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
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
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
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
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
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
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