have been stung with the same kind of Serpent if not the same individual He had dealt more wisely if he had not convinced the Reader by this management of the very same ill Qualities in himself that he so frankly attributeth to another I am sure he hath shewed litle Wisdom in bringing Instances to prove his confident Assertions had he contented himself with bold Saying and quibling Insinuations of what he thinketh fit to load one with some who know neither him nor the person who is the Butt of his Malice might have believed some part of what he alledgeth they who know that person however they cannot but see many Infirmities in him have other thoughts of him and indeed better than ever he could deserve and they who know this Author will judge that his Tongue nor Pen is no Slander But now his Proofs are so exceedingly unsuted to what they are brought for that a litle attention may serve to improve them as Weapons against himself and as Evidences of these things in himself which he designeth by them to fasten on another I perceive he hath been at pains to read all that hath been written by G. R. on several occasions and what he thinketh fit to ascribe to him to see what he could pick up in these Papers wherewith he might reproach the Author in which also he hath innocently and without design done him a Kindness for if so critical an Eye could find no more to try his Skill upon in all these Writings it is like there are many things in them which he could not Blame for exceptio firmat Regulam in non exceptis It is a wonder if such a person as he exposeth could say so much to any purpose § 4. I shall not insist on his civility to the Parliament and their Act nor his modest Reflexion on himself nor his great care exprest to sute his Discourse to the English-Nation even in the Words and Phrases nor on the account he giveth of the helps he used Only I take notice how much pains he is at to prove through 14 Pages that the Book commonly called Knox's History was not written by John Knox I know none who is much conversant in our Scots Affairs who is contrary to him in this and if G. R. was so absurd as to cite that Book under the Name by which it is commonly called if it hence follow that he thought John Knox was the Author let him pass for as ignorant as our Author will have him to be if this be no good consequence I hope it is no great evidence of this Author's Learning so to infer That John Knox did not compose that Book tho' much of the Materials of it was taken from his Manuscripts hath been held by Presbyterian Brethren before this Author went to School neither do I know any of them who are earnest to have it believed that he wrote it yea this Author himself citeth it always under the Name of John Knox as he confesseth and why might not another do so too without debating about the true Author of it which had been a needless digression from his Purpose § 6. After he has disgorged a great deal of Gall against G. R. and declined him for an Antagonist who hath the same aversion from entering the Lists with him unless he deal more like a Christian and a Disputant we might but it is in vain expect he should be more composed his Bile overfloweth through all his Sheets He mentioneth some Passages in my Writings that he will not insist on only noteth them with a Nigrum Theta as proofs of my unquestionable ignorance they are that I hold Ruling-Elders who are no Preachers to be of Divine Institution that the Fathers and Scripture also owne them under the Name of Bishops That Patronages came not in till the seventh or eight Century or later where his own ignorance or somewhat else appeareth the word is they were not setled till then it is well-known that many Usages crept into the Church long before they were setled either by Law or universal Practice That most and the most eminent of the Prelatists acknowledge that by Christ's appointment and according to the Practices of the first Ages of the Church she ought to be and was govern'd in common by Ministers acting in Parity which is a gross Misrepresentation for that is said of Christ's equally intrusting all his Ministers with Power of Preaching and Governing which is asserted and fully proved by the learned Stillingfleet in his Irenicum and what followeth is that Author 's own Words not attributed to Christs appointment as unalterable nor to the practice of the Church Yet I shall not decline debating of both these with him tho' I say not they are the Opinion of Prelatists That Diocesan Episcopacy was not setled in Cyprian ' s time c. What Ignorance is in this is to be judged by the foregoing Book That the Decretal Epistles of Anacletus are genuine is neither asserted nor supposed nor is any opinion given about them only they are used as an antient Writing and argumentum ad hominem If this one Witness be cast we have enough beside That it is asserted Rational Def. of Nonconf p. 10. that Episcopacy is not in any Protestant Church but in England is neither truly nor with Candor said the Expression is as in England and it is easily demonstrable that in no Protestant Church it is in that height or doth so entirely swallow up the Ruling Power of Presbyters as it doth in England If my Exposition of Jerom's toto orbe decretum est be Ignorant or Erroneous I must so abide till this Profound Doctor Enlighten mine Eyes which he hath not vouchsafed to do Another of Jerom's Sayings Quid facit Episcopus c. excepta Ordinatione he saith my Gloss on it hath been sufficiently exposed Hist. of the General Assembly 1690 and I say it hath been sufficiently Vindicated in Answer to that and other four Pamphlets and Def. of Vindic. in Answer to the Apology p. 24 25. I shall now add that very Exposition of that Passage was given by Marsilius Patavinus cited in the end of the Preface to Paul Bayn's Diocesan's Tryal that Author lived about Anno 1324. In his Book called Defensor Pacis against the Pope he hath these Words speaking of that Passage of Jerome Ordinatio non significat ibi Potestatem conferendi seu Collationem Sacrorum Ordinum sed OEconomicam Potestatem Regulandi vel Dirigendi Ecclesiae Ritus atque Personas quantum ad Exercitium Divini Cultus in Templo unde ab Antiquis Legum latoribus vocantur OEconomici Reverendi This we maintain to be competent to every Parish Minister tho' not to the Elders of the Congregation to manage these in the Publick Assembly I hope no man of sense will reckon that Author an ignorant Person of whom Papir Masson saith cujus Libri extant non cuidem Verborum sed Rerum aepparatu prorsus Admirandi
Treatment If I have called any thing Lies Railing Sauciness Impudence which was not so I am content to underly the just Sentence of unbyassed men but this Author and his Complices take a Boundless Liberty to Reproach and if they be told of it they are Clamorous beyond Measure It is not inconsistent with all that Civility that is due to men to give things their true Names especially where the Rank and Behaviour of the Persons we deal with plead no extraordinary Respect He mistaketh when he saith that I knew that the Author of the Memorial was dead before I answered his Book I do not to this day know who was the Author of it What was said about giving up King Charles the first to England should have been refuted by Reason not by Quibling I have no Answer for such Arguments neither have I time to examine how fairly all the words are cited which he adduceth nor to shew on what occasion or on what necessity they were written what he representeth as spoken of the Prelatists is injuriously blamed it was spoken of a Party of them who are but few who reproached the Presbyterians in general and in the most universal Terms which never was my way against them § 13. If any thing hath dropt from my Pen which may be judged Uncivil or short of due Respect toward the Learned and Reverend Dr. Stillingfleet I am ready to crave him pardon for I designed the contrary what this Author chargeth me with that way is partly false as what he citeth out of the Preface to Animadv on Irenic for both the Prefaces I have seen one at some Copies and another at other Copies were written by another hand without the knowledge of the Author partly they are fouly misrepresented to give an Instance this Author faith that I said of Dr. Stillingfleet p. 18. that for the most part he doth nothing but magno conatu nihil agere This is misrepresented I said that he insisteth most on things not controverted and thence inferred the blame mentioned It is one thing to charge one directly with an Opinion or Practice and another to make an Inference from it seing many do or say that the ill Consequence of which they do not observe but will disowne His other Citations are but a just Censure one some Passages of that Learned Author's Writings which I was examining which cannot be shunned in Polemick Writings to call that a Contradiction that I make appear to be such is no Injury nor Breach of that Civility that is due to a Stated Adversary many things are fair enough in open War which were not so in a State of Peace This Author is yet more injurious in expounding all that I have said of a few men of imbittered Spirits among the Prelatists who have in their Writings reproacht the Presbyterians and imputed to them things that they are innocent of or abhor applying all this I say to all them who are of the Episcopal Perswasion or to the Party in general as that they are Esaus Serpents Spiteful c. I challenge him to prove what he saith I deny it if I have said any thing of Immorality among the Clergy it is too evident tho' I know some of them are innocent and lament it What he citeth as spoken against the Church of England and her Clergy is either what is in Controversie between us and them I have been so bold as to call their Liturgy and Ceremonies Superstition and to mention what is the Native Concomitant of Superstition that men will be wiser than Christ or his Apostles This is no more a Crime than it is a Fault to be opposite to their way What is said of Immoralities and Insufficiency for the Ministery and other Corruptions that are among them is not chargeable on me yea nor on Presbyterians alone but it is the Complaint of the best among themselves see the five Groans of the Church and Mr. Bold ' s Serm. These Authors were truly Sons of the Church of England thousands among them complain of these things who yet adhere to that Communion I might well disowne that Principle of Sentencing Executing Kings by their Subjects about which some of the Church of England had informed forreign Divines as the Principle and Doctrine of Presbyterians because the Generality of Presbyterians in Scotland very few excepted and these turned Independents after shewed their Abhorrence of that Fact committed on King Charles the first so they did in England and some of them suffered Death for owning his Son Is it Incivility to the Church of England that I thought at the time of the late Revolution it was fit for Parties to put in their Claim for what they thought the way of GOD that it might be judged of by them who had Authority if the Church of England think we ought not to mutter against the Corruptions of their way nor seek a Remedy in an orderly and legal way they may know that we pretend to no such Civility as is inconsistent with Faithfulness to the Truth and Ordinances of Christ We are for the Purity of the Church of England and for her Peace too so as not to meddle with her without our Sphere but if speaking or writing for the good way that we owne do disquiet her with respect to her Corruptions we must be excused It is a wise Assertion he exhorteth his Readers to purge the Church of England c. I exhorted none to this Attempt but in their Station such as many have not his Expression soundeth as if I had stirred all up that should read this Book to fall on the Church of England and pull her down § 14. Impudence is the next Epithet that he laboureth to fix on the man of his Wrath. Instances are It is abscribed to Cunning that their Books reproaching the Presbyterians were spread in England but hard to be found in Scotland which he imputeth to want of Liberty for Printing such Pieces in Scotland and hazard in importing them but it is sufficiently known that many Books of that strain have been imported and none seized that I hear of but one Parcel which was of another strain Next it is Impudence to assert the Loyalty of Presbyterians Answ It is more Impudence to ascribe to Presbyterians what was the Practices of some few with which the far greatest part neither did nor would concur What was said on this Head was also proved and it is Impudence to put such a Mark on any Assertion and yet not attempt to answer the Arguments brought for it Another Impudence is to speak of the Harmlesness of Presbyterians and that they are no Persecutors And that any one of many of them suffered more Hardships and Barbarous Cruelty than all the Espiscopalians have endured the Impudence of this he proveth very learnedly how could one man suffer the deprivation of five or six hundred Livelyhoods That there were so many Episcopal Ministers turned out I suppose these he
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
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
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
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