The Cyprianic-Bishop Examined, Treatise (2 of 3)

The Cyprianic-Bishop Examined · Treatise (2 of 3)

p. 34§. 27. What he ſaith further for clearing this his Notion about the Principle of Ʋnity, 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 Ʋnity, and laid no more Streſs on any thing than it; and no Sin they Repreſented as more Hainous, or 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, p. 35yet 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 Ʋſe 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. p. 36Plerumque 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 Ʋnity, 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 Ʋnion to that Church of which he was Head and Ruler. I ſee not wherein this differeth p. 37from 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 Ʋnity, 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, p. 38as 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 p. 39or 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 Ʋnity; 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 p. 40he 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 Ʋnion 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 p. 41of Ʋnity to the Church: Or, that they who belong to Chriſt are with the Biſhop, whether he teacheth Truth or Error: It is a vaſt miſtake that he ſaith, that Cyprian, Ep. 33. pleadeth for the divine Right of Epiſcopacy in that Ep. (which is (mihi) 27) he pleadeth for the Divine Authority of the Church, and her Biſhops; that is, Paſtours: not for a Divine Warrant for the Praelation of ſome of them above others: nothing can be more evident than the concurrent Teſtimonies of Antiquity againſt this Fancy: Scripture, and the moſt Antient of the Fathers ſpeak of Biſhops and Presbyters indiſtinctly; when the Diſtinction began to be taken notice of, Jerome ſaith that it was brought in by the Presbyters themſelves: Ep. ad Evagr. as alſo on Tit. and Aug. Ep. 10. referreth to Eccleſiae uſus. Yea, Concil. Nic. 1. Can. 6. maketh the Diſtinction of Biſhops, as Metropolitans, &c. To be mos antiquus: All that followeth, §. 37, 37, 36. doth alſo confute this Opinion. But this I inſiſt not on, becauſe our Author hath put off the proof of that Divine Inſtitution of Epiſcopacy, to his next Eſſay, p. 94. His ſixth and laſt Propoſition is, that the Principle of the Biſhops being the Center of Ʋnity 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 Ʋnity, 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 Ʋnity 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 Ʋnity; 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 p. 42three 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 Ʋnity 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 foreign: 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 p. 43Vicar, 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 p. 44infer the Pope's univerſal Head-ſhip: tho' I am far from thinking this Argument concludent for them; yet what ſhew of Confequence can it have for a Biſhops Power in his Dioceſs? Or with what Face can this Author ſay, that a Biſhop is the ſame to Preſbyters and Deacons, that he was to the Levites, unleſs he ſay that a Biſhop was the ſame to all the Presbyters and Deacons in the World that the High Prieſt was to all the Levites in the world. Cyprian's Reaſons, brought from the High Prieſt, have much more Senſe in them than theſe of our Author: For he pleadeth no more from that Topick, but that as the High Priest was to be obyed, and not reſiſted, ſo is the Biſhop. As the High Prieſt was reverenced, even by Chriſt, ſo is the Biſhop; we ſay the ſame: that a Biſhop acting in his Sphere, with his Conſiſtory, or Presbytery, ſhould be obeyed and reſpected: and we count it the ſame ſort of Sin in Schiſmaticks, who rebel againſt this Church Authority, with Kora's Rebellion againſt Aaron: but it is utterly inconſequential to infer Church Monarchy from Aaron's Power. I wiſh he had brought any thing that might look like proof of this conſequence. He ſaith, p. 34. that the Chriſtian Hierarchie was copied from that of the Jews; and he bringeth Arguments for it, ſuch as they are, one is from the Names, Prieſt, Prieſthood, Altar, Sacrafice, &c. which he calleth a pregnant Argument; I cannot but ſtill obſerve how much the Papists owe him; not only for their Pope, but for their unbloody Sacrifice, what? muſt we have all that of the Old Teſtament whereof we retain the Names? If ſo, we muſt have a new Goſpel. This Argument is eaſily delivered of its Pregnancy, by denying the Conſequence. His other Argument is from an Ep. of Clement of Rome, who lived in the Apoſtles times: wherein he exhorteth to Order, and every ones keeping his Station, and then reckoneth up ſeveral Subordinations under the Old Teſtament. A. Clement uſeth the Old Teſtament hierarchy as a ſimile, to illuſtrate New Teſtament Subordination of Officers in the Church; ergo we muſt have the ſame Officers, and they muſt have the ſame Power that theſe had, non ſequitur: p. 45Neither 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 Ʋnity, 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 foreign, 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 Ʋnity, 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 Ʋ nity in a Presbytery; ſeing as ſuch, he is neither Paſtor, Governour, nor Chriſtian; but may be a Heathen. A. This wild Notion, p. 46that 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 Ʋnity, 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 p. 47a 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 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 Ʋſher, in his Original of Biſhops and Metropolitans, Ignat. Ep. ad Trallianos. foreign, &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 foreign, &c. he that doth any thing without the Biſhop, and the Presbyters, and the Deacons, ſuch an one is defiled in Conſcience. And again foreign, &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 p. 48quae 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 p. 49in 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 onelyonly 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 (foreign) 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 p. 50it 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 foreign. 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 foreign. 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 onelyonly 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 p. 51of 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. foreign, &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 (foreign) 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, p. 52quam 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 p. 53is, 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 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: p. 54wherefore 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 p. 55ground 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 uſ que 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.

p. 56§. 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 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, p. 57etiam 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 onelyonly, that induced him to this Conduct. Alſo that he attributeth to Presbyters not conſilium onelyonly, but ſententiam; not onelyonly 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 onelyonly take notice of his Obſerves on this Paſſage, by which p. 58he 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, p. 59upon 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 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 p. 60by 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 p. 61he 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 p. 62in Ordinations: which overthroweth all his Diſcourſe of the Biſhop's Majeſty, Soveraignty, Incontrollable and Ʋnaccountable 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 p. 63the Cyprianick-Age, that 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 foreign. 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, p. 64menſas 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 p. 65from 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, p. 66was 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 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 foreign, 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.