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-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
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
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
that he was ordained by Imposition of Hands I deny not that even an ordained Presbyter behoved to be chosen to the Office of Bishop before he could exercise it so it is with our Moderator That there was more Solemnity in installing a Bishop then than we use in making a Moderator cannot be denyed that was consequential to the Bishops being constantly and for Life in that Office and to that Prelation or Dignity above other Presbyters that he then had Neither shall I contend with him about Imposition of Hands to have been in that case used tho' after search I cannot find the place he citeth for it is well known that in the Apostolick Church and it is like it continued in after Ages Imposition of Hands was used when Men were sent into a special piece of Work tho' no new Office or new Power was given as Act 13. 3. I hope he will not say that Saul by that Imposition of Hands was promoted unto a higher or new Office being already an Apostle But our Question is whether the Bishop had a superior Power over Presbyters which resided in his person alone this we deny and affirm that it is not proved by the Citations he hath brought The Zeal that even false Bishops used to have all the Formalities in their promotion that were used by any other which is one of his Topicks is as little probative Nor should I wonder if they exceeded they had need of all the Pomp that could be to make up the want of Real Right to strenthen their weak Title He concludeth p. 15. that now my Definition of a Bishop is routed a second time Let the Reader judge § 24. He cometh to apply his former propositions and to conclude his Argument from them How saith he can the Maxime of but one Bishop at once consist with the Bishops being a single Presbyter seing in Rome and Carthage were many Presbyters and yet each of these was but one Church Ans 1. It consisteth well with the Notion of a Moderator 2. It consisteth well with the Notion of a Bishop in lesser places where was no such plurality of Presbyters of which before 3. I have said enough above to discredit this Maxime in the sense our Author useth it 4. There might be a plurality of Presbyters in a particular Congregation not only Presbyters that were only ruleing but-Preachers also For it is observed by some that in the primitive Times they ordained many more preaching Presbyters in Churhes than they had present Work for So Mr Clerkson primitive Episcopacy Ch. 5. p. 93. and he buildeth on Nazianzens Authority who Orat. 1. Sheweth that the Officers in Churches were some times as many as these whom they had the Charge of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is probable that then the Christians having no Universities the Churches especially in great Cities or where were learned Bishops were Colledges for Breeding men to the Ministry and that when they were ripe they ordained them and imployed them that so they might be Seminaries out of which vacant Parishes might he provided and if any will say that the Bishop had such Authority over these Presbyters as our Professors of Divinity have over the Students It may pass for a probable Conjecture Only these were ordained ours we do not ordain till we fix them in Churches and in that time I find no such unordained Licentiats as we have § 25. He again asketh If a Bishop were but a single Presbyter why such a do and so many Bishops conveened to elect and ordain him This is in part answered above I add we also have a Meeting of many Ministers to ordain a Presbyter to a single Flock and also when a Moderator is chosen As for calling Bishops of a whole province to Elect and instal a Bishop at Rome and at Carthage that was needful because these were the fixed Moderators in these Provinces So our Moderator of a provincial Synod is chosen by no fewer than the Ministers of a whole Province and the Moderator of the General Assembly by Ministers from the whole National Church What he saith about their New Ordination is already Answered That which he calleth ridiculous is pretty ridiculously by him proposed Viz. that so much ado was made about making two men Presbyters of Rome who were already Presbyters of Rome He meaneth Cornelius and Novatianus It was about making them Moderators of the Colledge of Presbyters not in Rome but in the whole Province and indeed it was lamentable rather than ridiculous Both that that Promotion began then to be more esteemed than was meet and was lookt on as a Prelation above the other Brethren tho' it was far short of what our Author contendeth for and also that there should be such unchristian Contests made about it Alas some such things have fallen out where a Diocesan Episcopacy was not pretended to Our Sentiments about a constant Moderator he entertaineth in ridicule p. 16. rather than refuteth them by Arguments this I do little regard Had the excellent men of the Cyprianick Age seen or known the fatal Consequents of it as we have I judge they would not have allowed it as they did I. refer the Reader for satisfaction in this Point to Mr. Baillie Vnlawfulness and danger of limited Episcopacy and another peice bearing the same Title which he defendeth against a Reply made to it That the Presbyters of Rome did often meet during the Vacancy of the See and that they had a Moderator in their Meetings none will deny but what he inferreth is in consequential that they might as easily have chosen a Bishop if he had been but Moderator For not only the Custom of having the Moderator fixed made it more hard than to choose one to be their Mouth for one Meeting or two but also as I have said the whole Province was to be concerned in him He argueth p. 17. in many words if he were Moderator why the people was to choose him or why was it needful that he should be chosen in their presence A. Because also he was to be Pastor of that Flock That he was no Church-Governour as Moderator is answered above But it cannot be said he was no Church-Governour under another Relation viz. as Pastor of the Congregation of Rome or a Congregation in it That he was chosen by 16 Bishops i. e. saith our Author sixteen Moderators was not then needless seing he was to be Moderator over them to that is over that Province If sixteen parochial Bishops met to choose a Moderaror of a Presbytery or sixteen Moderators from sixteen Presbytries met to Elect him who was to praeside continually in the Synod This cannot infer either sole or superior Jurisdiction Further if we should grant that in these days a Presbyterie used to take the help of other Presbyteries or their Moderators or that help was by Custom imposed on them this will indeed prove that some of the
Government of the Church nor that they had Jurisdiction over Presbyters who were fixed in the Church to oversee any part of it Many Presbyters Deacons yea private Christians who were eminent for Ability to confound the Adversary for Zeal and Holiness or for their Station in the World were persecuted as well as their Bishops That this is neither strange nor concludent of Episcopal Power is evident not to fetch an Instance from far in the late Episcopal Persecution among our selves the Ministers were mainly Hunted Intercommuned Imprisoned forced to Hide or Flee and the more eminent or zealous they were the harder it went with them yea some who were freer than many others of what was thought Sedition Disorder or Rebellion yet were hardly used for the Hurt that it was thought they might do to that which was the great Diana of the Ascendent Party And yet all this will not prove that they had or pretended to or were thought to have Jurisdiction over their Brethren I do therefore deny the Consequence the Bishops some of them for I will not say it was the Lot of them all were mainly persecuted Ergo they and not the Presbyters had the Authority in Governing the Church If Decius had such a dread of a Bishop being setled in Rome that he would more patiently have endured a Prince to rivall it with him for the Empire I am sure he had not so much Cause as his Successors had from the Successors of that Bishop Of no more Force is his Argument drawn from Galienus directing his Edict to the Bishops when he stopt the Persecution For we deny not that they had an eminent Station in the Church and had a chief Hand in the Direction of her Affairs whether ye consider them as Parish-Pastors as they all were or Moderators in greater Church-meetings as some of them were I have as he willeth his Reader to do considered and weighed his Arguments without partiality and in the Ballance of Justice But am not yet convinced that the Schisme that is in the Church is chargeable on us but on his Party Let the Reader judge whether of us have best grounds for our Opinion § 64. He concludeth with making excuse from the bulk of his Book that he doth not as he first intended prove Episcopal Praeemenencie to be of divine Right as being Christ's Ordinance and handed down to us from the Apostles in the constant Practice of the Vniversal Church This is the constant Cant of that Party but I have met with none who was able to evince this tho' the learnedest among them and not a few of them have essayed it If this Author shall think fit to make another Effort as he declareth himself ready to do if commanded by him to whom he writs this long Epistle and if he bring any thing new and not fully answered already I doubt not but his Arguments will be examined to better purpose than what is or can be done by such a mean hand as mine is APPENDIX AFter the former Sheets were almost Printed I met with two Books at the same time which I had not before seen the one called the Fundamental Charter of Presbytry c. with a Preface of 167 Pages by a nameless Author the other an Inquiry into the new Opinions chiefly propagated by the Presbyterians in Scotland with some Animadversions on the Defence of the Vindications of the Kirk by A. M. D. D. This latter Book seemeth to have more of Argument than some others which I have seen from some Scots Episcopalians if not from the same Hand I have much desired that our Debates might run in that more pure Channel and rejoice to see any hopes of it I am sorry that now I have no time from necessary urgent and daily work to consider this Book so as to Answer it if I shall not be Proselyted by it I intend to try it's strength as soon as I shall have leasure if the LORD give Life and Health and if it shall not be sooner Answered by some other Hand which I do much wish § 2. The former of these two Books is expresly levelled against an Act of the Parliament of this Nation and is a direct Refutation of it and therefore the Examination of it is out of my Road and is most fit for such as are conversant in the Affairs of State and know the Politick which moved the Parliament so to contrive their Act. I do judge that he who shall undertake it will find no hard task Beside the Presbyterian Ministers did never look on the Inclinations of the People which that Act mentioneth in it's narrative as the fundamental Charter of Presbytry however the Parliament might wisely consider it in their Consultation and Determining and mention it rather than what did more sway some of them We always did and do found the Government of the Church by Parity on Divine Institution and look on Prelacy as contrary to Christ's appointment § 3. What I now undertake is a transient view such as the Press hastening to an end of the former Discourse will allow of his Preface which I hope may be lookt on as a due Refutation of it nor can I imagine that any judicious and unbyassed man will judge that such a parcel of Stuff deserveth a laborious Examination he hath need of a hardened Nose who can insist long in an exact Anatomatical Scrutiny into such a rotten Carion The Author hath out-done his Brethren yea and himself too in Billingsgate-Rhetorick he seemeth to be eminently gifted that way to the silencing of who ever will oppose him as some learned acute men have quickly had their Mouths stopt when the Tongues of some of these good Women have been let loose against them I had rather own in my self all the dulness that he is pleased to impute to the man whom he designeth to expose than enter the Lists with him at that Weapon and I do freely confess I am not qualified for it and if I were I should think it unsutable to my Character however mean and inconsistent with a good Conscience Such impotency of Mind and such injurious Defamation is not well consistent with Christianity nor is sutable to that Learning that is required in them who write Polemick Divinity for Scolding is no Scholarship If his Adversary was weak he should have knockt him down with strong Arguments not bespattered him with dirty Revileings the one would have ruined his Cause the other but bedawb'd his Person and it may be easily wiped off If the Cause which my Adversary owneth need this Conduct it is weak and not worth contending for if not they who do so manage it are no credit to it § 4. I refer the Reader who would have a view of this Author's Qualities more truly than he Characterizeth other men to the Bishop of Sarum ' s Vindication where if he be not aimed at he is very plainly chastised in Effigie for G. B. G. R. seem to