called Primates whom yet we deny to have had either Sole or Superior Jurisdiction were the eldest Minister of every Province which afterward was changed and they chosen according to their Personal Qualifications and Metropolitans were the Bishops of the chief Cities which had no Superior Power but only sometimes praesided in Synods Cyprian disowned that any of them was Episcopus Episcoporum See no Evidence for Diocesan Churches or Bishops p. 28. Also L' Arroque adversar Sacr. Lib. 2. C. 14. maketh this plain And Leidecker dissert de statu Eccles Affric § 7. he sheweth that Primates were above Metropolitans in Dignity and that they first attained that Degree by their Age reckoning it from their Ordination and the other from the City where they had their Charge Yea there hath been no Age of Old or in later times in which there have not been some lesser differences in Management even among Churches which used the same Species of Church-Government for Substance as at this day in Scotland Low-Countries Geneva among the Switzers c. Some Churches are more and some less pure and near to the Pattern and yet all governed by Presbyters Acting in Parity and among the Prelatists Prelatick Power is higher in one Church than in another as in England now and in Scotland of late Wherefore our Author must not think to triumph if he can shew some difference between the Cyprianick Age and our Way Cypr. Ep. 75. § 5. Firmilian writing to Cyprian hath Instances to shew that in diverse Churches they had diverse Practices and yet kept Peace one with another 2. We deny not that in Cyprian's time there was some Advances made towards some sort of Prelacy tho' the Parity of Power was not then wholly taken away as the Mystery of Iniquity in other things so in that did begin early to Work even in the days of the Apostles when Diotrephes did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 affected to be primus Presbyter or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Moderator in their Meetings and this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 becoming fixed and constant after the Apostles times these good Men not fore-seeing the ill Use that others would make of that Handle given them it did by insensible Degrees degenerate into an undue Usurpation as it is hard to get Power kept within it's due Bounds even among the best men and the Primitive Power of Presbyters was gradually wrested out of their hands by the Ambition of some and by the innocent Simplicity of others Many other Corruptions had crept into the Church by that time and this Declension from absolute parity went along with them the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 began to be appropriat to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that Custom being confirmed by a little time made even humble men imagine that some different Power was signified by that name that they had distinct from others which the rest who were so usurped upon did too easily yield minding more the Work of Feeding than of Ruling the Flock and not seeing the fatal Consequents of it which afterward appeared and were not discovered till it was too late to retrieve them 3. It is evident from the History of the first Ages that as Episcopacy did not arrive to it's height of a sudden so it was not at the same time settled in all the places where it obtained at last the Ambition of some or at least their too big Thoughts of the Power that belonged to them and the Easyness of their Com-Presbyters made it in one place make quicker Advances while the Humility and sound Judgment of others together with the Vigilancy of these who with them govern'd the Church retarded it's Progress in other Churches And it is certain that for as much as this Contagion of the Church walked in the dark yet it was observed and opposed by some as Aerius Jerom and others as will appear in our Progress Leidecker Dissert de Statu Eccles Affric § 7. Namque inquit uti ab Origine Episcopatus Ordinis Praesidentiae in Presbyterio titulus erat quamvis alibi suos terminos egrederetur in Affrica vetus Libertas Presbyterii est retenta dum Episcopi praesidentium honore non dominatu in Ecclesiam aut Presbyteros gauderent This he not only asserteth but proveth by diverse Testimonies § 10. Hence we may conclude that our Author cannot prove what he pretendeth unless he make it appear that Episcopal Power such as he pleadeth for was not only acted by some but generally in the Churches of the first second and third Centuries or approved by general Consent Wherefore if we can bring Testimonies to prove a Parity of Power among Presbyters and that Domination over them by one was condemned his bringing some Testimonies to the contrary will not be found concludent I say not this as if I were afraid he can prove what he undertaketh by the Authentick Suffrage of any one of the Fathers of the first three Centuries but that he may see what Weakness and Fallacy is in his Reasonings on more Accounts than one I may here add a Conjecture on which the Reader shall be desired to lay no more Weight than he pleaseth that seing it is confessed by the best Antiquaries that we have but little Historical Certainty of the first Ages of the Church it is probable that more Opposition might be made to the Tendency toward Church-Domination than we have account of for the Topping Party might carry all before them and others might be suppressed or what they did buried in silence especially considering that meek men are often too apt rather to suppress their Sentiments than to make much noise with them to the hazarding of the Peace of the Church and to groan under Grievances rather than cast the Church into a Convulsion by struggling when they do not foresee the greatness of the hazard that they fear This I conceive may be one part of that Sleep that giveth the Enemy advantage to sow his Tares I ground this Conjecture on the great difference that is between the Scripture-account of Church-Government and that of after Ages and that the further we come down from the Scripture-times the difference seemeth to be the greater and yet we have but often small account of any sensible Change made at any one time § 11. The Learned Author to his main Proofs as he speaketh p. 4. premitteth a shrewd Presumption against what I hold that generally the great Champions for Presbytery acknowledge that Episcopacy was in the Church long before Cyprian's time and he nameth Chamier Blondel Salmasius the Synod of London Spanhemius c. What his c. may contain in it's vast belly I know not but I am not afraid of any of them he hath mentioned they are all Friends to the Cause I maintain and say no more than I have already said but much against his Sentiments It had been easier for me to make this appear if he had thought fit to point at
and 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
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
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
that the High Priest was to all the Levites in the world Cyprian's Reasons brought from the High Priest have much more Sense in them than these of our Author For he pleadeth no more from that Topick but that as the High Priest was to be obyed and not resisted so is the Bishop As the High Priest was reverenced even by Christ so is the Bishop we say the same that a Bishop acting in his Sphere with his Consistory or Presbytery should be obeyed and respected and we count it the same sort of Sin in Schismaticks who rebel against this Church Authority with Kora's Rebellion against Aaron but it is utterly inconsequential to infer Church Monarchy from Aaron's Power I wish he had brought any thing that might look like proof of this consequence He saith p. 34. that the Christian Hierarchie was copied from that of the Jews and he bringeth Arguments for it such as they are one is from the Names Priest Priesthood Altar Sacrafice c. which he calleth a pregnant Argument I cannot but still observe how much the Papists owe him not only for their Pope but for their unbloody Sacrifice what must we have all that of the Old Testament whereof we retain the Names If so we must have a new Gospel This Argument is easily delivered of its Pregnancy by denying the Consequence His other Argument is from an Ep. of Clement of Rome who lived in the Apostles times wherein he exhorteth to Order and every ones keeping his Station and then reckoneth up several Subordinations under the Old Testament A. Clement useth the Old Testament hierarchy as a simile to illustrate New Testament Subordination of Officers in the Church ergo we must have the same Officers and they must have the same Power that these had non sequitur Neither was such a Consequence intended by Clement For a second Answer our Author may know that that and others of the Epistles that go under Clement's name are rejected as none of his by Learned Men and on solid Grounds § 35. He hath a long Discourse beginning p. 34. at the end to shew that my Definition of a Bishop is consistent with none of the three Principles last mentioned which were current in the Cyprianick Age much less with all three together I have already shewed how far these Principles were held in that Age and how our Notion of a Bishop agreeth with them all What seemeth to be further Argumentative in this Harangue I shall consider He saith the Bishops being the Principle of Vnity doth not consist with his being a single Presbyter where there were fourty six Presbyters as at Rome there would rather be fourty six Principles of Divisions and make the Church a Monster with fourty six Heads Answ 1. I retort this Argument In the first Council of Nice for Example where were three hundred Bishops what was the Principle of Unity or were they three hundred Principles of Division And a Church Meeting or a Church Representative that was so Monstrous as to have three hundred Heads What he will answer in the one case I will answer in the other And indeed this Argument destroyeth the Parity of Bishops which he pleadeth for as well as of Presbyters and its Native Conclusion is we must either have the Papacy over the Church or Anarchy in it A. 2. Where there are many such Presbyters as our Author pleadeth for we say the Bishop was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not a single Presbyter A. 3. In a particular Flock where are many Ruling but not Teaching Presbyters the Bishop or Minister is such a Principle of Vnity as I have above owned and where there are more Bishops in one Church the Principle of Unity is their Teaching the same Doctrine as is above explained He next alledgeth that a Moderator cannot be the Principle of Vnity in a Presbytery seing as such he is neither Pastor Governour nor Christian but may be a Heathen A. This wild Notion that a Heathen may be Moderator in a Presbytery I have fully refuted § 8. To the first part of his Argument I say that not the Moderator alone but with the Presbytery is the Principle of Vnity while they all Teach the same Truths and adhere to the one Rule of our Faith and Practice the Word of God any other Bond or Cement by which Men can be United which lyeth in the Authority of a Man rather than in the true Doctrine is an Antichristian Fancy and tendeth to enslave the Conscience to the Will of Man We know no such Uniting Head as he telleth of but Christ Ephes 4. 15 16. Neither did ever Cyprian dream of such a Head of the Church Next he will make our Notion of a Bishop inconsistent with his other Principls the Bishop's Supremacy and Independency I have already shewed that the Church in Cyprian's Time knew no such Supremacy nor Independency but held and Practised a Subordination not of many to one but of every one to the Collective Body and of every lesser Body to the greater of which it was a part I see no Reason nor Scripture Ground for Independency whether of single Pastors and Congregations or of Presbyteries or of Bishops and their Provincial Synods His third Principle the Hierarchy under the Gospel being the same with that under the Old Testament I have refuted as a groundless Fancy and therefore am under no Obligation to shew the Consistency of our Parity with it § 36. From p. 37. he layeth down Principles that would afford stronger and more pertinent Arguments than any we have yet met with if he can but sufficiently establish these Principles He mentioneth three viz. 1. The Bishop's sole Power in many Acts of Government and Discipline 2. His Negative in all 3. That all Presbyters were subject to his Authority and Jurisdiction If all this be true our Cause is lost but we are not afraid to try it with him through his help whose Cause we plead Before I engage in this Debate with him I desire the Reader will reflect on what I observed § 10. that if we can bring Testimonies to prove a Parity of Power among Presbyters and that Domination over them by one was condemned or disowned in Cyprian's Time his bringing Testimonies to the contrary will not be found Concludent for Contradictory Assertions derogate from the Authority of the Asserter or seeming Contradictions must be reconciled by a fair Exposition or such Testimonies will prove that the Practice and Principles of the Churches of that Age were not Uniform any of which would weaken his Cause I shall not here repeat the Citations that are full to this purpose which I have on diverse Occasions mentioned Nor need I confine my self to Cyprian's Age alone seing our Author pretendeth to no less Antiquity for his Way than from the Apostles down ward yea all the Ages of the Church and all the Churches of every Age and we acknowledge that after the third Century Church-Government was
Bishops and Presbyters 1 Tim. 3. and Tit. 1. Whether their Office may be called a Ministry or Rule of Government his Words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He saith likewise of them that they by their promotion to be Presbyters ascend from being ruled to be Rulers that they have Authority not over a Flock but over mens Souls and other very sublime Powers he ascribeth to them And in his Orations he is as profuse in extolling the Dignity and Authority of Presbyters as any other in exalting Bishops He saith as many as are ordain'd are chosen to the high Thrones of Presbytery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he speaketh not of Bishops as distinct from Presbyters is plain for the design of his Discourse especially in his Apology is to shew how the Apostle directed Bishops and Presbyters by the same Canons without distinguishing them or their work and that onely custom had raised the Bishop above them as their Praeses § 38. I next bring Ambrose as a Witnes for us in his Epistle to Syagrius he sheweth that when he and Syagrius had severally passed Sentence on a Delinquent the Church was unsatisfied with the Sentence of Syagrius and gave the reason because he had done it by himself sine alicujus fratris consensu but acquiesced in the Sentence passed by Ambrose because saith he hoc Judicium nostrum cum Fratribus Con-Sacerdotibus participatum processit Whence it is plain to have been the Principle of those days that the Bishop had not sole Jurisdiction however some were then Grasping at it Chrysostom Homil. 11. in 1. Tim. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. omitting the Order of Presbyters he the Apostle passeth to the Deacons Why so Because there is no great Difference for they are Ordained for Teaching and Governing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church and what he had said of Bishops he applyeth to the Presbyters If then Chrysostom was for the Bishop's sole Jurisdiction let any judge August Ep. 19. quanquam secundum honorum vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major sit tamen in multis rebus Augustinus Hieronymo minor est Where it may be observed to our purpose 1. That Augustine placeth the Praelation of a Bishop above a Presbyter in the Title of Dignity but speaketh not a word of Superior Power 2. He not only insinuateth that that Difference such as it was had its Original not from Divine Institution but Humane Custom but he speaketh of it as lately setled jam obtinuit this was after 420 years it was neither constant nor universal till then Salvianus maketh the Levitae Sacerdotes to be the Apostles Successors not mentioning Bishops as distinct So Gildas frequently speaketh of Bishops and Presbyters promiscuously I hope I may also adduce Jerom a Presbyter as a Witness as well as they do other Fathers who were Bishops He giveth all manner of Church Power to Presbyters and not to Bishops only Ep. ad Heliodorum Presbytero saith he si peccavero licet me tradere Satanae in interitum carnis Et Ep. ad Demetrium sunt quos Ecclesia reprehendit quos interdum abjicit in quos nonnunquam Episcoporum Presbyterorum Censura desaevit Ambrose giveth Account Ep. 80. of the Excommunication of Jovinianus and others with him by Syricius Bishop of Rome whose words to Ambrose were omnium nostrum tam Presbyterorum quam Diaconorum quam totius Cleri scissitata fuit Sententia It is shewed § 37. that Penitents were to be received by the Bishop and Clergy as Cypr. Ep. 12. it were then strange if they were cast out by the Bishop alone I desire the Reader who can for further satisfaction would read Paul Baynes Diocesan's Trial and Mr. Peregrin Letters Patents of Presbytery they having somewhat that is singular on this Subject § 39. Let us now examine what he is pleased to bring for the Bishop's sole Power in the Church and against the Parity that we have Asserted And first I shall examine his three Principles above-mentioned The first of which is there were several considerable Acts of Power belonging to the Government and Discipline of the Church which belonged solely to the Bishop several Powers Lodged in his Person which he could manage by himself and without the Concurrence of any other Church-Governour Of this sort he reckoneth eight viz. Confirmation Ordination Settling Presbyters Disposal of Church Revenues Imposing Charitable Contributions Convocating the Presbyters and Deacons Indicting Publick Fasts Delegating two of his Presbyters These I shall consider distinctly with his Proofs for what he Asserteth about them For the first of these Confirmation of the Adult who had in their Infancy been Baptized at first it was no more but after diligent Instructing them in the Grounds of Religion bringing them to the Pastor of the Church and probably before the Eldership that they might be tryed in their Proficiency and so declared fit to receive the Lord's Supper in which nothing can be blamed Afterward it came to be more Theatrically managed and Imposition of Hands was the Ceremony by which it was set off till at last it came to be esteemed a Sacrament Now when it was thus turned from the Simplicity of God's Ordinance to be a Pompous Device of Man not a few of which were crept into the Church in yea before Cyprian's Age it is not strange if they committed not the managing of it to all to whom Christ had committed his Ordinances but to one of their own chusing Our Debate is whether the Bishop had sole Power of managing any of Christ's Ordinances of which number this is not Yet I find litle strength in our Author's Arguments for this Power in the Bishop His first Proof is Cypr. Ep. ad Jubajanum it was the Custom to offer such as were Baptized to the Bishops that by their Prayers and the Laying on of their Hands they might receive the Holy Ghost and be Consummated by the Sign of our Lord which our Author taketh to be the Sign of the Cross Here Cyprian useth the word Praepositis which our Author is pleased to translate Bishops whereas Presbyters also were called by that Name For Cyprian Ep. 3. § 1. the Roman Clergy when they had no Bishop said of themselves that it appeared that they were Praepositi and thence inferred that it was incumbent on them to take Care of the Flock and they speak of idle Shepherds as neglegentes Praepositi whose Reproof was to be a Warning to them And Cypr. Ep. and Jubajan which is 69. § 4. plainly calleth the Successors of the seventy Disciples as well as these of the Apostles Praepositos for of them that place Luc. 10. 16. which he citeth is to be understood And Ep. 62. § 1. he sheweth how Church Discipline is to be regarded à Praepositis Plebe And Ep. 65. § 4. he mentioneth Episcopos Praepositos as distinct And Ep. 21. which is Celerini ad Lucium § 3. quorum jam causa
from the one to the other seing our Author joyneth Confirmation in order to Communion of which this is a sort with Ordination as two Powers reserved to the Bishop alone Ep. 67. § 4. he saith of Cornelius Bishop of Rome that he was ordained Suffragi◠Cleri Plebis Concil Carthag 3. Canon 22. Nullus ordinetur clericus non probatus vel Episcoporum not Episcopi examine vel populi testimonio Concil Carthag 4. Can. 3. Presbyter cum ordinatur Episcopo eum benedicente manum super caput ejus tenente etiam omnes presbyteri qui adsunt manus suas juxta manum Episcopi super caput ejus teneant This is exactly our practice if ye allow the Moderator to be the Cyprianick Episcopus Our Author himself seemeth to insinuat that the Presbyters with Cyprian used to concur in Ordination while he premiseth to his proofs for sole Ordination that passage out of Ep. 14. as he quoteth it a primordio Episcopatus mei statueram nihil sine consilio vestro sine consensu plebis mea privatim sententia gerere I say if this be not meant of Ordination it is here very impertinently brought in Nor can his Comment on Cyprian's words help him viz. That this was his voluntary Condescendence that he was not bound to To prove which he putteth Statueram in majusculis as if it were not usual with good men when they enter on an Office to resolve to keep within the bounds of their power to manage it lawfully as well as to cede in what is their Right But that Cyprian's words cannot bear that sense I prove by the Reason he giveth sic mutuus honor exposcit the mutuus honor must be that due regard that he had to their Authority in the Church and they ought to have to his it had been a dishonouring of them and setting them lower than Christ had set them in his Church for him to mannage her Affairs without them And Ep. 18. he maketh this Matter yet clearer Quae res cum omnium nostrum consilium sententiam spectet praejudicare ego soli mihi rem communem vindicare non audeo Where it is manifest that it was conscience of Duty and not good Nature onely that induced him to this Conduct Also that he attributeth to Presbyters not consilium onely but sententiam not onely a consultative Power but also definitive or decisive The Apostle who had indeed a sole Jurisdiction spake in another Dialect 1 Cor. 5. I have judged already Cyprian durst not do so because he knew he had not that sole Power § 42. Let us now hear his Proofs for the Bishop's sole Power of Ordination The first is What is said of the Ordination of Aurelius which I have already shewed to be against him Wherefore I shall onely take notice of his Observes on this Passage by which he would force it to speak for him 1. That his Power was the same in all Ordinations I shall not much contend about this only if they put the Power of Ordaining Officers of their own devising into the hands of whom they would it doth not thence follow that they might or did so dispose of Ordaining Power with respect to these whom God had appointed and about whose Ordination he had given Rules in the Word 2. He used only to ask their Counsel about the manners and Merits of the person to be Ordained not their concurrence in the Act of Ordination This is a Mistake he asked not their Counsel only but their joynt Suffrage as is above shewed That their Concurrence in the Act of Ordination is not here mentioned is not to his purpose seing it is consequential to their Office and Church Power That it is fairly imported in the instance of Aurelius that they used not to concur is a groundless Imagination For this is a single Instance in an extraordinary case and he spendeth a whole Epistle in making Apologie for it Yea he more than insinuateth the contrary when he telleth what he used to do and giveth a singular Reason for what he now did I wonder that common Sense doth not teach him that such an Act doth not import a Custom 3. That it was intirely of his own easiness and condescendency that he consulted them in the matter This I have above refuted and it is inconsistent with what himself elsewhere saith that the Bishop was the Monarch and the Presbyters his Senate I hope he will not say that it is ex beneplacito that Kings consult their Parliaments Unless he be for the Turkish Government both in Church and State § 43. Another Testimony which he calleth Remarkable p. 40. is Cyprian Ep. 41. had given a Deputation to Caldonius and some others to examine the Ages Qualifications and Merits of some in Carthage that he whose Province it was to promote Men to Ecclesiastical Offices might be well informed about them and promote none but such as were meek and humble and worthy His Remark is he speaks of himself in the singular Number as having the power of promoting and he founds that Power and appropriats it to himself upon his having the care of the Church and the Government of Her committed to him For A. I observe a few things on this discourse 1. This Delegation of Caldonius and the rest was not to Carthage as our Author dreameth which appeareth by the end of the Epistle in which he bids Caldonius c. read this Ep. to the Brethren and transmit it to Carthage to the Clergy which had been incongruous if their Errand and Work had been at Carthage Next this is in consistent with what Cyprian and our Author saith was his Practice viz. to consult the presbyters about who were fit to be ordained It is strange that he should send Strangers to Carthage for such Enquiry and to inform him with the neglect of the Presbytery 2. It is also clear from the Epistle § 1. That this Negotiation was about some Sufferers who belonged to the Church of Carthage may be banished or imprisoned or confined some where where they were in necessity for he saith he sent them ut expungeretis necessitates fratrum nostrorum sumptibus c. That they might pay their Debts as Pamelius expoundeth it and that they might furnish them for following their Trades if they so inclined And the enquiry about their fitness for Church-Work seemeth to be intended on the by for he bringeth it in with simul etiam 3. That he speaketh of himself in the singular Number doth no way infer that he alone was to promote any who were qualified among these Sufferers Neither his having the care of Church Government committed to him For ego cui cura incumbit promoverem saith nothing at all of sole care nor of sole Power Not only a Moderator but any Member of a Presbytery to whom the Ordination of Ministers belongeth might say as much might desire to know worthy persons and give the Reason that it is not
a Bishop by himself placed Ministers this cannot be inferred from one single instance and that in a time of Persecution and Dissipation and where there was so signal appearance of Divine determination that Cyprian's words are admonitos nos instructor dignatione divina sciatis ut Numidicus Presbyter adscribatur Presbyterorum Carthaginiensium numero Any who desireth to be fully satisfied in this Point of Election of Pastors let him read Blondel Apolog. Pro sententia Hieron from p. 379. to the end even to p. 548. where it is traced through all the Ages of the Church § 46. The Bishop's fourth Priviledge is he had the Disposal of all the Revenues of the Church This our Author maintaineth p. 44 c. he had the full Power of this saith he ibid. I here observe that if we should yield all that he asserteth it maketh nothing for the sole Power of the Bishop in Jurisdiction or Government of the Church for these distributions were always reckoned a Service not any Act of Government in the Church the Object of Church Power are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Further I observe that the Authoritative Direction in managing these Matters did belong to all Church Rulers The Apostles had the Power but they were not at leisure to attend the managing of these things as our Author's Bishop is but committed it to Deacons who were Officers appointed for that very end Act. 6. I observe thirdly that however to be thus imployed might sute well with the way and temper of the the Bishops of our time who generally are more imployed about Secular Affairs than in Preaching it was not consistent with the Labour of the Primitive Bishops about the Gaining of Souls Fourthly it is evident that in the Ages after the Apostles the Deacons had the Charge of the bona Ecclesiastica ergo not the Bishop only Origen in Matth. 16. Mensis Ecclesiasticarum pecuniarum Diaconi praesunt Item Diaconi qui non bene traetant pecuniarum Ecclesiasticarum mensas semper de eis fraudant ipsas quas dispensant non secundum justitiam dispensant divites fiunt de rebus pauperum ipsi sunt numularii pecuniarum mensas habentes quas evertet Dominus It is fifthly to be observed how absurd it is and what a snare for any one man to have the sole Disposal of all the Goods of the Church who may take what he will of them for his propria portio to use our Author's words and give what he will to the other Church-Officers and to the Poor This is a Trust might make bad Bishops and such there were even in Cyprian's time a Scandal and might expose the best to Obloquie and lay a Foundation for perpetual Grumblings and Discontents in the Church to prevent which the Lord by his Apostles appointed Deacons to superintend that Affair Act. 6. Let us now hear what our Author pleadeth for his Opinion he telleth us that the Bishop not only had his propria portio which he will have to be the third of all and he observeth that this made Fortunatianus and Basilides so earnest for Restitution to their Sees after Deposition and in our days maketh many Sell or Ruine the Church for these Lucrative Promotions but he affirmeth the Bishop had also the Disposal of the rest For which his Proof first as to the Clergies part Felicissimus is blamed for contending about his share contrary to his Duty to his Bishop and others are praised who took their shares as the Bishop should please to dispense them A. 1. That the Bishop here is meant in his sole or single Capacity and not rather in Conjunction with the Presbytery wherein he praesided is denyed and can never be proved Yea the contrary is evident Ep. 41. which he citeth where speaking of them who were so tractable he useth these words vobis acquiescere maluisse that is submitted to their the Presbyteries Determination about their shares 2. If a School Boy should make such a Version of Latine into English as our Author here doth he would be lasht for it He turneth Episcopo Dispensante as the Bishop should please to Dispense them whereas the Bishop's Dispensing was nothing but his giving out Sentence as the Presbytery had Determined not as he by himself pleased Likewise he taketh no notice of these words vobis acquiescere maluisse which is a great Error in Translation 3. It is evident from Cyprian's own words that he did not act solely in this Matter but with the Authoritative Concurrence of the Presbytery for a little before the words cited he saith cumque post haec omnia nec loci mei honore motus nec vestra authoritate praesentia fractus c. where he blameth Felicissimus for despising the Bishops honour and the Presbyters Authority clearly insinuating the Difference of the Bishop and Presbyters of his time that he had more Honour than they but not more Authority The same way are we to understand Cyprian's promoting Aurelius and Celerinus only to the Degree of Lectors but entitleing them to the Maintenance of Presbyters viz. that Cyprian might propose this to the Presbytery tho' he could not effect it without them his words are Presbyterii honorem designasse me illis ut sportulis iisdem he designed it because they were choice Young-men but it was the Presbytery concurring with him that must make this effectual He saith for the Poors part the Bishop's Power in Distributing it is so evident from Ep. 5. and 41. that I need not insist on it A. In Ep. 41. which is that we were just now Debating about there is not one word to that purpose but that he had sent some to relieve the Necessities of some Sufferers but out of what Fond whether his propria portio or any other is not said And if it were out of the Churches Stock it is not said he did this without the Presbytery he might very well say he did it when the Presbytery appointed it and he put it in Execution What he saith in the 5. Ep. is as fully against our Author's Design as any thing can be He bids them both in Discipline and Diligence act both their own parts and his And he hath these words quantum autem ad sumptus suggerendos sive illis qui gloriosa voce Deum confessi in carcere sunt constituti sive iis qui pauperes indigentes laborant tamen in Domino perseverant peto ut nihil desit cum summa omnis quae redacta est illic sit apud Clericos distributa propter ejusmodi casus c. Is it not here evident that the Clergy are intrusted with the Poors Money and are to distribute it as need requireth and that this Distribution in Cyprian's Absence was a doing of their own Work and his so that they Acted not as his Delegats Further they Acted their own part and his when one of them did praeside in their Meetings in his Absence which
against Felicissimus and Augendus which they executed against them and some others If this Discourse prove such a Power of Delegation it will also prove such a Power in one Bishop over another which our Author will not allow seing he asserteth p. 27 28 35. that every Bishop is supreme and hath no Ecclesiastical Superior on Earth 2. Sending a Messenger to do for us what we are restrained from doing is not always an Act of Authority one Friend may send another if he yield to it as well as a Master may send his Servant 3. That which hath most Weight in our main Cause tho' it be impertinent to the present purpose is that these Persons were to Excommunicat Felicissimus c. To which I Answer that this Excommunication might be Determined by the Presbytery and it was Cyprian's part as Moderator to intimate it for which he substituteth the Persons named Here is no sole Power of Excommunication This is Countenanced by Cyprian's own words in that Ep. § 2. that Felicissimus had despised both him and the Presbytery Nec meo honore motus nec vestra authoritate fractus It seems he had been tried before them and Sentenced for Contumacy Further he was also suspected of Adultery which Cyprian would not judge by himself but referred it to their Meeting ibid. § 48. Having now examined our Author's first Principle I proceed to the second which he advanceth p. 50 c. It is that in every thing relating to the Government of the Church and her Discipline the Bishop had a Negative over all the other Church-Governours within his District he had the supreme Power of the Keyes He setteth about the proving of this Point with a high Degree of Confidence but let not him that putteth on his Armour boast as he that putteth it off He pretendeth to shew that Presbyters could not Baptize nor Administer the Lord's Supper nor Excommunicate nor Absolve nor Make nor Rescind Ecclesiastical Laws without the Bishop's Allowance For a foundation to our Answer to all his Discourse on this Head I shall re-mind the Reader of a Distinction of Presbyters above-mentioned They were in Cyprian's time of three sorts 1. The Ruling Elders who were no Preachers and who with the Bishop or Parish Minister and other Preaching Presbyters if there were any made up the Consistory by which the Affairs of the Congregation were managed These I confess could Administer no Sacrament neither without nor with the Bishop's Licence And for Acts of Ruling in the Church it is probable enough that they could do nothing without him who was Praeses in their Meetings except may be in some extraordinary Cases 2. There were in some Churches especially in great Cities some Presbyters who were Ordained to the Work of the Ministry but had no particular Charge and were as our Probationers or Students in Divinity Schools only with this Difference that ours are not Ordained these might not Baptize nor Administer the Eucharist yea nor Preach without the Allowance of the Bishop or Parish Minister And it is so also among us if some Ordained Ministers happen to live in a Parish whereof they are not Pastors as sometimes falleth out in great Cities it is disorderly for them to exercise their Ministery within another man's Charge without his Call or Allowance These Presbyters in Cyprian's time were in somethings like Evangelists whom the Bishops imployed when themselves could not overtake all their Work and if these be called the Bishop's Curats as our Author doth all Presbyters I shall not much reclaim These were as the Sons of the Prophets bred by the Bishop for the Ministery of this sort of Presbyters see P. Baynes Diocesan's Tryal p. 63. A third sort of Presbyters were the Ministers of the several Parishes among whom the Moderator of the Presbytery or other Church Judicatory was in a peculiar manner called the Bishop and they also often were called Bishops with respect to their own Parochial Charge Now if our Author mean that a Bishop in a City had such Power over the Presbyters or Ministers in the Villages or Places about that they might not Baptize c. without his Allowance I utterly deny it and maintain that every such Presbyter Minister or Parochial Bishop by what ever name ye design him had in Cyprian's time as full Power in his Parish as the great Bishop had in his tho' the one was more in esteem than the other § 49. I shall now consider his Proofs for what he affirmeth He beginneth with Baptism and pretendeth to prove that Presbyters could not Baptize without the Bishop's Leave His first Citation is Cyprian saith Bishops give the first Baptism to Believers Which we deny not if ye understand it of Parish Ministers But if he mean Bishops in Cities who were the Praesidents in Presbyteries we deny that Cyprian asserteth that His next Testimony is out of Cyprian Ep. 73. and Firmil and Fortunatus Bishop of Thurobaris But it is evident and he confesseth it that the Question by them treated is whether Presbyters who by Heresie or Schism had departed from the Communion of the Church might Baptize and if they they did whether that Baptism was valid or the Person was to be again Baptized and that Baptism esteemed null And in this we do so far agree with these Fathers as to think that all the Administrations of such Hereticks or Schismaticks are irregular and to be condemned and that none ought so to separate from the Church while she keepeth the Way of Truth and requireth no unlawful Terms of Communion of her Ministers or other Members But none of these Fathers did ever Assert that in the Church a sound Presbyter could not Baptize without the Bishop's Leave within the Limits of his own Charge That they mean no more than I say is evident for they plead that none can Baptize out of the Church nor Bind or Loose out of the Church and they say expresly that none can Baptize but they who are Founded in the Evangelical Law and I hope it will not be denyed that Ministers of Congregations are Founded on that Law as well as these of great Cities who were then called Bishops because of their Praecedency in Church Meetings That Bishops are named in these Reasonings as having the Power of Baptizing maketh nothing against us because all Parish Ministers were so called and none without their Allowance ought to intrude on their Charge in this or any other Administration and because the Authority for Baptizing and other Church Work was Communicated from the Presbytery by their Praesident the Bishop he indeed gave the Power but not by his own sole Authority but by that of the Presbytery The testimony of Tertullian cometh next who saith de Baptismo cap. 17. the High Priest who is the Bishop hath the Power of Baptizing and after him or in Subordination to him saith our Author Presbyters and Deacons A. 1. Tertullian doth not speak of Bishops as distinct from the
Pastors of particular Flocks but from Presbyters who had no Charge if this Author put another meaning on his words let him prove it 2. Tertullian a little above puto autem licuit tingere cui licuit praedicare I hope he will not say that Tertullian thought that no Minister might Preach without the Bishop's Leave tho' he might think that the unsetled Presbyters ought to Preach in no man's Charge without his Leave 3. Tertullian a little below alloweth Laicks yea Women to Baptize in case of necessity without the Bishop's Leave as he doth in the place cited the Deacons to do it with the Bishop's Leave all which I look on as spoken without Warrant 4. Tertullian groundeth his Discourse on this that the honour of the Church requireth that the Bishop's Allowance should be had and on this occasion condemneth Emulation as the Mother of Schism and citeth that place all things are lawful but all things are not expedient From all which it is easie to gather that he only condemned them who Baptized without Church Authority which the Bishop as Mouth of the Presbytery did Communicat 5. It is wholly without Warrant that this Learned Author addeth to Tertullian's Words and in Subordination to him dehinc which is that Father's Word doth neither signifie nor can import so much all that can be built on it is a prior Dignity to the Bishop in this and other parts of the Ministerial Work His last Citation is Ignatius it is not lawful to Baptize without the Bishop A. That is without the Authority of the Presbytery which the Bishop as their Praeses conveyeth § 50. He Asserteth next p. 52. that no Presbyter could Administer the Eucharist within the the Bishop's District without his Leave or against his Interdict To this what hath already been said is a full Answer No Presbyter might do this within the Charge of a Parish Bishop without his Leave nor yet in a Presbyterial District without the Allowance of the Presbytery given out by their Episcopus Praeses His Proofs are exactly like the former Cyprian severely and justly lasheth some Schismatical Presbyters who by themselves without Cyprian and without the Presbytery did Administer the Lord's Supper to some of the Lapsed who were not duely Reconciled to the Church I know no Presbytery that would not condemn this if it were done within their Bounds yea they would think their Authority contemned and their Moderator slighted who should have been Applyed to to call the Presbytery for Consulting about this who with them should have Authoritatively Determined in this Matter and this Neglect of the Bishop was in that time the more conspicuous that his Praecedency was constant and known to all which was the cause the Bishop is so often named in these things that concerned not him alone but the whole Community It is to the same purpose which he next alledgeth of Dionysius Bishop of Alexandrià giving a Command that any Lapsed in danger of Death if Supplicating for it should have the Eucharist For that may be understood of Dionysius enjoyning this to the unfixed Presbyters of Alexandria that it should be done within that Parish whereof Dionysius was Pastor or of the Presbytery by Dionysius their Praeses to be observed within their District What Ignatius saith that that is only to be esteemed a firm and valid Eucharist which is Celebrated by the Bishop or by his Authority this I say admitteth of the same Answer that none ought to Celebrate that Holy Ordinance in any Congregation but the Pastor of it or whom he doth call to do it for him I might call in Question the Authority of these Epistles of Ignatius which he citeth but I will not digress into that Controversie sub judice lis est Theologi certant There is nothing of any more Weight in his next Citation where Cyprian against the Novatians declareth that there could be no true Sacrament among them because they are out of the Church and had assumed to themselves an Episcopal Chair and a Power of Baptizing and Offering It is plain that this is meant of them who had cast off the Churches Authority that was exercised by her Pastors who are here called Bishops but it no way proveth that some Pastors of the Church must depend on one of them for this Authority It is tedious to repeat the same thing so often in Answer to so many Arguments which are materially the same After all these numerous Testimonies he cometh p. 55. to an Artificial Argument in which kind of Arguings he seemeth not to be very formidable he supposeth he hath fully proved the Bishop to be the Principle of Vnity the Chief Governour that by Consequence the supreme Power of the Keyes belongeth to him that he was the visible Head of the Church it is highly reasonable on that account that he should have the chief Power of Dispensing the Sacraments and that they might not be Dispensed without him I have already shewed the Weakness of all these Grounds he buildeth upon and therefore the Consequence built on them must fall to the ground we are no less sensible than he is of the evil of Receiving and continuing unworthy Persons in the Church and that the Governours of the Church must be Judges in this matter but we are not yet convinced that the Bishop by himself rather than the Community of Church Rulers are that Judge and I must take leave to tell him that however it was in the Primitive Times in our Days the excluding of unworthy Persons Ministers and others hath been much more to be observed where the Church is ruled by a Parity of Presbyters than where it is governed by one Prelate § 51. This Learned Author supposing that he had proved the Bishop's Negative in Administration of the Sacraments hence inferreth his Soveraign Interest in Excommunication Absolution Enjoyning Pennance c. Which Consequence I shall not contest with him but I hope the Reader is now satisfied that he hath not sufficiently established the Antecedent nor will we yield that Cyprian or his Contemporaries had or laid Claim to such a Prerogative But our Author tho' he thinketh he might supersede the Proof of his Negative in these other things yet because he will give all possible Satisfaction he undertaketh a Deduction of further Powers in the Person of Cyprian of which we have a long History beginning at p. 56. I have nothing to observe on the account he giveth of Cyprian's Conversion Promotion save what I have observed out of Pontius of his Promotion to be Presbyter and Bishop simul semel but what ever be in that it hath no great Influence on our Cause the Opposition he met with his Eminency for Grace and Gifts the wicked Courses his Enemies took while under the Persecution by Decius he retired from Carthage how they got some of the Confessors and Martyrs to Countenance them and they upon this were emboldened by themselves to Absolve some of the
he turneth govern the Church That the Bishop is said to be one and set over the Church may well agree either to a Parish-Minister or the Moderator of a Presbytery who was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 His next Essay is from the Bishop's calling the Clergy his Clergy for which he is at pains to cite many places If this were constantly done which was not what doth it signifie that manner of speaking is as common among Presbyterians as it was in Cyprian's time and it signifieth no more but Elders of the Church whereof Cyprian was Pastor as the Elders of any Parish are called the Elders of such a Minister and Elders usually call their Minister our Minister It is a frivolous Question by what Rule of Grammer Rhetorick Logick or Politick could he be so called if he had no Power or Jurisdiction over them A. There is no Rule in any of these Faculties against it tho' he have no sole Power If he have a share of the Power that the whole hath over every one and have the Conduct in managing that Power by being their Moderator § 57. He will let all this pass for a mere Praelusion not being scant of Arguments Wherefore we must now expect what is more pungent that is the three Principles he had before proved so fully viz. The Bishop being the principle of Vnity having supreme power being the same with the High-Priest under the Old Testament do prove this Point To this formidable Argument I oppone what hath been discoursed on these Heads I leave the Reader to judge whether he hath fully proved these or I have fully overturned them Next he argueth from Cyprian's saying he could by his Episcopal power Depose or Excommunicate a Deacon who had rebelled against him and praising another Bishop for so acting yea I shal allow him what he after faith that this power extended also to censuring of Elders Do not our Moderators usually so practise when there is cause but not by theit sole Power but with the Consistory or Presbytery We Presbyterians may tremble at his next Blow For he saith he will leave his Reader no imaginable scruple But these big words dwindle away into this feeble Argument that Cyprian might have censured Felicissimus and some with him who first opposed his Promotion and after he had taken them into favour apted disorderly in receiving some of the lapsed without the Praeses and the Presbytery of this case before it is wholly insignificant here unless he can prove that Cyprian might do this by himself without the Presbytery which himself disowneth as I shewed above All that followeth which is a Repetition of what he hath often alledged having little to say when he braggeth of Superabundance is already plainly answered He is run a little weak but he reinforceth his Arguments with Confidence and Repetitions § 58. Hitherto he hath set forth his Cyprianick Bishop in his Majesty Absolute and sole Power c. In his own particular Church p. 78. he giveth us account of him as he stood related to the Catholick Church and here he expecteth matter enough for another Demonstration which is a big Word in Disputation We shall here also by Divine Assistance try his Strength and tho' we will not brag of Demonstrations yet shall endeavour to bring what Light and Strength the subject doth afford His long Discourse about the Colledge of Bishops I have read with Attention and considered with what Application I am capable of but cannot find his Demonstrations in it yea cannot see wherein it is conducive to prove his point only some Hints he hath interspersed that seem to have somewhat of Argument which I shall consider after I have taken a general View of the whole He observeth that all Bishops were Collegues and made up one Colledge Next that this Colledge was the principle of Vnity to the Catholick Church Thirdly that the grand Concern of the Episcopal Colledge was to preserve and maintain the one Communion which together with one Faith made them capable to be the principle of Vnity to the Catholick Church and that this was their work he proveth first they thought themselves bound to maintain Peace 2. Every Bishop was a Member of this Colledge and therefore great care was taken about their promotion 3. He being promoted sent communicatory Letters to other Bishops giving account of his Promotion 4. If there was any Debate whether his Promotion was Canonical the rest of the Bishops enquired into it 5. If he turned Heretick or Schismatick he was turned out 6. While he kept the Faith and Vnity of the Church he was encouraged Consulted Corresponded with c. 7. While he continued a sound Member of the Colledge all Letters concerning the Peace and Vnity of the Church were directed to him Lastly p. 87. he observeth cum nota resist this Evidence saith he if ye can that every Heretical or Schismatical Bishop with all that retained to him was ipso facto out of the Church At last p. 88. He thinketh he hath another Demonstration against my Notion of a Bishop in Cyprian's time For how could a single Presbyter or Presbyterian Moderator have born such a part in relation to the Catholick Church and her Vnity and Communion § 59. I must Examine the Strength of this long Demonstration and what he addeth to fortifie it and then shall return to take notice of what he intermixeth in the several parts of it in which our Debate may be concerned For Answer then to this Argument as it standeth I deny the Assumption viz. That what he hath here asserted cannot agree to a single Presbyter or presbyterian Moderator His three Assertions do well agree to every Presbyter that is Pastor of a Congregation He is a Collegue to all Bishops that is such Pastors The meeting of such either by their Delegats or if they could all come together is as capable to be the principle of Unity to a Provincial or National Church yea to the Universal Church as if so many Diocesans should meet It is as much the concern of these Presbyters or Parish Bishops and I hope they do as much mind it to maintain one Faith and one Communion Doth he think that our Ministers do not think themselves bound to maintain Peace Or 2. That there is litle care taken about their promotion or giving them charge of the people and admitting them to a share of the Government 3. Tho' it be not our custom to send communicatory Letters of our settlement in a Charge yet every Presbytery notifieth to the neighbouring Presbyteries the Name of him who is to be fixed in a Charge that they may have opportunity to object and the Names of all who are ordained are recorded 4. If a Presbytery ordain any person unduely or if there be Competition the superior Judicatories enquire into it 5. We also turn out not only Heretical and Schismatical Ministers but them also who are scandalous in their Conversation or supinely
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
He saith also that I contradict the former Position directly in true Representation 2d Vindic. by allowing the taking ruling Power from the prelatical Clergy Beside the Necessity and unsettled State of the Church in these Places brought for justifying this Conduct which he rather mocketh at than solidly answereth I there at length insisted to shew that there is no inconsistancy between this and our principle concerning Parity I need say no more till he answer what is already said § 20. Another Contradiction he will needs make between my disowning some Grounds of Separation in England and owning the same in Scotland The one in my Rational Defence against Dr. Stillingfleet the other in my second Vindic. of the Church of Scotland this he prosecuteth with a great deal of Clamor what strength is in his Discourse let us now try I hope I shall be found semper idem for all this noise Three Grounds of Separation he mentioneth wherein this Contradiction lyeth first Episcopacy Answer I said the setting up Episcopacy in England was not a sufficient Ground for People to forbear hearing of the Word in their Parish Churches I say the same with respect to Scotland I said Episcopacy was a good Ground for Ministers to withdraw from Church Judicatories where they must at least interpretatively own that Authority I say the same of England If he can find any thing in my words that doth import any more than this I shall owne a Contradiction and the shame that it may infer The second is Episcopal Ministers were Vsurpers or Intruders The third is they had not the Peoples Call I am sure I never made these to be two distinct things but this Author 's subtile Wit hath divided them Here I cannot own either Contradiction or Contrariety I approved the Conduct of many People in England who by a tacit and after Consent owned these men as their Pastors and heard them tho' they did not joyn with their unwarranted Ceremonies I never condemned the same Practice in Scotland but approved it by my Practice and Doctrine Only I pleaded that what ever might be said of their not giving Consent which was also the Case of many in England they could not be Charged with Separation while these men were obtruded on them against the Laws of the Gospel especially when they might hear their own lawfully called Ministers tho' in a Corner I find no Contradiction here neither in what he saith about the Covenant which I still think never made any new Duties or sins for the matter but was a superadded Tie to former Moral Obligations I said indeed that the Covenant National and the Solemn League made setting up of Episcopacy more sinful than before but I never said that either it made Episcopacy sinful where it was not so before nor that it made owning of it such tho' I am sure it aggravated the sin of both § 21. His next Effort is to expose my Rejecting the Testimony of some who were brought to Attest the Rabbling but in his way I know not what Freak took him he Digresseth to consider the Preface to Animadv on Stillingf Irenic which he will needs have to be written by the Author himself on which he discanteth after his own manner that is not very Learnedly nor Convincingly I assure him and if he will not be assured he having no great Esteem of my Veracity I can assure the Reader that the Author neither wrote that Preface nor what is in the Title Page nor knew that the Book was Printed till after it was done but was at 300 Miles distance from where it was done The Metaphorical Death spoken of in it taken from the English Phrase of being Dead in Law as the Nonconformist Ministers then were was but a sorry Subject for a Learned Divine to practise upon but he had a mind to write much and had little to say tho' he often pretendeth to have great Plenty of Matter It is true I did and do Question the Truths of many Circumstances whereby the Rabblings were aggravated and tho' he is pleased to say that the whole Nation knoweth them I affirm the Generality of the People where these things were said to be Acted know the contrary let the Reader who hath not occasion to enquire into the Matters of Fact believe as he seeth Cause or suspend his Belief I did never defend nor deny the Hardships that some of the Episcopal Clergy met with from the Rabble only I said and I insist in it that they were Represented most Disingenuously in several Parts and Circumstances of them his Vouchers I reject I mean some of them ours he rejecteth which is ordinary in such Contendings wherefore unless the thing could come to a Legal Tryal every one must believe as he seeth Cause That I rejected by the Bulk all the Matters of Fact is false and injurious I did acknowledge several of them and condemned them as unaccountable Disorders It is a foolish Inference no man can be a fit Witness before a Court because we are not to believe all the Stories that men tell of themselves or their Friends That I had my Informations in these things mostly from Rabblers themselves is falsly asserted as may be seen by any who Impartially consider the second Vindication His exposing that second Vindication because I had the Accounts of Matters of Fact from other hands and was not Eye nor Ear-Witness to them is odd for what Historian is there who may not be on the same Account blamed The Book he speaketh of Account of the late Establishment of the Presbyterian Government by the Parliament I have not seen nor heard of it before I thanked the Parliament in the Preface to my Sermon before them for their Act Establishing Presbyterian Government can any wise man thence Infer that I commended whatever was beside Incorporated into that Act Therefore all his long Discourse on that head is impertinent Another terrible Contradiction is I say Field Meetings were sometimes necessary and yet they were Condemned by the Wisest and Soberest Presbyterians If I had said they were in all Cases so Condemned he might have Insulted but may not I always that is at all times be of Opinion that a thing should not be done as I see it often done and without Necessity and yet think that there may be a Case of Necessity where it may be done this is to Cavil not to Reason § 22. The Envenomed Words in some Pages that follow wherewith he Concludeth his Preface and these of the same Sort wherewith it Interspersed I disregard he doth himself more Hurt by them than me I resolve not to be Hector'd nor Banter'd out of my Principles nor Scarred by Malice or Reproach from casting in my Mite for the Defence of Truth tho' he and such as he Conspire to Overwhelm me partly with their Books and partly with their Calumnious Imputations It is not usual for Satan so to Rage against a bad Cause These few Pages I have written raptim the Press waiting for them if he or any other will Examine them fairly with that Candor that becometh a Christian and a Disputant I shall be willing to be Corrected if any thing have escaped my Pen if he or they write in the same Strain of this Preface I will Despise them as also will all Sober and Intelligent Readers FINIS
and I think that it will not be denyed that Presbyters are Praepositi and are set over the Church he saith no more then but the Church is founded on the Bishop that is his sound Doctrine as was before explained and her Affairs are ruled by the same Praepositi that is the Bishops and others having Ecclesiastical Authority with them For Presbyters are the same with Bishops in this and that Cyprian meaneth so may be gathered from his varying the word Episcopus into Praepositus Again granting that all the Acts of the Church are ruled by the Bishop this will not prove that they are ruled by him alone His other Testimony out of what he calleth Epistle 43 is far less to his purpose Felicismus with his Faction who formerly had opposed Cyprian's Election to be Bishop in his retirement not only without him but without the Concurrence of the Presbytery or Congregational Eldership I shall not determine which of these the Church of Carthage was then governed by received some of the lapsed which I as well as my Antagonist do reckon a very disorderly Action this Cyprian doth justly blame And that on this Ground that they set up another Altar in that Church that is they threw off the Church Authority that was regularly placed in Carthage and set up another beside we also would blame them who would cast off the Authority of the Presbytery or Kirk-Session and set up another What is Cyprian's meaning is yet clearer from what our Author unwarily citeth out of his Book de unittae Ecclesiae An esse sibi cum Christo videtur qui adversus Christi Sacerdotes facit Qui se à cleri ejus Plebis societate secernit Where he describeth Schisme to be when some depart from the Rulers and Members of the Church not from the Bishop alone and that is to be understood while they keep God's way § 30. His third Preposition is that Cyprian maketh the contempt of one Bishop or undutifulness to him the original of Schisme I am so far from opposing him in this that I think when people begin to quarrel with the meanest of Christs Ministers unless his Life or Doctrine or Government give just cause that they sin against God contemn his Ordinance and are on the brink of Schisme if not Haeresie also And I am sure all that he citeth out out of Cyprian on this head amounteth to no more except a word or two which I shall a little consider When he speaketh of one Bishop I understand him of one Praeses whether in a Congregational or Classical Presbytrey and that in conjunction with them who opposeth such Authority opposeth Christ's Institution He mentioneth p. 23. as also p. 32. The Bishops Monarchical power in the Church and maketh Cyprian prove it by the Bees who have a King the Beasts who have a Captain and Robbers who have a Chiftain It is evident to any who consider Cyprian's other Writings that he never arrogated to himself a Monarchical Power over the Church for he plainly disowneth it as we shall after have occasion to shew But he is here dealing with one Pupianus who had reproached Cyprian as proud and arrogant here Cyprian defendeth himself and retorteth the same Charge of Arrogance on Pupianus in that he took on him to arraign the Bishops and Rulers of the Church and had denyed his power in the Church and he sheweth what Inconveniency it were to the Church if all this time the Church of Carthage had been governed by a Man who had no Authority and in this he bringeth the similitude of the Bees c. Will any think that Cyprian was so weak as to take this for a sufficient Argument to prove Monarchical Power in the Church he only bringeth it as a similitude to illustrate this Truth that there must be a Government in the Church and it had been ill with the Church of Carthage if so long a time they had One over them who was no lawful Ruler which is no Determination of the Extent of Cyprian's power Neither was that the Question between him and Pupianus § 31. I proceed to his fourth Proposition p. 24. The Bishop was so much the principle of Vnity the people had such Dependence on him and was so virtually in him that what he did as Bishop was reputed the Deed of the whole Church which he ruled And to confirm this he bringeth Instances that Churches were blamed for communicating with criminal Bishops and that they did not separat from them and are commended for the Bishops owning the Truth Had our Author thought fit to peruse and consider his Papers before he printed them it is like we should not have been troubled with such crude Notions For 1. How can this be reconciled to what he had a little before-pleaded concerning the horrid sinfulness of separating from their Bishop and this without any distinction or Limitation 2. He is so unwise as to add one word that spoileth all his Design viz. As Bishop for what a Bishop acteth as Bishop he acteth in the Consistory or the Presbytery and by the plurality of their Votes and that is indeed the Fact of the Church Representative and of the Church diffusive too if they shew no dislike of it But this is no Semblance of Proof of the Power of Bishops that he pleadeth for Cyprian's Rhetorical flourish in saying that when Cornelius confessed the Faith before the Persecutors the whole Roman Church confessed Is no more but that Cornelius gave a faithful Testimony to that Doctrine that he had preached among that People and that they received and did still owne is this an Argument that Cornelius had the sole Power of Church-Government in Rome Yea all this might have been said of any Member of that Church who had so confessed and the Church did not reclaim but professed the same Truth It is far less probative that Cyprian desired to suffer at Carthage rather than else where that he might in Confession be the Mouth of them all And least of all is it an Argument that he calleth them his Bowels his Body their Grief was his Grief c. We must abandon all Sense and Reason if these pass for concludent Arguments Of the same weight is what he bringeth out of Pontius of the Blessedness of the people of Carthage who suffered together with such a Bishop I beg the Readers pardon for troubling him with such silly Arguments which need no Answer § 32. His fifth Proposition that the Bishops being the principle of Vnion to his Church was held before the Cyprianick Age This I say needeth no further Animadversion for it bringeth no new thing Neither is it to be imagined that Ignatius whom he citeth meant that the sole Authority of the Bishop rather than the Doctrine that he taught from the infallible Word of God was the Principle of Vnity to the Church Or that they who belong to Christ are with the Bishop whether he teacheth Truth or