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-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-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
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
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
Priviledges of Presbyters began then to be abridged but not that their ruling Power in the Church was transferred on a single person the Bishop What he further argueth p. 18. from the Bishops new Ordination is already answered § 26. His next Argument and some that follow is taken from the Bishops relation to his particular Church viz. That he is the principle of Vnity to her who ever adhered to him was in the Church a Catholick Christian who separated from him was out of the Church and a Schismatick Under this Head he hath no less than six Considerations which either are intended as Arguments or signifie nothing Before I come to examine these I shall take some notice of his Argument as it is here generally proposed And 1. I observe that this very Argument is fully with as much strength mannaged by the Papists for the Pop's universal headship over the Christian Church they plead that we are not of the Church Catholick are not to be reputed Christians are Dividers of Christ's Body c. because we do not adhere to the Pope whom they hold to be the Principle of Vnity to the Christian Church and the Papists reckon the Protestants as Hereticks because they do not believe this and Schismaticks because they live not in Communion with the Pope and that Church whereof he is Head 2. This Doctrine as it is by our Author crudely and indistinctly proposed will Un-Church some of the best and soundest Christians for have there not been Bishops who had as good Title to their Sees to speak in his own Dialect as any could have who afterwards turned Hereticks How many Arian Bishops were there whose Right to their Places was not contested Will he say that all the Orthodox who separated from them were guilty of Schism and all the Aggravations that his Citations p. 19 20. load it with Are we not commanded to withdraw from them who teach unsound Doctrine 1 Tim. 6. 3 4 5. And our Lord warnes his People against Wolves and the Apostle gave Warning to the Elders of Ephesus that of themselves and our Author will say they were Diocesan Bishops should men arise speaking perverse things and drawing Disciples after them This Argument will prove if it hath any force that these their Followers were the sound Christians and the rest Schismaticks because the one sort adhered to their Bishop the Principle of Vnity and the rest departed from him I am far from charging my Antagonist with owning these Consequents but I see not how he can shun the Consequence unless he retract this his inconsiderat Opinion Thirdly I wish he had explained this Term the Principle of Vnity which he ought the rather to have done because he saith p. 18. near the end this is a Point of great Consequence What he saith for clearing it is very insufficient his Metaphors out of Cyprian de Vnitate Ecclesiae prove nothing viz. that of the Sun and Beams the Root and Branches the Fountain and Streams if they prove any thing they prove more than I suppose our Author will allow for Cyprian in the very page where he useth these Similitudes p. mihi 297. speaketh of Peter's Primacy and placeth the Unity of the Christian Church in him tamen ut Vnitatem manifestaret unam Cathedram constituit Vnitatis ejusdem Originem ab uno incipientem sua authoritate constituit hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod Petrus pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis sed exordium ab Vnitate proficiscitur And a little below quam Vnitatem firmiter tenere vindicare debemus maxime Episcopi qui in Ecclesia praesidemus ut Episcopatum quoque ipsum unum atque indivisum probemus Where it may be observed 1. That either Cyprian was absolutely for the Pope's Supremacy or he had no such meaning as our Author designeth 2. That Cyprian doth not so much speak of the Peoples adhering to their Bishop which in a sound Sense I am for as Bishops cleaving together and not breaking the Churches Peace by Divisions among themselves 3. That he is to be understood of a Principle of Origination rather than of a Principle of Dependance that Peter first was in Commission by Christ the truth of which I shall not now enquire into and that all were obliged to adhere to that one Doctrine that he taught not that he had Authority over the rest and they must not Dissent from him in any Case Cyprian plainly teacheth the contrary in that very place that the rest had equal Authority with him And if we should apply all this to a Bishop or Minister in a Parish it amounteth to no more but this he receiveth the Word from the Lord and delivereth it to the People and if they depart from this they are Schismaticks and break the Unity of the Church which we all acknowledge I observe 4. That this his Principle is indeed of so great Moment that if it be true there are neither Churches nor Christians in the World but such as owne a Diocesan Bishop few in our days are Christians but these of the Romish and Church of England Communion all the Reformed Churches must be Re-baptized and their Ministers Re-ordained as Cyprian and some other thought of the Schismaticks of that time I hope all his Brethren are not of this Opinion Yea it hath been condemned by the most famous of his Party When Anno 1610. some Scots Bishops were to be Consecrated at London some moved that they might be first Ordained Presbyters their Ordination without a Bishop being null Bancroft Arch-Bishop of Canterburâ—y withstood that Motion and told them that thereof there was no necessity seing where Bishops could not be had the Ordination given by Presbyters must be esteemed lawful otherwise that it might be doubted if there were any lawful Vocation in most of the Reformed Churches This was Applauded by all the other Bishops Spotswood Hist. Lib. 7. ad An. 1610. p. 514. Whence I infer that either Cyprian was not of this Author's Opinion nor can his Words be so understood or that the English Bishops were opposite to him and Cyprian too § 27. What he saith further for clearing this his Notion about the Principle of Vnity is both absurd and groundless viz. that he the Bishop was the Head of all the Christians living within his District and they were one Body one Society one Church by depending on him by being subject to him by keeping to his Communion I say this is absurd because then Separating from the most Heretical Superstitious yea Idolatrous Bishop were unlawful as above noted It is also groundless for neither Cyprian nor any other uses such indistinct and universal Assertions in this Matter I come to examine his several Propositions by which he pretendeth to make out this his Argument The first is that the Antients highly Valued Church Vnity and laid no more Stress on any thing than it and no Sin they Represented as more Hainous or
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
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