have been stung with the same kind of Serpent if not the same individual He had dealt more wisely if he had not convinced the Reader by this management of the very same ill Qualities in himself that he so frankly attributeth to another I am sure he hath shewed litle Wisdom in bringing Instances to prove his confident Assertions had he contented himself with bold Saying and quibling Insinuations of what he thinketh fit to load one with some who know neither him nor the person who is the Butt of his Malice might have believed some part of what he alledgeth they who know that person however they cannot but see many Infirmities in him have other thoughts of him and indeed better than ever he could deserve and they who know this Author will judge that his Tongue nor Pen is no Slander But now his Proofs are so exceedingly unsuted to what they are brought for that a litle attention may serve to improve them as Weapons against himself and as Evidences of these things in himself which he designeth by them to fasten on another I perceive he hath been at pains to read all that hath been written by G. R. on several occasions and what he thinketh fit to ascribe to him to see what he could pick up in these Papers wherewith he might reproach the Author in which also he hath innocently and without design done him a Kindness for if so critical an Eye could find no more to try his Skill upon in all these Writings it is like there are many things in them which he could not Blame for exceptio firmat Regulam in non exceptis It is a wonder if such a person as he exposeth could say so much to any purpose § 4. I shall not insist on his civility to the Parliament and their Act nor his modest Reflexion on himself nor his great care exprest to sute his Discourse to the English-Nation even in the Words and Phrases nor on the account he giveth of the helps he used Only I take notice how much pains he is at to prove through 14 Pages that the Book commonly called Knox's History was not written by John Knox I know none who is much conversant in our Scots Affairs who is contrary to him in this and if G. R. was so absurd as to cite that Book under the Name by which it is commonly called if it hence follow that he thought John Knox was the Author let him pass for as ignorant as our Author will have him to be if this be no good consequence I hope it is no great evidence of this Author's Learning so to infer That John Knox did not compose that Book tho' much of the Materials of it was taken from his Manuscripts hath been held by Presbyterian Brethren before this Author went to School neither do I know any of them who are earnest to have it believed that he wrote it yea this Author himself citeth it always under the Name of John Knox as he confesseth and why might not another do so too without debating about the true Author of it which had been a needless digression from his Purpose § 6. After he has disgorged a great deal of Gall against G. R. and declined him for an Antagonist who hath the same aversion from entering the Lists with him unless he deal more like a Christian and a Disputant we might but it is in vain expect he should be more composed his Bile overfloweth through all his Sheets He mentioneth some Passages in my Writings that he will not insist on only noteth them with a Nigrum Theta as proofs of my unquestionable ignorance they are that I hold Ruling-Elders who are no Preachers to be of Divine Institution that the Fathers and Scripture also owne them under the Name of Bishops That Patronages came not in till the seventh or eight Century or later where his own ignorance or somewhat else appeareth the word is they were not setled till then it is well-known that many Usages crept into the Church long before they were setled either by Law or universal Practice That most and the most eminent of the Prelatists acknowledge that by Christ's appointment and according to the Practices of the first Ages of the Church she ought to be and was govern'd in common by Ministers acting in Parity which is a gross Misrepresentation for that is said of Christ's equally intrusting all his Ministers with Power of Preaching and Governing which is asserted and fully proved by the learned Stillingfleet in his Irenicum and what followeth is that Author 's own Words not attributed to Christs appointment as unalterable nor to the practice of the Church Yet I shall not decline debating of both these with him tho' I say not they are the Opinion of Prelatists That Diocesan Episcopacy was not setled in Cyprian ' s time c. What Ignorance is in this is to be judged by the foregoing Book That the Decretal Epistles of Anacletus are genuine is neither asserted nor supposed nor is any opinion given about them only they are used as an antient Writing and argumentum ad hominem If this one Witness be cast we have enough beside That it is asserted Rational Def. of Nonconf p. 10. that Episcopacy is not in any Protestant Church but in England is neither truly nor with Candor said the Expression is as in England and it is easily demonstrable that in no Protestant Church it is in that height or doth so entirely swallow up the Ruling Power of Presbyters as it doth in England If my Exposition of Jerom's toto orbe decretum est be Ignorant or Erroneous I must so abide till this Profound Doctor Enlighten mine Eyes which he hath not vouchsafed to do Another of Jerom's Sayings Quid facit Episcopus c. excepta Ordinatione he saith my Gloss on it hath been sufficiently exposed Hist. of the General Assembly 1690 and I say it hath been sufficiently Vindicated in Answer to that and other four Pamphlets and Def. of Vindic. in Answer to the Apology p. 24 25. I shall now add that very Exposition of that Passage was given by Marsilius Patavinus cited in the end of the Preface to Paul Bayn's Diocesan's Tryal that Author lived about Anno 1324. In his Book called Defensor Pacis against the Pope he hath these Words speaking of that Passage of Jerome Ordinatio non significat ibi Potestatem conferendi seu Collationem Sacrorum Ordinum sed OEconomicam Potestatem Regulandi vel Dirigendi Ecclesiae Ritus atque Personas quantum ad Exercitium Divini Cultus in Templo unde ab Antiquis Legum latoribus vocantur OEconomici Reverendi This we maintain to be competent to every Parish Minister tho' not to the Elders of the Congregation to manage these in the Publick Assembly I hope no man of sense will reckon that Author an ignorant Person of whom Papir Masson saith cujus Libri extant non cuidem Verborum sed Rerum aepparatu prorsus Admirandi
Treatment If I have called any thing Lies Railing Sauciness Impudence which was not so I am content to underly the just Sentence of unbyassed men but this Author and his Complices take a Boundless Liberty to Reproach and if they be told of it they are Clamorous beyond Measure It is not inconsistent with all that Civility that is due to men to give things their true Names especially where the Rank and Behaviour of the Persons we deal with plead no extraordinary Respect He mistaketh when he saith that I knew that the Author of the Memorial was dead before I answered his Book I do not to this day know who was the Author of it What was said about giving up King Charles the first to England should have been refuted by Reason not by Quibling I have no Answer for such Arguments neither have I time to examine how fairly all the words are cited which he adduceth nor to shew on what occasion or on what necessity they were written what he representeth as spoken of the Prelatists is injuriously blamed it was spoken of a Party of them who are but few who reproached the Presbyterians in general and in the most universal Terms which never was my way against them § 13. If any thing hath dropt from my Pen which may be judged Uncivil or short of due Respect toward the Learned and Reverend Dr. Stillingfleet I am ready to crave him pardon for I designed the contrary what this Author chargeth me with that way is partly false as what he citeth out of the Preface to Animadv on Irenic for both the Prefaces I have seen one at some Copies and another at other Copies were written by another hand without the knowledge of the Author partly they are fouly misrepresented to give an Instance this Author faith that I said of Dr. Stillingfleet p. 18. that for the most part he doth nothing but magno conatu nihil agere This is misrepresented I said that he insisteth most on things not controverted and thence inferred the blame mentioned It is one thing to charge one directly with an Opinion or Practice and another to make an Inference from it seing many do or say that the ill Consequence of which they do not observe but will disowne His other Citations are but a just Censure one some Passages of that Learned Author's Writings which I was examining which cannot be shunned in Polemick Writings to call that a Contradiction that I make appear to be such is no Injury nor Breach of that Civility that is due to a Stated Adversary many things are fair enough in open War which were not so in a State of Peace This Author is yet more injurious in expounding all that I have said of a few men of imbittered Spirits among the Prelatists who have in their Writings reproacht the Presbyterians and imputed to them things that they are innocent of or abhor applying all this I say to all them who are of the Episcopal Perswasion or to the Party in general as that they are Esaus Serpents Spiteful c. I challenge him to prove what he saith I deny it if I have said any thing of Immorality among the Clergy it is too evident tho' I know some of them are innocent and lament it What he citeth as spoken against the Church of England and her Clergy is either what is in Controversie between us and them I have been so bold as to call their Liturgy and Ceremonies Superstition and to mention what is the Native Concomitant of Superstition that men will be wiser than Christ or his Apostles This is no more a Crime than it is a Fault to be opposite to their way What is said of Immoralities and Insufficiency for the Ministery and other Corruptions that are among them is not chargeable on me yea nor on Presbyterians alone but it is the Complaint of the best among themselves see the five Groans of the Church and Mr. Bold ' s Serm. These Authors were truly Sons of the Church of England thousands among them complain of these things who yet adhere to that Communion I might well disowne that Principle of Sentencing Executing Kings by their Subjects about which some of the Church of England had informed forreign Divines as the Principle and Doctrine of Presbyterians because the Generality of Presbyterians in Scotland very few excepted and these turned Independents after shewed their Abhorrence of that Fact committed on King Charles the first so they did in England and some of them suffered Death for owning his Son Is it Incivility to the Church of England that I thought at the time of the late Revolution it was fit for Parties to put in their Claim for what they thought the way of GOD that it might be judged of by them who had Authority if the Church of England think we ought not to mutter against the Corruptions of their way nor seek a Remedy in an orderly and legal way they may know that we pretend to no such Civility as is inconsistent with Faithfulness to the Truth and Ordinances of Christ We are for the Purity of the Church of England and for her Peace too so as not to meddle with her without our Sphere but if speaking or writing for the good way that we owne do disquiet her with respect to her Corruptions we must be excused It is a wise Assertion he exhorteth his Readers to purge the Church of England c. I exhorted none to this Attempt but in their Station such as many have not his Expression soundeth as if I had stirred all up that should read this Book to fall on the Church of England and pull her down § 14. Impudence is the next Epithet that he laboureth to fix on the man of his Wrath. Instances are It is abscribed to Cunning that their Books reproaching the Presbyterians were spread in England but hard to be found in Scotland which he imputeth to want of Liberty for Printing such Pieces in Scotland and hazard in importing them but it is sufficiently known that many Books of that strain have been imported and none seized that I hear of but one Parcel which was of another strain Next it is Impudence to assert the Loyalty of Presbyterians Answ It is more Impudence to ascribe to Presbyterians what was the Practices of some few with which the far greatest part neither did nor would concur What was said on this Head was also proved and it is Impudence to put such a Mark on any Assertion and yet not attempt to answer the Arguments brought for it Another Impudence is to speak of the Harmlesness of Presbyterians and that they are no Persecutors And that any one of many of them suffered more Hardships and Barbarous Cruelty than all the Espiscopalians have endured the Impudence of this he proveth very learnedly how could one man suffer the deprivation of five or six hundred Livelyhoods That there were so many Episcopal Ministers turned out I suppose these he
He saith also that I contradict the former Position directly in true Representation 2d Vindic. by allowing the taking ruling Power from the prelatical Clergy Beside the Necessity and unsettled State of the Church in these Places brought for justifying this Conduct which he rather mocketh at than solidly answereth I there at length insisted to shew that there is no inconsistancy between this and our principle concerning Parity I need say no more till he answer what is already said § 20. Another Contradiction he will needs make between my disowning some Grounds of Separation in England and owning the same in Scotland The one in my Rational Defence against Dr. Stillingfleet the other in my second Vindic. of the Church of Scotland this he prosecuteth with a great deal of Clamor what strength is in his Discourse let us now try I hope I shall be found semper idem for all this noise Three Grounds of Separation he mentioneth wherein this Contradiction lyeth first Episcopacy Answer I said the setting up Episcopacy in England was not a sufficient Ground for People to forbear hearing of the Word in their Parish Churches I say the same with respect to Scotland I said Episcopacy was a good Ground for Ministers to withdraw from Church Judicatories where they must at least interpretatively own that Authority I say the same of England If he can find any thing in my words that doth import any more than this I shall owne a Contradiction and the shame that it may infer The second is Episcopal Ministers were Vsurpers or Intruders The third is they had not the Peoples Call I am sure I never made these to be two distinct things but this Author 's subtile Wit hath divided them Here I cannot own either Contradiction or Contrariety I approved the Conduct of many People in England who by a tacit and after Consent owned these men as their Pastors and heard them tho' they did not joyn with their unwarranted Ceremonies I never condemned the same Practice in Scotland but approved it by my Practice and Doctrine Only I pleaded that what ever might be said of their not giving Consent which was also the Case of many in England they could not be Charged with Separation while these men were obtruded on them against the Laws of the Gospel especially when they might hear their own lawfully called Ministers tho' in a Corner I find no Contradiction here neither in what he saith about the Covenant which I still think never made any new Duties or sins for the matter but was a superadded Tie to former Moral Obligations I said indeed that the Covenant National and the Solemn League made setting up of Episcopacy more sinful than before but I never said that either it made Episcopacy sinful where it was not so before nor that it made owning of it such tho' I am sure it aggravated the sin of both § 21. His next Effort is to expose my Rejecting the Testimony of some who were brought to Attest the Rabbling but in his way I know not what Freak took him he Digresseth to consider the Preface to Animadv on Stillingf Irenic which he will needs have to be written by the Author himself on which he discanteth after his own manner that is not very Learnedly nor Convincingly I assure him and if he will not be assured he having no great Esteem of my Veracity I can assure the Reader that the Author neither wrote that Preface nor what is in the Title Page nor knew that the Book was Printed till after it was done but was at 300 Miles distance from where it was done The Metaphorical Death spoken of in it taken from the English Phrase of being Dead in Law as the Nonconformist Ministers then were was but a sorry Subject for a Learned Divine to practise upon but he had a mind to write much and had little to say tho' he often pretendeth to have great Plenty of Matter It is true I did and do Question the Truths of many Circumstances whereby the Rabblings were aggravated and tho' he is pleased to say that the whole Nation knoweth them I affirm the Generality of the People where these things were said to be Acted know the contrary let the Reader who hath not occasion to enquire into the Matters of Fact believe as he seeth Cause or suspend his Belief I did never defend nor deny the Hardships that some of the Episcopal Clergy met with from the Rabble only I said and I insist in it that they were Represented most Disingenuously in several Parts and Circumstances of them his Vouchers I reject I mean some of them ours he rejecteth which is ordinary in such Contendings wherefore unless the thing could come to a Legal Tryal every one must believe as he seeth Cause That I rejected by the Bulk all the Matters of Fact is false and injurious I did acknowledge several of them and condemned them as unaccountable Disorders It is a foolish Inference no man can be a fit Witness before a Court because we are not to believe all the Stories that men tell of themselves or their Friends That I had my Informations in these things mostly from Rabblers themselves is falsly asserted as may be seen by any who Impartially consider the second Vindication His exposing that second Vindication because I had the Accounts of Matters of Fact from other hands and was not Eye nor Ear-Witness to them is odd for what Historian is there who may not be on the same Account blamed The Book he speaketh of Account of the late Establishment of the Presbyterian Government by the Parliament I have not seen nor heard of it before I thanked the Parliament in the Preface to my Sermon before them for their Act Establishing Presbyterian Government can any wise man thence Infer that I commended whatever was beside Incorporated into that Act Therefore all his long Discourse on that head is impertinent Another terrible Contradiction is I say Field Meetings were sometimes necessary and yet they were Condemned by the Wisest and Soberest Presbyterians If I had said they were in all Cases so Condemned he might have Insulted but may not I always that is at all times be of Opinion that a thing should not be done as I see it often done and without Necessity and yet think that there may be a Case of Necessity where it may be done this is to Cavil not to Reason § 22. The Envenomed Words in some Pages that follow wherewith he Concludeth his Preface and these of the same Sort wherewith it Interspersed I disregard he doth himself more Hurt by them than me I resolve not to be Hector'd nor Banter'd out of my Principles nor Scarred by Malice or Reproach from casting in my Mite for the Defence of Truth tho' he and such as he Conspire to Overwhelm me partly with their Books and partly with their Calumnious Imputations It is not usual for Satan so to Rage against a bad Cause These few Pages I have written raptim the Press waiting for them if he or any other will Examine them fairly with that Candor that becometh a Christian and a Disputant I shall be willing to be Corrected if any thing have escaped my Pen if he or they write in the same Strain of this Preface I will Despise them as also will all Sober and Intelligent Readers FINIS
with our Author's Book or with his own against Separation from the Episcopal Chairs let the Reader judge It 's true Mr. Dodwell it is 521 522. pretendeth not to be afraid of the Consequence of this Assertion with Respect to the Bishop's absolute Power because Kings also are Invested by their Subjects this Paralell I might but shall not Debate with him but how can he on this Supposition defend their sole Power of Ordination to be of Divine Right I cannot see but shall be glad to be instructed I insist not on the Suspicion that Cyprian ' s Epistles are corrupted tho' Augustine Ep. 48. Vincentio hath these words neque enim potuit integritas atque notitia literarum unius quantumlibet illustris Episcopi Cyprian scil custodiri quemadmodum Scriptura Canonica c. What is said may derogate much from the Testimonies that my Antagonist bringeth and warrant our putting a sense on them different from the sound they have in the Ears of this Author and some others of his Perswasion The Reader may know that our Debate is not about the Jus but Factum not how the Church should be Governed but how it was done in the Age mentioned In which I affirm that tho' it is manifest that the Bishop was above the Presbyter in Dignity and Order yet he did not Rule the Church by himself but the Presbyters had equal Power with him in managing Church-Government THE Cyprianick-Bishop Examined c. SOME of the Episcopal Clergy of Scotland who have lost their places wherein they sat silent without troubling the Presbyterians with their Controversal Writings for they then dealt with them by other Weapons are now at leasure to maintain the Stickle that way and some are so irritated by their Losses that much more of their passionat Resentment and personal Reflections against such as never did them wrong appeareth in their Books than Strength of Arguments for what they hold in our present Debates I have with much weariness and Reluctancy considered some of these Pieces and hoped our Debates had been at an end after their silence for some time and that we should no more be that way diverted from our more necessary Work till I lately met with a Treatise called the Principles of the Cyprianick Age c. which I find to be written in a more Schollar like and less unchristian Strain than what I have hitherto seen from these men He dealeth fairly by Arguments tho I am not terrified nor convinced by the Strength of them and I am resolved to treat him with the same Civility and for the weight of my reasonings let the Reader judge It is not Victory but the clearing and maintaining of Truth that I design and shall not be ashamed to become his Proselyte if what I hold be found to be an Error § 2. Before I consider his Book in the particular Contents of it I shall make a few general Remarks about it 1. Then if we should grant all that he pleadeth for it would not ruine the Cause of Presbyterians nor establish Prelacy It would amount to no more but this that one Presbyterian and he among the meanest of them did mistake in matter of Fact as it is related in the Antient History He might know that neither the Presbyterians generally nor that Author in particular did ever lay the Stress of their Cause on the Practice or Principles of the Church after the Apostolick Age Tho' we will not yield the Suffrage of later Antiquity to be for our Adversaries yet that is the Antiquity that we build upon for it is Divine not humane Authority that we take for the Rule of our Belief and Practice in the matter of Church-Government and managing the Affairs of the House of GOD. Timothy was to be guided by it 1 Tim. 3 14 15. and so will we And even the Defender of the Vindication against the Apologist or his Friend as our Author calleth him P. 4. hath fully declared his Opinion to this purpose Rational Defence of Non-conformity P. 158. which Book our Author seemeth to be no stranger to for he is P. 69 at pains to cite and try his critical Skill upon a Passage in it He could not then think to silence Presbyterians by this his Attempt we have other Grounds if we were beaten from this as I hope we shall not If his Book was written only to convince the World that he who wrote the Defence of the Vindication against the Apologist is not infallible in all that he asserteth he might have spared his pains that should easily have been yielded to him To write a Book of Twelve Sheets on such a Subject is such Work as we have no time for Egregiam verô laudem spolia ampla He had read Cyprian's Epistles which are not very voluminous and had made a Collection of Citations and thus they must have a vent § 3. The Passage that he buildeth his whole Fabrick upon was by the Defender which is my second Remark set down with that Brevity that was sutable to the purpose in hand tho' may be not sufficient to preclude all the critical Notes that a Man of this Author's Skill and Learning could make when he is so disposed to do The Apologist had in a rambling and incoherent way started a Number of Debates that are between us and the Prelatists insisting on none of them And the Defender thought not fit to make a large Treatise on each of these Heads but answered what he proposed with a sutable succinctness If he had then thought it convenient or had imagined that so large a Book as our Author 's would have been built on this Passage he would have made the Foundation broader tho' not more commodious for what this Author buildeth on it He could have told him that tho' he might be bold to venture his Credit on the Cyprianick Age being more on our side than on that of our Adversaries And tho' our Cause duely and distinctly stated should suffer no loss by being tryed at that Barr yet neither did he venture any bodies Reputation but his own nor will he quit the more divine Letters Patents that we have for Presbytrey to rest in this either as our only or our chief Strength Notwithstanding of what I have now remarked concerning this Author snatching at a fancied Advantage against us I hope to make it evidently appear that he hath wholly missed his Aim and that these two or three Lines of my Book will stand against the shock of his long Treatise § 4. I thirdly observe that this Author who is so profuse in his Refutation of a few Lines in my Book hath in his own given occasion to any one who were of as scripturient a Disposition as himself for vast Volums as in his sarcastick denyal of Ruling Elders P. 8. That Presbyters in the Cyprianick Age were seldom called Pastors P. 9. That there can be no Church without a Bishop P. 19. That the Bishops Power is Monarchical
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
the Books or Places of them on which he groundeth his Assertion for some of these Authors have written much however I hope to find out in them what is sufficient to my purpose I begin with Chamier who Panstrat Catholic Tom. 2. Lib. 10. discourseth on this Subject copiously but I find not one word in him asserting that in the first three Centuries Bishops had the Rule of the Church above Presbyters further than that they were above them in Dignity and by a Priority of Order not of Jurisdiction far less that they had the sole Jurisdiction which our Author pretendeth to prove On the contrary that Learned Writer proveth C. 3. that there was no Domination allowed in the Church C. 5. that the Government of the several Churches was Aristocratical and he sheweth that all Presbyters at first were equal but that afterward as he citeth Ambrose and Jerome unus electus est qui omnium primus esset Episcopus diceretur And on this he maketh two Observes First in Ecclesiae Primordiis nullos tales Episcopos fuisse qui postea instituti fuere qui suo jure reliquis è Clero praeessent And he thence inferreth the absolute Parity of Presbyters de Jure His second Observation is ne tunc quidem cum hic Episcoporum a Presbyteris distinctorum ordo est constitutus fuisse Episcopos ut Monarchas see how he agreeth with our Author p. 23 32. qui potestatem haberent in Clerum sed Principes Electos qui rebus deliberandis praeessent ut necesse est in omni Aristocratia Where he seemeth exactly to describe a Moderator such as is in our Presbyteries and other Church Judicatories After that C. 6. he had proved that Jure Divino Episcopus non est major Presbytero contrary to our Author p. 26. C. 7. he proveth that the Government of Provinces was also Aristocratical and doth evidently make an Arch-Bishop or Metropolitan no more than we make the Moderator of a Synod or of a General Assembly I mean he alloweth them no more Jurisdiction Now let any judge with what Brow my Antagonist could bring Chamier for his Voucher who so flatly contradicteth the whole of his Book § 12. His next Author is Blondel who will be found to do him no more Service For the whole Design and strain of his Apologia pro sententia Hieronomi is to prove that Episcopus and Presbyter were the same as both in Name and Power in the Apostolick Age of the Church so in Power in the first second third and much of the fourth Century tho' he confesseth that the Name some Majority not higher Jurisdiction was sooner given to the Bishop This is evident for S. I. p 4. he saith that Jeromes toto orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris caeteris superponeretur occasioned by the Divisions among Christans and saying Ego sum Pauli c. That this I say was quarto a Corinthiorum turbis saeculo and that Jerome said it de sui temporis hominibus and proveth it from Jerome's own words which are quando non idipsum omnes loquimur alius dicit ego sum Pauli ego Appollo ego Cephae dividimus spiritus unitatem eam in partes in membra discerpimus And he saith that Jerome torquebat verba Paulina de Corinthiis in eos Nempe sui temporis homines p. 6 7. he fully sheweth that Jerome believed the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter from his blameing them who made Deacons equal to Presbyters i. e. to Bishops Also p. 8. that in Alexandria of which Jerome saith that à Marci temporibus ad Heracleam Dionysiumque Presbyteri unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum dixerunt It was but Jusprimae Cathedrae presbyteri inter collegas fratrem spontanea hac dignatione honorantes sedentis and ibid he saith ex Hieronomi sententia episcopalia omnia ex aequo competebant and that every one of them was equal Vrbico papae S. 2. Blondel proveth all the Fathers of the three or four first Ages to have been of the same Opinion with Jerome And p. 8. hath this Transition prodeant jam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 patrum acies qui sanctum virum Hieronymum seu solitarium in tecto passerem non relictum doceant This he proveth from Clemens of Rome from Polycarp of Smyrna from Hermes from Pius the Pope of Rôme Justin Papias Irenaeus and the Gallican Church in his time Victor the Pope Clemens of Alexandria Tertullian Origen Cyprian also on whose Opinion in this matter my Antagonist stateth the whole Controversy Wherefore I shall a little further consider what account Blondel giveth of his Opinion He saith p. 41. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 toto administrationis tempore aggressus est sed partita quasi ex concepto voto cum comministris cura ac potestate Carthaginensem plebem gubernavit and citeth Cyprian himself saying to his Clergy Sed cum per Dei gratiam venero tunc De iis quae vel gesta sunt vel gerenda sicut mutuus honor exposcit in communi tractabimus And in another Epistle quae res cum omnium nostrum Consilium sententiam spectet praejudicare ego soli mihi rem communem vindicare non audeo He sheweth also p. 43. that Cyprian doth always speak of the Clergy as divided only in two parts the Praepositi and the Deacons and he calleth both the Episcopi and the Praepositi Apostles If I should cite all that Blondel bringeth out of Cyprian to this purpose I behoved to transcribe almost four pages of his Book of which Citations we shall have further occasion given by our Author to Discourse It is then more evident than what he in most of his Reasonings talketh highly of that either this Author hath not read Blondel but cited him at adventure or hath a confidence to assert what he will tho' absurd and unaccountable § 13. He is full as unhapy in his next witness Salmasius who both in his Book de Episcopis Presbyteris is against this Author and in Walo Messalinus that is commonly ascribed to him doth strongly maintain the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter against Petavius the Jesuit in the first Ages and is far from acknowledging any further Difference between them till Jerome's time which was after Cyprian's about which we now contend than of greater Dignity for Chap 3. he sheweth that the Primacy among Presbyters was from their Seniority and more fully Ch. 4. p. 273. credibile est saith he circa medium secundi saeculi non alias in Ecclesia fuisse cognitos Episcopos quam qui primatum in presbyterio adepti essent cum primos faceret non electio ex merito sed ordinationis tempus quem morem diu in Ecclesia durasse Testis est ille Author qui Ambrosii nomine commentarios in Epistolas Pauli scripsit and a little below 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dabatur ei qui ordinatione antiquior
a Parish Bishop or Minister For Presbyters being Vice-Pastours that is afterward answered Wherefore I now consider his Application of his three Conclusions to what he would prove viz. that a Bishop in Cyprian's time was neither the Pastour of a Flock nor the Moderator of a Presbytery in my sense of the terms not the first for Cyprian at Carthage Cornelius at Rome c. had many such Pastours under them yea it was so over all the World Not the second because a Presbyterian Moderator as such is no Church Governour at all hath no direct immediat formal relation to the People but only to the Presbytry This is the goodly Argument in which our Author early triumpheth as sufficient if there were no more to ruine our Cause § 18. This Triumph will be found to be before the Victory That I may give a full and direct Answer to his Argument I must distinguish what our Author confoundeth viz. the signification of the word Bishop in the Apostles time it signified any ruling ordinary Officer in the Church hence Phil. 1. 1. all Church-Officers are so called except the Deacons And 1. Tim. 3. 1 2 c. The Apostle giveth Directions to all the Ruling-Officers in the Church and then vers 8 c. telleth what manner of Men the Deacons should be If the Apostle had known any other ordinary Church-Officers these Canons had been very lame and indeed it is no wonder that the Bishops not being here comprehended do what they will for we know no Scripture rules neither for their Qualifications nor Work and Tit. 1. 5 and 6. the Elders that were to be set up in every City are called Bishops v. 7. the same Word in after Ages as it was sometimes given to Pastours of particular Congregations so it was ordinarily given to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the primus Presbyter or Moderator in the Colledge of Presbyters and the same that sustained the later of these Relations had also the former and laboured in the Word and Doctrine and managed Congregational-Discipline in a particular Parish taking the Word Parish in our modern sense Wherefore if the Citations he bringeth for Episcopal Power can rationally be applyed to either of these Notions of a Bishop our Cause is safe from his Assaults That the Moderator of the Colledge of Presbyters is called Bishop not only is evident from Jerom Vnus è Presbyteris electus est qui caeteris superponeretur Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse majores in communi debere Ecclesiam regere but this Author cannot deny it tho' he pleadeth for an extravagant Power to that his Moderator about which Power I now debate with him § 19. That the Pastour of a particular Flock was also in the Primitive Times called a Bishop is certain from this that the Scriptures dividing the Church-Officers in Bishops and Deacons are by the Fathers so applyed as I have shewed elsewhere Likewise we find Bishops in small Villages where were no number of Pastors over whom the Bishop might praeside as is fully proved by the learned Mr. Clarkson Primitive Episcopacy stated c. c. 2. p. 19 c. and that by multitudes of Instances as also Testimonies of Fathers asserting it to be then usual Sozomen Hist. l. 7. c. 19. telleth us that in Arabia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he saith the same of Cyprus and extendeth his Assertion to other Countries 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. Fuller tho' Episcopal yet a person of more Ingenuity than many others History of the Holy War lib. 2. cap. 2. p. 45 46. speaking of Palestine at this time saith he Bishops were set too thick for all to grow and Palestine fed too many Cathedral-Churches to have them generally fat Lydda Jamnia and Joppa three Episcopal Towns were within four Miles one of another neither let it stagger the Reader if in that Catalogue of Tyrius he light on many Bishops Seats which are not to be found in Mercator Ortelius or any other Geographer for some were such poor Places as they were ashamed to appear in a Map For in that Age Bishops had their Sees at poor and contemptible Villages Concil Antioch in their Epistle concerning Paulus Samosatenus they mentioned Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I know Dr. Maurice pretendeth to refute Mr Clarkson's Book neither shall I judge who hath the better in most parts of that Debate but I see no sufficient Answer to what I have here quotted Yet do I not joyn with Mr. Clarkson in the whole design of his Book These two Notions of a Bishop being familiar in the Primitive Times it is no wonder if we find the Fathers sometimes speaking of a Bishop in the one Sense and sometimes in the other § 20. I now Answer his Argument a Bishop in Cyprian's time was always the Pastor of a particular Flock and Moderator in the Consistory of Ruling-Elders but sometimes he was also the Moderator of a Colledge of Presbyters and so might have many Presbyters under him that is he was above them in Dignity and we deny not but that by reason of his fixation in that Office he by custom had crept into some more Power over them than was due but that in Cyprian's time he had the sole Power of Jurisdiction and Ordination or such Authority as our Diocesans pretend to I utterly deny For the other part of his Argument that he could not be a Moderator because a Moderator as such hath no Church Power nor is a Church Governour I Answer first the Assertion he here reflecteth on cited by him pag. 3. that a Moderator as such hath no Church Power was not meant that there might be a Moderator who hath no Church Power and so taking As specificative as he absurdly improveth it p. 36. affirming that a Heathen may be the Moderator of a Presbytery without repugnancy to any Principle of Christianity tho' not without indecency and inconvenience I say this is a most absurd Assertion both because a Heathen Moderator could not understand the Affairs of the Church And because he would embarasse them and because it is against common sense and the Sentiments of Mankind that an Enemy of the true Religion should have the Conduct and main hand in mannaging the Affairs that do so nearly concern it Yea this his Assertion contradicteth it self for he acknowledgeth that this were Indecent and Inconvenient and I hope he will not deny that it is a Principle of the Christian Religion that all things be done Decently and in Order and that both Nature and Religion require that we should shun what is inconvenient especially to so high Concernments as are these of Religion That Assertion then that he aimeth at is to be understood reduplicative that is that a Moderator acquireth no Church Power by his being Moderator above what he had as a Pastor of the Church and here a Sub-distinction is to be used he acquireth indeed