christ on their sincere Repentance seing he alone can make Indulgence effectual but if that seem strained the Bishop with the Presbytery not by himself may fitly here be understood He doth again pag. 69. misrepresent the Question in these Words Let any man judge whether St. Cyprian or his presuming Presbyters had taken too much on them at Carthage But this mistake I noted before Another Argument he bringeth is from some Martyrs and Confessors in an Epistle to Cyprian commending him for his conduct in opposing and censuring these Presbyters I also commend him for it Ergo I think he had sole Power to manage that Affair the consequence is naught He haleth in another Argument into this Discourse these Martyrs and Confessors desire that Cyprian being so glorious a Bishop would pray for them which they would not have done had they thought him a proud aspiring Prelat that is a Limb of Antichrist as this Author would fain give him out to have been It is an injurious Calumny I never said nor thought so and no man can Wire-draw my words with any sense or reason to that meaning I esteem Cyprian's Grace Virtues and Learning as much as he doth and do judge that his Prayers while he was on Earth were worth asking and that he was a glorious Bishop but all this will not infer his sole Power nor his negative Cyprian ' s excommunicating these Presbyters and that fact being approven by others is not argumentative unless he can prove that this Cyprian did by himself without the Presbytery He next bringeth the Canons of the Apostles the insufficiency of which Authority I have above-shewed And Ignatius that nothing should be done without the Bishop nor in opposition to him And that the Bishop should be honoured All this is sufficiently Answered above When a Bishop that is any Minister of the Gospel acteth in his Sphere and keepeth to the Rule the Word of God to oppose him to depart from him not to honour him is highly sinful But I am sure Cyprian nor Ignatius never meant to enjoin absolute illimited obedience to a Bishop nor any man else As for doing nothing without the Bishop we grant that they who are under a Ministers charge Prebyters or others should act nothing in the Consistory without him but this also must suffer a limitation if he should prove so perverse as to oppose and hinder every thing that is good or what is necessary to be done I do not think that Ignatius would blame the Presbyters for acting without him otherwise there were no remedy but the Church must be ruined If it be said in that case they should complain To whom must this Complaint be made for a Bishop hath no Superior on Earth if we believe this Author § 56. The last of his three Principles which he advanceth p. 72. is that all the Church-Governours within his District Presbyters as well as others were in St. Cyprian ' s time subject to the Bishops Authority and obnoxious to his Discipline This Principle and all that he saith for establishing of it we might safely yield without any hazard to our Cause for we always maintained that a Bishop considered as a Paroch Minister hath Authority over the Ruling-Elders and the unfixed Preaching-Presbyters if any be within his Parish also considered as Moderator of the Presbytry he is still a Minister and hath Rule over all the Ministers and People and Elders within the District over which that Presbytery hath the oversight but our Question is whether he by himself hath the sole Authority or he as a Member of the Consistory or Presbytery hath a share in that Authority which resideth in that Body or Community This last we grant the former we deny His Proofs can never reach the conclusion that we deny the first of which is that Cyprian saith that our Lord chose Apostles that is Bishops and Governours where by the way Note that Cyprian owneth other Church-Governours beside Bishops and therefore they have not the sole Authority and the Apostles chose Deacons to be the Bishops and Churches Ministers Any body may see that this doth concern all Church-Rulers not sole Power in the Bishop Next he telleth us that Cyprian called Fabianus Superior with respect to the Roman-Clergy which is a mistake He calleth him simply Praepositus which as I have above-shewed was a Title given to Bishops Presbyters and if he had not called him their Praepositus that doth not import sole Power In an Epistle to Rogatianus Cyprian insinuateth that he was Ruler of the Church ergo he had sole Power it is a â—â—lish consequence this may be said of every Elder of the Church He is scarce of Arguments when he is forced to falsifie Cyprian's words qui in Ecclesia Praesidemus he translateth who have the chief Power in the Church beside that it is easie to distinguish between chief Power and sole Power to which all are subject Also Praesumus
Government of the Church nor that they had Jurisdiction over Presbyters who were fixed in the Church to oversee any part of it Many Presbyters Deacons yea private Christians who were eminent for Ability to confound the Adversary for Zeal and Holiness or for their Station in the World were persecuted as well as their Bishops That this is neither strange nor concludent of Episcopal Power is evident not to fetch an Instance from far in the late Episcopal Persecution among our selves the Ministers were mainly Hunted Intercommuned Imprisoned forced to Hide or Flee and the more eminent or zealous they were the harder it went with them yea some who were freer than many others of what was thought Sedition Disorder or Rebellion yet were hardly used for the Hurt that it was thought they might do to that which was the great Diana of the Ascendent Party And yet all this will not prove that they had or pretended to or were thought to have Jurisdiction over their Brethren I do therefore deny the Consequence the Bishops some of them for I will not say it was the Lot of them all were mainly persecuted Ergo they and not the Presbyters had the Authority in Governing the Church If Decius had such a dread of a Bishop being setled in Rome that he would more patiently have endured a Prince to rivall it with him for the Empire I am sure he had not so much Cause as his Successors had from the Successors of that Bishop Of no more Force is his Argument drawn from Galienus directing his Edict to the Bishops when he stopt the Persecution For we deny not that they had an eminent Station in the Church and had a chief Hand in the Direction of her Affairs whether ye consider them as Parish-Pastors as they all were or Moderators in greater Church-meetings as some of them were I have as he willeth his Reader to do considered and weighed his Arguments without partiality and in the Ballance of Justice But am not yet convinced that the Schisme that is in the Church is chargeable on us but on his Party Let the Reader judge whether of us have best grounds for our Opinion § 64. He concludeth with making excuse from the bulk of his Book that he doth not as he first intended prove Episcopal Praeemenencie to be of divine Right as being Christ's Ordinance and handed down to us from the Apostles in the constant Practice of the Vniversal Church This is the constant Cant of that Party but I have met with none who was able to evince this tho' the learnedest among them and not a few of them have essayed it If this Author shall think fit to make another Effort as he declareth himself ready to do if commanded by him to whom he writs this long Epistle and if he bring any thing new and not fully answered already I doubt not but his Arguments will be examined to better purpose than what is or can be done by such a mean hand as mine is APPENDIX AFter the former Sheets were almost Printed I met with two Books at the same time which I had not before seen the one called the Fundamental Charter of Presbytry c. with a Preface of 167 Pages by a nameless Author the other an Inquiry into the new Opinions chiefly propagated by the Presbyterians in Scotland with some Animadversions on the Defence of the Vindications of the Kirk by A. M. D. D. This latter Book seemeth to have more of Argument than some others which I have seen from some Scots Episcopalians if not from the same Hand I have much desired that our Debates might run in that more pure Channel and rejoice to see any hopes of it I am sorry that now I have no time from necessary urgent and daily work to consider this Book so as to Answer it if I shall not be Proselyted by it I intend to try it's strength as soon as I shall have leasure if the LORD give Life and Health and if it shall not be sooner Answered by some other Hand which I do much wish § 2. The former of these two Books is expresly levelled against an Act of the Parliament of this Nation and is a direct Refutation of it and therefore the Examination of it is out of my Road and is most fit for such as are conversant in the Affairs of State and know the Politick which moved the Parliament so to contrive their Act. I do judge that he who shall undertake it will find no hard task Beside the Presbyterian Ministers did never look on the Inclinations of the People which that Act mentioneth in it's narrative as the fundamental Charter of Presbytry however the Parliament might wisely consider it in their Consultation and Determining and mention it rather than what did more sway some of them We always did and do found the Government of the Church by Parity on Divine Institution and look on Prelacy as contrary to Christ's appointment § 3. What I now undertake is a transient view such as the Press hastening to an end of the former Discourse will allow of his Preface which I hope may be lookt on as a due Refutation of it nor can I imagine that any judicious and unbyassed man will judge that such a parcel of Stuff deserveth a laborious Examination he hath need of a hardened Nose who can insist long in an exact Anatomatical Scrutiny into such a rotten Carion The Author hath out-done his Brethren yea and himself too in Billingsgate-Rhetorick he seemeth to be eminently gifted that way to the silencing of who ever will oppose him as some learned acute men have quickly had their Mouths stopt when the Tongues of some of these good Women have been let loose against them I had rather own in my self all the dulness that he is pleased to impute to the man whom he designeth to expose than enter the Lists with him at that Weapon and I do freely confess I am not qualified for it and if I were I should think it unsutable to my Character however mean and inconsistent with a good Conscience Such impotency of Mind and such injurious Defamation is not well consistent with Christianity nor is sutable to that Learning that is required in them who write Polemick Divinity for Scolding is no Scholarship If his Adversary was weak he should have knockt him down with strong Arguments not bespattered him with dirty Revileings the one would have ruined his Cause the other but bedawb'd his Person and it may be easily wiped off If the Cause which my Adversary owneth need this Conduct it is weak and not worth contending for if not they who do so manage it are no credit to it § 4. I refer the Reader who would have a view of this Author's Qualities more truly than he Characterizeth other men to the Bishop of Sarum ' s Vindication where if he be not aimed at he is very plainly chastised in Effigie for G. B. G. R. seem to