Priviledges of Presbyters began then to be abridged but not that their ruling Power in the Church was transferred on a single person the Bishop What he further argueth p. 18. from the Bishops new Ordination is already answered § 26. His next Argument and some that follow is taken from the Bishops relation to his particular Church viz. That he is the principle of Vnity to her who ever adhered to him was in the Church a Catholick Christian who separated from him was out of the Church and a Schismatick Under this Head he hath no less than six Considerations which either are intended as Arguments or signifie nothing Before I come to examine these I shall take some notice of his Argument as it is here generally proposed And 1. I observe that this very Argument is fully with as much strength mannaged by the Papists for the Pop's universal headship over the Christian Church they plead that we are not of the Church Catholick are not to be reputed Christians are Dividers of Christ's Body c. because we do not adhere to the Pope whom they hold to be the Principle of Vnity to the Christian Church and the Papists reckon the Protestants as Hereticks because they do not believe this and Schismaticks because they live not in Communion with the Pope and that Church whereof he is Head 2. This Doctrine as it is by our Author crudely and indistinctly proposed will un-Un-Church some of the best and soundest Christians for have there not been Bishops who had as good Title to their Sees to speak in his own Dialect as any could have who afterwards turned Hereticks How many Arian Bishops were there whose Right to their Places was not contested Will he say that all the Orthodox who separated from them were guilty of Schism and all the Aggravations that his Citations p. 19 20. load it with Are we not commanded to withdraw from them who teach unsound Doctrine 1 Tim. 6. 3 4 5. And our Lord warnes his People against Wolves and the Apostle gave Warning to the Elders of Ephesus that of themselves and our Author will say they were Diocesan Bishops should men arise speaking perverse things and drawing Disciples after them This Argument will prove if it hath any force that these their Followers were the sound Christians and the rest Schismaticks because the one sort adhered to their Bishop the Principle of Vnity and the rest departed from him I am far from charging my Antagonist with owning these Consequents but I see not how he can shun the Consequence unless he retract this his inconsiderat Opinion Thirdly I wish he had explained this Term the Principle of Vnity which he ought the rather to have done because he saith p. 18. near the end this is a Point of great Consequence What he saith for clearing it is very insufficient his Metaphors out of Cyprian de Vnitate Ecclesiae prove nothing viz. that of the Sun and Beams the Root and Branches the Fountain and Streams if they prove any thing they prove more than I suppose our Author will allow for Cyprian in the very page where he useth these Similitudes p. mihi 297. speaketh of Peter's Primacy and placeth the Unity of the Christian Church in him tamen ut Vnitatem manifestaret unam Cathedram constituit Vnitatis ejusdem Originem ab uno incipientem sua authoritate constituit hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod Petrus pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis sed exordium ab Vnitate proficiscitur And a little below quam Vnitatem firmiter tenere vindicare debemus maxime Episcopi qui in Ecclesia praesidemus ut Episcopatum quoque ipsum unum atque indivisum probemus Where it may be observed 1. That either Cyprian was absolutely for the Pope's Supremacy or he had no such meaning as our Author designeth 2. That Cyprian doth not so much speak of the Peoples adhering to their Bishop which in a sound Sense I am for as Bishops cleaving together and not breaking the Churches Peace by Divisions among themselves 3. That he is to be understood of a Principle of Origination rather than of a Principle of Dependance that Peter first was in Commission by Christ the truth of which I shall not now enquire into and that all were obliged to adhere to that one Doctrine that he taught not that he had Authority over the rest and they must not Dissent from him in any Case Cyprian plainly teacheth the contrary in that very place that the rest had equal Authority with him And if we should apply all this to a Bishop or Minister in a Parish it amounteth to no more but this he receiveth the Word from the Lord and delivereth it to the People and if they depart from this they are Schismaticks and break the Unity of the Church which we all acknowledge I observe 4. That this his Principle is indeed of so great Moment that if it be true there are neither Churches nor Christians in the World but such as owne a Diocesan Bishop few in our days are Christians but these of the Romish and Church of England Communion all the Reformed Churches must be Re-baptized and their Ministers Re-ordained as Cyprian and some other thought of the Schismaticks of that time I hope all his Brethren are not of this Opinion Yea it hath been condemned by the most famous of his Party When Anno 1610. some Scots Bishops were to be Consecrated at London some moved that they might be first Ordained Presbyters their Ordination without a Bishop being null Bancroft Arch-Bishop of Canterburâ—y withstood that Motion and told them that thereof there was no necessity seing where Bishops could not be had the Ordination given by Presbyters must be esteemed lawful otherwise that it might be doubted if there were any lawful Vocation in most of the Reformed Churches This was Applauded by all the other Bishops Spotswood Hist. Lib. 7. ad An. 1610. p. 514. Whence I infer that either Cyprian was not of this Author's Opinion nor can his Words be so understood or that the English Bishops were opposite to him and Cyprian too § 27. What he saith further for clearing this his Notion about the Principle of Vnity is both absurd and groundless viz. that he the Bishop was the Head of all the Christians living within his District and they were one Body one Society one Church by depending on him by being subject to him by keeping to his Communion I say this is absurd because then Separating from the most Heretical Superstitious yea Idolatrous Bishop were unlawful as above noted It is also groundless for neither Cyprian nor any other uses such indistinct and universal Assertions in this Matter I come to examine his several Propositions by which he pretendeth to make out this his Argument The first is that the Antients highly Valued Church Vnity and laid no more Stress on any thing than it and no Sin they Represented as more Hainous or
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
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
negligent in their Ministerial Work 6. We also encourage and admit to the Government them that do well 7. Letters that concern a particular Congregation are with us directed to the Minister these concerning the Presbytery to the Moderator we also cast out bad Ministers and such as adhere to them if the Cause be weighty but we use moderation to the people who are led away by Schismatical Ministers when their Separation is founded on lesser mistake if in this we differ from the Cyprianick Age his Party should not blame us having tasted so much of our lenity Let it then be considered how impertinent this whole Discourse is and how insufficient to prove the Episcopacy of the Cyprianick-Age that he pleadeth for § 60. He useth several enforcements of this Argument p. 88 89. which I shall briefly consider 1. The Colledge of Bishops are still considered as Church-Governours notoriously distinguished from Presbyters Answ This distinction lay in the dignity that the declensions of that time from Apostolick simplicity gave them not in any Power that they had which Presbyters had not 2. A Presbyter was never called a Bishops Collegue Answ If this were granted such a negative Argument and that drawn from words and ways of speaking which doth often vary is not very concludent I have shewed that the same Power is ascribed to them see § 62. where the contrary of what he asserteth is shewed 3. We have no Vestige of a Presbyterian Moderator in these times Answ There was then a Moderator who was called the Bishop who presided in their Meetings tho' there was no such changing of the Moderator as is among us that I have yielded but the fixedness of the Moderator and the parity of the Power are consistent tho' I deny not that the one made way for destroying the other as After-ages did shew 4. Our Author repeateth all the Acts of and concerning Bishops that he had insisted on and affirmeth that they could not consist with a single Presbyter or Moderator which I have above-denyed and made the contrary evident That he calleth all the Acts of Government and Discipline his the Bishops and his alone is to beg the Question for we deny it and he should prove it § 61. I must now return to p. 78 and glean some Passages which I was obliged to overlook that I might have this long Argument stretching from thence to p. 90. intirely in view and give a general Answer to it He maketh the Bishop the Principle of Vnity to a particular Church and the Colledge of Bishops the Principle of Vnity to the Catholick Church and Christ the Principle of Vnity to that Colledge And addeth I hope not being a Romanist you will not require that I should prove the highest Step of this Gradation Here I observe first the Discourse is about a visible Head or Principle of Vnity to the Church which cannot be ascribed to Christ Wherefore this is wholly impertinent or if it have any sense it tendeth to make his Reader a Romanist whom he supposeth not to be one already For if the particular and Catholick Church have a visible Principle of Vnity and that which he maketh to be the Vniting Principle have nothing that is visible to make them one among themselves they who can receive his Doctrine about a Principle of Vnity will see a necessity of a Pope to unite the Bishops as much as of a Bishop to unite the Presbyters 2. If Christ be the Vniting Principle of the Colledge of Bishops why doth he not serve for the same use to Presbyters yea to all Christians And indeed he is the real Vniting Principle to all they only are in the Union of the Church who cleave to his Doctrine and observe his Laws even tho' they separate from the Bishop who departeth out of that Way 3. I desire to know of him why he thinketh the Romanists will put him to prove the highest Step of this Gradation more than Protestants will Doth any of them deny Christ to be the Principle of Vnity to the Church They only make the Pope his Vicar in this because they think such an one is needful in the Church who is visibly Conversant among men and doth not our Author suppose the same necessity of such a visible Uniter till he come to the Colledge of Bishops and he leaveth them Headless that is without a visible Head Where it may be rationally concluded that this Doctrine is either Popish or palpably absurd The next thing I notice is p. 79. he saith all Christians hold one Faith to be necessary to the Vnity of the Church but in Cyprian's time one Communion was thought as indispensible they held there is but one Church and that this could not be without one Communion If by one Communion he mean for he walketh in a Cloud in this Matter whether of Design or not I know not that Communion of Saints which is an Article of the Creed which consisteth in Union of them all with Christ and Unity in Faith and Love c. I acknowledge the necessity of it but I know not what respect it hath to Episcopacy more than Presbytery If he mean Local Communion it is impossible either in the Catholick Church or in the Diocess of a modern Bishop If he mean Communion by having the same Ceremonies and Government in the Church Tho' I confess that is desireable and by all good means should be endeavoured for we should have no Ceremonies but these which are of Divine Institution and the one Church Government that he hath appointed should be every where exercised yet there may be one Church where this Communion is not and if the Cyprianick Age was somewhat too strick in this Matter it was their Mistake of which above but it is no Proof of Episcopacy in the sense of our Debate to have been in that Age. And indeed if our Author maintain this Principle he will consequentially to it Unchurch most of the Reformed Churches as the Papists do them all on the same score if by this one Communion he mean that all Christians must be United to some one Bishop or other which Bishops agree among themselves and have Communion in the Episcopal Colledge he will find hard to prove that Cyprian taught so Yea then there is no Communion in the Church without an oecumenick Council of Bishops which we have litle hope to see and many doubt that the World did ever see it tho' there have been Councils so called because in them were represented all the Churches of the Empire Further if this was the Opinion of Cyprian's time how will he prove that these Bishops in whom Churches were to be United were any more than Parish Ministers and that the one Communion of that time was more than that every Christian must be the Member of one Church where Christ's Ordinances are dispensed by a Bishop that is a Minister of the Gospel § 62. Tho' I am not concerned to
the Books or Places of them on which he groundeth his Assertion for some of these Authors have written much however I hope to find out in them what is sufficient to my purpose I begin with Chamier who Panstrat Catholic Tom. 2. Lib. 10. discourseth on this Subject copiously but I find not one word in him asserting that in the first three Centuries Bishops had the Rule of the Church above Presbyters further than that they were above them in Dignity and by a Priority of Order not of Jurisdiction far less that they had the sole Jurisdiction which our Author pretendeth to prove On the contrary that Learned Writer proveth C. 3. that there was no Domination allowed in the Church C. 5. that the Government of the several Churches was Aristocratical and he sheweth that all Presbyters at first were equal but that afterward as he citeth Ambrose and Jerome unus electus est qui omnium primus esset Episcopus diceretur And on this he maketh two Observes First in Ecclesiae Primordiis nullos tales Episcopos fuisse qui postea instituti fuere qui suo jure reliquis è Clero praeessent And he thence inferreth the absolute Parity of Presbyters de Jure His second Observation is ne tunc quidem cum hic Episcoporum a Presbyteris distinctorum ordo est constitutus fuisse Episcopos ut Monarchas see how he agreeth with our Author p. 23 32. qui potestatem haberent in Clerum sed Principes Electos qui rebus deliberandis praeessent ut necesse est in omni Aristocratia Where he seemeth exactly to describe a Moderator such as is in our Presbyteries and other Church Judicatories After that C. 6. he had proved that Jure Divino Episcopus non est major Presbytero contrary to our Author p. 26. C. 7. he proveth that the Government of Provinces was also Aristocratical and doth evidently make an Arch-Bishop or Metropolitan no more than we make the Moderator of a Synod or of a General Assembly I mean he alloweth them no more Jurisdiction Now let any judge with what Brow my Antagonist could bring Chamier for his Voucher who so flatly contradicteth the whole of his Book § 12. His next Author is Blondel who will be found to do him no more Service For the whole Design and strain of his Apologia pro sententia Hieronomi is to prove that Episcopus and Presbyter were the same as both in Name and Power in the Apostolick Age of the Church so in Power in the first second third and much of the fourth Century tho' he confesseth that the Name some Majority not higher Jurisdiction was sooner given to the Bishop This is evident for S. I. p 4. he saith that Jeromes toto orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris caeteris superponeretur occasioned by the Divisions among Christans and saying Ego sum Pauli c. That this I say was quarto a Corinthiorum turbis saeculo and that Jerome said it de sui temporis hominibus and proveth it from Jerome's own words which are quando non idipsum omnes loquimur alius dicit ego sum Pauli ego Appollo ego Cephae dividimus spiritus unitatem eam in partes in membra discerpimus And he saith that Jerome torquebat verba Paulina de Corinthiis in eos Nempe sui temporis homines p. 6 7. he fully sheweth that Jerome believed the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter from his blameing them who made Deacons equal to Presbyters i. e. to Bishops Also p. 8. that in Alexandria of which Jerome saith that à Marci temporibus ad Heracleam Dionysiumque Presbyteri unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum dixerunt It was but Jusprimae Cathedrae presbyteri inter collegas fratrem spontanea hac dignatione honorantes sedentis and ibid he saith ex Hieronomi sententia episcopalia omnia ex aequo competebant and that every one of them was equal Vrbico papae S. 2. Blondel proveth all the Fathers of the three or four first Ages to have been of the same Opinion with Jerome And p. 8. hath this Transition prodeant jam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 patrum acies qui sanctum virum Hieronymum seu solitarium in tecto passerem non relictum doceant This he proveth from Clemens of Rome from Polycarp of Smyrna from Hermes from Pius the Pope of Rôme Justin Papias Irenaeus and the Gallican Church in his time Victor the Pope Clemens of Alexandria Tertullian Origen Cyprian also on whose Opinion in this matter my Antagonist stateth the whole Controversy Wherefore I shall a little further consider what account Blondel giveth of his Opinion He saith p. 41. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 toto administrationis tempore aggressus est sed partita quasi ex concepto voto cum comministris cura ac potestate Carthaginensem plebem gubernavit and citeth Cyprian himself saying to his Clergy Sed cum per Dei gratiam venero tunc De iis quae vel gesta sunt vel gerenda sicut mutuus honor exposcit in communi tractabimus And in another Epistle quae res cum omnium nostrum Consilium sententiam spectet praejudicare ego soli mihi rem communem vindicare non audeo He sheweth also p. 43. that Cyprian doth always speak of the Clergy as divided only in two parts the Praepositi and the Deacons and he calleth both the Episcopi and the Praepositi Apostles If I should cite all that Blondel bringeth out of Cyprian to this purpose I behoved to transcribe almost four pages of his Book of which Citations we shall have further occasion given by our Author to Discourse It is then more evident than what he in most of his Reasonings talketh highly of that either this Author hath not read Blondel but cited him at adventure or hath a confidence to assert what he will tho' absurd and unaccountable § 13. He is full as unhapy in his next witness Salmasius who both in his Book de Episcopis Presbyteris is against this Author and in Walo Messalinus that is commonly ascribed to him doth strongly maintain the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter against Petavius the Jesuit in the first Ages and is far from acknowledging any further Difference between them till Jerome's time which was after Cyprian's about which we now contend than of greater Dignity for Chap 3. he sheweth that the Primacy among Presbyters was from their Seniority and more fully Ch. 4. p. 273. credibile est saith he circa medium secundi saeculi non alias in Ecclesia fuisse cognitos Episcopos quam qui primatum in presbyterio adepti essent cum primos faceret non electio ex merito sed ordinationis tempus quem morem diu in Ecclesia durasse Testis est ille Author qui Ambrosii nomine commentarios in Epistolas Pauli scripsit and a little below 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dabatur ei qui ordinatione antiquior
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
question the Practice of Bishops sending their Communicatory Letters to signifie that they were promoted Yet I see no sufficient Proof of it from the two or three Instances that he bringeth It must be either a Law or a great Train of Instances in many several Nations in greater and lesser Churches and under diverse Circumstances and Cases of these Churches` that will bear the weight of so universal a Conclusion But I pass this for it doth not much concern our main Question He will find it also hard to prove that these Letters were sent to all other Bishops as he affirmeth p. 80. that had been a Work of no small Labour I suppose they did thus correspond with some next adjacent Bishops or who were of special note which we also do as I shewed before That there were Metropolitans in Cyprian's time he asserteth and I deny it not But they were but Moderators of the greater Meetings as the Bishops were of lesser ones of the Parochial Ministers and Elders as also were the Primats and in Affrick especially the eldest Bishop or Minister had this Dignity but it was Praecedency and Dignity wherein they were above their Brethren not Power and Authority but this our Author toucheth but transiently and so I shall not insist on it only I ask him how do Metropolitans in our modern sense agree with his Opinion that every Bishop was supreme and had no Ecclesiastical Superior on Earth See § 9. p. 82. where he is Discoursing of purging out a Heretical Bishop his thoughts seem to run somewhat muddy He saith the Colledge of Bishops might do to him the equivalent of a formal Deposition they could refuse him their Communion and thereby exclude him from their Episcopal Colledge and they could oblige all the Christians within his District to abandon him And because he saw that his former Assertion of the supreme Power of a Bishop and his having no Ecclesiastical Superior would be objected he saith no Bishop was superior to another in point of Power and Jurisdiction How to make all this hang together is not easie to know 1. To wreath the yoke of the Bishop's Domination on the Church he establisheth Independency among Bishops whereas no Reason can be given why Parishes should not be Independent on one another as well as Provinces I look on both these sorts of Independency as contrary to the Unity of the Church and on Subordination as of Natural and Divine Right 2. If the Colledge of Bishops had not formal Power to depose a Heretical Bishop by what Authority could they oblige the Christians to abandon him and to choose another if he say the Fundamental Law of sound Faith and Unity or as he speaketh of one Faith and one Communion obliged the Christians to this A. That is antecedent to the interposing of the Authority of the Episcopal Colledge and they were obliged to it tho' there were no such Colledge 3. That no Bishop hath Power over another Bishop is no more than we say of Presbyters But it is strange that the Community of Bishops hath not formal and direct Power over every one of their own number both with respect to his Communion with them and with respect to his particular Charge that maketh a wider door both for Heresie and Schism and for Peoples Beeing without remedy under the Plague of bad Ministers than any thing that Parity can be charged with 4. The People are here left Judges of the Bishop's Haeresie and other Incapacitating ill Qualities and so to determine whether they will leave him or not the Colledge of Bishops can do no more but inform them and tell them what they are obliged by the Laws of one Faith and one Communion to do 5. What if the Bishop will not leave his Charge nor the People abandon him hath Christ left no Ordinance in his Church as a Remedy of this Case The Colledge of Bishops cannot excommunicat him nor them that were to exercise formal Authority over him or them if they then will not yield to the Colledges Information or Advice they may go on in their way without further Controlement Thus we see that men will venture to ruine the Soundness Peace and Purity of the Church that they may establish a Lordly Prelacy over the People of God What he insisteth so much on p. 86 87. about directing publick Letters to the Bishops and their being signed by them is not worth our notice We also count it regular for our Moderators to be so treated but there was some peculiar Reason why it was so punctually observed in that Age because the Praeses of their Meeting was fixed and it was Interpretatively a Degrading of him or questioning his Title to do otherwise but this importeth no superior Jurisdiction He telleth p. 87. that every Haeretical or Schismatical Bishop and all who adhered to him were ipso facto out of the Church This I do not believe for how shall a man be known to be Haeretical till he were tryed and judged His Proofs amount to no more but that such were dealt with as out of the Church and may be the manner of Process against them is not mentioned but such a negative Argument will not prove that no more was done to cast them out if that be the Episcopal course of Censure wee intend not to follow it and if that were the way in the Cyprianick Age it maketh its Example less Venerable and Argumentative but it saith nothing for the Bishop's sole Power he saith p. 89. that a Bishop never called a Presbyter his Collegue A. If it be understood of Presbyters without a Charge there is Reason for it he had no joynt Charge of the Congregation we use the same way of Appellation But if it be meant of a Moderator with respect to the other Brethren I answer we find Presbyters calling the Bishop Brother as was noted before Yea Concil Carthag 4. Canon 35. it is Decreed that tho' a Bishop in consessu Presbyterorum sublimior sedeat intra domum Collegam se Presbyterorum cognoscat This its true was a litle after Cyprian's time but it was when Church-Domination was rather growing than decreasing § 63. His strength is now far spent when in the end of his Book he wasteth so many words to set off an Argument which is fitter to be smiled at than laboriously answered It is that the Christian Bishops in Cypria ' s time made such a Figure in the Church that they were the Chief Butt of the Malice of Persecutors others might live in Peace at Home when they were forced to Flee And he is at pains to prove this which I think was never questioned in any Age of the Church Their Station made them conspicuous for I deny not they were above Presbyters in Dignity their Parts some of them made them to be jealoused their Zeal for God made them hateful to the Promoters of Satan's Kingdom But all this can never prove that they had the sole
more Criminal than the Sin of Schism And here he is at the Pains to fill almost two Pages with the Commendations of Unity and hard Names given to Schism out of Cyprian Firmilian and Concil Carthag I do not find that he is so Copious and mustereth up so numerous Forces against any Disputable Point as in this where he hath no Adversary for who ever spake against Unity in the Church and took the Defence of Schism Wherefore all this I pass with a few short Observes First Tho' we have Account of seven several Councils at Carthage in the Antient Records yet this Author always citeth Concil Carthag without any discrimination if he miscite Places how shall this Error be discovered for I think few will be at Pains to read over all the Acts of these Councils for every one of his Citations which are not a few 2. We may from this Discourse gather what Sentiments this Author hath of Presbyterians seing the Design of his Book is to prove them Schismaticks that is according to his Citations Renegadoes Apostats Antichrists Malignants Paricides false Christs Christ's Enemies Blasphemers the Devils Priests Retainers to Korah to Judas Villains and much more of this Stuff Either he Applaudeth all this or not if not his Citations are impertinent if so he chargeth us with all this Guilt and I ask him if he thinketh it just that we should throw back all this Dirt on himself and his Party whom we reckon to be the Authors of this Schism that is now in this Church for my part I am far from dealing so by them I think they are in an Error and that that Error misleadeth them into some Practices that are sinful and that have bad Consequecens to the Church but I hope there are good men among them for all that 3. The Schisms that occasioned these vehement Discourses among the Fathers were chiefly these of the Donatists and Novatians which were like to ruine Christianity and to make the World cast at it while it was not well setled nor universally received I hope our Differences tho' they have sadder Effects than I am willing to mention yet go not that far 4. It is well known that the Holy Zeal of the Fathers and the excellent Rhetorick they were endowed with made them overlash sometimes in their Expressions and it is evident that not a few of the Popish Errors had their Original and some seeming Patrociny from their flights of Rhetorick their Figurative Expressions and some Logical Niceties that they used This is not my Apprehension alone the Learned Daille Right Vse of the Fathers hath the same Observation Chap. 5. The Fathers themselves were aware of this with respect to the Writings of one another Hieron Ep. 139. ad Cyprian Plerumque nimium disertis accidere solet ut major sit intelligentiae difficultas in eorum explanationibus quam in iis quae explanare conantur And in Matters of greater Moment they spake sometimes unwarily not foreseeing what ill Use might be made of their Expressions as Jerom also giveth us ground to think Apolog. contra Ruffin vel certe saith he antequam in Alexandria quasi Daemonium meridianum Arius nasceretur innocenter quaedam minus cautè locuti quae non possunt perversorum hominum calumniam declinare Petavius maketh also the same Observation tho' a Jesuit in Panar Epiphan ad Haer. 6 9. Yea the same Author hath this Passage Not. in Epiphan multa sunt à Sanctissimis Patribus presertim à Chrysostomo in Homiliis aspersa quae si ad exactae veritatis regulam accommodare volueris boni sensus manca videbuntur § 28. I observe 5. That tho' our Author would fright us also with what the Scripture saith of Unity and against Schism which I confess is enough to make us love the one and hate the other yet I do not find this strain used against all Divisions in Scripture without Discrimination but that another Spirit appeareth in these Inspired Writings and that more of Christian Forbearance is Recommended 1 Cor. 1. 11. and 3. Ch. 1. Divisions are reproved and with strong Reason condemned so 1 Cor. 11. 18. but that Weight is not laid on them that our Author speaketh of and Philip. 15. 16. Forbearance and Joyning in Uncontested Truths and Duties is enjoyned And I am sure the Differences of these Times were Things of more Moment than our Bishops Mitres or Lordly Domination are The Church might be in Peace if they either would shew us Divine Warrant for their Prelation or not trouble us with their Usurpations § 29. His second Proposition is for the Preservation of Vnity and preventing of Schism in every particular Church all were bound in Cyprian's time to live in the Bishop's Communion and to owne and look upon him as the Principle of Vnion to that Church of which he was Head and Ruler I see not wherein this differeth from the former Proposition I am sure it containeth no new Matter and therefore I should have taken no notice of it but that p. 21. he bringeth some Citations that need a little to be examined Altho' I can by no Diligence find some of the Places that he citeth yet by chance I have light on these and the Words he useth afford a plain Answer to his Argument brought from them For his first Citation out of Ep. 33. I find it in Ep. 27. it maketh nothing at all for the Bishop's sole Power nor for his being further the Principle of Vnity than what I have above granted The Case was this some of the Lapsed who had been received to the Peace of the Church as they pretended by the means of some Martyrs wrote to Cyprian that they were now received by the Church and desired that they might be more fully restored by Cyprian and the Church with him Cyprian took it ill that they should write to him as from a Church whereas they that had received them nor they themselves were no Church but in this had neglected the Authority of them who were truly the Church In all this Cyprian saith nothing but what is according to the Principles of Presbyterians if any should pretend to receive Penitents even tho' they were Elders in a Congregation or Ministers in a Presbytery without the Moderator without the Elders or the Presbytery respectivè we should blame them for Usurpation and disorderly Walking And it is very observable that Cyprian in this very Passage saith that Ecclesia in Episcopo Clero omnibus stantibus est constituta then it is not the Bishop who is the Church what he saith of the Church as being built on the Bishop is already cleared he saith indeed omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem praepositos gubernatur in which our Author sheweth but little Skill when he translateth these words all her the Churches Affairs are ordered by them as the Chief Rulers where it should be turned by the same who are set over her the Church