The Cyprianic-Bishop Examined, Treatise (1 of 3)

The Cyprianic-Bishop Examined · Treatise (1 of 3)

p. 1THE Cyprianick-Biſhop Examined, &c.

SOME of the Epiſcopal Clergy of Scotland, who have loſt their places, wherein they ſat ſilent, without troubling the Presbyterians with their Controverſal Writings (for they then dealt with them by other Weapons) are now at leaſure to maintain the Stickle that way: and ſome are ſo irritated by their Loſſes, that much more of their paſſionat Reſentment, and perſonal Reflections againſt ſuch as never did them wrong, appeareth in their Books, than Strength of Arguments for what they hold in our preſent Debates; I have with much wearineſs and Reluctancy conſidered ſome of theſe Pieces: and hoped our Debates had been at an end, after their ſilence for ſome time, and that we ſhould no more be that way diverted from our more neceſſary Work: till I lately met with a Treatiſe called the Principles of the Cyprianick Age, &c. which I find to be written in a more Schollar like and leſs unchriſtian Strain, than what I have hitherto ſeen from theſe men. He dealeth fairly by Arguments, tho I am not terrified nor convinced by the Strength of them, and I am reſolved to treat him with the ſame Civility, and for the weight of my reaſonings, let the Reader judge. It is not Victory, but the clearing and maintaining of Truth, that I deſign; and ſhall not be aſhamed to become his Proſelyte, if what I hold be found to be an Error.

p. 2§. 2. Before I conſider his Book in the particular Contents of it, I ſhall make a few general Remarks about it. 1. Then, if we ſhould grant all that he pleadeth for, it would not ruine the Cauſe of Preſbyterians, nor eſtabliſh Prelacy: It would amount to no more but this, that one Presbyterian, and he among the meaneſt of them, did miſtake in matter of Fact, as it is related in the Antient Hiſtory. He might know, that neither the Presbyterians generally, nor that Author in particular, did ever lay the Streſs of their Cauſe on the Practice or Principles of the Church, after the Apoſtolick Age: Tho' we will not yield the Suffrage of later Antiquity to be for our Adverſaries: yet that is the Antiquity that we build upon; for it is Divine, not humane Authority that we take for the Rule of our Belief and Practice, in the matter of Church-Government, and managing the Affairs of the Houſe of GOD. Timothy was to be guided by it, 1 Tim. 3 14, 15. and ſo will we. And even the Defender of the Vindication againſt the Apologiſt, or his Friend, (as our Author calleth him, P. 4.) hath fully declared his Opinion to this purpoſe; Rational Defence of Non-conformity, P. 158. which Book our Author ſeemeth to be no ſtranger to; for he is (P. 69) at pains to cite and try his critical Skill upon a Paſſage in it. He could not then, think to ſilence Presbyterians by this his Attempt: we have other Grounds, if we were beaten from this, as I hope we ſhall not. If his Book was written only to convince the World, that he who wrote the Defence of the Vindication againſt the Apologiſt, is not infallible in all that he aſſerteth; he might have ſpared his pains: that ſhould eaſily have been yielded to him. To write a Book of Twelve Sheets on ſuch a Subject, is ſuch Work as we have no time for. Egregiam verô laudem, & ſpolia ampla—He had read Cyprian's Epistles (which are not very voluminous) and had made a Collection of Citations; and thus they muſt have a vent.

§. 3. The Paſſage that he buildeth his whole Fabrick upon, was by the Defender (which is my ſecond Remark) ſet down with that Brevity that was ſutable to the purpoſe in hand; tho' may be not ſufficient to preclude all the critical Notes that a Man of this Author's p. 3Skill and Learning could make, when he is ſo diſpoſed to do▪ The Apologiſt had, in a rambling and incoherent way, ſtarted a Number of Debates that are between us and the Prelatiſts, inſiſting on none of them: And the Defender thought not fit to make a large Treatiſe on each of theſe Heads, but anſwered what he propoſed, with a ſutable ſuccinctneſs; If he had then thought it convenient, or had imagined that ſo large a Book as our Author's, would have been built on this Paſſage, he would have made the Foundation broader, tho' not more commodious for what this Author buildeth on it: He could have told him, that tho' he might be bold to venture his Credit on the Cyprianick Age, being more on our ſide than on that of our Adverſaries; And tho' our Cauſe, duely and diſtinctly ſtated, ſhould ſuffer no loſs by being tryed at that Barr, yet neither did he venture any bodies Reputation but his own, nor will he quit the more divine Letters Patents that we have for Presbytrey, to reſt in this, either as our only▪ or our chief Strength. Notwithſtanding of what I have now remarked concerning this Author ſnatching at a fancied Advantage againſt us, I hope to make it evidently appear that he hath wholly miſſed his Aim, and that theſe two or three Lines of my Book will ſtand againſt the ſhock of his long Treatiſe.

§. 4. I thirdly obſerve that this Author, who is ſo profuſe in his Refutation of a few Lines in my Book, hath, in his own, given occaſion ▪to any one who were of as ſcripturient a Diſpoſition as himſelf) for vaſt Volums: as in his ſarcaſtick denyal of Ruling Elders, P. 8. That Presbyters, in the Cyprianick Age, were ſeldom called Paſtors. P. 9. That there can be no Church without a Biſhop. P. 19. That the Biſhops Power is Monarchical. p. 22. That the Biſhops Deed is the Churches Act. p. 24. That Epiſcopacy is of Divine Inſtitution. p. 26. That he is ſubordinate to none. p. 27, 28, 35. That the Biſhop is a ſupream Eccleſiaſtical Magiſtrat. p. 43. And Majesty is aſcribed to him, Ibid. he is called a Soveraign and Peerleſs Governour. p. 65. Supream and unaccountable Power is aſcribed to him. p. 67. Theſe, and many more ſuch Aſſertions, are the Stars by which his p. 4Treatiſes is beſpangled: And each of them might afford matter for a long Diſcourſe, to one who hath nothing elſe to do. A fourth Remark is, that through the whole courſe of his Argumentations he uſeth ſuch confidence, and theſe Pretences to concluſive and irrefragable evidence, as may fright an unintelligent or unwarrie Reader; while the Strength of his Ratiocinations is no way proportionable, but apparent to be built on Words rather than Matter. Every one knoweth that the Signification of ſeveral Words uſed about Eccleſiaſtical Things in Cyprian's time, was far different from what is our modern Dialect. The truth of this will, I hope, be more fully manifeſt in our conſidering his particular Arguments.

§. 5. My Aſſertion againſt which his Book is levelled, he ſeemeth to wonder at, as ſtrangely raſh, and a putting our being, or not being. Schiſmaticks, on a deſperate Iſſue. The Aſſertion is, a Biſhop in Cyprian's time was not a Dioceſan, with ſole Power of Juriſdiction and Ordination: If he prove that, we ſhall give Cyprian, and him, leave to call us Schiſmaticks. A Biſhop, then, was the Paſtour of a Flock, or the Moderator of a Presbyterie: If he can prove that we ſeparate from our Pastours, or from the Presbytery, with their Moderator, under whoſe Inſpection we ought to be, let him call us what he will: But we diſown the Biſhops in Scotland from being our Biſhops; we can neither own their Epiſcopal Authority, nor any pastoral Relation they have to us. He ſeemeth p. 1. to divide his Book into two parts: Firſt, to take to Task what I had ſaid; to wit, the words above ſet down. 2. to add, perchance, ſomething concerning our main Argument. The firſt part he hath largely inſiſted on: with what Strength or Succeſs, I am now to examine. Of the 2, I find nothing, but that, p. 94. he hath fairly waved it; But with confidence that he could accompliſh it: and leaving to the perſon to whom he directeth this long Letter, to command him to proſecute what is left undone. The Import of which is, that it is much more his Inclination to write ad hominem, againſt a particular perſon; than ad rem, for that which he taketh to be the truth of God.

p. 5§. 6. His firſt work is to expoſe the above-mentioned Paſſage in my Book, as yielding a large Field, if one had a mind to catch at Words, and that it were eaſie to inſiſt on ſuch eſcapes, if one had a mind for it. His firſt Remark is, Suppoſe the word Dioceſs was not in uſe in St. Cyprian's time, as applyed to a Biſhops Diſtrict, doth it follow that the thing now ſignified by it was not then in uſe. Anſw. Pray Sir, who made that Conſequence: the Words cited (catch at them as much as you will) import no ſuch Conſequence, and deſign no more but that which we call now a Dioceſan Biſhop, with ſole Power of Juriſdiction and Ordination, was not in that Age. His next Remark is in this Queſtion, What could move him (the Author of the Paſſage now under Debate) to inſinuate that we aſſign the ſole power of Juriſdiction and Ordination to our Dioceſan Biſhop. Anſw. It is a greater wonder, what ſhould move this Author to except againſt our thinking that they aſſign ſuch Power to their Biſhop, ſeing himſelf aſcribeth all that Power to the Cyprianick-Biſhop, and affirmeth him to be of Divine Inſtitution; as hath been already obſerved: Hath he not ſaid, that the Biſhops Power is Monarchial, pag. 23, 32. and expreſly, pag. 38. near the end he ſaith, the Biſhop had the ſole Power of Ordination: and ſaith, it hath been frequently and fully proved by learned men, that he need not inſiſt on it: and pag. 39. telleth us of Cyprian's Ordaining without asking the conſent of the Clergy or People: and pleading for this as the Right of all Biſhops. If he do not aſcribe this ſole Power to his Scots-Biſhops, then (ex tuo ore) they are not the Biſhops that Christ inſtituted: Nor theſe of the Cyprianick-Age; nor theſe for whom the learned men that he ſpeaketh of, hath pleaded: neither can I gueſs what kind of Animals he will make them: they muſt be a ſpecies of Biſhops that never man pleaded for but himſelf. I ſuppoſe his Lords the Biſhops will give him ſmall thanks thus for pleading their Cauſe. What I have now obſerved, ſheweth his Queſtions to be impertinent, viz. When did our Biſhops claim that Power, and when was it aſcribed to them by this Conſtitution? When did they exerciſe it? When was it thought neceſſary for raiſing a Biſhop to all the due Elevations of the Epiſcopal Authority? I give this general p. 6Anſwer to all theſe Queſtions: our Scots Biſhops look on themſelves, and are lookt on by their Underlings, and by this Author, as Scripture-Biſhops; or at leaſt, as Primitive-Biſhops, and the Biſhops that the learned men of this, and the preceeding Ages have pleaded for: but our Author ſaith theſe had the Power we now ſpeak of: and therefore he muſt ſay, that that Power was given them by the Inſtitution; that they do claim it, and ought to claim it, that it is neceſſary for their due Elevation. If they ſhun to exerciſe it, at leaſt openly, by not laying on of Hands without Presbyters; it is becauſe they know that practice cannot take, nor be born with in a Nation where Parity hath been ſo much known, and generally liked: I always underſtood that the main thing debated between us and the Prelatiſts, was about the ſole Power of Juriſdiction and Ordination: and I am not alone in this; the Synod of London, Vindication of Presbyterial Government; pag. 24. propoſeth the Controverſie in the ſame Words. So doth alſo Smectymnus, §. 8, 9. and I think he will not find many (if any one) of either ſide, who handleth this Controverſie without reſpect to this Power. To his Queſtion, When was it aſcribed to them by the Conſtitution: I Anſwer, it was done, with reſpect …o Ordination, anno 1635, in the Canons and Conſtitutions Eccleſiastical, chap. 2. §. 3. where the Examination of the Candidate (and conſequently the Power of determining who ſhal be ordained) is laid on the Biſhop: and he is allowed to perform this Examination by himſelf, or his Chaplain. And for Juriſdiction, a perſon ordained to a Charge may not Preach, unleſs he be alſo licenſed by the Biſhop, ibid. chap. 7. §. 5 Nor may he refute Error preached by another, unleſs he firſt ask and obtain leave of the Biſhop, ibid. §. 7. Yea, a Presbyter may not go a Journey for ſome time, without the Biſhops leave: nor ſtay unduly at Edinburgh, but he muſt be cenſured by the Biſhop; chap. 4. §. 3, 5. And in general, in all theſe Canons, all Church-Diſcipline is laid on the Ordinary; that is the Biſhop: not a word of Cenſure inflicted by the Presbyters. Without the Biſhop no Miniſter may appoint a Faſt; not in his own Congregation, chap. 14. and chap. 18. §. 10. The p. 7Sentence 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 p. 8exerciſed, 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, …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 p. 9that he hath the ſame Church Power with the reſt; but may be a Heathen, as he affirmeth, p. 35, 36. Alſo becauſe he inferreth from what I had ſaid, that my Opinion is, that in Cyprian's time, the Church was governed by Presbyters Acting in Parity, after the Presbyterian Model, p. 4. It will be needful, before I examine his Arguments, to give a more full and diſtinct Account of my thoughts in this Matter, than is done in that ſhort hint which his whole Book is imployed againſt: and this is the rather needful, becauſe my Antagoniſt doth not ſo plainly as were to be wiſht, ſtate the Controverſie, when he ſaith; p. 4. If I ſhall prove, firſt, that a Biſhop in Cyprian's time, was more than the Paſtour of a Flock or Moderator of a Presbytery, in the Presbyterian ſenſe. 2. That he had really Genuine Epiſcopal or Prelatick Power. 3. That he Acted in a real Superiority over, not in Parity with Paſtours; our Author is bound to acknowledge himſelf and his Brethren to be Schiſmaticks. I ſhall ſtate the Queſtion a little more diſtinctly; but not diſown any of the Terms in which he hath put the Queſtions, all which three, are indeed but one Queſtion.

§. 9. Let it then be conſidered firſt, that we never thought, nor ſaid, that Church-Government was in all it's Modes and Circumſtances in the third Century, (in which Cyprian lived) the ſame with what it is now among Scots Presbyterians: the Subſtance of Government may remain, and yet conſiderable Alterations be made in the Modes of mannaging it, in the Succeſſion of Years; much more of Ages: We confeſs many words relating to Church-Offices, Officers, and Adminiſtrations, ſignified another thing then, than they do in our Modern Dialect: theſe we call Moderators, and my Antagoniſt calleth Biſhops, were then conſtant; among us they ſerve in that Station but for ſome ſmall time, and give place to others: in the Affrican Church theſe they called Primates, (whom yet we deny to have had either Sole, or Superior Juriſdiction) were the eldeſt Miniſter of every Province; which afterward was changed▪ and they choſen according to their Perſonal Qualifications: and Metropolitans were the Biſhops of the chief Cities; which had no Superior p. 10Power; but only ſometimes praeſided in Synods. Cyprian diſowned that any of them was Epiſcopus Epiſcoporum. See no Evidence for Dioceſan Churches or Biſhops, p. 28. Alſo L' Arroque adverſar. Sacr. Lib. 2. C. 14. maketh this plain. And Leidecker. diſſert. de ſtatu Eccleſ. Affric. §. 7. he ſheweth that Primates were above Metropolitans in Dignity, and that they firſt attained that Degree by their Age, reckoning it from their Ordination: and the other from the City where they had their Charge. Yea there hath been no Age of Old, or in later times, in which there have not been ſome leſſer differences in Management, even among Churches which uſed the ſame Species of Church-Government, for Subſtance: as at this day, in Scotland, Low-Countries, Geneva, among the Switzers; &c. Some Churches are more and ſome leſs pure, and near to the Pattern: and yet all governed by Presbyters Acting in Parity: and among the Prelatiſts, Prelatick Power is higher in one Church than in another; as in England now, and in Scotland of late? Wherefore our Author muſt not think to triumph, if he can ſhew ſome difference between the Cyprianick Age, and our Way. Cypr. Ep. 75. §. 5. Firmilian writing to Cyprian, hath Inſtances to ſhew, that in diverſe Churches, they had diverſe Practices, and yet kept Peace, one with another. 2. We deny not that in Cyprian's time, there was ſome Advances made towards ſome ſort of Prelacy; tho' the Parity of Power was not then wholly taken away: as the Myſtery of Iniquity, in other things, ſo in that, did begin early to Work even in the days of the Apoſtles, when Diotrephes did foreign, affected to be primus Presbyter, or foreign, or Moderator, in their Meetings: and this foreign becoming fixed, and conſtant after the Apoſtles times, (theſe good Men not fore-ſeeing the ill Uſe that others would make of that Handle given them) it did, by inſenſible Degrees, degenerate into an undue Uſurpation: (as it is hard to get Power kept within it's due Bounds, even among the beſt men) and the Primitive Power of Presbyters, was gradually wreſted out of their hands, by the Ambition of ſome, and by the innocent Simplicity of others. Many other Corruptions had crept into the Church by that time, and this p. 11Declenſion from abſolute parity went along with them: the name foreign began to be appropriat to the foreign; and that Cuſtom being confirmed by a little time, made even humble men imagine, that ſome different Power was ſignified by that name, that they had diſtinct from others; which the reſt, who were ſo uſurped upon, did too eaſily yield; minding more the Work of Feeding, than of Ruling the Flock: and not ſeeing the fatal Conſequents of it, which afterward appeared, and were not diſcovered, till it was too late to retrieve them. 3. It is evident from the Hiſtory of the firſt Ages, that as Epiſcopacy did not arrive to it's height of a ſudden; ſo it was not at the ſame time ſettled in all the places where it obtained at laſt: the Ambition of ſome, or at leaſt their too big Thoughts of the Power that belonged to them, and the Eaſyneſs of their Com-Presbyters, made it in one place make quicker Advances, while the Humility, and ſound Judgment of others, together with the Vigilancy of theſe who with them govern'd the Church, retarded it's Progreſs in other Churches. And it is certain, that, for as much as this Contagion of the Church walked in the dark; yet it was obſerved, and oppoſed by ſome, as Aerius, Jerom, and others; as will appear in our Progreſs. Leidecker. Diſſert. de Statu Eccleſ. Affric. §. 7. Nam que (inquit) uti ab Origine Epiſcopatus Ordinis & Praeſidentiae in Presbyterio titulus erat, (quamvis alibi ſuos terminos egrederetur) in Affrica vetus Libertas Presbyterii eſt retenta; dum Epiſcopi praeſidentium honore non dominatu in Eccleſiam, aut Presbyteros gauderent. This he not only aſſerteth, but proveth by diverſe Teſtimonies.

§. 10. Hence we may conclude, that our Author cannot prove what he pretendeth, unleſs he make it appear, that Epiſcopal Power, (ſuch as he pleadeth for) was not only acted by ſome, but generally, in the Churches of the firſt, ſecond, and third Centuries; or approved by general Conſent. Wherefore, if we can bring Teſtimonies to prove a Parity of Power among Presbyters, and that Domination over them by one was condemned; his bringing ſome Teſtimonies to the contrary, will not be found concludent. I ſay not this, as if I were afraid he can prove what he undertaketh, by the p. 12Authentick Suffrage of any one of the Fathers of the firſt three Centuries: but that he may ſee what Weakneſs and Fallacy is in his Reaſonings on more Accounts than one. I may here add a Conjecture, on which the Reader ſhall be deſired to lay no more Weight than he pleaſeth: that, ſeing it is confeſſed by the beſt Antiquaries, that we have but little Hiſtorical Certainty of the firſt Ages of the Church, it is probable that more Oppoſition might be made to the Tendency toward Church-Domination, than we have account of: for the Topping Party might carry all before them, and others might be ſuppreſſed, or what they did, buried in ſilence: eſpecially conſidering that meek men are often too apt, rather to ſuppreſs their Sentiments, than to make much noiſe with them, to the hazarding of the Peace of the Church: and to groan under Grievances, rather than caſt the Church into a Convulſion by ſtruggling; when they do not foreſee the greatneſs of the hazard that they fear. This, I conceive, may be one part of that Sleep, that giveth the Enemy advantage to ſow his Tares. I ground this Conjecture on the great difference that is between the Scripture-account of Church-Government, and that of after Ages; and that the further we come down from the Scripture-times, the difference ſeemeth to be the greater; and yet we have but often, ſmall account of any ſenſible Change made at any one time.

§. 11. The Learned Author, to his main Proofs (as he ſpeaketh p. 4.) premitteth a ſhrewd Preſumption againſt what I hold: that generally, the great Champions for Presbytery acknowledge that Epiſcopacy was in the Church long before Cyprian's time: and he nameth Chamier, Blondel, Salmaſius, the Synod of London, Spanhemius, &c. What his &c. may contain in it's vaſt belly, I know not, but I am not afraid of any of them he hath mentioned; they are all Friends to the Cauſe I maintain, and ſay no more than I have already ſaid; but much againſt his Sentiments. It had been eaſier for me to make this appear, if he had thought fit to point at the Books, or Places of them, on which he groundeth his Aſſertion; for ſome of theſe Authors have written much: however I hope to p. 13find out in them what is ſufficient to my purpoſe. I begin with Chamier; who, Panſtrat. Catholic. Tom. 2. Lib. 10. diſcourſeth on this Subject copiouſly: but I find not one word in him, aſſerting that in the firſt three Centuries, Biſhops had the Rule of the Church above Presbyters, further than that they were above them in Dignity, and by a Priority of Order; not of Juriſdiction: far leſs that they had the ſole Juriſdiction, which our Author pretendeth to prove. On the contrary, that Learned Writer proveth, C. 3. that there was no Domination allowed in the Church, C. 5. that the Government of the ſeveral Churches was Ariſtocratical: and he ſheweth that all Presbyters at firſt were equal; but that afterward, (as he citeth Ambroſe and Jerome) unus electus eſt, qui omnium primus eſſet, & Epiſcopus diceretur. And on this he maketh two Obſerves: Firſt, in Eccleſiae Primordiis, nullos tales Epiſcopos fuiſſe, qui poſtea inſtituti fuere, qui ſuo jure reliquis è Clero praeeſſent. And he thence inferreth the abſolute Parity of Presbyters, de Jure. His ſecond Obſervation is, ne tunc quidem, cum hic Epiſcoporum a Presbyteris diſtinctorum ordo eſt constitutus, fuiſſe Epiſcopos ut Monarchas, (ſee how he agreeth with our Author, p. 23, 32.) qui poteſtatem haberent in Clerum; ſed Principes Electos, qui rebus deliberandis praeeſſent, ut neceſſe est in omni Ariſtocratia. Where he ſeemeth exactly to deſcribe a Moderator, ſuch as is in our Presbyteries, and other Church Judicatories. After that C. 6. he had proved, that Jure Divino Epiſcopus non eſt major Presbytero, (contrary to our Author, p. 26. C. 7. he proveth that the Government of Provinces was alſo Ariſtocratical; and doth evidently make an Arch-Biſhop or Metropolitan, no more than we make the Moderator of a Synod, or of a General Aſſembly: I mean he alloweth them no more Juriſdiction. Now let any judge, with what Brow my Antagoniſt could bring Chamier for his Voucher, who ſo flatly contradicteth the whole of his Book.

§. 12. His next Author is Blondel; who will be found to do him no more Service: For the whole Deſign and ſtrain of his Apologia pro ſententia Hieronomi is, to prove that Epiſcopus and Presbyter p. 14were the ſame, as both in Name and Power, in the Apoſtolick Age of the Church; ſo in Power in the firſt, ſecond, third, and much of the fourth Century; tho' he confeſſeth that the Name, & ſome Majority (not higher Juriſdiction) was ſooner given to the Biſhop. This is evident, for S. I. p 4. he ſaith that Jeromes toto orbe decretum eſt ut unus de Presbyteris caeteris ſuperponeretur, occaſioned by the Diviſions among Chriſtans, and ſaying, Ego ſum Pauli, &c. That this, I ſay, was quarto a Corinthiorum turbis ſaeculo: and that Jerome ſaid it, de ſui temporis hominibus; and proveth it from Jerome's own words, which are, quando non idipſum omnes loquimur, & alius dicit, ego ſum Pauli, ego Appollo, ego Cephae, dividimus ſpiritus unitatem, & eam in partes & in membra diſcerpimus. And he ſaith, that Jerome torquebat verba Paulina de Corinthiis, in eos: Nempe, ſui temporis homines, & p. 6, 7. he fully ſheweth, that Jerome believed the Identity of Biſhop and Presbyter, from his blameing them who made Deacons equal to Presbyters. i. e. to Biſhops Alſo p. 8. that in Alexandria (of which Jerome ſaith, that à Marci temporibus ad Heracleam, Dionyſium que Presbyteri unum ex ſe electum in excelſiori gradu collocatum Epiſcopum dixerunt) It was but Jusprimae Cathedrae presbyteri inter collegas fratrem ſpontanea hac dignatione honorantes, ſedentis. and ibid: he ſaith, ex Hieronomi ſententia epiſcopalia omnia ex aequo competebant: and that every one of them was equal Ʋrbico papae. S. 2. Blondel proveth all the Fathers of the three or four firſt Ages, to have been of the ſame Opinion with Jerome. And p. 8. hath this Tranſition, prodeant jam foreign patrum acies, qui ſanctum virum (Hieronymum) ſeu ſolitarium in tecto paſſerem non relictum, doceant. This he proveth from Clemens of Rome, from Polycarp of Smyrna, from Hermes, from Pius the Pope of Rôme, Juſtin, Papias, Irenaeus and the Gallican Church in his time, Victor the Pope, Clemens of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen. Cyprian alſo: on whoſe Opinion in this matter, my Antagoniſt ſtateth the whole Controverſy. Wherefore I ſhall a little further conſider what account Blondel giveth of his Opinion. He ſaith, p. 41. foreign toto administrationis tempore aggreſſus eſt, ſed partita (quaſi ex concepto voto, cum comminiſtris cura p. 15ac potestate, Carthaginenſem plebem gubernavit: and citeth Cyprian himſelf ſaying to his Clergy; Sed cum per Dei gratiam venero, tunc De iis quae vel geſta ſunt, vel gerenda (ſicut mutuus honor expoſcit) in communi tractabimus: And in another Epiſtle, quae res cum omnium noſtrum Conſilium & ſententiam ſpectet, praejudicare ego, & ſoli mihi rem communem vindicare non audeo. He ſheweth alſo; p. 43. that Cyprian doth always ſpeak of the Clergy as divided only in two parts, the Praepoſiti and the Deacons, and he calleth both the Epiſcopi and the Praepoſiti Apoſtles: If I ſhould cite all that Blondel bringeth out of Cyprian to this purpoſe, I behoved to tranſcribe almoſt four pages of his Book, of which Citations we ſhall have further occaſion given by our Author to Diſcourſe. It is then more evident than what he in moſt of his Reaſonings talketh highly of, that either this Author hath not read Blondel, but cited him at adventure, or hath a confidence to aſſert what he will, tho' abſurd and unaccountable.

§. 13. He is full as unhapy in his next witneſs, Salmaſius, who both in his Book de Epiſcopis & Presbyteris is againſt this Author, and in Walo Meſſalinus, that is commonly aſcribed to him, doth ſtrongly maintain the Identity of Biſhop and Presbyter, againſt Petavius the Jeſuit, in the firſt Ages; and is far from acknowledging any further Difference between them till Jerome's time, (which was after Cyprian's, about which we now contend) than of greater Dignity; for Chap 3. he ſheweth that the Primacy among Presbyters was from their Seniority; and more fully, Ch. 4. p. 273. credibile eſt (ſaith he) circa medium ſecundi ſaeculi non alias in Eccleſia fuiſſe cognitos Epiſcopos quam qui primatum in presbyterio adepti eſſent, cum primos faceret non electio, ex merito ſed ordinationis tempus: quem morem diu in Eccleſia duraſſe, Teſtis eſt ille Author qui Ambroſii nomine, commentarios in Epiſtolas Pauli ſcripſit: and a little below, foreign dabatur ei qui ordinatione antiquior caeteris eſſet. C. etiam. 6. oſtendit juriſdictionem epiſcopalem ortam partim ex diſtinctione nominis Epiſcopi a Presbyteri appellatione; partim principum Chriſtianorum indulgentia, partim pontificum Romanorum aliorum que ambitione & uſurpatione. p. 16Who then can imagine that he thought that in Cyprian's time (which was before the Church had Chriſtian Princes) the Biſhops had ſole Juriſdiction. The laſt of his Authors that he citeth is, the Provincial Aſſembly of London; what Book he meaneth, I know not: neither doth he himſelf, for what appeareth: For the Vindication of Presbyterian Government & Miniſtry by the Ministers and Elders of the provincial Synod of London, hath not a word on that Head, neither for him nor againſt him: wherefore I can gueſs at none but jus Divinum Regiminis Eccleſiaſtici, written (as the Title page beareth) by ſundry Miniſters of Chriſt within the City of London: In that Book I find nothing that hinteth the Conceſſion that he alledgeth: But on the contrary, p. 140. (interpreting foreign mentioned, 1 Cor. 12. 28.) they have this paſſage, not the Prelatical Biſhops, pretending to be an Order above preaching Presbyters, and to have the Reins of all Church-Government in their Hands only: For in Scripture Biſhop and Presbyter are all one Order,—hereunto alſo the Judgement of Antiquity evidently ſubſcribeth, accounting a Biſhop and a Presbyter to be one and the ſame Office in the Church; as appeareth particularly in Ambroſe, Theodoret Jerome, and others. I ſhall not hope to ſay any that is convincing, if what I have brought do not perſwade the unbyaſſed Reader that our famous Presbyterians have the ſame Sentiments of the Judgement of the firſt Antiquity, about the power of Presbyters in the Church, that I expreſſed in the place that our Author maketh ſuch a pother about: he bringeth alſo Spanhem againſt me, which I wonder at; ſeing the words himſelf citeth amount to no more than manifeſta foreign, which none of us ever denyed to have crept early into the Church: but he dealeth not fairly with that learned Writer, (if this Appellation may be uſed without his offence) for he curtaileth his words, leaving out what diſpleaſeth him. viz. quanquam de primis (Epiſcopis) controverſum, diverſine an ſuperioris ordinis haberentur. he dealeth yet leſs Chriſtianly with the ſame Author, both in detracting from his knowledge of Antiquity; and alſo in miſ-repreſenting his words, out of which he would make good his Charge: in that he ſaith Spanhem denyeth Exorciſts p. 17to have been in the Church in the third Century: whereas he doth not mention Exorcists in that place, but only Ostiarios, Copiatas, Acolythos: Theſe laſt our Author will prove to have been in the Church in Cyprian's time, out of Cyprian, Ep. 7. 34, 45, 59 and 77. And mentioneth ſeveral Names of Men in that Office. I was at the pains to read over all theſe Epiſtles on this occaſion, and find not a word in any of them, either of Acolyths, or of any of the perſons whom he nameth: it is like the Epiſtles of Cyprian are diverſly numbred in diverſe Editions: my Edition of Cyprian is 1593, cum notis Pamelii. I find the Epiſtle of Cornelius in Euſebius, Lib. 6. C. 42. (he calleth it 43) how genuine that Epiſtle of Cornelius is, or the Account that Enſebius giveth of it, I ſhall not now enquire: what I am now concerned in is, that the Learned World beareth Teſtimony to Spanhemius, ſo as this Author will not be able to derogate from his Credit: And I doubt not but he can give grounds for what he wrote. I hope I have ſaid enough to ſhew that I am not ſo arrogant, nor ſo raſh, as to reced in this matter, from the Sentiments of theſe great Patrons of Presbytery that he hath brought againſt me.

§. 14. He proceedeth (pag. 5.) to his other Arguments. His firſt Argument (which he manageth to pag. 11.) is built on three Foundations, or Pillars; the firſt is, that every Church was, in Cyprian's time, ruled by a Biſhop, Presbyters and Deacons. This I deny not: only I obſerve a few things: one is, that our Controverſie is not about the Name Biſhop, being appropriat to one and not given in common to all the Presbyters, as at firſt; but about that Biſhop, or firſt Presbyter's Power;; which this his Diſcourſe doth not touch. Another thing that I obſerve is, that it cannot be denyed that the Deacons, in that Age, and may be ſooner, had more Hand in the Government of the Church than was allowed by Divine Inſtitution; by which they were only Servants, not Rulers; and their work was only about the Poor. I thirdly obſerve our Author's unwarrineſs, in here aſſerting that the Church was ruled by Biſhops, Presbyters, and Deacons; and yet he pleadeth for the p. 18Biſhops ſole Juriſdiction, in moſt of his Book: This I impute to want of a good memory. What he hath p. 6. of Superinducing a Biſhop where one already was, and that there could be but one Biſhop in a Church, will after fall in to be conſidered: where he inſiſteth more directly and fully on it. His ſecond ground that his Argument is built on, is, that the Presbyters in that Age were Preaching-Presbyters, and not Ruling-Elders, ſuch as we have in the Presbyterian Church. That the Biſhop in that Age was diſtinct even from Preaching-Elders, or Miniſters, we deny not; and that there were many ſuch where was but one Biſhop, we acknowledge: ſo it is with us; there are many Miniſters where there is but one Moderator, and many Ruling-Elders, where there is but one Miniſter or Parochial Biſhop. What ſort of Officers in the Church the Presbyters, diſtinguiſhed from the Biſhop were, in the Primitive times, is controverted among ſome: Dr. Hammond held that only Biſhops were of Divine Inſtitution, and were in the Apoſtolick-Church; the conſequent of which is, that Presbyters muſt be a device of men and brought in afterward: this is ſolidly refuted by the learned Mr. Durham on Revelation, ch. 3. p. (mihi) 230. The Author of the Book Intituled, An Inquiry into the Conſtitution, &c. of the Primitive-Church in the first 300 years, who pretendeth that this work is done by an impartial Hand, he alſo hath a like Notion, p. 72. and maintaineth that Presbyters are not neceſſary to the Conſtitution of a Church; that they are equal to a Biſhop in Order; and have all the Power that he hath; but inferior in Degree; that they were ordained Preachers; but had no particular Charge; but were imployed by the Biſhop in any piece of Church-work, as he thought fit, and ſo were his Curats, or Aſſiſtants. But of this afterward. I deny not that there were Presbyters in the third Century, ſuch as our Author contendeth for, that is perſons authorized to preach the Goſpel and adminiſter the Sacraments, diſtinct from Biſhops. For his Sarcaſm againſt Ruling-Elders, who have no Authority to Preach, affirming pag. 8. that there is as profound ſilence of them in Cyprian's Writings and time, as there is of the Solemn p. 19League and Covenant, or the Sanquhar Declaration; this ſheweth more of his Spite againſt that Church-Office, than of his Skill to refute it.

§. 15. It might have been expected from this peremptory Confidence, that he ſhould have attempted a Refutation of what many Learned Men have written on that Subject; if he lookt into that Controverſie: the London Miniſters, (whom he citeth) could have taught him, at leaſt, to ſpeak more ſoberly: ſo Blondel de Jure Plebis, p. 79. &c. Smectym. L'Arroque Conformity of the Diſcipline of the Church of France with the Primitive Church. Calvin. P. Martyr. and many later Writers: at leaſt he might have had ſome regard to Arch-Biſhop Whitgift, (a Zealous Pleader for Prelacy) as he is cited by Synod Lond. Vindication of Presbyterial Government. I know (ſaith he,) that in the Primitive Church, they had in every Church Seniors, to whom the Government of the Church was committed; but that was before there was any Chriſtian Prince, or Magiſtrat. I hope then that it was in Cyprian's time will not be denyed. May be, on ſecond thoughts, he will abate a little of this Confidence, when he conſidereth theſe few Citations following: which do plainly prove that both before and after Cyprian's time, there were Ruling Elders, who were not Preachers, acknowledged in the Church, Origen. Lib. 3. contra Celſum: foreign, &c. There are ſome appointed, who do enquire into the Life and Manners of them who are Admitted; that they may debar from the Congregation, ſuch as commit vile things; and receive ſuch as abſtain from theſe; and make them daily better. Tertul. Apol. C. 3. Praeſident probati qui que Seniores, honorem iſtum non praetio, ſed teſtimonio adepti. Theſe were before Cyprian. After him were Jerom, on Iſaiah 3. 2. Et nos habemus in Eccleſia Senatum noſtrum, &c. Auguſt. Ep. 137. Dilectiſſimis Fratribus, Clero, Senioribus, & Ʋniverſae Plebi Eccleſiae Hipponenſis. Where he maketh a plain Diſtinction between the Clergy, and theſe other Elders, and alſo the Body of the People: theſe Elders then were not Teachers, and they were above the People. p. 20The like he hath, contra Creſcentium, Lib. 3. C. 1. Omnes vos Epiſcopi, Presbyteri, Diaconi, & Seniores ſcitis. Et ibid. C. 56. Peregrinus Presbyter, & Seniores Eccleſiae Muſticanae, &c. The ſame Auguſtin, in his account of the Purgation of Caecilianus, and Felix, accuſed by the Donatiſts, mentioneth ſeveral Letters Recorded in the publick Acts, (which muſt certainly ſpeak the Language of that Age,) wherein Ruling Elders diſtinguiſhed from Preaching Presbyters, are plainly, and often mentioned: as Epiſcopi, Presbyteri, Diaconi, Seniores: again, Clerici, & Seniores Cirthenſium: alſo a Letter directed Clero & Senioribus: and another, Clericis & Senioribus: Likewiſe the Epiſtle of Purpurens to Sylvanus hath theſe words, Adhibe…e Clericos, & Seniores Plebis, Eccleſiaſticos Viros, & inquirant diligenter quae ſint iſtae Diſſentiones: where it is clear that the Eccleſiaſtical Conſiſtory was then made up of theſe Elders, as one ſort of its Conſtituent Members; and that they had Authority to take Courſe with Diſorders in the Church, in Conjunction with the Teachers of the Church. Even Gregorius Magnus the Pope, in the end of the ſixth Age, ſheweth that ſuch Elders were ſtill in the Church; Tabellarium (ſaith he) cum conſenſu Seniorum & Cleri memineris ordinandum. Alſo, Lib. 2. Epiſt. 19. Si quid de quocunque Clerico ad aures tuas pervenerit, quod te justè poſſit offendere, facile non credas, ſed praeſentibus Eccleſiae tuae Senioribus eſt perſcrutanda veritas, & tunc ſi qualitas rei poſcit, Canonica Diſtrictio culpam feriat delinquentis. Is it imaginable that there were no Ruling Elders in Cyprian's time, in the third Century, and yet after three hundred years, they were revived again; when Epiſcopal Tyranny, and manifold Corruptions in the Church were come to a greater height? Iſidor. Hiſpal. Sent. Lib. 3. C. 43▪ Prius docendi ſunt Seniores Plebis, ut per eos infra poſiti facilius doceantur.

§. 16. It is yet more fully againſt this Author's bold Aſſertion, that even in Cyprian's time it ſelf, this Office was in the Church; as Witneſs the Writers of that Age, Baſil. in Pſal. 33. Quatuor gradus Miniſtrorum conſtituit, quod ſciz. alii ſunt in Eccleſia inſtar Oculorum, ut Seniores; alii inſtar Linguae, ut Pastores; alii p. 21tanquam Manus, ut Diaconi; &c. And Optat. Milevit. Lib. 1. adv. Parmen. telleth us of certain precious Utenſils of the Church, which in a time of Perſecution, could neither ſafely be tranſported, nor hid in the Earth; and therefore they were committed to the Cuſtody of the faithful Elders of the Church. From all this it is evident, that if expreſs and diſtinct mention be not made of this ſort of Elders by Cyprian, it is either becauſe he had no occaſion; or that he comprehended them under the general name of Presbyters, as the Scripture ſometimes doth under the name of Biſhops: for it is not to be imagined that Cyprian, in this, was of a different Sentiment from the Church, before, in, and after his time.

§. 7. His third Foundation for his Argument is, that the Biſhops Power, Authority, Pastoral Relation, extended to all Christians within his District: and a little after, the Biſhops Prelation, what ever it was, related not ſolely to the Clergy, nor ſolely to the Laity; but to both equally and formally: this we are no way concerned to oppoſe; for we think every Miniſter hath a Relation to the Univerſal Church, and Authority with Reſpect to all the Members of it: and more particularly within the Presbytery whereof he is a Member: and yet more fully toward theſe of the Congregation he is ſet in, whether Elders or People. Neither is our Queſtion about the Extent of the Biſhop's Power, as to Perſons, ſo much as about the Solitude of this Power; whether Church Power reſide in his Perſon alone, or be in the Community of Presbyters. I might diſmiſs this whole Section; but that his Proofs ſeem not ſo much levelled at this Concluſion; as at ſome other things which we cannot ſo eaſily comply with: he telleth us of Cyprian's defining the Church, to be a People united to the Prieſt, and a Flock adhering to their Pastour: he bringeth Citations to prove, that where a Biſhop is wanting, the People hath no Ruler, the Flock no Paſtour, the Church no Governour, Chriſt no Prelate, and God no Prieſt: and he will have Presbyters to be but Vice-Paſtours. Now how far is all this from his Concluſion; viz. that p. 22the Biſhop's Power extendeth to all the People? All this tendeth to prove the Biſhop's ſole Juriſdiction, which is afterward to be conſidered, where he inſiſteth on that point on purpoſe: but here here he doth nothing but make a Parade with a parcel of impertinent Citations: I ſhall only now tell him; that this may be well underſtood of a Pariſh Biſhop or Miniſter. For Presbyters being Vice-Pastours, that is afterward anſwered. Wherefore I now conſider his Application of his three Concluſions to what he would prove; viz. that a Biſhop in Cyprian's time, was neither the Paſtour of a Flock, nor the Moderator of a Presbytery; in my ſenſe of the terms: not the first for Cyprian at Carthage, Cornelius at Rome, &c. had many ſuch Paſtours under them: yea, it was ſo over all the World. Not the ſecond; becauſe a Presbyterian Moderator as ſuch, is no Church Governour at all: hath no direct, immediat, formal relation to the People, but only to the Presbytry. This is the goodly Argument in which our Author early triumpheth, as ſufficient, if there were no more, to ruine our Cauſe.

§. 18. This Triumph will be found to be before the Victory: That I may give a full and direct Anſwer to his Argument, I muſt diſtinguiſh what our Author confoundeth, viz. the ſignification of the word Biſhop in the Apoſtles time, it ſignified any ruling, ordinary Officer in the Church: hence Phil. 1. 1. all Church-Officers are ſo called, except the Deacons. And 1. Tim. 3. 1, 2, &c. The Apoſtle giveth Directions to all the Ruling-Officers in the Church, and then verſ. 8, &c. telleth what manner of Men the Deacons ſhould be. If the Apoſtle had known any other ordinary Church-Officers, theſe Canons had been very lame: and indeed it is no wonder that the Biſhops (not being here comprehended) do what they will; for we know no Scripture, rules neither for their Qualifications, nor Work: and Tit. 1. 5, and 6. the Elders that were to be ſet up in every City are called Biſhops, v. 7. the ſame Word in after Ages, as it was ſometimes given to Paſtours of particular Congregations, ſo it was ordinarily given to the foreign the primus Presbyter or Moderator in the Colledge of Presbyters: and the ſame p. 23that ſuſtained the later of theſe Relations had alſo the former, and laboured in the Word and Doctrine, and managed Congregational-Diſcipline in a particular Pariſh, taking the Word Pariſh in our modern ſenſe. Wherefore if the Citations he bringeth for Epiſcopal Power can rationally be applyed to either of theſe Notions of a Biſhop, our Cauſe is ſafe from his Aſſaults. That the Moderator of the Colledge of Presbyters is called Biſhop, not only is evident from Jerom, Ʋnus è Presbyteris electus eſt qui caeteris ſuperponeretur—Epiſcopi noverint ſe magis conſuetudine quam diſpoſitionis dominicae veritate, Presbyteris eſſe majores, & in communi debere Eccleſiam regere: but this Author cannot deny it; tho' he pleadeth for an extravagant Power to that his Moderator; about which Power I now debate with him.

§. 19. That the Paſtour of a particular Flock was alſo (in the Primitive Times) called a Biſhop, is certain from this, that the Scriptures dividing the Church-Officers in Biſhops and Deacons, are by the Fathers ſo applyed: as I have ſhewed elſewhere. Likewiſe we find Biſhops in ſmall Villages, where were no number of Paſtors, over whom the Biſhop might praeſide: as is fully proved by the learned Mr. Clarkson, Primitive Epiſcopacy ſtated, &c. c. 2. p. 19, &c. and that by multitudes of Inſtances, as alſo Teſtimonies of Fathers, aſſerting it to be then uſual, Sozomen Hist. l. 7. c. 19. telleth us that in Arabia foreign: he ſaith the ſame of Cyprus, and extendeth his Aſſertion to other Countries, foreign. Mr. Fuller (tho' Epiſcopal, yet a perſon of more Ingenuity than many others) History of the Holy War, lib. 2. cap. 2. p. 45, & 46. ſpeaking of Palestine, at this time (ſaith he) Biſhops were ſet too thick for all to grow, and Paleſtine fed too many Cathedral-Churches to have them generally fat: Lydda, Jamnia, and Joppa, three Epiſcopal Towns, were within four Miles one of another:—neither let it ſtagger the Reader, if in that Catalogue of Tyrius, he light on many Biſhops Seats which are not to be found in Mercator, Ortelius, or any other Geographer; for ſome were ſuch poor Places as they were aſhamed to appear in a Map.—For in that Age, Biſhops p. 24had their Sees at poor and contemptible Villages. Concil. Antioch. in their Epiſtle concerning Paulus Samoſatenus they mentioned Biſhops foreign. I know Dr. Maurice pretendeth to refute Mr Clarkſon's Book: neither ſhall I judge who hath the better in moſt parts of that Debate; but I ſee no ſufficient Anſwer to what I have here quotted. Yet do I not joyn with Mr. Clarkson in the whole deſign of his Book. Theſe two Notions of a Biſhop being familiar in the Primitive Times, it is no wonder if we find the Fathers, ſometimes ſpeaking of a Biſhop in the one Senſe, and ſometimes in the other.

§. 20. I now Anſwer his Argument: a Biſhop in Cyprian's time was always the Paſtor of a particular Flock, and Moderator in the Conſiſtory of Ruling-Elders; but ſometimes he was alſo the Moderator of a Colledge of Presbyters; and ſo might have many Presbyters under him; that is, he was above them in Dignity; and we deny not but that by reaſon of his fixation in that Office, he by cuſtom had crept into ſome more Power over them than was due: but that in Cyprian's time, he had the ſole Power of Juriſdiction, and Ordination, or ſuch Authority as our Dioceſans pretend to; I utterly deny. For the other part of his Argument, that he could not be a Moderator, becauſe a Moderator as ſuch, hath no Church Power, nor is a Church Governour. I Anſwer firſt; the Aſſertion he here reflecteth on, cited by him pag. 3. that a Moderator, as ſuch, hath no Church Power, was not meant, that there might be a Moderator who hath no Church Power, and ſo taking As ſpecificative: as he abſurdly improveth it, p. 36. affirming that a Heathen may be the Moderator of a Presbytery without repugnancy to any Principle of Chriſtianity, tho' not without indecency and inconvenience. I ſay this is a moſt abſurd Aſſertion, both becauſe a Heathen Moderator could not underſtand the Affairs of the Church; And becauſe he would embaraſse them: and becauſe it is againſt common ſenſe, and the Sentiments of Mankind, that an Enemy of the true Religion ſhould have the Conduct, and main hand in mannaging the Affairs that do ſo nearly concern it: Yea, this his Aſſertion contradicteth it ſelf: for p. 25he acknowledgeth that this were Indecent and Inconvenient, and I hope he will not deny, that it is a Principle of the Chriſtian Religion, that all things be done Decently, and in Order: and that both Nature and Religion require, that we ſhould ſhun what is inconvenient, eſpecially to ſo high Concernments as are theſe of Religion. That Aſſertion then, that he aimeth at, is to be underſtood reduplicative; that is, that a Moderator acquireth no Church Power by his being Moderator, above what he had as a Paſtor of the Church: and here a Sub-diſtinction is to be uſed, he acquireth indeed an Ordinative Power, in that he ordereth the Meeting to avoid Confuſion, and many call it pre re natâ; but he acquireth no Deciſive Power: he getteth a Power to be their Mouth, not their Will, or Commanding Faculty: to keep Order in the Management of what cometh before them, not to Determine what is Debated among them, as it is expreſſed in the place he citeth; and which might have prevented this Cavil, if he had heeded what was ſaid. To conclude what I have to Reply to this his Argument, it is no Proof of ſuch a Prelacy in Cyprian's time as he pleadeth for, that it related to the Laity, as well as the Clergy: for ſo doth that of our Moderator: that is, he ordereth the Affairs which concern them, which are managed in the Presbytery: and that Cyprian did more, or, that he managed the Affairs concerning the Laity, without the ſame Authoritative Concurrence of the Presbyters, is the Queſtion, and is not concluded by this Argument.

§. 21. He undertaketh, p. 11. eaſily to collect another Demonſtration againſt my Notion of a Biſhop, from the way, how in Cyprian's time, he was promoted to his Chair; to that Sublime Top of the Prieſthood, as he calleth it. This is to fright us with big, bur empty Words: if he bring a concludent probable Argument, tho' ſhort of a Demonstration, we muſt ſtoop. To Cyprian's Words, the Sublime Top of Prieſthood, I ſhould not doubt to give a ſatisfying Anſwer, if I could find the place, and conſider the purpoſe he is ſpeaking of; but my Antagoniſt hath made my Work very difficult; not by the ſtrength of his Arguments, but by leaving me p. 26at uncertainty where to find any one of his Citations, unleſs I either ſtumble on them caſually, or read all Cyprian's Epiſtles for every place that is cited: for he knoweth there are ſeveral Editions of Cyprian; and he hath neither told what Edition he uſeth, (I have no other at preſent, but that Printed by Le Preux, 1593.) nor nameth he to whom the Epiſtle is Directed: whether this be done de industriâ, or not, I ſhall not judge: but I am ſure it is a great neglect: eſpecially conſidering that Cyprian's Epiſtles are quite otherways numbred by Scultetus, than in the Edition mentioned, but I find neither of theſe can help me to find his Citations. All that I ſhall ſay about this Sublimity he talketh of, is, that the Fathers uſed to ſpeak big words concerning the Goſpel Miniſtry; which both Papiſts and Prelatiſts have abuſed: alſo the Biſhops Power was elevated to a higher Dignity, tho' not greater Authority, than the Presbyters, and that was their Sublime Faſtigium Sacerdotii. This his Argument alſo, he buildeth on ſeveral Propoſitions. The firſt is, There could be no lawful Promotion to a Biſhoprick, where a Biſhop had been ſetled, unleſs there were a clear, Canonical, and unqueſtionable Vacancy: it was a received Maxim then, that there could be but one Biſhop at once in a Church. Our preſent Debate is no way concerned in this Principle, whether it be true or falſe. For taking a Biſhop for Moderator; we think there ſhould be but one at one time: and that another ought not to be choſen till the place be void, by Death, Depoſition from that Office, or Ceſſion. If by Biſhop you underſtand the Paſtor of a Flock, whether there be one or more over a Congregation, is nothing to our purpoſe; ſeing the Queſtion is about the Power of the Biſhop, whether it be in one, or more Perſons.

§. 22. Yet I ſhall obſerve a few things on his Diſcourſe of this his Principle. 1. If I were willing to be very critical, I would ask him, what did they in thoſe days, when there was a real, and lawful Vacancy; but not clear, nor unqueſtionable; as in the Conteſt between Cornelius and Novatianus at Rome: and many other Inſtances that might be given, of moſt Unchriſtian, and ſometimes p. 27Bloody Contentions, between Biſhops pretending to the ſame See: I hope the ſound Party might, and did place a Biſhop; tho' the Vacancy was queſtioned. Next I oppoſe to his Principle, Dr. Hammond, on Rev. 11. p. 662. who telleth us, there were two Biſhops at once in Jeruſalem, Antioch, Epheſus, and Rome, he nameth them: and giveth Reaſons why diſtinct Congregations under their reſpective Biſhops in each City were neceſſary: he ſaith alſo it was ſo in other Cities: and his Reaſons do prove that it muſt be ſo in all Cities: where there are many People. I inſiſt not on the Biſhops at Philippi, Phil. 1. 1. At Epheſus, whom the Holy Ghoſt had made Biſhops, Act. 20. 20. Thirdly, I obſerve that all the Citations he here bringeth, hath this Tendency, to ſhew that Novatus in intruding himſelf in the Biſhop's See at Rome, was to be blamed, ſeing Cornelius was already duly ſetled in that Place. This was a plain Caſe, the Presbyters and People of Rome had choſen Cornelius to be Paſtor of a Flock, and their conſtant Moderator, as was the Practice of that Time: Novatianus was not only unſound in other things, but he got a Faction to chooſe him for Paſtor and their Moderator, and he with them, ſet up another Presbytery, in Oppoſition to that wherein Cornelius was fixed: I know no Presbyterian who would not condemn this Practice as much as Cyprian did: and it is obſervable that the Citations here brought by our Author, do not ſo much concern the Unity of a Biſhop; as the Unity of a Church, which indeed Novatianus had broken: I confeſs Cyprian here uſed Expreſſions a little too vehement, in that he not only denyeth them who make ſuch Rents to be Paſtors, being unduly Choſen, and Ordained; but denyeth them to be Chriſtians: it was a great Sin,, and deſerved the higheſt Cenſure; but it is hard to Unchriſtian all who make a Schiſm: but I impute this Fervor to the Temper of that Age, rather than of the Holy and Meek Cyprian: and it is like, theſe Wiſe Men ſaw a peculiar Reaſon at that time, for thus Oppoſing the Seeds of Ruine to the Church, which often lurk unobſerved in Schiſm.

p. 28§. 23. His ſecond pillar of this Argument is this Aſſertion; there was no canonical vacancy but where the Biſhop whoſe the Chair had been was dead, had ceded, or was canonically depoſed. Let this paſs. The third is, when a See was thus canonically vacant, the Biſhops of that province met, chooſed and ordained one in preſence of the people whom he was to govern. I object nothing againſt this, ſave that the Biſhops chooſed the Man to be ordained: we ſay the People had the choice, with the Elderſhip: but this Controverſie he waveth, as not belonging to this Argument; and ſo do I. His fourth Propoſition is, that the perſon elected received new Impoſition of Hands, and new Ordination; tho' he had been ordained a Presbyter before: this he proſecuteth p, 14. and citeth many Teſtimonies to prove what he alledgeth: he ſaith, no doubt that each of theſe was raiſed to the Epiſcopacy by a new Ordination: and of Sabinus, that he was ordained by Impoſition of Hands: I deny not that even an ordained Presbyter behoved to be choſen to the Office of Biſhop, before he could exerciſe it: ſo it is with our Moderator. That there was more Solemnity in inſtalling a Biſhop then, than we uſe in making a Moderator, cannot be denyed: that was conſequential to the Biſhops being conſtantly and for Life in that Office, and to that Prelation, or Dignity above other Presbyters that he then had. Neither ſhall I contend with him about Impoſition of Hands to have been in that caſe uſed; (tho' after ſearch, I cannot find the place he citeth) for it is well known, that in the Apoſtolick Church (and it is like it continued in after Ages) Impoſition of Hands was uſed when Men were ſent into a ſpecial piece of Work, tho' no new Office, or new Power was given; as Act 13. 3. I hope he will not ſay, that Saul, by that Impoſition of Hands, was promoted unto a higher; or new Office, being already an Apoſtle. But our Queſtion is, whether the Biſhop had a ſuperior Power over Presbyters, which reſided in his perſon alone: this we deny, and affirm that it is not proved by the Citations he hath brought. The Zeal that even falſe Biſhops uſed to have all the Formalities in their promotion p. 29that were uſed by any other (which is one of his Topicks) is as little probative; Nor ſhould I wonder if they exceeded: they had need of all the Pomp that could be, to make up the want of Real Right, to ſtrenthen their weak Title. He concludeth, p. 15. that now my Definition of a Biſhop is routed a ſecond time. Let the Reader judge.

§. 24. He cometh to apply his former propoſitions, and to conclude his Argument from them. How (ſaith he) can the Maxime of but one Biſhop at once conſist with the Biſhops being a ſingle Presbyter; ſeing in Rome and Carthage were many Presbyters, and yet each of theſe was but one Church. Anſ. 1. It conſiſteth well with the Notion of a Moderator. 2. It conſiſteth well with the Notion of a Biſhop in leſſer places, where was no ſuch plurality of Presbyters; of which before. 3. I have ſaid enough above to diſcredit this Maxime, in the ſenſe our Author uſeth it 4. There might be a plurality of Presbyters in a particular Congregation; not only Presbyters that were only ruleing, but-Preachers alſo: For it is obſerved by ſome, that in the primitive Times, they ordained many more preaching Presbyters in Churhes than they had preſent Work for: So Mr Clerkson, primitive Epiſcopacy, Ch. 5. p. 93. and he buildeth on Nazianzens Authority, who Orat. 1. Sheweth that the Officers in Churches were ſome times as many as theſe whom they had the Charge of. foreign (ſaith he) foreign. It is probable, that then the Chriſtians having no Univerſities, the Churches, eſpecially in great Cities, or where were learned Biſhops, were Colledges for Breeding men to the Miniſtry, and that when they were ripe, they ordained them and imployed them; that ſo they might be Seminaries out of which vacant Pariſhes might he provided: and if any will ſay, that the Biſhop had ſuch Authority over theſe Presbyters as our Profeſſors of Divinity have over the Students, It may paſs for a probable Conjecture: Only theſe were ordained, ours we do not ordain till we fix them in Churches: and in that time I find no ſuch unordained Licentiats as we have.

p. 30§. 25. He again asketh, If a Biſhop were but a ſingle Presbyter, why ſuch a do, and ſo many Biſhops conveened to elect and ordain him. This is in part anſwered above. I add, we alſo have a Meeting of many Miniſters to ordain a Presbyter to a ſingle Flock: and alſo when a Moderator is choſen. As for calling Biſhops of a whole province to Elect and inſtal a Biſhop at Rome, and at Carthage, that was needful, becauſe theſe were the fixed Moderators in theſe Provinces; So our Moderator of a provincial Synod is choſen by no fewer than the Miniſters of a whole Province: and the Moderator of the General Aſſembly by Miniſters from the whole National Church. What he ſaith about their New Ordination is already Anſwered. That which he calleth ridiculous is pretty ridiculouſly by him propoſed: Viz. that ſo much ado was made about making two men Presbyters of Rome, who were already Presbyters of Rome. He meaneth Cornelius and Novatianus. It was about making them Moderators of the Colledge of Presbyters, not in Rome, but in the whole Province: and indeed it was lamentable, rather than ridiculous: Both that that Promotion began then to be more eſteemed than was meet; and was lookt on as a Prelation above the other Brethren (tho' it was far ſhort of what our Author contendeth for) and alſo that there ſhould be ſuch unchriſtian Conteſts made about it Alas ſome ſuch things have fallen out where a Dioceſan Epiſcopacy was not pretended to. Our Sentiments about a conſtant Moderator he entertaineth in ridicule, p. 16. rather than refuteth them by Arguments: this I do little regard. Had the excellent men of the Cyprianick Age ſeen, or known the fatal Conſequents of it, as we have; I judge they would not have allowed it as they did. I. refer the Reader for ſatisfaction in this Point, to Mr. Baillie, Ʋnlawfulneſs and danger of limited Epiſcopacy: and another peice bearing the ſame Title, which he defendeth againſt a Reply made to it. That the Presbyters of Rome did often meet during the Vacancy of the See; and that they had a Moderator in their Meetings, none will deny: but what he inferreth is in conſequential; that they might as eaſily p. 31have choſen a Biſhop, if he had been but Moderator. For not only the Cuſtom of having the Moderator fixed, made it more hard than to chooſe one to be their Mouth for one Meeting, or two; but alſo, (as I have ſaid) the whole Province was to be concerned in him. He argueth p. 17. in many words, if he were Moderator, why the people was to chooſe him, or why was it needful that he ſhould be choſen in their preſence. A. Becauſe alſo he was to be Paſtor of that Flock. That he was no Church-Governour as Moderator, is anſwered above: But it cannot be ſaid he was no Church-Governour under another Relation; viz. as Paſtor of the Congregation of Rome, or a Congregation in it. That he was choſen by 16 Biſhops. i. e. ſaith our Author, ſixteen Moderators was not then needleſs, ſeing he was to be Moderator over them to; that is over that Province. If ſixteen parochial Biſhops met to chooſe a Moderaror of a Presbytery, or ſixteen Moderators from ſixteen Presbytries met to Elect him who was to praeſide continually in the Synod; This cannot infer either ſole or ſuperior Juriſdiction. Further if we ſhould grant that in theſe days, a Preſbyterie uſed to take the help of other Presbyteries, or their Moderators, or that help was by Cuſtom impoſed on them, this will indeed prove that ſome of the 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 Ʋnity 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, p. 32are 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 Ʋnity 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 Ʋnity; 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 Ʋnity: 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 Ʋnitate 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. 33(p. mihi 297.) ſpeaketh of Peter's Primacy, and placeth the Unity of the Chriſtian Church in him: tamen ut Ʋnitatem manifeſtaret, unam Cathedram conſtituit, & Ʋnitatis ejuſdem Originem ab uno incipientem ſua authoritate conſtituit: hoc erant utique & caeteri Apoſtoli quod Petrus, pari conſortio praediti & honoris & poteſtatis, ſed exordium ab Ʋnitate proficiſcitur. And a little below, quam Ʋnitatem 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 p. 34of 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 Canterbur…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.