which is the Univerfal Church; and it gives us to understand, there is a Superlative one too, where the Lord is. These three elect Manfions are fignify'd by the Numbers in the Gospel, of thirty, fixty, and an hundred fold: And the perfect Inheritance is. theirs, who attain to the perfect Man, according to the Image of the Lord. By this clear Evidence of the venerable Father's Senfe, I conceive he now appears confiftent with himself, and that the three Orders in the Church are fo far from being loft by the Parallel, that it could not be made out without them; and I should think I very unfairly reprefented him, if I contracted them into two. Between these two Authorities of Clemens, for only two Orders in the Church, the Enquiry defcribes the Form of Seffion in the ancient Presbytery; which I fhould pafs over without any Controversy about it, but that he tells us there, that S. Cyprian calls the Presbyters his Collegues in the Seffion. This oblig'd me to confider his Authority for it, becaufe I had appropriated that Title to Bishops only, by which they spoke of one another; and had accordingly † argued (as you may remember) for their Prerogatives upon it. I prefum'd he had found fome fingular Paffage in S. Cyprian, to warrant what he had faid. The Place he quotes for it, is in his 28th Epistle, § 2. [Edit. Panel. or Ep. 34. Edit, Oxon.] I carefully perus'd the whole Epiftle, and found S. Cyprian mentioning his Collegues four times in it. First, * Enq. p. 74. First, He commends his Presbyters and Deacons (to whom he writes) for not communicating with a Presbyter and Deacon of Didda, as his Collegues *had advis'd them. Were thefe Colleges his own Presbyters, (do we imagine) by whofe Advice they themselves acted fo agreeably to his Mind? Secondly, He takes Notice to his Presbyters, that they had acquainted him by Letter, how the faid Presbyter of Didda and his Deacon had been admonifh'd again and again by his Collegues, and yet § went on in their Fault. Did the Presbyters mean themselves, by thofe Collegues, in their Letter to Cyprian? Why not admonish'd by us? (when the Letter was their own) and why not by you, in S. Cyprian's again to them? but no Remark can make it fo plain, as the Epiftle itfelf does; yet I must go on to the Place peculiarly quoted ftill. Thirdly, then, he orders his Pref byters and Deacons to read his Letters to his † Collegues alfo, if there were any there, or happen'd to come thither: Strange Senfe, if he meant fuch Perfons as he wrote to, and question'd whether any of them were there. Thus far I think his Collegues and Presbyters were fomewhat different Perfons with him; and do we think he used the fame Term a fourth time after this, and meant quite another thing by it? th the laft place then, he acquaints his Presbyters and Q 4 cenfuiftis non com * Confilio collegarum meorum municandum. Cypr. Ep. 34. Edit. Oxon. à collegis meis moniti. Semel atq; iterum, fecundum quod mihi fcripfifis, pertinaciter perftiterunt. Ib. + Legite has eafdem literas & collegis meis, fi qui auc præfentes fuerint, aut fupervenerint. Ib. and Deacons, what fhould be done in the Cafe of two Sub-deacons and an Acolyth, which they confulted him about; and tells them, that many of his own Clergy were yet abfent, and he would not privately decide that Cause, which was likely to be a ftanding Precedent concerning Ministers of the Church, and therefore ought to be examin'd, || not only together with his Collegues, but with all his People alfo: Letting them plainly know, that the Hearing of that Caufe fhould be as publick as the Concern was, and not only he, and his own Clergy to whom he wrote, but his Collegues alfo, and even his own People too should be prefent at it; where by his Collegues, furely he meant the fame Perfons, as he had three times before (you fee) in the fame Letter, that is fome Bishops of the Province, whereof he was Metropolitan; as the Solemnity of the Cafe did manifeftly invite him to call in their Affistance, and require their Prefence, according to his Account of it. And this confirms me more ftill, that Collegue was unqueftionably a Term appropriated to Fellow-BiShops only, in S. Cyprian's Language; fince the faireft Inftance fo inquifitive an Author could fingle out to disprove it, appears to fall in with it too. I have Hæc fingulorum tractanda fit & limanda pleniùs ratio, non tantum cum Collegis meis, fed & cum plebe universâ, expenfa enim moderatione libranda & pernuncianda res eft, quæ in pofterum circa miniftros ecclefiæ conftituat exemplum. Ib. I have now confider'd (and too particularly, I'm afraid, the tir'd Reader will think) the three general Arguments for Equality of Orders in the Bishops and Presbyters of the Church, with every fingle Authority, I think, which the ingenious Enquirer has offer'd for the Proof of it; and if it still appears, that the Presbyters could do every Clerical At which the Bishop could do, by vertue of their inherent Powers alone, without his Authority for it; that their different Powers made no Difference of Orders in them; that the Identity, and Sameness of Name, prov'd them to be the fame with one another; and that the Primitive Fathers did exprefly own and declare that there were but two Orders in the Church: 'Tis no more than that learned Author foretold, would furely be the Effect of fuch a vain Attempt as this. For tho' he humbly question'd for a while, whether his Premiffes were fully prov'd or no; yet he concluded foon, that upon the narroweft Enquiry he could make, they could not be evinc'd. I have no Opinion of all that I have faid, any farther than of the Sincerity of it, and that it keeps me unavoidably (thro' the Evidence of Truth I verily think to be in it) from confenting to any one of the Arguments he offers for his Caufe. What others may think of it, I leave only to God and themfelves; having as unfeign'd and hearty a Concern (I may fay it before him, who knows my Thoughts long before-hand) as that affectionate Author profefles to have for the unhappy Divisions *See Eng. P. 75. vilions this fatal Controverfy caufes in the Church. The Clofe of this Chapter is an innocent Speculation about the Reafon of the Number of Presbyters in the Primitive Churches, and of the time when their Office began. The Scheme requir'd fomething of this, fince a Diocese was allow'd by it to have no more than a fingle Congregation for three hundred Years together; and reading of forty or fifty Presbyters in one, the Question might be ask'd, (he pretty well forefaw) what need there should be of them all? He answers therefore, They were partly as Curates are to our Rectors now, tho' more neceflary ones (fays he) upon Account of the Variety of Accidents then, and of the Uncertainty of the Times; and because the Number might be a little furprizing ftill, he farther makes his Presbyters to be young Pupils to his Parochial Bifhops, and in a State of Education under them, to be fit to fucceed them in Time. This harmlefs Thought, fince 'tis prefs'd upon us with no Authorities of Fathers, Councils, or Hiftorians, to give the Reader much Troublé about it, fhall be left undisturb'd by me; and I'll conclude this Chapter, (as the Enquiry does) with a fhort Reflexion upon a remarkable Account which Clemens Alexandrinus gives us of S. John the Apoftle; *He went (upon Requeft) to the Neighbour * Απής ρακαλέμΘ κ ἐπὶ τὰ πλησιόχωρα ἐθνῶν. Ὅπε μὺ ἐπισκόπες, καταςήσων, ing όλας εκκλησίας ἁρμόσων. Οπε ἢ ἑναγε τινα κληρώ των ω ὑπὸ το πνώμα θ σημαινομθύων. Τίς ὁ πλ. a. c. ult. & Eufeb. I. 3. c. 23. i |