caeteris esset C. etiam 6. ostendit jurisdictionem episcopalem ortam partim ex distinctione nominis Episcopi a Presbyteri appellatione partim principum Christianorum indulgentia partim pontificum Romanorum aliorumque ambitione usurpatione Who then can imagine that he thought that in Cyprian's time which was before the Church had Christian Princes the Bishops had sole Jurisdiction The last of his Authors that he citeth is the Provincial Assembly of London what Book he meaneth I know not neither doth he himself for what appeareth For the Vindication of Presbyterian Government Ministry by the Ministers and Elders of the provincial Synod of London hath not a word on that Head neither for him nor against him wherefore I can guess at none but jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici written as the Title page beareth by sundry Ministers of Christ within the City of London In that Book I find nothing that hinteth the Concession that he alledgeth But on the contrary p. 140. interpreting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned 1 Cor. 12. 28. they have this passage not the Prelatical Bishops pretending to be an Order above preaching Presbyters and to have the Reins of all Church-Government in their Hands only For in Scripture Bishop and Presbyter are all one Order hereunto also the Judgement of Antiquity evidently subscribeth accounting a Bishop and a Presbyter to be one and the same Office in the Church as appeareth particularly in Ambrose Theodoret Jerome and others I shall not hope to say any that is convincing if what I have brought do not perswade the unbyassed Reader that our famous Presbyterians have the same Sentiments of the Judgement of the first Antiquity about the power of Presbyters in the Church that I expressed in the place that our Author maketh such a pother about he bringeth also Spanhem against me which I wonder at seing the words himself citeth amount to no more than manifesta 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which none of us ever denyed to have crept early into the Church but he dealeth not fairly with that learned Writer if this Appellation may be used without his offence for he curtaileth his words leaving out what displeaseth him viz. quanquam de primis Episcopis controversum diversine an superioris ordinis haberentur he dealeth yet less Christianly with the same Author both in detracting from his knowledge of Antiquity and also in mis-representing his words out of which he would make good his Charge in that he saith Spanhem denyeth Exorcists to have been in the Church in the third Century whereas he doth not mention Exorcists in that place but only Ostiarios Copiatas Acolythos These last our Author will prove to have been in the Church in Cyprian's time out of Cyprian Ep. 7. 34 45 59 and 77. And mentioneth several Names of Men in that Office I was at the pains to read over all these Epistles on this occasion and find not a word in any of them either of Acolyths or of any of the persons whom he nameth it is like the Epistles of Cyprian are diversly numbred in diverse Editions my Edition of Cyprian is 1593 cum notis Pamelii I find the Epistle of Cornelius in Eusebius Lib. 6. C. 42. he calleth it 43 how genuine that Epistle of Cornelius is or the Account that Ensebius giveth of it I shall not now enquire what I am now concerned in is that the Learned World beareth Testimony to Spanhemius so as this Author will not be able to derogate from his Credit And I doubt not but he can give grounds for what he wrote I hope I have said enough to shew that I am not so arrogant nor so rash as to reced in this matter from the Sentiments of these great Patrons of Presbytery that he hath brought against me § 14. He proceedeth pag. 5. to his other Arguments His first Argument which he manageth to pag. 11. is built on three Foundations or Pillars the first is that every Church was in Cyprian ' s time ruled by a Bishop Presbyters and Deacons This I deny not only I observe a few things one is that our Controversie is not about the Name Bishop being appropriat to one and not given in common to all the Presbyters as at first but about that Bishop or first Presbyter's Power which this his Discourse doth not touch Another thing that I observe is that it cannot be denyed that the Deacons in that Age and may be sooner had more Hand in the Government of the Church than was allowed by Divine Institution by which they were only Servants not Rulers and their work was only about the Poor I thirdly observe our Author's unwarriness in here asserting that the Church was ruled by Bishops Presbyters and Deacons and yet he pleadeth for the Bishops sole Jurisdiction in most of his Book This I impute to want of a good memory What he hath p. 6. of Superinducing a Bishop where one already was and that there could be but one Bishop in a Church will after fall in to be considered where he insisteth more directly and fully on it His second ground that his Argument is built on is that the Presbyters in that Age were Preaching-Presbyters and not Ruling-Elders such as we have in the Presbyterian Church That the Bishop in that Age was distinct even from Preaching-Elders or Ministers we deny not and that there were many such where was but one Bishop we acknowledge so it is with us there are many Ministers where there is but one Moderator and many Ruling-Elders where there is but one Minister or Parochial Bishop What sort of Officers in the Church the Presbyters distinguished from the Bishop were in the Primitive times is controverted among some Dr. Hammond held that only Bishops were of Divine Institution and were in the Apostolick-Church the consequent of which is that Presbyters must be a device of men and brought in afterward this is solidly refuted by the learned Mr. Durham on Revelation ch 3. p. mihi 230. The Author of the Book Intituled An Inquiry into the Constitution c. of the Primitive-Church in the first 300 years who pretendeth that this work is done by an impartial Hand he also hath a like Notion p. 72. and maintaineth that Presbyters are not necessary to the Constitution of a Church that they are equal to a Bishop in Order and have all the Power that he hath but inferior in Degree that they were ordained Preachers but had no particular Charge but were imployed by the Bishop in any piece of Church-work as he thought fit and so were his Curats or Assistants But of this afterward I deny not that there were Presbyters in the third Century such as our Author contendeth for that is persons authorized to preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments distinct from Bishops For his Sarcasm against Ruling-Elders who have no Authority to Preach affirming pag. 8. that there is as profound silence of them in Cyprian ' s Writings
Error It is a vast mistake that he saith that Cyprian Ep. 33. pleadeth for the divine Right of Episcopacy in that Ep. which is mihi 27 he pleadeth for the Divine Authority of the Church and her Bishops that is Pastours not for a Divine Warrant for the Praelation of some of them above others nothing can be more evident than the concurrent Testimonies of Antiquity against this Fancy Scripture and the most Antient of the Fathers speak of Bishops and Presbyters indistinctly when the Distinction began to be taken notice of Jerome saith that it was brought in by the Presbyters themselves Ep. ad Evagr. as also on Tit. and Aug. Ep. 10. referreth to Ecclesiae usus Yea Concil Nic. 1. Can. 6. maketh the Distinction of Bishops as Metropolitans c. To be mos antiquus All that followeth § 37 37 36. doth also confute this Opinion But this I insist not on because our Author hath put off the proof of that Divine Institution of Episcopacy to his next Essay p. 94. His sixth and last Proposition is that the Principle of the Bishops being the Center of Vnity is most reasonable and accountable in it self We may now expect some Herculean Argument and the highest Effort of his Skill And I am willing that the whole Controversie be hanged on this Pin. All that he bringeth for Argument is every particular Church is an Organical political Body and there can be no Organical Body without a Principle of Vnity on which all the Members must hang and from which being separated they must cease to be Members and who so fit for being Principle of Vnity to a Church as he who is Pastour Ruler Governour Captain Head Judge Christs Vicar c. Not his Conclusion only but an Assumption is understood viz. the Bishop is all this ergo he is the Center of Vnity and his quod erat demonstrandum followeth a little after it is scarce possible to prove any thing of this nature more demonstratively One might make sport with this Argument which is introduced and backed with such Parade But I am in earnest in this Debate There are here no less than three Premisses expressed and a fourth necessarily understood before we can reach the Conclusion which every Logician will condemn and when we are at last through all these Stages arived at the Conclusion it is above distinguished and his Argument can reach no more than is by us confessed Besides this it is hard to shew how these his Premisses hang together or what Connection they have Further that the principle of Vnity in a political Body is one person and cannot be a Society the Consistory or the Presbytery in the Church will hardly be proved by this Argument there can be no Unity in a Common-wealth but only in Monarchy Aristocracy and Democracy in a Nation are here not only made unlawful but impossible that the Bishop is fittest to be the Principle of Unity in the Church is gratis dictum Yea it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Notwithstanding of the metaphorical Appellations that our Author giveth him from some of the Antients Yea if a Society cannot be the Center of Unity in a particular Church who shall be the Center of Unity among Bishops we must surely have the Pope for this use which is indeed the native conclusion of our Author's Argument that he braggeth so much of But this will afterward occurre § 33. He cometh now p. 27. to another Argument a Bishop in Cyprian's age was supreme in his Church immediatly subject to Christ had no Ecclesiastical Superior on Earth the Church was one but divided into many Precincts each had its Bishop who was their Supreme I am no further concerned in what he saith on this head but what he bringeth for the Bishops Supremacy Wherefore I insist not on his first Proposition concerning the Equality of Bishops I only observe that he is for Parity in the Church and if it be found among Bishops I know no Scripture nor Reason that condemneth it among Presbyters To the same purpose is his second Preposition and his Third all which are levelled against the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome whose cause I do not intend to plead Wherefore I come to examine his 4th Proposition p. 31. by the Principles of these times every Bishop was Christs Vicar within his own District So say I is every Minister of the Gospel understanding by Vicar one who deriveth his Power from Christ and to him must give account of it He saith further that a Bishop had a Primacy in his own Church If he mean that he was primus Presbyter I denyed it not if that he had the sole Power in his own person or that the Presbyters had not a coordinate power with him in the Government of the Church I deny it Neither is it proved by Cyprian's words which he citeth Cathedram sibi constituere primatum assumere which I cannot find by what Directions he giveth and therefore cannot tell what might be further said for vindicating them The next Expression admiteth of the same Answer viz. that he managed the Ballance of Government it is not said that he did this by himself Our Moderator manageth the Ballance of Government but with the Presbytery The sublime Sacerdotii fastigum signifieth no more than primus Presbyter The Antients use as big words for as low things neither do I know any higher Degree in those days If my Antagonist will prove it he must use other Topicks than words that may admit various significations the same I say of the Expressions that follow the vigor Episcopatus the sublimis divina potestas gubernandae Ecclesiae This last may agree to the meanest Member of a Presbytery Are not Presbyters called by Cyprian such as are divino sacerdotio honorati and gloriosi sacerdotes as himself citeth p. 7. To what purpose he citeth Jerome for the Parity of Bishops and saith that I will not reject his Testimony I understand not I shall neither oppose him nor Jerome in that Principle § 34. He bringeth another Argument p. 32. from the High Priest among the Jews and saith that a Bishop was the same to Christians that he was to the Jews I see the learned Author is very unhappy in stumbling upon popish Arguments and he can say litle for his Bishop but what they say for their Pope And it is evident that the Papists from this Medium argue with much more shew of Reason For the High Priest had universal supream Authority over the universal Church that then was The Papists infer the Pope's universal Head-ship tho' I am far from thinking this Argument concludent for them yet what shew of Confequence can it have for a Bishops Power in his Diocess Or with what Face can this Author say that a Bishop is the same to Presbyters and Deacons that he was to the Levites unless he say that a Bishop was the same to all the Presbyters and Deacons in the World
much altered to the worse I shall begin with Ignatius both because his Testimony is Argumentum ad Hominem at least seing my Antagonist and his Party lay so much Stress on his Epistles also because if he speak for Parity it may abate the force of all that they bring out of his Writings to the contrary What I shall alledge from him I find cited by the famous Arch-Bishop Vsher in his Original of Bishops and Metropolitans Ignat. Ep. ad Trallianos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. be subject to the Bishop as to the Lord and after be subject to the Presbytery as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ our Hope Also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. he that doth any thing without the Bishop and the Presbyters and the Deacons such an one is defiled in Conscience And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. farewel in Christ Jesus being subject to the Bishop and also to the Presbyters Here it is plain that Church Authority to which the People must be subject is not given to the Bishop alone but to the Presbytery also and indeed to them both acting conjunctly I need not transcribe what is with much plainness cited to our purpose by Blondel out of both the Clements Polycarpus Justin and others of the first of the Fathers I only mention Clem. Alexand. Strom. Lib. 7. Penes Presbyteros est Disciplina quae facit homines meliores Tertullian Apolog. c. 39. Praesident probati quique Seniores Viz. In their Meetings for Discipline where were Admonitiones Castigationes Censurae Divinae He is speaking of the Discipline of a Congregation and ascribeth the Government of it to a Community not to a single person The Clergy of Rome in their Epistles to Cyprian which is Ep. 31. do plainly declare their Opinion about the receiving the Lapsed that it should be done collatione Consiliorum cum Episcopis Presbyteris Diaconis Confessoribus stantibus Laicis this they mean of the general Method that should be laid down for it it should be Advised about by as many as can give Counsel but when they speak of the Authoritative Sentence they say it should not be done ab uno then not by a Bishop acting by sole Authority Cypr. Ep. 10. § 3. Writing to the Clergy of Carthage and shewing the evil of overturning Church Discipline as had been done by some of their number he telleth them Erunt rei qui praesunt haec fratribus non suggerunt ut instructi à praepositis faciant omnia cum Dei timore Where it is evident that they owned them as praepositi and charge on them the Duty of giving faithful Warning according to that their Character whence it followeth that he did not look on himself as being the only praepositus or Ruler of that Church And Ep. 28. he commendeth the Clergy of Carthage while himself was absent from them that they had debarred from Communicating with them Gaius Presbyter Diddensis and his Deacon who had Communicated with the Lapsed and he telleth them that they had Acted like Men of Integrity and according to the Discipline of the Church integre cum Disciplina fecistis If he had the sole Power this Fact of theirs had been quite contrary to Church Discipline If any say that they did this with the Advice of some of Cyprian's Collegues that is Bishops A. Whether these were Bishops or not we know not but they only gave Advice the Authoritative Act was by the Clergy of Carthage Ep. 55. § 17. Cyprian compareth the number of Presbyters and Deacons who had concurred in condemning affuerunt judicio cognitioni some Schismaticks with the number of them that stood for them which is a clear Argument that the Clergy with the Bishop not onely consulted but judicially determined in Church Affairs And in the same Epist § 21. speaking to Cornelius Bishop of Rome he expresly mentioneth the Clergy as ruling the Church with Cornelius his Words are Florentissimo clero illic tecum praesidenti Also Epist 58. he hath Words of the like importance § 2. Qui cum Episcopo Presbyteri sacerdotali honore conjuncti It is also evident in many of Cyprian's Epistles that he divideth the Clergy in Praepositos which Word doth manifestly signifie Rulers and Deacons So Epist 62 65. and elsewhere I only add out of Cyprian Epist 6. § 4. Doleo enim quando audio nec à Diaconis aut Presbyteris regi posse Pamelius's Note on this Passage maketh it yet more plain for us tho' he was a Papist and no Presbyterian Hinc saith he non obscurè colligitur viguisse adhuc Carthagini aetate auctoris praerogativam Presbyterorum Diaconorum primitivae Ecclesiae qua communi totius Presbyterii i. e. Presbyterorum Diaconorum collegii consilio administrabantur omnia ab Episcopis And he citeth to confirm this Ignatius as I have before cited him If any say Pamelius attributeth to the Presbytery but Consilium it is plain that Cyprian speaketh of their Ruling Power § 37. Contemporary with Cyprian was Firmilianus Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia who doth fully declare for Presbyterial Government in his Epist to Cyprian which is the 75. of Ep. Cypr. for § 3. he hath these Words Qua ex re necessario apud nos fit ut per singulos annos seniores praepositi in unum conveniamus ad disponenda ea quae curae nostrae commissa sunt ut si quae graviora sunt communi consilio dirigantur And § 6. Omnis potestas gratia in Ecclesia est constituta ubi praesident majores natu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qui baptizandi manum imponendi ordinandi possident potestatem It is to be observed that frequent mention is made in this Epistle of Episcopi Bishops and Pamelius thinketh that this Ep. being turned out of Greek into Latine by Cyprian to whom it was written by Praepositus is meant Bishop and by Senior Presbyter whence it is evident that here all Church Power is ascribed to the Presbyter that is given to the Praepositus or Bishop At the same time was Pontius one of Cyprian's Deacons and his constant Attendant and who well knew his Principles he wrote Cyprian's Life and in that History he hath these Words Nulla mora nulla dilatio Presbyterium sacerdotum statum that is presently after his Conversion to Christianity accepit quis enim non omnes honorum gradus crederet tali menti where it is plain that Pontius thought that all Church Degrees were included in Sacerdotium Presbyterium which he taketh for one And a little below he joineth Sacerdotium Episcopatus as the same Office that Cyprian was chosen to while he was Neophytus and as was thought Novellus From all this it appeareth that Cyprian was made Priest Presbyter and Bishop all at once as being the same thing Gregor Nazianz. who flourished in the fourth Century in his Apology telleth us of the Apostles making Canons for
Bishops and Presbyters 1 Tim. 3. and Tit. 1. Whether their Office may be called a Ministry or Rule of Government his Words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He saith likewise of them that they by their promotion to be Presbyters ascend from being ruled to be Rulers that they have Authority not over a Flock but over mens Souls and other very sublime Powers he ascribeth to them And in his Orations he is as profuse in extolling the Dignity and Authority of Presbyters as any other in exalting Bishops He saith as many as are ordain'd are chosen to the high Thrones of Presbytery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he speaketh not of Bishops as distinct from Presbyters is plain for the design of his Discourse especially in his Apology is to shew how the Apostle directed Bishops and Presbyters by the same Canons without distinguishing them or their work and that onely custom had raised the Bishop above them as their Praeses § 38. I next bring Ambrose as a Witnes for us in his Epistle to Syagrius he sheweth that when he and Syagrius had severally passed Sentence on a Delinquent the Church was unsatisfied with the Sentence of Syagrius and gave the reason because he had done it by himself sine alicujus fratris consensu but acquiesced in the Sentence passed by Ambrose because saith he hoc Judicium nostrum cum Fratribus Con-Sacerdotibus participatum processit Whence it is plain to have been the Principle of those days that the Bishop had not sole Jurisdiction however some were then Grasping at it Chrysostom Homil. 11. in 1. Tim. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. omitting the Order of Presbyters he the Apostle passeth to the Deacons Why so Because there is no great Difference for they are Ordained for Teaching and Governing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church and what he had said of Bishops he applyeth to the Presbyters If then Chrysostom was for the Bishop's sole Jurisdiction let any judge August Ep. 19. quanquam secundum honorum vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major sit tamen in multis rebus Augustinus Hieronymo minor est Where it may be observed to our purpose 1. That Augustine placeth the Praelation of a Bishop above a Presbyter in the Title of Dignity but speaketh not a word of Superior Power 2. He not only insinuateth that that Difference such as it was had its Original not from Divine Institution but Humane Custom but he speaketh of it as lately setled jam obtinuit this was after 420 years it was neither constant nor universal till then Salvianus maketh the Levitae Sacerdotes to be the Apostles Successors not mentioning Bishops as distinct So Gildas frequently speaketh of Bishops and Presbyters promiscuously I hope I may also adduce Jerom a Presbyter as a Witness as well as they do other Fathers who were Bishops He giveth all manner of Church Power to Presbyters and not to Bishops only Ep. ad Heliodorum Presbytero saith he si peccavero licet me tradere Satanae in interitum carnis Et Ep. ad Demetrium sunt quos Ecclesia reprehendit quos interdum abjicit in quos nonnunquam Episcoporum Presbyterorum Censura desaevit Ambrose giveth Account Ep. 80. of the Excommunication of Jovinianus and others with him by Syricius Bishop of Rome whose words to Ambrose were omnium nostrum tam Presbyterorum quam Diaconorum quam totius Cleri scissitata fuit Sententia It is shewed § 37. that Penitents were to be received by the Bishop and Clergy as Cypr. Ep. 12. it were then strange if they were cast out by the Bishop alone I desire the Reader who can for further satisfaction would read Paul Baynes Diocesan's Trial and Mr. Peregrin Letters Patents of Presbytery they having somewhat that is singular on this Subject § 39. Let us now examine what he is pleased to bring for the Bishop's sole Power in the Church and against the Parity that we have Asserted And first I shall examine his three Principles above-mentioned The first of which is there were several considerable Acts of Power belonging to the Government and Discipline of the Church which belonged solely to the Bishop several Powers Lodged in his Person which he could manage by himself and without the Concurrence of any other Church-Governour Of this sort he reckoneth eight viz. Confirmation Ordination Settling Presbyters Disposal of Church Revenues Imposing Charitable Contributions Convocating the Presbyters and Deacons Indicting Publick Fasts Delegating two of his Presbyters These I shall consider distinctly with his Proofs for what he Asserteth about them For the first of these Confirmation of the Adult who had in their Infancy been Baptized at first it was no more but after diligent Instructing them in the Grounds of Religion bringing them to the Pastor of the Church and probably before the Eldership that they might be tryed in their Proficiency and so declared fit to receive the Lord's Supper in which nothing can be blamed Afterward it came to be more Theatrically managed and Imposition of Hands was the Ceremony by which it was set off till at last it came to be esteemed a Sacrament Now when it was thus turned from the Simplicity of God's Ordinance to be a Pompous Device of Man not a few of which were crept into the Church in yea before Cyprian's Age it is not strange if they committed not the managing of it to all to whom Christ had committed his Ordinances but to one of their own chusing Our Debate is whether the Bishop had sole Power of managing any of Christ's Ordinances of which number this is not Yet I find litle strength in our Author's Arguments for this Power in the Bishop His first Proof is Cypr. Ep. ad Jubajanum it was the Custom to offer such as were Baptized to the Bishops that by their Prayers and the Laying on of their Hands they might receive the Holy Ghost and be Consummated by the Sign of our Lord which our Author taketh to be the Sign of the Cross Here Cyprian useth the word Praepositis which our Author is pleased to translate Bishops whereas Presbyters also were called by that Name For Cyprian Ep. 3. § 1. the Roman Clergy when they had no Bishop said of themselves that it appeared that they were Praepositi and thence inferred that it was incumbent on them to take Care of the Flock and they speak of idle Shepherds as neglegentes Praepositi whose Reproof was to be a Warning to them And Cypr. Ep. and Jubajan which is 69. § 4. plainly calleth the Successors of the seventy Disciples as well as these of the Apostles Praepositos for of them that place Luc. 10. 16. which he citeth is to be understood And Ep. 62. § 1. he sheweth how Church Discipline is to be regarded à Praepositis Plebe And Ep. 65. § 4. he mentioneth Episcopos Praepositos as distinct And Ep. 21. which is Celerini ad Lucium § 3. quorum jam causa
was in these days his peculiar Work neither do we find that he Deputed one to praeside but left it to the Presbytery to choose whom they thought fit He next bringeth the 38. and 41. Canons of the Apostles to prove what he designed I have above shewed what Weight is to be laid on their Authority Nor do they give this Power to the Bishop alone but the Bishop is to be lookt on with respect to what is there said as praesiding in the Presbytery What he citeth out of Justine Martyr saith no more but the Bishop hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Care of the Ecclesiastical Goods which we willingly yield to him and to every one of the Presbytery but it is not said he alone hath this Care He would have us believe that this sole Power of the Bishop is fairly founded on Scripture but citeth no place I know no more where to find these places of Scripture than I know where to find some places of Cyprian that he citeth I am sure Act. 6. maketh nothing for him but on the contrary Neither 2 Corinth 8. and 9. Chapters For Paul was a Delegate in carrying that Contribution to Judea and if he had claimed more Power it will be hard to prove the Bishop's Power to extend as far as that of an Apostle § 47. The Bishop's fifth Power that he alone possessed is of imposing charitable Contributions on all the Christians within his District for the Relief of Strangers c. For which he referreth to Ep. 62. and 78. but citeth no words I can find nothing to that purpose in either of them as in my Book For his alledging Soter Bishop of Rome whom Dionysius of Corinth commendeth for this Practice cited by Eusebius Lib. 4. Cap. 23. mihi 22. there is no more in it but that Dionysius commendeth that Church for their wonted charitable Distributions to other Churches and that Soter had observed and improved this Custom this may be fairly expounded of exhorting to Charity without Authoritative Imposing of Contributions which any Minister may do And if he did impose it is not said he did it by himself tho' he is only mentioned as perhaps being singularly active in stirring up both the Presbytery and the People and he was to publish in the Church the Presbyteries Determination in this What is there in all this for a sole Power in this Matter His next full Power is Indicting of Fasts for which he citeth Tertullian de Jejun But it is observable that Tertullian speaketh of Bishops in the plural number now it is not to be thought that no Fasts were Indicted but by a Meeting of Diocesans wherefore Episcopi must be the Presbytery Or if he mean the several Bishops in their several Churches it may be rationally understood of the Bishop's intimating to the People what is by common Consent Determined not what he enjoyneth by his sole Authority The seventh Branch of the Bishop's Prerogative is to Convocate the Presbytery and Deacons And let him enjoy it for it is what we grant to our Moderator and there is a natural necessity that it be in the Power of some person to call them together when any emergent doth require it And seing in Cyprian's time the Bishop was the constant Moderator it was consequential that he should be the constant Conveener But what Prerogative or sole Power this doth infer or what Ecclesiastick Authority above the Brethren it importeth I cannot understand Let any who hath clear use of reason judge how this proveth the Bishop's managing the Affairs of the Church like a chief Governour as our Author dreameth p. 48. Neither doth it appear that the Bishop might convocate the Presbyters at pleasure as he fancieth but when there was cause as in the Instance he bringeth there was He bringeth in on this Occasion an Observation that Cornelius received these persons about whom he called the Presbytery without asking the Peoples consent but acquainted them after it was done But our Author hath forgot what he had a few Lines before said that after they were received in the Presbytery the People were made acquainted with it not one word of the Bishop's receiving them by himself This is nothing contrary to Presbyterian Principles and Practices Yea as if he had design'd to refute himself he citeth a Letter of these Persons shewing that they were reconciled to the Bishop and to the whole Clergy where is then the Bishop's sole Power of receiving Penitents He propoundeth to himself an Objection that the Presbyters at Rome met in a Vacancy after the Bishop's Death and at Carthage in the time of Cyprian ' s Retirement To the second Instance he Answereth that Cyprian left a Delegation for their Meeting which he proveth strangely he wrote Ep. 5. that they should faithfully perform his Office and their own where saith he we have distinct Offices and an express setling of a Delegation A. For distinct Offices his Mistake of the Latine Word hath misled him it is fungamini illic vestris partibus meis I see not but one Presbyter may say this to another For his Delegation I think few others can perceive it in these words may not any Member of a Presbytery but especially the Moderator say the same by a Letter to the Presbytery It importeth no more but a Warning to be vigilant in their Work See § 46. His next Citations is out of Ep. 14. It is Ep. 6. Where Cyprian commands them to perform the Office of Vicars to him Cyprian's words are hortor mando ut vice mea fungamini circa gerenda ea quae administratio religiosa deposcit Here is no more but what any of Christ's Ambassadours may say he chargeth them to do their Duty and he had Authority from Christ not as Bishop but as a Pastor of the Church and Christ's Ambassadour to enjoyn this If Cyprian had our Author's meaning then all Religious Administration must cease without the Bishop's presence or Delegation which is absurd For his mea vice it signifieth no more but that his Absence might be supplied by their Diligence Cyprian's warm recenting what some of them did without his allowance shall be elsewhere considered it was that some Presbyters without both their Moderator and the Presbytery received some of the Lapsed which was wholly irregular and blame worthy He next to the Presbyters Meeting sede vacante Answereth that they might meet but they might only determine in ruled cases That is gratis dictum but if they might act in any case it is an Argument that they had Church Power in their Persons and that it was not solely in the Bishop The last of the Bishop's Prerogatives that he pleadeth for tho' he telleth us p. 50. that he could collect more is his Delegating not his Presbyters in common but two of them Rogatianus and Numidicus with two Bishops Caldonius and Herculanus to consider the state of the Poor at Carthage and to pronounce the Sentence of Excommunication
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
Epistle from the Clergy of Rome while they wanted a Bishop to the Clergy of Carthage when their Bishop was in his retirement in which case saith he they had the best occasion of speaking their mind freely of the power of Presbyters and the usurpation of Bishops in this Epistle he fancieth that he findeth Arguments for Episcopal sole Power as first they say of themselves and these at Carthage that they were only seemingly the Governours of these respective Churches and only keep the Flock instead of the respective Pastors the Bishops I had occasion to consider this Passage before I blame his want of Wisdom that seing he is pleased to give us this Translation of this Passage he hath yet set down the Latine in the Margine out of which one may easily discover his Error without turning to the Epistle it self It is a strange Translation Videmur Praepositi that is we only seem to be Governours I am sure the Marginal Notes on this Epistle saith they were Pastores constituti And Pamelius from this Passage argueth for the Authority of the Church of Rome over other Churches and he that animadverteth on Pamelius saith Clerus Romanus Carthaginensem agnoscit quemadmodum alios aliarum Ecclesiarum pastores esse Christiani gregi praepositos wherefore videmur must rather signifie certainty than doubting in this place it appeareth not only to our selves but to all we are acknowledged for such And that they did not mean by vice Pastoris a vicarious Power delegated from the Bishop is manifest for the Bishop was dead and we find no Power he left them neither could he do it Yea it is evident that they lookt on a Power residing in themselves of which they were to give an account si negligentes inveniamur quoniam perditum non requisivimus c. What is said of the lapsed continuing in their Penitency that they might obtain Indulgence from them who can give it the Word being ab eo qui potest praestare It might be understood of Pardon from Christ on their sincere Repentance seing he alone can make Indulgence effectual but if that seem strained the Bishop with the Presbytery not by himself may fitly here be understood He doth again pag. 69. misrepresent the Question in these Words Let any man judge whether St. Cyprian or his presuming Presbyters had taken too much on them at Carthage But this mistake I noted before Another Argument he bringeth is from some Martyrs and Confessors in an Epistle to Cyprian commending him for his conduct in opposing and censuring these Presbyters I also commend him for it Ergo I think he had sole Power to manage that Affair the consequence is naught He haleth in another Argument into this Discourse these Martyrs and Confessors desire that Cyprian being so glorious a Bishop would pray for them which they would not have done had they thought him a proud aspiring Prelat that is a Limb of Antichrist as this Author would fain give him out to have been It is an injurious Calumny I never said nor thought so and no man can Wire-draw my words with any sense or reason to that meaning I esteem Cyprian's Grace Virtues and Learning as much as he doth and do judge that his Prayers while he was on Earth were worth asking and that he was a glorious Bishop but all this will not infer his sole Power nor his negative Cyprian ' s excommunicating these Presbyters and that fact being approven by others is not argumentative unless he can prove that this Cyprian did by himself without the Presbytery He next bringeth the Canons of the Apostles the insufficiency of which Authority I have above-shewed And Ignatius that nothing should be done without the Bishop nor in opposition to him And that the Bishop should be honoured All this is sufficiently Answered above When a Bishop that is any Minister of the Gospel acteth in his Sphere and keepeth to the Rule the Word of God to oppose him to depart from him not to honour him is highly sinful But I am sure Cyprian nor Ignatius never meant to enjoin absolute illimited obedience to a Bishop nor any man else As for doing nothing without the Bishop we grant that they who are under a Ministers charge Prebyters or others should act nothing in the Consistory without him but this also must suffer a limitation if he should prove so perverse as to oppose and hinder every thing that is good or what is necessary to be done I do not think that Ignatius would blame the Presbyters for acting without him otherwise there were no remedy but the Church must be ruined If it be said in that case they should complain To whom must this Complaint be made for a Bishop hath no Superior on Earth if we believe this Author § 56. The last of his three Principles which he advanceth p. 72. is that all the Church-Governours within his District Presbyters as well as others were in St. Cyprian ' s time subject to the Bishops Authority and obnoxious to his Discipline This Principle and all that he saith for establishing of it we might safely yield without any hazard to our Cause for we always maintained that a Bishop considered as a Paroch Minister hath Authority over the Ruling-Elders and the unfixed Preaching-Presbyters if any be within his Parish also considered as Moderator of the Presbytry he is still a Minister and hath Rule over all the Ministers and People and Elders within the District over which that Presbytery hath the oversight but our Question is whether he by himself hath the sole Authority or he as a Member of the Consistory or Presbytery hath a share in that Authority which resideth in that Body or Community This last we grant the former we deny His Proofs can never reach the conclusion that we deny the first of which is that Cyprian saith that our Lord chose Apostles that is Bishops and Governours where by the way Note that Cyprian owneth other Church-Governours beside Bishops and therefore they have not the sole Authority and the Apostles chose Deacons to be the Bishops and Churches Ministers Any body may see that this doth concern all Church-Rulers not sole Power in the Bishop Next he telleth us that Cyprian called Fabianus Superior with respect to the Roman-Clergy which is a mistake He calleth him simply Praepositus which as I have above-shewed was a Title given to Bishops Presbyters and if he had not called him their Praepositus that doth not import sole Power In an Epistle to Rogatianus Cyprian insinuateth that he was Ruler of the Church ergo he had sole Power it is a â—â—lish consequence this may be said of every Elder of the Church He is scarce of Arguments when he is forced to falsifie Cyprian's words qui in Ecclesia Praesidemus he translateth who have the chief Power in the Church beside that it is easie to distinguish between chief Power and sole Power to which all are subject Also Praesumus
Government of the Church nor that they had Jurisdiction over Presbyters who were fixed in the Church to oversee any part of it Many Presbyters Deacons yea private Christians who were eminent for Ability to confound the Adversary for Zeal and Holiness or for their Station in the World were persecuted as well as their Bishops That this is neither strange nor concludent of Episcopal Power is evident not to fetch an Instance from far in the late Episcopal Persecution among our selves the Ministers were mainly Hunted Intercommuned Imprisoned forced to Hide or Flee and the more eminent or zealous they were the harder it went with them yea some who were freer than many others of what was thought Sedition Disorder or Rebellion yet were hardly used for the Hurt that it was thought they might do to that which was the great Diana of the Ascendent Party And yet all this will not prove that they had or pretended to or were thought to have Jurisdiction over their Brethren I do therefore deny the Consequence the Bishops some of them for I will not say it was the Lot of them all were mainly persecuted Ergo they and not the Presbyters had the Authority in Governing the Church If Decius had such a dread of a Bishop being setled in Rome that he would more patiently have endured a Prince to rivall it with him for the Empire I am sure he had not so much Cause as his Successors had from the Successors of that Bishop Of no more Force is his Argument drawn from Galienus directing his Edict to the Bishops when he stopt the Persecution For we deny not that they had an eminent Station in the Church and had a chief Hand in the Direction of her Affairs whether ye consider them as Parish-Pastors as they all were or Moderators in greater Church-meetings as some of them were I have as he willeth his Reader to do considered and weighed his Arguments without partiality and in the Ballance of Justice But am not yet convinced that the Schisme that is in the Church is chargeable on us but on his Party Let the Reader judge whether of us have best grounds for our Opinion § 64. He concludeth with making excuse from the bulk of his Book that he doth not as he first intended prove Episcopal Praeemenencie to be of divine Right as being Christ's Ordinance and handed down to us from the Apostles in the constant Practice of the Vniversal Church This is the constant Cant of that Party but I have met with none who was able to evince this tho' the learnedest among them and not a few of them have essayed it If this Author shall think fit to make another Effort as he declareth himself ready to do if commanded by him to whom he writs this long Epistle and if he bring any thing new and not fully answered already I doubt not but his Arguments will be examined to better purpose than what is or can be done by such a mean hand as mine is APPENDIX AFter the former Sheets were almost Printed I met with two Books at the same time which I had not before seen the one called the Fundamental Charter of Presbytry c. with a Preface of 167 Pages by a nameless Author the other an Inquiry into the new Opinions chiefly propagated by the Presbyterians in Scotland with some Animadversions on the Defence of the Vindications of the Kirk by A. M. D. D. This latter Book seemeth to have more of Argument than some others which I have seen from some Scots Episcopalians if not from the same Hand I have much desired that our Debates might run in that more pure Channel and rejoice to see any hopes of it I am sorry that now I have no time from necessary urgent and daily work to consider this Book so as to Answer it if I shall not be Proselyted by it I intend to try it's strength as soon as I shall have leasure if the LORD give Life and Health and if it shall not be sooner Answered by some other Hand which I do much wish § 2. The former of these two Books is expresly levelled against an Act of the Parliament of this Nation and is a direct Refutation of it and therefore the Examination of it is out of my Road and is most fit for such as are conversant in the Affairs of State and know the Politick which moved the Parliament so to contrive their Act. I do judge that he who shall undertake it will find no hard task Beside the Presbyterian Ministers did never look on the Inclinations of the People which that Act mentioneth in it's narrative as the fundamental Charter of Presbytry however the Parliament might wisely consider it in their Consultation and Determining and mention it rather than what did more sway some of them We always did and do found the Government of the Church by Parity on Divine Institution and look on Prelacy as contrary to Christ's appointment § 3. What I now undertake is a transient view such as the Press hastening to an end of the former Discourse will allow of his Preface which I hope may be lookt on as a due Refutation of it nor can I imagine that any judicious and unbyassed man will judge that such a parcel of Stuff deserveth a laborious Examination he hath need of a hardened Nose who can insist long in an exact Anatomatical Scrutiny into such a rotten Carion The Author hath out-done his Brethren yea and himself too in Billingsgate-Rhetorick he seemeth to be eminently gifted that way to the silencing of who ever will oppose him as some learned acute men have quickly had their Mouths stopt when the Tongues of some of these good Women have been let loose against them I had rather own in my self all the dulness that he is pleased to impute to the man whom he designeth to expose than enter the Lists with him at that Weapon and I do freely confess I am not qualified for it and if I were I should think it unsutable to my Character however mean and inconsistent with a good Conscience Such impotency of Mind and such injurious Defamation is not well consistent with Christianity nor is sutable to that Learning that is required in them who write Polemick Divinity for Scolding is no Scholarship If his Adversary was weak he should have knockt him down with strong Arguments not bespattered him with dirty Revileings the one would have ruined his Cause the other but bedawb'd his Person and it may be easily wiped off If the Cause which my Adversary owneth need this Conduct it is weak and not worth contending for if not they who do so manage it are no credit to it § 4. I refer the Reader who would have a view of this Author's Qualities more truly than he Characterizeth other men to the Bishop of Sarum ' s Vindication where if he be not aimed at he is very plainly chastised in Effigie for G. B. G. R. seem to
p. 22. That the Bishops Deed is the Churches Act. p. 24. That Episcopacy is of Divine Institution p. 26. That he is subordinate to none p. 27 28 35. That the Bishop is a supream Ecclesiastical Magistrat p. 43. And Majesty is ascribed to him Ibid. he is called a Soveraign and Peerless Governour p. 65. Supream and unaccountable Power is ascribed to him p. 67. These and many more such Assertions are the Stars by which his Treatises is bespangled And each of them might afford matter for a long Discourse to one who hath nothing else to do A fourth Remark is that through the whole course of his Argumentations he useth such confidence and these Pretences to conclusive and irrefragable evidence as may fright an unintelligent or unwarrie Reader while the Strength of his Ratiocinations is no way proportionable but apparent to be built on Words rather than Matter Every one knoweth that the Signification of several Words used about Ecclesiastical Things in Cyprian's time was far different from what is our modern Dialect The truth of this will I hope be more fully manifest in our considering his particular Arguments § 5. My Assertion against which his Book is levelled he seemeth to wonder at as strangely rash and a putting our being or not being Schismaticks on a desperate Issue The Assertion is a Bishop in Cyprian's time was not a Diocesan with sole Power of Jurisdiction and Ordination If he prove that we shall give Cyprian and him leave to call us Schismaticks A Bishop then was the Pastour of a Flock or the Moderator of a Presbyterie If he can prove that we separate from our Pastours or from the Presbytery with their Moderator under whose Inspection we ought to be let him call us what he will But we disown the Bishops in Scotland from being our Bishops we can neither own their Episcopal Authority nor any pastoral Relation they have to us He seemeth p. 1. to divide his Book into two parts First to take to Task what I had said to wit the words above set down 2. to add perchance something concerning our main Argument The first part he hath largely insisted on with what Strength or Success I am now to examine Of the 2 I find nothing but that p. 94. he hath fairly waved it But with confidence that he could accomplish it and leaving to the person to whom he directeth this long Letter to command him to prosecute what is left undone The Import of which is that it is much more his Inclination to write ad hominem against a particular person than ad rem for that which he taketh to be the truth of God § 6. His first work is to expose the above-mentioned Passage in my Book as yielding a large Field if one had a mind to catch at Words and that it were easie to insist on such escapes if one had a mind for it His first Remark is Suppose the word Diocess was not in use in St. Cyprian's time as applyed to a Bishops District doth it follow that the thing now signified by it was not then in use Answ Pray Sir who made that Consequence the Words cited catch at them as much as you will import no such Consequence and design no more but that which we call now a Diocesan Bishop with sole Power of Jurisdiction and Ordination was not in that Age. His next Remark is in this Question What could move him the Author of the Passage now under Debate to insinuate that we assign the sole power of Jurisdiction and Ordination to our Diocesan Bishop Answ It is a greater wonder what should move this Author to except against our thinking that they assign such Power to their Bishop seing himself ascribeth all that Power to the cyprianick-Cyprianick-Bishop and affirmeth him to be of Divine Institution as hath been already observed Hath he not said that the Bishops Power is Monarchial pag. 23 32. and expresly pag. 38. near the end he saith the Bishop had the sole Power of Ordination and saith it hath been frequently and fully proved by learned men that he need not insist on it and pag. 39. telleth us of Cyprian's Ordaining without asking the consent of the Clergy or People and pleading for this as the Right of all Bishops If he do not ascribe this sole Power to his Scots-Bishops then ex tuo ore they are not the Bishops that Christ instituted Nor these of the Cyprianick-Age nor these for whom the learned men that he speaketh of hath pleaded neither can I guess what kind of Animals he will make them they must be a species of Bishops that never man pleaded for but himself I suppose his Lords the Bishops will give him small thanks thus for pleading their Cause What I have now observed sheweth his Questions to be impertinent viz. When did our Bishops claim that Power and when was it ascribed to them by this Constitution When did they exercise it When was it thought necessary for raising a Bishop to all the due Elevations of the Episcopal Authority I give this general Answer to all these Questions our Scots Bishops look on themselves and are lookt on by their Underlings and by this Author as scripture-Scripture-Bishops or at least as primitive-Primitive-Bishops and the Bishops that the learned men of this and the preceeding Ages have pleaded for but our Author saith these had the Power we now speak of and therefore he must say that that Power was given them by the Institution that they do claim it and ought to claim it that it is necessary for their due Elevation If they shun to exercise it at least openly by not laying on of Hands without Presbyters it is because they know that practice cannot take nor be born with in a Nation where Parity hath been so much known and generally liked I always understood that the main thing debated between us and the Prelatists was about the sole Power of Jurisdiction and Ordination and I am not alone in this the Synod of London Vindication of Presbyterial Government pag. 24. proposeth the Controversie in the same Words So doth also Smectymnus § 8 9. and I think he will not find many if any one of either side who handleth this Controversie without respect to this Power To his Question When was it ascribed to them by the Constitution I Answer it was done with respect â—o Ordination anno 1635 in the Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical chap. 2. § 3. where the Examination of the Candidate and consequently the Power of determining who shal be ordained is laid on the Bishop and he is allowed to perform this Examination by himself or his Chaplain And for Jurisdiction a person ordained to a Charge may not Preach unless he be also licensed by the Bishop ibid. chap. 7. § 5 Nor may he refute Error preached by another unless he first ask and obtain leave of the Bishop ibid. § 7. Yea a Presbyter may not go a Journey for some time without the Bishops leave
nor stay unduly at Edinburgh but he must be censured by the Bishop chap. 4. § 3 5. And in general in all these Canons all Church-Discipline is laid on the Ordinary that is the Bishop not a word of Censure inflicted by the Presbyters Without the Bishop no Minister may appoint a Fast not in his own Congregation chap. 14. and chap. 18. § 10. The Sentence of Deprivation of a Presbyter is pronounced only by the Bishop no consent of Presbyters is sought only the presence of three or four whom the Bishop calleth is required § 7. The import of the distinctions he useth for illustrating this Matter must be that our scots-Scots-Bishops have in Jurisdiction and Ordination a chief Power tho' not a sole Power a Power superior to but not exclusive of other Powers a Power without and against which no Power can act but not a Power destroying and disabling all other Powers We should better have understood him if he had opened the terms of these Distinctions I confess qui bene distinguit bene docet but not qui obscurè distinguit I observe none of these Distinctions clear to us whether he thinketh our Bishops can Ordain Depose c. without the concurrence of Presbyters acting authoritatively with them as he alledgeth the cyprianick-Cyprianick-Bishops might do and seing he doth not determine this I know not what his Distinctions serve for but to make a noise with Words His first distinction between chief and sole Power if easily made as he saith is not so easily applyed to the case in hand for our Question is about sole Power and if he deny that to them whatever other Power he give them he maketh them no such Bishops as he after pleadeth for Beside the word chief is ambiguous it may be taken either for Dignity that the Bishop's Power tho' the same with the Presbyters yet is more conspicuous because of the dignity of the Bishops person or office or that the Bishop can do some acts of Power which the Presbyter cannot do or that the Presbyter's Power is derived from the Bishop or that he cannot exercise it unless the Bishop pleaseth The first Sense I suppose will not please our Bishops for it importeth no Imparity of Power In all the other Senses the Bishop's Power is sole at least as to these things about which he hath that Power His second Distinction is the same in different words the third differeth little for if Presbyters cannot act except the Bishop please and if they must follow his Light whatever be their own I see not what Power they have What Power is given to our Bishops by their Constitution I shall not farther determine but it may be made appear that they have exercised and consequently claimed a Power over whole Presbyteries which maketh void all their Power while they have commanded them to desist from proceeding to Censure Scandalous Offenders of which I can give Instances His third and last Remark is that that part of my Definition of a Bishop is loose and ambiguous wherein I call him the Pastour of a Flock for saith he may not a Bishop and his Diocess be called a Pastour and his Flock as well as a Presbyterian Minister and his Parish Answ He might easily have understood my words in our ordinary Dialect now in use and then all Ambiguity had evanished but I cannot make him understand my words unless he will we use not to call a Bishops Diocess the Flock nor him the Pastour nor did Scripture so use these terms seing the Pastour is to feed the Flock Act. 20. 28. which he must do not only by Ruling but also by Teaching which I am sure a Bishop cannot to his Diocess That a Bishop in our modern sense was called the Pastour and such a Diocess as ours his Flock in Cyprian's time we deny and shall consider his Proofs of this when he shall propose them I have run over his large field and find not what fruit he hath reaped from it nor the escapes that he thinketh it so easy to insist on p. 2. at the end § 8. In the sense he giveth of what I had asserted which he enlargeth upon p. 3. I have little to observe for I am ready to maintain all that he there maketh to be my Opinion except â—hat he saith that in the Presbyterian sense a Moderator as such is no Church-Governour which I cannot agree to but because he hath this over again and improves against us that Notion which is his own none of ours p. 35 36. I shall there consider it viz. § 20. It is true the Vindication of Ch. of S. in Answer to the the ten Questions Q. 1. § 5. Saith that a Moderator as such is no Church-Governour but it is evident to any who impartially considereth what is there said that no more is meant but that he is not a Church-Governour of another Species from the rest or who hath another sort of Authority than they or a Superior Power to them not as our Author would improve it that it is not needful that he hath the same Church Power with the rest but may be a Heathen as he affirmeth p. 35 36. Also because he inferreth from what I had said that my Opinion is that in Cyprian's time the Church was governed by Presbyters Acting in Parity after the Presbyterian Model p. 4. It will be needful before I examine his Arguments to give a more full and distinct Account of my thoughts in this Matter than is done in that short hint which his whole Book is imployed against and this is the rather needful because my Antagonist doth not so plainly as were to be wisht state the Controversie when he saith p. 4. If I shall prove first that a Bishop in Cyprian's time was more than the Pastour of a Flock or Moderator of a Presbytery in the Presbyterian sense 2. That he had really Genuine Episcopal or Prelatick Power 3. That he Acted in a real Superiority over not in Parity with Pastours our Author is bound to acknowledge himself and his Brethren to be Schismaticks I shall state the Question a little more distinctly but not disown any of the Terms in which he hath put the Questions all which three are indeed but one Question § 9. Let it then be considered first that we never thought nor said that Church-Government was in all it's Modes and Circumstances in the third Century in which Cyprian lived the same with what it is now among Scots Presbyterians the Substance of Government may remain and yet considerable Alterations be made in the Modes of mannaging it in the Succession of Years much more of Ages We confess many words relating to Church-Offices Officers and Administrations signified another thing then than they do in our Modern Dialect these we call Moderators and my Antagonist calleth Bishops were then constant among us they serve in that Station but for some small time and give place to others in the Affrican Church these they
called Primates whom yet we deny to have had either Sole or Superior Jurisdiction were the eldest Minister of every Province which afterward was changed and they chosen according to their Personal Qualifications and Metropolitans were the Bishops of the chief Cities which had no Superior Power but only sometimes praesided in Synods Cyprian disowned that any of them was Episcopus Episcoporum See no Evidence for Diocesan Churches or Bishops p. 28. Also L' Arroque adversar Sacr. Lib. 2. C. 14. maketh this plain And Leidecker dissert de statu Eccles Affric § 7. he sheweth that Primates were above Metropolitans in Dignity and that they first attained that Degree by their Age reckoning it from their Ordination and the other from the City where they had their Charge Yea there hath been no Age of Old or in later times in which there have not been some lesser differences in Management even among Churches which used the same Species of Church-Government for Substance as at this day in Scotland Low-Countries Geneva among the Switzers c. Some Churches are more and some less pure and near to the Pattern and yet all governed by Presbyters Acting in Parity and among the Prelatists Prelatick Power is higher in one Church than in another as in England now and in Scotland of late Wherefore our Author must not think to triumph if he can shew some difference between the Cyprianick Age and our Way Cypr. Ep. 75. § 5. Firmilian writing to Cyprian hath Instances to shew that in diverse Churches they had diverse Practices and yet kept Peace one with another 2. We deny not that in Cyprian's time there was some Advances made towards some sort of Prelacy tho' the Parity of Power was not then wholly taken away as the Mystery of Iniquity in other things so in that did begin early to Work even in the days of the Apostles when Diotrephes did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 affected to be primus Presbyter or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Moderator in their Meetings and this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 becoming fixed and constant after the Apostles times these good Men not fore-seeing the ill Use that others would make of that Handle given them it did by insensible Degrees degenerate into an undue Usurpation as it is hard to get Power kept within it's due Bounds even among the best men and the Primitive Power of Presbyters was gradually wrested out of their hands by the Ambition of some and by the innocent Simplicity of others Many other Corruptions had crept into the Church by that time and this Declension from absolute parity went along with them the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 began to be appropriat to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that Custom being confirmed by a little time made even humble men imagine that some different Power was signified by that name that they had distinct from others which the rest who were so usurped upon did too easily yield minding more the Work of Feeding than of Ruling the Flock and not seeing the fatal Consequents of it which afterward appeared and were not discovered till it was too late to retrieve them 3. It is evident from the History of the first Ages that as Episcopacy did not arrive to it's height of a sudden so it was not at the same time settled in all the places where it obtained at last the Ambition of some or at least their too big Thoughts of the Power that belonged to them and the Easyness of their Com-Presbyters made it in one place make quicker Advances while the Humility and sound Judgment of others together with the Vigilancy of these who with them govern'd the Church retarded it's Progress in other Churches And it is certain that for as much as this Contagion of the Church walked in the dark yet it was observed and opposed by some as Aerius Jerom and others as will appear in our Progress Leidecker Dissert de Statu Eccles Affric § 7. Namque inquit uti ab Origine Episcopatus Ordinis Praesidentiae in Presbyterio titulus erat quamvis alibi suos terminos egrederetur in Affrica vetus Libertas Presbyterii est retenta dum Episcopi praesidentium honore non dominatu in Ecclesiam aut Presbyteros gauderent This he not only asserteth but proveth by diverse Testimonies § 10. Hence we may conclude that our Author cannot prove what he pretendeth unless he make it appear that Episcopal Power such as he pleadeth for was not only acted by some but generally in the Churches of the first second and third Centuries or approved by general Consent Wherefore if we can bring Testimonies to prove a Parity of Power among Presbyters and that Domination over them by one was condemned his bringing some Testimonies to the contrary will not be found concludent I say not this as if I were afraid he can prove what he undertaketh by the Authentick Suffrage of any one of the Fathers of the first three Centuries but that he may see what Weakness and Fallacy is in his Reasonings on more Accounts than one I may here add a Conjecture on which the Reader shall be desired to lay no more Weight than he pleaseth that seing it is confessed by the best Antiquaries that we have but little Historical Certainty of the first Ages of the Church it is probable that more Opposition might be made to the Tendency toward Church-Domination than we have account of for the Topping Party might carry all before them and others might be suppressed or what they did buried in silence especially considering that meek men are often too apt rather to suppress their Sentiments than to make much noise with them to the hazarding of the Peace of the Church and to groan under Grievances rather than cast the Church into a Convulsion by struggling when they do not foresee the greatness of the hazard that they fear This I conceive may be one part of that Sleep that giveth the Enemy advantage to sow his Tares I ground this Conjecture on the great difference that is between the Scripture-account of Church-Government and that of after Ages and that the further we come down from the Scripture-times the difference seemeth to be the greater and yet we have but often small account of any sensible Change made at any one time § 11. The Learned Author to his main Proofs as he speaketh p. 4. premitteth a shrewd Presumption against what I hold that generally the great Champions for Presbytery acknowledge that Episcopacy was in the Church long before Cyprian's time and he nameth Chamier Blondel Salmasius the Synod of London Spanhemius c. What his c. may contain in it's vast belly I know not but I am not afraid of any of them he hath mentioned they are all Friends to the Cause I maintain and say no more than I have already said but much against his Sentiments It had been easier for me to make this appear if he had thought fit to point at
and time as there is of the Solemn League and Covenant or the Sanquhar Declaration this sheweth more of his Spite against that Church-Office than of his Skill to refute it § 15. It might have been expected from this peremptory Confidence that he should have attempted a Refutation of what many Learned Men have written on that Subject if he lookt into that Controversie the London Ministers whom he citeth could have taught him at least to speak more soberly so Blondel de Jure Plebis p. 79. c. Smectym L'Arroque Conformity of the Discipline of the Church of France with the Primitive Church Calvin P. Martyr and many later Writers at least he might have had some regard to Arch-Bishop Whitgift a Zealous Pleader for Prelacy as he is cited by Synod Lond. Vindication of Presbyterial Government I know saith he that in the Primitive Church they had in every Church Seniors to whom the Government of the Church was committed but that was before there was any Christian Prince or Magistrat I hope then that it was in Cyprian's time will not be denyed May be on second thoughts he will abate a little of this Confidence when he considereth these few Citations following which do plainly prove that both before and after Cyprian's time there were Ruling Elders who were not Preachers acknowledged in the Church Origen Lib. 3. contra Celsum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. There are some appointed who do enquire into the Life and Manners of them who are Admitted that they may debar from the Congregation such as commit vile things and receive such as abstain from these and make them daily better Tertul. Apol. C. 3. Praesident probati quique Seniores honorem istum non praetio sed testimonio adepti These were before Cyprian After him were Jerom on Isaiah 3. 2. Et nos habemus in Ecclesia Senatum nostrum c. August Ep. 137. Dilectissimis Fratribus Clero Senioribus Vniversae Plebi Ecclesiae Hipponensis Where he maketh a plain Distinction between the Clergy and these other Elders and also the Body of the People these Elders then were not Teachers and they were above the People The like he hath contra Crescentium Lib. 3. C. 1. Omnes vos Episcopi Presbyteri Diaconi Seniores scitis Et ibid. C. 56. Peregrinus Presbyter Seniores Ecclesiae Musticanae c. The same Augustin in his account of the Purgation of Caecilianus and Felix accused by the Donatists mentioneth several Letters Recorded in the publick Acts which must certainly speak the Language of that Age wherein Ruling Elders distinguished from Preaching Presbyters are plainly and often mentioned as Episcopi Presbyteri Diaconi Seniores again Clerici Seniores Cirthensium also a Letter directed Clero Senioribus and another Clericis Senioribus Likewise the Epistle of Purpurens to Sylvanus hath these words Adhibeâ—e Clericos Seniores Plebis Ecclesiasticos Viros inquirant diligenter quae sint istae Dissentiones where it is clear that the Ecclesiastical Consistory was then made up of these Elders as one sort of its Constituent Members and that they had Authority to take Course with Disorders in the Church in Conjunction with the Teachers of the Church Even Gregorius Magnus the Pope in the end of the sixth Age sheweth that such Elders were still in the Church Tabellarium saith he cum consensu Seniorum Cleri memineris ordinandum Also Lib. 2. Epist 19. Si quid de quocunque Clerico ad aures tuas pervenerit quod te justè possit offendere facile non credas sed praesentibus Ecclesiae tuae Senioribus est perscrutanda veritas tunc si qualitas rei poscit Canonica Districtio culpam feriat delinquentis Is it imaginable that there were no Ruling Elders in Cyprian's time in the third Century and yet after three hundred years they were revived again when Episcopal Tyranny and manifold Corruptions in the Church were come to a greater height Isidor Hispal Sent. Lib. 3. C. 43 Prius docendi sunt Seniores Plebis ut per eos infra positi facilius doceantur § 16. It is yet more fully against this Author's bold Assertion that even in Cyprian's time it self this Office was in the Church as Witness the Writers of that Age Basil in Psal 33. Quatuor gradus Ministrorum constituit quod sciz alii sunt in Ecclesia instar Oculorum ut Seniores alii instar Linguae ut Pastores alii tanquam Manus ut Diaconi c. And Optat. Milevit Lib. 1. adv Parmen telleth us of certain precious Utensils of the Church which in a time of Persecution could neither safely be transported nor hid in the Earth and therefore they were committed to the Custody of the faithful Elders of the Church From all this it is evident that if express and distinct mention be not made of this sort of Elders by Cyprian it is either because he had no occasion or that he comprehended them under the general name of Presbyters as the Scripture sometimes doth under the name of Bishops for it is not to be imagined that Cyprian in this was of a different Sentiment from the Church before in and after his time § 7. His third Foundation for his Argument is that the Bishops Power Authority Pastoral Relation extended to all Christians within his District and a little after the Bishops Prelation what ever it was related not solely to the Clergy nor solely to the Laity but to both equally and formally this we are no way concerned to oppose for we think every Minister hath a Relation to the Universal Church and Authority with Respect to all the Members of it and more particularly within the Presbytery whereof he is a Member and yet more fully toward these of the Congregation he is set in whether Elders or People Neither is our Question about the Extent of the Bishop's Power as to Persons so much as about the Solitude of this Power whether Church Power reside in his Person alone or be in the Community of Presbyters I might dismiss this whole Section but that his Proofs seem not so much levelled at this Conclusion as at some other things which we cannot so easily comply with he telleth us of Cyprian's defining the Church to be a People united to the Priest and a Flock adhering to their Pastour he bringeth Citations to prove that where a Bishop is wanting the People hath no Ruler the Flock no Pastour the Church no Governour Christ no Prelate and God no Priest and he will have Presbyters to be but Vice-Pastours Now how far is all this from his Conclusion viz. that the Bishop's Power extendeth to all the People All this tendeth to prove the Bishop's sole Jurisdiction which is afterward to be considered where he insisteth on that point on purpose but here here he doth nothing but make a Parade with a parcel of impertinent Citations I shall only now tell him that this may be well understood of
an Ordinative Power in that he ordereth the Meeting to avoid Confusion and many call it pre re natâ but he acquireth no Decisive Power he getteth a Power to be their Mouth not their Will or Commanding Faculty to keep Order in the Management of what cometh before them not to Determine what is Debated among them as it is expressed in the place he citeth and which might have prevented this Cavil if he had heeded what was said To conclude what I have to Reply to this his Argument it is no Proof of such a Prelacy in Cyprian's time as he pleadeth for that it related to the Laity as well as the Clergy for so doth that of our Moderator that is he ordereth the Affairs which concern them which are managed in the Presbytery and that Cyprian did more or that he managed the Affairs concerning the Laity without the same Authoritative Concurrence of the Presbyters is the Question and is not concluded by this Argument § 21. He undertaketh p. 11. easily to collect another Demonstration against my Notion of a Bishop from the way how in Cyprian's time he was promoted to his Chair to that Sublime Top of the Priesthood as he calleth it This is to fright us with big bur empty Words if he bring a concludent probable Argument tho' short of a Demonstration we must stoop To Cyprian's Words the Sublime Top of Priesthood I should not doubt to give a satisfying Answer if I could find the place and consider the purpose he is speaking of but my Antagonist hath made my Work very difficult not by the strength of his Arguments but by leaving me at uncertainty where to find any one of his Citations unless I either stumble on them casually or read all Cyprian's Epistles for every place that is cited for he knoweth there are several Editions of Cyprian and he hath neither told what Edition he useth I have no other at present but that Printed by Le Preux 1593. nor nameth he to whom the Epistle is Directed whether this be done de industriâ or not I shall not judge but I am sure it is a great neglect especially considering that Cyprian's Epistles are quite otherways numbred by Scultetus than in the Edition mentioned but I find neither of these can help me to find his Citations All that I shall say about this Sublimity he talketh of is that the Fathers used to speak big words concerning the Gospel Ministry which both Papists and Prelatists have abused also the Bishops Power was elevated to a higher Dignity tho' not greater Authority than the Presbyters and that was their Sublime Fastigium Sacerdotii This his Argument also he buildeth on several Propositions The first is There could be no lawful Promotion to a Bishoprick where a Bishop had been setled unless there were a clear Canonical and unquestionable Vacancy it was a received Maxim then that there could be but one Bishop at once in a Church Our present Debate is no way concerned in this Principle whether it be true or false For taking a Bishop for Moderator we think there should be but one at one time and that another ought not to be chosen till the place be void by Death Deposition from that Office or Cession If by Bishop you understand the Pastor of a Flock whether there be one or more over a Congregation is nothing to our purpose seing the Question is about the Power of the Bishop whether it be in one or more Persons § 22. Yet I shall observe a few things on his Discourse of this his Principle 1. If I were willing to be very critical I would ask him what did they in those days when there was a real and lawful Vacancy but not clear nor unquestionable as in the Contest between Cornelius and Novatianus at Rome and many other Instances that might be given of most Unchristian and sometimes Bloody Contentions between Bishops pretending to the same See I hope the sound Party might and did place a Bishop tho' the Vacancy was questioned Next I oppose to his Principle Dr. Hammond on Rev. 11. p. 662. who telleth us there were two Bishops at once in Jerusalem Antioch Ephesus and Rome he nameth them and giveth Reasons why distinct Congregations under their respective Bishops in each City were necessary he saith also it was so in other Cities and his Reasons do prove that it must be so in all Cities where there are many People I insist not on the Bishops at Philippi Phil. 1. 1. At Ephesus whom the Holy Ghost had made Bishops Act. 20. 20. Thirdly I observe that all the Citations he here bringeth hath this Tendency to shew that Novatus in intruding himself in the Bishop's See at Rome was to be blamed seing Cornelius was already duly setled in that Place This was a plain Case the Presbyters and People of Rome had chosen Cornelius to be Pastor of a Flock and their constant Moderator as was the Practice of that Time Novatianus was not only unsound in other things but he got a Faction to choose him for Pastor and their Moderator and he with them set up another Presbytery in Opposition to that wherein Cornelius was fixed I know no Presbyterian who would not condemn this Practice as much as Cyprian did and it is observable that the Citations here brought by our Author do not so much concern the Unity of a Bishop as the Unity of a Church which indeed Novatianus had broken I confess Cyprian here used Expressions a little too vehement in that he not only denyeth them who make such Rents to be Pastors being unduly Chosen and Ordained but denyeth them to be Christians it was a great Sin and deserved the highest Censure but it is hard to Unchristian all who make a Schism but I impute this Fervor to the Temper of that Age rather than of the Holy and Meek Cyprian and it is like these Wise Men saw a peculiar Reason at that time for thus Opposing the Seeds of Ruine to the Church which often lurk unobserved in Schism § 23. His second pillar of this Argument is this Assertion there was no canonical vacancy but where the Bishop whose the Chair had been was dead had ceded or was canonically deposed Let this pass The third is when a See was thus canonically vacant the Bishops of that province met choosed and ordained one in presence of the people whom he was to govern I object nothing against this save that the Bishops choosed the Man to be ordained we say the People had the choice with the Eldership but this Controversie he waveth as not belonging to this Argument and so do I. His fourth Proposition is that the person elected received new Imposition of Hands and new Ordination tho' he had been ordained a Presbyter before this he prosecuteth p 14. and citeth many Testimonies to prove what he alledgeth he saith no doubt that each of these was raised to the Episcopacy by a new Ordination and of Sabinus
that he was ordained by Imposition of Hands I deny not that even an ordained Presbyter behoved to be chosen to the Office of Bishop before he could exercise it so it is with our Moderator That there was more Solemnity in installing a Bishop then than we use in making a Moderator cannot be denyed that was consequential to the Bishops being constantly and for Life in that Office and to that Prelation or Dignity above other Presbyters that he then had Neither shall I contend with him about Imposition of Hands to have been in that case used tho' after search I cannot find the place he citeth for it is well known that in the Apostolick Church and it is like it continued in after Ages Imposition of Hands was used when Men were sent into a special piece of Work tho' no new Office or new Power was given as Act 13. 3. I hope he will not say that Saul by that Imposition of Hands was promoted unto a higher or new Office being already an Apostle But our Question is whether the Bishop had a superior Power over Presbyters which resided in his person alone this we deny and affirm that it is not proved by the Citations he hath brought The Zeal that even false Bishops used to have all the Formalities in their promotion that were used by any other which is one of his Topicks is as little probative Nor should I wonder if they exceeded they had need of all the Pomp that could be to make up the want of Real Right to strenthen their weak Title He concludeth p. 15. that now my Definition of a Bishop is routed a second time Let the Reader judge § 24. He cometh to apply his former propositions and to conclude his Argument from them How saith he can the Maxime of but one Bishop at once consist with the Bishops being a single Presbyter seing in Rome and Carthage were many Presbyters and yet each of these was but one Church Ans 1. It consisteth well with the Notion of a Moderator 2. It consisteth well with the Notion of a Bishop in lesser places where was no such plurality of Presbyters of which before 3. I have said enough above to discredit this Maxime in the sense our Author useth it 4. There might be a plurality of Presbyters in a particular Congregation not only Presbyters that were only ruleing but-Preachers also For it is observed by some that in the primitive Times they ordained many more preaching Presbyters in Churhes than they had present Work for So Mr Clerkson primitive Episcopacy Ch. 5. p. 93. and he buildeth on Nazianzens Authority who Orat. 1. Sheweth that the Officers in Churches were some times as many as these whom they had the Charge of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is probable that then the Christians having no Universities the Churches especially in great Cities or where were learned Bishops were Colledges for Breeding men to the Ministry and that when they were ripe they ordained them and imployed them that so they might be Seminaries out of which vacant Parishes might he provided and if any will say that the Bishop had such Authority over these Presbyters as our Professors of Divinity have over the Students It may pass for a probable Conjecture Only these were ordained ours we do not ordain till we fix them in Churches and in that time I find no such unordained Licentiats as we have § 25. He again asketh If a Bishop were but a single Presbyter why such a do and so many Bishops conveened to elect and ordain him This is in part answered above I add we also have a Meeting of many Ministers to ordain a Presbyter to a single Flock and also when a Moderator is chosen As for calling Bishops of a whole province to Elect and instal a Bishop at Rome and at Carthage that was needful because these were the fixed Moderators in these Provinces So our Moderator of a provincial Synod is chosen by no fewer than the Ministers of a whole Province and the Moderator of the General Assembly by Ministers from the whole National Church What he saith about their New Ordination is already Answered That which he calleth ridiculous is pretty ridiculously by him proposed Viz. that so much ado was made about making two men Presbyters of Rome who were already Presbyters of Rome He meaneth Cornelius and Novatianus It was about making them Moderators of the Colledge of Presbyters not in Rome but in the whole Province and indeed it was lamentable rather than ridiculous Both that that Promotion began then to be more esteemed than was meet and was lookt on as a Prelation above the other Brethren tho' it was far short of what our Author contendeth for and also that there should be such unchristian Contests made about it Alas some such things have fallen out where a Diocesan Episcopacy was not pretended to Our Sentiments about a constant Moderator he entertaineth in ridicule p. 16. rather than refuteth them by Arguments this I do little regard Had the excellent men of the Cyprianick Age seen or known the fatal Consequents of it as we have I judge they would not have allowed it as they did I. refer the Reader for satisfaction in this Point to Mr. Baillie Vnlawfulness and danger of limited Episcopacy and another peice bearing the same Title which he defendeth against a Reply made to it That the Presbyters of Rome did often meet during the Vacancy of the See and that they had a Moderator in their Meetings none will deny but what he inferreth is in consequential that they might as easily have chosen a Bishop if he had been but Moderator For not only the Custom of having the Moderator fixed made it more hard than to choose one to be their Mouth for one Meeting or two but also as I have said the whole Province was to be concerned in him He argueth p. 17. in many words if he were Moderator why the people was to choose him or why was it needful that he should be chosen in their presence A. Because also he was to be Pastor of that Flock That he was no Church-Governour as Moderator is answered above But it cannot be said he was no Church-Governour under another Relation viz. as Pastor of the Congregation of Rome or a Congregation in it That he was chosen by 16 Bishops i. e. saith our Author sixteen Moderators was not then needless seing he was to be Moderator over them to that is over that Province If sixteen parochial Bishops met to choose a Moderaror of a Presbytery or sixteen Moderators from sixteen Presbytries met to Elect him who was to praeside continually in the Synod This cannot infer either sole or superior Jurisdiction Further if we should grant that in these days a Presbyterie used to take the help of other Presbyteries or their Moderators or that help was by Custom imposed on them this will indeed prove that some of the
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
audita praeceperunt eos Praepositi sic esse donec Episcopus constituatur And de Lapsis § 4. Praepositos superbo tumore contemnere it is spoken of all the Rulers of the Church For a further Refutation of this his Principle it may be observed that this Confirmation of which Cyprian here speaketh is not that which in our days goeth under that Name but that used in the Apostolick Church the Effect of which was the giving of the Holy Ghost as is clear from his citing Act. 8. 14 c for the Pattern of what they did and their Warrant for it Now that Imposition of Hands was not given to all the Baptized but only to such as were ad ministerium ordinandi saith Lightfoot it was not ad sanctificationem sed ad dona extraordinaria saith the same Author Piscator Beza Grotius do also so expound this place wherefore it proveth nothing except our Author can tell us what Cyprian meant by it which I can not seing the extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost were then ceased for any thing that we know His next Citation out of Firmilian destroyeth what it is brought for for he ascribeth to Bishops the Power of Baptism Confirmation Ordination his Word is they possess this Power I hope he will not say that Presbyters had no Power in Baptism wherefore by Bishops here Firmilian must mean the Pastors of the Church all of whom were frequently called Bishops at that time yea himself confesseth that these spoken of were the majores natu whom he most absurdly pleadeth to be Bishops as distinct from preaching Presbyters Of as little weight is what Cornelius saith of Novatianus Eusebius maketh Cornelius say this of Novatus chap. 42. that he was not confirmed by the Bishop for in that place Cornelius questioned not only the Confirmation of Novatus but his Baptism and that he speaketh not of the ordinary Confirmation but of that which belonged to Priests is clear for he saith how then came he by the Holy Ghost and he is there pleading his incapacity to be a Bishop on that account But of this too much for it doth not hurt our Cause if it be granted that Bishops then were so far distinguished from other Presbyters that they usurped a Power which our Lord had not given to them nor any man else at that time what ever he had before done to them whom he immediatly sent and extraordinarly endowed § 40. The second Act of Power that he ascribeth to the Cyprianick Bishop alone is He had the sole Power of Ordination and that of whatsoever Clergy-men within his District Ordinations could not be performed without him but he could perform them regularly without the concurrence of any other Church-Officer And he saith this hath so frequently and fully been proved by learned men that he need insist little on it All which we deny neither do I find any Argument here brought by him nor have I found in the Writings of his learned men and I may without vanity say I have seen the strongest of them which might be a rational ground of Conviction Before I examine his Proofs for this Assertion I shall prove the Antithesis That Presbyters did in that age and before joyn in the Ordination of Presbyters And first it is evident from Jerom's words so much insisted upon by our Episcopal Brethren Alexandriae a Marco evangelista usque ad Heracleam Dionysium Espiscopos Presbyteri semperunum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant Whence it may fairly be deduced that till An. Christi 246 all the Power or Authority that the Bishop had was given him by the Presbyters they elected him nor had he any other Ordination or Communication of Power but what he had from them in the Opinion of Jerome If then the Presbyters made a Bishop it could not be he alone but the Bishop with them and as one of them who made Presbyters 2. Hilarius who lived in the midle of the fourth Century in Eph. 4. hath these words apud Aegyptum Presbyteri consignaverunt si praesens non fuit Episcopus Whether ye interpret Consignaverunt of Confirmation as some or Consecration of Church-Officers as others it cometh to the same Conclusion seing our Author and his Complices reserve both these Powers to the Bishop and it is probable they were not divided That they did it absente Episcopo doth imply that they had that Authority for without it they could not have done it at all 3. Novatus a Presbyter in Carthage while Cyprian was Bishop Ordained Felicissimus This Ordination tho' no doubt it was irregular being done without the Moderator and the Presbytery yet it was not lookt on as null but Novatus was after that owned by Cyprian and Felicissimus continued to be a Deacon To this our Author answereth p. 42. that not Novatus but neighbouring Bishops by the procurement of Novatus did it But Cyprian's words are plain Felicissimum diaconum sua factione constituit That this Deacon was ordained by Bishops is gratis dictum I have also elsewhere proved that in Scotland there were Presbyters ruling the Church long before they had Bishops which could not be if none but Bishops could Ordain them § 41. Cyprian Ep. mihi 33. in ordinationibus clericis solemus vos ante consulere ut mores merita singulorum communi consilio ponderarem c. In that Ep. he telleth the Church what was his usual practice and we have cause to think that he lookt on it as his Duty not to Ordain without the Presbyters Commune consilium here can import no less than Deliberation and Authoritative Decision for it was common to him and them In the following part of the Epistle he excuseth his Ordaining Anrelius a Lector without them from the evidence of a Divine Call and the present Distress and Scattering of the Church might excuse this necessary diverting from the common Road yet he telleth them he did not this by himself but hunc igitur fratres dilectissimi à me à collegis qui praesentes aderant ordinatum sciatis quod vos scio libenter amplecti optare tales in Ecclesia nostra quem plurimos ordinari He maketh the like Excuse Ep. 24. for his Ordaining Saturus a Lector and Optatus a Sub-deacon only here he had before hand the common consent but his Circumstances being in his Retirement did not suffer this to be done in and with the Presbytery but that he did it not alone we may gather from the former instance This doth sufficiently shew that Ordinations were not performed without the Determination of the Presbytery But it is also manifest that in the solemnizing of them by imposition of Hands the Presbyters had their Share with the Bishop Cypr Ep. 10. § 2. There is mention of impositio manum Episcopi cleri and that two several times If it be said that this Imposition of Hands was for absolving Penitents the consequence is good
Curiosity but it belongeth to my Office to Ordain such as are fit and therefore I desire to know their qualities His next Citation hath no more strength For it saith no more than that some in a State of Schisme have been ordained by false Bishops whence he inferreth that all Ordinations in the true and in the false Church were performed by Bishops This is not the Question but whether they were ordained by Bishops acting each of them alone § 44. He next bringeth Ep. 39. where Cyprian writeth to his Clergy that he had Ordained Celerinus and Ep. 29. Saturus and Optatus and that tho' some of them were but young and he Ordained them to Inferior Offices yet he designed they should sit with him in their Riper Years that is saith our Author he designed them for the Presbyterate And he very Learnedly observeth that Cyprian telleth his Presbyters this in a very Authoritative Stile even in a Stile by which Superiors used to signifie their Will and Pleasure to their Subjects with a be it known unto you Here a little Reflection will serve 1. Here is still the old Fallacy Cyprian Ordain'd these Persons ergo he did it alone 2. It is so far from that that of Celerinus he saith expresly it was done by him and his Collegues Ep. 34. § 1. As in the former Ep. 33. he had said of Aurelius 3. The present Dissipation of the Church made some things necessary which were neither usual nor commendable out of that Case as that Cyprian with such as he could then get to concur with him Ordained some Persons without the Concurrence of the Presbytery who then it seems through the Persecution that was at Carthage could not get that Work managed 4. For Cyprian's Stile in his Epistle to the Presbytery I think many moe will smile at his Fancy than will be convinced by the strength of his Reason drawn from it Cyprian's word is Sciatis which our Author putteth in majusculis to give his Argument some more pith but who knoweth not that this Expression signifieth barely a notifying of a thing to another and is commonly used especially in the Latine Tongue to Superiors Inferiors or Equals It is a token of a mind deeply impressed with the Majesty of a Bishop as he elsewhere expresseth himself when this word doth so sound in his ears The Ordination of Novatianus which he next bringeth as an Argument for him rather is against him it was an Act condemned by the Clergy and People by Cyprian's constant Practice and that which he lookt on as Duty as hath been shewed before and was the Practice of an Aspiring Pope yea which himself promised should not be made a Praecedent Can any body think this is a good Argument to prove the Custom of that Age Neither can it be made appear that this Ordination was performed by the Bishop alone especially seing our Author saith the Bishop prevailed and Ordained him It is like he prevailed with some at least of the Clergy tho' they did at first much resist it He saith p. 42. that any concurrence of Presbyters with the Bishop in Ordination is not to be found in Cyprian ' s Works nor in his Age. I hope the Reader is by this time convinced of the contrary He next p. 43. bringeth for Proof the second Canon of the Apostles commonly so called which is let a Presbyter be Ordained by one Bishop as likewise a Deacon and the rest of the Clergy But our Author might know that the Authority of these Canons is controverted even among Papists as Sixtus Senensis Lib. 2. ad vocem Clemens p. mihi 62 63. And Caranza Summa Concilior and others shew The Contentions that are about the number of them make them to be all suspected Rivet Critic Sacr. Lib. 1. C. 1. p. 93. and P. Martyr Loc. Com. Class 4. C. 4. p. mihi 779. bring sufficient Grounds for rejecting them as neither done by the Apostles nor collected by Clement as is alledged Again if this Canon were admitted it proveth not the Conclusion for one Bishop Ordaineth when the Moderator with the Presbytery doth it and that Canon is observed when no more are called together to the Ordination of a Presbyter His Comparison of the Bishop's Power in this with the Rights of Majesty in giving Commissions is vain Talk unless he can prove a Monarchy and that absolute in the Church which can never be done for the Canon mentioned being universally received in Cyprian's time it is not without Doubt as he alledgeth for all Beveregius's Arguments which he boasteth of but produceth none of them One thing I cannot pass p. 44. he telleth that after Cyprian's time it was appointed by the Canons that Presbyters should concur with the Bishop in Ordinations which overthroweth all his Discourse of the Bishop's Majesty Soveraignty Incontrollable and Vnaccountable Power c. And it is evident to any who is Conversant in the History of the Church that Episcopal Power did rather continually increase than suffer Diminution till it arrived at the height of the Papacy which in the best sense is his Sublime Fastigium Sacerdotii And then indeed the Pope began to clip the Wings of other Bishops that he might crow over them § 45. His third Prerogative of the Bishop in Cyprian's time is his full Power without asking the consent or concurrence of either Clergy or People to setle Presbyters within his District And on this occasion he ridiculeth our Principle of the peoples Power of choosing their own Ministers All the Prooff of this confident Assertion and insolent Contempt of them who are otherwise minded is Cyprian Ep. 40. wrote to Carthage that they should receive Numidicus as a Presbyter among them and our Author addeth probably he was ordained before 1. If our Author had pleased to state and argue the Question about the Power of Election I should have been willing to joyn Issue with him Or if he had thought fit to answer what I have elsewhere written on that Head in a Book that he hath seen and cited when he thought he could say something against it I should have considered the strength of what he would say but he doth wisely shun that Controversie neither shall I dip in it further than is necessary for answering his Book 2. If Numidicus was ordained before then was he also placed in Carthage before and we have cause to think that he was ordained by the consent and concurrence of the Presbyters of Carthage at least our Author cannot prove the contrary which is necessary for establishing his Conclusion 3. He who animadverteth on Pamelius's Notes on Cyprian hath these Words on the beginning of the Epistle Etsi vocatio Numidici magis erat extraordinaria quam ordinaria tamen non sine plebe Carthaginense Presbyterio ascribitur whence he inferreth that Ordinations without their consent are profanae irritae 4. His work is to prove that it was the Practice and Principle of the Cyprianick-Age that
Pastors of particular Flocks but from Presbyters who had no Charge if this Author put another meaning on his words let him prove it 2. Tertullian a little above puto autem licuit tingere cui licuit praedicare I hope he will not say that Tertullian thought that no Minister might Preach without the Bishop's Leave tho' he might think that the unsetled Presbyters ought to Preach in no man's Charge without his Leave 3. Tertullian a little below alloweth Laicks yea Women to Baptize in case of necessity without the Bishop's Leave as he doth in the place cited the Deacons to do it with the Bishop's Leave all which I look on as spoken without Warrant 4. Tertullian groundeth his Discourse on this that the honour of the Church requireth that the Bishop's Allowance should be had and on this occasion condemneth Emulation as the Mother of Schism and citeth that place all things are lawful but all things are not expedient From all which it is easie to gather that he only condemned them who Baptized without Church Authority which the Bishop as Mouth of the Presbytery did Communicat 5. It is wholly without Warrant that this Learned Author addeth to Tertullian's Words and in Subordination to him dehinc which is that Father's Word doth neither signifie nor can import so much all that can be built on it is a prior Dignity to the Bishop in this and other parts of the Ministerial Work His last Citation is Ignatius it is not lawful to Baptize without the Bishop A. That is without the Authority of the Presbytery which the Bishop as their Praeses conveyeth § 50. He Asserteth next p. 52. that no Presbyter could Administer the Eucharist within the the Bishop's District without his Leave or against his Interdict To this what hath already been said is a full Answer No Presbyter might do this within the Charge of a Parish Bishop without his Leave nor yet in a Presbyterial District without the Allowance of the Presbytery given out by their Episcopus Praeses His Proofs are exactly like the former Cyprian severely and justly lasheth some Schismatical Presbyters who by themselves without Cyprian and without the Presbytery did Administer the Lord's Supper to some of the Lapsed who were not duely Reconciled to the Church I know no Presbytery that would not condemn this if it were done within their Bounds yea they would think their Authority contemned and their Moderator slighted who should have been Applyed to to call the Presbytery for Consulting about this who with them should have Authoritatively Determined in this Matter and this Neglect of the Bishop was in that time the more conspicuous that his Praecedency was constant and known to all which was the cause the Bishop is so often named in these things that concerned not him alone but the whole Community It is to the same purpose which he next alledgeth of Dionysius Bishop of Alexandrià giving a Command that any Lapsed in danger of Death if Supplicating for it should have the Eucharist For that may be understood of Dionysius enjoyning this to the unfixed Presbyters of Alexandria that it should be done within that Parish whereof Dionysius was Pastor or of the Presbytery by Dionysius their Praeses to be observed within their District What Ignatius saith that that is only to be esteemed a firm and valid Eucharist which is Celebrated by the Bishop or by his Authority this I say admitteth of the same Answer that none ought to Celebrate that Holy Ordinance in any Congregation but the Pastor of it or whom he doth call to do it for him I might call in Question the Authority of these Epistles of Ignatius which he citeth but I will not digress into that Controversie sub judice lis est Theologi certant There is nothing of any more Weight in his next Citation where Cyprian against the Novatians declareth that there could be no true Sacrament among them because they are out of the Church and had assumed to themselves an Episcopal Chair and a Power of Baptizing and Offering It is plain that this is meant of them who had cast off the Churches Authority that was exercised by her Pastors who are here called Bishops but it no way proveth that some Pastors of the Church must depend on one of them for this Authority It is tedious to repeat the same thing so often in Answer to so many Arguments which are materially the same After all these numerous Testimonies he cometh p. 55. to an Artificial Argument in which kind of Arguings he seemeth not to be very formidable he supposeth he hath fully proved the Bishop to be the Principle of Vnity the Chief Governour that by Consequence the supreme Power of the Keyes belongeth to him that he was the visible Head of the Church it is highly reasonable on that account that he should have the chief Power of Dispensing the Sacraments and that they might not be Dispensed without him I have already shewed the Weakness of all these Grounds he buildeth upon and therefore the Consequence built on them must fall to the ground we are no less sensible than he is of the evil of Receiving and continuing unworthy Persons in the Church and that the Governours of the Church must be Judges in this matter but we are not yet convinced that the Bishop by himself rather than the Community of Church Rulers are that Judge and I must take leave to tell him that however it was in the Primitive Times in our Days the excluding of unworthy Persons Ministers and others hath been much more to be observed where the Church is ruled by a Parity of Presbyters than where it is governed by one Prelate § 51. This Learned Author supposing that he had proved the Bishop's Negative in Administration of the Sacraments hence inferreth his Soveraign Interest in Excommunication Absolution Enjoyning Pennance c. Which Consequence I shall not contest with him but I hope the Reader is now satisfied that he hath not sufficiently established the Antecedent nor will we yield that Cyprian or his Contemporaries had or laid Claim to such a Prerogative But our Author tho' he thinketh he might supersede the Proof of his Negative in these other things yet because he will give all possible Satisfaction he undertaketh a Deduction of further Powers in the Person of Cyprian of which we have a long History beginning at p. 56. I have nothing to observe on the account he giveth of Cyprian's Conversion Promotion save what I have observed out of Pontius of his Promotion to be Presbyter and Bishop simul semel but what ever be in that it hath no great Influence on our Cause the Opposition he met with his Eminency for Grace and Gifts the wicked Courses his Enemies took while under the Persecution by Decius he retired from Carthage how they got some of the Confessors and Martyrs to Countenance them and they upon this were emboldened by themselves to Absolve some of the
Lapsed Nothing of this I contradict except what I now said He hath run thus far without a Check and therefore ariveth at the Confidence to say p. 58. now consider what followeth and speak your Conscience and tell me if St. Cyprian was not more than either single Presbyter or Presbyterian Moderator I shall yield him yet a little more in what he saith of Cyprian's Meekness and Humility of his being alarmed with this Practice that this was an unparalelled Practice and that Cyprian did zealously and vigorously oppose it And for all this I shall speak my Conscience and shall give Reason for my Light that Cyprian was no Diocesan Bishop in our modern sense and that he neither had nor claimed sole Power nor a Negative in the Government of the Church and that bating what I yielded in stating the Question § 9 10. He was no more but a single Presbyter that is a Parish Minister or Presbyterian Moderator And indeed all that he here bringeth and looketh on as so strongly Argumentative is already Answered he having cited all or most of the places before which he here quoteth He bringeth three Epistles of Cyprian to prove his Assertion § 52. The first is that to the Confessors and Martyrs where I find nothing but a sharp Reproof of them for going without their Line and he blameth those Presbyters who had absolved the Lapsed so disorderly only what seemeth here to contain an Argument is that they should have Petitioned the Bishop for restoring of these Lapsed and not done it without him The Answer here is easie and often before given that the fault of these turbulent Presbyters was that they took this Act of Church Power on themselves without the Presbytery whereas the regular way had been to Petition the Bishop that he might call the Presbytery and that he with them might cognosce of that Affair I have laid down sufficient warrant for thus understanding his words from his declared purpose founded on Conscience of Duty to do nothing without the Concurrence of the Presbytery see § 12. And it is like I may after bring yet further Evidence that his Principles led him to this Conduct At present I take notice of that plain Passage Ep. 15. ad Clerum speaking of receiving the Lapsed quaeres saith he cum omnium nostrum Concilium Sententiam spectet praejudicare ego soli mihi rem communem vindicare non audeo And he desireth that that Affair might be put off donec pace nobis à Domino redditâ in unum convenire singulorum causas examinare possumus if Cyprian seem to my Adversary to speak in pure Prelatical Stile as he saith p. 6. He seemeth to me here to speak in the Stile of a Presbyterian Moderator Of the same Importance is the next Epistle cited which was to the Clergy of Carthage he doth not call them his Clergy as our Author wordeth it and if he had there had been no Argument in it he sharply reproveth not the Presbyters in common as our Author fouly representeth the matter for he writeth in a loving Stile to them but some of the Presbyters who had received some of the Lapsed most irregularly and that because they had not taken the due course for receiving these Lapsed which should have been done per impositionem manuum Episcopi Cleri not by the Bishops sole Authority He doth indeed here speak like a Bishop that is a faithful Pastor but not as a Bishop pretending to sole Jurisdiction or a Negative in the Government of the Church His third Epistle is to the People where we have the same Complaint of the Irregularity of the Schismatical Presbyters and complaineth that the honour of his Priesthood and of his Chair was not reserved to him This can never evince that Cyprian pretended to a Power to manage that Affair by himself I see nothing here inconsistent with the Power or the Stile of the Moderator of a Presbytery or Pastor of a Congregation save that the Moderator then being constant his part in the management of publick Affairs was more obvious and therefore more taken notice of He hath yet a further Citation wherein Cyprian telleth the Clergy that they ought to inform him of every thing that happens that so I may saith he Advisedly and Deliberatly give Orders concerning the Affairs of the Church let any one compare this Translation with Cyprian's own words which are faithfully enough set down by our Author in the Margin Is limare Consilium to give Order It is to polish and amend his Advice and make it more exact he then in his Retirement wills them to write often and distinctly to him of all Occurrences that he as making such a figure in their Society might give the more accurate Advice about what was to be done this is no Prelatical but a plain Presbyterian Stile § 53. On this occasion he is pleased p. 61 62. to take notice of and tragically aggravate a Passage in rational Defence of Non-conformity p. 179. where he thinketh Cyprian is reflected on as shewing too much Zeal in that Cause viz. of his Episcopal Authority being neglected and that possibly he stretched his Power a little too far as afterward many did he was a holy and meek man but such may be a little too high This he stretcheth his Invention to expose as contradictory to it self injurious to Cyprian and an uncharitable or ignorant Sugestion his more sedate Thoughts after all this Huffiness may inform him better That Author as he was not so straitned with his learned Adversaries Arguments as he imagineth they being the very same which now I have examined so he was far from speaking Contradictions nor did he seek to reconcile Pride and Patience Superciliousness and Self-denyal Huffiness and Humility carnal hight and Christian Holiness He was far from thinking on such ill Qualities with respect to that excellent person Further than that the best of men have sinful Infirmity mixed with their Graces and best Gifts He might know and I shall not charge him with Ignorance in this that Sin and Grace are consistent in gradu saltem remissiore And that tho' it were ridiculous to say that Moses was the meekest Man on Earth and yet he was Huffie and Proud and Passionate or that Job was most patient and yet he was impatient Notwithstanding it may be said with our Author's leave that neither of these holy Men was so perfect in the grace for which he is commended as to have nothing of the contrary evil Further I am of Opinion that what might be imputed to the excellent Cyprian was rather the Fault of the Age he lived in than his personal Fault there was then a Tendency toward Church-Domination which did shew it self much more afterward Tho' I still maintain it was not arrived at that Pitch that this Author imputeth to that time He spendeth a great many words to prove that Cyprian did not stretch his Power too far
in this matter all which is lost labour for that was no otherways imputed to him than with a possibility and on Account of his mentioning his own Episcopal Power more than he did the power of the Presbytery which power of the Presbytery he doth yet clearly owne as I have proved This had a shew of Usurpation and did in time introduce it It was the Genius of that age to have too big thoughts of that Praelation of being primus Presbyter And the best of men in that time were tinctured with this mistake Wherefore he might have superceded his proving what Figure the Martyrs then made I know their Interest went far as to receiving the lapsed yet I still think that they neither pretended to nor was then ascribed to them formal Church-Authority What he largely discourseth p 64. of Cyprian's dealing with the disorderly Presbyters not by Huffing but by reason and Argument is as little to our purpose in that he did rationally and Christianly Yet in these Reasonings as he in words taketh more notice of his Episcopal Authority than of the Presbytries Power so upon the matter doth not derogate from the one nor unduely highten the other as hath been already shewed I wonder at the Insinuation that my learned Antagonist maketh p. 65. as if any had imagined it questionable whether Cyprian or the Presbyters that he blameth were guilty of Vsurpation They did usurp most intollerably in doing that by themselves which should have been done by Cyprian and the Presbytery And it was no Usurpation to reprove and threaten them with Censure for so doing The power of the Presbytery was not here questioned but the power of particular Presbyters who took the Power of the Presbytry upon them And therefore the Presbytery who were not guilty had no Right of their own to defend against Cyprian but had just cause to joyn with him against these Usurpers It is as insignificant that the seditious Presbyters repented excused themselves and desired a Form from Cyprian For it is ordinary for some to go from one Extreme to another Besides that seeking a Form from him was to ask it from him and the Presbytery not from him alone That these Presbyters were generally condemned for their factious Practices I think none doubteth and it is to little purpose to prove it so laboriously as our Author doth § 54. Yet because in his Proofs of it some things are interspersed which may look like Arguments against what I plead for I shall make some Observes on this Discourse He giveth us account of Cyprian's writing to the Presbytery at Rome they having then no Bishop This I hope is a Token that Cyprian thought not that all Church Power at Rome dyed with the Bishop but that Presbyters are Church Rulers and not the Bishop only In the return that the Presbytery at Rome made to Cyprian he fancieth that he findeth some Arguments for Episcopal sole Power which I shall a little consider He saith they ascribe to him a supreme and unaccountable Power I find no words that can be so constructed in either of the two Epistles that they write to him on that Subject but on the contrary they seem to insinuate a Parity with him while they frequently call him Frater It would be thought great sauciness in our days for Presbyters to write in that Stile to so great a Bishop as Cyprian was esteemed to have been by our Prelats Next they compare him to the Master of a Ship who doeth not act in parity with the other Sea-men A. omne simile claudicat a Moderator of a Presbytery may be so compared as having a main hand in the Conduct of Affairs Again the words of that Epistle import no more than making Cyprian the Steersman who tho' he be at the Helm and the Safety of the Ship dependeth much on his Skill and Management yet he is not always the Commander of the Ship and the Safety of the Ship should yet more depend on the Steersman if he were fixed and always so imployed as Cyprian was in the Ecclesiastical Ship at Carthage He saith that the Roman Clergy tell Cyprian and pray take notice of it saith he that they could determine nothing in that matter wanting a Bishop This is a Misrepresentation for they tell their Mind plainly in the first of their two Epistles to Cyprian that he did well in repressing that Insolency of some Presbyters that the lapsed should not be suddenly received and give the Reason recens est hoc lapsorum vulnus adhuc in tumorem plaga consurgens idcirco certi sumus quod spatio productioris temporis impetu isto consenescente amabunt hoc ipsum ad fidelem se delatos medicinam And in the second Epistle they add another Reason why it was fit to delay that Affair of of censuring the lapsed because they wanted a Bishop not because the Bishop was to be the sole Judge in that matter but because the Bishop was he qui omnia ista moderetur these are their own words he was to preside in that Affair Seing then there was another reason for delaying even where there was a Bishop as in Carthage it was a superadded reason why at Rome it should be delayed the Presbyterie being incomplete by the want of a significant Member If it be said could they not choose a Moderator Answ That Office through custom being then fixed and the Honour and Revenue that belonged to it being so considerable it was not easie to get it done of a sudden and the iniquity of that time of Persecution did add to the difficulty as themselves express it Nondum enim Episcopus propter rerum temporum difficultates constitutus Our Author vitiareth their words when he maketh them say who onely could define c. There is no such words in this Epistle it is said indeed of the Bishop eorum qui lapsi sunt possit cum authoritate consilio habere rationem But that saith nothing of sole Authority but such as was to be acted in the Presbytery and with their concurrence § 55. He observeth likewise that they commend Cyprian that he did not determine in that matter by himself alone but took the advice of many and this they impute not to the incompetency of his Authority for it but to his condescendence Ans He doth wholly mistake this Matter for the Roman Clergy in their Letter to Cyprian do not at all take notice of what he did or might do with respect to his own District nor his advising with his own Presbytery but that he had taken the advice in such a weighty case of general concernment of other Bishops and of the Clergy at Rome And it is certain that he with the Presbytery at Carthage might have determined in this Matter with respect to themselves and it was Prudence and not want of Power that made him advise with others He bringeth another Testimony to the plenitude of Episcopal Power from an
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
negligent in their Ministerial Work 6. We also encourage and admit to the Government them that do well 7. Letters that concern a particular Congregation are with us directed to the Minister these concerning the Presbytery to the Moderator we also cast out bad Ministers and such as adhere to them if the Cause be weighty but we use moderation to the people who are led away by Schismatical Ministers when their Separation is founded on lesser mistake if in this we differ from the Cyprianick Age his Party should not blame us having tasted so much of our lenity Let it then be considered how impertinent this whole Discourse is and how insufficient to prove the Episcopacy of the Cyprianick-Age that he pleadeth for § 60. He useth several enforcements of this Argument p. 88 89. which I shall briefly consider 1. The Colledge of Bishops are still considered as Church-Governours notoriously distinguished from Presbyters Answ This distinction lay in the dignity that the declensions of that time from Apostolick simplicity gave them not in any Power that they had which Presbyters had not 2. A Presbyter was never called a Bishops Collegue Answ If this were granted such a negative Argument and that drawn from words and ways of speaking which doth often vary is not very concludent I have shewed that the same Power is ascribed to them see § 62. where the contrary of what he asserteth is shewed 3. We have no Vestige of a Presbyterian Moderator in these times Answ There was then a Moderator who was called the Bishop who presided in their Meetings tho' there was no such changing of the Moderator as is among us that I have yielded but the fixedness of the Moderator and the parity of the Power are consistent tho' I deny not that the one made way for destroying the other as After-ages did shew 4. Our Author repeateth all the Acts of and concerning Bishops that he had insisted on and affirmeth that they could not consist with a single Presbyter or Moderator which I have above-denyed and made the contrary evident That he calleth all the Acts of Government and Discipline his the Bishops and his alone is to beg the Question for we deny it and he should prove it § 61. I must now return to p. 78 and glean some Passages which I was obliged to overlook that I might have this long Argument stretching from thence to p. 90. intirely in view and give a general Answer to it He maketh the Bishop the Principle of Vnity to a particular Church and the Colledge of Bishops the Principle of Vnity to the Catholick Church and Christ the Principle of Vnity to that Colledge And addeth I hope not being a Romanist you will not require that I should prove the highest Step of this Gradation Here I observe first the Discourse is about a visible Head or Principle of Vnity to the Church which cannot be ascribed to Christ Wherefore this is wholly impertinent or if it have any sense it tendeth to make his Reader a Romanist whom he supposeth not to be one already For if the particular and Catholick Church have a visible Principle of Vnity and that which he maketh to be the Vniting Principle have nothing that is visible to make them one among themselves they who can receive his Doctrine about a Principle of Vnity will see a necessity of a Pope to unite the Bishops as much as of a Bishop to unite the Presbyters 2. If Christ be the Vniting Principle of the Colledge of Bishops why doth he not serve for the same use to Presbyters yea to all Christians And indeed he is the real Vniting Principle to all they only are in the Union of the Church who cleave to his Doctrine and observe his Laws even tho' they separate from the Bishop who departeth out of that Way 3. I desire to know of him why he thinketh the Romanists will put him to prove the highest Step of this Gradation more than Protestants will Doth any of them deny Christ to be the Principle of Vnity to the Church They only make the Pope his Vicar in this because they think such an one is needful in the Church who is visibly Conversant among men and doth not our Author suppose the same necessity of such a visible Uniter till he come to the Colledge of Bishops and he leaveth them Headless that is without a visible Head Where it may be rationally concluded that this Doctrine is either Popish or palpably absurd The next thing I notice is p. 79. he saith all Christians hold one Faith to be necessary to the Vnity of the Church but in Cyprian's time one Communion was thought as indispensible they held there is but one Church and that this could not be without one Communion If by one Communion he mean for he walketh in a Cloud in this Matter whether of Design or not I know not that Communion of Saints which is an Article of the Creed which consisteth in Union of them all with Christ and Unity in Faith and Love c. I acknowledge the necessity of it but I know not what respect it hath to Episcopacy more than Presbytery If he mean Local Communion it is impossible either in the Catholick Church or in the Diocess of a modern Bishop If he mean Communion by having the same Ceremonies and Government in the Church Tho' I confess that is desireable and by all good means should be endeavoured for we should have no Ceremonies but these which are of Divine Institution and the one Church Government that he hath appointed should be every where exercised yet there may be one Church where this Communion is not and if the Cyprianick Age was somewhat too strick in this Matter it was their Mistake of which above but it is no Proof of Episcopacy in the sense of our Debate to have been in that Age. And indeed if our Author maintain this Principle he will consequentially to it Unchurch most of the Reformed Churches as the Papists do them all on the same score if by this one Communion he mean that all Christians must be United to some one Bishop or other which Bishops agree among themselves and have Communion in the Episcopal Colledge he will find hard to prove that Cyprian taught so Yea then there is no Communion in the Church without an oecumenick Council of Bishops which we have litle hope to see and many doubt that the World did ever see it tho' there have been Councils so called because in them were represented all the Churches of the Empire Further if this was the Opinion of Cyprian's time how will he prove that these Bishops in whom Churches were to be United were any more than Parish Ministers and that the one Communion of that time was more than that every Christian must be the Member of one Church where Christ's Ordinances are dispensed by a Bishop that is a Minister of the Gospel § 62. Tho' I am not concerned to
question the Practice of Bishops sending their Communicatory Letters to signifie that they were promoted Yet I see no sufficient Proof of it from the two or three Instances that he bringeth It must be either a Law or a great Train of Instances in many several Nations in greater and lesser Churches and under diverse Circumstances and Cases of these Churches` that will bear the weight of so universal a Conclusion But I pass this for it doth not much concern our main Question He will find it also hard to prove that these Letters were sent to all other Bishops as he affirmeth p. 80. that had been a Work of no small Labour I suppose they did thus correspond with some next adjacent Bishops or who were of special note which we also do as I shewed before That there were Metropolitans in Cyprian's time he asserteth and I deny it not But they were but Moderators of the greater Meetings as the Bishops were of lesser ones of the Parochial Ministers and Elders as also were the Primats and in Affrick especially the eldest Bishop or Minister had this Dignity but it was Praecedency and Dignity wherein they were above their Brethren not Power and Authority but this our Author toucheth but transiently and so I shall not insist on it only I ask him how do Metropolitans in our modern sense agree with his Opinion that every Bishop was supreme and had no Ecclesiastical Superior on Earth See § 9. p. 82. where he is Discoursing of purging out a Heretical Bishop his thoughts seem to run somewhat muddy He saith the Colledge of Bishops might do to him the equivalent of a formal Deposition they could refuse him their Communion and thereby exclude him from their Episcopal Colledge and they could oblige all the Christians within his District to abandon him And because he saw that his former Assertion of the supreme Power of a Bishop and his having no Ecclesiastical Superior would be objected he saith no Bishop was superior to another in point of Power and Jurisdiction How to make all this hang together is not easie to know 1. To wreath the yoke of the Bishop's Domination on the Church he establisheth Independency among Bishops whereas no Reason can be given why Parishes should not be Independent on one another as well as Provinces I look on both these sorts of Independency as contrary to the Unity of the Church and on Subordination as of Natural and Divine Right 2. If the Colledge of Bishops had not formal Power to depose a Heretical Bishop by what Authority could they oblige the Christians to abandon him and to choose another if he say the Fundamental Law of sound Faith and Unity or as he speaketh of one Faith and one Communion obliged the Christians to this A. That is antecedent to the interposing of the Authority of the Episcopal Colledge and they were obliged to it tho' there were no such Colledge 3. That no Bishop hath Power over another Bishop is no more than we say of Presbyters But it is strange that the Community of Bishops hath not formal and direct Power over every one of their own number both with respect to his Communion with them and with respect to his particular Charge that maketh a wider door both for Heresie and Schism and for Peoples Beeing without remedy under the Plague of bad Ministers than any thing that Parity can be charged with 4. The People are here left Judges of the Bishop's Haeresie and other Incapacitating ill Qualities and so to determine whether they will leave him or not the Colledge of Bishops can do no more but inform them and tell them what they are obliged by the Laws of one Faith and one Communion to do 5. What if the Bishop will not leave his Charge nor the People abandon him hath Christ left no Ordinance in his Church as a Remedy of this Case The Colledge of Bishops cannot excommunicat him nor them that were to exercise formal Authority over him or them if they then will not yield to the Colledges Information or Advice they may go on in their way without further Controlement Thus we see that men will venture to ruine the Soundness Peace and Purity of the Church that they may establish a Lordly Prelacy over the People of God What he insisteth so much on p. 86 87. about directing publick Letters to the Bishops and their being signed by them is not worth our notice We also count it regular for our Moderators to be so treated but there was some peculiar Reason why it was so punctually observed in that Age because the Praeses of their Meeting was fixed and it was Interpretatively a Degrading of him or questioning his Title to do otherwise but this importeth no superior Jurisdiction He telleth p. 87. that every Haeretical or Schismatical Bishop and all who adhered to him were ipso facto out of the Church This I do not believe for how shall a man be known to be Haeretical till he were tryed and judged His Proofs amount to no more but that such were dealt with as out of the Church and may be the manner of Process against them is not mentioned but such a negative Argument will not prove that no more was done to cast them out if that be the Episcopal course of Censure wee intend not to follow it and if that were the way in the Cyprianick Age it maketh its Example less Venerable and Argumentative but it saith nothing for the Bishop's sole Power he saith p. 89. that a Bishop never called a Presbyter his Collegue A. If it be understood of Presbyters without a Charge there is Reason for it he had no joynt Charge of the Congregation we use the same way of Appellation But if it be meant of a Moderator with respect to the other Brethren I answer we find Presbyters calling the Bishop Brother as was noted before Yea Concil Carthag 4. Canon 35. it is Decreed that tho' a Bishop in consessu Presbyterorum sublimior sedeat intra domum Collegam se Presbyterorum cognoscat This its true was a litle after Cyprian's time but it was when Church-Domination was rather growing than decreasing § 63. His strength is now far spent when in the end of his Book he wasteth so many words to set off an Argument which is fitter to be smiled at than laboriously answered It is that the Christian Bishops in Cypria ' s time made such a Figure in the Church that they were the Chief Butt of the Malice of Persecutors others might live in Peace at Home when they were forced to Flee And he is at pains to prove this which I think was never questioned in any Age of the Church Their Station made them conspicuous for I deny not they were above Presbyters in Dignity their Parts some of them made them to be jealoused their Zeal for God made them hateful to the Promoters of Satan's Kingdom But all this can never prove that they had the sole
expresly referred that Objection to be Answered by some seen in State-Affairs it being Political rather than Theological 2ly That I pleaded an Inter-regnum in the time of the Rabbling and would not allow it in the Dr's Case is no inconsistency for in the first case the Exercise of Government was impossible in the other there was actual Exercise of it 3ly When it was said the Representative of the Nation had owned William as their King it was not meant as he hath a mind to understand it as complexly such but as Exercising the Supreme Regal Power and designed to be compleatly King I could give Scripture-Instances of such manner of speaking of Kings if it were fit to enlarge as much on this Head as he doth 4ly If it was not a Contempt of the Authority of the Nation to disobey the Command of it's highest Power for the time even tho' one should attempt to give Reasons unless these Reasons were also sufficient of which none of us are Judge let any give Sentence 5ly He subtilizeth the Distinction too much between being King and exercising the Regal Power but to help out his fine Notion he behoved to alter the Phrase putting Right to Exercise for Exercising it self I hope these two may be distinguished and that there may be not only a Physical but a Moral impediment for a time of a Moral Right His Notion of Exercising the Regal Power before taking the Oath and that there is no Obligation to take the Oath before the Coronation I cannot yield to but leave to Statesmen and Lawers to Debate it with him I say the same of his Discourse of Hereditary and Elective Kings § 18. That I called K. J. our lawful Soveraign he saith was a striking at the Root of the present Settlement Answer if I had so called him with respect to the time of the present Government what he saith were true But to say that he was so before this Government had it's being and before the Nation in its Representative had found and declared the contrary is far from that blame Next he unfairly representeth what I had said that Episcopacy cannot be restored I hope it never shall and I am sure it never can without crossing the Institution of Christ But whether the restoring of it be consistent with the Civil Rights and Priviledges of the Nation as things are now stated I leave it to States-men and Lawers to discuss His Commendation of the Cameronians and blaming me for speaking to their Disadvantage is not out of kindness to them but in odium tertii that he might make the sober Presbyterians for I cannot be bantered out of that Distinction more hateful as being worse than they I should think it lost time to examine his quibbles about the Presbyterian Ministers not preaching so much as he and his Complices thought was meet against the Rabling these things were sufficiently declared against by some and that where such Disorders were most rampant and regnant but Preaching could not Stem that Tide many of these men would hear non of us nor will they to this day tho' through mercy not a few of them are reclaimed and some who listned to other Doctrine would not hear that He hath a wise inference I had said these courses were preached against both before they were acted for preventing them and after for reproving them Ergo saith he it was a consulted and deliberat Politick and the Ministers were privy to it and yet did not warn the poor men that they might have escaped being rabled I shall not give this its due Name as he frequently giveth ill and undue Names to my Words Ministers knew an inclination to Disorders in some that they went beyond their Stations by an ill guided Zeal and this they warned against yea and some Presbyterian Ministers did protest against all these exasperated men when they beheld it But that they knew Designs for these Disorders in particular is false and doth not follow from what was said He saith he can name more than one or two of the first Rank of sober Presbyterian Ministers such a Blunder and Repugnancy in me would have been called Ignorance Non-sense Impudence and what not who advised to these Courses I solemnly declare I know not any of them and if I did I should blame them § 19. He cometh next to Contradictions some of which are fancied others are real but of his own making by mis-citing words One is I have said where there are Bishops the Presbyters have no Power in another Book we do not say that Bishops take all Power from Presbyters Any who will be at the pains to consult the places that he citeth will find that the first speaketh of Governing Power the other speaketh of Power in General which comprehendeth preaching Power but it is there expresly said that they take away all Governing Power Where is then the Contradiction Next it is said he knoweth not where it seems nor do I that King James's Indulgence was against Law And yet 2d Vendic p. 43. the Parliament had given the King such Power The first Assertion I find not another Assertion that to him will infer it is the Law was for publick Meetings Ergo privat Meetings were against Law It is a pitiful Consequence Where Liberty is allowed as now in England the Law is for both ways Wherefore the second Assertion maketh no Contradiction But if both had been said there are just Laws and unjust which may without a Contradiction in the Assertion be said to contradict one another This Distinction removeth also the next pretended Contradiction between a Forefeiture being unjust that the Authority of the Nation laid on and Ministers having no legal Right to their Stipends when the Authority of the Nation have determined otherwise Parliaments may both do right and do wrong Another Contradiction he fancieth Animadv on Stillingf Jrenic It is asserted that all Ministers having got equal Power from Christ they cannot so devolve their Power on one of themselves as to deprive themselves of it their Power being not a License only but a Trust This he thinketh is contradicted indirectly by delegating Members to the General Assembly To this I answer Delegation to the General Assembly is a Temporary transient thing for the exercise of one or a few Acts and necessity doth warrant it seing the Ministers of a whole Nation cannot meet without leaving almost the whole Nation destitute of Preaching and other Ordinances for a considerable time This is not to be compared with devolving of the Power of the Ministers of a whole Province on one Bishop who is perpetually ad vitam aut culpam to exercise the whole power of the Church in all the Acts of it so as all the rest are deprived of it and cannot exercise it nor give account to God for the Management of it The one is very consistent with that Parity that Christ made in communicating Church Power to his Servants the other is not
THE cyprianick-CYPRIANICK-BISHOP Examined and Found not to be a DIOCESAN Nor to have Superior Power to A Parish Minister or PRESBYTERIAN MODERATOR Being an ANSWER to J. S. his Principles of the CYPRIANICK-AGE With Regard to Episcopal Power Jurisdiction TOGETHER WITH An APPENDIX In ANSWER to a Railing Preface to a BOOK Entituled The Fundamental Charter of PRESBYTERY By GILBERT RVLE one of the Ministers of the City and Principal of the Colledge of Edinburgh EDINBVRGH Printed by the Heirs and Successors of Andrew Anderson Printer to His most Excellent Majesty Anno Dom. 1696. THE PREFACE OF this Controversie about Episcopacy the Learned Vitringa de Synagog vet lib. 2. C. 2. P. 474. hath this Observation à quo tempore Ecclesia Reformati nominis secessionem fecit à Pontificia Romana diversam recepit regiminis formam tantopere praeferbuit litibus de vero typo Regiminis Ecclesiae ut nulla controversia fere eruditorum calamos tam diu tam seriò pertinaciter tanto utrinque studio contentione vincendi tam spe quam desiderio exercuerit atque haec ipsa It also hath long divided the Church in these Nations and seemeth in our days to be further from Accommodation than ever Presbyterians on the one Hand growing daily more and more clear and confident that Parity is of Divine Institution and cannot lawfully be changed tho' mean while they have Charity to good Men who are otherwise minded and some of our Episcopal Brethren on the other side beginning to talk higher for a Jus Divinum to be for Prelacy than their Predecessors did and counting all the Societies of Christians which are without Bishops to be no Churches of Christ but a Company of damnable Schismaticks among whom there can be no Salvation if these men be for Peace let any judge But it is unaccountable that in a Matter that Salvation does so much depend upon in their Opinion they should lay so much stress as they commonly do on the Opinions of Men and the Testimonies of the antient Church seing 1. All except Papiâ—â—s agree that Matters of Faith and which Salvation dependeth on must be determined only by Scripture and that God speaking in his Word is the only Judge in such Controversies Secondly The Fathers themselves plead for this and disown both each himself and one another as either Judge or sufficient Witness in such Debates Optat. Milevit contra Parmen lib. 5. de Coelo quaerendus est judex sed ut quid pulsamus ad Coelum cum habeamus hic in Evangelio Testamentum Jerom in a Debate with August had cited seven Fathers for his Opinion and craved leave to err if he did err with so many Learned Doctors to whom Augustine replyed ipse mihi pro his omnibus imò supra hos omnes Apostolus Paulus occurit ad ipsum confugio ad ipsum omnes qui aliud sentiunt provoco c. Augustin Hieron Ep. 19. the same August Ep. 3. Fortunatiano Neque enim saith he quorumlibet disputationes quamvis Catholicorum laudatorum hominum velut Scripturas Canonicas habere debemus ut nobis non liceat salva honorificentia quae illis debetur aliquid contra c. and Tom. 2. Ep. 112. Paulinae nunquid ullo modo Evangelio nos comparabis aut scripta nostra he speaketh of himself and Ambrose Scripturis Canonicis coaequabis Profecto si recte in judicando sapis longe nos infra vides ab illa authoritate distare Yea in particular this mark of Insufficiency to prove a Divine Truth is set on Cyprian ' s Authority by Augustine l. 2. contra Crescon cap. 32. Hujus Epistolae authoritate ego non teneor quia literas Cypriani non ut Canonicas habeo Et ibid. c. 31. Nos nullam Cypriano facimus injuriam cum ejus quaslibet literas à Canononica divinarum literarum authoritate distinguimus Thirdly It is observable that even the Affrican Fathers after Cyprian do not speak so high of Episcopal Praelation as Cyprian doth as Augustine Cited in the Book it self his secundum honorum vocabula and usus obtinuit are two considerable Diminutives and derogate the one from the Degree of Episcopal Authority the other from the Perpetuity and Divine Right of it And Primasius Uticensis calleth the Presbyterate secundus penè unus Gradus cum Episcopatu sicut multis Scripturarum Testimoniis comprobatur In Tim. 1. C. 3. Now these two Affrican Bishops could not but know Cyprian ' s mind and therefore they either differed from him in this Matter or which I rather think Cyprian used higher and more keen Expressions for the same things and that out of a peculiar Zeal that he had for the Dignity of the Church and to magnifie his Office Fourthly It is evident that the Antient Bishops and other Divines when they gave Marks of the True Church brought them always from the Scripture not from Humane Testimony August Ep. 50. Bonifacio Comiti in Sanctis Libris ubi manifestatur Dominus Christus ibi ejus Ecclesia declaratur Where also he Chargeth them with Wonderful Blindness who seek Christ in the Scripture and the Church in Humane Writings Also Cyprian Ep. Coecilio and in that to Pompeius proveth that we must follow Christ and his written Word only as our Rule and not old Customs and Practices The same thing Gerson proveth in a Sermon before the Pope and asserteth that the Scripture is sufficient for the Government of the Church and calleth it Blasphemy to say that it can be better done by mens Inventions Fifthly The Antient Bishops even such of them as were Holy and Humble might have too high Thoughts of their own Praelation and too much Inclination to greaten it That Temper appeared among the Apostles while Christ was with them Great Corruptions in the Church have Insensibly had their Beginning from Good and Zealous Men. Sixthly Many Famous and Learned Bishops much later than these called Fathers and yet before the Reformation from Popery held that Bishops and Presbyters were by Divine Institution every way one so Anselm Arch-Bishop of Canterbury on Philip. 1. and Tit. 1. Rich. Armachan in quaest Armenorum Aeneas Sylvius afterward Pope Pius secundus Ep. 130 which is concerning his Conference with the Ministers of the Taborites Also in the time of the Reformation the English Bishops and Clergy who still were Popish in the Book called the Institution of a Christian Man Chap. of the Sacrament of Orders Cassander in his Consultation Art 14. saith non convenit inter Theologos Canonistas an Episcopatus ponendus inter Ordines Ecclesiasticos convenit autem inter omnes Apostolorum Aetate inter Episcopos Presbyteros nullum Discrimen c Seventhly Even Mr. Dodwell as high as he is for Episcopal Authority saith that the first Bishops were made by Presbyters and that it behoved to be so otherwise the Succession could not be secured in the first times of Persecution How this consisteth either
with our Author's Book or with his own against Separation from the Episcopal Chairs let the Reader judge It 's true Mr. Dodwell it is 521 522. pretendeth not to be afraid of the Consequence of this Assertion with Respect to the Bishop's absolute Power because Kings also are Invested by their Subjects this Paralell I might but shall not Debate with him but how can he on this Supposition defend their sole Power of Ordination to be of Divine Right I cannot see but shall be glad to be instructed I insist not on the Suspicion that Cyprian ' s Epistles are corrupted tho' Augustine Ep. 48. Vincentio hath these words neque enim potuit integritas atque notitia literarum unius quantumlibet illustris Episcopi Cyprian scil custodiri quemadmodum Scriptura Canonica c. What is said may derogate much from the Testimonies that my Antagonist bringeth and warrant our putting a sense on them different from the sound they have in the Ears of this Author and some others of his Perswasion The Reader may know that our Debate is not about the Jus but Factum not how the Church should be Governed but how it was done in the Age mentioned In which I affirm that tho' it is manifest that the Bishop was above the Presbyter in Dignity and Order yet he did not Rule the Church by himself but the Presbyters had equal Power with him in managing Church-Government THE Cyprianick-Bishop Examined c. SOME of the Episcopal Clergy of Scotland who have lost their places wherein they sat silent without troubling the Presbyterians with their Controversal Writings for they then dealt with them by other Weapons are now at leasure to maintain the Stickle that way and some are so irritated by their Losses that much more of their passionat Resentment and personal Reflections against such as never did them wrong appeareth in their Books than Strength of Arguments for what they hold in our present Debates I have with much weariness and Reluctancy considered some of these Pieces and hoped our Debates had been at an end after their silence for some time and that we should no more be that way diverted from our more necessary Work till I lately met with a Treatise called the Principles of the Cyprianick Age c. which I find to be written in a more Schollar like and less unchristian Strain than what I have hitherto seen from these men He dealeth fairly by Arguments tho I am not terrified nor convinced by the Strength of them and I am resolved to treat him with the same Civility and for the weight of my reasonings let the Reader judge It is not Victory but the clearing and maintaining of Truth that I design and shall not be ashamed to become his Proselyte if what I hold be found to be an Error § 2. Before I consider his Book in the particular Contents of it I shall make a few general Remarks about it 1. Then if we should grant all that he pleadeth for it would not ruine the Cause of Presbyterians nor establish Prelacy It would amount to no more but this that one Presbyterian and he among the meanest of them did mistake in matter of Fact as it is related in the Antient History He might know that neither the Presbyterians generally nor that Author in particular did ever lay the Stress of their Cause on the Practice or Principles of the Church after the Apostolick Age Tho' we will not yield the Suffrage of later Antiquity to be for our Adversaries yet that is the Antiquity that we build upon for it is Divine not humane Authority that we take for the Rule of our Belief and Practice in the matter of Church-Government and managing the Affairs of the House of GOD. Timothy was to be guided by it 1 Tim. 3 14 15. and so will we And even the Defender of the Vindication against the Apologist or his Friend as our Author calleth him P. 4. hath fully declared his Opinion to this purpose Rational Defence of Non-conformity P. 158. which Book our Author seemeth to be no stranger to for he is P. 69 at pains to cite and try his critical Skill upon a Passage in it He could not then think to silence Presbyterians by this his Attempt we have other Grounds if we were beaten from this as I hope we shall not If his Book was written only to convince the World that he who wrote the Defence of the Vindication against the Apologist is not infallible in all that he asserteth he might have spared his pains that should easily have been yielded to him To write a Book of Twelve Sheets on such a Subject is such Work as we have no time for Egregiam verô laudem spolia ampla He had read Cyprian's Epistles which are not very voluminous and had made a Collection of Citations and thus they must have a vent § 3. The Passage that he buildeth his whole Fabrick upon was by the Defender which is my second Remark set down with that Brevity that was sutable to the purpose in hand tho' may be not sufficient to preclude all the critical Notes that a Man of this Author's Skill and Learning could make when he is so disposed to do The Apologist had in a rambling and incoherent way started a Number of Debates that are between us and the Prelatists insisting on none of them And the Defender thought not fit to make a large Treatise on each of these Heads but answered what he proposed with a sutable succinctness If he had then thought it convenient or had imagined that so large a Book as our Author 's would have been built on this Passage he would have made the Foundation broader tho' not more commodious for what this Author buildeth on it He could have told him that tho' he might be bold to venture his Credit on the Cyprianick Age being more on our side than on that of our Adversaries And tho' our Cause duely and distinctly stated should suffer no loss by being tryed at that Barr yet neither did he venture any bodies Reputation but his own nor will he quit the more divine Letters Patents that we have for Presbytrey to rest in this either as our only or our chief Strength Notwithstanding of what I have now remarked concerning this Author snatching at a fancied Advantage against us I hope to make it evidently appear that he hath wholly missed his Aim and that these two or three Lines of my Book will stand against the shock of his long Treatise § 4. I thirdly observe that this Author who is so profuse in his Refutation of a few Lines in my Book hath in his own given occasion to any one who were of as scripturient a Disposition as himself for vast Volums as in his sarcastick denyal of Ruling Elders P. 8. That Presbyters in the Cyprianick Age were seldom called Pastors P. 9. That there can be no Church without a Bishop P. 19. That the Bishops Power is Monarchical
a Parish Bishop or Minister For Presbyters being Vice-Pastours that is afterward answered Wherefore I now consider his Application of his three Conclusions to what he would prove viz. that a Bishop in Cyprian's time was neither the Pastour of a Flock nor the Moderator of a Presbytery in my sense of the terms not the first for Cyprian at Carthage Cornelius at Rome c. had many such Pastours under them yea it was so over all the World Not the second because a Presbyterian Moderator as such is no Church Governour at all hath no direct immediat formal relation to the People but only to the Presbytry This is the goodly Argument in which our Author early triumpheth as sufficient if there were no more to ruine our Cause § 18. This Triumph will be found to be before the Victory That I may give a full and direct Answer to his Argument I must distinguish what our Author confoundeth viz. the signification of the word Bishop in the Apostles time it signified any ruling ordinary Officer in the Church hence Phil. 1. 1. all Church-Officers are so called except the Deacons And 1. Tim. 3. 1 2 c. The Apostle giveth Directions to all the Ruling-Officers in the Church and then vers 8 c. telleth what manner of Men the Deacons should be If the Apostle had known any other ordinary Church-Officers these Canons had been very lame and indeed it is no wonder that the Bishops not being here comprehended do what they will for we know no Scripture rules neither for their Qualifications nor Work and Tit. 1. 5 and 6. the Elders that were to be set up in every City are called Bishops v. 7. the same Word in after Ages as it was sometimes given to Pastours of particular Congregations so it was ordinarily given to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the primus Presbyter or Moderator in the Colledge of Presbyters and the same that sustained the later of these Relations had also the former and laboured in the Word and Doctrine and managed Congregational-Discipline in a particular Parish taking the Word Parish in our modern sense Wherefore if the Citations he bringeth for Episcopal Power can rationally be applyed to either of these Notions of a Bishop our Cause is safe from his Assaults That the Moderator of the Colledge of Presbyters is called Bishop not only is evident from Jerom Vnus è Presbyteris electus est qui caeteris superponeretur Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse majores in communi debere Ecclesiam regere but this Author cannot deny it tho' he pleadeth for an extravagant Power to that his Moderator about which Power I now debate with him § 19. That the Pastour of a particular Flock was also in the Primitive Times called a Bishop is certain from this that the Scriptures dividing the Church-Officers in Bishops and Deacons are by the Fathers so applyed as I have shewed elsewhere Likewise we find Bishops in small Villages where were no number of Pastors over whom the Bishop might praeside as is fully proved by the learned Mr. Clarkson Primitive Episcopacy stated c. c. 2. p. 19 c. and that by multitudes of Instances as also Testimonies of Fathers asserting it to be then usual Sozomen Hist. l. 7. c. 19. telleth us that in Arabia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he saith the same of Cyprus and extendeth his Assertion to other Countries 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. Fuller tho' Episcopal yet a person of more Ingenuity than many others History of the Holy War lib. 2. cap. 2. p. 45 46. speaking of Palestine at this time saith he Bishops were set too thick for all to grow and Palestine fed too many Cathedral-Churches to have them generally fat Lydda Jamnia and Joppa three Episcopal Towns were within four Miles one of another neither let it stagger the Reader if in that Catalogue of Tyrius he light on many Bishops Seats which are not to be found in Mercator Ortelius or any other Geographer for some were such poor Places as they were ashamed to appear in a Map For in that Age Bishops had their Sees at poor and contemptible Villages Concil Antioch in their Epistle concerning Paulus Samosatenus they mentioned Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I know Dr. Maurice pretendeth to refute Mr Clarkson's Book neither shall I judge who hath the better in most parts of that Debate but I see no sufficient Answer to what I have here quotted Yet do I not joyn with Mr. Clarkson in the whole design of his Book These two Notions of a Bishop being familiar in the Primitive Times it is no wonder if we find the Fathers sometimes speaking of a Bishop in the one Sense and sometimes in the other § 20. I now Answer his Argument a Bishop in Cyprian's time was always the Pastor of a particular Flock and Moderator in the Consistory of Ruling-Elders but sometimes he was also the Moderator of a Colledge of Presbyters and so might have many Presbyters under him that is he was above them in Dignity and we deny not but that by reason of his fixation in that Office he by custom had crept into some more Power over them than was due but that in Cyprian's time he had the sole Power of Jurisdiction and Ordination or such Authority as our Diocesans pretend to I utterly deny For the other part of his Argument that he could not be a Moderator because a Moderator as such hath no Church Power nor is a Church Governour I Answer first the Assertion he here reflecteth on cited by him pag. 3. that a Moderator as such hath no Church Power was not meant that there might be a Moderator who hath no Church Power and so taking As specificative as he absurdly improveth it p. 36. affirming that a Heathen may be the Moderator of a Presbytery without repugnancy to any Principle of Christianity tho' not without indecency and inconvenience I say this is a most absurd Assertion both because a Heathen Moderator could not understand the Affairs of the Church And because he would embarasse them and because it is against common sense and the Sentiments of Mankind that an Enemy of the true Religion should have the Conduct and main hand in mannaging the Affairs that do so nearly concern it Yea this his Assertion contradicteth it self for he acknowledgeth that this were Indecent and Inconvenient and I hope he will not deny that it is a Principle of the Christian Religion that all things be done Decently and in Order and that both Nature and Religion require that we should shun what is inconvenient especially to so high Concernments as are these of Religion That Assertion then that he aimeth at is to be understood reduplicative that is that a Moderator acquireth no Church Power by his being Moderator above what he had as a Pastor of the Church and here a Sub-distinction is to be used he acquireth indeed
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
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
from the one to the other seing our Author joyneth Confirmation in order to Communion of which this is a sort with Ordination as two Powers reserved to the Bishop alone Ep. 67. § 4. he saith of Cornelius Bishop of Rome that he was ordained Suffragi◠Cleri Plebis Concil Carthag 3. Canon 22. Nullus ordinetur clericus non probatus vel Episcoporum not Episcopi examine vel populi testimonio Concil Carthag 4. Can. 3. Presbyter cum ordinatur Episcopo eum benedicente manum super caput ejus tenente etiam omnes presbyteri qui adsunt manus suas juxta manum Episcopi super caput ejus teneant This is exactly our practice if ye allow the Moderator to be the Cyprianick Episcopus Our Author himself seemeth to insinuat that the Presbyters with Cyprian used to concur in Ordination while he premiseth to his proofs for sole Ordination that passage out of Ep. 14. as he quoteth it a primordio Episcopatus mei statueram nihil sine consilio vestro sine consensu plebis mea privatim sententia gerere I say if this be not meant of Ordination it is here very impertinently brought in Nor can his Comment on Cyprian's words help him viz. That this was his voluntary Condescendence that he was not bound to To prove which he putteth Statueram in majusculis as if it were not usual with good men when they enter on an Office to resolve to keep within the bounds of their power to manage it lawfully as well as to cede in what is their Right But that Cyprian's words cannot bear that sense I prove by the Reason he giveth sic mutuus honor exposcit the mutuus honor must be that due regard that he had to their Authority in the Church and they ought to have to his it had been a dishonouring of them and setting them lower than Christ had set them in his Church for him to mannage her Affairs without them And Ep. 18. he maketh this Matter yet clearer Quae res cum omnium nostrum consilium sententiam spectet praejudicare ego soli mihi rem communem vindicare non audeo Where it is manifest that it was conscience of Duty and not good Nature onely that induced him to this Conduct Also that he attributeth to Presbyters not consilium onely but sententiam not onely a consultative Power but also definitive or decisive The Apostle who had indeed a sole Jurisdiction spake in another Dialect 1 Cor. 5. I have judged already Cyprian durst not do so because he knew he had not that sole Power § 42. Let us now hear his Proofs for the Bishop's sole Power of Ordination The first is What is said of the Ordination of Aurelius which I have already shewed to be against him Wherefore I shall onely take notice of his Observes on this Passage by which he would force it to speak for him 1. That his Power was the same in all Ordinations I shall not much contend about this only if they put the Power of Ordaining Officers of their own devising into the hands of whom they would it doth not thence follow that they might or did so dispose of Ordaining Power with respect to these whom God had appointed and about whose Ordination he had given Rules in the Word 2. He used only to ask their Counsel about the manners and Merits of the person to be Ordained not their concurrence in the Act of Ordination This is a Mistake he asked not their Counsel only but their joynt Suffrage as is above shewed That their Concurrence in the Act of Ordination is not here mentioned is not to his purpose seing it is consequential to their Office and Church Power That it is fairly imported in the instance of Aurelius that they used not to concur is a groundless Imagination For this is a single Instance in an extraordinary case and he spendeth a whole Epistle in making Apologie for it Yea he more than insinuateth the contrary when he telleth what he used to do and giveth a singular Reason for what he now did I wonder that common Sense doth not teach him that such an Act doth not import a Custom 3. That it was intirely of his own easiness and condescendency that he consulted them in the matter This I have above refuted and it is inconsistent with what himself elsewhere saith that the Bishop was the Monarch and the Presbyters his Senate I hope he will not say that it is ex beneplacito that Kings consult their Parliaments Unless he be for the Turkish Government both in Church and State § 43. Another Testimony which he calleth Remarkable p. 40. is Cyprian Ep. 41. had given a Deputation to Caldonius and some others to examine the Ages Qualifications and Merits of some in Carthage that he whose Province it was to promote Men to Ecclesiastical Offices might be well informed about them and promote none but such as were meek and humble and worthy His Remark is he speaks of himself in the singular Number as having the power of promoting and he founds that Power and appropriats it to himself upon his having the care of the Church and the Government of Her committed to him For A. I observe a few things on this discourse 1. This Delegation of Caldonius and the rest was not to Carthage as our Author dreameth which appeareth by the end of the Epistle in which he bids Caldonius c. read this Ep. to the Brethren and transmit it to Carthage to the Clergy which had been incongruous if their Errand and Work had been at Carthage Next this is in consistent with what Cyprian and our Author saith was his Practice viz. to consult the presbyters about who were fit to be ordained It is strange that he should send Strangers to Carthage for such Enquiry and to inform him with the neglect of the Presbytery 2. It is also clear from the Epistle § 1. That this Negotiation was about some Sufferers who belonged to the Church of Carthage may be banished or imprisoned or confined some where where they were in necessity for he saith he sent them ut expungeretis necessitates fratrum nostrorum sumptibus c. That they might pay their Debts as Pamelius expoundeth it and that they might furnish them for following their Trades if they so inclined And the enquiry about their fitness for Church-Work seemeth to be intended on the by for he bringeth it in with simul etiam 3. That he speaketh of himself in the singular Number doth no way infer that he alone was to promote any who were qualified among these Sufferers Neither his having the care of Church Government committed to him For ego cui cura incumbit promoverem saith nothing at all of sole care nor of sole Power Not only a Moderator but any Member of a Presbytery to whom the Ordination of Ministers belongeth might say as much might desire to know worthy persons and give the Reason that it is not
a Bishop by himself placed Ministers this cannot be inferred from one single instance and that in a time of Persecution and Dissipation and where there was so signal appearance of Divine determination that Cyprian's words are admonitos nos instructor dignatione divina sciatis ut Numidicus Presbyter adscribatur Presbyterorum Carthaginiensium numero Any who desireth to be fully satisfied in this Point of Election of Pastors let him read Blondel Apolog. Pro sententia Hieron from p. 379. to the end even to p. 548. where it is traced through all the Ages of the Church § 46. The Bishop's fourth Priviledge is he had the Disposal of all the Revenues of the Church This our Author maintaineth p. 44 c. he had the full Power of this saith he ibid. I here observe that if we should yield all that he asserteth it maketh nothing for the sole Power of the Bishop in Jurisdiction or Government of the Church for these distributions were always reckoned a Service not any Act of Government in the Church the Object of Church Power are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Further I observe that the Authoritative Direction in managing these Matters did belong to all Church Rulers The Apostles had the Power but they were not at leisure to attend the managing of these things as our Author's Bishop is but committed it to Deacons who were Officers appointed for that very end Act. 6. I observe thirdly that however to be thus imployed might sute well with the way and temper of the the Bishops of our time who generally are more imployed about Secular Affairs than in Preaching it was not consistent with the Labour of the Primitive Bishops about the Gaining of Souls Fourthly it is evident that in the Ages after the Apostles the Deacons had the Charge of the bona Ecclesiastica ergo not the Bishop only Origen in Matth. 16. Mensis Ecclesiasticarum pecuniarum Diaconi praesunt Item Diaconi qui non bene traetant pecuniarum Ecclesiasticarum mensas semper de eis fraudant ipsas quas dispensant non secundum justitiam dispensant divites fiunt de rebus pauperum ipsi sunt numularii pecuniarum mensas habentes quas evertet Dominus It is fifthly to be observed how absurd it is and what a snare for any one man to have the sole Disposal of all the Goods of the Church who may take what he will of them for his propria portio to use our Author's words and give what he will to the other Church-Officers and to the Poor This is a Trust might make bad Bishops and such there were even in Cyprian's time a Scandal and might expose the best to Obloquie and lay a Foundation for perpetual Grumblings and Discontents in the Church to prevent which the Lord by his Apostles appointed Deacons to superintend that Affair Act. 6. Let us now hear what our Author pleadeth for his Opinion he telleth us that the Bishop not only had his propria portio which he will have to be the third of all and he observeth that this made Fortunatianus and Basilides so earnest for Restitution to their Sees after Deposition and in our days maketh many Sell or Ruine the Church for these Lucrative Promotions but he affirmeth the Bishop had also the Disposal of the rest For which his Proof first as to the Clergies part Felicissimus is blamed for contending about his share contrary to his Duty to his Bishop and others are praised who took their shares as the Bishop should please to dispense them A. 1. That the Bishop here is meant in his sole or single Capacity and not rather in Conjunction with the Presbytery wherein he praesided is denyed and can never be proved Yea the contrary is evident Ep. 41. which he citeth where speaking of them who were so tractable he useth these words vobis acquiescere maluisse that is submitted to their the Presbyteries Determination about their shares 2. If a School Boy should make such a Version of Latine into English as our Author here doth he would be lasht for it He turneth Episcopo Dispensante as the Bishop should please to Dispense them whereas the Bishop's Dispensing was nothing but his giving out Sentence as the Presbytery had Determined not as he by himself pleased Likewise he taketh no notice of these words vobis acquiescere maluisse which is a great Error in Translation 3. It is evident from Cyprian's own words that he did not act solely in this Matter but with the Authoritative Concurrence of the Presbytery for a little before the words cited he saith cumque post haec omnia nec loci mei honore motus nec vestra authoritate praesentia fractus c. where he blameth Felicissimus for despising the Bishops honour and the Presbyters Authority clearly insinuating the Difference of the Bishop and Presbyters of his time that he had more Honour than they but not more Authority The same way are we to understand Cyprian's promoting Aurelius and Celerinus only to the Degree of Lectors but entitleing them to the Maintenance of Presbyters viz. that Cyprian might propose this to the Presbytery tho' he could not effect it without them his words are Presbyterii honorem designasse me illis ut sportulis iisdem he designed it because they were choice Young-men but it was the Presbytery concurring with him that must make this effectual He saith for the Poors part the Bishop's Power in Distributing it is so evident from Ep. 5. and 41. that I need not insist on it A. In Ep. 41. which is that we were just now Debating about there is not one word to that purpose but that he had sent some to relieve the Necessities of some Sufferers but out of what Fond whether his propria portio or any other is not said And if it were out of the Churches Stock it is not said he did this without the Presbytery he might very well say he did it when the Presbytery appointed it and he put it in Execution What he saith in the 5. Ep. is as fully against our Author's Design as any thing can be He bids them both in Discipline and Diligence act both their own parts and his And he hath these words quantum autem ad sumptus suggerendos sive illis qui gloriosa voce Deum confessi in carcere sunt constituti sive iis qui pauperes indigentes laborant tamen in Domino perseverant peto ut nihil desit cum summa omnis quae redacta est illic sit apud Clericos distributa propter ejusmodi casus c. Is it not here evident that the Clergy are intrusted with the Poors Money and are to distribute it as need requireth and that this Distribution in Cyprian's Absence was a doing of their own Work and his so that they Acted not as his Delegats Further they Acted their own part and his when one of them did praeside in their Meetings in his Absence which
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
His Instance of my Ignorance in Citing some Greek Authors out of the Latine Translations of them is so ridiculous as it needeth no Answer § 7. He next cometh to some Instances that he seemeth to lay more Weight on The first amounteth to no more but this that I Cited Chrysost out of Bellarm. and I had not Chrysostome then by me as our Author saith he had not Bellarmine when he wrote this Preface and answered Bellarmine and Chrysostom's Words as he brought them if he doubt as he seemeth to do whether I did faithfully Transcribe Bellarmin's Words let him consult the Place And now when I have seen and considered Chrysostom's own Words I am sure that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not the same way ascribed to the Bishop alone as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are to him with the Presbyters for he deriveth these from Christ's Institution which he doth not pretend concerning that nor indeed could he seing he had said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he must then mean that in his time the Bishop had an Election and may be also Ordination to a superior Degree of Dignity which was without a superior Power or that to him was committed the Performance of the Ceremonie in Clerical Ordinations viz. Laying on of Hands tho' I am sure and have shewed this was not the constant Practice What our Author blameth in my sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is fully Vindicated Gillesp Eng. Pop. Cer. P. 3. C. 8. Diggress 1. P. 164. His next Instance is out of Ration Def. c. p. 199. where I prove the Peoples Power in Electing their Pastors from Act. 14. 23. and that from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not barely from the force of the word as he by Oversight or Ignorance mistaketh but by the force of the word and it's Circumstances in that Place If Scapula be not a good Voucher for the Signification of a Greek Word both in Profane and Ecclesiastical Writings his Lexicon is little worth if he be our Author has litle Judgment in declining his Authority seing not one of the Instances he giveth of the word is for Ordination but generally for giving Suffrage If we Consult Scripture it is used Act. 10. 41. and 2 Corinth 8. 19. in both which Places it is used for Election And its importing also Ordination which I alledged he is pleased to mock at but thinketh not fit to take notice of the Grounds brought for that Interpretation from the best Criticks which I impute to his Unacquaintedness with that sort of Learning if we may be so bold as to Question the Skill of one who so looketh down on other poor Mortals as Ignoramus's § 8. The next Proof of Ignorance is I was bold to reprove one of my Adversaries for commending Ministers from their understanding Christian Philosophy Hence our Auther spendeth about 10 Pages to prove that that Phrase was used by the Fathers all which is easily granted and was never questioned by any that I know Only I still think and if that be to be ignorant I cannot shun that blame that however the Fathers did pertinently use it and even at this time it may to very good purpose be used in some cases yet that in a time when Socinianism aboundeth and when revealed Religion is so much decryed by not a few and all Religion is by some resolved into Nature and Humane Reason the improvement of which is Philosophy I say in that case it is not so very proper a Commendation of a Minister that is taken from Christian Philosophy as that which is taken from that knowledge of Divine Things which is built on Revelation as superadded to what we have by Nature and is attained by Ratiocination from scientifick Principles § 9. He next thinketh fit to charge his Antagonist with Nonsense the Instances are first Animadvers on Stillingf Jrenic p. 30. I had said that all Ceremonies of God's Worship are Worship themselves He should have minded that it is there said that the learned Stillingfleet saith the same Irenic p. 65. which I still aver and if he will not ascribe Non-sense to that unquestionably learned Author why may not such an one as I take shelter under his shadow But if this Author had understood the Distinction that I and many more learned than I have elsewhere cleared between Circumstances Rites and Ceremonies and that this last Sort is peculiar to Religious Actions and hath place in no other kinds of Actions he might have understood that such Actions are Religious and Acts of Worship and that they are true Worship if instituted by Christ and false if divised by men This cannot be judged Nonsense by any who hath with Judgement lookt into the Controversie about Ceremonies but it must be Nonsense to judge so of it The Fetch as he calleth it of Ceremonies that are in the place of Competentes or Catechumeni called in the same place Candidate Ceremonies is no more Nonsense than other Metaphors are if the Author be so ignorant as to understand that Phrase literaly it is his own Nonsense and none of mine The next peice of Nonsense is that the Affirmative of the second Commandment is that we should worship God in the way that he has prescribed in his word Rational Def. p. 125. If this be Nonsense I have for my Compurgators the whole Assembly of Divines at Westminster who in the Shorter Catechism gave this Answer to the Question What is required in the second Commandment The second Commandment requireth the Receiving Observing keeping pure and entire all such Religious Worship and Ordinances as God hath appointed in his Word It is like this Author will not stick to charge that venerable Assembly with Error but if he dare charge them with Nonsense it is no great matter if poor I take a share with them I am so dull as to understand as litle what Nonsense is in owning the Lutherian Churches as Sister Churches and so having Communion with them and yet refusing to joyn with them on their Instituted Ceremonies If any thing here look like Nonsense it is from a Typographical Error which I confese that Book aboundeth with the Correcting of the Press being commited by that Author to a negligent person while himself was at the distance of some hundrdes of Miles it is in the Manuscript uninstituted Worship and is meant of parts of Worship not appointed by Christ but devised by men We can have Communion with them in owning the same Truths seing they own the same Fundamental Truths with us and in these parts of Worship that Christ hath appointed but we cannot joyn with them in worshiping God by their Devices and if they intermix these with instituted Worship we must forbear Communion with them in both rather than pollute our selves with uncommanded Worship If this be Nonsense I must bear that Imputation Another Instance of Nonsense is Second Vindication p. 14. That the two Governments