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

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

p. 66§. 47. The Biſhop's fifth Power that he alone poſſeſſed is, of impoſing charitable Contributions on all the Chriſtians within his District, for the Relief of Strangers, &c. For which he referreth to Ep. 62. and 78. but citeth no words. I can find nothing to that purpoſe in either of them, as in my Book. For his alledging Soter Biſhop of Rome, whom Dionyſius of Corinth commendeth for this Practice, cited by Euſebius, Lib. 4. Cap. 23. (mihi 22.) there is no more in it, but that Dionyſius commendeth that Church for their wonted charitable Diſtributions to other Churches; and that Soter had obſerved, and improved this Cuſtom: this may be fairly expounded of exhorting to Charity without p. 67Authoritative Impoſing of Contributions; which any Miniſter may do. And if he did impoſe, it is not ſaid he did it by himſelf, tho' he is only mentioned; as, perhaps, being ſingularly active in ſtirring up both the Presbytery and the People: and he was to publiſh in the Church, the Presbyteries Determination in this. What is there in all this for a ſole Power in this Matter? His next full Power is, Indicting of Fasts: for which he citeth Tertullian de Jejun. But it is obſervable that Tertullian ſpeaketh of Biſhops in the plural number; now it is not to be thought that no Faſts were Indicted but by a Meeting of Dioceſans: wherefore Epiſcopi muſt be the Presbytery. Or if he mean the ſeveral Biſhops in their ſeveral Churches: it may be rationally underſtood of the Biſhop's intimating to the People, what is by common Conſent Determined; not what he enjoyneth by his ſole Authority. The ſeventh Branch of the Biſhop's Prerogative is, to Convocate the Presbytery and Deacons. And let him enjoy it, for it is what we grant to our Moderator: and there is a natural neceſſity, that it be in the Power of ſome perſon to call them together, when any emergent doth require it. And ſeing in Cyprian's time, the Biſhop was the conſtant Moderator, it was conſequential that he ſhould be the constant Conveener. But what Prerogative, or ſole Power this doth infer, or what Eccleſiaſtick Authority above the Brethren it importeth, I cannot underſtand. Let any who hath clear uſe of reaſon judge, how this proveth the Biſhop's managing the Affairs of the Church like a chief Governour, as our Author dreameth, p. 48. Neither doth it appear, that the Biſhop might convocate the Presbyters at pleaſure, (as he fancieth) but when there was cauſe: as in the Inſtance he bringeth there was. He bringeth in, on this Occaſion, an Obſervation, that Cornelius received theſe perſons about whom he called the Presbytery, without asking the Peoples conſent; but acquainted them after it was done. But our Author hath forgot what he had a few Lines before ſaid, that after they were received in the Presbytery, the People were made acquainted with it; not one word of the Biſhop's receiving them p. 68by himſelf. This is nothing contrary to Presbyterian Principles and Practices. Yea (as if he had deſign'd to refute himſelf) he citeth a Letter of theſe Perſons, ſhewing that they were reconciled to the Biſhop, and to the whole Clergy: where is then the Biſhop's ſole Power of receiving Penitents? He propoundeth to himſelf an Objection; that the Presbyters at Rome met in a Vacancy, after the Biſhop's Death: and at Carthage, in the time of Cyprian's Retirement. To the ſecond Inſtance he Anſwereth, that Cyprian left a Delegation for their Meeting: which he proveth ſtrangely: he wrote, (Ep. 5.) that they ſhould faithfully perform his Office and their own: where, ſaith he, we have diſtinct Offices, and an expreſs ſetling of a Delegation. A. For diſtinct Offices, his Miſtake of the Latine Word hath miſled him; it is fungamini illic & veſtris partibus & meis: I ſee not but one Presbyter may ſay this to another. For his Delegation, I think few others can perceive it in theſe words; may not any Member of a Presbytery, but eſpecially the Moderator, ſay the ſame, by a Letter to the Presbytery? It importeth no more but a Warning to be vigilant in their Work. See §. 46. His next Citations is out of Ep. 14. (It is Ep. 6.) Where Cyprian commands them to perform the Office of Vicars to him. Cyprian's words are, hortor & mando ut vice mea fungamini circa gerenda ea quae adminiſtratio religioſa depoſcit. Here is no more but what any of Chriſt's Ambaſſadours may ſay; he chargeth them to do their Duty; and he had Authority from Chriſt, not as Biſhop, but as a Paſtor of the Church, and Chriſt's Ambaſſadour, to enjoyn this. If Cyprian had our Author's meaning, then all Religious Adminiſtration muſt ceaſe, without the Biſhop's preſence, or Delegation: which is abſurd. For his mea vice, it ſignifieth no more, but that his Abſence might be ſupplied by their Diligence. Cyprian's warm recenting what ſome of them did without his allowance; ſhall be elſewhere conſidered: it was, that ſome Presbyters without both their Moderator, and the Presbytery, received ſome of the Lapſed: which was wholly irregular, and blame worthy. He next, to the Presbyters Meeting, ſede p. 69vacante, Anſwereth; that they might meet; but they might only determine in ruled caſes. That is gratis dictum: but if they might act in any caſe, it is an Argument that they had Church Power in their Perſons; and that it was not ſolely in the Biſhop. The laſt of the Biſhop's Prerogatives that he pleadeth for, (tho' he telleth us, p. 50. that he could collect more,) is, his Delegating, not his Presbyters in common, but two of them, Rogatianus and Numidicus, with two Biſhops, Caldonius and Herculanus, to conſider the ſtate of the Poor at Carthage, and to pronounce the Sentence of Excommunication againſt Feliciſſimus and Augendus: which they executed againſt them, and ſome others. If this Diſcourſe prove ſuch a Power of Delegation, it will alſo prove ſuch a Power in one Biſhop over another; which our Author will not allow; ſeing he aſſerteth, p. 27, 28, 35. that every Biſhop is ſupreme, and hath no Eccleſiaſtical Superior on Earth. 2. Sending a Meſſenger to do for us, what we are reſtrained from doing, is not always an Act of Authority: one Friend may ſend another, if he yield to it, as well as a Maſter may ſend his Servant. 3. That which hath moſt Weight in our main Cauſe, (tho' it be impertinent to the preſent purpoſe,) is, that theſe Perſons were to Excommunicat Feliciſſimus, &c. To which I Anſwer, that this Excommunication might be Determined by the Presbytery, and it was Cyprian's part, as Moderator, to intimate it; for which he ſubſtituteth the Perſons named. Here is no ſole Power of Excommunication. This is Countenanced by Cyprian's own words, in that Ep. §. 2. that Feliciſſimus had deſpiſed both him and the Presbytery. Nec meo honore motus, nec veſtra authoritate fractus: It ſeems he had been tried before them, and Sentenced for Contumacy. Further, he was alſo ſuſpected of Adultery; which Cyprian would not judge by himſelf; but referred it to their Meeting, ibid.

§. 48. Having now examined our Author's firſt Principle, I proceed to the ſecond, which he advanceth, p. 50, &c. It is, that in every thing relating to the Government of the Church, and her Diſcipline, the Biſhop had a Negative over all the other Church-Governours, p. 70within his Diſtrict: he had the ſupreme Power of the Keyes. He ſetteth about the proving of this Point with a high Degree of Confidence: but let not him that putteth on his Armour boaſt as he that putteth it off. He pretendeth to ſhew, that Presbyters could not Baptize, nor Adminiſter the Lord's Supper, nor Excommunicate, nor Abſolve, nor Make, nor Reſcind Eccleſiaſtical Laws, without the Biſhop's Allowance. For a foundation to our Anſwer to all his Diſcourſe on this Head, I ſhall re-mind the Reader of a Diſtinction of Presbyters above-mentioned. They were in Cyprian's time, of three ſorts. 1. The Ruling Elders, who were no Preachers, and who with the Biſhop, (or Pariſh Miniſter,) and other Preaching Presbyters, (if there were any,) made up the Conſiſtory, by which the Affairs of the Congregation were managed. Theſe, I confeſs could Adminiſter no Sacrament, neither without, nor with the Biſhop's Licence. And for Acts of Ruling in the Church, it is probable enough, that they could do nothing without him who was Praeſes in their Meetings, except, may be, in ſome extraordinary Caſes. 2. There were in ſome Churches, (eſpecially in great Cities) ſome Presbyters who were Ordained to the Work of the Miniſtry, but had no particular Charge, and were as our Probationers, or Students in Divinity Schools, (only with this Difference, that ours are not Ordained,) theſe might not Baptize, nor Adminiſter the Euchariſt, yea, nor Preach without the Allowance of the Biſhop, or Pariſh Miniſter. And it is ſo alſo among us: if ſome Ordained Miniſters happen to live in a Pariſh, whereof they are not Paſtors, (as ſometimes falleth out in great Cities,) it is diſorderly for them to exerciſe their Miniſtery within another man's Charge, without his Call or Allowance. Theſe Presbyters, in Cyprian's time, were in ſomethings, like Evangeliſts, whom the Biſhops imployed, when themſelves could not overtake all their Work: and if theſe be called the Biſhop's Curats, (as our Author doth all Presbyters,) I ſhall not much reclaim. Theſe were, as the Sons of the Prophets, bred by the Biſhop for the Miniſtery: of this ſort of Presbyters, ſee P. Baynes p. 71Dioceſan's Tryal, p. 63. A third ſort of Presbyters, were the Miniſters of the ſeveral Pariſhes, among whom the Moderator of the Presbytery, or other Church Judicatory, was in a peculiar manner, called the Biſhop: and they alſo often were called Biſhops, with reſpect to their own Parochial Charge. Now, if our Author mean, that a Biſhop in a City had ſuch Power over the Presbyters, or Miniſters in the Villages, or Places about, that they might not Baptize, &c. without his Allowance, I utterly deny it; and maintain that every ſuch Presbyter, Miniſter, or Parochial Biſhop, (by what ever name ye deſign him,) had in Cyprian's time, as full Power in his Pariſh, as the great Biſhop had in his, tho' the one was more in eſteem than the other.

§. 49. I ſhall now conſider his Proofs for what he affirmeth. He beginneth with Baptiſm, and pretendeth to prove, that Presbyters could not Baptize without the Biſhop's Leave. His firſt Citation is, Cyprian ſaith, Biſhops give the first Baptiſm to Believers. Which we deny not, if ye underſtand it of Pariſh Miniſters. But if he mean Biſhops in Cities, who were the Praeſidents in Presbyteries, we deny that Cyprian aſſerteth that. His next Teſtimony is out of Cyprian, Ep. 73. and Firmil. and Fortunatus Biſhop of Thurobaris: But it is evident, and he confeſſeth it, that the Queſtion by them treated, is, whether Presbyters, who by Hereſie, or Schiſm, had departed from the Communion of the Church, might Baptize, and if they they did, whether that Baptiſm was valid, or the Perſon was to be again Baptized, and that Baptiſm eſteemed null: And in this we do ſo far agree with theſe Fathers, as to think that all the Adminiſtrations of ſuch Hereticks, or Schiſmaticks are irregular, and to be condemned: and that none ought ſo to ſeparate from the Church, while ſhe keepeth the Way of Truth, and requireth no unlawful Terms of Communion of her Miniſters, or other Members. But none of theſe Fathers, did ever Aſſert, that in the Church, a ſound Presbyter could not Baptize without the Biſhop's Leave, within the Limits of his own Charge. That they mean no more than I ſay, is evident, for they plead, p. 72that none can Baptize out of the Church, nor Bind or Looſe out of the Church, and they ſay expreſly, that none can Baptize, but they who are Founded in the Evangelical Law: and I hope it will not be denyed, that Miniſters of Congregations are Founded on that Law, as well as theſe of great Cities, who were then called Biſhops, becauſe of their Praecedency in Church Meetings. That Biſhops are named▪ in theſe Reaſonings, as having the Power of Baptizing, maketh nothing againſt us, becauſe all Pariſh Miniſters were ſo called; and none without their Allowance ought to intrude on their Charge, in this, or any other Adminiſtration: and becauſe the Authority for Baptizing, and other Church Work was Communicated from the Presbytery, by their Praeſident, the Biſhop: he indeed gave the Power; but not by his own ſole Authority, but by that of the Presbytery. The teſtimony of Tertullian cometh next: who ſaith, de Baptiſmo, cap. 17. the High Priest, who is the Biſhop, hath the Power of Baptizing, and after him, (or in Subordination to him, ſaith our Author,) Presbyters and Deacons. A. 1. Tertullian doth not ſpeak of Biſhops, as diſtinct from the Paſtors of particular Flocks; but from Presbyters who had no Charge: if this Author put another meaning on his words, let him prove it. 2. Tertullian a little above, puto autem licuit & tingere, cui licuit praedicare: I hope he will not ſay, that Tertullian thought, that no Miniſter might Preach without the Biſhop's Leave; tho' he might think that the unſetled Presbyters, ought to Preach in no man's Charge without his Leave. 3. Tertullian a little below, alloweth Laicks, yea, Women, to Baptize, in caſe of neceſſity, without the Biſhop's Leave: as he doth in the place cited, the Deacons to do it with the Biſhop's Leave, all which I look on as ſpoken without Warrant. 4. Tertullian groundeth his Diſcourſe on this; that the honour of the Church requireth, that the Biſhop's Allowance ſhould be had; and on this occaſion, condemneth Emulation, as the Mother of Schiſm: and citeth that place, all things are lawful, but all things are not expedient. From all which it is eaſie to gather, that he only condemned them who Baptized without Church Authority, p. 73which the Biſhop, as Mouth of the Presbytery, did Communicat. 5. It is wholly without Warrant that this Learned Author addeth to Tertullian's Words, and in Subordination to him: dehinc (which is that Father's Word) doth neither ſignifie, nor can import ſo much: all that can be built on it, is a prior Dignity to the Biſhop; in this, and other parts of the Miniſterial Work. His laſt Citation is Ignatius, it is not lawful to Baptize without the Biſhop. A. That is, without the Authority of the Presbytery, which the Biſhop as their Praeſes, conveyeth.

§. 50. He Aſſerteth next, (p. 52.) that no Presbyter could Adminiſter the Euchariſt within the the Biſhop's District, without his Leave, or against his Interdict. To this, what hath already been ſaid, is a full Anſwer. No Presbyter might do this within the Charge of a Pariſh Biſhop, without his Leave: nor yet in a Presbyterial Diſtrict, without the Allowance of the Presbytery, given out by their Epiſcopus Praeſes. His Proofs are exactly like the former; Cyprian (ſeverely and juſtly) laſheth ſome Schiſmatical Presbyters, who by themſelves, without Cyprian, and without the Presbytery, did Administer the Lord's Supper to ſome of the Lapſed, who were not duely Reconciled to the Church: I know no Presbytery that would not condemn this, if it were done within their Bounds; yea, they would think their Authority contemned; and their Moderator ſlighted, who ſhould have been Applyed to, to call the Presbytery for Conſulting about this: who, with them, ſhould have Authoritatively Determined in this Matter: and this Neglect of the Biſhop was in that time, the more conſpicuous, that his Praecedency was conſtant, and known to all; which was the cauſe the Biſhop is ſo often named, in theſe things that concerned not him alone, but the whole Community. It is to the ſame purpoſe, which he next alledgeth of Dionyſius Biſhop of Alexandrià, giving a Command that any Lapſed, in danger of Death, if Supplicating for it, ſhould have the Euchariſt. For that may be underſtood of Dionyſius enjoyning this to the unfixed Presbyters of Alexandria, that it ſhould be done within that Pariſh, whereof p. 74Dionyſius was Paſtor: or of the Presbytery, by Dionyſius their Praeſes, to be obſerved within their Diſtrict. What Ignatius ſaith, that that is only to be eſteemed a firm, and valid Eucharist, which is Celebrated by the Biſhop, or by his Authority: this, I ſay, admitteth of the ſame Anſwer; that none ought to Celebrate that Holy Ordinance in any Congregation, but the Paſtor of it, or whom he doth call to do it for him: I might call in Queſtion the Authority of theſe Epiſtles of Ignatius which he citeth; but I will not digreſs into that Controverſie; ſub judice lis eſt, Theologi certant. There is nothing of any more Weight in his next Citation; where Cyprian, againſt the Novatians, declareth that there could be no true Sacrament among them, becauſe they are out of the Church; and had aſſumed to themſelves an Epiſcopal Chair, and a Power of Baptizing▪ and Offering. It is plain that this is meant of them, who had caſt off the Churches Authority, that was exerciſed by her Paſtors, (who are here called Biſhops,) but it no way proveth, that ſome Paſtors of the Church, muſt depend on one of them, for this Authority. It is tedious to repeat the ſame thing ſo often; in Anſwer to ſo many Arguments, which are materially the ſame. After all theſe numerous Teſtimonies, he cometh p. 55. to an Artificial Argument, in which kind of Arguings, he ſeemeth not to be very formidable; he ſuppoſeth he hath fully proved the Biſhop to be the Principle of Ʋnity; the Chief Governour, that by Conſequence the ſupreme Power of the Keyes belongeth to him: that he was the viſible Head of the Church; it is highly reaſonable on that account, that he ſhould have the chief Power of Diſpenſing the Sacraments: and that they might not be Diſpenſed without him. I have already ſhewed the Weakneſs of all theſe Grounds he buildeth upon: and therefore the Conſequence built on them, muſt fall to the ground: we are no leſs ſenſible than he is, of the evil of Receiving, and continuing unworthy Perſons in the Church; and that the Governours of the Church must be Judges in this matter; but we are not yet convinced, that the Biſhop by himſelf, rather than the Community of Church Rulers, are that Judge: and I muſt take p. 75leave to tell him, that (however it was in the Primitive Times,) in our Days, the excluding of unworthy Perſons, Miniſters and others, hath been much more to be obſerved, where the Church is ruled by a Parity of Presbyters; than where it is governed by one Prelate.

§. 51. This Learned Author, ſuppoſing that he had proved the Biſhop's Negative in Adminiſtration of the Sacraments, hence inferreth his Soveraign Interest in Excommunication, Abſolution, Enjoyning Pennance, &c. Which Conſequence I ſhall not conteſt with him: but I hope the Reader is now ſatisfied, that he hath not ſufficiently eſtabliſhed the Antecedent: nor will we yield that Cyprian, or his Contemporaries had, or laid Claim to ſuch a Prerogative. But our Author, tho' he thinketh he might ſuperſede the Proof of his Negative in theſe other things, yet, becauſe he will give all poſſible Satisfaction, he undertaketh a Deduction of further Powers in the Perſon of Cyprian: of which we have a long Hiſtory, beginning at p. 56. I have nothing to obſerve on the account he giveth of Cyprian's Converſion, Promotion, (ſave what I have obſerved out of Pontius, of his Promotion to be Presbyter and Biſhop ſimul & ſemel: but what ever be in that, it hath no great Influence on our Cauſe,) the Oppoſition he met with, his Eminency for Grace and Gifts, the wicked Courſes his Enemies took, while, under the Perſecution by Decius, he retired from Carthage; how they got ſome of the Confeſſors and Martyrs to Countenance them; and they upon this, were emboldened by themſelves, to Abſolve ſome of the Lapſed. Nothing of this I contradict, except what I now ſaid. He hath run thus far without a Check; and therefore ariveth at the Confidence to ſay, p. 58. now conſider what followeth, and ſpeak your Conſcience, and tell me, if St. Cyprian was not more than either ſingle Presbyter, or Presbyterian Moderator, I ſhall yield him yet a little more, in what he ſaith of Cyprian's Meekneſs and Humility; of his being alarmed with this Practice, that this was an unparalelled Practice, and that Cyprian did zealouſly and vigorouſly oppoſe it. And for all this I ſhall ſpeak my Conſcience, and ſhall p. 76give Reaſon for my Light, that Cyprian was no Dioceſan Biſhop, in our modern ſenſe; and that he neither had, nor claimed ſole Power, nor a Negative, in the Government of the Church; and that, bating what I yielded in ſtating the Queſtion, §. 9, 10. He was no more but a ſingle Presbyter, that is a Pariſh Miniſter, or Presbyterian Moderator. And indeed all that he here bringeth, and looketh on as ſo ſtrongly Argumentative, is already Anſwered, he having cited all, or moſt of the places before, which he here quoteth. He bringeth three Epiſtles of Cyprian to prove his Aſſertion.

§. 52. The firſt is that to the Confeſſors and Martyrs: where I find nothing but a ſharp Reproof of them for going without their Line: and he blameth thoſe Presbyters who had abſolved the Lapſed ſo diſorderly: only what ſeemeth here to contain an Argument is, that they ſhould have Petitioned the Biſhop for reſtoring of theſe Lapſed, and not done it without him. The Anſwer here is eaſie; and often before given, that the fault of theſe turbulent Presbyters was, that they took this Act of Church Power on themſelves, without the Presbytery; whereas the regular way had been to Petition the Biſhop, that he might call the Presbytery, and that he with them might cognoſce of that Affair. I have laid down ſufficient warrant for thus underſtanding his words, from his declared purpoſe, founded on Conſcience of Duty, to do nothing without the Concurrence of the Presbytery, ſee §. 12. And it is like, I may after bring yet further Evidence, that his Principles led him to this Conduct: At preſent, I take notice of that plain Paſſage, Ep. 15. ad Clerum, ſpeaking of receiving the Lapſed, quaeres (ſaith he) cum omnium nostrum Concilium, & Sententiam ſpectet, praejudicare ego, & ſoli mihi rem communem vindicare non audeo. And he deſireth that that Affair might be put off; donec pace nobis à Domino redditâ, in unum convenire, & ſingulorum cauſas examinare poſſumus: if Cyprian ſeem to my Adverſary to ſpeak in pure Prelatical Stile, as he ſaith, p. 6. He ſeemeth to me here, to ſpeak in the Stile of a Presbyterian Moderator. Of the ſame Importance is the p. 77next Epiſtle cited, which was to the Clergy of Carthage, (he doth not call them his Clergy, as our Author wordeth it; and if he had, there had been no Argument in it,) he ſharply reproveth (not the Presbyters in common, as our Author fouly repreſenteth the matter; for he writeth in a loving Stile to them: but) ſome of the Presbyters who had received ſome of the Lapſed moſt irregularly; and that becauſe they had not taken the due courſe for receiving theſe Lapſed, which ſhould have been done per impoſitionem manuum Epiſcopi & Cleri, not by the Biſhops ſole Authority. He doth indeed here ſpeak like a Biſhop; that is a faithful Paſtor; but not as a Biſhop pretending to ſole Juriſdiction; or a Negative in the Government of the Church. His third Epiſtle is to the People; where we have the ſame Complaint of the Irregularity of the Schiſmatical Presbyters; and complaineth that the honour of his Prieſthood, and of his Chair, was not reſerved to him. This can never evince that Cyprian pretended to a Power to manage that Affair by himſelf: I ſee nothing here inconſiſtent with the Power, or the Stile of the Moderator of a Presbytery, or Paſtor of a Congregation: ſave that the Moderator then, being conſtant, his part in the management of publick Affairs was more obvious, and therefore more taken notice of. He hath yet a further Citation, wherein Cyprian telleth the Clergy, that they ought to inform him of every thing that happens; that ſo I may (ſaith he) Adviſedly and Deliberatly, give Orders concerning the Affairs of the Church; let any one compare this Tranſlation with Cyprian's own words, which are faithfully enough ſet down by our Author in the Margin: Is limare Conſilium to give Order? It is to poliſh, and amend his Advice▪ and make it more exact: he then, in his Retirement, wills them to write often and diſtinctly to him of all Occurrences, that he, as making ſuch a figure in their Society, might give the more accurate Advice about what was to be done: this is no Prelatical, but a plain Presbyterian Stile.

§. 53. On this occaſion he is pleaſed p. 61, 62.) to take notice of, and tragically aggravate a Paſſage in rational Defence of p. 78Non-conformity, p. 179. where he thinketh Cyprian is reflected on as ſhewing too much Zeal in that Cauſe (viz. of his Epiſcopal Authority being neglected) and that poſſibly he ſtretched his Power a little too far, as afterward many did: he was a holy, and meek man; but ſuch may be a little too high: This he ſtretcheth his Invention to expoſe, as contradictory to it ſelf; injurious to Cyprian, and an uncharitable, or ignorant Sugestion: his more ſedate Thoughts after all this Huffineſs, may inform him better: That Author as he was not ſo ſtraitned with his learned Adverſaries Arguments, as he imagineth (they being the very ſame which now I have examined) ſo he was far from ſpeaking Contradictions, nor did he ſeek to reconcile Pride and Patience, Superciliouſneſs and Selfdenyal, Huffineſs and Humility, carnal hight and Christian Holineſs: He was far from thinking on ſuch ill Qualities with reſpect to that excellent perſon: Further than that the beſt of men have ſinful Infirmity mixed with their Graces, and beſt Gifts. He might know and I ſhall not charge him with Ignorance in this) that Sin and Grace are conſiſtent in gradu ſaltem remiſſiore: And that tho' it were ridiculous to ſay, that Moſes was the meekeſt Man on Earth, and yet he was Huffie, and Proud, and Paſſionate: or that Job was moſt patient, and yet he was impatient- Notwithſtanding it may be ſaid, with our Author's leave; that neither of theſe holy Men was ſo perfect in the grace for which he is commended, as to have nothing of the contrary evil: Further I am of Opinion, that what might be imputed to the excellent Cyprian, was rather the Fault of the Age he lived in, than his perſonal Fault, there was then a Tendency toward Church-Domination, which did ſhew it ſelf much more afterward: Tho' I ſtill maintain it was not arrived at that Pitch that this Author imputeth to that time. He ſpendeth a great many words to prove that Cyprian did not ſtretch his Power too far in this matter: all which is loſt labour; for that was no otherways imputed to him, than with a poſſibility; and on Account of his mentioning his own Epiſcopal Power more than he did the power of the Presbytery (which power of the Presbytery p. 79he doth yet clearly owne, as I have proved) This had a ſhew of Uſurpation; and did in time introduce it: It was the Genius of that age, to have too big thoughts of that Praelation of being primus Presbyter: And the beſt of men in that time were tinctured with this miſtake. Wherefore he might have ſuperceded his proving what Figure the Martyrs then made, I know their Intereſt went far, as to receiving the lapſed; yet I ſtill think that they neither pretended to, nor was then aſcribed to them, formal Church-Authority. What he largely diſcourſeth, p, 64. of Cyprian's dealing with the diſorderly Presbyters, not by Huffing, but by reaſon and Argument, is as little to our purpoſe; in that, he did rationally, and Chriſtianly: Yet in theſe Reaſonings, as he in words, taketh more notice of his Epiſcopal Authority, than of the Presbytries Power, ſo upon the matter doth not derogate from the one, nor unduely highten the other: as hath been already ſhewed. I wonder at the Inſinuation that my learned Antagoniſt maketh, p. 65. as if any had imagined it queſtionable, whether Cyprian, or the Presbyters that he blameth, were guilty of Ʋſurpation: They did uſurp moſt intollerably in doing that by themſelves, which ſhould have been done by Cyprian and the Presbytery: And it was no Uſurpation to reprove, and threaten them with Cenſure for ſo doing. The power of the Presbytery was not here queſtioned; but the power of particular Presbyters who took the Power of the Presbytry upon them: And therefore the Presbytery who were not guilty, had no Right of their own to defend againſt Cyprian; but had juſt cauſe to joyn with him againſt theſe Uſurpers. It is as inſignificant, that the ſeditious Presbyters repented, excuſed themſelves, and deſired a Form from Cyprian: For it is ordinary for ſome to go from one Extreme to another. Beſides that ſeeking a Form from him was to ask it from him, and the Presbytery, not from him alone. That theſe Presbyters were generally condemned for their factious Practices, I think none doubteth, and it is to little purpoſe to prove it ſo laboriouſly as our Author doth.

p. 80§. 54. Yet becauſe in his Proofs of it ſome things are interſperſed which may look like Arguments againſt what I plead for, I ſhall make ſome Obſerves on this Diſcourſe. He giveth us account of Cyprian's writing to the Presbytery at Rome, they having then no Biſhop. This I hope is a Token that Cyprian thought not that all Church Power at Rome dyed with the Biſhop; but that Presbyters are Church Rulers, and not the Biſhop only: In the return that the Presbytery at Rome, made to Cyprian, he fancieth that he findeth ſome Arguments for Epiſcopal ſole Power: which I ſhall a little conſider: He ſaith they aſcribe to him a ſupreme and unaccountable Power: I find no words that can be ſo conſtructed in either of the two Epiſtles that they write to him on that Subject; but on the contrary, they ſeem to inſinuate a Parity with him, while they frequently call him Frater. It would be thought great ſaucineſs, in our days, for Presbyters to write in that Stile to ſo great a Biſhop as Cyprian was eſteemed to have been, by our Prelats. Next, they compare him to the Maſter of a Ship; who doeth not act in parity with the other Sea-men; A. omne ſimile claudicat. a Moderator of a Presbytery may be ſo compared, as having a main hand in the Conduct of Affairs. Again the words of that Epiſtle import no more than making Cyprian the Steerſman: who tho' he be at the Helm, and the Safety of the Ship dependeth much on his Skill and Management, yet he is not always the Commander of the Ship; and the Safety of the Ship ſhould yet more depend on the Steerſman, if he were fixed, and always ſo imployed; as Cyprian was in the Eccleſiaſtical Ship at Carthage. He ſaith, that the Roman Clergy tell Cyprian (and pray take notice of it, ſaith he) that they could determine nothing in that matter, wanting a Biſhop. This is a Miſrepreſentation: for they tell their Mind plainly in the firſt of their two Epiſtles to Cyprian; that he did well in repreſſing that Inſolency of ſome Presbyters; that the lapſed ſhould not be ſuddenly received, and give the Reaſon, recens eſt hoc lapſorum vulnus, & adhuc in tumorem plaga conſurgens; & idcirco certi ſumus, quod ſpatio productioris temporis, impetu isto conſeneſcente, amabunt p. 81hoc ipſum ad fidelem ſe delatos medicinam. And in the ſecond Epiſtle they add another Reaſon why it was fit to delay that Affair of of cenſuring the lapſed, becauſe they wanted a Biſhop, not becauſe the Biſhop was to be the ſole Judge in that matter; but becauſe the Biſhop was he, qui omnia iſta moderetur (theſe are their own words) he was to preſide in that Affair. Seing then there was another reaſon for delaying, even where there was a Biſhop, as in Carthage, it was a ſuperadded reaſon why at Rome it ſhould be delayed, the Preſbyterie being incomplete, by the want of a ſignificant Member. If it be ſaid, could they not chooſe a Moderator? Anſw. That Office through cuſtom being then fixed, and the Honour and Revenue that belonged to it being ſo conſiderable, it was not eaſie to get it done of a ſudden; and the iniquity of that time of Perſecution did add to the difficulty, as themſelves expreſs it; Nondum enim Epiſcopus, propter rerum & temporum difficultates conſtitutus. Our Author vitiareth their words, when he maketh them ſay, who onelyonly could define, &c. There is no ſuch words in this Epiſtle: it is ſaid indeed of the Biſhop, eorum qui lapſi ſunt poſſit cum authoritate & conſilio habere rationem. But that ſaith nothing of ſole Authority, but ſuch as was to be acted in the Presbytery, and with their concurrence.

§. 55. He obſerveth likewiſe, that they commend Cyprian, that he did not determine in that matter by himſelf alone; but took the advice of many: and this they impute not to the incompetency of his Authority for it; but to his condeſcendence. Anſ. He doth wholly miſtake this Matter, for the Roman Clergy, in their Letter to Cyprian, do not at all take notice of what he did, or might do, with reſpect to his own Diſtrict, nor his adviſing with his own Presbytery; but that he had taken the advice, in ſuch a weighty caſe, of general concernment, of other Biſhops, and of the Clergy at Rome, And it is certain, that he, with the Presbytery at Carthage, might have determined in this Matter with reſpect to themſelves; and it was Prudence, and not want of Power, that made him adviſe with others. He bringeth another Teſtimony to the plenitude of Epiſcopal p. 82Power, from an Epiſtle from the Clergy of Rome, while they wanted a Biſhop, to the Clergy of Carthage, when their Biſhop was in his retirement: in which caſe, ſaith he, they had the best occaſion of ſpeaking their mind freely, of the power of Presbyters, and the uſurpation of Biſhops: in this Epiſtle he fancieth that he findeth Arguments for Epiſcopal ſole Power: as firſt, they ſay, of themſelves, and theſe at Carthage, that they were only ſeemingly the Governours of theſe reſpective Churches; and only keep the Flock inſtead of the reſpective Pastors, the Biſhops. I had occaſion to conſider this Paſſage before, I blame his want of Wiſdom, that ſeing he is pleaſed to give us this Tranſlation of this Paſſage, he hath yet ſet down the Latine in the Margine: out of which one may eaſily diſcover his Error, without turning to the Epiſtle it ſelf: It is a ſtrange Tranſlation, Videmur Praepoſiti, that is, we only ſeem to be Governours. I am ſure, the Marginal Notes on this Epiſtle ſaith, they were Pastores constituti. And Pamelius from this Paſſage argueth for the Authority of the Church of Rome over other Churches; and he that animadverteth on Pamelius ſaith, Clerus Romanus Carthaginenſem agnoſcit, quemadmodum & alios aliarum Eccleſiarum paſtores, eſſe Christiani gregi praepoſitos: wherefore videmur muſt rather ſignifie certainty than doubting, in this place; it appeareth not only to our ſelves, but to all, we are acknowledged for ſuch. And that they did not mean by vice Pastoris, a vicarious Power delegated from the Biſhop, is manifeſt, for the Biſhop was dead, and we find no Power he left them▪ neither could he do it. Yea it is evident that they lookt on a Power reſiding in themſelves, of which they were to give an account: ſi negligentes inveniamur—quoniam perditum non requiſivimus, &c. What is ſaid of the lapſed continuing in their Penitency, that they might obtain Indulgence from them who can give it: the Word being ab eo qui potest praeſtare. It might be underſtood of Pardon from Chriſt, on their ſincere Repentance, ſeing he alone can make Indulgence effectual: but if that ſeem ſtrained, the Biſhop with the Presbytery, not by himſelf, may fitly here be underſtood. He doth again, pag. 69. miſrepreſent p. 83the Queſtion, in theſe Words, Let any man judge whether St. Cyprian or his preſuming Presbyters had taken too much on them at Carthage: But this miſtake I noted before. Another Argument he bringeth, is from ſome Martyrs and Confeſſors, in an Epiſtle to Cyprian, commending him for his conduct in oppoſing and cenſuring theſe Presbyters. I alſo commend him for it: Ergo I think he had ſole Power to manage that Affair: the conſequence is naught. He haleth in another Argument into this Diſcourſe: theſe Martyrs and Confeſſors deſire, that Cyprian being ſo glorious a Biſhop, would pray for them: which they would not have done had they thought him a proud aſpiring Prelat, that is a Limb of Antichrist, as this Author would fain give him out to have been: It is an injurious Calumny: I never ſaid, nor thought ſo: and no man can Wire-draw my words (with any ſenſe or reaſon) to that meaning. I eſteem Cyprian's Grace, Virtues, and Learning as much as he doth: and do judge that his Prayers, while he was on Earth, were worth asking: and that he was a glorious Biſhop; but all this will not infer his ſole Power, nor his negative.—Cyprian's excommunicating theſe Presbyters, and that fact being approven by others, is not argumentative, unleſs he can prove that this Cyprian did by himſelf, without the Presbytery. He next bringeth the Canons of the Apostles (the inſufficiency of which Authority I have above-ſhewed.) And Ignatius, that nothing ſhould be done without the Biſhop, nor in oppoſition to him: And that the Biſhop ſhould be honoured. All this is ſufficiently Anſwered above. When a Biſhop that is any Miniſter of the Goſpel, acteth in his Sphere, and keepeth to the Rule the Word of God, to oppoſe him, to depart from him, not to honour him, is highly ſinful. But I am ſure Cyprian nor Ignatius never meant to enjoin abſolute & illimited obedience to a Biſhop, nor any man elſe. As for doing nothing without the Biſhop, we grant that they who are under a Miniſters charge, Prebyters or others, ſhould act nothing in the Conſiſtory without him; but this alſo muſt ſuffer a limitation; if he ſhould prove ſo perverſe as to oppoſe, and hinder every thing that is good, or what is neceſſary to be done; I do p. 84not think that Ignatius would blame the Presbyters for acting without him: otherwiſe there were no remedy but the Church muſt be ruined. If it be ſaid, in that caſe they ſhould complain. To whom muſt this Complaint be made: for a Biſhop hath no Superior on Earth; if we believe this Author.

§. 56. The laſt of his three Principles, which he advanceth p. 72. is, that. all the Church-Governours within his Diſtrict, Presbyters as well as others, were in St. Cyprian's time, ſubject to the Biſhops Authority, and obnoxious to his Diſcipline. This Principle and all that he ſaith for eſtabliſhing of it, we might ſafely yield, without any hazard to our Cauſe: for we always maintained, that a Biſhop, conſidered as a Paroch Miniſter, hath Authority over the Ruling-Elders, and the unfixed Preaching-Presbyters, if any be within his Pariſh; alſo conſidered as Moderator of the Presbytry, he is ſtill a Miniſter, and hath Rule over all the Miniſters, and People and Elders within the Diſtrict, over which that Presbytery hath the overſight: but our Queſtion is, whether he, by himſelf, hath the ſole Authority; or he, as a Member of the Conſiſtory, or Presbytery, hath a ſhare in that Authority which reſideth in that Body, or Community. This laſt we grant: the former we deny. His Proofs can never reach the concluſion that we deny: the firſt of which is, that Cyprian ſaith, that our Lord choſe Apostles, that is Biſhops and Governours (where by the way Note, that Cyprian owneth other Church-Governours, beſide Biſhops, and therefore they have not the ſole Authority) and the Apostles choſe Deacons to be the Biſhops and Churches Ministers. Any body may ſee that this doth concern all Church-Rulers, not ſole Power in the Biſhop. Next he telleth us that Cyprian called Fabianus Superior, with reſpect to the Roman-Clergy: which is a miſtake: He calleth him ſimply Praepoſitus (which as I have above-ſhewed, was a Title given to Biſhops & Preſbyters) and if he had not called him their Praepoſitus, that doth not import ſole Power. In an Epiſtle to Rogatianus, Cyprian inſinuateth that he was Ruler of the Church, ergo he had ſole Power: it is a …liſh conſequence: this may be ſaid of every Elder of the Church. p. 85He is ſcarce of Arguments when he is forced to falſifie Cyprian's words: qui in Eccleſia Praeſidemus: he tranſlateth, who have the chief Power in the Church; beſide that it is eaſie to diſtinguiſh between chief Power, and ſole Power; to which all are ſubject. Alſo Praeſumus he turneth govern the Church. That the Biſhop is ſaid to be one, and ſet over the Church, may well agree either to a Pariſh-Miniſter, or the Moderator of a Presbytery, who was called foreign. His next Eſſay is from the Biſhop's calling the Clergy his Clergy; for which he is at pains to cite many places. If this were conſtantly done (which was not) what doth it ſignifie: that manner of ſpeaking is as common among Presbyterians, as it was in Cyprian's time: and it ſignifieth no more but Elders of the Church, whereof Cyprian was Paſtor; as the Elders of any Pariſh are called the Elders of ſuch a Miniſter: and Elders uſually call their Miniſter our Miniſter. It is a frivolous Queſtion, by what Rule of Grammer, Rhetorick, Logick or Politick could he be ſo called if he had no Power or Juriſdiction over them. A. There is no Rule in any of theſe Faculties againſt it: tho' he have no ſole Power; If he have a ſhare of the Power that the whole hath over every one, and have the Conduct in managing that Power, by being their Moderator.

§. 57. He will let all this paſs for a mere Praeluſion, not being ſcant of Arguments. Wherefore we muſt now expect what is more pungent: that is, the three Principles he had before proved ſo fully, viz. The Biſhop being the principle of Ʋnity; having ſupreme power: being the ſame with the High-Prieſt under the Old Teſtament, do prove this Point. To this formidable Argument I oppone what hath been diſcourſed on theſe Heads: I leave the Reader to judge whether he hath fully proved theſe, or I have fully overturned them: Next he argueth from Cyprian's ſaying he could by his Epiſcopal power, Depoſe or Excommunicate a Deacon who had rebelled againſt him, and praiſing another Biſhop for ſo acting, yea I ſhal allow him what he after faith, that this power extended alſo to cenſuring of Elders: Do not our Moderators uſually ſo practiſe p. 86when there is cauſe: but not by theit ſole Power, but with the Conſiſtory, or Presbytery. We Presbyterians may tremble at his next Blow: For he ſaith, he will leave his Reader no imaginable ſcruple. But theſe big words dwindle away into this feeble Argument; that Cyprian might have cenſured Feliciſſimus and ſome with him, who first oppoſed his Promotion, and after he had taken them into favour, apted diſorderly in receiving ſome of the lapſed, without the Praeſes, and the Presbytery: of this caſe before: it is wholly inſignificant here, unleſs he can prove, that Cyprian might do this by himſelf, without the Presbytery: which himſelf diſowneth, as I ſhewed above: All that followeth (which is a Repetition of what he hath often alledged having little to ſay, when he braggeth of Superabundance) is already plainly anſwered. He is run a little weak; but he reinforceth his Arguments with Confidence and Repetitions.

§. 58. Hitherto he hath ſet forth his Cyprianick Biſhop in his Majeſty, Abſolute and ſole Power, &c. In his own particular Church; p. 78. he giveth us account of him, as he ſtood related to the Catholick Church: and here he expecteth matter enough for another Demonſtration: which is a big Word in Diſputation. We ſhall here alſo, by Divine Aſſiſtance, try his Strength; and tho' we will not brag of Demonſtrations; yet ſhall endeavour to bring what Light and Strength the ſubject doth afford. His long Diſcourſe about the Colledge of Biſhops, I have read with Attention; and conſidered with what Application I am capable of, but cannot find his Demonſtrations in it: yea cannot ſee wherein it is conducive to prove his point: only ſome Hints he hath interſperſed that ſeem to have ſomewhat of Argument, which I ſhall conſider, after I have taken a general View of the whole. He obſerveth that all Biſhops were Collegues, and made up one Colledge. Next that this Colledge was the principle of Ʋnity to the Catholick Church. Thirdly, that the grand Concern of the Epiſcopal Colledge was to preſerve and maintain the one Communion; which together with one Faith, made them capable to be the principle of Ʋnity to the Catholick p. 87Church: and that this was their work he proveth firſt, they thought themſelves bound to maintain Peace. 2. Every Biſhop was a Member of this Colledge; and therefore great care was taken about their promotion. 3. He being promoted ſent communicatory▪ Letters to other Biſhops, giving account of his Promotion. 4. If there was any Debate whether his Promotion was Canonical, the reſt of the Biſhops enquired into it. 5. If he turned Heretick, or Schiſmatick, he was turned out. 6. While he kept the Faith and Ʋnity of the Church, he was encouraged, Conſulted, Correſponded with, &c. 7. While he continued a ſound Member of the Colledge, all Letters concerning the Peace and Ʋnity of the Church, were directed to him. Laſtly, p. 87. he obſerveth (cum nota) reſiſt this Evidence ſaith he, if ye can) that every Heretical, or Schiſmatical Biſhop, with all that retained to him, was ipſo facto out of the Church: At laſt, p. 88. He thinketh he hath another Demonſtration againſt my Notion of a Biſhop in Cyprian's time: For how could a ſingle Presbyter, or Presbyterian Moderator, have born ſuch a part in relation to the Catholick Church, and her Ʋnity and Communion.

§. 59. I muſt Examine the Strength of this long Demonſtration; and what he addeth to fortifie it: and then ſhall return to take notice of what he intermixeth in the ſeveral parts of it, in which our Debate may be concerned: For Anſwer then to this Argument, as it ſtandeth. I deny the Aſſumption, viz. That what he hath here aſſerted cannot agree to a ſingle Presbyter, or presbyterian Moderator. His three Aſſertions do well agree to every Presbyter; that is, Paſtor of a Congregation: He is a Collegue to all Biſhops, that is ſuch Paſtors. The meeting of ſuch (either by their Delegats; or if they could all come together) is as capable to be the principle of Unity to a Provincial, or National Church, yea, to the Univerſal Church, as if ſo many Dioceſans ſhould meet. It is as much the concern of theſe Presbyters, or Pariſh Biſhops (and I hope they do as much mind it) to maintain one Faith and one Communion. Doth he think that our Miniſters do not think themſelves bound to maintain Peace: Or 2. p. 88That there is litle care taken about their promotion or giving them charge of the people, and admitting them to a ſhare of the Government. 3. Tho' it be not our cuſtom to ſend communicatory Letters of our ſettlement in a Charge; yet every Presbytery notifieth to the neighbouring Presbyteries the Name of him who is to be fixed in a Charge: that they may have opportunity to object: and the Names of all who are ordained, are recorded. 4. If a Presbytery ordain any perſon unduely, or if there be Competition, the ſuperior Judicatories enquire into it. 5. We alſo turn out, not only Heretical and Schiſmatical Miniſters; but them alſo who are ſcandalous in their Converſation, or ſupinely negligent in their Miniſterial Work. 6. We alſo encourage and admit to the Government, them that do well. 7. Letters that concern a particular Congregation; are, with us, directed to the Miniſter: theſe concerning the Presbytery, to the Moderator: we alſo caſt out bad Miniſters, and ſuch as adhere to them; if the Cauſe be weighty: but we uſe moderation to the people who are led away by Schiſmatical Miniſters, when their Separation is founded on leſſer miſtake: & if in this we differ from the Cyprianick Age, his Party ſhould not blame us; having taſted ſo much of our lenity. Let it then be conſidered how impertinent this whole Diſcourſe is, and how inſufficient to prove the Epiſcopacy of the Cyprianick-Age that he pleadeth for.

§. 60. He uſeth ſeveral enforcements of this Argument, p. 88, & 89. which I ſhall briefly conſider. 1. The Colledge of Biſhops are still conſidered as Church-Governours notoriouſly distinguiſhed from Presbyters. Anſw. This diſtinction lay in the dignity that the declenſions of that time from Apoſtolick ſimplicity gave them: not in any Power that they had which Presbyters had not. 2. A Presbyter was never called a Biſhops Collegue. Anſw. If this were granted, ſuch a negative Argument, and that drawn from words, and ways of ſpeaking (which doth often vary) is not very concludent. I have ſhewed that the ſame Power is aſcribed to them, ſee▪ §. 62. where the contrary of what he aſſerteth is ſhewed. 3. We p. 89have no Vestige of a Presbyterian Moderator in theſe times. Anſw. There was then a Moderator, who was called the Biſhop; who preſided in their Meetings: tho' there was no ſuch changing of the Moderator as is among us: that I have yielded: but the fixedneſs of the Moderator, and the parity of the Power are conſiſtent: tho' I deny not that the one made way for deſtroying the other; as After-ages did ſhew. 4. Our Author repeateth all the Acts of, and concerning Biſhops, that he had inſiſted on, and affirmeth that they could not conſiſt with a ſingle Presbyter, or Moderator, which I have above-denyed, and made the contrary evident. That he calleth all the Acts of Government and Diſcipline his (the Biſhops) and his alone; is to beg the Queſtion, for we deny it, and he ſhould prove it.

§. 61. I muſt now return to p. 78, and glean ſome Paſſages, which I was obliged to overlook, that I might have this long Argument (ſtretching from thence to p. 90.) intirely in view, and give a general Anſwer to it. He maketh the Biſhop the Principle of Ʋnity to a particular Church, and the Colledge of Biſhops the Principle of Ʋnity to the Catholick Church; and Chriſt the Principle of Ʋnity to that Colledge. And addeth, I hope not being a Romaniſt, you will not require that I ſhould prove the highest Step of this Gradation. Here I obſerve firſt, the Diſcourſe is about a viſible Head, or Principle of Ʋnity to the Church; which cannot be aſcribed to Chriſt. Wherefore this is wholly impertinent; or, if it have any ſenſe, it tendeth to make his Reader a Romaniſt, whom he ſuppoſeth not to be one already. For if the particular and Catholick Church, have a viſible Principle of Ʋnity; and that which he maketh to be the Ʋniting Principle, have nothing that is viſible to make them one among themſelves, they who can receive his Doctrine about a Principle of Ʋnity, will ſee a neceſſity of a Pope to unite the Biſhops, as much as of a Biſhop to unite the Presbyters. 2. If Chriſt be the Ʋniting Principle of the Colledge of Biſhops, why doth he not ſerve for the ſame uſe to Presbyters, yea, to all Chriſtians. And indeed he is the real Ʋniting p. 90Principle to all; they only are in the Union of the Church, who cleave to his Doctrine, and obſerve his Laws; even tho' they ſeparate from the Biſhop who departeth out of that Way. 3. I deſire to know of him, why he thinketh the Romanists will put him to prove the higheſt Step of this Gradation, more than Proteſtants will? Doth any of them deny Chriſt to be the Principle of Ʋnity to the Church? They only make the Pope his Vicar in this, becauſe they think ſuch an one is needful in the Church, who is viſibly Converſant among men: and doth not our Author ſuppoſe the ſame neceſſity of ſuch a viſible Uniter till he come to the Colledge of Biſhops, and he leaveth them Headleſs, that is, without a viſible Head. Where it may be rationally concluded that this Doctrine is either Popiſh or palpably abſurd. The next thing I notice is, p. 79. he ſaith all Chriſtians hold one Faith to be neceſſary to the Ʋnity of the Church; but in Cyprian's time one Communion was thought as indiſpenſible: they held there is but one Church, and that this could not be without one Communion. If by one Communion, he mean (for he walketh in a Cloud in this Matter, whether of Deſign or not, I know not,) that Communion of Saints which is an Article of the Creed; which conſiſteth in Union of them all with Chriſt, and Unity in Faith and Love, &c. I acknowledge the neceſſity of it, but I know not what reſpect it hath to Epiſcopacy, more than Presbytery. If he mean Local Communion, it is impoſſible either in the Catholick Church, or in the Dioceſs of a modern Biſhop. If he mean Communion by having the ſame Ceremonies and Government in the Church. Tho' I confeſs that is deſireable, and by all good means ſhould be endeavoured: (for we ſhould have no Ceremonies, but theſe which are of Divine Inſtitution, and the one Church Government that he hath appointed, ſhould be every where exerciſed,) yet there may be one Church, where this Communion is not: and if the Cyprianick Age was ſomewhat too ſtrick in this Matter, it was their Miſtake, (of which above,) but it is no Proof of Epiſcopacy, (in the ſenſe of our Debate,) to have been in that Age. And p. 91indeed, if our Author maintain this Principle, he will (conſequentially to it) Unchurch moſt of the Reformed Churches, as the Papiſts do them all on the ſame ſcore: if by this one Communion he mean, that all Chriſtians muſt be United to ſome one Biſhop or other, which Biſhops agree among themſelves, and have Communion in the Epiſcopal Colledge; he will find hard to prove that Cyprian taught ſo. Yea, then there is no Communion in the Church, without an oecumenick Council of Biſhops, which we have litle hope to ſee: and many doubt that the World did ever ſee it: tho' there have been Councils ſo called; becauſe in them were repreſented all the Churches of the Empire. Further, if this was the Opinion of Cyprian's time, how will he prove that theſe Biſhops in whom Churches were to be United, were any more than Pariſh Miniſters, and that the one Communion of that time, was more than that every Chriſtian muſt be the Member of one Church, where Chriſt's Ordinances are diſpenſed by a Biſhop, that is, a Miniſter of the Goſpel.

§. 62. Tho' I am not concerned to queſtion the Practice of Biſhops ſending their Communicatory Letters, to ſignifie that they were promoted. Yet I ſee no ſufficient Proof of it from the two or three Inſtances that he bringeth. It muſt be either a Law, or a great Train of Inſtances, in many ſeveral Nations, in greater and leſſer Churches, and under diverſe Circumſtances and Caſes of theſe Churches` that will bear the weight of ſo univerſal a Concluſion. But I paſs this: for it doth not much concern our main Queſtion. He will find it alſo hard to prove, that theſe Letters were ſent to all other Biſhops, (as he affirmeth, p. 80.) that had been a Work of no ſmall Labour: I ſuppoſe they did thus correſpond with ſome next adjacent Biſhops, or who were of ſpecial note; which we alſo do, as I ſhewed before. That there were Metropolitans in Cyprian's time, he aſſerteth; and I deny it not. But they were but Moderators of the greater Meetings, (as the Biſhops were of leſſer ones,) of the Parochial Miniſters and Elders: as alſo were the Primats, and in Affrick eſpecially, the eldeſt p. 92Biſhop or Miniſter, had this Dignity: but it was Praecedency, and Dignity, wherein they were above their Brethren, not Power and Authority, but this our Author toucheth but tranſiently; and ſo I ſhall not inſiſt on it: only I ask him; how do Metropolitans, in our modern ſenſe, agree with his Opinion that every Biſhop was ſupreme, and had no Eccleſiastical Superior on Earth: See §. 9. p. 82. where he is Diſcourſing of purging out a Heretical Biſhop; his thoughts ſeem to run ſomewhat muddy. He ſaith the Colledge of Biſhops might do (to him) the equivalent of a formal Depoſition; they could refuſe him their Communion, and thereby exclude him from their Epiſcopal Colledge: and they could oblige all the Christians within his District to abandon him. And becauſe he ſaw that his former Aſſertion of the ſupreme Power of a Biſhop, and his having no Eccleſiaſtical Superior, would be objected; he ſaith no Biſhop was ſuperior to another in point of Power and Juriſdiction. How to make all this hang together, is not eaſie to know. 1. To wreath the yoke of the Biſhop's Domination on the Church, he eſtabliſheth Independency among Biſhops: whereas no Reaſon can be given, why Pariſhes ſhould not be Independent on one another, as well as Provinces. I look on both theſe ſorts of Independency, as contrary to the Unity of the Church; and on Subordination, as of Natural and Divine Right. 2. If the Colledge of Biſhops had not formal Power to depoſe a Heretical Biſhop: by what Authority could they oblige the Chriſtians to abandon him, and to chooſe another: if he ſay, the Fundamental Law of ſound Faith and Unity; or as he ſpeaketh, of one Faith, and one Communion, obliged the Chriſtians to this. A. That is antecedent to the interpoſing of the Authority of the Epiſcopal Colledge, and they were obliged to it, tho' there were no ſuch Colledge. 3. That no Biſhop hath Power over another Biſhop, is no more than we ſay of Presbyters. But it is ſtrange that the Community of Biſhops, hath not formal and direct Power over every one of their own number; both with reſpect to his Communion with them; and with p. 93reſpect to his particular Charge; that maketh a wider door both for Hereſie and Schiſm, and for Peoples Beeing, without remedy, under the Plague of bad Miniſters, than any thing that Parity can be charged with. 4. The People are here left Judges of the Biſhop's Haereſie, and other Incapacitating ill Qualities; and ſo to determine whether they will leave him or not: the Colledge of Biſhops can do no more but inform them, and tell them what they are obliged by the Laws of one Faith, and one Communion to do. 5. What if the Biſhop will not leave his Charge, nor the People abandon him, hath Chriſt left no Ordinance in his Church, as a Remedy of this Caſe? The Colledge of Biſhops cannot excommunicat him, nor them: that were to exerciſe formal Authority over him or them: if they then, will not yield to the Colledges Information or Advice, they may go on in their way without further Controlement. Thus we ſee that men will venture to ruine the Soundneſs, Peace, and Purity of the Church, that they may eſtabliſh a Lordly Prelacy over the People of God. What he inſiſteth ſo much on, p. 86, 87. about directing publick Letters to the Biſhops, and their being ſigned by them: is not worth our notice. We alſo count it regular for our Moderators to be ſo treated: but there was ſome peculiar Reaſon, why it was ſo punctually obſerved in that Age, becauſe the Praeſes of their Meeting was fixed, and it was Interpretatively a Degrading of him, or queſtioning his Title, to do otherwiſe: but this importeth no ſuperior Juriſdiction. He telleth, p. 87. that every Haeretical, or Schiſmatical Biſhop, and all who adhered to him, were ipſo facto, out of the Church. This I do not believe, for how ſhall a man be known to be Haeretical, till he were tryed and judged? His Proofs amount to no more, but that ſuch were dealt with as out of the Church; and may be the manner of Proceſs againſt them, is not mentioned: but ſuch a negative Argument, will not prove that no more was done to caſt them out: if that be the Epiſcopal courſe of Cenſure, wee intend not to follow it: and if that were the way in the Cyprianick Age, it maketh its Example leſs Venerable and Argumentative, p. 94but it ſaith nothing for the Biſhop's ſole Power: he ſaith p. 89. that a Biſhop never called a Presbyter his Collegue. A. If it be underſtood of Presbyters without a Charge, there is Reaſon for it: he had no joynt Charge of the Congregation, we uſe the ſame way of Appellation. But if it be meant of a Moderator, with reſpect to the other Brethren; I anſwer we find Presbyters calling the Biſhop Brother; as was noted before: Yea, Concil. Carthag. 4. Canon. 35. it is Decreed, that tho' a Biſhop in conſeſſu Presbyterorum ſublimior ſedeat, intra domum Collegam ſe Presbyterorum cognoſcat. This, its true, was a litle after Cyprian's time: but it was when Church-Domination was rather growing than decreaſing.

§. 63. His ſtrength is now far ſpent, when in the end of his Book, he waſteth ſo many words to ſet off an Argument, which is fitter to be ſmiled at, than laboriouſly anſwered. It is that the Chriſtian Biſhops in Cypria's time, made ſuch a Figure in the Church, that they were the Chief Butt of the Malice of Perſecutors: others might live in Peace at Home, when they were forced to Flee. And he is at pains to prove this, which I think was never queſtioned in any Age of the Church. Their Station made them conſpicuous, (for I deny not they were above Presbyters in Dignity,) their Parts (ſome of them) made them to be jealouſed: their Zeal for God, made them hateful to the Promoters of Satan's Kingdom. But all this can never prove that they had the ſole Government of the Church; nor that they had Juriſdiction over Presbyters, who were fixed in the Church, to overſee any part of it. Many Presbyters, Deacons, yea private Chriſtians, who were eminent for Ability to confound the Adverſary: for Zeal and Holineſs; or for their Station in the World, were perſecuted as well as their Biſhops. That this is neither ſtrange, nor concludent of Epiſcopal Power, is evident (not to fetch an Inſtance from far,) in the late Epiſcopal Perſecution among our ſelves: the Miniſters were mainly Hunted, Intercommuned, Impriſoned, forced to Hide or Flee: and the more eminent or zealous they were, the harder it went with them: yea, ſome who were freer than many p. 95others, of what was thought Sedition, Diſorder, or Rebellion, yet were hardly uſed, for the Hurt that it was thought they might do to that which was the great Diana of the Aſcendent Party. And yet all this will not prove that they had, or pretended to, or were thought to have Juriſdiction over their Brethren. I do therefore deny the Conſequence, the Biſhops (ſome of them for I will not ſay it was the Lot of them all) were mainly perſecuted; Ergo, they and not the Presbyters had the Authority in Governing the Church. If Decius had ſuch a dread of a Biſhop being ſetled in Rome, that he would more patiently have endured a Prince to rivall it with him for the Empire: I am ſure he had not ſo much Cauſe as his Succeſſors had; from the Succeſſors of that Biſhop: Of no more Force is his Argument drawn from Galienus directing his Edict to the Biſhops, when he ſtopt the Perſecution: For we deny not that they had an eminent Station in the Church, and had a chief Hand in the Direction of her Affairs, whether ye conſider them as Pariſh-Paſtors, as they all were; or Moderators in greater Church-meetings, as ſome of them were. I have (as he willeth his Reader to do) conſidered and weighed his Arguments without partiality, and in the Ballance of Juſtice: But am not yet convinced, that the Schiſme that is in the Church is chargeable on us; but on his Party. Let the Reader judge whether of us have beſt grounds for our Opinion.

§. 64. He concludeth with making excuſe, from the bulk of his Book, that he doth not (as he firſt intended) prove Epiſcopal Praeemenencie to be of divine Right, as being Chriſt's Ordinance, and handed down to us from the Apoſtles in the conſtant Practice of the Ʋniverſal Church. This is the conſtant Cant of that Party; but I have met with none who was able to evince this tho' the learnedeſt among them; and not a few of them, have eſſayed it. If this Author ſhall think fit to make another Effort, as he declareth himſelf ready to do, if commanded by him to whom he writs this long Epiſtle) and if he bring any thing new; and not fully anſwered already: I doubt not but his Arguments will be examined to better purpoſe, than what is, or can be done, by ſuch a mean hand as mine is.