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
called Primates whom yet we deny to have had either Sole or Superior Jurisdiction were the eldest Minister of every Province which afterward was changed and they chosen according to their Personal Qualifications and Metropolitans were the Bishops of the chief Cities which had no Superior Power but only sometimes praesided in Synods Cyprian disowned that any of them was Episcopus Episcoporum See no Evidence for Diocesan Churches or Bishops p. 28. Also L' Arroque adversar Sacr. Lib. 2. C. 14. maketh this plain And Leidecker dissert de statu Eccles Affric § 7. he sheweth that Primates were above Metropolitans in Dignity and that they first attained that Degree by their Age reckoning it from their Ordination and the other from the City where they had their Charge Yea there hath been no Age of Old or in later times in which there have not been some lesser differences in Management even among Churches which used the same Species of Church-Government for Substance as at this day in Scotland Low-Countries Geneva among the Switzers c. Some Churches are more and some less pure and near to the Pattern and yet all governed by Presbyters Acting in Parity and among the Prelatists Prelatick Power is higher in one Church than in another as in England now and in Scotland of late Wherefore our Author must not think to triumph if he can shew some difference between the Cyprianick Age and our Way Cypr. Ep. 75. § 5. Firmilian writing to Cyprian hath Instances to shew that in diverse Churches they had diverse Practices and yet kept Peace one with another 2. We deny not that in Cyprian's time there was some Advances made towards some sort of Prelacy tho' the Parity of Power was not then wholly taken away as the Mystery of Iniquity in other things so in that did begin early to Work even in the days of the Apostles when Diotrephes did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 affected to be primus Presbyter or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Moderator in their Meetings and this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 becoming fixed and constant after the Apostles times these good Men not fore-seeing the ill Use that others would make of that Handle given them it did by insensible Degrees degenerate into an undue Usurpation as it is hard to get Power kept within it's due Bounds even among the best men and the Primitive Power of Presbyters was gradually wrested out of their hands by the Ambition of some and by the innocent Simplicity of others Many other Corruptions had crept into the Church by that time and this Declension from absolute parity went along with them the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 began to be appropriat to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that Custom being confirmed by a little time made even humble men imagine that some different Power was signified by that name that they had distinct from others which the rest who were so usurped upon did too easily yield minding more the Work of Feeding than of Ruling the Flock and not seeing the fatal Consequents of it which afterward appeared and were not discovered till it was too late to retrieve them 3. It is evident from the History of the first Ages that as Episcopacy did not arrive to it's height of a sudden so it was not at the same time settled in all the places where it obtained at last the Ambition of some or at least their too big Thoughts of the Power that belonged to them and the Easyness of their Com-Presbyters made it in one place make quicker Advances while the Humility and sound Judgment of others together with the Vigilancy of these who with them govern'd the Church retarded it's Progress in other Churches And it is certain that for as much as this Contagion of the Church walked in the dark yet it was observed and opposed by some as Aerius Jerom and others as will appear in our Progress Leidecker Dissert de Statu Eccles Affric § 7. Namque inquit uti ab Origine Episcopatus Ordinis Praesidentiae in Presbyterio titulus erat quamvis alibi suos terminos egrederetur in Affrica vetus Libertas Presbyterii est retenta dum Episcopi praesidentium honore non dominatu in Ecclesiam aut Presbyteros gauderent This he not only asserteth but proveth by diverse Testimonies § 10. Hence we may conclude that our Author cannot prove what he pretendeth unless he make it appear that Episcopal Power such as he pleadeth for was not only acted by some but generally in the Churches of the first second and third Centuries or approved by general Consent Wherefore if we can bring Testimonies to prove a Parity of Power among Presbyters and that Domination over them by one was condemned his bringing some Testimonies to the contrary will not be found concludent I say not this as if I were afraid he can prove what he undertaketh by the Authentick Suffrage of any one of the Fathers of the first three Centuries but that he may see what Weakness and Fallacy is in his Reasonings on more Accounts than one I may here add a Conjecture on which the Reader shall be desired to lay no more Weight than he pleaseth that seing it is confessed by the best Antiquaries that we have but little Historical Certainty of the first Ages of the Church it is probable that more Opposition might be made to the Tendency toward Church-Domination than we have account of for the Topping Party might carry all before them and others might be suppressed or what they did buried in silence especially considering that meek men are often too apt rather to suppress their Sentiments than to make much noise with them to the hazarding of the Peace of the Church and to groan under Grievances rather than cast the Church into a Convulsion by struggling when they do not foresee the greatness of the hazard that they fear This I conceive may be one part of that Sleep that giveth the Enemy advantage to sow his Tares I ground this Conjecture on the great difference that is between the Scripture-account of Church-Government and that of after Ages and that the further we come down from the Scripture-times the difference seemeth to be the greater and yet we have but often small account of any sensible Change made at any one time § 11. The Learned Author to his main Proofs as he speaketh p. 4. premitteth a shrewd Presumption against what I hold that generally the great Champions for Presbytery acknowledge that Episcopacy was in the Church long before Cyprian's time and he nameth Chamier Blondel Salmasius the Synod of London Spanhemius c. What his c. may contain in it's vast belly I know not but I am not afraid of any of them he hath mentioned they are all Friends to the Cause I maintain and say no more than I have already said but much against his Sentiments It had been easier for me to make this appear if he had thought fit to point at
and I think that it will not be denyed that Presbyters are Praepositi and are set over the Church he saith no more then but the Church is founded on the Bishop that is his sound Doctrine as was before explained and her Affairs are ruled by the same Praepositi that is the Bishops and others having Ecclesiastical Authority with them For Presbyters are the same with Bishops in this and that Cyprian meaneth so may be gathered from his varying the word Episcopus into Praepositus Again granting that all the Acts of the Church are ruled by the Bishop this will not prove that they are ruled by him alone His other Testimony out of what he calleth Epistle 43 is far less to his purpose Felicismus with his Faction who formerly had opposed Cyprian's Election to be Bishop in his retirement not only without him but without the Concurrence of the Presbytery or Congregational Eldership I shall not determine which of these the Church of Carthage was then governed by received some of the lapsed which I as well as my Antagonist do reckon a very disorderly Action this Cyprian doth justly blame And that on this Ground that they set up another Altar in that Church that is they threw off the Church Authority that was regularly placed in Carthage and set up another beside we also would blame them who would cast off the Authority of the Presbytery or Kirk-Session and set up another What is Cyprian's meaning is yet clearer from what our Author unwarily citeth out of his Book de unittae Ecclesiae An esse sibi cum Christo videtur qui adversus Christi Sacerdotes facit Qui se à cleri ejus Plebis societate secernit Where he describeth Schisme to be when some depart from the Rulers and Members of the Church not from the Bishop alone and that is to be understood while they keep God's way § 30. His third Preposition is that Cyprian maketh the contempt of one Bishop or undutifulness to him the original of Schisme I am so far from opposing him in this that I think when people begin to quarrel with the meanest of Christs Ministers unless his Life or Doctrine or Government give just cause that they sin against God contemn his Ordinance and are on the brink of Schisme if not Haeresie also And I am sure all that he citeth out out of Cyprian on this head amounteth to no more except a word or two which I shall a little consider When he speaketh of one Bishop I understand him of one Praeses whether in a Congregational or Classical Presbytrey and that in conjunction with them who opposeth such Authority opposeth Christ's Institution He mentioneth p. 23. as also p. 32. The Bishops Monarchical power in the Church and maketh Cyprian prove it by the Bees who have a King the Beasts who have a Captain and Robbers who have a Chiftain It is evident to any who consider Cyprian's other Writings that he never arrogated to himself a Monarchical Power over the Church for he plainly disowneth it as we shall after have occasion to shew But he is here dealing with one Pupianus who had reproached Cyprian as proud and arrogant here Cyprian defendeth himself and retorteth the same Charge of Arrogance on Pupianus in that he took on him to arraign the Bishops and Rulers of the Church and had denyed his power in the Church and he sheweth what Inconveniency it were to the Church if all this time the Church of Carthage had been governed by a Man who had no Authority and in this he bringeth the similitude of the Bees c. Will any think that Cyprian was so weak as to take this for a sufficient Argument to prove Monarchical Power in the Church he only bringeth it as a similitude to illustrate this Truth that there must be a Government in the Church and it had been ill with the Church of Carthage if so long a time they had One over them who was no lawful Ruler which is no Determination of the Extent of Cyprian's power Neither was that the Question between him and Pupianus § 31. I proceed to his fourth Proposition p. 24. The Bishop was so much the principle of Vnity the people had such Dependence on him and was so virtually in him that what he did as Bishop was reputed the Deed of the whole Church which he ruled And to confirm this he bringeth Instances that Churches were blamed for communicating with criminal Bishops and that they did not separat from them and are commended for the Bishops owning the Truth Had our Author thought fit to peruse and consider his Papers before he printed them it is like we should not have been troubled with such crude Notions For 1. How can this be reconciled to what he had a little before-pleaded concerning the horrid sinfulness of separating from their Bishop and this without any distinction or Limitation 2. He is so unwise as to add one word that spoileth all his Design viz. As Bishop for what a Bishop acteth as Bishop he acteth in the Consistory or the Presbytery and by the plurality of their Votes and that is indeed the Fact of the Church Representative and of the Church diffusive too if they shew no dislike of it But this is no Semblance of Proof of the Power of Bishops that he pleadeth for Cyprian's Rhetorical flourish in saying that when Cornelius confessed the Faith before the Persecutors the whole Roman Church confessed Is no more but that Cornelius gave a faithful Testimony to that Doctrine that he had preached among that People and that they received and did still owne is this an Argument that Cornelius had the sole Power of Church-Government in Rome Yea all this might have been said of any Member of that Church who had so confessed and the Church did not reclaim but professed the same Truth It is far less probative that Cyprian desired to suffer at Carthage rather than else where that he might in Confession be the Mouth of them all And least of all is it an Argument that he calleth them his Bowels his Body their Grief was his Grief c. We must abandon all Sense and Reason if these pass for concludent Arguments Of the same weight is what he bringeth out of Pontius of the Blessedness of the people of Carthage who suffered together with such a Bishop I beg the Readers pardon for troubling him with such silly Arguments which need no Answer § 32. His fifth Proposition that the Bishops being the principle of Vnion to his Church was held before the Cyprianick Age This I say needeth no further Animadversion for it bringeth no new thing Neither is it to be imagined that Ignatius whom he citeth meant that the sole Authority of the Bishop rather than the Doctrine that he taught from the infallible Word of God was the Principle of Vnity to the Church Or that they who belong to Christ are with the Bishop whether he teacheth Truth or
Error It is a vast mistake that he saith that Cyprian Ep. 33. pleadeth for the divine Right of Episcopacy in that Ep. which is mihi 27 he pleadeth for the Divine Authority of the Church and her Bishops that is Pastours not for a Divine Warrant for the Praelation of some of them above others nothing can be more evident than the concurrent Testimonies of Antiquity against this Fancy Scripture and the most Antient of the Fathers speak of Bishops and Presbyters indistinctly when the Distinction began to be taken notice of Jerome saith that it was brought in by the Presbyters themselves Ep. ad Evagr. as also on Tit. and Aug. Ep. 10. referreth to Ecclesiae usus Yea Concil Nic. 1. Can. 6. maketh the Distinction of Bishops as Metropolitans c. To be mos antiquus All that followeth § 37 37 36. doth also confute this Opinion But this I insist not on because our Author hath put off the proof of that Divine Institution of Episcopacy to his next Essay p. 94. His sixth and last Proposition is that the Principle of the Bishops being the Center of Vnity is most reasonable and accountable in it self We may now expect some Herculean Argument and the highest Effort of his Skill And I am willing that the whole Controversie be hanged on this Pin. All that he bringeth for Argument is every particular Church is an Organical political Body and there can be no Organical Body without a Principle of Vnity on which all the Members must hang and from which being separated they must cease to be Members and who so fit for being Principle of Vnity to a Church as he who is Pastour Ruler Governour Captain Head Judge Christs Vicar c. Not his Conclusion only but an Assumption is understood viz. the Bishop is all this ergo he is the Center of Vnity and his quod erat demonstrandum followeth a little after it is scarce possible to prove any thing of this nature more demonstratively One might make sport with this Argument which is introduced and backed with such Parade But I am in earnest in this Debate There are here no less than three Premisses expressed and a fourth necessarily understood before we can reach the Conclusion which every Logician will condemn and when we are at last through all these Stages arived at the Conclusion it is above distinguished and his Argument can reach no more than is by us confessed Besides this it is hard to shew how these his Premisses hang together or what Connection they have Further that the principle of Vnity in a political Body is one person and cannot be a Society the Consistory or the Presbytery in the Church will hardly be proved by this Argument there can be no Unity in a Common-wealth but only in Monarchy Aristocracy and Democracy in a Nation are here not only made unlawful but impossible that the Bishop is fittest to be the Principle of Unity in the Church is gratis dictum Yea it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Notwithstanding of the metaphorical Appellations that our Author giveth him from some of the Antients Yea if a Society cannot be the Center of Unity in a particular Church who shall be the Center of Unity among Bishops we must surely have the Pope for this use which is indeed the native conclusion of our Author's Argument that he braggeth so much of But this will afterward occurre § 33. He cometh now p. 27. to another Argument a Bishop in Cyprian's age was supreme in his Church immediatly subject to Christ had no Ecclesiastical Superior on Earth the Church was one but divided into many Precincts each had its Bishop who was their Supreme I am no further concerned in what he saith on this head but what he bringeth for the Bishops Supremacy Wherefore I insist not on his first Proposition concerning the Equality of Bishops I only observe that he is for Parity in the Church and if it be found among Bishops I know no Scripture nor Reason that condemneth it among Presbyters To the same purpose is his second Preposition and his Third all which are levelled against the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome whose cause I do not intend to plead Wherefore I come to examine his 4th Proposition p. 31. by the Principles of these times every Bishop was Christs Vicar within his own District So say I is every Minister of the Gospel understanding by Vicar one who deriveth his Power from Christ and to him must give account of it He saith further that a Bishop had a Primacy in his own Church If he mean that he was primus Presbyter I denyed it not if that he had the sole Power in his own person or that the Presbyters had not a coordinate power with him in the Government of the Church I deny it Neither is it proved by Cyprian's words which he citeth Cathedram sibi constituere primatum assumere which I cannot find by what Directions he giveth and therefore cannot tell what might be further said for vindicating them The next Expression admiteth of the same Answer viz. that he managed the Ballance of Government it is not said that he did this by himself Our Moderator manageth the Ballance of Government but with the Presbytery The sublime Sacerdotii fastigum signifieth no more than primus Presbyter The Antients use as big words for as low things neither do I know any higher Degree in those days If my Antagonist will prove it he must use other Topicks than words that may admit various significations the same I say of the Expressions that follow the vigor Episcopatus the sublimis divina potestas gubernandae Ecclesiae This last may agree to the meanest Member of a Presbytery Are not Presbyters called by Cyprian such as are divino sacerdotio honorati and gloriosi sacerdotes as himself citeth p. 7. To what purpose he citeth Jerome for the Parity of Bishops and saith that I will not reject his Testimony I understand not I shall neither oppose him nor Jerome in that Principle § 34. He bringeth another Argument p. 32. from the High Priest among the Jews and saith that a Bishop was the same to Christians that he was to the Jews I see the learned Author is very unhappy in stumbling upon popish Arguments and he can say litle for his Bishop but what they say for their Pope And it is evident that the Papists from this Medium argue with much more shew of Reason For the High Priest had universal supream Authority over the universal Church that then was The Papists infer the Pope's universal Head-ship tho' I am far from thinking this Argument concludent for them yet what shew of Confequence can it have for a Bishops Power in his Diocess Or with what Face can this Author say that a Bishop is the same to Presbyters and Deacons that he was to the Levites unless he say that a Bishop was the same to all the Presbyters and Deacons in the World
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
meaneth I know not but it is not a wise comparison of one man to have so many Families to maintain on nothing and each to have his own I affirm that one man who suffered Torture Intercommunning was forc'd to lodge in Dens and Woods and in daily hazard of his Life who was sold for a Slave in the remote places of the Earth suffered more tho' his loss of Money did not amount to so great a Sum than all they did I find nothing in what followeth to disprove what I had said and therefore pass to another piece of Impudence which yet is a repetition of what he had said before that Presbyterians are no Rebels To prove this he very pertinently alledgeth a Contradiction between first Vindic. ad Q. 2. § 3. where it is said that Episcopacy raised a Tumult and § 5. they the Episcopal men raised no Tumults This last is ad Q. 3. § 5. Answ The former is spoken as plainly appeareth to them who will see of the War between the King and Parliament The other of such Tumults as our Author chargeth the Rable with and it is expresly said that they did what they could to raise a War Here then is that horrible Contradiction that he findeth or fancieth a War managed by potent Armies and for a long time is in one place called a Tumult and yet Scuffles among a confused Rout which are soon over are distinguished from such a War Here is neither Contradiction nor Impudence The Impudence that followeth is injuriously imputed to me it is vindicating the Presbyterians from being Rebels for what himself seemeth to applaud in other more modest persons he might find frequently said by me But if it be Impudence to deny Presbyterians to be Rebels what kind of quality must he be of who chargeth them with it while his own Party is guilty of Actions of the same nature and were as universally engaged in them What hath lately fallen out might teach him either to justifie what he so freely calleth Rebellion or to lay the blame of it on Protestants and not Presbyterians only and then if no share of it fall on himself let us know what Party he is of § 15. He next challengeth some Insinuations as if the Presbyterians in Scotland were the only Protestants which cannot be inferred from any Words he citeth Neither can it be inferred that I thought or said that the Gospel was not preached but by the Presterians One word he layeth weight on that if the Presbyterians had not used the Indulgence given to them and Papists these would have occasion to mislead People without any to oppose them None who had a mind to understand Words as they are plainly meant would so construct this Passage such universal Expressions most frequently suffer a Limitation also in that case they had done what in them was that none should oppose Popery as if a Batallion in an Army flee they act such a part as tendeth to hinder any opposition to be made to the Enemy Beside all this tho' there were some privat Episcopal Ministers appear'd faithful in this Case it is well known how litle most of the Bishops and the generality of the Clergy appeared and how they that did speak any thing that way were discouraged by some Bishops I wish he had better cleared to us how absurd it is to say that the true Protestants in the Nation were for the late Revolution than by telling us that being against it was no Popery most men think it was too much to favour it and was a defect in that Zeal that should have in such a Juncture been shewed against it The secret Instructions from Holland that he giveth as the Cause of Presbyterians complying with the Dispensing Power I never heard of them but from that Epistler whom he mentioneth and I could answer nothing to it but by denying it and now when he calleth for an Answer to it I say First Presbyterians did never comply with the Dispensing Power but groaned under it as a Grievance their using the Indulgence could not be so constructed as I have else-where shewed Secondly I solemnly declare that I know nothing to this day of these secret Instructions Thirdly What moved such Presbyterians as I was acquainted with to scruple using the Indulgence at first and to accept it at last was that some Conditions and Limitations that they could not submit to were left out in the last Edition of it The Villany that he chargeth the Presbyterians with in Addressing King James for his Indulgence while they were on Intrigues to supplant him must be charged on them who were so guilty I knew of no such Intrigues nor any such design then on foot tho' now I perceive that such Designs were then hatching neither can I name one person among all that accepted of the Indulgence who knew of such Designs § 16. He next bringeth instances of Impudent Shifts used by G. R. when he or his Cause is put to it The rabbled Ministers were not deprived of their Possessions I mean Stipends by an Act of Parliament as he alledgeth but thrust from their Places by the Rabble and the State judged that they could not relieve them without palpable Inconvenience and because of the notoriety of the Scandals of not a few of them which had been so outed as appeareth from the then Prince of Orange's Declaration on which followed the loss of their Benefices What the State did they can best give Reasons for I never defended what the Rabble did that way For what is said of Parliaments calling King James's Retirement from England his Abdicating the Government that is plain to be meant of the Parliament of England for tho' it was written by a Scots-man it was said of English Affairs of Retirement from England not from Scotland wherefore here is no Impudence unless on his own side tho' the Scots Parliament speak nothing of Abdication This and what followeth is picking a Quarrel without cause given The long Story he hath of the Viscount of Dundee's Plot and the Forces that came from the West to defend the Convention containeth such Matters of Fact as he contradicteth what is confidently affirmed by them who were on the Place and had occasion to know these things as well as he and are fully as credible persons as he is Let the Reader judge who deserveth most Credit I was Witness to none of these things but shall give my Vouchers if duely called to it if he can do the like let unbyassed Men judge of the whole History If I had said the whole Nation knoweth the whole of this Passage to be true as he affirmeth that the whole Nation knoweth it to be a Figment I might have been branded with Impudence on better ground than any thing that he hath brought to prove his Charge against me § 17. What was said against Dr. Strachan's Defence he spendeth many Words upon it on which I observe a few things First I