Priviledges of Presbyters began then to be abridged but not that their ruling Power in the Church was transferred on a single person the Bishop What he further argueth p. 18. from the Bishops new Ordination is already answered § 26. His next Argument and some that follow is taken from the Bishops relation to his particular Church viz. That he is the principle of Vnity to her who ever adhered to him was in the Church a Catholick Christian who separated from him was out of the Church and a Schismatick Under this Head he hath no less than six Considerations which either are intended as Arguments or signifie nothing Before I come to examine these I shall take some notice of his Argument as it is here generally proposed And 1. I observe that this very Argument is fully with as much strength mannaged by the Papists for the Pop's universal headship over the Christian Church they plead that we are not of the Church Catholick are not to be reputed Christians are Dividers of Christ's Body c. because we do not adhere to the Pope whom they hold to be the Principle of Vnity to the Christian Church and the Papists reckon the Protestants as Hereticks because they do not believe this and Schismaticks because they live not in Communion with the Pope and that Church whereof he is Head 2. This Doctrine as it is by our Author crudely and indistinctly proposed will Un-Church some of the best and soundest Christians for have there not been Bishops who had as good Title to their Sees to speak in his own Dialect as any could have who afterwards turned Hereticks How many Arian Bishops were there whose Right to their Places was not contested Will he say that all the Orthodox who separated from them were guilty of Schism and all the Aggravations that his Citations p. 19 20. load it with Are we not commanded to withdraw from them who teach unsound Doctrine 1 Tim. 6. 3 4 5. And our Lord warnes his People against Wolves and the Apostle gave Warning to the Elders of Ephesus that of themselves and our Author will say they were Diocesan Bishops should men arise speaking perverse things and drawing Disciples after them This Argument will prove if it hath any force that these their Followers were the sound Christians and the rest Schismaticks because the one sort adhered to their Bishop the Principle of Vnity and the rest departed from him I am far from charging my Antagonist with owning these Consequents but I see not how he can shun the Consequence unless he retract this his inconsiderat Opinion Thirdly I wish he had explained this Term the Principle of Vnity which he ought the rather to have done because he saith p. 18. near the end this is a Point of great Consequence What he saith for clearing it is very insufficient his Metaphors out of Cyprian de Vnitate Ecclesiae prove nothing viz. that of the Sun and Beams the Root and Branches the Fountain and Streams if they prove any thing they prove more than I suppose our Author will allow for Cyprian in the very page where he useth these Similitudes p. mihi 297. speaketh of Peter's Primacy and placeth the Unity of the Christian Church in him tamen ut Vnitatem manifestaret unam Cathedram constituit Vnitatis ejusdem Originem ab uno incipientem sua authoritate constituit hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod Petrus pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis sed exordium ab Vnitate proficiscitur And a little below quam Vnitatem firmiter tenere vindicare debemus maxime Episcopi qui in Ecclesia praesidemus ut Episcopatum quoque ipsum unum atque indivisum probemus Where it may be observed 1. That either Cyprian was absolutely for the Pope's Supremacy or he had no such meaning as our Author designeth 2. That Cyprian doth not so much speak of the Peoples adhering to their Bishop which in a sound Sense I am for as Bishops cleaving together and not breaking the Churches Peace by Divisions among themselves 3. That he is to be understood of a Principle of Origination rather than of a Principle of Dependance that Peter first was in Commission by Christ the truth of which I shall not now enquire into and that all were obliged to adhere to that one Doctrine that he taught not that he had Authority over the rest and they must not Dissent from him in any Case Cyprian plainly teacheth the contrary in that very place that the rest had equal Authority with him And if we should apply all this to a Bishop or Minister in a Parish it amounteth to no more but this he receiveth the Word from the Lord and delivereth it to the People and if they depart from this they are Schismaticks and break the Unity of the Church which we all acknowledge I observe 4. That this his Principle is indeed of so great Moment that if it be true there are neither Churches nor Christians in the World but such as owne a Diocesan Bishop few in our days are Christians but these of the Romish and Church of England Communion all the Reformed Churches must be Re-baptized and their Ministers Re-ordained as Cyprian and some other thought of the Schismaticks of that time I hope all his Brethren are not of this Opinion Yea it hath been condemned by the most famous of his Party When Anno 1610. some Scots Bishops were to be Consecrated at London some moved that they might be first Ordained Presbyters their Ordination without a Bishop being null Bancroft Arch-Bishop of Canterburâ—y withstood that Motion and told them that thereof there was no necessity seing where Bishops could not be had the Ordination given by Presbyters must be esteemed lawful otherwise that it might be doubted if there were any lawful Vocation in most of the Reformed Churches This was Applauded by all the other Bishops Spotswood Hist. Lib. 7. ad An. 1610. p. 514. Whence I infer that either Cyprian was not of this Author's Opinion nor can his Words be so understood or that the English Bishops were opposite to him and Cyprian too § 27. What he saith further for clearing this his Notion about the Principle of Vnity is both absurd and groundless viz. that he the Bishop was the Head of all the Christians living within his District and they were one Body one Society one Church by depending on him by being subject to him by keeping to his Communion I say this is absurd because then Separating from the most Heretical Superstitious yea Idolatrous Bishop were unlawful as above noted It is also groundless for neither Cyprian nor any other uses such indistinct and universal Assertions in this Matter I come to examine his several Propositions by which he pretendeth to make out this his Argument The first is that the Antients highly Valued Church Vnity and laid no more Stress on any thing than it and no Sin they Represented as more Hainous or
question the Practice of Bishops sending their Communicatory Letters to signifie that they were promoted Yet I see no sufficient Proof of it from the two or three Instances that he bringeth It must be either a Law or a great Train of Instances in many several Nations in greater and lesser Churches and under diverse Circumstances and Cases of these Churches` that will bear the weight of so universal a Conclusion But I pass this for it doth not much concern our main Question He will find it also hard to prove that these Letters were sent to all other Bishops as he affirmeth p. 80. that had been a Work of no small Labour I suppose they did thus correspond with some next adjacent Bishops or who were of special note which we also do as I shewed before That there were Metropolitans in Cyprian's time he asserteth and I deny it not But they were but Moderators of the greater Meetings as the Bishops were of lesser ones of the Parochial Ministers and Elders as also were the Primats and in Affrick especially the eldest Bishop or Minister had this Dignity but it was Praecedency and Dignity wherein they were above their Brethren not Power and Authority but this our Author toucheth but transiently and so I shall not insist on it only I ask him how do Metropolitans in our modern sense agree with his Opinion that every Bishop was supreme and had no Ecclesiastical Superior on Earth See § 9. p. 82. where he is Discoursing of purging out a Heretical Bishop his thoughts seem to run somewhat muddy He saith the Colledge of Bishops might do to him the equivalent of a formal Deposition they could refuse him their Communion and thereby exclude him from their Episcopal Colledge and they could oblige all the Christians within his District to abandon him And because he saw that his former Assertion of the supreme Power of a Bishop and his having no Ecclesiastical Superior would be objected he saith no Bishop was superior to another in point of Power and Jurisdiction How to make all this hang together is not easie to know 1. To wreath the yoke of the Bishop's Domination on the Church he establisheth Independency among Bishops whereas no Reason can be given why Parishes should not be Independent on one another as well as Provinces I look on both these sorts of Independency as contrary to the Unity of the Church and on Subordination as of Natural and Divine Right 2. If the Colledge of Bishops had not formal Power to depose a Heretical Bishop by what Authority could they oblige the Christians to abandon him and to choose another if he say the Fundamental Law of sound Faith and Unity or as he speaketh of one Faith and one Communion obliged the Christians to this A. That is antecedent to the interposing of the Authority of the Episcopal Colledge and they were obliged to it tho' there were no such Colledge 3. That no Bishop hath Power over another Bishop is no more than we say of Presbyters But it is strange that the Community of Bishops hath not formal and direct Power over every one of their own number both with respect to his Communion with them and with respect to his particular Charge that maketh a wider door both for Heresie and Schism and for Peoples Beeing without remedy under the Plague of bad Ministers than any thing that Parity can be charged with 4. The People are here left Judges of the Bishop's Haeresie and other Incapacitating ill Qualities and so to determine whether they will leave him or not the Colledge of Bishops can do no more but inform them and tell them what they are obliged by the Laws of one Faith and one Communion to do 5. What if the Bishop will not leave his Charge nor the People abandon him hath Christ left no Ordinance in his Church as a Remedy of this Case The Colledge of Bishops cannot excommunicat him nor them that were to exercise formal Authority over him or them if they then will not yield to the Colledges Information or Advice they may go on in their way without further Controlement Thus we see that men will venture to ruine the Soundness Peace and Purity of the Church that they may establish a Lordly Prelacy over the People of God What he insisteth so much on p. 86 87. about directing publick Letters to the Bishops and their being signed by them is not worth our notice We also count it regular for our Moderators to be so treated but there was some peculiar Reason why it was so punctually observed in that Age because the Praeses of their Meeting was fixed and it was Interpretatively a Degrading of him or questioning his Title to do otherwise but this importeth no superior Jurisdiction He telleth p. 87. that every Haeretical or Schismatical Bishop and all who adhered to him were ipso facto out of the Church This I do not believe for how shall a man be known to be Haeretical till he were tryed and judged His Proofs amount to no more but that such were dealt with as out of the Church and may be the manner of Process against them is not mentioned but such a negative Argument will not prove that no more was done to cast them out if that be the Episcopal course of Censure wee intend not to follow it and if that were the way in the Cyprianick Age it maketh its Example less Venerable and Argumentative but it saith nothing for the Bishop's sole Power he saith p. 89. that a Bishop never called a Presbyter his Collegue A. If it be understood of Presbyters without a Charge there is Reason for it he had no joynt Charge of the Congregation we use the same way of Appellation But if it be meant of a Moderator with respect to the other Brethren I answer we find Presbyters calling the Bishop Brother as was noted before Yea Concil Carthag 4. Canon 35. it is Decreed that tho' a Bishop in consessu Presbyterorum sublimior sedeat intra domum Collegam se Presbyterorum cognoscat This its true was a litle after Cyprian's time but it was when Church-Domination was rather growing than decreasing § 63. His strength is now far spent when in the end of his Book he wasteth so many words to set off an Argument which is fitter to be smiled at than laboriously answered It is that the Christian Bishops in Cypria ' s time made such a Figure in the Church that they were the Chief Butt of the Malice of Persecutors others might live in Peace at Home when they were forced to Flee And he is at pains to prove this which I think was never questioned in any Age of the Church Their Station made them conspicuous for I deny not they were above Presbyters in Dignity their Parts some of them made them to be jealoused their Zeal for God made them hateful to the Promoters of Satan's Kingdom But all this can never prove that they had the sole
and time as there is of the Solemn League and Covenant or the Sanquhar Declaration this sheweth more of his Spite against that Church-Office than of his Skill to refute it § 15. It might have been expected from this peremptory Confidence that he should have attempted a Refutation of what many Learned Men have written on that Subject if he lookt into that Controversie the London Ministers whom he citeth could have taught him at least to speak more soberly so Blondel de Jure Plebis p. 79. c. Smectym L'Arroque Conformity of the Discipline of the Church of France with the Primitive Church Calvin P. Martyr and many later Writers at least he might have had some regard to Arch-Bishop Whitgift a Zealous Pleader for Prelacy as he is cited by Synod Lond. Vindication of Presbyterial Government I know saith he that in the Primitive Church they had in every Church Seniors to whom the Government of the Church was committed but that was before there was any Christian Prince or Magistrat I hope then that it was in Cyprian's time will not be denyed May be on second thoughts he will abate a little of this Confidence when he considereth these few Citations following which do plainly prove that both before and after Cyprian's time there were Ruling Elders who were not Preachers acknowledged in the Church Origen Lib. 3. contra Celsum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. There are some appointed who do enquire into the Life and Manners of them who are Admitted that they may debar from the Congregation such as commit vile things and receive such as abstain from these and make them daily better Tertul. Apol. C. 3. Praesident probati quique Seniores honorem istum non praetio sed testimonio adepti These were before Cyprian After him were Jerom on Isaiah 3. 2. Et nos habemus in Ecclesia Senatum nostrum c. August Ep. 137. Dilectissimis Fratribus Clero Senioribus Vniversae Plebi Ecclesiae Hipponensis Where he maketh a plain Distinction between the Clergy and these other Elders and also the Body of the People these Elders then were not Teachers and they were above the People The like he hath contra Crescentium Lib. 3. C. 1. Omnes vos Episcopi Presbyteri Diaconi Seniores scitis Et ibid. C. 56. Peregrinus Presbyter Seniores Ecclesiae Musticanae c. The same Augustin in his account of the Purgation of Caecilianus and Felix accused by the Donatists mentioneth several Letters Recorded in the publick Acts which must certainly speak the Language of that Age wherein Ruling Elders distinguished from Preaching Presbyters are plainly and often mentioned as Episcopi Presbyteri Diaconi Seniores again Clerici Seniores Cirthensium also a Letter directed Clero Senioribus and another Clericis Senioribus Likewise the Epistle of Purpurens to Sylvanus hath these words Adhibeâ—e Clericos Seniores Plebis Ecclesiasticos Viros inquirant diligenter quae sint istae Dissentiones where it is clear that the Ecclesiastical Consistory was then made up of these Elders as one sort of its Constituent Members and that they had Authority to take Course with Disorders in the Church in Conjunction with the Teachers of the Church Even Gregorius Magnus the Pope in the end of the sixth Age sheweth that such Elders were still in the Church Tabellarium saith he cum consensu Seniorum Cleri memineris ordinandum Also Lib. 2. Epist 19. Si quid de quocunque Clerico ad aures tuas pervenerit quod te justè possit offendere facile non credas sed praesentibus Ecclesiae tuae Senioribus est perscrutanda veritas tunc si qualitas rei poscit Canonica Districtio culpam feriat delinquentis Is it imaginable that there were no Ruling Elders in Cyprian's time in the third Century and yet after three hundred years they were revived again when Episcopal Tyranny and manifold Corruptions in the Church were come to a greater height Isidor Hispal Sent. Lib. 3. C. 43 Prius docendi sunt Seniores Plebis ut per eos infra positi facilius doceantur § 16. It is yet more fully against this Author's bold Assertion that even in Cyprian's time it self this Office was in the Church as Witness the Writers of that Age Basil in Psal 33. Quatuor gradus Ministrorum constituit quod sciz alii sunt in Ecclesia instar Oculorum ut Seniores alii instar Linguae ut Pastores alii tanquam Manus ut Diaconi c. And Optat. Milevit Lib. 1. adv Parmen telleth us of certain precious Utensils of the Church which in a time of Persecution could neither safely be transported nor hid in the Earth and therefore they were committed to the Custody of the faithful Elders of the Church From all this it is evident that if express and distinct mention be not made of this sort of Elders by Cyprian it is either because he had no occasion or that he comprehended them under the general name of Presbyters as the Scripture sometimes doth under the name of Bishops for it is not to be imagined that Cyprian in this was of a different Sentiment from the Church before in and after his time § 7. His third Foundation for his Argument is that the Bishops Power Authority Pastoral Relation extended to all Christians within his District and a little after the Bishops Prelation what ever it was related not solely to the Clergy nor solely to the Laity but to both equally and formally this we are no way concerned to oppose for we think every Minister hath a Relation to the Universal Church and Authority with Respect to all the Members of it and more particularly within the Presbytery whereof he is a Member and yet more fully toward these of the Congregation he is set in whether Elders or People Neither is our Question about the Extent of the Bishop's Power as to Persons so much as about the Solitude of this Power whether Church Power reside in his Person alone or be in the Community of Presbyters I might dismiss this whole Section but that his Proofs seem not so much levelled at this Conclusion as at some other things which we cannot so easily comply with he telleth us of Cyprian's defining the Church to be a People united to the Priest and a Flock adhering to their Pastour he bringeth Citations to prove that where a Bishop is wanting the People hath no Ruler the Flock no Pastour the Church no Governour Christ no Prelate and God no Priest and he will have Presbyters to be but Vice-Pastours Now how far is all this from his Conclusion viz. that the Bishop's Power extendeth to all the People All this tendeth to prove the Bishop's sole Jurisdiction which is afterward to be considered where he insisteth on that point on purpose but here here he doth nothing but make a Parade with a parcel of impertinent Citations I shall only now tell him that this may be well understood of
an Ordinative Power in that he ordereth the Meeting to avoid Confusion and many call it pre re natâ but he acquireth no Decisive Power he getteth a Power to be their Mouth not their Will or Commanding Faculty to keep Order in the Management of what cometh before them not to Determine what is Debated among them as it is expressed in the place he citeth and which might have prevented this Cavil if he had heeded what was said To conclude what I have to Reply to this his Argument it is no Proof of such a Prelacy in Cyprian's time as he pleadeth for that it related to the Laity as well as the Clergy for so doth that of our Moderator that is he ordereth the Affairs which concern them which are managed in the Presbytery and that Cyprian did more or that he managed the Affairs concerning the Laity without the same Authoritative Concurrence of the Presbyters is the Question and is not concluded by this Argument § 21. He undertaketh p. 11. easily to collect another Demonstration against my Notion of a Bishop from the way how in Cyprian's time he was promoted to his Chair to that Sublime Top of the Priesthood as he calleth it This is to fright us with big bur empty Words if he bring a concludent probable Argument tho' short of a Demonstration we must stoop To Cyprian's Words the Sublime Top of Priesthood I should not doubt to give a satisfying Answer if I could find the place and consider the purpose he is speaking of but my Antagonist hath made my Work very difficult not by the strength of his Arguments but by leaving me at uncertainty where to find any one of his Citations unless I either stumble on them casually or read all Cyprian's Epistles for every place that is cited for he knoweth there are several Editions of Cyprian and he hath neither told what Edition he useth I have no other at present but that Printed by Le Preux 1593. nor nameth he to whom the Epistle is Directed whether this be done de industriâ or not I shall not judge but I am sure it is a great neglect especially considering that Cyprian's Epistles are quite otherways numbred by Scultetus than in the Edition mentioned but I find neither of these can help me to find his Citations All that I shall say about this Sublimity he talketh of is that the Fathers used to speak big words concerning the Gospel Ministry which both Papists and Prelatists have abused also the Bishops Power was elevated to a higher Dignity tho' not greater Authority than the Presbyters and that was their Sublime Fastigium Sacerdotii This his Argument also he buildeth on several Propositions The first is There could be no lawful Promotion to a Bishoprick where a Bishop had been setled unless there were a clear Canonical and unquestionable Vacancy it was a received Maxim then that there could be but one Bishop at once in a Church Our present Debate is no way concerned in this Principle whether it be true or false For taking a Bishop for Moderator we think there should be but one at one time and that another ought not to be chosen till the place be void by Death Deposition from that Office or Cession If by Bishop you understand the Pastor of a Flock whether there be one or more over a Congregation is nothing to our purpose seing the Question is about the Power of the Bishop whether it be in one or more Persons § 22. Yet I shall observe a few things on his Discourse of this his Principle 1. If I were willing to be very critical I would ask him what did they in those days when there was a real and lawful Vacancy but not clear nor unquestionable as in the Contest between Cornelius and Novatianus at Rome and many other Instances that might be given of most Unchristian and sometimes Bloody Contentions between Bishops pretending to the same See I hope the sound Party might and did place a Bishop tho' the Vacancy was questioned Next I oppose to his Principle Dr. Hammond on Rev. 11. p. 662. who telleth us there were two Bishops at once in Jerusalem Antioch Ephesus and Rome he nameth them and giveth Reasons why distinct Congregations under their respective Bishops in each City were necessary he saith also it was so in other Cities and his Reasons do prove that it must be so in all Cities where there are many People I insist not on the Bishops at Philippi Phil. 1. 1. At Ephesus whom the Holy Ghost had made Bishops Act. 20. 20. Thirdly I observe that all the Citations he here bringeth hath this Tendency to shew that Novatus in intruding himself in the Bishop's See at Rome was to be blamed seing Cornelius was already duly setled in that Place This was a plain Case the Presbyters and People of Rome had chosen Cornelius to be Pastor of a Flock and their constant Moderator as was the Practice of that Time Novatianus was not only unsound in other things but he got a Faction to choose him for Pastor and their Moderator and he with them set up another Presbytery in Opposition to that wherein Cornelius was fixed I know no Presbyterian who would not condemn this Practice as much as Cyprian did and it is observable that the Citations here brought by our Author do not so much concern the Unity of a Bishop as the Unity of a Church which indeed Novatianus had broken I confess Cyprian here used Expressions a little too vehement in that he not only denyeth them who make such Rents to be Pastors being unduly Chosen and Ordained but denyeth them to be Christians it was a great Sin and deserved the highest Censure but it is hard to Unchristian all who make a Schism but I impute this Fervor to the Temper of that Age rather than of the Holy and Meek Cyprian and it is like these Wise Men saw a peculiar Reason at that time for thus Opposing the Seeds of Ruine to the Church which often lurk unobserved in Schism § 23. His second pillar of this Argument is this Assertion there was no canonical vacancy but where the Bishop whose the Chair had been was dead had ceded or was canonically deposed Let this pass The third is when a See was thus canonically vacant the Bishops of that province met choosed and ordained one in presence of the people whom he was to govern I object nothing against this save that the Bishops choosed the Man to be ordained we say the People had the choice with the Eldership but this Controversie he waveth as not belonging to this Argument and so do I. His fourth Proposition is that the person elected received new Imposition of Hands and new Ordination tho' he had been ordained a Presbyter before this he prosecuteth p 14. and citeth many Testimonies to prove what he alledgeth he saith no doubt that each of these was raised to the Episcopacy by a new Ordination and of Sabinus
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
was in these days his peculiar Work neither do we find that he Deputed one to praeside but left it to the Presbytery to choose whom they thought fit He next bringeth the 38. and 41. Canons of the Apostles to prove what he designed I have above shewed what Weight is to be laid on their Authority Nor do they give this Power to the Bishop alone but the Bishop is to be lookt on with respect to what is there said as praesiding in the Presbytery What he citeth out of Justine Martyr saith no more but the Bishop hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Care of the Ecclesiastical Goods which we willingly yield to him and to every one of the Presbytery but it is not said he alone hath this Care He would have us believe that this sole Power of the Bishop is fairly founded on Scripture but citeth no place I know no more where to find these places of Scripture than I know where to find some places of Cyprian that he citeth I am sure Act. 6. maketh nothing for him but on the contrary Neither 2 Corinth 8. and 9. Chapters For Paul was a Delegate in carrying that Contribution to Judea and if he had claimed more Power it will be hard to prove the Bishop's Power to extend as far as that of an Apostle § 47. The Bishop's fifth Power that he alone possessed is of imposing charitable Contributions on all the Christians within his District for the Relief of Strangers c. For which he referreth to Ep. 62. and 78. but citeth no words I can find nothing to that purpose in either of them as in my Book For his alledging Soter Bishop of Rome whom Dionysius of Corinth commendeth for this Practice cited by Eusebius Lib. 4. Cap. 23. mihi 22. there is no more in it but that Dionysius commendeth that Church for their wonted charitable Distributions to other Churches and that Soter had observed and improved this Custom this may be fairly expounded of exhorting to Charity without Authoritative Imposing of Contributions which any Minister may do And if he did impose it is not said he did it by himself tho' he is only mentioned as perhaps being singularly active in stirring up both the Presbytery and the People and he was to publish in the Church the Presbyteries Determination in this What is there in all this for a sole Power in this Matter His next full Power is Indicting of Fasts for which he citeth Tertullian de Jejun But it is observable that Tertullian speaketh of Bishops in the plural number now it is not to be thought that no Fasts were Indicted but by a Meeting of Diocesans wherefore Episcopi must be the Presbytery Or if he mean the several Bishops in their several Churches it may be rationally understood of the Bishop's intimating to the People what is by common Consent Determined not what he enjoyneth by his sole Authority The seventh Branch of the Bishop's Prerogative is to Convocate the Presbytery and Deacons And let him enjoy it for it is what we grant to our Moderator and there is a natural necessity that it be in the Power of some person to call them together when any emergent doth require it And seing in Cyprian's time the Bishop was the constant Moderator it was consequential that he should be the constant Conveener But what Prerogative or sole Power this doth infer or what Ecclesiastick Authority above the Brethren it importeth I cannot understand Let any who hath clear use of reason judge how this proveth the Bishop's managing the Affairs of the Church like a chief Governour as our Author dreameth p. 48. Neither doth it appear that the Bishop might convocate the Presbyters at pleasure as he fancieth but when there was cause as in the Instance he bringeth there was He bringeth in on this Occasion an Observation that Cornelius received these persons about whom he called the Presbytery without asking the Peoples consent but acquainted them after it was done But our Author hath forgot what he had a few Lines before said that after they were received in the Presbytery the People were made acquainted with it not one word of the Bishop's receiving them by himself This is nothing contrary to Presbyterian Principles and Practices Yea as if he had design'd to refute himself he citeth a Letter of these Persons shewing that they were reconciled to the Bishop and to the whole Clergy where is then the Bishop's sole Power of receiving Penitents He propoundeth to himself an Objection that the Presbyters at Rome met in a Vacancy after the Bishop's Death and at Carthage in the time of Cyprian ' s Retirement To the second Instance he Answereth that Cyprian left a Delegation for their Meeting which he proveth strangely he wrote Ep. 5. that they should faithfully perform his Office and their own where saith he we have distinct Offices and an express setling of a Delegation A. For distinct Offices his Mistake of the Latine Word hath misled him it is fungamini illic vestris partibus meis I see not but one Presbyter may say this to another For his Delegation I think few others can perceive it in these words may not any Member of a Presbytery but especially the Moderator say the same by a Letter to the Presbytery It importeth no more but a Warning to be vigilant in their Work See § 46. His next Citations is out of Ep. 14. It is Ep. 6. Where Cyprian commands them to perform the Office of Vicars to him Cyprian's words are hortor mando ut vice mea fungamini circa gerenda ea quae administratio religiosa deposcit Here is no more but what any of Christ's Ambassadours may say he chargeth them to do their Duty and he had Authority from Christ not as Bishop but as a Pastor of the Church and Christ's Ambassadour to enjoyn this If Cyprian had our Author's meaning then all Religious Administration must cease without the Bishop's presence or Delegation which is absurd For his mea vice it signifieth no more but that his Absence might be supplied by their Diligence Cyprian's warm recenting what some of them did without his allowance shall be elsewhere considered it was that some Presbyters without both their Moderator and the Presbytery received some of the Lapsed which was wholly irregular and blame worthy He next to the Presbyters Meeting sede vacante Answereth that they might meet but they might only determine in ruled cases That is gratis dictum but if they might act in any case it is an Argument that they had Church Power in their Persons and that it was not solely in the Bishop The last of the Bishop's Prerogatives that he pleadeth for tho' he telleth us p. 50. that he could collect more is his Delegating not his Presbyters in common but two of them Rogatianus and Numidicus with two Bishops Caldonius and Herculanus to consider the state of the Poor at Carthage and to pronounce the Sentence of Excommunication
negligent in their Ministerial Work 6. We also encourage and admit to the Government them that do well 7. Letters that concern a particular Congregation are with us directed to the Minister these concerning the Presbytery to the Moderator we also cast out bad Ministers and such as adhere to them if the Cause be weighty but we use moderation to the people who are led away by Schismatical Ministers when their Separation is founded on lesser mistake if in this we differ from the Cyprianick Age his Party should not blame us having tasted so much of our lenity Let it then be considered how impertinent this whole Discourse is and how insufficient to prove the Episcopacy of the Cyprianick-Age that he pleadeth for § 60. He useth several enforcements of this Argument p. 88 89. which I shall briefly consider 1. The Colledge of Bishops are still considered as Church-Governours notoriously distinguished from Presbyters Answ This distinction lay in the dignity that the declensions of that time from Apostolick simplicity gave them not in any Power that they had which Presbyters had not 2. A Presbyter was never called a Bishops Collegue Answ If this were granted such a negative Argument and that drawn from words and ways of speaking which doth often vary is not very concludent I have shewed that the same Power is ascribed to them see § 62. where the contrary of what he asserteth is shewed 3. We have no Vestige of a Presbyterian Moderator in these times Answ There was then a Moderator who was called the Bishop who presided in their Meetings tho' there was no such changing of the Moderator as is among us that I have yielded but the fixedness of the Moderator and the parity of the Power are consistent tho' I deny not that the one made way for destroying the other as After-ages did shew 4. Our Author repeateth all the Acts of and concerning Bishops that he had insisted on and affirmeth that they could not consist with a single Presbyter or Moderator which I have above-denyed and made the contrary evident That he calleth all the Acts of Government and Discipline his the Bishops and his alone is to beg the Question for we deny it and he should prove it § 61. I must now return to p. 78 and glean some Passages which I was obliged to overlook that I might have this long Argument stretching from thence to p. 90. intirely in view and give a general Answer to it He maketh the Bishop the Principle of Vnity to a particular Church and the Colledge of Bishops the Principle of Vnity to the Catholick Church and Christ the Principle of Vnity to that Colledge And addeth I hope not being a Romanist you will not require that I should prove the highest Step of this Gradation Here I observe first the Discourse is about a visible Head or Principle of Vnity to the Church which cannot be ascribed to Christ Wherefore this is wholly impertinent or if it have any sense it tendeth to make his Reader a Romanist whom he supposeth not to be one already For if the particular and Catholick Church have a visible Principle of Vnity and that which he maketh to be the Vniting Principle have nothing that is visible to make them one among themselves they who can receive his Doctrine about a Principle of Vnity will see a necessity of a Pope to unite the Bishops as much as of a Bishop to unite the Presbyters 2. If Christ be the Vniting Principle of the Colledge of Bishops why doth he not serve for the same use to Presbyters yea to all Christians And indeed he is the real Vniting Principle to all they only are in the Union of the Church who cleave to his Doctrine and observe his Laws even tho' they separate from the Bishop who departeth out of that Way 3. I desire to know of him why he thinketh the Romanists will put him to prove the highest Step of this Gradation more than Protestants will Doth any of them deny Christ to be the Principle of Vnity to the Church They only make the Pope his Vicar in this because they think such an one is needful in the Church who is visibly Conversant among men and doth not our Author suppose the same necessity of such a visible Uniter till he come to the Colledge of Bishops and he leaveth them Headless that is without a visible Head Where it may be rationally concluded that this Doctrine is either Popish or palpably absurd The next thing I notice is p. 79. he saith all Christians hold one Faith to be necessary to the Vnity of the Church but in Cyprian's time one Communion was thought as indispensible they held there is but one Church and that this could not be without one Communion If by one Communion he mean for he walketh in a Cloud in this Matter whether of Design or not I know not that Communion of Saints which is an Article of the Creed which consisteth in Union of them all with Christ and Unity in Faith and Love c. I acknowledge the necessity of it but I know not what respect it hath to Episcopacy more than Presbytery If he mean Local Communion it is impossible either in the Catholick Church or in the Diocess of a modern Bishop If he mean Communion by having the same Ceremonies and Government in the Church Tho' I confess that is desireable and by all good means should be endeavoured for we should have no Ceremonies but these which are of Divine Institution and the one Church Government that he hath appointed should be every where exercised yet there may be one Church where this Communion is not and if the Cyprianick Age was somewhat too strick in this Matter it was their Mistake of which above but it is no Proof of Episcopacy in the sense of our Debate to have been in that Age. And indeed if our Author maintain this Principle he will consequentially to it Unchurch most of the Reformed Churches as the Papists do them all on the same score if by this one Communion he mean that all Christians must be United to some one Bishop or other which Bishops agree among themselves and have Communion in the Episcopal Colledge he will find hard to prove that Cyprian taught so Yea then there is no Communion in the Church without an oecumenick Council of Bishops which we have litle hope to see and many doubt that the World did ever see it tho' there have been Councils so called because in them were represented all the Churches of the Empire Further if this was the Opinion of Cyprian's time how will he prove that these Bishops in whom Churches were to be United were any more than Parish Ministers and that the one Communion of that time was more than that every Christian must be the Member of one Church where Christ's Ordinances are dispensed by a Bishop that is a Minister of the Gospel § 62. Tho' I am not concerned to